It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
First, the entire decision rests upon the abilities of the Acting Attorney General. This itself negates any claim by other parties about Whitaker's appointment, for his removal now before an Attorney General were appointed would negate the entire decision, which would then mean that Robert Mueller is not an "inferior officer" and is thus subject to both nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate... which never happened. So a removal now, thanks to this decision, would invalidate Mueller's investigation entirely.
Whitaker must have authority to terminate Mueller's investigation at any time, and for any "good reason," and that can include scarcity of DoJ resources. In short, Whitaker has full authority in his position as Acting Attorney General to starve out the Mueller investigation at will.
the DoJ policy that a sitting President is not subject to indictment.
Someone's been trolled, and trolled hard.
Just saying, the idea that we will be seeing trump in an orange jumpsuit is rather slim I think.
What don’t you get there is no evidence Trump conspired with Russia to create election fraud.
originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: neutronflux
What don’t you get there is no evidence Trump conspired with Russia to create election fraud.
Can you provide a link to the accrued evidence so we can see for ourselves?
The only way you can say there is no evidence, is to have access to the aforementioned evidence, or lack thereof.
originally posted by: ErEhWoN
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Sillyolme
And I sorry you don’t understand it’s not about defending a great person, it’s about defending the lesser corrupt of two bad choices.
So your saying you voted for Hillary?
So, if Mueller is able to prove a link between those Russians and the Trump campaign....... You know the rest.
russian operatives hacked the dnc computers that was a crime.
if the trump administration was involved it in in any way, made any kind of deal with them to benefit from that information...
nixon actively and deliberately undermined the peace negotiations that LBJ was trying to set up. not really sure just what crimes may have been committed there, but it very well could have caused the extension of that war and possibly caused us to lose it!!!
weather a crime or not, one has to question the worthiness of politicians who are willing to harm US citizens just so they can have their try at the power!!!
In order for you to find (name) guilty of conspiracy to commit an offense(s)
against the United States, you must find that the government proved beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the following four (4) elements:
First: That two or more persons agreed to commit an offense(s) against the
United States, as charged in the indictment. ;
Second: That (name) was a party to or member of that agreement;
Third: That (name) joined the agreement or conspiracy knowing of its
objective(s) to commit an offense(s) against the United States and intending to
join together with at least one other alleged conspirator to achieve (that) (those)
3
objective(s);that is, that (name) and at least one other alleged conspirator
shared a unity of purpose and the intent to achieve a common goal(s) or
objective(s), to commit an offense(s) against the United States; and
Fourth: That at some time during the existence of the agreement or
conspiracy, at least one of its members performed an overt act in order to
further the objectives of the agreement.
Regardless, there is no evidence Trump broke any laws
originally posted by: BlackJackal
originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: neutronflux
He paid a foreign agent to create a fake dossier to get a FISA warrant and weaponized the FBI against his political opponents....
oh...wait
For one your argument is a logical fallacy in and of itself. (Whataboutism) Secondly, the payment for the dossier was legal, the only thing illegal was the Clinton campaign labeling the payment as "legal services" which is punishable by fines. [LINK]
Would't the Assistant AG become the acting AG?
Why would anyone on either side want this?
Would you feel the same if this were President Obama being investigated? Hillary Clinton?
DOJ policy is not law.
I dont think anyone in the general public has enough information to make any determination. Its all just speculation. Not even sure if this ruling would have ANY impact on the investigation.
Also, kudos for the format and wording of your post!