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: 15
36
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:27 AM
link   
It's sad propaganda works so well, so many have lost the ability to think for themselves. thank Obama for legalizing propaganda in 2013.

You know you are literally just spewing CNN bobble head lines like fact, but yet the president is NOT being impeached, and despite all the folks doing all they can to get him out of office they don't have anything of substance.

Take off the blinders buddy.

a reply to: Willtell




posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell
You are clearly disturbed. Sad. Without the protection of the left Marxist media when the onion skins are peeled back you would see how much damage Obama did to this country. His protection by the media and deep state is as great as the constant lying about President Trump. Get over it and move on. People like you whining constantly does not make the narrative you so wish true.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   
How can there be obstruction of Justice, when there was no underlying crime? How can you obstruct justice from a crime that was not committed?

Pure insanity!



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   
How can there be obstruction of Justice, when there was no underlying crime? How can you obstruct justice from a crime that was not committed?

Pure insanity!



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
How can there be obstruction of Justice, when there was no underlying crime? How can you obstruct justice from a crime that was not committed?

Pure insanity!


This has generally been the litmus test for prosecutors not following through with any charges regardless of any perceived actions at the time.

Imagine you were falsely charged with or murder or something. You threw away your laptop when they asked for it since you were worried your wife would find a bunch of dating site stuff if they searched it. They consider that possible obstruction. Ultimately they find the real killer and clear you 100%; you did nothing criminal whatsoever.

It would go entirely against the spirit of the law if you were then charged and spent jail time when the underlying crime never happened, so they don't even consider obstruction charges. That is, in fact, how it is viewed 99.99% of the time by prosecutors.

I realize this is hollywood, but could you imagine if all those movies where the guy is innocent and goes on the run to prove it, wind up with him in jail for obstruction after being hailed an innocent hero.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

Great example but this is even worse

Imagine not actually throwing out your computer, but telling your friend to throw it away for you, and he refuses and talks you out of it

The obstruction narrative is a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact the collusion narrative was a lie



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Hillary clearly obstructed justice, where is that outrage? Comey said he did not know her intent. How can anyone claim to know Trump's intent when there was not a crime committed?



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Halfswede

Great example but this is even worse

Imagine not actually throwing out your computer, but telling your friend to throw it away for you, and he refuses and talks you out of it

The obstruction narrative is a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact the collusion narrative was a lie


A narrative set in motion by the former sitting POTUS and his cleverly placed assets who would continue his mission after leaving office.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
It’s as if the Left knew there was no Russia collusion but pursued it as a trap for Trump to do something in anger that would be legally identifiable as obstruction. He never went too far so the Left only has the 10 questionable acts that may allow for impeachment but destined to die in Senate.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I was kind of disappointed that this new AG didn't take advantage of the trolling opportunity by declaring:
"We decided that going forward this will be referred to as the Mueller Matter"



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What impeachment??? Where the hell are you guys getting this?? He didn't do a damn thing wrong? So, educate me on this impeachment???



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: liliththedestroyer
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What impeachment??? Where the hell are you guys getting this?? He didn't do a damn thing wrong? So, educate me on this impeachment???


The Dems have enough seats in the House to initiate impeachment actions but I have my doubts it makes it out of the House even before it dies in Senate.

The counter balance will be if AG/IG will move forward with prosecuting bad actors at the same time.
edit on 19-4-2019 by PilSungMtnMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
You people are genuinely batsnip crazy. I used to feel sorry for you but this is just beyond sick at this stage.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
if evidence of aledged " impeachable offences " are so " clear " why is it that no democrat legislators are filing articles of impeachment ??? anyone ???????????



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

When one of the most vocal opostion to Trump needs to hedge on the subject


“So these are the overall conclusions. But let me just say to sum up and then I’ll be happy to go to your questions, as I said some time ago, whether these acts are criminal or not, whether the obstruction of justice was criminal or not, or whether these contacts were sufficiently elicit or not to rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy, they are unquestionably dishonest, unethical, immoral and unpatriotic and should be condemned by every American. That is not the subject of vindication. That’s the subject of condemnation. And that is how I think we should view the Mueller report." ~ Adam Schiff



It's hard to believe that aledged impeachable offences are so clear. Its Its clearly not clear to Adam Schiff.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
How can there be obstruction of Justice, when there was no underlying crime? How can you obstruct justice from a crime that was not committed?


