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: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

To me it is funny you posted it this way,


It's not, "no" .

when you follow with this:



It's just extremely weak evidence

which is another way of saying no,



Those could all be evidence that he attempted to influence

could....
yeah ok
interesting there was no charge



There are probably even more things in the report.

yeah "probably"

lol




They have to show he did it improperly according to the statute.

and then when they can't the answer is no?

lol
but but could and probably


thanks but I will just stick with the simple no
perhaps I would think differently, but when they don't even have enough evidence to charge it is a no.

lol
they didn't "exonerate" him for being db cooper either
cause you know "could" and "probably"




posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Some guest on CNN just compared Trump to Smollett. "If you've got connections, you get off scott-free!"



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Congressman Nadler looks like a little chub that swims in a river 😆




posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

wasn't smollett indicted by a grand jury?

where do these people get their facts?

surely they don't just make this up?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

He got the same medical procedure as Al Sharpton...stomach stapled. Nutrient interference results in a big head, containing a smaller than normal brain.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Those would all be used as evidence in a case for obstruction. It is weak evidence. It is not strong enough evidence to stand on it's own, but if Trump was charged, all those things would feature in the evidence supporting whatever stronger evidence the prosecution had.

So no, it's not "no" unless you don't know what the word evidence means.

If you get in a loud fight with your neighbor and he is murdered later that night, you can bet your ass that fight is going to be considered as evidence against you in an investigation. Is that strong evidence? Not by itself, no. Is that evidence alone enough to charge you? No, of course not. Does that mean you murdered him? No, that's even more ridiculous. But that doesn't mean it magically stops being evidence.

There is a pile of such weak evidence of obstruction. Does that mean Trump is guilty? No, not at all. Does it mean it's a strong case against him? Nope, not even close. Will that stop Democrats from trying to find anything they can use as evidence from the report and what we know to try him in the Media? Fat chance.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

As Obama's top advisor said in a closed meeting (but it was recorded), they're counting on the STUPIDITY of Americans, to not think much. To just believe the talking points.
edit on 3/28/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Or he's preparing for a little chub heading his way...



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

only those with bs political bias would attempt to call such "evidence"
you attempting to mitigate that by claiming it is just "weak" is funny

he said she said is in no way "evidence"
nice attempt to muddy the water

even comey would not state that "i hope" was evidence of obstruction
he hoped someone else would tho

what has been offered as "evidence" is not such, otherwise someone with that axe to grind would have brought this in front of a grand jury or pressed charges
a skewed perspective does not make facts



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I don't have a political bias against Trump, but I still know what the word "evidence" means.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

you may not but many that have exposed "evidence" do
see comey, james as example 1

you have a he said she said version of a conversation that is "evidence" of obstruction?
nope
sorry
never has "i hope" meant more than "i hope" in the legal history of the usa
unless you can source otherwise
comeys interpretation in no way constitutes "evidence"
even comey wouldn't go that far

evidence is actual proof of a fact
all released so far is "allegations" not "evidence"

in fact wasn't that what the whole "investigation" was for?
to see if the "allegations" were indeed "evidence"?
were they charges would have been filed wouldn't they?




edit on 28/3/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   


evidence is actual proof of a fact 


Yeah, that's not what evidence means.

It just has to have probative value. The fact you argued with your neighbor is still evidence. The fact they found your fingerprints in his house is still evidence. The fact he had wounds consistent with a weapon you own is evidence.

Does that mean you killed him? No! Your fingerprints could have gotten there on an earlier visit. You fought over the fact he owed you $200 bucks. You happen to own a hunting knife or a .45 or whatever. But that is still evidence against you.

Taking it further, you have stories of people who are wrongfully convicted: does that mean the state didn't have any evidence? No. It means they made the wrong conclusions based on the evidence they had, and there was enough evidence of wrong doing to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that person was guilty.

