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.

 

Demorcrats and Liberal Media Say President Trump Obstructed Justice..

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
A Majority of Americans feel that Trump has NOT BEEN CLEARED of Collusion with Russia!!


WASHINGTON (CNN)-- Though President Donald Trump has claimed "complete and total exoneration" based on Attorney General William Barr's summary of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, the American public disagrees, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

A majority (56%) says the President and his campaign have not been exonerated of collusion, but that what they've heard or read about the report shows collusion could not be proven. Fewer, 43%, say Trump and his team have been exonerated of collusion.
More at: www.cnn.com...

Why does terrorist organization CNN take credit for this poll if SSRS conducted it? Who is SSRS?


The poll questions are vague and most likely a slanted Democrat typical horsedung poll 😎

Most "participants" likely don't watch FoxNews and are auto-brainwashed by the Big3+1 networks 😎

😆




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth




What we can say with 100% certainty is that neither Trump, nor any of his campaign team, committed any crime with respect to collusion with Russians and that Trump did not commit the crime of obstruction of justice.


What we can say is that Trump and his campaign staff repeatedly lied to the FBI, Congress and the American people and Russia knew they were lying. That makes Trump and his campaign staff compromised as hell. Trump may have been shielded from actively participating in the Russian hacking and the dissemination of the DNC leaked documents, but he asked Russia for their help, and they provided it. He repaid Russia for their help in several ways, including changing the language of the National Republican Platform to favor Russia in the Ukraine.



This was at a rally where he regularly brought up the fact Hillary had deleted 33,000 emails off her private illegal server. This was right after Russia was being blamed for stealing the DNC emails.


Yeah, we know. We all saw him and heard him say it. Later, he doubled down on his request of Russia. Turns out, that very day, Trump publicly called on Russia to provide Hillary's email, they tried to hack her server.

He was making a point Hillary was getting away with destroying classified emails, and wouldn't it be nice if we could somehow see them.


Are you "trumpsplainin", right now, what Trump really means when he speaks? Also, the FBI has had those 33,000 emails for a long time now, and many of them have been released.


If you seriously think Trump would actually choose a rally to announce to Russia he seriously wanted them to hack Hillary you are a fool. Why in the hell would he do that publicly on camera if he were serious - or if he was actually an agent of Putin.


Why not? He cozied up to Putin, defied and contradicted the US Intel community in favor of Putin's word over the US Intel community, on the world stage, in front of a global community of reporters.

Secondly you say Russia helped - HOW? - we still don't have Hillary's missing 33,000 emails which is what he asked for.


Yes we do. Also, Russia hacked the DNC stole documents and arranged for them to be disseminated through WikiLeaks. Also, their troll farms were targeting individuals and I'm sure the info Manafort gave to the Russian Intel agent helped too. Besides, in Helsinki Putin admitted that he aided Trump's campaign. This is all history.


edit on 27-3-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
If there is no crime, then it is impossible for their to be any obstruction of justice.

Are these people that dumb? Yes they are.


Well, technically, no.

But without an underlying crime, good luck establishing his motive for actions that have alternative, innocuous explanations.

For firing Comey to be construed as obstruction, for example, one would have to show Trump fired him for nefarious reasons to obatruct the investigation, and not because he thought his FBI director was a simpering self-righteous idiot who was wasting time and resources on a pointless political investigation (as well as fired for cause as laid out by the DAAG at the DOJ).

Even with an underlying crime, that'd be an uphill battle. Without it, what nefarious motive do we assign Trump?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If Trump was oh-so close to Putin and Russians, why would he coax and bait Hillary and the Democrats with that statement ?

😆



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


"Yeah, we know. We all saw him and heard him say it. Later, he doubled down on his request of Russia. Turns out, that very day, Trump publicly called on Russia to provide Hillary's email, they tried to hack her server."


What a huge load of BS.

Hillary Clinton traveled to foreign countries using a commercial off the shelf Blackberry.

Her server IP was known to foreign intelligence within 60 seconds of getting off the plane.

