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.

 

Fox News judge gives Trump terrible news amid Mueller speech

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: proteus33




You must have a crime to obstruct to actually be guilty of obstruction of said crime.


Can you please cite this law?




posted on May, 30 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: proteus33




You must have a crime to obstruct to actually be guilty of obstruction of said crime.


Can you please cite this law?


Example. Running a stop sign,then remove it so you can argue it was not there. Obstuction yes?

Trump ran the sign but he didn't remove it and say it was not there. Not obstruction.
If you don't understand that you are trolling.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

That's not a citation of a law that required an underlying criminal offense to be proven before you can charge someone with obstruction.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa

That's not a citation of a law that required an underlying criminal offense to be proven before you can charge someone with obstruction.



So? I wasn't speaking to what you wanted, because i wanted to give a example of obstructive actions.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Remember people:



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I'm asking the poster, who wasn't you, to provide a citation for the law that says an underlying crime must be proven to have been committed before an obstruction of justice charge can be applied.

I don't believe it exists.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa

That's not a citation of a law that required an underlying criminal offense to be proven before you can charge someone with obstruction.



An underlying crime isn't mandatory, BUT most legal scholars have stated that it would be extraordinarily difficult to successfully prosecute obstruction charges in a case without an underlying crime and no accusations of lying to investigators or perjury. In fact, try to find any example of an individual being charged with only obstruction (and I mean actual obstruction, not evidence tampering or trying to physically interfere with an arrest.) I've been unable to find one, but maybe your searching mojo exceeds my own. Trump has not been even remotely accused of lying to investigators or perjury.

Another side issue here is the total absence of Mueller accusing *anyone* of obstruction. He's used the "DOJ can't try a sitting POTUS" crutch on Trump, but what of Trump's entire inner circle? He could have and would have charged any or all of them with obstruction if he'd found evidence to do so. Amazingly, he didn't and that's a pretty solid repudiation that Trump had no activity which obstructed justice, because that type of issue tends to work from the top down and dirty a number of hands.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Willtell
...
Mueller says basically:

If we had evidence Trump didn’t commit a crime we would have said so

In other words, Trump committed a crime and we couldn’t indict him by law.


Last I checked, an investigation is supposed to prove guilt not, non-guilt. In other words, the default is innocent until PROVEN guilty. What is with the left that they honestly believe in people needing to be proven innocent?

The law requires you to be proven guilty.....


WTF???





Trump beat them, then he laughed at them for losing, then he kept laughing at them when they kept losing. If you were a pampered, spoiled brat, how would you feel?



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




BUT most legal scholars have stated that it would be extraordinarily difficult to successfully prosecute obstruction charges in a case without an underlying crime and no accusations of lying to investigators or perjury.


Not most. Some.

At any rate, that defense is being tested right now in Roger Stone's case.


The Stone legal team also tried to say Mueller couldn't prosecute him for obstruction if they hadn't found collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in 2016.

Buschel pointed to a memo William Barr had written to the Justice Department before he became attorney general under Trump, where he made that argument.

"I would like to know what case law supports that," Jackson said. "What case law?"

Buschel only had the Barr memo to cite.
edition.cnn.com...



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

What crime has Trump been proven guilty of such that he obstructed the pursuit of justice in determining it?

I've been searching and searching and searching all morning and I can't find the court ruling that:

a) He's guilty of a crime.
B) What that crime is.

help a brother out - what crime has he been found guilty of doing?

NB: Opinions, innuendo and fairytales don't count.

???



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
At any rate, that defense is being tested right now in Roger Stone's case.


Except Stone is also being charged with multiple counts of lying to Congress and witness tampering. Again, there is no precedent for charging obstruction in absence of lies, tampering, or perjuring themselves and nothing in the Mueller report indicated that Trump did any of that.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Willtell

What crime has Trump been proven guilty of such that he obstructed the pursuit of justice in determining it?


I'll answer for Willtell, since the real answer is obvious. He won the election. End scene.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa

That's not a citation of a law that required an underlying criminal offense to be proven before you can charge someone with obstruction.



Another side issue here is the total absence of Mueller accusing *anyone* of obstruction. He's used the "DOJ can't try a sitting POTUS" crutch on Trump, but what of Trump's entire inner circle?


This is a great point. Aside from being wrong about Trump and using this "we can't indict the President" bs excuse, what happened to Don Jr. going to jail and everyone else close to Trump who must've been "in on it"? None of them are the President. What's the excuse there?



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Willtell
...
Mueller says basically:

If we had evidence Trump didn’t commit a crime we would have said so

In other words, Trump committed a crime and we couldn’t indict him by law.


Last I checked, an investigation is supposed to prove guilt not, non-guilt. In other words, the default is innocent until PROVEN guilty. What is with the left that they honestly believe in people needing to be proven innocent?

The law requires you to be proven guilty.....


WTF???





Trump beat them, then he laughed at them for losing, then he kept laughing at them when they kept losing. If you were a pampered, spoiled brat, how would you feel?


This right here is the essence of the problem. The Democrat party has become a bunch of entitled, sheltered babies who have been told all their lives that their opinions can't be wrong (no matter how loosely they're based in fact), that they're all winners (no matter how badly they got beat), that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, sexist, etc.

Is anyone really surprised they can't handle a negative life event like losing an election they were told was pretty much a guaranteed victory? It's not like these people were taught how to handle life as adults.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not true. Trump, according to the Mueller report, solicited perjury, dangled pardons, intimidated witnesses and asked people to tamper with evidence. All those things are crimes. It's up to Congress to decide if those crime reach the threshold for impeachment.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Mueller report accuses him of none of those things. The fact that Congress keep vascilating between saying "it's not worth trying to impeach, the risks are too great" and "OMG, our fans want us to impeach, we should impeach" proves that this isn't going to be Congress deciding on any threshold related to crimes or accusations of such and is instead purely an exercise in Congress trying to find the threshold of attacking on which they won't totally offend their sane supporters while totally disappointing their more rabid base.

No crimes have been found here, move on or don't... but quit manufacturing items and claiming they're in an official report which absolutely does not contain them.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Mueller's office disputed that characterization in a joint statement... Who to believe..? You or Mueller's spokesman...



"The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.” 



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Trump had another bad day today, because he is a criminal. No one is above the law, Trump is going to find this out first hand.



A criminal? What crime did he commit?



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




The Mueller report accuses him of none of those things.


The Mueller report doesn't accuse Trump of anything. It documents testimony, documents, emails, voicemails, tweets, etc., and yes, yes the report does document Trump doing each and every one of those things, and more.

Trump, according to the report, convinced Cohen to lie about Trump Tower Moscow facts and dates. Trump asked Annie Donaldson to tamper with evidence. He threatened Cohen's father in law, he dangled pardons, he did all those things, and more, according to the Mueller report.



No crimes have been found here


That's not what Mueller or his report said.


edit on 30-5-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Witch Hunt 😃



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join