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.

 

Obstruction of Justice

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
This is not going to be a thread where I tell you that trump did or did not obstruct justice. No, this will be a thread that will lay out the legal framework for each possible obstruction charge. I figure in this way it will be nigh impossible to keep the charade going. Yes, many of these are not applicable but I want to list all of them so no one accuses me of skipping something important. So lets start. The obstruction of justice statutes can be found here: USC Chapter 73

The format will go like this
[section] - [description]
[special requirements or considerations]
-[sub-requirement, if applicable]

[applicable or not to the mueller investigation]

1501 - Assault on a process server
Obstruction or assault on a person attempting to serve a legal or judicial writ
-the person assaulted must have been an authorized process server

Not applicable

1502 - Resistance to an extradition agent
Opposition, obstruction or resistance to being extradited
-The extradition agent must be authorized and the person resisting must know who they're resisting

Not applicable

1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
The attempt to influence (think bribe or threat) or harm a juror (grand or otherwise), or officer during a legal proceeding.
-Corrupt intent
-Injury can be bodily or property

Not applicable

1504 - Influencing juror by writing
The attempt to communicate with a juror through writing, with the purpose of unduly influencing them
-This does not include communications about a summons to appear before a grand jury

Not applicable

1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
The attempt to obstruct compliance or withhold/destroy/hiding/falsifying documents. Also covers attempts to coerce others into doing the same crimes
-Must be the subject of a demand which is being levied by an authorized body (e.g. I have documents an authority wants and I destroy them or have someone else destroy or falsify or withhold them).

Possibly applicable

1506 - Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
Attempted alterations to records of legal proceedings
The false bail provision is tough to sum up in short, but it's not applicable

Not applicable


1507 - Picketing or parading
Protesting in attempt to sway judges or juror's near a courthouse.

Not applicable to this case, but keep it in mind as high profile trials happen.

1508 - Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting
Spying on a deliberating or voting grand jury

Not applicable

1509 - Obstruction of court orders
Trying to undermine or stop court orders from being enforced, using threats or force
-The court order must be a lawful order

1510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
Bribing people to keep quiet about illicit activities
-The investigating agency must be a legal agency (iow, you can bribe to keep people quiet for public consumption)

Not applicable

1511 - Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
Two or more people may not conspire to stop enforcement of state laws in order to run a gambling business
-business must operate for 30 days or exceed 2k in revenue in one day
-excludes bingo, lottery, or other gambling for charitable organizations

Not applicable

1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
Killing, threatening, assaulting, harassing or bribing the above to change their testimony or withhold it
-conspirators are also guilty
-proceedings needn't be imminent or ongoing

Not applicable

1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
Killing, harming, threatening or harassing a witness (or their property) for giving testimony

Not applicable

1514 - Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
A restraining order can be given to a witness to prevent retaliation
1514A- same as above but with specifications for fraud cases

Not applicable

1515 - Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
Official proceeding means a proceeding before:
-a court
-congress
-a federal government agency authorized by law
-a proceeding involving insurance (interstate commerce)
misleading conduct means:
-knowingly making a false statement
-lies of omission
-knowingly using/submitting/relying on false or forged documents
-intent to deceive
Corruptly means acting with improper purpose

Applicable to the law

1516 - Obstruction of Federal audit
Impeding an audit from a federal agency is illegal
-The agency must have jurisdiction

Not applicable

1517 - Obstructing examination of financial institution
Basically 1516 but for financial institutions

Not applicable

1518 - Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
The name pretty well covers it

Not applicable

1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Altering, withholding, or using false information in a document or record with the intent to impede an investigation
-intent must be proved

Not applicable

1520 - Destruction of corporate audit records
Accountants who audit businesses must maintain their records for 5 years.

Not applicable

1521 - Retaliating against a Federal judge or Federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title
Attempting to place a fraudulent lien against a federal judge or leo's property. Slander of title against the same is also covered.
*Slander of title is devaluing someone's property by making false claims about it

Not applicable
edit on 23-4-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Not sure what you're expecting when all are not applicable save one.

You didn't post this in the mudpit on accident I presume.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Wonderful breakdown
Did you realize you just laid down a HADES of a case against Hillary at the same time ?
I read through with each in mind....



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Do you honestly expect this to sway opinions?

I hope it does. But I am not holding my breath.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Dfairlite

Do you honestly expect this to sway opinions?

I hope it does. But I am not holding my breath.


Sway opinion ?
How , and which way would this have the potential to sway opinion ?
More Fair and Balanced than even Fox News



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Dfairlite

Do you honestly expect this to sway opinions?

I hope it does. But I am not holding my breath.


Sway opinion ?
How , and which way would this have the potential to sway opinion ?
More Fair and Balanced than even Fox News


I do not expect any news source to be accurate.
But here facts are provided as is opinion.
Facts can be challenged, as can opinions.

Your take on the OP?



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: Dfairlite

Do you honestly expect this to sway opinions?

I hope it does. But I am not holding my breath.


