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: 5
67
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That's the funny thing about Socialism. If he had his way he would be in charge of a system that makes the people in power own everything.




posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I understand it’s difficult for you to understand, yo. Lemme break this down.
Trump tried to remove anyone who could uncover his wrongdoing. His aides admitted to this UNDER OATHE.
Read the report.

He didn’t like “note takers”. Why?

A democratic house was recently elected BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to provide a check and balance of his presidency because WE flat out don’t trust this con man.

Get your popcorn ready and hunker down for the show. A storm is coming for Trump

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



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Dude!

The actual words:

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.


Page 1 of Volume 2

More actual words:

"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,"


Page 8 of Volume 2

Some more actual words:

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.


Page 8 of Volume 2

Even more actual words:

“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,”


Page 8 of Volume 2



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Abbby

Oh, and I forgot to mention.... Mueller purposely left his report open as a sitting president cannot be
Indicted. I’ll let you stew on that last one...

‘Nuff said? Lol



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Abbby

So why didn't Russia make sure Democrats didn't win the House ?









posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Traitor Bob Mueller was stronger than the Russians in 2018.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Good bait for Democrats to ponder.

They are trapped in an endless loop quandary 😎

(and thank you for quoting and linking 😎)



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Mueller intentionally lobbed a concussion grenade into the House chamber. They'll return from their 2 week vacation totally stunned and confused.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

Wasn't Hillary, was the DNC. He exposes their weaknesses.

And yeah, I think so too he would have won.

And may yet.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



"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 authorityto prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,"



Right. But that's meaningless if you cannot demonstrate corrupt intent. That is what establishes "obstruction" in this instance. Which Mueller says he cannot. Which is why Mueller's report concludes: "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... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, ..."

You keep quoting the legal premise on which the investigation is predicted. That's fine.

His list of events is a list of actions he believes might constitute obstruction if they can demonstrate "corrupt intent". He is essentially demonstrating the "reasonable suspicion" he needs to legitimize the investigation. That's fine.



Now we need actual evidence. He needs a preponderance of evidence. That standard just means "more likely than not". And what does he say about his evidence?


"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... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, ..."



So he cannot even meet a preponderance of evidence needed to make an indictment. He does not say "the evidence would enable us to make a prosecutorial judgement for indictment in other circumstances, but we are prevented from indicting based on OLC's conclusion." He says, they cannot even sort the actions and intent to reach such a decision.


Does that mean Trump is exonerated? Not at all. It just means that at the end of this investigation after all the interviews, warrants, and subpoenas, Mueller still couldn't say obstruction was more likely than not. It's a step up from Bupkis, but a long, long way from a conclusion obstruction was committed and recommendation for impeachment.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 05:34 AM
link   
So when is this dysfunctional government going to indict the real criminals in office?



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

See now proper links and sources aren’t so hard! Thank you.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: Grambler

You are running for office? And you willfully ignore what the report really said? Mueller expected an impartial Congress would bring charges against Trump, and you conclude that it is all a lie? Quit drinking the Kool-Aid dude.

And on this Easter Sunday I will also state that Jesus would reject Trump and all he stands for. If you think otherwise, then you also misinterpreted his teachings and have fallen for Satan's biggest lie of all.


Quit being a tool. We know now that this isn't willfully ignoring the truth for the right but for the LEFT. Period.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Abbby
a reply to: Grambler

I understand it’s difficult for you to understand, yo. Lemme break this down.
Trump tried to remove anyone who could uncover his wrongdoing. His aides admitted to this UNDER OATHE.
Read the report.

He didn’t like “note takers”. Why?

A democratic house was recently elected BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to provide a check and balance of his presidency because WE flat out don’t trust this con man.

Get your popcorn ready and hunker down for the show. A storm is coming for Trump


Who did he remove then? Can you find one that was obstruction that DJT removed?

We will wait for proof. Thanks in advance.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Abbby

I don’t mind debating the report with people, in fact I enjoy it

But the utter condescension some people have who bought into and spread the Russia collusion lie, and now want to mock people like they are somehow intellectually superior is downright hilarious

Meanwhile, still no one has rebutted the op in any way, which shows that deep down they know claims of wanting to fire investigators and mean comments are not obstruction



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^That was spot on ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




"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... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, ..."


Source? Context?


What crime is Mueller talking about here? I think it's not obstruction. I think he's talking about the prosecutorial threshold for criminal conspiracy here. The same kind of criminal conspiracy that he gave Don Jr a Mulligan on, because he deemed Don Jr just too clueless to know he had actually committed a crime.



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RadioRobert




"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... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, ..."


Source? Context?


What crime is Mueller talking about here? I think it's not obstruction. I think he's talking about the prosecutorial threshold for criminal conspiracy here. The same kind of criminal conspiracy that he gave Don Jr a Mulligan on, because he deemed Don Jr just too clueless to know he had actually committed a crime.



You cant read that he said he concluded that the President DIDNT get charged or did you miss it for a chance at another free spin of that DNC wheel of lies?



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I deserve the same source links that were required of me. The poster is misrepresenting.

That quote applies to criminal conspiracy, not obstruction. The poster is conflating the two charges, obstruction and criminal conspiracy and claiming exoneration where it doesn't exist.


edit on 22-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Looks to those of us, that are from the middle and right of your position, that you were provided with that stuff over and over on ATS. It really does. I am a middle Libertarian type conservative leaning and socially liberal (old school meaning).



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join