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.

 

White House lawyer blasted Mueller over obstruction decision

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

All gossip and innuendo 😎

0-zilch 😎




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Tempter




He made a VERY stupid political move in doing this.


What is "this"?



Flipping around our system of justice? By claiming he did not exonerate Trump, he effectively took a side. This shows bias.

When he FAILED as a prosecutor to PROVE Trump was guilty of obstruction (don't forget the monumental failure to prove Russian collusion) his job was to end right there. PERIOD.

Everyone knows that you are innocent unless PROVEN guilty, which Mueller FAILED to do. There is NO leeway here. Trump isn't PARTLY innocent. He's #ing 100% innocent, because there is a BIG FAT #ING LINE between proven guilty and remaining innocent.

Mueller took a side. He should have just kept his Herman Munster-looking ass quiet and took his failure like a champ. But no, he had to make a political statement out of either a) desperation not to look TOTALLY incompetent or b) He's in on it.

I'm betting on B considering the team he formed.

The NSA has everything. Even Mueller's comms. I REALLY hope nothing comes out SOON which could further extrapolate on Mueller's political bias.

That would be too much to take, don't you agree?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
Obstruction of illegal investigation. That’s kind of funny. It’s less obstructing and more self defense.

Mueller failed.
Nancy is suffering mini strokes daily.
Nadler is single phasing.
AOC and her merry band are running the Left.

Wait until Trump gets his third SCOTUS appointment. That’s going to create China Syndrome within the Dems.


Amy Coney Barrett the "worst nightmare to a progressive SCOTUS since
Scalia" SQUARED aside, any justice nomination by Trump to the SCOTUS
in his first term will be met most likely by representatives wearing yellow
vests chock full of grey butter sticks, wired to rock. Yes it IS getting that
bad for them. What kills me is the laws they recently passed to protect
their recent aberrant behavior is exactly what's hamstringin' 'em NOW.

On the AOC thing-- I love quoting her complete if not frequent sentences
for nothing other than the comic content, and the automatic embarrassment.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




You're conflating "collusion" with obstruction of justice. There was plenty of evidence that Trump did and attempted to obstruct justice.


So tell us what the evidence is?




But, Mueller made it clear that the investigation and the report can't clear Trump of crimes, either.


Again, what crimes is he to be cleared of?



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari



The final paragraph is a hint of where the President is going to go with the battle from here forward... finding the leakers, snaring the low-hanging fruit who have already told America on video that they leaked, turning them to get the next higher ups, then the next....

The Executive branch has declared war.

No wonder Democratic leadership and the PR arm of the DNC (the MSM) is trying to get rid of Barr By Any Means Necessary.

Any thoughts from those who take the time to read the Flood letter?

Pretty good summary. I would point out though what this letter is: A Lawyer's Argument, not a law passed by Congress, not a Majority Opinion of SCOTUS, not a ruling of a federal judge. It's just A Lawyer's Argument, that's all.

But wait! There is more: It is, as you summarized, a direct directive from the WH to the AG, as to which "culprits" should be prosecuted and locked up. No wonder Barr didn't want to answer Kamala Harris's question about suggestions from the White House to Barr about investigations. The answer was "Yes". "The Former Director of the FBI" is quite explicitly identified.

All in all I would say that this letter is explicit evidence that the AG is not independent from the WH, and that from now on we should expect the DOJ to act as the personal "enforcement" arm of the President's whimsical enemies list.

"The Deep State" is now Trump's deep state.

But hey look on the bright side: Russia is not involved in Venezuela, "Putin told me so."

edit on 4-5-2019 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: highvein

Mueller is mad at Pelosi.
mobile.twitter.com...



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: highvein

Mueller is mad at Pelosi.
mobile.twitter.com...


Somebody's got the payoffs screwed up .......😆😆



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

You're projecting Republican fear, fear that their orange god is compromised and vulnerable to impeachment.



This old song from an old movie is your dream and exceeds your price.

Listen carefully to every word .....

especially ----- "This Dream is for You so Pay the Price"

Democrats are going to get the bombshell of the Century real soon. No Joke.

(this movie is more than 50 years old !!)


"You Only Live Twice" opening w/ music by Nancy Sinatra


edit on May-04-2019 by xuenchen because: banana democrats🍌



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Sookiechacha




You're conflating "collusion" with obstruction of justice. There was plenty of evidence that Trump did and attempted to obstruct justice.


So tell us what the evidence is?


The evidence is outlined in the 11 cases of the president's obstruction, or endeavor to obstruct justice, presented by Mueller in his office's detailed and lengthy report.



But, Mueller made it clear that the investigation and the report can't clear Trump of crimes, either.



Again, what crimes is he to be cleared of?


