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.

 

Over 300 Federal prosecutors pen a letter saying Trump should have been charged with obstruction .

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   
This is a bit of a bombshell. But what needs to be kept in mind is the political affiliations of the prosecutors.

The fact that parts of the repot are redacted and that they agreed that it wasn’t a slamdunk case . One thing they might not have taken into account is that he was in fact the chief executive .

But the bottom line claim is that Barr didn’t indict Trump because of long-standing DOJ policy .


Nearly 400 federal prosecutors on Monday said they believe President Donald Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if not for a longstanding Justice Department policy barring the indictment of a sitting president.

In a letter posted online, 370 DOJ alumni with up to four decades of service with the department wrote that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report — a redacted version of which was publicly released last month — formed a case for obstruction against the president for which there is “overwhelming” evidence.


politico
edit on 6-5-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon May 6 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: Attempt to fix link




posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Link is broken

Here is a new one...Politico



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Thank you


+5 more 
posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

That's probably 400 out of the several thousand they asked.


+3 more 
posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Oh nooooo! A letter? Whatever shall we do?

Lol just 4.5 more years of useless letters and petitions

youtu.be...

Idk how to imbed this on my phone but it’s just 8 hilarious seconds.


+1 more 
posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
My prediction? 300 or more will come to the opposite conclusion. Just some left wing eye candy to keep the hornets mad.



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
All I'm seeing is?... Three hundred idiots, with "titles", are saying stuff.
So what?


+19 more 
posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
How can you obstruct when no crime was committed?



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

I'll just leave this here.


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.


www.scribd.com...&from_embed


+13 more 
posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
How can you obstruct when no crime was committed?


Oh don’t you know? In clown world hiring a lawyer and defending yourself from false allegations is obstruction now.


+2 more 
posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
That's probably 400 out of the several thousand they asked.


Just as an FYI there are slightly over 2,300 of them.



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   
And this



As we stated in our meeting of March 5 and reiterated to the Department early in the afternoon of March 24, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office’s work and conclusions. The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.


www.snopes.com...
edit on 6-5-2019 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Sounds like most of them have long since retired. And their brains are not as sharp as they used to be. Ginsburg types.


+1 more 
posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

He tried to stop a politicized illegal investigation, which was set up by the Obama administration to weaponize the DOJ against him, his family and friends.

The real question is what normal person wouldn't fight for their family when the resources of our entire government are used to target you and everyone you know. I'm just surprised that the left support this considering Trump is in the position to do the same to their next hero.

ETA: To add to that, if nobody goes to jail for this illegal investigation. I say Trump should use the same tactics because we know the left will again once they regain power.
edit on 6-5-2019 by Middleoftheroad because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-5-2019 by Middleoftheroad because: Was hard to read with those run-on sentences.


+1 more 
posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   
soo juicy !!

I bet those names all trace back to Democrat/anti-Trump backgrounds and probably paid-to-play😎




posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   
OMG! LOL! Lawyers are doing stuff! Every "educated" idiot know's, that the "paralegals" "penned" it...
That said? 300 and "over", is a very small % of "lawyers". The "State" "lawyers" are a dime a dozen OP. Why does this "news" prick your ears?



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Fallingdown

I'll just leave this here.


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.


www.scribd.com...&from_embed


I hope Mueller was right in his report and this is politically motivated . But their letter is directly challenging both Mueller and Barr.

The main reason I posted this was so that everyone could get ready if they’re on any other forum . The best way to counter an argument is to know what your opponent is going to say.

Therefore It’s best to do counter research first .



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

2,300 idiots. I'm sure he/she stands corrected.



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

What I get from Muellers summary, was that Trump stymied their efforts to get down to the bottom of things.

And that congress needs to further investigate.

Obstruction is a possibility though not certain.



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Should'a would'a could'a.




top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join