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: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   


That's why that ends with it does not exonerate him.

good thing we don't do that in this nation
no charges are all mueller gets to say
doj policy prevents him from releasing the dirt

funny no one wants to discuss the no charges part




posted on May, 7 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown



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


Incorrect, he specifically said that was not the reason he decided against it. He said they viewed the merits of each charge and none of them actually fit the framework, despite mueller acting like they did.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
It said alumni in the article, does that mean many of them are retired??? How many thousands of retired judges are there??


I'd wager it's a goodly amount, probably at least double.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Being non political and simply looking at the facts.

Mueller approaches Trump and asks to be the head of the FBI, before the investigation. Trump rejects Mueller's offer. Pretty sure Mueller is not a happy camper after that.

Rod appoints Mueller as special counsel for the Trump administration. That in itself is a conflict. Trump is not a happy camper after that. Trump says things about removing the conflict. Rod set up the conflict, and put in place a trump hater.

Trump has "Extenuating Circumstances", and that is why there should be no charges. It was a rigged investigation. Tell that, to the people!



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

And these people served presidents on both sides so it's not a dem thing.
That gives us a good idea about how these issues will set with the supreme court.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I've got 300 American voters who say that the witch hunt on Trump needs to end in prosecution for the treasonous wretches who perpetrated it.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
how and why would any of these issues make it to the scotus?

barr presented the results
its over

all that is left is impeachment
nothing for the scotus to do with that



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

So where are they then?
The news is over 24 hours old.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: murphy22

Yeah thats great....
They are federal investigators but they are idiots.
Why? Because they say trump is a crook? Is everyone who sees him for what he is an idiot?



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
www.realclearpolitics.com...




REP. AL GREEN: I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected.


boy do I got news for you.......



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I do believe that has already been explained several times.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

I always know who read and who didn't read the report now. Just from the answers they post.
You .... did not read it.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 08:35 AM
link   
the report says no charges will be sought
or is that a different report?



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Fallingdown



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


That was addressing the 400+ prosecutors bottom line claim on why Trump wasn’t charged . clearly written in their letter .



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.


Incorrect, he specifically said that was not the reason he decided against it. He said they viewed the merits of each charge and none of them actually fit the framework, despite mueller acting like they did.


That wasn’t my claim it referred to the prosecutors claim in the quote below it .


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.


My position aligned with yours .

This is directly from Barr’s letter to Congress .


Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.



Barr’s letter
edit on 7-5-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

In other words the democrats are afraid that they can't defeat Trump in a free and fair election so they've got to do everything possible to destroy him, remove him from office, or so damage his image that their candidate can have a chance to win in 2020.

By any means necessary!




posted on May, 7 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2

Geeze

I’m a solid conservative and have been for decades .



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: yuppa

And you missed the other part of the summary where they specifically said many of those they interviewed lied, plead the 5th, would not provide evidence or deleted evidence.

That's why that ends with it does not exonerate him.


No crime was comitted. No crime you cant have obstructed anything. The OPINION of the prosecutors dont mater. its what they can prove isnt it?

No the special council worded it that way so the people too stupid to realize the truth would have something to hold onto. Only a moron believes that a person found not able to be prosecuted under the LAW is guilty of a crime.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Are only the ones saying what you like worth listening to? What about the rest not signing this?



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

No crime was committed? According to who? Trump? Trump is a known liar.

I will agree with you that it's what the prosecuter can prove. But with so many people either pleading the 5th, using encrypted communication or destroying communications or refusing to cooperate with Mueller. How is he supposed to find anything? If Trump and his crew are innocent why weren't they cooperating?



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: grey580

There was no crime. Therefore, no obstruction. Saying it, that there was obstruction, over and over, and over, will not make it any more true.

In essence, ol' Bob Mueller couldn't find anything, but to cover his ass, he hems and haws, saying just because in two years of dumpster diving he couldn't find anything, doesn't mean there wasn't something...


Umm, there clearly were several crimes being investigated, some that resulted in convictions.

Trump thought he was a guilty party and on 10 occasions attempted to do things which might be considered obstruction of justice.

The attempt to obstruct justice shows that there was a perception that a crime had been committed and that there was some feeling of guilt.

There was a whole section of the Mueller report's executive summary that stated that Trump was not exonerated. Why might that have been included and what does that actually mean?




top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join