Sway opinion ?
How , and which way would this have the potential to sway opinion ?
More Fair and Balanced than even Fox News


I do not expect any news source to be accurate.
But here facts are provided as is opinion.
Facts can be challenged, as can opinions.

Your take on the OP?

Why are you asking for a repeat performance ?
Did you not read my post you just quoted ?
Apparently not



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The problem with your OP is that you are using logic to debate a topic.

Logic does not beat Orange Man Bad to the left.

Because you are dealing with a subset of America that could care less about logic... they are just going with the supplied narrative.

They have no morals, no principles and no idea what the rule of law actually means.

They just know that Hillary lost and that isn't acceptable to them.

So wish you luck on telling the cult that what they have to believe in isn't actually true.




posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

Feel free to apply the non-applicable ones to the evidence. I posted it in the mud pit because I know where it will end up and I'd rather not have a thread full of deleted comments.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

It was really hard to keep the dems and media out of the spotlight and focus solely on the statutes. So many of them have violated these laws, repeatedly.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

This isn't necessarily for the left to come to the understanding that their media lies to them, extravagantly. It is also so that those of us who value the rule of law can have a quick concise look at ALL of the pertinent statutes and weigh the evidence against it.

For myself, having read all of the statutes and the mueller report, I can't find any clear instances of violation. I can see a few things that you could stretch to claim a violation, but if you really wanted to prove a violation you could never solely rely on it. These stretches are really just very loose readings of the statutes and if you got into actual case law, you'd likely find that none of the stretches work at all.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Stick to living in your mom's basement,your feeble attempt's put the laws back about 200 yrs,dude use facts instead of made up crap,your like watching TV,picture,sound but no content



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

It's really sad that I've posted nothing but a summary of the statutes and your first instinct is to ask if I expect that to sway opinions. If we were dealing with the mentally well, yes. I mean, why wouldn't you adjust your opinions to be based on the facts? Have I provided facts that are not fact? Have I misconstrued the facts? I'm open to being shown I've erroneously reported something here but I haven't put my opinion above fact anywhere in this post that I am aware of.

You want to see my opinions on these facts as they'd be applied to the situation?

USC 15-
01) Did trump assault a process server? No.
02) Did trump resist extradition? No.
03) Did trump threaten or bribe juror's or officers? No.
04) Did trump write a juror to influence them? No.
05) Did trump falsify or withhold documents? No.
06) Did trump steal or alter court records? No.
07) Did trump picket or parade outside a courthouse? No.
08) Did trump spy on the grand jury? No.
09) Did trump try to use force to stop a lawful court order from being enforced? No.
10) Did trump bribe people to keep them from talking to mueller? No.
11) Did trump try to run an illegal gambling business? No.
12) Did trump kill, assault, harass, or intimidate anyone into withholding testimony or lying in it? No.
13) Did trump kill, assault, harass, or intimidate anyone for giving testimony? No.
14) Were there restraining orders granted against trump during this investigation? No.
15) Definitions
16) Did trump stop or attempt to stop an audit? No.
17) Did trump impede an audit of a financial institution? No.
18) Did trump obstruct an investigation into an illegal healthcare matter? No.
19) Did trump alter, withhold, or falsify records with the intent to stop the investigation? No.
20) Is trump an accountant that audits businesses? No.
21) Did trump take out false liens against or slander the property of mueller? No.

It's really pretty clear that trump did nothing at all resembling obstruction of justice. Assuming you disagree with my opinions in this post, go ahead and provide me the statute and the evidence you think fits. Otherwise I'll assume you agree.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2



Stick to living in your mom's basement


LMAO I'm married (for well over a decade) with four kids and haven't lived in my parents basement since a few days after I turned 18.



your feeble attempt's put the laws back about 200 yrs


feeble attempts...? I linked right to the law. If you feel I misrepresented something go ahead an point it out, specifically.



dude use facts instead of made up crap


The US criminal code is made up crap?

It's really sad how pathetic you guys have become. You have no argument at all. No facts. Nothing. So you impugn the character of those you disagree with. Crawl in a hole.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: Dfairlite

Stick to living in your mom's basement,your feeble attempt's put the laws back about 200 yrs,dude use facts instead of made up crap,your like watching TV,picture,sound but no content

You got anything at all for a rebuttal to the thread ?
No ?
Apparently not.
"Just words , just speeches" .
Empty ones at that .
Just like the President that originally made that comment - Barry



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

Hey I found one!

-knowingly using/submitting/relying on false or forged documents


That Steele Dossier comes to mind .. who submitted that, was it Trump?



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

LMAO It's amazing how many of these apply to the 'investigators.'



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Thank you for the outstanding breakdown based on the actual law.
When faced with the actual laws the bs narrative falls completely apart.
Funny that you won't see any of this in the msm.
Well done!



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I think you'll find that 1503 is applicable.


Chapter 73. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Section 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally

18 U.S. Code § 1503.Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
U.S. Code
Notes

(a)Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dfairlite

I think you'll find that 1503 is applicable.

Applicable to who... Trump?

Lucy, you have some 'splainin' to do...




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join