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.

 

Which of these is a more clear case of Obstruction of Justice

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If you even have to ask the question, you know you can expect a slew of dishonest answers.




posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

They both are. But the one I give priority attention to is the one who is running our country, not some retired woman selling books.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



If Hillary is dirty she should be punished. I know trump is very dirty. He is every bit as corrupt as people say Clinton is, only he is dangerous. I have signed impeachment petitions. Even if it doesn't do any good, trump will see how many people sign it, and that will not make him happy, so I win anyway. Lets just hope he doesn't start a nuclear war.





posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kurthall




I know trump is very dirty.


How?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: kurthall




so I win anyway.



Like Charlie Sheen winning?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
if Kellyanne ever decided to quit the Trump admin, you should apply for her position and simply use the threads you created on Trump as a CV



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Firing Comey means nothing.

If Trump had disbanded the entire FBI then the case could be made he obstructed but the investigation continued as usual, and without a biased director who tried to influence the outcome of the last election. Both Hillary and Trump stated as much. Hillary was declared under investigation, then Trump was. He also declared a recommendation of no charges on a Political figure that only the DOJ had the authority to do.

Comey had conflicted interests and could no longer be head of the FBI, especially investigating anything political, because he broke the law and made his non political office take political decisions that he nor the FBI had any authority to make. When he declared Hillary clear that was the DOJ authority he took. When he declared any political person was under investigation, that was against the FBI's own policies of non disclosure while there is any ongoing investigation.

Trump made the correct move in replacing him. He got attacked for it, so what, the Left would attack him either way.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I disagree with this a bit because Trump was hoping to get Jeff Sessions to run the Russia investigation or even shut it down, but Jeff Sessions recused himself. Trump later said that if he knew he would have done that, he wouldn't have hired him.


Trump outright told the New York Times last week that if he knew Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia investigation, he “would have picked somebody else.” The recusal, Trump went on, was “extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president.” The obvious implication is that an attorney general who didn’t recuse himself could have better reined in Mueller.


Trump is still plotting on replacing Jeff Sessions and attempting to shut down the special counsel.

Vox: Why President Trump suddenly hates his attorney general
edit on 28pmSat, 28 Oct 2017 16:13:40 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 28pmSat, 28 Oct 2017 16:14:07 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 28pmSat, 28 Oct 2017 16:16:52 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I do disagree with the idea that hiring an American firm to dig up dirt on an opponent is "colluding" with Russia or "treason." Steele spied on Russia in order to get his information, which is entirely different than working with Russia.

As for Hillary obstructing justice, it seems like you have a point, although according to Comey, the Justice Department seriously looked into making a case for obstruction, but didn't have grounds for it.


FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday his investigators looked very intently at whether there was obstruction of justice in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email account, but concluded they could not prove a criminal case against anyone.

"We looked at it very hard to see if there was criminal obstruction of justice," Comey said at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, under questioning by Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) "We looked at it very hard. We could not make an obstruction case against any of the subjects we looked at," Comey said. He did not identify those whose conduct the FBI investigated for potential obstruction.


Politico


edit on 28pmSat, 28 Oct 2017 16:34:58 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Here is more research I did on why the Justice Department did not charge Hillary Clinton in the e-mail scandal.


In practice, however, law enforcement officials have set a high bar for prosecuting violations of those laws, looking for clear criminal intent, which Comey said was absent in the Clinton case.


Time: Why the FBI Let Clinton off the Hook
edit on 28pmSat, 28 Oct 2017 16:39:15 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Here is some more information.


Even as thousands of messages remained elusive, the investigators ultimately reached consensus that the evidence didn’t warrant criminal charges, which required proof of intentional misconduct, gross negligence or efforts to obstruct justice. After nearly a year and more than 90 interviews, they had identified 81 message chains deemed to be classified that passed through her private server. Clinton’s practices were sloppy, irresponsible and in defiance of State Department policies, but investigators found no proof of criminal conduct — just a misguided effort by Clinton to maintain control over what the public, and her opponents, could learn about her.

As the inquiry neared its end, Comey, who had closely monitored it from the start, requested summaries of more than 30 government prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information. He waded through the records, seeking to understand the cases’ rationale and how they had been resolved. In the end, he agreed with the investigators’ unanimous conclusion: Clinton should not face criminal charges.


Propublica
edit on 28pmSat, 28 Oct 2017 16:45:31 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Prosecutors look at how previous cases were handled in order to get a precedent for how they handle the cases they are currently working on. It looks like, after crunching the numbers, they unanimously decided that Hillary should go free.

As for Trump, he might not get prosecuted for obstruction of justice, either.
edit on 28pmSat, 28 Oct 2017 16:47:16 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It became pretty obvious that something sketchy was going on when her entire IT staff had to plead the 5th.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

They’re both pretty much clear cut examples of obstruction of justice.

The big difference I see is that in Hillary’s case, she denied culpability from beginning to end and apparently, it’s harder to successfully prove intent than we thought.

Whereas in Trump’s case, he openly admitted his intent on national television while being interviewed by Lester Holt and then again to the Russian diplomats he invited to the Oval Office.

