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.

 

Democrats and Media currently commiting Obstruction of Justice by own definition

page: 3
67
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Mueller made it clear in his report that in inconsideration of the DOJ policy, not to indict a sitting president, that he wouldn't indict Trump. Instead, he stated that they couldn't not clear Trump, and he kicked the obstruction issues to Congress.




posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

sorry to say but you and your party are #ing morons... I can't believe the idiousy, I'm gonna call Gordon Ramsey he might make you wake up a bit.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Goodness. I see someone who was fine with Clinton’s directed use of bleach bit on a server used containing classified intelligence up to and including Special Access Programs. Using Bleach Bit during an investigation was totally fine. No obstruction. Heck, the AG Lynch even met Clinton’s husband who happened to be the former President on a tarmac during the investigation and she never recused herself. Totally acceptable.

Trump is accused of treason, sedition, collusion with a foreign power for two years and calls it a hoax, which there resulted in zero evidence to show Trump colluded with anyone, let alone Russia. So somehow by stating words and whining for two years and firing Comey, a guy the Left had originally wanted fired anyway, committed obstruction. Yet through all this, Trump did nothing to stop “Mueller Time” from happening and in fact, the report found he did nothing wrong in the form of Russia. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of articles written about “collusion” that after 22 months was nothing but lame weak ass stories of fiction.

Hillary used bleach bit and had her husband physically meet with the AG of the case, but not obstruction. ACTUAL PHYSICAL ACTIONS but the Left says No Obstruction. She was “extremely careless” with classified information and held back emails from the State Dept (proven), but all is GOOD.

Trump whined and moaned a lot about an investigation he knew was #. WORDS, not Action. The Left: OBSTRUCTION!!!
IMPEACH!!!

They literally have only one brain cell left to work with, or they’re purposely being ultra dense.
edit on 21-4-2019 by ucanthandlethetruth because: Typo

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

edit on 21-4-2019 by ucanthandlethetruth because: Ugh



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: MarlbBlack

Well, that was a LOW IQ response, from you.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MarlbBlack

Well, that was a LOW IQ response, from you.



How can you tell? We all see your constant response using Low IQ is VERY sad actually. Very sad.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Oh? So, Muller just decided to include no less than 10 examples of obstruction of justice, in great detail, as a last minute effort because he couldn't prove "collusion"? And, Mueller said that he couldn't clear Trump of obstruction of justice charges, but couldn't indict either, because of DOJ policy, and kicked to over to Congress because he couldn't get the Trump Campaign any other way?




Since when does a prosecutor seek to exonerate the accused? The "10 examples" were just nuggets left for people like you to go crazy over. Even Muller, who was given the reins of what amounts to a witch hunt, admitted that there wasn't enough evidence to indict. Even looking over the "10 examples"... mean tweets? … calling it a witch hunt? …. publicly stating that the people who were attacked by the special council were innocent? .. etc. Meanwhile Hillary destroys subpoenaed evidence and we hear nothing....


What you call "Congress" is nothing more than a gang of "resist by any means necessary" Democrats who have been calling for Trump's impeachment, literally, before he even took office. They have been threatening investigation before they even had a plan as to what they could be investigating. There is no credibility in this Dem controlled "Congress".

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



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Mueller made it clear in his report that in inconsideration of the DOJ policy, not to indict a sitting president, that he wouldn't indict Trump. Instead, he stated that they couldn't not clear Trump, and he kicked the obstruction issues to Congress.


And pocahontas is calling for impeachment!

Isnt she the one who lied about her ethnicity to get favorable considerations for employment?

That was a few months ago just like your constant claims of Russian collusion so why dont we just forget that ever happened.... right?

Lol

You guys are cracking me up this week!



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yes this is exactly what's going on



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Mueller made it clear in his report that in inconsideration of the DOJ policy, not to indict a sitting president, that he wouldn't indict Trump.



You stated that at least twice now. You were asked for a reference to were that was said. So far you haven’t given one. Therefore it’s just BS until you link it.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: timequake




. Even Muller, who was given the reins of what amounts to a witch hunt, admitted that there wasn't enough evidence to indict.


Nope. That's not at all that he said. He said that there was so much evidence of Trump's obstruction of justice that they were unable to clear him, and that they would have, if they could have. But, they couldn't, so he referred the issues of Trump's corruption to Congress.


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



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Oh? So, Muller just decided to include no less than 10 examples of obstruction of justice, in great detail, as a last minute effort because he couldn't prove "collusion"? And, Mueller said that he couldn't clear Trump of obstruction of justice charges, but couldn't indict either, because of DOJ policy, and kicked to over to Congress because he couldn't get the Trump Campaign any other way?




where is the indictment? Oh, there ins't one. So he's innocent, like Hillary. suck it up buttercup.

eta: plus, he didn't INTEND to do anything wrong, so no matter what, he's cool. I bet that makes you smile.
edit on 21-4-2019 by network dude because: tea is the secret to life.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
OP, By now I would expect you to know that Progressive Fascism is about doing what they say not what they do.
They don't believe in personal freedom or equal application of the law.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

cdn.cnn.com...


