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 CLEARLY guilty of obstruction of Justice

page: 11
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Maybe you should've read the excerpt I provided at the bottom of my post? Here it is again:


The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.


It's up to Congress, and only Congress, to charge the President.




posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

Then you’re in the minority. Proof of that is the 2018 elections where Trump enablers in the Congress were routed.

So you admit you would vote for a criminal


Judging by the star ratio, I would say you're in the minority.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Sounds like a deliberate referral to Congress to me. He may not be calling for impeachment hearings, but Mueller is definitely saying that it's Congress' jurisdiction to make the decision on whether or not Trump obstructed justice.


Constitutional defenses.
As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice .

Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers . The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly " sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of "corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers. For example , the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment , avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary , a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President 's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties . The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President 's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


From page 8.
www.justice.gov...

More commentary on the subject.
www.motherjones.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Trump always good at taking things to the hilt and not crossing a line 😎

He has now successfully triggered another 18 Months of turmoil inside the Democrat Party as well as the MSMmob 😎



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: links234


It appears you are right that Mueller said he wouldnt have brought charged becuase the OLC.

Nonetheless, he does not recomend impeachment as the poster I was replying to claims, nor does he claim that Tryump is guilty

It would be up to congress to hiold impeachment hearings if they so chose

And as I will outline tomorrow, all of these ten incidents fail to show corrupt intent by trump, and this he would not be found guilty anyways,.

Lastly, lets not forget this is all a distraction from teh fact that the media and the dems lied for two years about trump working with russia, and are now claiming he obstructed an inesvtigation into a crime he was innocent of.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Mueller works for the DOJ.

It is irrelvant whether or not he thinks congress should make the call.

He did not recommend charging trump, his report is to the AG, the AG with rosenstien decided there was not enough to charge trump

Again, the whole obstruction claim is to take away from the russian collusion lie for two years we heard.

In addition, the claims of obstruction ring hollow when we see the same people making those claims had no problem with hillarys team destroying subpeonaed evidence.

Unlike in that situation, there is no proof trump had corrupt intent in any of his actions, nor did any of his actions impede the investigation.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

We didn't elect Hillary. Are you saying that Hillary set the standard for Trump's behavior, and now we have to live with it because we didn't elect Hillary?

Whataboutism deflect much?




Unlike in that situation, there is no proof trump had corrupt intent in any of his actions, nor did any of his actions impede the investigation.


Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.






edit on 18-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

In addition, I am not seeing anywhere that congress can bring criminal charges against a president. They could go thru impeachment proceedings, but Mueller report is irrelvant to that; they could have had impeachment proceedings for any reason.

Nothing Barr di prohibits congress from taking up those proceedings at all.

So democrat claims barr acted imporperly are ridculous; barr correctly asserted he and rosenstien so no grounds fror them to recomend criminal charges.

Now as to your quoting of the report.

this section


The term "corruptly " sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.


Clearly the standard for corrupt intent has to be very high according to mueller; concrete in fact.

There is not proof offered in this report whatsoever that trump concretely acted with corrupt intent to give himself an improper advantage in the criminal case.

In fact, to the contrary, seeing as how neither trump or anyone connected to him actually committed crimes with russians for the election, the far more plausible answer is he was upset with an investigation stymying his adminstartion when he knew he was innocent, which would not be obstruction.

Even if you think that isnt the case, seeing as how the standard has to be so high according to mueller, there is not way given that not only is the explanation I gave plausible, but very lieklye, that any prosecutor could prove conretely trump acted with corrupt intent



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No I am saying with every instant in these two investiagtions people, including the investigators have had one standard for hillary connected people and another for trump.

The same people that lied to us for two years about russia collusion (that you believed) are the same people that had no problem with hillarys team destroying subpeaned evidence (likely you as I dont recall your posts about why she shoudl be charged or someone on her team)

But now, all of the sudden, these same people KNOW that trump obstructed, and thats a huge deal.

This is another lie by people that obviously dont carew about justice, only getting trump and letting hillary and others off the hook.

As mentioned in my post above, there is no proof of corrupt intent at all from trump to warrant a charge of obstruction.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




I am not seeing anywhere that congress can bring criminal charges against a president.


They can't. That's why it's being called an "impeachment referral".



They could go thru impeachment proceedings, but Mueller report is irrelvant to that; they could have had impeachment proceedings for any reason.


It's not irrelevant! The storm is gathering, and with all the subpoenas being issued, now this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that the Dems are waiting for the Trump administration to force them into impeachment proceedings, in order to collect all the evidence they're asking for. The House of Representatives can certainly get that ball rolling, if they have to, just in time for the upcoming elections.


edit on 18-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Exactly!

Thank you for admitting what we all knew

The Dems knew the collusion story was a lie

So did the intel community

The investigation was about finding any dirt in trump whatsoever and using it to win elections

Nice of you to admit what we all knew



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It just stuns me how some people live in absolute denial of reality, how they can completely ignore facts, laws, rights or any sense of moral right in an effort to satisfy their venomous emotions based on fantasy alone.

Just stunning!



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The storm is gathering,



How many more years do we have to wait for it to get here? I think I've been patient waiting the last 2 and a half years; I could probably wait another few years but at some point we might have to move on.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




The Dems knew the collusion story was a lie


Don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. In fact, evidence of collusion was done in plain sight....Helsinki??



So did the intel community


Really? Again, Helsinki!!



Nice of you to admit what we all knew


You think the Dems have been playing multi-dimensional chess all this time? LOL


edit on 18-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

How long did it take Nixon to resign?



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Helsinki was not evidence of collusion

Why didn’t mueller charge trump then?

More grasping at straws

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don't think it took his whole term in office. But I wasn't there.
edit on 18-4-2019 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Unable to clear Trump of obstruction, Mueller details efforts by president to curtail investigation
LINK


Special counsel Robert Mueller was not able to clear President Donald Trump of obstructing justice in his nearly two-year investigation into foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election. "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred," Mueller wrote in his report covering his wide-ranging probe into allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and whether the president himself obstructed the inquiry. "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," the special counsel added.




Facts are facts and truth is truth

Trump is a criminal president. He’s illegitimate


So it was Mueller's mandate to clear Trump of Obstruction charges? Silly me, I thought Mueller was trying to prove guilt of people.

What I like about you anti-Trumpets is your commitment level......right up there with those Japanese soldiers in the Jungle for 25 years, fighting the Allies.

That's some dedication. Will you still be trying to get Trump Impeached in 2032, after Ivanka's Two Terms?



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: links234
Nonetheless, he does not recomend impeachment as the poster I was replying to claims, nor does he claim that Tryump is guilty


He also doesn't claim Trump is innocent either. Again, he leaves that decision to be made by Congress.

This argument that 'if Trump was guilty Mueller would have charged him' doesn't hold water for two simple reasons; 1) Trump is the President of the United States, not subject to the regular avenues of the judicial system. 2) It's would have been unconstitutional for Mueller to charge Trump with a crime. That's the role of Congress.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Helsinki became Hell-zinki for Democrats and the MSMaxismob 😎🐡



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join