Smart crook vs. Stupid crook.

I’d be open to prosecuting them both and holding another election, how about that for compromise?
edit on 28-10-2017 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Grambler

I thought then FBI has all the emails?


So?

Obstruction of justice has nothing to do with if it was successful, it only matters if it was attempted. Saying I hope you can go easy on Flynn compared to wiping a hard drive and taking a hammer to multiple electronic devices to avoid the info being looked at are not in the same universe of intent to obstruct. Really what more did Hillary have to do to make it clear she was obstructing? Call a press conference and announce it?

It is amazing the stupid imagined technicalities, and 1984 esqe definition warping leftists will cling to to avoid the thought that anyone on their side could be in the wrong.

It really is like a cult.


Why did you leave out the worst part? Trump FIRED Comey after that meeting. And you are calling the left a cult....



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Grambler



If Hillary is dirty she should be punished. I know trump is very dirty. He is every bit as corrupt as people say Clinton is, only he is dangerous. I have signed impeachment petitions. Even if it doesn't do any good, trump will see how many people sign it, and that will not make him happy, so I win anyway. Lets just hope he doesn't start a nuclear war.




Did you sign petitions to get hillary to drop out for obstruction?

Or did you only get bothered enough by one side to do that?



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
if Kellyanne ever decided to quit the Trump admin, you should apply for her position and simply use the threads you created on Trump as a CV


In other words you understand Hillary more clearly obstructed.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

No Steele didnt spy on Russia. He got info from high level Russian officials.

Remember how every screamed that Don just wanting to hear from a supposed high level russian was collusion and maybe treason even though he got no info whatsoever?

Then PAYING to get dirt from actual and not fake HIGH LEVEL RUSSIAN OFFICIALS and getting ACTUAL DIRT that is then ACTUALLY USED is collusion and possibly treason. It was the democrats that set this standard, yet now they dont want to be held to the same one.

As far as obstruction with hillary, it is very simple; destroying evidence requested by congress is a far clearer example of obstruction than anything Trump did.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
Many on the left are so blinded by Trump hatred that their common sense is lost.

Any reasonable person can see that the Clinton's are guilty of influence peddling, and accepting bribes, both directly and indirectly through the foundation. Not to mention the thievery that took place in Haiti.
The Democraps know what a slimebag Hillary is, they just don't care...



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


You'd have better luck convincing Forrest Gump that his Mama was a liar.

"Hill'ry always said, life is like a box of choc'lates.

...

...

...

I don't know what she meant by that, but she always said it."

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I disagree with this a bit because Trump was hoping to get Jeff Sessions to run the Russia investigation or even shut it down, but Jeff Sessions recused himself. Trump later said that if he knew he would have done that, he wouldn't have hired him.


Trump outright told the New York Times last week that if he knew Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia investigation, he “would have picked somebody else.” The recusal, Trump went on, was “extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president.” The obvious implication is that an attorney general who didn’t recuse himself could have better reined in Mueller.


Trump is still plotting on replacing Jeff Sessions and attempting to shut down the special counsel.

Vox: Why President Trump suddenly hates his attorney general



Congress can fire Mueller but it will take a long time after hearings and findings into public record, this plays into the Democrats hands politically because it will drag into midterm elections.

Trump can fire him. This would look bad politically, which is what this is all about. If Trump makes the wrong move he loses politically. His only political choice now is to wait on Congress to fire Mueller after finding his conflict of interest of knowing about Russian collusion but allowing it to never see the light of day during Uranium One when he was head of the FBI.



posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Steele "supposedly" got info from high level Russian officials.

For all anybody really knows, the "dossier" could have been composed by Democrats.

Or FusionGPS for that matter.






posted on Oct, 28 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Grambler

I thought then FBI has all the emails?


So?

Obstruction of justice has nothing to do with if it was successful, it only matters if it was attempted. Saying I hope you can go easy on Flynn compared to wiping a hard drive and taking a hammer to multiple electronic devices to avoid the info being looked at are not in the same universe of intent to obstruct. Really what more did Hillary have to do to make it clear she was obstructing? Call a press conference and announce it?

It is amazing the stupid imagined technicalities, and 1984 esqe definition warping leftists will cling to to avoid the thought that anyone on their side could be in the wrong.

It really is like a cult.


Why did you leave out the worst part? Trump FIRED Comey after that meeting. And you are calling the left a cult....


Yeah he fired comey, the guy who blatantly let Hillary obstruct justice, and took it upon himself to pretend to be the attorney general. He should have been fired day one, and Hillary and the democrats agreed.

He did not fire him after that meeting it was 3 months later, during which comey admits Trump did nothing to obstruct the investigation.

1 week before he was fired comey was asked if trump ever interfered in the investigation and his sworn testimony was no, and he never reported it to anyone, he only came up with the obstruction claim After he was fired.

The investigation was never stopped or slowed, McCabe said so. Nobody familiar with the law considers what trump did obstruction, only wacky leftists who think he is the next hitler do, because they don't want to understand the law they just want trump gone.


edit on 28-10-2017 by proximo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join