First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 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.



"With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has the authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,"




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,” ...However, we are unable to reach that judgment."


And


“The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law,”



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



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


This is serious what you took from that?



He said that there was so much evidence of Trump's obstruction of justice that they were unable to clear him, and that they would have, if they could have.


This is what he actually said.



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



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake

No, this is what he said, that I'm going off of.

“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,” ...However, we are unable to reach that judgment."



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That isn't the purpose of an investigation, however. The purpose is to determine whether enough evidence exists to demonstrate probable cause that a person committed X crime. The default position is they did not commit a crime until proven otherwise, that is the foundation of due process

The report clearly lays out, after 2 years, that there was insufficient evidence to establish mere probable cause (smelling smoke, alcohol, swerving, etc). There is no conspiracy charges, no obstruction charges, no forthcoming indictments. It also clearly states No Americans were involved in Russia's alleged plot against the US


He said that there was so much evidence of Trump's obstruction of justice that they were unable to clear him, and that they would have, if they could have.


Perhaps the most dishonest statement I've read all day^ There actually wasn't even enough evidence to establish mere probable cause, which is a very easy legal hurdle.
edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Seems you rely on everything except the forefront conclusion: No conspiracy charges, no obstruction charges, decision not to charge not based on Article II concerns

Keep straw grasping. At this point, I have to assume you are a troll or provacatuer. No serious person would still be pushing this completely debunked narrative and frankly I'm surprised ATS puts up with obvious hoaxing

You need to accept the conclusions of the Mueller report. You all spent 2 years holding Mueller and Rosenstein up as some sort of demigod. Live with those consequences
edit on 4/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Thats not obstruction - they're assisting the American public to a fuller understanding - so the fake news doesn't hurt them.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha





posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You quoted an assumed legal foundation (the prevailing professional and legal OPINION of the prosecutors on the Mueller team, which has had equally strong advocacy and dissent for 200 years) for Congress to prevent criminal behaviour outside of a formal indictment by the DOJ. They need this as a foundation to justify their investigation, because they already know Justice will not indict anyway. If there is no other avenue for legal resolution, there is no reason or justification for the investigation.

Great legal minds have debated this since the Constitution was written. We still have no firm legal basis to describe "high crimes and misdemeanors" , for that matter. It's all sort of hazy. I am not suggesting the Mueller team is wrong. I happen to agree. But it's important to recognize what we are reading.


As to whether or not the crime of obstruction actually occurred, the report says they cannot establish that. The standard for an indictment would be "probable cause". Not even "beyond reasonable doubt". Just "more likely than not". In spite of two years chasing thousands of subpoenas, warrants, interviews, etc, they can not conclude it is "probable" that a crime occurred. That does not mean they have no evidence. They have circumstances that might be considered obstruction outside of the Presidential powers and issues of intent. But they cannot show corrupt intent after all the investigation. They admit the very same behaviours may be completely legal and innocent without corrupt intent.

Investigations rarely exonerate anyone. It's rarely mentioned because it is both rare, and not the legal objective of an investigation. A Criminal investigation exists to determine whether a crime was probably committed. It does not exist to prove someone is innocent.

They cannot conclude a crime was committed. They probably have suspicions one was committed, but they cannot establish that it even "probably" occurred with facts and evidence. After two years and thousands of man hours.

Congress is always free to conduct their own investigation. I rather doubt that they will find anything more than a Special Counsel's investigation, given the powers of the branch compared to the office.

That doesn't mean Trump's "total exoneration" BS is true. It just means Mueller had nothing of substance beyond strong suspicion, and he needed to convey that suspicion to justify his long investigation. They could not determine a crime probably occurred. That's it. That they don't prove he is innocent ( "exonerate" ) doesn't factor at all. That's not the point of investigations.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Oh? So, Muller just decided to include no less than 10 examples of obstruction of justice, in great detail, as a last minute effort because he couldn't prove "collusion"? And, Mueller said that he couldn't clear Trump of obstruction of justice charges, but couldn't indict either, because of DOJ policy, and kicked to over to Congress because he couldn't get the Trump Campaign any other way?


He laid out ten instances which might constitute obstruction if it had corrupt intent. Then stated he could not demonstrate corrupt intent. The constitutional powers of the presidency and existence of alternative (innocent) explanations made determining corrupt intent too difficult to demonstrate.

That's what you have to go forward with. He could not establish a crime was committed after two years. With professional prosecutors.



this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime


Good luck with congressional investigations headed by what are mostly clowns instead of professional prosecutors and interrogators finding more than the Special Counsel's investigation to establish a crime was committed.




top topics



 
67
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join