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: 24
36
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell



And Clearly Nobody Gives a Puck as Long as they are Making a Buck ..............Hmm.......






posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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 action.



Well you got this right. There is no evidence of corrupt intent. All the words and actions have alternative, and perfectly legal, explanations which do not require corrupt intent.




It's not really Barr's call to provide a psychiatric evaluation of Trump's state of mind ...

This is funny. Because you are 100% correct, but draw the wrong conclusion from it.

It is not a prosecutor or investigator's job to guess some one's intent. They are not professionally trained psychologists (although most investigators are quote good at aspects). They have to instead follow evidence of intent. And we've already concluded that his intent cannot be shown to "most likely" corrupt. There is insufficient evidence for that as you just suggested.

And because there is insufficient evidence of corrupt intent, there is also insufficient evidence of a crime having actually been committed.




... when he endeavored to obstruct justice. 

We have to determine his state of mind before we can conclude he endeavored to obstruct justice. Not the other way around...



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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 action.



Well you got this right. There is no evidence of corrupt intent. All the words and actions have alternative, and perfectly legal, explanations which do not require corrupt intent.




It's not really Barr's call to provide a psychiatric evaluation of Trump's state of mind ...

This is funny. Because you are 100% correct, but draw the wrong conclusion from it.

It is not a prosecutor or investigator's job to guess some one's intent. They are not professionally trained psychologists (although most investigators are quote good at aspects). They have to instead follow evidence of intent. And we've already concluded that his intent cannot be shown to "most likely" corrupt. There is insufficient evidence for that as you just suggested.

And because there is insufficient evidence of corrupt intent, there is also insufficient evidence of a crime having actually been committed.




... when he endeavored to obstruct justice. 

We have to determine his state of mind before we can conclude he endeavored to obstruct justice. Not the other way around...




[W]hen Sessions told the president that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm #ed."

Take your pick of links

Intent on Obstruction is clear.

Also...he said during his campaign that he would release his tax returns. Now he is suing to prevent that.

Innocent my proverbial ass.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




We have to determine his state of mind before we can conclude he endeavored to obstruct justice. Not the other way around...


Ah, white privilege.
Any other person....



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Samanth9956

I did not say he was innocent. I said they don't have a preponderance of evidence of his intent, and thus of a crime. That's their own words regarding obstruction, not my mine.



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... Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. 


If you think that "intent on obstruction is clear", then you disagree with the Mueller team's conclusion.

That's okay for you to do, but I'm going to dismiss your opinion in favour of that of the investigators involved.

You can still think he's guilty or not be convinced of his innocence. That's fair.

In law, it would be termed "reasonable suspicion". It's a legal standard or threshold. One slightly better grounded than a hunch. It is a lower threshold than "probable cause" and "preponderance of evidence" . And much lower than "beyond reasonable doubt".

The Mueller team does not say "we have a preponderance of evidence of corrupt intent and would indict if we could." They say, "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..."

They don't have a preponderance of evidence of corrupt intent, but aren't confident he did not have it either.

But after two years you don't have a preponderance of evidence that it was even "more likely than not", then you really don't have any actual, unambiguous and credible and actionable evidence. That doesn't mean "no evidence" or that a reasonable person might not be convinced of his innocence. It's certainly not a "complete exoneration" or whatever the WH take was. But it's a dead end legally speaking. We are still afforded a presumption of innocence in this country.

You can hope Congress finds something in it's investigation, but I doubt the Administration is going to roll over and produce like they did for the Special Counsel's investigation. They'll exert Executive Privilege at every step because as far as they and half the country is concerned, it's over. They have nothing actionable after two years.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert




We have to determine his state of mind before we can conclude he endeavored to obstruct justice. Not the other way around...


Ah, white privilege.
Any other person....

Ha

No, it's sort of the law for this situation. Obama would be held to the same standard of "corrupt intent" because his office had constitutional powers that surpass those of you and I...



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 11:45 PM
link   
A few words of advice which will likely be ignored... STOP rotting your brain on CNN left wing-nut propaganda nonsense. It's nothing but a war for your mind and judging by the OP 'they' have won.







posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert




We have to determine his state of mind before we can conclude he endeavored to obstruct justice. Not the other way around...


