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.

 

Hillary and Trump Deemed Guilty - But Not Guilty Enough To Warrant Prosecution.

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
a reply to: chr0naut

A security breach is external interference and is a completely separate issue from what Hillary did (ie. intentional removal/transfer of classified information) . You do not have to show intent for mishandling classified information to be subject to the penalties. I literally work with FSOs on this daily. You are intentionally misinformed and spreading it. The "intent" factor was something Comey made up on the fly to save Hillary's butt, and it's so prevalent in the news that most people believe it is a requirement.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook


Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.



You have just been trying to convince me that intent is not necessary to convict, in the case of the DNC emails and now, in your first sentence, you are defining her crimes as being intentional (highlighted above).

Then, in the next sentence, you reiterate your initial argument that intent is not necessary to prosecute.

Surely your prior argument was entirely spurious if she had intent and you are now contradicting yourself freely.

You also seem to have forgotten that to retain secrecy, she was supposed to remove any secret information from a place of potentially insecure access.

Thank you your honor, you rest my case.





posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Artemis12

After listening to liberal media today, I sense that Mueller worded the Obstruction section the way he did, in order to cause Democrats to fight each other.

"To impeach or not to impeach", is now one more thing causing Democrats to fight each other. The "Green New Deal", and the America/Israel hating Muslim Congressladies are another flash point within the party.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: carewemust
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.


I'm not comparing the CASES. I'm drawing an analogy between how two prosecutors (Comey / Mueller) treated the person under investigation. Both said offenses were committed, and Both declined prosecute.

If you re-read the original post, that should become clear to you.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I make my threads too simple for you complicated thinkers, LOL.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You can't charge someone with Obstruction if they, or their employees, didn't carry through on the request.

Bob Mueller himself said in his report that the investigation was not obstructed, or interfered with, by any person.

But I hope Democrats whip up some charges and come full-bore at President Trump with Impeachment hearings. I'm sure most Democrats in America have no higher priority in their cushy pampered lives, than to see a successful U.S. President Impeached.

Due to the Senate being Republican controlled, Impeachment won't happen, but Democrats will waste 2 years in trying!

GOOD STUFF for REPUBLICANS in 2020.




posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat
That was one of the weirdest posts I’ve ever read. I won’t lie... it was completely unintelligible. Was that drunk typing ?🥴

edit on 21-4-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Sorry, can you direct us to where mueller says trumps crimes happened? What crimes specifically? With all the coverage of this I think that would be top news for everyone "mueller says trumps crimes happened"

I am waiting for that headline on CNN still.
a reply to: carewemust



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


You mean, not according to the claims by the pro-Clinton lawyers in Mueller's probe...

Fact is Trump, or his campaign managers didn't collude with Russia. As for "obstruction"?... First of all it is clear to anyone honest enough to admit it that democrats/liberals will continue their attempts at "finding anything" against POTUS Trump...

The investigation was supposed to be about "Collusion with Russia," but the left, including their puppet Mueller went after anything and everything they could "investigate."

When Bill Clinton was investigated over the Monica Lewinsky's affair in the White House, did the investigation include all business transactions that Bill, Hillary, and their family and friends were involved in?...

Did that investigation on Bill Clinton included using LIES from the Russians, the Chinese or others who have been enemies of the U.S.?

Even the left admits Russia wanted to affect our elections... Guess what?... YOU FELL FOR THE RUSSIAN LIES, and most of the left don't want to let go of your bias and of the lies...

It is only logical that POTUS Trump would try to limit the investigation, because it would become, as we are seeing it, into a never ending investigation simply because the left, and the globalists do not want their political opposition in power...





edit on 22-4-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Artemis12

After listening to liberal media today, I sense that Mueller worded the Obstruction section the way he did, in order to cause Democrats to fight each other.

"To impeach or not to impeach", is now one more thing causing Democrats to fight each other. The "Green New Deal", and the America/Israel hating Muslim Congressladies are another flash point within the party.


Mueller is not a friend to POTUS Trump, he is a friend of the democrats which it's why he chose pro-Clinton lawyers Instead of choosing non biased people, or at least half pro-Clinton and half pro-Trump lawyers. No, instead he chose to select all pro-Clinton lawyers for the witch hunt.




edit on 22-4-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I believe that's the conclusion they'd like us to draw, but I'll explain why trump didn't obstruct justice.

