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: 8
27
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Wow. Just wow.




posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 01:46 AM
link   
March 29, 2019

In addition to Adam Schiff, we have another deranged Congressman claiming that there is STRONG EVIDENCE of Trump Collusion and Trump Obstruction.

Rep. Quigley(IL): www.breitbart.com...

They should be embarrassed to make these allegations. Because in every case, none of these Congressmen can explain what this evidence is.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
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" .

lol
is comeys "converstion" evidence?



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I love how whining on twitter or firing an inept FBI director that literally the entire country was calling for his head at one point or another is "obstructing justice" BUT smashing phones, wiping servers, deleting e-mails subject to a court order, and SO MUCH MORE, is no big deal? GTFOH, they having a contest on The Hill for biggest hypocrite of all time?



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, first-hand direct witness testimony is always evidence. Otherwise you could not call witnesses in a civil or criminal case. Is it reliable or strong evidence? Frequently not. Testimony can be wrong, misleading, false, uselessly vague, whatever. It is always open to rebuttal and cross-examination. Do I trust anything sanctimonious Comey has to say about just about anything? No. But it is still considered evidentiary.

You're really hung up on your bad definition for evidence here.
edit on 29-3-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
March 29, 2019

In addition to Adam Schiff, we have another deranged Congressman claiming that there is STRONG EVIDENCE of Trump Collusion and Trump Obstruction.

Rep. Quigley(IL): www.breitbart.com...

They should be embarrassed to make these allegations. Because in every case, none of these Congressmen can explain what this evidence is.


Another one that somehow forgot to forward evidence to Mueller 😎



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Even if trump did collude with Russia...
The answer is how?

In what damn ways can Russia physically change an election?

Hack machines?
Get to the electorals?,

Their excuse is Russia interfered by setting up fake Facebook stories?

That's is?



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust>> I was watching MSNBC last night, just to get a handle on what the crazies are saying. What a bunch of losers. They were all saying that Trumps obstructionism was going to be a game winner for the dems and maybe some of them believed it. But they were so empty looking and were living in a fantasy land. Maybe they had to keep up the charade or risk having their burnout viewers just turn them off in despair. But they have nothing and they still think its something. Like they have 1,000 loser lottery tickets and think that maybe the numbers will be changed and one of them will win. They have nothing.



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Liberal Democrats are like Picky Eaters , they would rather Starve than Eat the Lima Beans of Truth ..........)



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Dutchowl

Very insightful of you, Dutchowl! I started a thread in Dec 2018 describing how House Democrats conspired with Bob Mueller to get President Trump on Obstruction of Justice.

Thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

That was confirmed this week, when details started to emerge about the soon-to-be-released COMEY MEMO. They were kept secret during the Mueller probe, because he was working with Democrats to claim "Trump Obstruction" that would lead to his impeachment.

The still-secret "Mueller Scope Memo" that Rod Rosenstein gave to Bob Mueller in August 2017, was to re-direct Mueller from Investigating Trump-Russia Collusion, to investigating President Trump for Obstructing Justice. The President was cleared by Mueller of Colluding with Russia just a few months into the probe. (Probe started May 2017 - Trump cleared prior to August 2017.)

When Mueller couldn't find any concrete evidence of Obstruction, he turned to trying to set a "Perjury Trap" for President Trump. That's why the President's lawyers wouldn't let Mueller interview President Trump in person last Summer. Instead, written answers to 15 questions were given. House Democrats forwarded all the testimonies of Trump associates to Bob Mueller 2 months ago, in a last ditch effort to at least get one of them (Trump Jr. or Jared Kushner or Ivanka) indicted for perjury.

But thankfully, acting AG Matthew Whitaker put a stop to this aspect of the witch hunt, and perm Attorney General William Barr shut the whole thing down, 2 weeks ago.

Here is a 3.29.2019 article that explains in more detail the Mueller shift from getting Trump on collusion, to getting him for Obstructing Justice. It's a good read if you've been following this attempted coup against President Trump.

LINK: theconservativetreehouse.com... l-1st/

-cwm



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Many members of Media involved in Spygate. Some of those shown at this link will be officially implicated when the next IG Report (Installment #3) is released this Spring.

The faces/names: twitter.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   
If you say "or perhaps, obstruction-like" it's clear that you don't even believe the argument you are making for obstruction.



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Many members of Media involved in Spygate. Some of those shown at this link will be officially implicated when the next IG Report (Installment #3) is released this Spring.

The faces/names: twitter.com...


The lawsuits and arrests/convictions will shock the entire world 😎



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Do you get the feeling that over the past 5 months, the number of participating ATS members has been on the decline?



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, first-hand direct witness testimony is always evidence. Otherwise you could not call witnesses in a civil or criminal case. Is it reliable or strong evidence? Frequently not. Testimony can be wrong, misleading, false, uselessly vague, whatever. It is always open to rebuttal and cross-examination. Do I trust anything sanctimonious Comey has to say about just about anything? No. But it is still considered evidentiary.

You're really hung up on your bad definition for evidence here.


Interesting. Non credible evidence from a disgraced source is still considered evidentiary (To the democrats hunting Trump wrongdoing). The litmus test in that master plan is set quite low isn't it?

"Yes it was evidence, but it was total garbage, should we run with it anyways? Yes. (DNC shills)


edit on 30-3-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Yeah, but it's still considered evidence.

Is it good evidence? No. Can you show Comey isn't reliable as a witness? Yes. Can it be explained away by other less damning explanations? Of course.

That doesn't mean they won't use that and other potentially damning information in the report to bolster their case for obstruction. Just because something isn't true does not mean there is no evidence of it (see wrongful convictions). And the corrollary, you can have plenty of evidence and it's still not true (see also wrongful convictions, Newtonian gravity, etc). They are going to find any evidence they can and try to muddy the issue to get their base worked up and independents to lean towards "guilty ".

They still haven't dropped Trump Tower meetings even though it had an alternate explan accepted by investigators. Why do you think they'd act any differently with everything else? And it is evidence by itself. It's just crap once you know the context. Why would you think DNC talking -heads are going to start explaining context that explains the evidence instead of focusing on the evidence?



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Important release of Comey Memos and supporting documents delayed until April 8th. These items should shed some light on when Bob Mueller shifted from investigating Trump-Russia Collusion, to Trump Obstructing Justice, in mid to late 2017.

Could be a Big Reveal: theconservativetreehouse.com... h/



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, first-hand direct witness testimony is always evidence. Otherwise you could not call witnesses in a civil or criminal case. Is it reliable or strong evidence? Frequently not. Testimony can be wrong, misleading, false, uselessly vague, whatever. It is always open to rebuttal and cross-examination. Do I trust anything sanctimonious Comey has to say about just about anything? No. But it is still considered evidentiary.

You're really hung up on your bad definition for evidence here.

A lie is not evidence
No matter how much you stomp your feet
And evidentiary is not evidence either
Way to move the goal basket post.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Low enough to justify a bs excuse.
Its laughable.



posted on Apr, 1 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   

edit on 2-4-2019 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
27
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join