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: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
And people haven't learned to not take legal advice from bartenders






posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Which words, or combination of words, didn't you understand?



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

oh please explain how that would apply

when did trump do anything to an officer of the court or grand jury juror?



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

The specifics are all outlined in the Mueller report's 11 examples.

AG Barr doesn't dispute the jurisdiction of the obstruction accusations. Barr argues Trump's actions were borne out of frustration. in other words, in Barr's opinion, Trump was too triggered to have had corrupt intent.

But, it's not up to Barr to psycho analyze why he thinks Trump is not guilty of violating the law. It's up to Congress to determine whether or not Trump's actions rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors".


edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

the law you supplied deals with court officials and grand jury members

none of that involves trump

as to congress
congress did not need the mueller investigation to impeach trump
I hope they attempt to
it will only ensure trump has the house and senate when re elected



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes, it applies to Trump. He's "whoever".


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



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

When did trump have anything to do with any juror court officer or judge?
you are now in imagination land, do you even read what you link?

whoever you are parroting, they have led you far astray



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Which words, or combination of words, didn't you understand?

I understand the words just fine, but all you said was 'is applicable', you didn't say to whom it was applicable.

Thats ok, I know you were talking about Trump (you are one of the biggest TDS sufferers on here after all), so I'll just point out that...

No, it isn't, and if you disagree, you'll have to explain which part you think is applicable, and why.

In other words, you'll have to actually make a legitimate argument, as opposed to grunting.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

That would be Comey and Mueller and their investigations. Even Barr isn't arguing the jurisdiction of the obstruction charges.

Read the 11 examples cited in his report, if you want details. I'm not going to argue the evidence with you.


edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

That would be Comey and Mueller and their investigations. Even Barr isn't arguing the jurisdiction of the obstruction charges.

Read the 11 examples cited in his report, if you want details. I'm not going to argue the evidence with you.


that in no way applies to the law you linked
you are daft
comey and mueller are not officers of the court, magistrates, or jurors

what balogna



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, you need to get on that, then, and inform Bill Barr. Because apparently he doesn't know that law doesn't apply to Trump, and is still trying to clear Trump of obstruction by claiming he was acting out of frustration, and didn't have "corrupt intent", instead of saying that portion of the law is inapplicable!

Apparently Mueller doesn't know that either, since he claimed that he could not clear Trump of obstruction charges.




edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So wouldn't every single media person and democrat that said it would hurt America to look into the fbi misbehavior in the Russia investigation, or that Barr should resign, also be breaking this law?

Wouldn't Obama who said Hillary was innocent before any investigation also had been affecting potential jurors?



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

What's your argument? I believe the topic is "Does the obstruction of justice law, UScode 18, Chapter 73, 1503, apply to Trump or not?



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
A police chief who decides to end an investigation is not committing obstruction. A police chief who fires a subordinate for cause is not committing the crime of obstruction, even if investigations are subsequently delayed.

A prosecutor who declines to indict or prosecute a crime that was committed is not obstructing justice.

Unless you can demonstrate "corrupt" intent, those actions are part of the job description. That's why Mueller concludes on obstruction that they cannot conclude the President committed a crime

A citizen who publicly criticizes law enforcement or an investigation. The suggestion is absurd.

Beyond that as Chief Executive, the President can wield a pardon as the ultimate check on the legislative and judicial powers. If Trump Jr. and Kushner were eyeballs deep in direct contact with Putin and Trump pardoned them the day they were arrested taking a cash from Putin's hand along with a note of instructions of quid pro quo, it would still not be criminal. It would be wrong, unethical, alarming, and impeachable, imo, but not criminal.

We actually had a similar case where Weinberger was pardoned in the middle of an independent counsel's investigation. GHWB paid the political cost, but there were no claims of "obstruction" from anyone.

Like it or not, that's how the Constitution and US law work.

If someone still thinks Trump is going to be perp walked after reading Mueller's conclusion that he cannot establish ties between Americans and Russians to influence the election, nor can he demonstrate corrupt intent on obstruction, I really have to question that person's critical thinking skills and reading comprehension.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert




Unless you can demonstrate "corrupt" intent, those actions are part of the job description. That's why Mueller concludes on obstruction that they cannot conclude the President committed a crime


Just the opposite. Mueller concluded that they could not determine that Trump did NOT commit a crime, but that Congress has the constitutional authority to address the President's corruption.

As to demonstrating corrupt intent, the coverup and the lies show corrupt intent. At the very least, Trump committed these acts to protect himself from personal exposure and embarrassment. That's still corruption.



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Well, good luck with all that... Mueller's team in their own words seem to disagree with you... They decline to clear him, but cannot establish a crime was committed. Their words. After an investigation of two years, that's basically nothing. "Can't establish it's more likely than not after two years of nonstop investigation, but we still have our suspicions" has never resulted in criminal charges or indictment.

If you want to take things out of context and try to build a case for political retribution in the House, you're welcome to it, but even Nancy P, seems to have had the air let out of her sails.

Wonder why that is even though (by your blind assertion) Mueller clearly lays out an accusation of criminal behaviour... It's truly a mystery... Unless of course people with reading comprehension understand what was actually said in full context, and know that while the report was rather embarrassing and uncomplimentary of the narcissist currently in office, it does not conclude clear criminal behaviour.

Mueller handed them clear evidence of criminality and invited them to impeach, but the same people who screamed "impeach! resist! Mueller is closing in!" for two years today decided to "keep investigating" and not to proceed with impeachment after reading the report? How do you reconcile that with your twisted narrative? Doesn't make sense does it? Unless, your ridiculous conclusions are wrong...
edit on 23-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'll give you the premise that mueller could be considered an officer of the court, even though I'm not 100% certain that would be the case.
However, even given that starting point it is still not applicable as it states:




[whomever] 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


The legal definition of 'corruptly' in this statute is to knowingly and dishonestly act. So trump, having been cleared of collusion, cannot have obstructed justice by calling his investigators witch hunters. Nor could he have obstructed justice IF he had shut down the probe (of course we wouldn't know that because we wouldn't have their conclusions, but from the vantage point of today where we know there was no underlying crime trump wasn't acting knowingly or dishonestly in wanting to shut down the investigation. Put another way his intent could not have been dishonest because there was never anything to be knowingly dishonest about).

The truth is, trump was wise to allow them to finish their investigation. By doing so, he destroyed any possibility of an obstruction of justice charge. Since they cleared him of collusion, his intent cannot be corrupt. Game over. Had he stopped the probe, his intent would still not have been corrupt (as the underlying crime did not happen), but it would have been much easier to frame it that way.
edit on 23-4-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



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

How the Puck did the Present President of these United States " Obstruct Justice " ? By Not Killing All Leftist Progressive Liberal Marxist Communists BEFORE He Took Office Under an EDICT from the Majority of American Voters ? Still Waiting for that One Mr. D .....................



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join