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.

 

Trump not criminal target says Mueller

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

What "colluding with Russia" crimes were allegedly committed after office, again? Actually, scratch that. Mueller's made it clear Trump is not accused of breaking any law.

Recall the "unwitting" reference in the indictment against the 13 Russian trolls. His "subject" status is easily explained by his "unwitting" potential involvement in any such situation. Clearly not a crime, which is not disputed (conspiracy requires knowledge). However, easily explains "subject" status without accusing him of a crime.

At this time. Sure, that is a given. And unless Trump decides to not invoke his fifth amendment rights, there is no perjury Trap (or otherwise) that could provide that evidence. The probe is seemingly wrapping up, and will do so regardless of Trump deciding to interview or not.

When? Who knows. Could be any time. A month? 6? Next week?




posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Scrubdog

Let me try to keep up with all your buzzzzzing around.




You cannot be held in contempt of court for asserting your 5th Amend rights. You do have to show up, but if you know you're a target, you will not answer anything substantive.


That would largely depend on the evidence presented and its legitimacy. Including witness testimony.




He doesn't know anything, call it classless if you want, but JBurns is doing a jig bc he believes this means that Trump is cleared.


This single statement is largely what is being pointed at:

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.


Now, Mueller doesn't need to be telling the truth. Especially if it's pointed out that they are want to get Trump into an interview or perjure trap. However, that would give Trump the ability to fire him. Then Mueller could push for obstruction in a much more legitimate manner than say..Comey. BUT the ends wouldn't justify the means. So by a fairly reasoned assumption is that Trump is in fact clear.


Please, no one believe me. Please please please, it is all over, truly - obviously, I don't know what I'm talking about. Get on Brietbart, and Fox, and assure Trump it's all over, he's beaten them all.

Oh, and this means that the Washington Post is now news that can be trusted, since it is their scoop.


Oh please.


Darn it, you're right.

I don't know anything.

Celebrate, it's all over.

Damn, I'm going to cry in my beer bc we just have a president that ACTS like he's owned by Russia and isn't actually owned by Russia.

Don't trip up on that "conduct while in office" caveat, generally speaking, lawyers pay attention to every word, and that would seem awfully unnecessary if he's been cleared as your friends think - and you.

Have fun.

I know I am.

He's the subject of a federal investigation and you guys are partying. Only the Trumpers, and I mean ONLY the Trumpers would celebrate, bc everyone else would have a lawyer explaining why that is not "good news."

Reminds me of the people who celebrated when Rosenstein said "there is no accusation in this indictment that any American ..."



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime




He may still try to charge obstruction of justice. I don't think that's going to work...Trump was within his rights to fire Comey.

Wait , what ?

he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point

I believe obstruction of justice is still a criminal offense.
If not , when was that nationwide law changed ?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scrubdog

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Scrubdog

Keep on believing
Whatever the cost, right?

In reality, you have no idea what you're talking about. Minus the copy/paste witness/subject/target spiel (DU).

Simply put, Mueller cleared Trump as a criminal target. Spin it however you want, but you need to accept the reality that Mueller won't end the Trump Presidency. Get used to this reality.

Besides, what happened to all of Trump's former associates "flipping" as you said many times? If they flipped, Mueller would have the evidence making him a target vs. not a target. That's yet one more theory put to rest tonight. What have I missed?


I have 20 years in criminal defense, as an attorney and wrote that off the top of my head.

Mueller didn't "clear" Trump of anything. Had he wanted to ""clear him" he wouldn't have called him a subject.

The people who flipped, are the ones that are making Trump the subject. Did you read that part in the Washington Post story? The one where he confirmed he is a subject?

But, please pretty please with sugar on it - use your vast legal prowess to volunteer to represent Trump. . No one else will, I think you are perfect for the job.

And, Mueller likely won't end the Trump presidency, bc there aren't 33 princpled Republicans in the US Senate, so I never thought that. I just want to know if the prez is a Russian agent, or if he simply acts like one bc he doesn't know better.

I suppose we can anticipate Trump leaping to the interview since he wants this over and has been cleared, right?

**There was a way to "clear" Trump, and he didn't do it. . He is trying to get Trump to an interview, you think it is all by magic that this occurred right after the lawyer who said "No, don't interview" just quit, don't you?


PM me your name and state I’ll be glad to check it against your BAR registry. Until then you’re just a kid in your moms basement as far as everyone here is concerned.

This is ATS, forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.




edit on 3-4-2018 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

Right on cue, deflect to the emotional diatribe.


Good talk.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Scrubdog

Right on cue, deflect to the emotional diatribe.


Good talk.



Displays the calm demeanor of a Defense lawyer with over 20 years of experience in and out of courtrooms.....


I’m leaning more towards moms basement.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Scrubdog

For all I know, you could be absolutely right.

I am simply making the point (perhaps with some hyperbole) that it appears there isn't enough evidence to even accuse him of a crime. Which is a pretty low standard, considering the relative ease at indicting someone. To obtain an indictment, as I understand, the government only has to demonstrate "sufficient cause" to a simple majority of the grand jury 12/23

Despite the fact that sufficient cause is a relatively low burden of proof to meet, it does mean that at least some tangible evidence of a crime must exist. Seemingly we are not near this point. Which is still quite a stretch from the higher bars set at different stages of the criminal trial



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog


"Keep Hope Alive!"



