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: 7
40
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




They couldn't prove him guilty,


The evidence proves him guilty. Even Bill Barr doesn't argue that Trump "didn't do it". Bill Barr is arguing that Trump "did it" out of righteous frustration.




posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle



Let's get all this crap out of the way so we can investigate and charge Hillary, bill, the podestas, Huma, rice, obama, kerry, Mueller, biden and FFS's, obama!

The times.... They are a changin'

The times did change, soon as Barr was confirmed.

Weird! The Republicans had House, Senate, WhiteHouse, FBI, CIA, for two whole years, and didn't find anything to convict your enemies list.

Trump says "No redos for the Dems!" but yeah, with Barr whatever redos necessary for the Don.

Fun times! So much winning!

It's like that horse race in Kentucky. "The best didn't win!" All rules should be dropped for the Don, until he's happy.
The New America is just around the corner.

I'm sure Putin would like all Russia Counter-Intel people investigated and removed from the alphabet agencies too. From Putin to Trump to Barr.

USA! USA!



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena




Trump says "No redos for the Dems!" but yeah, with Barr whatever redos necessary for the Don.


BENGHAZI! URANIUM ONE! EMAILS!
LOCK HER UP!

LOL



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




They couldn't prove him guilty,


The evidence proves him guilty. Even Bill Barr doesn't argue that Trump "didn't do it". Bill Barr is arguing that Trump "did it" out of righteous frustration.



What evidence. The evidence in your liberal wet dream? It's still just a dream lol. Do you need a crying closet? Can we call you a waahmbulance?

There is no evidence, get over yourself.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 5/5.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




They couldn't prove him guilty,


The evidence proves him guilty. Even Bill Barr doesn't argue that Trump "didn't do it". Bill Barr is arguing that Trump "did it" out of righteous frustration.



Dis you even read the Mueller report? First there was no collusion. And as for Mueller trying to turn the tables on the criminal justice system. Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence Mueller had to prove his guilt. Since he was unable to do that Trump is innocent.

Mueller had to account for the millions he spent so he decided to flip the judicial system upside down and say he couldn't prove his innocence. Sadly he destroyed 200 years of jury prudence and the constitution out the window.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: bobs_uruncle



Let's get all this crap out of the way so we can investigate and charge Hillary, bill, the podestas, Huma, rice, obama, kerry, Mueller, biden and FFS's, obama!

The times.... They are a changin'

The times did change, soon as Barr was confirmed.

Weird! The Republicans had House, Senate, WhiteHouse, FBI, CIA, for two whole years, and didn't find anything to convict your enemies list.

Trump says "No redos for the Dems!" but yeah, with Barr whatever redos necessary for the Don.

Fun times! So much winning!

It's like that horse race in Kentucky. "The best didn't win!" All rules should be dropped for the Don, until he's happy.
The New America is just around the corner.

I'm sure Putin would like all Russia Counter-Intel people investigated and removed from the alphabet agencies too. From Putin to Trump to Barr.

USA! USA!


There are no redos with Barr since an investigation against the perps I mentioned was never carried out or was circumvented by the perps themselves using controlled resources within the intel community and the DOJ. Far cry from what the perps did to trump, launching a fraudulent investigation based on a fraudulent witness.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



BENGHAZI! URANIUM ONE! EMAILS!
LOCK HER UP!

LOL

Now if we only had a joint FBI-GRU Special Investigation, I'm sure we could lock them all up.

Remember this Gem?



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Dis you even read the Mueller report?


Dis you?



Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence Mueller had to prove his guilt.


He did that. Read the report.



Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.


That's why Mueller referred the case of obstruction of justice to Congress.





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



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dragonridr




Dis you even read the Mueller report?


Dis you?



Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence Mueller had to prove his guilt.


He did that. Read the report.



Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.


That's why Mueller referred the case of obstruction of justice to Congress.






Really can you quote that for us? I saw where he said he had 10 incidents which may be obstruction. Problem is as Mueller stated he was unable to determine if they were. Problem becomes on the Mueller report you only see one side of the story. And let's face it several of Muller's points dont make sense. Trump has been known to fire people on Twitter but supposedly White House council told him no.

Even funnier White House council doesnt have the power to fire anyone. Come on even Muller knows this. So him even including that in the report was stupid.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


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, 5 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is no referral.

There's just a snide, jealous, bitter meaningless hint 😆



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No confidence in the facts by the Bueller Team.

What a gem that statement is 😆




posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The constitutional process of checks and balances isn't meaningless or snide, et al.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

The constitutional process of checks and balances isn't meaningless or snide, et al.


Neither is the constitutional presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is upon Mueller to prove guilt. No confidence in the facts is the admission that guilt can't be proven. Duh, constitutional presumption of innocence. Get a grip.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Again, the evidence proves his guilt. Even Barr doesn't dispute that the evidence is there. He just suggested/ruled, that Trump was justified in having obstructed justice because he was righteously frustrated.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

The constitutional process of checks and balances isn't meaningless or snide, et al.


Of course it isn't.

But the Bueller Report statement is 😎



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Again, the evidence proves his guilt. Even Barr doesn't dispute that the evidence is there. He just suggested/ruled, that Trump was justified in having obstructed justice because he was righteously frustrated.



The Bueller Report made no such statement of any evidence proving any guilt.

This is amazing how you are twisting this. 😆

"This was the Democrat response the other day😆"


"This is what Democrats need to look hard at😆"



edit on May-05-2019 by xuenchen because: banana democrats🍌



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Again, the evidence proves his guilt. Even Barr doesn't dispute that the evidence is there. He just suggested/ruled, that Trump was justified in having obstructed justice because he was righteously frustrated.



Your premise for obstruction is a joke, you really need to examine the situation and the law a bit better lol.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 5/5.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




The Bueller Report made no such statement of any evidence proving any guilt.


That's not how it works. The evidence speaks for itself. Now, it's up to Congress to decide what to do with the evidence. That's the way it works.



posted on May, 5 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Evidence isn't a premise. Evidence, in this case, is a reiteration of facts, emails, transcripts, testimony, documents, etc.




top topics



 
40
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join