Israel, China, Russia.... any country she went to, the IP of her server was blasted out for anyone who cared to look.



edit on R412019-03-27T18:41:34-05:00k413Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I already asked my lawyer this question, and without a crime there can be no obstruction, so technically yes.


PS- I also heard the same thing from Rand Paul who stated the exact same thing the other day.

Of course with backwards being frontwards and lies being truth these days, people will hear or believe it differently.
edit on 27-3-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Too bad you didn't get all of your 'evidence' to Bobby boy in time.

NO FURTHER INDICTMENTS!!!



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: RadioRobert

I already asked my lawyer this question, and without a crime there can be no obstruction, so technically yes.


Your lawyer is wrong.

If the authorities subpoena your financial records in an investigation and you shred them, you can still be charged even if you didn't commit an underlying crime related to that investigation. If your phone and emails are under subpoena in an investigation into mishandling classified info, and you decide to delete things, bleach bit the drives, and smash them with hammers to subvert the investigation, you have committed obstruction -- even if your only deleted emails contain yoga schedules and personal emails. But it's easier to show motive for obstruction if there was an underlying crime-- like say you deleted and failed to hand over emails containing marked and unmarked classified information.

Unless you are the former SecState and a Presidential candidate.
edit on 27-3-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: RadioRobert

I already asked my lawyer this question, and without a crime there can be no obstruction, so technically yes.


I suggest you not use him in a criminal case, because that is incorrect.

Martha Stewart is one example. She was never convicted of insider trading, but served time for obstruction. Look it up.

I don't know why ppl try to argue something that can be found out with a simple web search.

It doesnt apply in the case of President Trump, but it is possible.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: RadioRobert

I already asked my lawyer this question, and without a crime there can be no obstruction, so technically yes.


I suggest you not use him in a criminal case, because that is incorrect.

Martha Stewart is one example. She was never convicted of insider trading, but served time for obstruction. Look it up.

I don't know why ppl try to argue something that can be found out with a simple web search.

It doesnt apply in the case of President Trump, but it is possible.


Incorrect. Trump was never charged with any crime.(Trump wasn't involved in any "criminal" case.) Martha was charged with a crime. She wasn't convicted of that crime, but tried to obstruct a criminal investigation.
With Trump it is quite a different set of circumstances. No criminal charges against Trump were ever filed, so obstruction is impossible.

Saying that the firing of Comey is obstruction is a complete joke of a farce. Comey was a part of the false investigation to begin with. Pundits in the MSM are attempting to link Comey's firing to obstruction which is ridiculous.

edit on 27-3-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   
The investigation is over by the time someone is charged. You're ass over head with that explanation.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
The investigation is over by the time someone is charged. You're ass over head with that explanation.


First get an education on simple criminal law versus civil law. Then try again.

There were no criminal charges with Trump. So the "investigation" has no clout to begin with. You think a bunch of lying democrats and Obama plants can just make up stuff without any criminal charges and then when he stubs his toe you can claim Obstruction! ?

Thankfully due process doesn't work that way, which is why Criminal cases are far different than Civil cases.
And when someone is "Charged"" they are usually in a court ordered agreement immediately after appearing before a judge, and then the prosecutor is gathering their evidence. This is the point when obstruction could feasibly happen.

What criminal charges were filed against Trump and what judge did he speak to in a court? Or even Congress? Oh that's right None and no one.
edit on 27-3-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: RadioRobert
The investigation is over by the time someone is charged. You're ass over head with that explanation.


First get an education on simple criminal law versus civil law. Then try again.


Sure. Criminal charges are filed after an investigation, not before. Noone is charged in a civil case. This is a criminal investigation. Educate me.




There were no criminal charges with Trump. So the "investigation" has no clout to begin with.


Can you cite which of the 21 federal obstruction provisions you believe rely on charges being filed, counselor? Which part of the statute is that delineated in? Can you cite which federal statute you believe states, or even implies, a federal investigations legitimacy or "clout" is reliant on charges being subsequently filed?

Educate me.





And when someone is "Charged"" they are usually in a court ordered agreement immediately after appearing before a judge, and then the prosecutor is gathering their evidence. This is the point when obstruction could feasibly happen. 


