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.

 

Legal Experts Agree Democrats Subpoena Asks Attorney General Barr To Violate Law

page: 2
41
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2019 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Nice to see this finally start to be studied based on the law and not the spin.




posted on May, 17 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


Ummm...OMG...Fat Jerry Nadless…

He...He...He...

It's true...all the democrats...can...be seen elbowing their way out of a clown car...

Imagine that...







YouSir



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

300 of about 30,000.

I agree though, what matters is the actual legal precedent and court cases this expert mentioned. The court JUST ruled on a near identical case.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ATruGod

There are 100 offices, each with up to 300 prosecutors. So 300 of them don't like Trump, as little as 1%.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So now the opinion of legal experts matter? It didn't seem that way when 300+ legal experts said that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice.


You're almost there X, just keep reaching a little more!



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So now the opinion of legal experts matter? It didn't seem that way when 300+ legal experts said that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice.


They never said that he was guilty, but that he could be charged... keep in mind that they were all prosecutors. The case of the OP, its rather a black-and-white case of the law saying grand jury notes cannot be released, and therefore, releasing them is illegal. Obstruction of justice, much like disorderly conduct" can be taken to be pretty much anything. Well... anything except destroying thousands of emails, hard drives and phones that were subpoenaed pursuant to an actual criminal investigation... that's apparently not obstruction of justice.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake
(let's say we hear in a broken English spoken with a hint of a European accent of your choice, my choice might be Mediterranean in nature)
How can we make that work for us too?
Ya see, we want those options when the LEO's knock on door bout our 'business'. We need to be able to destroy phones and burn files legally.
edit on 17-5-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Will the Dems now say their own legal experts are in the tank for Trump, and will they be charged with something ridiculous to impugn their character?

/sarc (mostly)


edit on pm55201919America/Chicago17p06pm by annoyedpharmacist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So now the opinion of legal experts matter? It didn't seem that way when 300+ legal experts said that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice.


Those legal experts were brought to the place by Democrats to show that Barr was breaking the law by not giving the dems what they want. it was the Democratic expert witnesses that said Barr would be breaking the law if he were to give those documents. What can't you understand about this, the Dems blew it.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
www.oann.com...


Witnesses brought to Capitol Bill by Democrats recently delivered a blow to the party’s rhetoric on the attorney general. Republican Congressman Kelly Armstrong grilled legal experts Wednesday about the subpoena issued to William Barr by the House Judiciary Committee. When pressed on the issue, the witnesses agreed that the subpoena asks Barr to violate the law in order to comply.


I bet Fat Jerry didn't like this one bit. perhaps a consolation bucket of chicken is in order. I think most with some sense knew this, as the law about why the redaction's were made is pretty clear. But the fact that the dims had such a public display of idiocy does make for good TV. I wonder what this does for the contempt charge? Should Nadler be held in contempt for trying to force someone to break the law? Asking because I really don't know, but it sure would be a nice turn of events.

Stay classy left.



Then why did you use a conspiracy site as a source??


Assuming this is true, Fox at least should be playing it in a loop..



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

I bet Fat Jerry didn't like this one bit.

Stay classy left.


Yeah but this whole thing has nothing to do with truth or justice and they could care less about whether the charges stick... this boils down to them getting a 24 to 48hr news cycle of bashing



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

I’m still waiting on someone who isn’t a conspiracy site to say that lol...

Oann.com ???
Lol



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

it makes me smile when someone cries about the source and the source included a video of the incident to provide 100% context of the situation. it's like a way to cope with reality, by ignoring reality. I commend you for trying to trick your mind, but I assure you, at some point, you will have to face facts, deal with what is real, and understand the totality of what is going on. Good luck.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

He would have been if their was actually a crime but since no crime was found their was no crime obstructed if that makes sense to you. If I say stole a pb and j sandwich for the pb and j sandwich shop and took video of me doing it and police had a warrant for my video and I deleted it that would be obstruction. Now if I paid for said sandwich and some moron at next table saw me walk out of store and told a cop I did not pay and cops asked for my video with a warrant and I deleted it then there is no obstruction because no actual crime took place. And why should justice department listen to Congress they are part of the executive branch not legislative . When republicans were in power they did not cooperate with them that much either.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

He didn't obstruct anything even if there was a crime. His desire to end the possibly illegal investigation is normal, since we know he was not guilty of what the Dem's claimed and it was a witch hunt. Desiring to end a witch hunt is not obstruction, since he did not end it.



posted on May, 22 2019 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So now the opinion of legal experts matter? It didn't seem that way when 300+ legal experts said that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice.


Obstruction of justice is what left-wingers/democrats have been doing trying to shift the blame away from them... Last I remember Rosestein approved the firing of Comey... Even thou Rosestein is anti-Trump...

We know you, and the rest of the anti-Trump crowd, don't care about the fact that good people have been bankrupt and their lives are upside down because of LIES and because of your "political stunt" trying to claim Trump colluded with Russia...



posted on May, 22 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

Since this is the new battle cry followed by Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! I think it's time to unravel this a bit.

Please list the things Mueller was not able to investigate due to Trump obstruction.

Then list the people who Trump didn't allow to communicate with Mueller.

Once we have compiled this list, we can all verify it's authenticity, and decide if Trump obstructed Mueller's probe.

You have the floor, the ball is in your court. Go for it.




top topics



 
41
<< 1   >>

log in

join