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: 23
36
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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?


All f them. All Mueller did was leave the barn door open. There's nothing in there. Anyone can have a subpoena issued by lying to the courts.

Sideshow Bob started under the biased premise that trump or hell, somebody associated with trump, was guilty of something, somehow, somewhere and ole' Sideshow Bob was going to make it up, er, I mean find it. Problem is, he found all kinds if democrat collusion and obstruction and ignored it.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/21.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns

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


The MSMmobs and the SM Trolls are doing the same thing to make unsuspecting people think their way.

Their way is a dirty way.

They're guilty of sourceery 😕



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: JBurns

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

The MSMmobs and the SM Trolls are doing the same thing to make unsuspecting people think their way.

Their way is a dirty way.

They're guilty of sourceery 😕

They should be banned for their constant and blatant lying to forum members, it's become rather pathetic. Pre mud-pit days this place used to be all about denying ignorance, now it seems to be embraced by many.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Its over. Trump will be on the 2020 ticket. The Senate will not convict on whatever may make it out of the House. POTUS/AG/IG are clear to go on the offensive if they so desire.

Next 18 months;

- replace RBG
- lock some BO era DOJ peeps up
- keep confirming the large number of judges
- Watch Dem primaries eating popcorn
- finalize China deal



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan


- replace RBG
- lock some BO era DOJ peeps up
- keep confirming the large number of judges
- Watch Dem primaries eating popcorn
- finalize China deal


A roadmap of my dreams


Meanwhile, the bitter clingers will keep rambling on about "collusion" or something or another, and we can keep snickering



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
CLEARLY guilty?

My, my...when did no evidence become clear guilt??

Two years, several millions of dollars, no evidence brought forth, or even leaked, yet Trump is CLEARLY guilty? This is quite the fantasy you've built here.




posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Not to beat a dead horse,

but not only are almost all people on ats and in the public in general (politicians, media people) that are certain of obstruction the same people that pushed the Russia collusion lie

But they are also the exact same people that do not think hillarys team destroying subpoenaed was obstruction.

In both the case of the collusion lie and the hillarys team destroying evidence, they constantly ignore when it is brought up



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If they ignore it, it'll go away, of course.

The fantasy of Trump collusion is much more important than Clinton's destruction of evidence...duh.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull




My, my...when did no evidence become clear guilt??


Why are you saying that there is "no evidence" of obstruction. That certainly isn't what the Mueller report says.


edit on 22-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Can anybody guess what is different today?
Mueller is unemployed.

it is over



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
www.thedailybeast.com...




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.”


Anybody else acting like this WOULD BE IN JAIL!

Trump publicly and privately, in clear contempt of the administration of justice committed the crime of obstruction of justice. Anyone saying otherwise, such a AG Barr is either totally partisan or a fool. We know Barr is partisan so we can conclude conclusively Trump is a criminal. The only thing is that Mueller didn’t have the guts to say what every sane person can see clearly that Trump committed illegal obstruction of justice crimes, even worse than Richard Nixon.



…when the redacted report was finally released to the public, it outlined 10 episodes of possible obstruction of justice by Trump, including: ordering James Comey to drop the FBI investigation into national security advisor Michael Flynn; directing the White House counsel to fire Mueller; dictating a message to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the Mueller probe; telling witnesses publicly not to cooperate; having Cohen not contradict him in congressional testimony about Trump Tower Moscow; trying to hide emails exposing Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with Russians for “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.


Bottom line, it is clear, along with many other impeachable acts, Donald Trump alone for the federal crime of Obstruction of Justice should be impeached!


And they come to that conclusion where Mueller was allowed to say anything he wanted and not be held accountable.

There are two parts to the deal. The legal part where Mueller had to be completely honest with, Was there Collusion with the Russians? Answer. NO. Not even one smidgen.

The part where he was allowed to put Anything else and not be held to it by law, insert the typical democrat diatribe.

Lets not forget the Daily Beast has already FLAT OUT LIED ABOUT TRUMP BEFORE!!!!

The Clinton's have blood on their hands let alone billions worth in deals with the Russians, that we already know about. They should be tossed on their faces, in a federal supermax prison for life and you think Trump obstructed this HOAX of an investigation?

No, he let the Idiot Democrats and their pals hang themselves. Hopefully we will see some Judges with Guts rise up and demand some people pay the piper real soon. That or they can just disappear. I will settle for either at this point.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: seagull




My, my...when did no evidence become clear guilt??


Why are you saying that there is "no evidence" of obstruction. That certainly isn't what the Mueller report says.



Mueller is the same ass who was running the FBI, when he helped get the FISA warrant against the Trump Campaign, during the election!!!

Mueller is covering his butt because he knows he is in serious trouble, for lying to FISA and using the Fake memo, that was originally wrote in 2007 lol. They used White Out and wrote in Trumps men so they could spy on the Trump Campaign for Hillary.

This is what the whole thing is about, they thought it would all go away after she won, they never thought in a million years that Trump would win. He did and thanks to a Patriot, Trump found out he was being spied on days after so they came up with this whole Russia investigation to keep him from having them all arrested.