First, there is no criminal statute that says badmouthing investigators or talking about firing them is obstruction (in fact, it would probably be easier to get a corruption charge out of firing investigators). Look it up, it's chapter 73 in the US code. All other points must first overcome this hurdle, which they cannot.

Second, in proving obstruction the prosecution must show that the intent of the accused was to prevent justice from being lawfully executed. This is not possible for them to prove against trump. All of his badmouthing and anger from this investigation stemmed from a place of innocence. Furthermore, he cooperated extensively with the probe.

Third, some will object to the above and say "you can have obstruction without an underlying crime being found!" which is somewhat true. Yes, you can. For example, if you burn the evidence of your crime that is obstruction of justice, (that's section 1519). However, see my first point.

Now hillary, on the other hand, clearly broke at least a dozen laws. CLEARLY, meaning she satisfied ALL of the requirements for prosecution. One of the offenses she dodged, and shouldn't have, is obstruction of justice (from witness tampering to destruction of evidence to retaliation against witnesses). Then there is the espionage act which she stomped all over.

So don't give in to such absurd comparisons. They are NOT apples to apples.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Furthermore, he cooperated extensively with the probe.


Most everything you wrote is incorrect and I explained why two pages ago. The bit I quoted above though...how is sending more than 30 written responses of mostly "I don't remember" and "I don't recall" considered cooperating extensively?

Mind you, Mueller asked Trump for an interview back in December of 2017. Trump's response? Written answers in November of 2018. Sure, he's a busy guy. He's the President of the United States of America. He's also spent nearly 25% of his presidency either golfing or at a golf course. You're telling me he couldn't find some extra time to thoroughly, and to the best of his ability, respond to questions from one of the, figuratively, biggest federal investigations in decades? The same man who spends, roughly, four hours sleeping per night? The best he can come up with is, "I don't remember" 11 months after the requested interview?

Finally, these were questions specifically related to Russian contacts prior to and during the 2016 election. Why? Because Trump's lawyers refused to allow their client to answer anything else. Again, hardly 'cooperating extensively.'



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Next time you are arrested, and the police wants to question you, I hope you remember to never ask for a lawyer and respond to all the questions the police will ask you without a defendant being present...



edit on 22-4-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


You mean, not according to the claims by the pro-Clinton lawyers in Mueller's probe...

Fact is Trump, or his campaign managers didn't collude with Russia. As for "obstruction"?... First of all it is clear to anyone honest enough to admit it that democrats/liberals will continue their attempts at "finding anything" against POTUS Trump...

The investigation was supposed to be about "Collusion with Russia," but the left, including their puppet Mueller went after anything and everything they could "investigate."

When Bill Clinton was investigated over the Monica Lewinsky's affair in the White House, did the investigation include all business transactions that Bill, Hillary, and their family and friends were involved in?...

Did that investigation on Bill Clinton included using LIES from the Russians, the Chinese or others who have been enemies of the U.S.?

Even the left admits Russia wanted to affect our elections... Guess what?... YOU FELL FOR THE RUSSIAN LIES, and most of the left don't want to let go of your bias and of the lies...

It is only logical that POTUS Trump would try to limit the investigation, because it would become, as we are seeing it, into a never ending investigation simply because the left, and the globalists do not want their political opposition in power...


If there was possibly obstruction, was it something to do with the road rules? What reason was there to obstruct? What criminal charge must Trump have thought he was (allegedly) obstructing?

And remember, Trump said it was a witch hunt out to get him? Is there any evidence of that in the Mueller report?

Or is it like when he said that Mexico would pay for the wall?



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.


You mean, not according to the claims by the pro-Clinton lawyers in Mueller's probe...

Fact is Trump, or his campaign managers didn't collude with Russia.


Is that what the Mueller report actually said?


As for "obstruction"?... First of all it is clear to anyone honest enough to admit it that democrats/liberals will continue their attempts at "finding anything" against POTUS Trump...

The investigation was supposed to be about "Collusion with Russia,"


No, here is a link to the letter that appointed Mueller as Special Counsel.


but the left, including their puppet Mueller went after anything and everything they could "investigate."


Mueller stuck to his brief. There was no witch hunt. The conclusions of the report bear that out.


When Bill Clinton was investigated over the Monica Lewinsky's affair in the White House, did the investigation include all business transactions that Bill, Hillary, and their family and friends were involved in?...


Probably. Definitely in regard to gifts given.

Here's a link to the full text of the Starr Report.


