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.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse
As far as we ALL know, the DOJ has no policy of not prosecuting an ex first lady.
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: carewemust
I was investigated for robbing a bank. However I did not rob a bank and there is no evidence that I robbed a bank.
Durring the investigation
1. I told the investigator I saw no reason to answer his questions.
2. I told several friends of mine to tell the investigator to F-Off because their was no crime.
3. I tried several times to get the investigator fired for harrasing a US citizen over a crime I didn't commit when I knew the investigator had no evidence.
4. Durring the investigation I was a able to get one of the members on the team fired for gross negligence in handling the case.
5. No one actually listened to my angry rants and everyone including myself fully cooperated.
When did I obstruct justice?
You are saying Trump is a criminal because he was angry that a baseless and illegal investigation was going on and made some comments to people that were never acted upon.
I guess all we need to do to make you a criminal is to charge you with a crime you didn't commit and wait for you to make any angry statement that we can use against you as obstruction. What a f@#$ed up world that would be.
Hillary Clinton destroyed subpoenaed evidence.
These 2 cases have absolutely nothing in common and you making the accusation that somehow they are the same is actually quite disturbing and either disingenuous or slightly ignorant.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Isurrender73
Did you tell the chief of police to go on TV and lie to the american people? Did you yell at the chief about him not doing what you asked? Did you go on TV yourself and make fun of the chief? Mock his southern accent?
Did you tell a common citizen to go to that chief and try and convince that chief to support your cause... Or that nobody common citizen should fire him?
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler
So when trump told Corey Lowandowski to go to Jeff sessions and tell him to un recuse himself, then tell the special counsel to stop the investigation into his campaign and to only focus on "future election crimes"(???) he wasn't obstructing and that was not his intent?
How about when he called Lowandowski back into his office two weeks later and made the request a second time? This time adding that if Lowandowski couldn't convince Sessions then he (Lowandowski) should fire him ultimately making an end run around Don McGhan who had already refused to fire Mueller and had attempted to convince the president against his own Saturday night massacre? Was there intent in that?
Trumps biggest breaks came from the people who refused to do the crazy schitte he was asking them to do.
originally posted by: Isurrender73
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Isurrender73
Did you tell the chief of police to go on TV and lie to the american people? Did you yell at the chief about him not doing what you asked? Did you go on TV yourself and make fun of the chief? Mock his southern accent?
Did you tell a common citizen to go to that chief and try and convince that chief to support your cause... Or that nobody common citizen should fire him?
Remember I was innocent of the crime. So you want me to be charged with making angry rants because I was being falsely accused? How long should an innocent man spend in jail for getting angry about being dragged through an illegally started investegation?
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler
The dossier is real. That was not the reason they opened the investigation as outlined on page nine of volume I.
They are two different issues. And I have not been proven wrong as the dossier is not debunked. But I digress...
Mueller did what he needed to do. He left the prosecutorial action in the hands of congress with his statement about whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non criminal alternatives.
Prosecution elsewhere means outside the feds and after he is out of office.
through non criminal alternatives... well you know what that means.
I cannot copy paste the report from a PDF so I have to write out every quote I want to make. I dont mind... I type pretty fast if not accurately. LOL. But I have to hand write what I want to quote here. So I will tell you what page or what section my information is coming from so I do not have to write out large swaths of the report.
then you can look them up yourself. I am sure you have downloaded the report as well haven't you?
originally posted by: watchitburn
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Grambler
Trump was still wrong to tell people to lie...
If he weren't President it would be criminal. But he is, so it isn't.
originally posted by: links234
originally posted by: watchitburn
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.
...
Trump firing Comey because of 'the Russia thing' was obstruction of justice.
Trump telling his legal counsel to discredit Mueller was obstruction of Justice.
Trump telling Sessions to un-recuse himself to control the Mueller investigation and fire Rosenstein was obstruction of justice.
...
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: watchitburn
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.
Clinton's crimes actually happened.
Not according to the investigations.
That is what insufficient evidence to prosecute means.
The presumption is innocent until PROVEN guilty, and that hasn't been proven.