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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Because that's for Congress to decide. Not Robert Mueller.




posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Actually, it was for him to decide. That's why he was appointed. That's why his appointment letter says: "the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions".

The whole point of a special counsel is to remove prosecutorial discretion from the Administration and in independent hands. Mueller says he cannot establish criminality, so he punts by refusing to exonerate, either. He turns his failure to establish criminality into a political football by deliberately putting prosecutorial function back into the hands of an appointee in violation of his appointment.

It's a political game and everyone who takes two honest seconds to try to understand it, can grasp it: The same people who were screaming "collusion!" and "impeach!" --for two years! -- are now trying to walk their compatriots back away from impeachment in quiet, private meetings. All while telling you in public how damning the report really is. Why do you think that is? Probably because while embarrassing and unflattering of the chief narcissist, it also reveals no actual criminality!



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I'm still trying to figure out which is true:

Robert Mueller punted on clearing Trump of Obstruction, because...

1.) He wanted the House to Bring Impeachment Proceedings...thereby keeping President Trump's name at the top of the news, in a negative way (including even FoxNews), until the Nov 2020 election.

-or-

2.) He wanted Democrats to split and argue over Impeachment...increasing the odds that Donald Trump will be re-elected and Republicans would re-take the House.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   
He reports to the AG and is supposed to make the decision. The AG the gets to agree or disagree. The AG has to notify Congress of the conclusion and where he disagrees if anywhere. The Special Counsel does not report to Congress. They are not entitled to the report at all. It's actually classified/confidential.

Saying Mueller just reported so Congress could decide turns the law regarding the Special Counsel on it's head.

He knew he doesn't have enough to get an indictment (only has to be "more likely than not", not "beyond reasonable doubt"). He punted because he felt Trump overstepped his bounds even if he cannot prove it, and he needs to demonstrate something to justify his investigation.

"It's too hard to decide" is not a prosecutorial decision. It's embarrassing that after all that time and money they cannot even reach something indictable. And more embarrassing that instead of simply admitting they don't have it and the subject has the presumption of evidence, they throw in the "cannot exonerate" line as though that is ever a prosecutors' job.


Pure political smear. Bonus points for placing the decision back in Barr's hands so the left can scream that an appointee made the decision. That's the whole reason for a special counsel! To make that decision instead of Barr.
edit on 24-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Unless Mueller was covertly investigating the REAL Russia collusion (DNC, Hillary, Fusion GPS), he wasted a lot of time and taxpayer dollars on Micky Mouse actions. Every prosecutor interviewed said they could have done what Mueller did, with 80% fewer staff, and in less than a year.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The Special Counsel did not and does not have prosecutorial functions against a sitting president. That point was laid out pretty clearly in the report:


Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.



posted on Apr, 25 2019 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

He cannot formally bring an indictment through the courts. Yet his job is to conclude whether or not a crime was committed. That's the entire point of his existence. To make a conclusion and report his conclusion to the AG, who notifies Congress of that decision and whether or not he agrees and why.

That is the Special Counsel's job as investigators and prosecutors. Congress plays the role of Grand Jury for the purpose of indictment (which is in essense what the House's impeachment vote is) after they are informed of the findings of the SC. The Senate conducts an actual trial, which includes thr opportunity for the defense.

He makes the prosecutorial decision of the investigation, taking it away from the DOJ. Just as a prosecutor makes the decisions in a normal trial initiation. The difference is he sends the findings through the AG who sends the conclusion on criminality to Congress, and not to a Grand Jury.

If he cannot conclude a crime was committed, guess what. He would not have the power to indict regardless of OLC policy. It does not factor. Not even a Grand Jury indicts on "I cannot conclude a crime was committed. His actions and intent create difficult problems to resolve".
edit on 25-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2019 @ 12:46 AM
link   
So basically Trump's crime is his tweets, as in anything the President says has influences. This is extremely stretching for something, anything...



posted on Apr, 26 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: links234

No wait a second. Trump fired comey but now you're saying he didn't have the cajones to fire people, himself? Also, why would he tell the Whitehouse counsel to fire someone in the doj? They have no jurisdiction to do that. The whole story makes no sense.

But again, you don't seem to understand how corrupt intent has been demolished by trump being exonerated of the underlying crime.
edit on 26-4-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Clinton sent classified information to unauthorized recipients and destroyed evidence. General Patraeus went to federal prison for telling one of his concubines something top secret. Trump didn't anything serious enough to go to prison, Clinton did.




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join