Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I think this grand jury is a good thing. It indicates that the investigation is moving forward. What is disconcerting is that this info was leaked.

I remember a time on ATS when we loved information getting leaked.

There was also a time where we all understood "un-named sources" meant someone from inside the government didnt want to be outed. Not- fake news.

Very true.

It's funny how it all changed according to their political preferences isn't it.

They are not true seekers of truth

a reply to: Xcathdra

I accept your apology. So mostly right stands. You do not need a prosecutor to convict some one of a crime. Glad you have come round to your senses.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Vasa Croe

posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 03:04 PM link Facts are that he has a heavy hitting financial lineup of a lot of former Clinton "associates".... The Russia probe isn't about finances...at least according to the narrative, which changes weekly.

These are the facts that you have been dodging since page two of this thread.

I will put them in quotes for your " Facts are that he has a heavy hitting financial lineup of a lot of former Clinton "associates".... The Russia probe isn't about finances...at least according to the narrative, which changes weekly.

Now, about these facts that you keep deflecting from.

Do you now, or have you ever had any intention of posting a link to these "facts"?

Should I just expect more deflections?

Have a stop sign.

Sure thing. I haven't made a thread on them yet as it seemed the least of my concerns based on my thoughts of what's going on, but I'll make a new thread on all the connections tomorrow for you and send you a PM about it if you'd like.

For now...my day is turning into a 2lb Tbone, shrimp, mushrooms and beer....

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I think this grand jury is a good thing. It indicates that the investigation is moving forward. What is disconcerting is that this info was leaked.

I remember a time on ATS when we loved information getting leaked.

There was also a time where we all understood "un-named sources" meant someone from inside the government didnt want to be outed. Not- fake news.

Very true.

It's funny how it all changed according to their political preferences isn't it.

They are not true seekers of truth

This is the crux of the " GIVE ME MY ATS BACK" argument.


The search for truth has been distorted by politics. People literally making themselves hypocrites on both the right and left... cause its their team yo!!!

Perhaps that was TPTB plan all along........

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Wow that sounds good. I want some.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime"

a reply to: ketsuko

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.

Not only that, but readers are entitled to know the biases and motivations of sources—at least according to the ethics of journalism, which have all but vanished.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Everyday, normal, news consuming people...
...people who don't 'consume' ATS as a primary news source
tend to roam and openly, willingly read other sources

Wapo doesn't make me break out in hives you know !

Good grief, don't get all bent up if someone likes something you don't !

Ones man's truth is better than another's ?
Is that it ?

What if the truth is blindingly obvious ?

Any how,

Oon the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany last month, President Trump’s advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump’s oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril.

The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story. They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged. But within hours, at the president’s direction, the plan changed.

Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations.

The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared an article, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.” The claims were later shown to be misleading.

That's from Monday's... wait for it ...!!!! WaPo !!!!!!!!

Does that sound fake newsy ?
Hm ?

a reply to: mkultra11

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime"

Clearly a tax-payer funded fishing expedition.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Xcathdra

For speeding? What the heck are you on about. I personally cited people. If they were from out of town or state, you brought them to the JP's house. The JP would try and usually fine them. Case closed. No DA, no one else.

You don't like the law, go pund sand.

If you dont understand the law dont get pissy with me. Your actions are done with the blessing of and on behalf of the prosecuting attorney.

Hey why aren't you busy going off to "pund sand" already?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ketsuko

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.

Not only that, but readers are entitled to know the biases and motivations of sources—at least according to the ethics of journalism, which have all but vanished.

Would Nixon have been caught without the help of unnamed sources???

Is this seriously an argument?

a reply to: TacSite18

Meet the all-star legal team who may take down Trump

* - Robert Mueller
* - James Quarles
* - Jeannie Rhee
* - Aaron Zebley
* - Greg Andres
* - Michael Dreeben
* - Preet Bharara
* - Andrew Weissmann
* - Lisa Page

A breakdown of some of the ;awyers he hired, who came from Holders / Lynch's DOJ

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.

Ahhh right....

So when unnamed sources were talking about NSA spying or when they were talking about other government goings on during pretty much every other administration they were right but when it's under your guy, premiere Trump now they become inaccurate

Sounds like a double standard to me

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TacSite18

Meet the all-star legal team who may take down Trump

* - Robert Mueller
* - James Quarles
* - Jeannie Rhee
* - Aaron Zebley
* - Greg Andres
* - Michael Dreeben
* - Preet Bharara
* - Andrew Weissmann
* - Lisa Page

A breakdown of some of the ;awyers he hired, who came from Holders / Lynch's DOJ

Conflict of interest galore. They need to push Mueller to resign over conflict of interest and failure of impartiality.

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: Xcathdra

Any clips of Hannity discussing Rich after Tuesday?

Nope but the CNN and Buzzfeed article is what i was referring to when they manipulated an interview.

So then Hannity, has in fact, NOT discussed Rich on the Fox news channel after Tuesday? Cause ya said he did

No I said he didnt retract his claims. Only fox News corp distanced themselves.

Secondly his show airs at 10pm eastern time. Since today is August 3rd and his show is not on yet its hard for him to comment since yesterday now isnt it?

a reply to: FredT

Everything up to the actual empaneling, correct. However, there are numerous people involved in the preceding events. Left media is dismissing the factual matter and defaulting to a bias narrative, which should be expected. Whomever they deem "official" could literally be anyone even remotely close to the folks involved.

Conservative media on the other hand is gearing towards the "leaked" narrative. Spouting that someone within the Mueller camp is leaking what should be very secretive if not classified information to the press/media.

The larger question, as you point out after this post, is that Mueller needs to be involved. As in the one to empanel, however, I thought only judges could to that or does he just need to be there. At all?

Having served on a Grand Jury its not alot of fun.

I found it highly enlightening overall. Mostly a bore but something to learn.

originally posted by: TacSite18
a reply to: Xcathdra

I accept your apology. So mostly right stands. You do not need a prosecutor to convict some one of a crime. Glad you have come round to your senses.

I didnt apologize and you are still incorrect. For a person who was a cop there you need to brush up on your states laws.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
Not in town. I remember back when there was no speed limit on the interstate during daylight hours.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ketsuko

That was before so many of the unnamed sources stories turned out to be false or inaccurate.

Not only that, but readers are entitled to know the biases and motivations of sources—at least according to the ethics of journalism, which have all but vanished.

Probably why punditry has become so popular along with sites that have an outright bias. At least you know from which side of the aisle they are speaking. There is no pretense of impartiality.