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.

 

Don McGahn, ex-White House counsel, subpoenaed over Mueller report

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cassi3l
a reply to: shooterbrody
a reply to: shooterbrody



Accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime


If you do need to quote something, at last have the good grace to quote the whole thing,
to do otherwise is being disengeneous, and i'm sure you're not disengeneous ... :

Accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime it also does not exonerate him




So, how long have you rejected the presumption of innocence in US law? Investigations have never been about exoneration in this country, largely because we're not Salem, MA in the 1690s anymore. The witch trials... the last time this country's more foolish residents joyfully danced with the idea that an accused must prove their innocence or be assumed guilty. The investigation did not need to exonerate Donald Trump because by American legal precedent, tradition, and Constitutional culture the man was innocent unless and until Mueller's investigation could argue that his guilt was provable via evidence. That didn't happen, so here we are now trying to educate you on something you're clearly woefully deficient in understanding of.




posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Trump in no way needs muellers "exoneration".
For you to pretend he does is laughable and shows you know little of our system of justice.


Just proves it was all a witch hunt, same as the Salem trials. Remember, a witch is always guilty until proven innocent. 330 years and we're still dealing with folks as intelligent as the average town crier in 17th century colonial America. Yay, progress! :rolleyes:



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

How do you say Mueller investigated and found nothing?
People went to jail.
There are still outstanding indictments against individuals and companies in Russia.
The investigation clearly showed Russian interference.
But next time when they do it to a republican maybe then you will realize what you are calling nothing is really something.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

muellers genius exoneration quote has confused all of them
not hard to do if they do not understand the actual law to begin with

no charges
no indictment
no exoneration required

they don't even understand that the longer they yell about it the worse the 2020 election will turn out for them



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


You're showing your selectve reading skils again, Shooter
let me help you out a wee bit


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.


Let's wait 'n' see what Congress, if anything, does about Client/attorney privilege...



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
It's hard to discuss when people still think the Steele dossier is valid as evidence.




posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




Just proves it was all a witch hunt

one would think with that kind of background here some would be against such
surprisingly not so
guess as long as it is not their witches being hunted eh?



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Cassi3l

congress can start impeachment when ever they like as impeachment is not a criminal process

congress can not break the law to make an attorney break privilege and I doubt the speaker would like to be the one to test that in the SCOTUS
Believe what you like
sorry you are so misinformed



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The attempt is enough you know...
It doesn't have to be successful. It just has to be tried or attempted or ordered in some cases.
fas.org...

A PDF but you dont have to down load it it is published online.

Summary Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). The laws that supplement, and sometimes mirror, the basic six tend to proscribe a particular means of obstruction. Some, like the perjury and false statement statutes, condemn obstruction by lies and deception. Others, like the bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud statutes, prohibit obstruction by corruption of public employees or officials. Some outlaw the use of violence as a means of obstruction. Still others ban the destruction of evidence. A few simply punish “tipping off” those who are the targets of an investigation. Many of these offenses may also provide the basis for racketeering and money laundering prosecutions, and each provides the basis for criminal prosecution of anyone who aids and abets in or conspires for their commission. Moreover, regardless of the offense for which an individual is convicted, his sentence may be enhanced as a consequence of any obstruction of justice for which he is responsible, if committed during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing for the offense of his conviction. The enhancement may result in an increase in his term of imprisonment by as much as four years.


There is a section dealing with conspiracy to commit obstruction. You dont have to actually get away with it.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

funny you of all people should link that....
what is required for conspiracy? you of all people should know the answer to this.....come on ......you can say it.......

INTENT
Bwahahahahahaha



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Congress can indeed start impeachment whenever they like
Alas, i doubt that they will do so, despite Mueller concluding on
the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office

This whole thing will be Trump's albatross for the next 2 years



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

His intent was not to hide his guilt but to defend his innocence as determined by the Mueller report that stated that no American colluded with the Russians.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Show us all where he did that. What exact phrase did Mueller use when he claimed the president didn't commit a crime?

And on what page of the report that particular bit of information supposedly shows up.

Cuz it ain't in any of the pages that I have. And I have pretty much read the whole thing over the past few days.
So please....where ever that is I'd love to see it.
PS No incomplete sentences or ideas or phrases please. Context and all. It needs to say We found that the president did not commit a crime.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Cassi3l

So it's not obstruction of justice.

It's "attempted" obstruction of justice.

It had nothing to do with him being innocent.




posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's also about Trump's abuse of the powers of office
According to Mueller's conclusion



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Cassi3l

So it's not collusion, it's not obstruction of justice.

It's abuse of power.




My god, give it up! Moving the goalposts is a full time job for leftists!



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yup !
Like i said above : Mueller concludes with abuse of power
Anyhow, back on topic, Nadler had this to say of McGahn's subpoena



"The special counsel’s report, even in redacted form, outlines substantial evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction and other abuses,”

"The special counsel’s report, even in redacted form, outlines substantial evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction and other abuses,” said Jerry Nadler, “It now falls to Congress to determine for itself the full scope of the misconduct and to decide what steps to take in the exercise of our duties of oversight, legislation and constitutional accountability.”
....

This weekend, senior Democrats blanketed TV talkshows and refused to rule out impeachment. However, they remained firm that there was more to investigate before making a final determination.

“I do think, if proven – which hasn’t been proven yet – if proven, some of this would be impeachable, yes,” Nadler said NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “Obstruction of justice, if proven, would be impeachable.”

Democrats believe Mueller’s report offered them a “roadmap” to further investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. They point to a passage from the report, in which Mueller writes: “Congress has authority to prohibit a president’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.”


As we say, don't shoot the messenger...

edit on 23-4-2019 by Cassi3l because: What's with the name calling ?



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The Dems need to confront a very basic question: How do you support impeaching Trump for obstructing justice, when there was no crime? Mueller makes this crystal clear: Nobody colluded with Russia. Nobody at all, anywhere in the USA.

Trump was correct, it was a witch hunt. So, you essentially want to impeach Trump for being upset at being falsely accused of crimes that he not commit.
edit on 23-4-2019 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cassi3l
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yup !
Like i said above : Mueller concludes with abuse of power
Anyhow, back on topic, Nadler had this to say of McGahn's subpoena



"The special counsel’s report, even in redacted form, outlines substantial evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction and other abuses,”

"The special counsel’s report, even in redacted form, outlines substantial evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction and other abuses,” said Jerry Nadler, “It now falls to Congress to determine for itself the full scope of the misconduct and to decide what steps to take in the exercise of our duties of oversight, legislation and constitutional accountability.”
....

This weekend, senior Democrats blanketed TV talkshows and refused to rule out impeachment. However, they remained firm that there was more to investigate before making a final determination.

“I do think, if proven – which hasn’t been proven yet – if proven, some of this would be impeachable, yes,” Nadler said NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. “Obstruction of justice, if proven, would be impeachable.”

Democrats believe Mueller’s report offered them a “roadmap” to further investigate Trump for obstruction of justice. They point to a passage from the report, in which Mueller writes: “Congress has authority to prohibit a president’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.”


As we say, don't shoot the messenger...

I hate to break it to you (actually, no I don't), but Nadler is just as bad as Adam Schiff: he went full retard at the beginning, and now he's far too deeply invested to be able to pull out.

Schiff still insists there's mountains of evidence of collusion, even though he seems to be literally the only human being in existence who has seen this evidence. That's mental deficiency, plan & simple.
edit on 23-4-2019 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join