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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.




You brought the quote
Alligator mouth tadpole azz




posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




Put another way his intent could not have been dishonest because there was never anything to be knowingly dishonest about).


You're arguing his intent couldn't be corrupt, because he wasn't guilty of the crime that he was accused of.

But, Barr is arguing that he couldn't be guilty of corruption because he did those "illegal" acts because he was frustrated. That's a very different strategy, don't you agree.

Either way, whether or not Trump's intent was corrupt is what is to be argued, not whether or not the law applies.

Personally, I don't think Mueller could make that determination because he, himself, was also a target of Trump's ire. There could be a perception of bias, had he said Trump's intent was definitely corrupt. He did however give his own theory of Trump's intent, which was to protect himself from embarrassment, at the very least.

But, in the end it's up to Congress to decide if Trump's actions, meet the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors". I believe that it's their constitutional duty to officially look at it, even if they choose not to impeach.


edit on 23-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: clean up



posted on Apr, 23 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



But, Barr is arguing that he couldn't be guilty of corruption because he did those "illegal" acts because he was frustrated. That's a very different strategy, don't you agree.


No, it's two sides of the same coin. As an innocent person he was frustrated with the 'witch hunt'. Now, assume that hypothetically he had been guilty of the underlying crime. His frustration would stem from a place of guilt and as such his actions could plausibly be corrupt. Because he was innocent his frustration and behavior was not illicit.



Personally, I don't think Mueller could make that determination because he, himself, was also a target of Trump's ire. There could be a perception of bias, had he said Trump's intent was definitely corrupt.


You give mueller too much credit. If he was worried about perception of bias he would have not accepted the special counsel position. He would not have staffed his team with 90% anti-trump lawyers. He would not have kept strzok in the loop AFTER he was forced to remove him from the team by the inspector general.



But, in the end it's up to Congress to decide if Trump's actions, meet the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors". I believe that it's their constitutional duty to officially look at it, even if they choose not to impeach.


And on that we can agree. But as voters we are also allowed to discuss and debate the merits.

The reason I say it's not applicable is not because I find that trump doesn't meet the threshold for prosecution. I say it is not applicable because he never took any action that could plausibly be obstruction. The investigation finished. There is no accusation that trump illegally withheld information or documents. All the mueller report points to as "possible obstruction" is speech. Trump has a right to free speech, just like the rest of us.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

What you really need to clear that case of obstruction is some sort of laxative.

Senate pods?




posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




You give mueller too much credit. If he was worried about perception of bias he would have not accepted the special counsel position.


Mueller only experienced Trump's ire after being appointed Special Counsel. Trump would have done the same to any Special Counsel that actually was doing the job they were appointed to do.

Mueller documented the obstruction endeavors and didn't make a determination on corrupt intent.

Tell me, what is the angelic intent behind Trump trying to stop Don McGahn from testifying before Congress?



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because all they are looking for are political gotcha points. I would do the exact same thing as Trump.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, covering his own ass? That's Trump's intent?



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The WH Counsel's testimony would impinge on both the privilege of "deliberative process" and "presidential communication". Beyond that his testimony was already made available to the Special Counsel. You will never demonstrate to a court's satisfaction that it is not.
Dead end. Unless the goal is to smear by innuendo.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If you think not giving someone trying to rob you a gun to shoot you with is covering your ass then your view of reality is warped.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, you're saying that Don McGahn's testimony before Congress would be like a loaded gun for Trump?



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, you're saying that Don McGahn's testimony before Congress would be like a loaded gun for Trump?


Yes, and Democrats are like criminals. The thing with a loaded gun is it doesn't differentiate good guys or bad guys, Trump doesn't have to have done anything wrong for Democrats and liberal media to attack him.

And like a criminal, Democrats have no moral conscience and will not hesitate to pull the trigger if it benefits them, regardless of the consequences to others.
edit on 24-4-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But, to be clear, you agree that Don McGahn's testimony would be like giving Congress a "loaded gun"?

So, Trump trying to stop McGahn's testimony is a matter of "self defense" in your mind? So, Trump is obstructing congressional investigations to cover his own ass?



edit on 24-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But, to be clear, you agree that Don McGahn's testimony would be like giving Congress a "loaded gun"?

So, Trump trying to stop McGahn's testimony is a matter of "self defense" in your mind? So, Trump is obstructing congressional investigations to cover his own ass?



It seems your ability to comprehend what is said is lacking, maybe re-read. There is no obstruction, there is a group that does not care about truth or law, and they will do whatever it takes to achieve their agenda. Law abiding citizens have a duty to not assist in such actions.


Dems absolutely must block any Trump Supreme Court nominee by any means necessary. Anything less will quite literally doom this country for a generation.
I want scorched earth. I don’t care about democratic norms. The GOP already destroyed those. We absolutely cannot let him do this to our country.


This is the Progressive thinking. Would you give those people a loaded gun? If you did you would be criminally negligent.
edit on 24-4-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Who in the world would waive their rights to attorney-client privilege if accused of a crime? Regardless of guilt or innocence, it'd be foolhardy. The burden is not on the accused to prove his or her innocence. The burden is on the accuser.

That the WH counsel was allowed to testify and said testimony already exists is amazing in the first place. There is zero reason for Trump to continue to cooperate with an unfounded investigation.
edit on 24-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Exactly. It's not about finding anything criminal, it's about trying to make Trump look bad for political points and votes. Barr went up there and told the truth and they attacked him for it.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh, for a minute there I thought you were citing Mitch McConnel and his blocking of Merrick Garland.

It seems your ability to grasp the concept of obstruction of justice is tainted by your bias against all things Democrat.

There is a clear case of obstruction of justice laid out in the Mueller report, and Congress has the authority and the duty to investigate and determine whether or not Trump's intent to obstruct justice was and continues to be corrupt.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   


 your ability to grasp the concept of obstruction of justice


This is a special sort of irony given that Mueller himself claims he cannot establish one of the three things he needs to establish any sort of obstruction. He even lists some alternative explanations which would not make them obstructive, and outright says the evidence they collected over two years regarding actions and intent are too ambiguous to decide on corrupt intent, and yet you say he lays out "a clear case" of obstruction...

Amazing.
edit on 24-4-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

It is the no exoneration part that has them baffled.
It has completely flipped innocent until proven guilty on its head.
Seems they never understood the concept in the first place.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Mueller report literally said there was no obstruction and attributes it to people not doing what Trump wanted. Trump wanted an illegal witch hunt investigation ended, I don't blame him, I would too. Literally nothing that happened was obstruction, and Mueller's report does not list one thing as being obstruction and literally says Trump's actions did not rise to the level of obstruction .. and then refused to draw conclusions after saying that. Not having counsel testify is not obstruction, it's an expected right Americans have.


“While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal,” the special counsel report stated.


So what exactly was being obstructed? What crime was Trump trying to cover up .. oh .. none .. thanks.



posted on Apr, 24 2019 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




The Mueller report literally said there was no obstruction and attributes it to people not doing what Trump wanted.


The Mueller report literally did NOT say that! And, it said that Trump was MOSTLY unsuccessful because people either ignored or disobeyed Trump's orders.

In other words, there were sometimes when he was successful.

Again, this comes back to corrupt intent. There is no lack of evidence to prove Trump endeavored to obstruct justice.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join