You absolutely can.

For example, if they could show that Trump was convinced they were going to find out he (or someone connected to him) were going to get caught up in the investigation and that this was his intent in trying to stop the investigation, that'd be obstruction. Even if they cannot determine there was no crime committed.

If the cops show up with a warrant and you start hitting your electronic devices (or your roommate's) with a hammer, you can be charged with obstruction even if they stop you and recover the devices 100% intact and there is nothing incriminating on them. Because they can establish your motive was to impede the investigation. If the IRS audits your business and you burn all your bank statements and say you lost them, you may be charged even if they get the complete bank records from the bank and cannot determine there was an underlying crime.

They would just have to prove intent. That is extremely difficult without an underlying crime. You have to do something egregious to deliberately obstruct thr process or they'd have to show you thought you or someone else was guilty, and therefore tried to improperly inhibit the investigators from doing their job. Pretty hard to do that unless he's sending emails or a diary saying, "Dear diary, I'm afraid Jr or Jared was colluding with Russian agents and didn't tell me. I'm going to stop this investigation" or something. If that happened (even if they decided Jr and Jared never even talked to a single Russian, nevermind directly and knowingly colluded), they'd have what they need to charge him. They obviously don't have those emails or any other evidence, or they'd be on CNN and MSNBC 24/7. In this case, it's even harder because his Constitutional role is to oversee thrse agencies. It's his job to hire and fire FBI directors, etc How does one show his motive for firing was an improper one and not him just doing his job?



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: liliththedestroyer

I'll help educate ya. If I got off on negativity to orgasm uncontrollably if someone were to respond to the bait thrown out there, I will have achieved a goal.

ATS would be a better place with a block member feature and maybe attract better members.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




They would just have to prove intent. That is extremely difficult without an underlying crime. You have to do something egregious to deliberately obstruct thr process or they'd have to show you thought you or someone else was guilty, and therefore tried to improperly inhibit the investigators from doing their job. Pretty hard to do that unless he's sending emails or a diary saying, "Dear diary, I'm afraid Jr or Jared was colluding with Russian agents and didn't tell me. I'm going to stop this investigation" or something.


Or, you could have him on national TV telling Lester Holt that he fired Comey because of the Russia thing, and then find out he bragged to Russians in the oval office of how he fired that "nut job" and now he's relieved of all that pressure.

Just sayin....



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Firing Comey because he thought the whole "Russia thing" was a bull# political scam and a waste of resources (man power, time, money) is not improper intent. It is actually his job and part of his Constitutional role as Chief Executive. So I ask you for the fifth time, "how do you propose to show the firing was based on improper intent? Especially when they cannot demonstrate an underlying crime?"

There are completely legal, reasonable, and innocent alternative explanations of "the evidence" Mueller collects. Which is why he says they cannot make a prosecutorial judgement. That means, he doesn't have evidence to prove intent. Mueller says as much. Since the requirements necessitate corrupt intent, there is no demonstrated obstruction. There is no requirement to completely exonerate one's self. Otherwise you'd be convicted in any he said/she said situation.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Comey was fired before the "hoax" "witchhunt". According to Comey, Trump wanted him to drop the investigation into Flynn, and that wasn't a bull # investigation. Flynn was actually charged with some very serious crimes. But, Trump thought he was a good guy and should get away with it anyway. Trump also made it very clear that he believed that he was not a subject or target of the investigation, at the time he fired Comey.

According to Don McGahn, Trump didn't order Mueller's firing because it was a bull # investigation. He wanted Mueller fired for "conflict of interest". So, Trump wasn't arguing privilege to fire the special counsel to protect the country from a bull # investigation, he just didn't like Mueller.




top topics



 
36
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join