Did that investigation on Bill Clinton included using LIES from the Russians, the Chinese or others who have been enemies of the U.S.?


The nature of the charges were not related to conspiracy with an enemy state. Why do you think that would be relevant in the investigation of sexual misconduct within the White House?


Even the left admits Russia wanted to affect our elections... Guess what?... YOU FELL FOR THE RUSSIAN LIES, and most of the left don't want to let go of your bias and of the lies...

It is only logical that POTUS Trump would try to limit the investigation, because it would become, as we are seeing it, into a never ending investigation simply because the left, and the globalists do not want their political opposition in power...


But the investigation isn't "never ending", it's over.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: links234



Most everything you wrote is incorrect and I explained why two pages ago.


Wrong. You thought you explained it but all you did was confirm your biases and lie by omission.

See, right here you omitted a very crucial word


The Mueller investigation was the 'due administration of justice' in that it was an authorized investigation carried out by authorized Department of Justice officials. The purpose of an investigation is to determine whether a crime was committed. Any effort to '[insert missing word here] influence, obstruct, or impede' an investigation is an obstruction of justice.


The word you left out was "corruptly" which makes your entire argument a nerf dart. See trump wasn't corruptly trying to influence the investigation. He was honestly calling it like he saw it (and like it turned out to be, a witch hunt). He never threatened mueller. He never obstructed mueller, ones competent legal defense is not obstruction, even if morons wish it to be because they hate the man.

But also, was it actually the due administration of justice? Afterall, the entire mueller probe was founded on lies. Lies which were known to be lies by the very people who appointed mueller. According to comey and strzok there was nothing there when they started the special counsel. Just to illustrate this is the situation: Mueller gets appointed, heads into the FBI to get the files on russian collusion and is handed a folder with two pages, one stamped 'lies,' the other blank. The first page is the dossier, the second is the rest of the case. Now do tell, how is that the due administration of justice?



how is sending more than 30 written responses of mostly "I don't remember" and "I don't recall" considered cooperating extensively?


If those were honest answers or safe answers, that is extensive cooperation. Would you suggest he make something up? That would be a crime. In fact, mueller made that bed to sleep in while you all cheered him on and now you're all complaining that you have to sleep in it. See, when he started going after people for lying to investigators, especially people who they didn't actually think lied (cough flynn cough cough) they closed up any chance they had for openness with others. The answer, when dealing with an overzealous prosecutorial team, is that you don't recall unless you know 100% for certain and can back it up with a record of some sort. Any other answer leaves you open to legal risk. Not because you're dishonest but because you have a human brain.



Mind you, Mueller asked Trump for an interview back in December of 2017. Trump's response? Written answers in November of 2018.


Wise legal counsel and strategy is now obstruction of justice? Again, read my previous paragraph. Mueller made this bed to sleep in. If he wanted any chance at an interview, his team needed to act in good faith. They never did.



You're telling me he couldn't find some extra time to thoroughly, and to the best of his ability, respond to questions from one of the, figuratively, biggest federal investigations in decades? The same man who spends, roughly, four hours sleeping per night? The best he can come up with is, "I don't remember" 11 months after the requested interview?


Yes. I know you are having a hard time grasping that people close up and don't say more than they have to when they're threatened, but it's wise. Any lawyer worth his salt will tell you to NEVER talk to the police or any LEO unless it's entirely unavoidable and you have legal counsel present.



Finally, these were questions specifically related to Russian contacts prior to and during the 2016 election. Why? Because Trump's lawyers refused to allow their client to answer anything else. Again, hardly 'cooperating extensively.'


You don't seem to understand what the word "extensively" means. It doesn't mean you throw yourself into legal jeopardy unnecessarily. It means you provide what is asked of you in most cases. Your zeroing in on the mueller questions to trump ignores the plethora of other cooperation. They allowed mcgahn to testify, they didn't have to, executive privilege would have covered most of mcgahn's testimony. Even mcgahn couldn't believe they were allowing him to testify. They provided mueller's team with millions of documents from the campaign. They made many people within the campaign and the administration available to mueller. That's extensive cooperation. Even being willing to answer written questions (he needn't answer any, see the 5th amendment) is extensive cooperation.

