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: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Funny since I did not vote for him nor do I particularly like him and so in no way do I hold him to any lesser standard than any other who would seek to hold the office.

For decades it's been the lesser of two evils which still results in evil.

Trump represented a possible end to the endless cycle of partisan douchebaggery. Granted he has his own brand of garbage in which he participates, but I think it quite telling that he wasn't the epitome of evil the media has been trying to tell us he is until he won the republican nomination.

Then all of a sudden one might think he was worse than Hitler or Satan himself based upon the portrayal he's been given by the media.

Go ahead and keep your head in the sand, I'm sure you can breath just fine.




posted on May, 4 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: jadedANDcynical




Oh, real mature.


Ouch! An ATS Trumpster is holding me to a higher standard than they hold their orange god!


Lol

Yup, not emotional at all....

Lol

Barr is a big fat liar.....

Lol



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




posted on May, 4 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

Wrong thread! Ooops
edit on 4-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



Illustration: Naima Callenberg

From Wikipedia Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)


Hobbes explicitly rejects the idea of Separation of Powers.

The sovereign has twelve principal rights:[13]

2. Because the covenant forming the commonwealth results from subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.

4.Every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects and cannot be accused of injustice.

6.Because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord. Therefore, the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse, who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes, and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.
7.To prescribe the rules of civil law and property.
8.To be judge in all cases.
9.To make war and peace as he sees fit and to command the army.
10.To choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.
11.To reward with riches and honour or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.
12.To establish laws about honour and a scale of worth.

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

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



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Who is claiming that the evidence outlined in Mueller's report is not factual.

WHO is Claiming it Is ?








posted on May, 4 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

WHO is Claiming it Is ?

How many of the “obstruction” examples in Vol 2 took place BEFORE the illegal FISA warrants? Anything DJT did after that point in regards to the fake Russia collusion narrative isn’t obstruction, it’s self defense.

It doesn’t matter anyway. It’s over. Trump is running in 2020. Hillary isn’t. Dems don’t have the Intel Agencies and DOJ weaponized for this next election. They will have to campaign on the backs of the socialist agenda.






posted on May, 4 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   
WHO is Claiming it Is ?

How many of the “obstruction” examples in Vol 2 took place BEFORE the illegal FISA warrants? Anything DJT did after that point in regards to the fake Russia collusion narrative isn’t obstruction, it’s self defense.

It doesn’t matter anyway. It’s over. Trump is running in 2020. Hillary isn’t. Dems don’t have the Intel Agencies and DOJ weaponized for this next election. They will have to campaign on the backs of the socialist agenda.






posted on May, 4 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

17 States, including 3 that Trump won in 2016, are in various stages of passing laws that will keep any Presidential candidate off the Nov 2020 ballot, if he/she has not produced his/her tax returns.
edit on 5/4/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

17 States, including 3 that Trump won in 2016, are in various stages of passing laws that will keep any Presidential candidate off the Nov 2020 ballot, if he/she has not produced his/her tax returns.


doubt they all survive Supreme Court. DJT would release them if necessary. The IRS already has them. If they were a problem for Trump the world would already know. The IRS was weaponized by Obama already. The tax issue is a decoy.

DJT has survived Obama, Hillary, Nancy, Chuck, and now Mueller. If those states are allowed to enforce that requirement, I think it’s long term impact on the Dems will be more significant than once for DJT.
edit on 5-5-2019 by PilSungMtnMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan




Anything DJT did after that point in regards to the fake Russia collusion narrative isn’t obstruction, it’s self defense.


Does that apply to anyone, or just the president? Can any obstruct justice if they "know" they're not guilty?


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



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan




Anything DJT did after that point in regards to the fake Russia collusion narrative isn’t obstruction, it’s self defense.


Does that apply to anyone, or just the president? Can any obstruct justice if they "know" they're not guilty?



Where in Mueller's report does it state and had proven that the investigation of Volume 1 was hindered or obstructed by Trump? Volume 1, the actual initial criminal investigation was completely unhindered by Trump and concluded.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I'm not as well read on Volume 1 as I am on Volume 2, but, I think trying to fire the Special Counsel and asking the White House counsel to falsify records counts. Isn't there also the dangling of pardons (bribery) and threats to Cohen's family...i.e. witness tampering?
edit on 5-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

I'm not as well read on Volume 1 as I am on Volume 2, but, I think trying to fire the Special Counsel and asking the White House counsel to falsify records counts. Isn't there also the dangling of pardons and threats to Cohen's family...i.e. witness tampering?


Another special council would have been chosen, trump wanted McGahn to clarify that he never said Fire. So all that remains is his frustrated public tweeting and not covertly trying to threaten witness nor bribe them.

Nope. The main fact is that Trump and his administration assisted the investigation which this was all about in Volume 1. Volume 2 the obstruction investigation was added on before they concluded their 1st investigation.

Then lo and behold, the White House did not even try to cover anything up from the public by using executive privilege! Just left all of it stay in the reports for transparency. Really amazing. It is a first in my time of our viewing scandals with the Presidential administrations.

Common sense and logic says, Trump is innocent.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Now you're making excuses for Trump's obstruction, like Barr. Trump wanted to cherry pick his own Special Counsel. One that he could manipulate.


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



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   
If no underlying crime was to be obstructed, sure it applies to everyone. Prosecutor after prosecutor confirmed while its “possible” for it to happen, they simply wouldn’t pursue because “intent” is so hard to prove without reasonable doubt.

Hey, I get it. My side vs Your side. One would never convince the other. I look at it like Alan Dershowitz said; “I pull for the pilot of my flight. Regardless of party. Right now, Trump is the pilot.”

Obama wasn’t my choice. Heck, Trump was 4th on my GOP wish list, but he won. I do believe what DJT says about not wanting what happened to him to happen to any future president, regardless of party.

If the IG/AG come back and say that only a small # of bad apples broke the law, then fine, the subject ends. Move on. One witch hunt doesn’t justify another.

Let’s have a fair 2020 election and go from there.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan




If no underlying crime was to be obstructed, sure it applies to everyone.


So, people who assert there innocence should be able to bribe key figures, manipulate the system and have a say in who is investigating them, and order their staffers/employees to falsify evidence?
edit on 5-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan




If no underlying crime was to be obstructed, sure it applies to everyone.


So, people who assert there innocence should be able to bribe key figures, manipulate the system and have a say in who is investigating them, and falsify evidence?


If he committed a crime that could be proven without reasonable doubt, either Mueller would have recommended charges or the House can launch impeachment.

People don’t get charged every day when there’s varying levels of evidence. Heck, look at Hillary.

I know you’re mad, angry, frustrated. I get it. If it had turned out Team Trump colluded with Russia, we would be having a different conversation.

It’s good we can discuss it.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts

Now you're making excuses for Trump's obstruction, like Barr. Trump wanted to cherry pick his own Special Counsel. One that he could manipulate.



No I am not making excuses for Trump's obstruction because there was none. Like Barr I am considering Trump's behavior and speech to determine if intentional obstruction of justice may have or not occurred. Also, considering whether a crime actually existed.

Justice was not obstructed, per Muellers conclusion in Volume 1. Thus there is no evidence that justice was obstructed. No crime. Trump still has freedom of speech like all of us. Even if it is misinterpreted or poorly expressed. He is human. He is an American citizen.

He is innocent of these accusations, thus why it was concluded he should not be charged.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Bob Mueller is intentionally keeping the Trump-Russia dialogue and Obstruction dialogue going.

truthout.org...

Mueller himself needs to testify ASAP. I don't know why he's resisting. His report was issued over 2 weeks ago.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join