The Dems know their days are numbered and its going to be a thousand times bigger than Watergate because they talked of Article 25. Thats a Coup!!!



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because there is, how do I say this so you'll understand, none?

None, as in, well, none. Zero. Zilch.

The Speaker of the House, who is no fan of Trumps--obviously--has said there will be no impeachment proceedings at this time...or words to that effect. Translated into English from politispeak, means "Curses, foiled again!"... Damned meddling kids.

But, fear not...Orange man is in office for another two years--minimum...so there's still time to make up more fallacious charges.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull




Because there is, how do I say this so you'll understand, none?


Well, that's not what the Mueller report says.

The Mueller report outlined 11 cases, presented as evidence of obstruction of justice. So, there's evidence.

The Mueller report explains that, they would if they could, but his office is unable to clear Trump of obstruction charges, but can't indict him either, because of DOJ policy. The Mueller report refers the matter to the constitutional authority of Congress.

So, your claim that there is zero, zilch, is erroneous, incorrect, false.


edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It says they cannot conclude a crime was committed. It does not say, "we would have decided to indict, but we cannot because of the OLC's policy ". It says we cannot conclude a crime was committed.

It does review the OLC's policy regarding Presidential Indictment in the opening when it discusses the legal principles they used as a foundation for and to guide their investigation.

The standard for a indictment is a preponderance of evidence. It means more likely than not. After two years, they cannot say it is more likely than not that a crime was committed.

They cannot say he's innocent, but they cannot demonstrate a crime more likely than not was committed. So there is ambiguous evidence that might tend to incriminate him. That's true. It is not "zerp evidence". That's true. They say they are not confident enough in his innocence to say, "he definitely didn't do this". But the total of evidence is still insufficient to say it a crime was even more likely than not. The legal standard in this country is not, "we need to be convinced you did not commit a crime".

You're placing a lot of hope on a house built on shifting sand if you believe the things you are saying.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert



It says they cannot conclude a crime was committed.


That's not what the report said.


“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,” the report continues. “However, we are unable to reach that judgment.




The standard for a indictment is a preponderance of evidence.


That's the standard for conviction, not for indictment. There is no standard for indicting a sitting president, because the DOJ policy is that you don't.



They cannot say he's innocent, but they cannot demonstrate a crime more likely than not was committed.


Mueller demonstrated that a crime, more than likely was committed 11 times.



They say they are not confident enough in his innocence to say, "he definitely didn't do this".


According to the report, Trump definitely did those things. Even Barr isn't arguing that Trump didn't do the things listed in the report. Barr is arguing that Trump did them out of frustration, and therefore, didn't have corrupt intent. He was just a trigged snowflake! That's the defense.

edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert



It says they cannot conclude a crime was committed.


That's not what the report said.


“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,” the report continues. “However, we are unable to reach that judgment.




Yeah. After acknowledging they cannot resolve intent in the previous sentence, and the next sentence says they cannot conclude a crime was committed. Do you suffer from problems with reading comprehension or are you deliberately trying to mislead?



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. 






That's the standard for conviction, not for indictment.


*sigh*
No, that's the standard for indictment. "More likely than not". "Preponderance of evidence" . They cannot meet it according to the report.
For a conviction they'd need to establish a crime was committed "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's much more difficult.




According to the report, Trump definitely did those things. 

He definitely did things. He did not "definitely" commit a crime by doing those things. That whole intent, preponderance of evidence thing. Which is why they admit "...this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime... ", but they aren't sure he is innocent either...

WWW.RIF.ORG
edit on 23-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

That;s all just the things sore losers would say, where you were kind of quoting the left's current propaganda flavor of the day.

When a person is found not to be guilty based on no evidence found of a crime, he/she CANNOT at the same time be also "not really known to be innocent". (This kind of BS is what the democrat party of Trump hating neanderthals fall back on when they lose.)

No evidence either way means NOT GUILTY. That's how the legal system works.

A prosecutor in a court is never going to say: "Your Honor, we recommend dismissal because we have no evidence any crime was committed, but we aren't really sure there was no crime committed."

The last part if spoken in court would invoke serious wrath from the judge upon the prosecution.

And all of the above example is based on prior charges actually progressing to a court hearing, which never happened with Trump, because there wasn't any evidence to even get to a beginning stage of a court case.

The only thing happening with this trash now is pure farce and character assassination because the special counsel was a wasted effort of BS.




posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Right. The legal system doesn't say "we're going to investigate you and prosecute until we're completely convinced you're innocent." Not when it's working anyway. Anybody think the jury was 100% convinced OJ was innocent?

Cops pulling you over and jailing you indefinitely. "Sorry, bub, the bank downtown was robbed and we havent eliminated the possibility it might have been you yet. As sure as we're convinced it wasn't you, we'll let you out".
edit on 23-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

There is no evidence, or preponderance thereof, of Trump's intent and whether or not it was corrupt. There is only evidence of his words and actions. It's not really Barr's call to provide a psychiatric evaluation of Trump's state of mind when he endeavored to obstruct justice.

The matter of Trump's corruption falls to Congress and its constitutional authority to determine presidential high crimes and misdemeanors.
edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join