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: 22
36
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Page 18 of the Mueller report



You really should read it if you want to continue the conversation.

Oh no.... I have a few pages of notes sitting in front of me too.
what kind of monster am I???




posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Lol

No collusion
No obstruction

Its over
Much like the 16 election
Just bad losers left



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Pages and pages of testimony and evidence that Mueller says he sought to preserve...
for later.

2800 subpoenas
500 search and seizure warrants.
Hundreds of witnesses

I didnt see innuendo listed. What page did you read that on?



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Did you miss the written responses, millions of documents, zero assertions of privilege and official policy of cooperation?

Or how about his voluntary release of the Mueller report, zero assertions of privilege?

Or the now-TWO federal investigations that have found no evidence of conspiracy and no link to Russia



Read the report. Its all in there.


Oh I did, all 450 something pages of it. We had a "post collusion" party here, I kid you not.

You need to re-read the report, because Mueller in no way said folks were covering up evidence and obstructing the investigation. 1) This is why he reached his conclusion and 2) This is why no Americans were indicted for obstruction, destruction of evidence or any sort of connection to Russia's alleged conspiracy.

Keep digging yourself in deeper, here's a shovel



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That is a quote from the report. Well I cant copy and paste a PDF but I made notes while I was reading it.
Its around the very beginning of volume I.

No one read it did they?



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

well thats why I included the second part you chose to ignore.

Im not playing with you anymore... you are a cheater.

See ya round...



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


2800 subpoenas
500 search and seizure warrants.
Hundreds of witnesses


She finally admits it

2800 subpoenas
500 search and seizure warrants.
Hundreds of witnesses

And in all that, over 2 years, no evidence supporting a conspiracy, connections to Russia's conspiracy or obstruction was found

And

www.nytimes.com...

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

He's been cleared by 2 federal investigations. One of which was lead by virulent pro-clinton agents who had a professed and demonstrated bias against Trump. And STILL nothing was found. Clean as a whistle



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

That was absolutely not a quote from the report. You made it up. Take a screen shot or cite the page/paragraph

If that was, then you must believe Mueller derelicted his duty because *THAT* is obstruction of justice AND destruction of evidence (You know, those things hillary did)

Explain why no staffers, family members, etc. were charged if that was case? Explain why POTUS himself wouldn't be charged, if that were the case?
edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You calling someone a cheater is rich
No its just silly
Like the rest of your imaginary posts

Trump won
You lost
Again




edit on 21/4/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Wrong

Here is physical page 18:


U.S. Department of Justice
Atten'ley Werk Predttet /,' Ma:,· Cet'itaifl: Mct1:erial reteeted Uneer Fee. R. Criffl.
P.
6Ee)
I.
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL S INVESTIGATION
On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein-then serving as Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation following the recusal of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions on March 2, 2016-appointed the Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters. Office of the Deputy Att'y Gen., Order No. 3915-2017,
Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters
May 17, 2017) ( Appointment Order ). Relying on the authority vested in the Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§
509, 510, and 515, the Acting Attorney General ordered the appointment of a Special Counsel in order to discharge [the Acting Attorney General's] responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Appointment Order (introduction). The Special Counsel, the Order stated, is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: ' (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R.
§
600.4(a). Appointment Order
,r
b). Section 600.4 affords the Special Counsel the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses. 28 C.F.R.
§
600.4(a). The authority to investigate any matters that arose ... directly from the investigation, Appointment Order
,r
b)(ii), covers similar crimes that may have occurred during the course of the FBI's confirmed investigation before the Special Counsel's appointment.
If
the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Order further provided, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
Id.
r
. Finally, the Acting Attorney General made applicable Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Id.
,r
d). The Acting Attorney General further clarified the scope of the Special Counsel's investigatory authority in two subsequent memoranda. A memorandum dated August 2, 2017, explained that the Appointment Order had been worded categorically in order to permit its public release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals.
It
then confirmed that the Special Counsel had been authorized since his appointment to investigate allegations that three Trump campaign officials-Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and George Papadopoulos- committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. The memorandum also confirmed the Special Counsel's authority to investigate certain other matters, including two additional sets of allegations involving Manafort (crimes arising from payments he received from the Ukrainian government and crimes arising from his receipt of loans


Titled page 18 is entirely redacted.

Try again, come on silly you are slipping

qz.com...



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

That is a quote from the report. Well I cant copy and paste a PDF but I made notes while I was reading it.
Its around the very beginning of volume I.