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gothmog


"Keep Hope Alive!"


They must prepare for this day,




Prepare safe spaces, blankies, unsharpened crayons.....



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

In what way did he obstruct justice allegedly? Can you articulate such allegations?

Because carrying out his Constitutional duty (and common practice) of replacing the FBI director is not obstruction. Making public comments is not obstruction. Making allegedly false statements in public is not obstruction. Every case of hypothetical obstruction I have read involve extreme stretches of legal theory and obscure logical jumps that just don't meet the high burden required to prove obstruction.

Proving intent is notoriously difficult.

And no one who cares about their reputation would argue that exercise of a Constitutionally lawful discharge of Presidential office is a crime. To do so would be saying the FBI director doesn't serve at the pleasure of the President, which they clearly do. FBI specifically...given law enforcement authority by executive order. Once again, POTUS could theoretically repeal this EO at the stroke of a pen. In no way could this be considered obstruction, however. Because our Constitution (as affirmed by SCOTUS) empowers the President to take such action. And especially for firing Comey, replacing the FBI director is a common practice between new administrations.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Gothmog

In what way did he obstruct justice allegedly? Can you articulate such allegations?

Because carrying out his Constitutional duty (and common practice) of replacing the FBI director is not obstruction. Making public comments is not obstruction. Making allegedly false statements in public is not obstruction. Every case of hypothetical obstruction I have read involve extreme stretches of legal theory and obscure logical jumps that just don't meet the high burden required to prove obstruction.

Proving intent is notoriously difficult.

And no one who cares about their reputation would argue that exercise of a Constitutionally lawful discharge of Presidential office is a crime. To do so would be saying the FBI director doesn't serve at the pleasure of the President, which they clearly do. FBI specifically...given law enforcement authority by executive order. Once again, POTUS could theoretically repeal this EO at the stroke of a pen. In no way could this be considered obstruction, however. Because our Constitution (as affirmed by SCOTUS) empowers the President to take such action. And especially for firing Comey, replacing the FBI director is a common practice between new administrations.


Wait , what ?
I was just stating that if Mueller really is saying Trump is not under criminal charges , then why are others stating they could still bring obstruction of justice charges ? Obstruction of justice is still considered a crime. So , it can only be one way or the other. Not both.
Clear ?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP


CNN will never admit that Trump is innocent of Russian Collusion. They'll say that Mueller quit investigating too soon, just like they did when the House Intel Committee concluded Trump was innocent, 3 weeks ago.

CNN is an Anti-America domestic terrorist that WILL NEVER STOP attempting to hurt this country. It's imperative that its broadcast license be revoked, or Jeff Zucker be replaced by a sane President/CEO.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Bill Clinton was impeached even after being cleared of criminal charges. Keep Hope Alive!



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
www.washingtonpost.com... /2018/04/03/

Link being formatted incorrectly (I believe). You can find the link here: www.google.com...


Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III informed President Trump’s attorneys last month that he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a criminal target at this point, according to three people familiar with the discussions.


WAPO reporting Trump NOT a criminal target in his probe. Contrary to MSM narrative for the past year plus, Trump's reputation has been dragged through the mud in an effort to discredit his Presidency. This narrative is now thrown to the side. He is not a criminal target in the investigation.

Funny how Adam Schiff claims to have seen "evidence of 'Collusion'" while apparently Mueller has not. Interesting to say the least. I guess the HPSCI missed it too... and the FBI last Summer.

well now that is an unexpected read tonight

seems this farce may have run its course



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gothmog

Bill Clinton was impeached even after being cleared of criminal charges. Keep Hope Alive!


Wait , what ?
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury .Which allegedly occurred during the criminal investigation.

edit on 4/3/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


Adam Schiff sets a very low bar for collusion. By his definition, Trump flying over Russian airspace would be collusion. Fortunately, Mueller is more sane.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gothmog

Bill Clinton was impeached even after being cleared of criminal charges. Keep Hope Alive!


Wait , what ?


All Bill Clinton did was tell a lie. That got him Impeached! I'm so relieved that President Trump will not have to sit down to be interrogated by Mueller now. Just one slip of the tongue by Trump, and we'd have Pelosi holding a big celebration.



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gothmog


"Keep Hope Alive!"


They must prepare for this day,




Prepare safe spaces, blankies, unsharpened crayons.....

I truly hope that wasn't meant for me....
All one would have to do is revisit some of my posts here .Or , ask any mod.....
However , I do enjoy that picture of a gloating Trump.
"We are going to win so much , we will get tired of winning" (re: the citizens of the US of A)
And we are.....
You have me mistaken for someone else.

edit on 4/3/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Did anybody already mention Alex van der Zwaan?



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: JBurns

Wait? So the Washington post ISN'T FAKE news now? It's so funny how when it fits your narrative the Post is legit.



originally posted by: RomeByFire
The liberal fake news rag WaPo at it again!

Oh.... wait....


Yeah because that's why he linked to WaPo, and not because you guys would cry about the source if he linked to a Fox article on it. Everyone is reporting this. You can't run away from it no matter how hard you try.


So WaPo isn't fake news, then?


You tell us... if this is fake news (it could be) then I guess we write off all their previous reporting too... right?
We're getting closer to the day that you (and others) are going to have to gulp down that humble pie. I think you know it's coming.




top topics



 
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join