It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Former prosecutor/Loyola law professor says Mueller "obstruction" finding unlikely

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 05:44 PM
Laurie Levenson, a former prosecutor and law professor at Loyola recently gave her opinion on the status of the Mueller investigation based on all publically known information/evidence.

The most poignant of which is since Comey admits he told Trump privately he was not under investigation, Trump firing Comey can easily be answered as Trump firing an incompetent FBI director that didn't simply put an end to the bogus theories being pushed in the MSM. Trump has always maintained the case is a nothing-burger, and firing Comey plays right in to that belief/narrative. That is to say, his actions match his words. That is a good thing from an investigatory standpoint.

The article from MSN

Experts who disagree believe that Mueller would likely need much more damning evidence to justify making an obstruction case — either through an indictment, or an impeachment referral — against Trump. They tend to make some combination of these three arguments:
1) The uniqueness of the president’s role creates a whole host of legal, constitutional, and political obstacles here.
2) Trump’s allegedly obstructive conduct doesn’t quite match the two presidential precedents we have here. The obstruction of justice impeachment articles Presidents Nixon and Clinton faced accused them of destroying or withholding evidence, and telling witnesses to lie under oath.
3) Finally, Trump’s possible motive is more difficult to prove than many are acknowledging, with the evidence we have so far. That’s because he can still make the case that, rather than acting to cover up crimes, he acted because he genuinely believed that the Russia investigation is “fake news” and that he did nothing wrong.

The entire text is fairly large, but a great read if you're interested in the legal theories behind the allegations instead of sensational sounding things (notice how no serious person uses terms like "treason")
edit on 1/25/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 05:59 PM
Half the time i chuckle, and half the time my jaw clenches, when I see people dug in to what they think will happen and throwing insults at people as if to ridicule them.

The reality is always less fantastic than the imagination.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 07:37 PM
If they really expect to take Trump down.

They better have something better than Fusion GPS and million dollar dossiers.

Incontrovertible PROOF!.

Otherwise they are just creating a bigger conspiracy theory than JFK or close to it.
edit on 25-1-2018 by neo96 because: dyslexic

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 07:44 PM
My take is the reality was to weed out the bottom feeders like man fort and flynn, possibly push Kushner out.

I doubt Trump is the target in terms of Mueller. But I have no idea.

The fact the media is spinning so hard partisan makes me not believe any of it.

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:19 PM

Former prosecutor/Loyola law professor says Mueller "obstruction" finding unlikely

SO , the last hopes of the Liberal Loons hinges on the words of a "former" prosecutor . What did she prosecute ? Why ? Is she connected in any way to the Mueller investigation ? Does she have inside information ?
I bet all answers are no...
A nobody trying to become relevant..

I take "fantasy" for 100 , Alex.

new topics

top topics

log in