Obstruction of Justice. You know, that same charge that brought articles of impeachment on Nixon and Clinton?


edit on 4-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter




Flipping around our system of justice? By claiming he did not exonerate Trump, he effectively took a side. This shows bias.


No. It shows the rule of law and the constitutional process. Mueller did not take a side. He presented a lengthy and detailed of factual evidence of the president's "mostly unsuccessful" endeavors to obstruct justice. On one hand, the DOJ rule forbids the indictment of a sitting president, on the other hand the US Constitution places a duty on Congress to check the president's corruption. Mueller didn't take a side, he's forcing Congress to take a side. And that's what Congress is grappling with right now..."sides".


edit on 4-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha





Obstruction of Justice. You know, that same charge that brought articles of impeachment on Nixon and Clinton?


The difference though is there actually was real evidence of a crime committed by Nixon and Clinton. The special council determined that Trump did not commit a crime.

Even with that being the case, Nixon stepped down and was pardoned by Ford. Clinton received a slap on the wrist and continued on as President. So seriously, any sane human can see any impeachment process on Trump will be strictly for the histrionic drama proproganda and not actually seeking any real justice.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

And the fools don't even realize that they're dancing to this tune or if they do, they don't care because of how bad the orange man is.

It's so ridiculous beyond the point of humor that it's become sad.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




Mueller didn't take a side, he's forcing Congress to take a side. And that's what Congress is grappling with right now..."sides".


What congress is grappling with is whether impeaching trump will help or cause more harm to their elections. That is what is so frustrating for our representatives. If they overplay this and fail again, they may lose even more of their voters. At the same time, create a situation where majority will side with the supposed non-politician underdog Trump.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

And there is the conundrum. Clearly, the constitutional football is in Congress' arena, whether they like it or not. But, thrashing through Trump's crimes may put their elections at stake! What to do? Politics or principal?

If they do nothing, we have a constitutional crisis that will constantly be tearing at the fiber of our constitutional republic for decades to come.


edit on 4-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

And there is the conundrum. Clearly, the constitutional football is in Congress' court, whether they like it or not. But, thrashing through Trump's crimes may put their elections at stake! What to do? Politics or principal?

If they do nothing, we have a constitutional crisis that will constantly be tearing at the fiber of our constitutional republic for decades to come.



What crimes has Trump committed? Even the special council could not find any crimes that he had committed after a 2 year investigation! Add on the fact the Obama administration was investigating him for actual crimes and turned up nothing even before then. Face it, Trump played it fair and won.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The Constitutional Crisis is from the Dems weaponizing the intelligence agencies and DOJ for political purposes.

It’s not from POTUS defending himself from the perps of the Constitutional Crisis.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




Even the special council could not find any crimes that he had committed after a 2 year investigation!


What planet are you living on? Did you READ the Mueller report? Mueller outlined the president's crimes that encompassed 11 cases of obstruction of justice, that we know. (There are also criminal cases against Trump pending in other courts)

The question, that even AG Barr is asking and answering himself, is not if crimes were committed, but was the president's intent, when he committed the crimes, corrupt.

The president's mental state while committing crimes, is not AG Barr's purview. Whether or not the president's crimes reach the level of corruption is to be determined by Congress, and only Congress, as per the US Constitution.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

In all 11 instances that they looked at it was asked...was he attempting to obstruct the investigation? It was determined that he was not. He simply was an innocent man accused wrongfully who wanted the investigation to hurry up and clear his name. Nothing he said or asked would have obstructed the actual investigation. Thus no crime.

That is why these other investigations are beginning or being looked into by the FbI and DoJ. The justice department had failed, in they have been shown to be non- biased in the beginning of this whole ordeal of the investigation and earlier.

Mueller did not throw it to congress to make a conclusion, he left it up to Barr...the Attorney General.



edit on 5 4 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




In all 11 instances that they looked at it was asked...was he attempting to obstruct the investigation? It was determined that he was not.


Determined by whom? IT was most certainly not determined that Trump wasn't not trying to obstruct the investigation. In fact, the opposite is obvious.

Barr argues, that although Trump did try to obstruct justice, and was mostly unsuccessful, he did acted out of righteous frustration, knowing himself to be innocent. So, no corrupt intent, says Barr. Not everyone agree's with Barr's mental evaluation.



Mueller did not throw it to congress to make a conclusion, he left it up to Barr...the Attorney General.


It's obvious that you have not read the Mueller report.


Constitutional defenses.

As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. 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 authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice .

Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers . The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly " sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of "corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers. For example , the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment , avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary , a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President 's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties . 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.



CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. 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. At the same time, 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. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


From page 8.

www.justice.gov...

More commentary on the subject.

www.motherjones.com...



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hence the letter that is being discussed in the OP.




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join