EDIT TO ADD:
The legal definition of corruptly in this statute is to knowingly and dishonestly act. So trump, having been cleared of collusion, cannot have obstructed justice by calling his investigators witch hunters. Nor could he have obstructed justice IF he had shut down the probe (of course we wouldn't know that because we wouldn't have their conclusions, but from the vantage point of today where we know there was no underlying crime trump wasn't acting knowingly or dishonestly in wanting to shut down the investigation. Put another way his intent could not have been dishonest because there was never anything to be dishonest about).
edit on 23-4-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

If there was possibly obstruction, was it something to do with the road rules? What reason was there to obstruct? What criminal charge must Trump have thought he was (allegedly) obstructing?


There is no such thing as "possibly obstruction..." Not to mention the fact that as POTUS Trump has the right to fire whomever he wants... Obama fired more people, implanting his own loyal lap dogs and none of you in the left said a peep about it...


originally posted by: chr0naut
And remember, Trump said it was a witch hunt out to get him? Is there any evidence of that in the Mueller report?

Or is it like when he said that Mexico would pay for the wall?


It was... What do you call it when every lawyer in Mueller's team was pro-Clinton and anti-Trump?

What do you call it when in fact even Steele himself, a foreign agent, admitted that he wanted to affect the U.S. election and depose a duly elected POTUS?...

Not to mention the FACT that in the report they admit not to have any evidence, yet they(including Mueller) stated their own claim that "there could be something there..." If there is no evidence then why do they add their own political biased claim about "maybe there is something there"?...

If the report and the team had been merely objective, and only dealt with the facts the report should have ended with there is no evidence... That's it. Instead they added their own political bias without presenting any evidence. Now we see the demonrats using "opinion" to try to continue their witch hunt...




edit on 23-4-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Trump attempted to shut down the investigation numerous times as was documented in the second volume of the Mueller report. I can't help it that 1) Trump is too incompetent/cowardly to fire someone himself and 2) no one around him was willing to break the law to appease him.

What Trump did is very clearly obstruction of justice, whether or not criminal conspiracy took place during the 2016 election. Crimes were committed and dozens of people were indicted as a result. In fact, some of them are either in prison or going to prison right now.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut

If there was possibly obstruction, was it something to do with the road rules? What reason was there to obstruct? What criminal charge must Trump have thought he was (allegedly) obstructing?

There is no such thing as "possibly obstruction..." Not to mention the fact that as POTUS Trump has the right to fire whomever he wants... Obama fired more people, implanting his own loyal lap dogs and none of you in the left said a peep about it...


"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. - Page 181 (the conclusion of Part I) of the Mueller Report.



originally posted by: chr0naut
And remember, Trump said it was a witch hunt out to get him? Is there any evidence of that in the Mueller report?

Or is it like when he said that Mexico would pay for the wall?
It was... What do you call it when every lawyer in Mueller's team was pro-Clinton and anti-Trump?


Can you substantiate that?

According to PolitiFact, 4 of the 17 person legal team had no registered affiliation to either the Democratic party or the Republican party.

And Mueller himself is registered as a Republican in the District of Columbia.


What do you call it when in fact even Steele himself, a foreign agent, admitted that he wanted to affect the U.S. election and depose a duly elected POTUS?...


Again, can you substantiate that?

The dossier started at the request of Republicans.

Also, Steele did not want it released because it was unverified and it was published against his wishes and before he was ready to release it.

By his own admission, Republican Senator John McCain gave the dossier to Comey, to get it investigated by the FBI, well before the dossier was publicly leaked.

Also, Steele himself was offered $50,000 by the FBI, to verify the dossier's claims but he declined their offer.


Not to mention the FACT that in the report they admit not to have any evidence, yet they(including Mueller) stated their own claim that "there could be something there..." If there is no evidence then why do they add their own political biased claim about "maybe there is something there"?...


In the introduction to Volume I of mueller's report, on page 2, it states:

"The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."


If the report and the team had been merely objective, and only dealt with the facts the report should have ended with there is no evidence... That's it. Instead they added their own political bias without presenting any evidence. Now we see the demonrats using "opinion" to try to continue their witch hunt...


Yes, that may appear true to you but the report does not say there was no evidence.

It states the opposite quite clearly and it goes on for hundreds of pages outlining that evidence.

edit on 24/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: links234



What Trump did is very clearly obstruction of justice

Why doesn't Mueller think it "clearly" took place then? You should be on his ass, not ours.
edit on 24-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:21 AM
link   
No one was deemed guilty..in Hillary or Trump. Determination of guilt is only done through trial and neither, for whatever reasons, have been brought to it.

Presumption of wrong doing was supposed for both. That is all.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join