No.




Thankfully due process doesn't work that way, which is why Criminal cases are far different than Civil cases.
And when someone is "Charged"" they are usually in a court ordered agreement immediately after appearing before a judge, and then the prosecutor is gathering their evidence. This is the point when obstruction could feasibly happen.


This is grossly incorrect.

Only a very incompetent prosecutor does not have his investigation sealed air-tight before bringing charges on a defendant. Any further investigation is ancillary and/or related to separate charges. The probable cause has already been collected/investigated by the time of indictment or direct filing. Obstruction happens at any point in the investigation.

Flynn, for example, was indicted and charged with only the obstruction charge for providing false information to a federal agent/ investigator. He was never charged with another crime. They did not need to charge him with some other crime and then pursue obstruction. He obstructed (apparently) during the investigation.

But feel free to educate me. I love an education. I'd start with actual sources for your misplaced beliefs, but I'm open to more aimless rambling, too.
edit on 27-3-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Okay then, maybe you can help Smollet with his case.
Trump was NEVER INDICTED.
All your examples of other people have no lawful bearing on Trump's predicament with the false sham of an investigation. An investigation without any legal testicles.
Just take pure beliefs into court, no need to know any actual laws or procedures.
This is why Trump keeps winning against your kind of people. You do it all on MSM inspired information with no basis in any real understanding of the law.

edit on 27-3-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




This is why Trump keeps winning against your kind of people. You do it all on MSM inspired information with no basis in any real understanding of the law. 


Is "your kind of people" people who understand the law? The second sentence there is hilariously ironic.


Trump is winning because there is a weak at best set of evidence against him, and he has wisely listened to people who know the law better than he does.

Not sure why Smollett is the new issue. But I'll indulge you. He was charged for false statements (or whatever the statute is called in Ill) made before he was charged, not after. I would assume he has said jack squat to investigators since they filed charges. Probably finally listened and shut up as soon as it became clear he would face charges. According to your twisted logic, he should be a free man. The only charges had no underlying crime. It is not a crime to file a police report.


Like I said, Trump doesn't need an underlying crime to be charged with obstruction according to the statute. An investigation is one of the processes distinctly defined by it. He just needs to improperly try to influence, obstruct, or delay an investigation. They just have to demonstrate intent. It would include false statements. They just need to demonstrate that it was "improper". And that would be rather difficult without an underlying crime-- but not impossible. There is a separate section under Title 18 that deals with judicial proceedings and processes after charges are brought. That section in no way invalidates the others.


You're so hard-headed that instead of listening, you've just shut off your brain and labeled me "you people". Which is even funnier in light of my posting history. What I don't do though is spew crap about the topic that I learned on wikipedia and infowars.
edit on 27-3-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   
All of you people are bad. Especially the ****** ones.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

2020 is really going to piss you off
have a great evening



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The kind of people who make up crap and throw it in Trumps direction, but it never sticks.

Just like the democrat party.

Maybe if you keep pretending like you have a clue, someday it will stick. Have faith like Adam Schiff!



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


This is how off the rails you are. You are part of the problem.

I have never said anything to suggest I was throwing things at Trump and hoping they'd stick. Pretty sure I went so far as to call this whole shebang a "soft coup" at least once in the last few days.

But because I tried to correct you on the law, you immediately shut down and started pointing fingers at "you people" because I didn't echo whatever you heard in your echo chamber.

You are part of the problem in this country.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Before you correct another you first need to correct yourself.

Obstruction this, obstruction that. The whole obstruction accusation was a sham and now everyone knows it, even Mueller admitted that.

Always some bone headed stragglers won't concede though.


Yes I am part of your problem because I won't tow the line of pure fabricated BS. Just like CNN believes everyone who doesn't agree with them is "a part of the problem in this country".

They do sure have a big problem when people won't believe their simulated sense of reality. Just make your own rules, interpret your own laws, just like those participants who fabricated the entire impeach Trump campaign based on total BS.
edit on 27-3-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join