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: 20
36
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Still trying to figure out what "justice" Trump obstructed.
Can anyone help an old man out!


I hope Dems can drum up an impeachable offense quickly, and come at America's successful President with all the hate they can muster!




posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

If there's no crime, then there can be no obstruction, to that which doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Grambler

I see a lot of mentions of OrangeManBad and TrumpDerangementSyndrome but you all seem to take it to another level with this obsession with Hillary Clinton who is still not in prison and will never be in prison.


I don’t care if Hillary is in prison

I care that the same people saying trumps tweets equal obstruction also say Hillary deleting subpoenaed emails was not obstruction

People who claim that are not to be taken seriously

No matter how hard many of us try and spell it out for them, they don’t get it and won’t. It’s futile to even continue trying it seems.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

LOL, no he's not. Not even close. It's sad how predictable and pathetically partisan you guys are.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

It's tricky. I mean, if you successfully destroy evidence of a crime that is obstruction of justice even if they can't prove the underlying crime. But that's not the contention here, the contention is that by badmouthing the investigation he was obstructing justice. Which is asinine.

Trump complied well beyond his required cooperation and if you think he obstructed justice you're just a partisan hack.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Willtell

"The president engaged in... conduct involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both private and public to encourage witnesses not cooperate with the investigation"

This statement has not appeared anywhere in the Mueller report.

Not exactly but this did:

"The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government. Judgments about the nature of the President’s motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence."
Vol 2, page 158


Oh noooos! He proclaimed his innocence publically. Grasp at straws much lol.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Destroyed Evidence, Coaching witnesses, NDA's I have to say...whatever side of the political spectrum you have seemingly reached the Bottom Of The Barrel supplied to you via Corpocracy/Militocracy ... I believe it's time you put these dregs in the sluice and found yourselves some decent human beings without a past that reeks of shame and corruption.


p.s or do you think you're not worthy?
edit on 21-4-2019 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Daily beast?


justice.gov is a better source

And they concluded there was no conspiracy or obstruction. Your post is factually wrong, he is clearly NOT guilty of obstruction or conspiracy (you all touted "collusion" 24/7/365 - move the goal posts some more why don't you). Just as FBI determined already on 10/31/2016
edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
You think that secretly working as an agent for the Turkish government, and plotting to kidnap an exiled American national cleric, to take him back to Turkey to be tortured and murdered is a bull # charge?

Yes, it was a bull# charge (meaning, bogus, aka, 'not true')...



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Bob Mueller's report stated that no entity interfered with his investigation. It progressed normally, as planned.

Not the point I was making.

I have heard numerous times from numerous people that there can't be obstruction, because there was no collusion.

Just because the underlying reason for the investigation turned out to be bogus - aka 'No Collusion' - does not automatically mean that there can be no obstruction charge.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Oh noooos! He proclaimed his innocence publically. Grasp at straws much lol.

Grasp at straws? You say that as if I'm one of the TDS sufferers.

I merely pointed out that, even though the exact words didn't show up in the report as described, the essence of it did, and more.

I understand it's all bull# put in there solely to give the radical dems more fodder for their lunatic grist, but, it is in the report.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I'm hoping they take their time and get it right.
BTW
The justice he obstructed was trying to get the Mueller investigation stopped.
Why this needs to be said more than once I will never know.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician


If there's no crime, then there can be no obstruction, to that which doesn't exist.


Wrong. Trying to stop or interfere with the investigation was all it took.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Which trump never did.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

Pg 18 Volume I where it talks about the trump admin deleting e mails and texts and data.
Or lied...made statements inconsistent with known facts.
Or plead the fifth. Or simply didn't remember.
Remember when Clintons staff did that and how horrible you all thought it was?
Now? What do you think of the behavior?



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

The did not conclude that. It is clear that Mueller gave congress the road map they need.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

He did nothing for Congress. There was no assurance Congress would get the report or a summary. The only way they were legally entitled to be informed is if they were required to take action.

Unlike Ken Starr, Mueller was a DOJ Special Counsel. The law creating independent prosecutors was not renewed after the Clinton debacle in the 90's

Mueller worked for the DOJ, and was bound by department policy regarding Special Counsels to investigate the matter, bring allegations before a grand jury and determine whether or not indictment/impeachment was warranted for POTUS.

This was not a road map for congress, Mueller didn't "punt" to congress and they are not entitled to see anything other than the conclusions. Fortunately, in an act of transparency, Barr chose to release the report 95%+ unredacted.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


The did not conclude that.


Actually they did. Denying it won't change the reality, but it makes you look pretty silly that you would.

The conclusions are as follow: No charges for conspiracy, no charges for obstruction, decision not to charge is not based on Article II concerns or the DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President.

Factually, provably, those are the conclusions of the 2 year investigation.

Same as the conclusion to FBI's 2016 investigation: www.nytimes.com...

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

You were saying?

In the real world, Mueller failed to prove "conspiracy" (what you falsely called "collusion") and he failed to prove obstruction. Here in the non-communist USA, that means he is not guilty. He is not formally or informally even accused of committing either of these crimes. For you to claim otherwise is a blatant lie, and I'm really shocked ATS puts up with blatant hoaxing

No person could possibly be this deep in denial.
edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust



Bob Mueller's report stated that no entity interfered with his investigation. It progressed normally, as planned.

That statement was in regards to whether he was influenced or pressured by William Barr or any other government official. Not outsiders.
Not in the obstruction of justice "matter" that they were faced with.
And it was not in the report it was in the introduction of the report. To keep things completely clear.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


Pg 18 Volume I where it talks about the trump admin deleting e mails and texts and data.


Maybe it was just "The personal" he deleted. I bet you're all happy you set that precedent with shillary


Or lied...made statements inconsistent with known facts.


AKA denied allegations made by known liars. To someone like you, this means he denied "colluding" with the Russians while your precious liberal hack media was baselessly and maliciously accusing him of this. In silly world, apparently denying allegations by bitter sore losers is equal to lying? How dare he defend himself



Or plead the fifth. Or simply didn't remember.


As you said, pleaded the 5th. The 5th amendment is a protection afforded to all Citizens. And you want to criminalize not remembering? Clapper, Brennan, Comey and every other Obama-admin pig would be in irons in that case... they were the kings of "Uhh, uhm, I don't recall, in my recollection, to the best of my knowledge, in my opinion"


Remember when Clintons staff did that and how horrible you all thought it was?
Now? What do you think of the behavior?


Wasn't just her staff, it was hillary also. But you all set the precedent that it was OK behavior, so not only are you going to stick to that but we will too. If she ends up in Leavenworth, then we can take a second look at this. Until then, the matter is irrelevant (since we don't have double standards/two legal systems)

Enjoy that bed you all made
edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join