Ah, white privilege.
Any other person....

And here come the racist remarks
Way to stoop to skin color
Wow



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert




We have to determine his state of mind before we can conclude he endeavored to obstruct justice. Not the other way around...


Ah, white privilege.
Any other person....

And here come the racist remarks
Way to stoop to skin color
Wow



So What?

I like people.

Why don't you?



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert




We have to determine his state of mind before we can conclude he endeavored to obstruct justice. Not the other way around...


Ah, white privilege.
Any other person....


And there it is! Your lack of any valuable rebuttal point and you reach for the racist card.

Poorly played, since we can Trump that card.





posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, you are partly right since Obama is half white..on the side that raised him.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

When did Obama ever use the defense that he was too triggered by wrongful persecution to be indicted of crime? When did anyone defend Obama from criminal prosecution by saying his intent was not corrupt.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

White Privilege: The idea that just by virtue of being a white person of any kind, you’re part of the dominant group which tends to be respected, assumed the best of, and given the benefit of the doubt.

That just isn’t the case for people of other races, no matter how wealthy,...


You all are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt based on his privileged status, of a rich white man. "He's too rich to be corrupt! He couldn't have had corrupt intent in obstructing investigations into his campaign and his finances...he's one of us!"

Central Park Five, anyone? Where was there benefit of the doubt when Trump said "they must be guilty of something", after they were exonerated of murder?





edit on 24-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Eric Holder.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Can you point out the legal principle showing that presumption of innocence is only for white people?


Are you manic? I've never once said Trump is too white and wealthy to be guilty. I haven't said he's innocent at all, actually. What IS clear is that the investigation did not establish criminality. That doesn't imply guilt or innocence. It means that all the evidence collected still doesn't meet any legal threshold beyond "suspicion" . And a reasonable suspicion is inadequate to indict, nevermind convict someone of a crime. The state must demonstrate probable criminality with evidence, not suspicions.

It has nothing to do with skin color. Persons of all colours have the same right to remain silent, not cooperate with investigators, and seek confidential legal counsel if they so choose.
edit on 24-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Eric Holder.


Citation required!



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert



Can you point out the legal principle showing that presumption of innocence is only for white people?


I can point to the disproportionate number of people of color arrested, incarcerated, accused and awaiting trial. I can point to criminal algorithms that target people of color based on their zip code.

I can point to a federal judge who ruled that poor disabused Paul Manafort lived an otherwise spotless life, other than his money laundering and other recent seedy criminal indictments.





edit on 24-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Krakatoa

White Privilege: The idea that just by virtue of being a white person of any kind, you’re part of the dominant group which tends to be respected, assumed the best of, and given the benefit of the doubt.

That just isn’t the case for people of other races, no matter how wealthy,...


You all are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt based on his privileged status, of a rich white man. "He's too rich to be corrupt! He couldn't have had corrupt intent in obstructing investigations into his campaign and his finances...he's one of us!"

Central Park Five, anyone? Where was there benefit of the doubt when Trump said "they must be guilty of something", after they were exonerated of murder?






So, again, you are telling me what I think and what I will decide? Really Mr. Wizard?

I don't give a furry rats backside what color ANYONE is for any decisions I make. Perhaps you see that, and that says more about you than anything else, since you bring it up all the time here. I honor the innocent until proven guilty, for everyone. I may have not liked the past president because of his failed policies and how they negatively affected me. But I am not so delusional to think it was because the type of pigment in the color of his skin didn't match my own. He is still a human, as am I and you.

How does being a racists feel when you look in the mirror?

Personally, I wouldn't know.

edit on 4/24/2019 by Krakatoa because: fixed spelling errors



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I guess if you cannot actually show Trump committed a crime, you can always fall back on Trump's "white privilege" as basis for impeachment...


This place is a riot.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Eric Holder.


Citation required!

Ahahahaha
The ONLY AG held in contempt by congress
And barak used PRIVILEGE to get him out of trouble

Wow



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join