Acknowledging there is some weak evidence isn't suggesting Trump is guilty or should be charged. It's just knowing what the word means and acknowledging reality. And you can bet that the DNC and media are going to use anything and everything possible as evidence to prop up their narrative.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




It just has to have probative value.

lol
until it is proven it is still just an allegation

funny you use made up situations and not those released to the public through congressional testimony or other public statements

wonder why that is?

if there was actual evidence of obstruction by the president, mueller would have recommended to press charges;
there were only accusations and allegations no actual evidence when investigated

I really don't care how the media or the dnc attempts to spin the results of the investigation

In the end congress can pursue impeachment as it is a fully political exercise and in no way carries any criminal liability, getting the number required is laughable without charges recommended by mueller as there are still some fair minded elected officials.

Good luck with that "evidence" tho



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Probably because I used real examples and you decided to redefine the word "evidence" to exclude them? So I used an analogous example to help you understand the word?

There is insufficient evidence for a charge in the opinion of Barr. Based on what we know, I agree. Unless there is something incredibly damning is hidden in the report, I doubt I'll change my mind. I 'm pretty vocal about my belief that the entire thing is a sham and that Clapper and Brennan should share a cell somewhere.

None of that changes what the word "evidence" means or that "there is no evidence" .



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Then CNN manipulated the 2018 election is what CNN is saying because they knew the stuff they were saying was horsecrap but they wanted a blue wave so they manipulated the news how is that different than what Russia supposedly did?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

Democrats pulled some shady snip what they did to Bernie and getting the questions ahead of time from CNN etc etc no other way to look at it.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I'm not a Democrat or liberal media (or alt-right media for that matter). I am a progressive. And, guess what? I also say Donald obstructed justice. That's obvious. He did it in plain sight in a myriad of ways. That being said, that does not mean his obstruction meets criminal requirements. But that does not make Trump's actions any less obstructive. Not to mention if you or I did the same we would be jailed for obstruction. It's good to be king, eh?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: tabularosa

"In plain sight and in a myrid of ways" LoL

Okie dokie Columbo

Name one way, otherwise your aiding and abetting or making false accusations.
Get over it lol
. LoL
edit on 3282019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)

edit on 3282019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: tabularosa

Obstruction requires some form of intent. What possible intent could he have when the underlying crime being investigated never happened?

Trump knew from the beginning it was utter nonsense, so there is nothing to obstruct.

Further, stating his opinion and defending himself is not obstruction.
Exercising Constitutional authority can never be obstruction or any sort of crime. If there is a conflict between the Constitution and the law, the law is wrong. The Constitution is the highest law of the land

And Mueller disagrees, as did AG Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstein. But by all means, if Dems think "obstruction" occurred take your case before Congress and impeach him. It'd be a major gift to us Republicans - and there isn't a chance in hell the Senate would convict given the finding of "No collusion or crimes" - but that is up to Dems as they control the House. If the Dems do not impeach, they have nobody to blame but themselves - it is within their capability to do so at any point. But again it will fail to result in conviction/removal from office

You all need to own up to the fact that you were wrong, and frankly wasted 2 entire years on this bogus narrative. It isn't your fault - you were used by your party for political aims. You were used by pundits for ratings and celebrity. Hell, look at the list of who profited the most from this nonsense and things become very clear. But nonetheless, continuing to push a discredited theory is not going to help Dems.

Dems and Republicans have already made up their mind RE: voting (mostly). But independents and fence sitters have not - and we both know they will determine the outcome of the election. So if I were Dems, I would immediately stop leaving the taste of sour grapes in their mouth and run the most boring, centrist, moderate candidate you can muster. A pivot to socialism will cost you dearly. And a focus on "collusion" or obstruction will do the same.

But by all means, I'm a Republican so feel free to ignore what I wrote. But that alone is your only chance at beating an incumbent. Mark my words.
edit on 3/28/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




Obstruction requires some form of intent. What possible intent could he have when the underlying crime being investigated never happened?



December 19, 1998 Bill Clinton is impeached by the House of Representatives. This is now a full 4 years and 3 months after Kenneth Starr was appointed to investigate a failed real estate deal, of which no wrong doing or charges were ever brought forth.
www.quora.com...

Your argument is invalid. You know what Bill Clinton was impeached for? Obstruction of Justice and lying under oath about his sexual encounter with Monica Lewinski...nothing to do with real estate or financial fraud.




edit on 28-3-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join