No one read it did they?


😄😃😀



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Not ignoring anything, you posted something you clearly pulled out of your posterior.

The quoted text DOES-NOT appear in the report. Not on *actual* page 18 (in physical order from the beginning) or *titled* page 18. It does not appear ANYWHERE in the report. Trust me, it is trivial to search for words and phrases and what you wrote IS-NOT-THERE

You made it up!

FYI, you can copy/paste from here: qz.com...

I'll wait
edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



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

Not the first time that one is involved in falsehoods.
That one is quite disingenuous.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Dfairlite

Well in fact that is part of the contention here.
Mueller said he couldn't nail down anything because the staff lied, destroyed evidence, deleted data pled the fifth and said they didn't remember.
Mueller said it was impossible to get a straight answer. That was early on in the report like page 18
but it also says in the introduction of volume II that prosecution could potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.


Calling absolute BS on this

"destroyed" appears ZERO TIMES in the report

He never said the staff lied, either. Hence why nobody was charged with obstruction

Here is what it actually says


Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records.


This absolutely does not imply any sort of guilty or wrong-doing. The communications in question were *not* subject to a search warrant or subpoena, and as it points out the applications are either 1) encrypted or 2) does not retain data long-term. This is not wilful obstruction, it is not destruction of evidence nor does the report ALLEGE such

You need to stop twisting facts into your own BS narrative.


And here's more Silly, it does NOT say this prevented or obstructed any investigative avenues. It merely says he can't "rule out" and well I can't "rule out" lots of things, but investigations are about what you can prove not what you think or what you can't "rule out".


Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.


That is ALL it says about those "gaps" nothing about lying, destruction of evidence or anything else.

You. Invented. That.


Mueller said it was impossible to get a straight answer.


He most certainly did not. He said no such thing, another invention.

Here's a good example of how "Rachel's REE'ers" fight this information war:

They will cherry pick something and then twist/contort it to fit a specific narrative or confirm their belief. Here's an example: "The lawn looks nice, but the ground is subsiding a bit" and they will twist/contort/lie to say this "The ground is sinking, their must be a secret Human/Alien base below"

The dishonesty, delusion, cognitive dissonance and sheer cult-like religious beliefs that go into these blatant and intentional misrepresentations of facts are alarming. By all means, keep doubling down... you are making this easy.

Consider your assertions debunked. Hoaxer.

edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



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

It is absolutely ridiculous. At least half that paragraph was INVENTED by the individual in question, and quoted PLUS labeled as "Mueller said"

Damnit he said no such thing!

The falsehoods and intentionally misleading "water muddying" tactics being used is disgusting. I will make it my life's mission to call these liars out and expose them for what they are

Glad to see so many others here doing the same

edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

It is pitiful
They could just take their crow like a normsl person
But no
Iies lies lies

The bad orange man best them



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

It truly is pitiful

When normal folks are wrong about something, like you said, we eat our hearty helping of crow. At the very least, we have the decency and self-respect to apologize for mistakes or at least recognize them

These people, OTOH, do nothing but double down, grasp straws, invent facts out of thin air and clutch their pearls when you dare to dispute their lying BS.




posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Willtell

How can one "obstruct justice" when there was no crime to be prosecuted of coming out of the final, unobstructed investigation? That seems about as logical as saying someone who claimed innocence when being checked for drug possession "resisted arrest" after discovery they had zero drugs on them.


It makes it even dumber to do so. So either the President is really dumb or he was very afraid of what would be found. A smart, innocent man would have simply let the investigation run its course as they would have nothing to hide or be afraid of.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Except the manufacture of lies, which upon this investigation was based. If you sit back and not challenge the lies, and declare your innocence, then expect to be railroaded.

That is how politics works, ALL politicians lies, cheat, and manipulate the media to gain/retain power. Just so happens, the POTUS is not a career politician, and therefore, actually tried to defend himself from baseless lies.

I am sure you would do the same.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: shooterbrody

It is absolutely ridiculous. At least half that paragraph was INVENTED by the individual in question, and quoted PLUS labeled as "Mueller said"

Damnit he said no such thing!

The falsehoods and intentionally misleading "water muddying" tactics being used is disgusting. I will make it my life's mission to call these liars out and expose them for what they are

Glad to see so many others here doing the same

Well done, I commend you on your diligence.


The nonsense spewed from these gov tools reminds me of my kids when they would get diarrhea as babies. Such a horrendous smell and a mess that never knew when to stop.




top topics



 
36
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join