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.

 

The stable genius, Triggered

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



This is a tired, worn out excuse that has no legal basis. Even William Barr isn't arguing there was no obstruction of justice, Barr is arguing that Trump's intent, while committing obstructive acts, were done out of frustration, not corruption, and therefore don't reach the threshold of criminal acts.


I'm sorry that you feel that actual law is tired and worn out.

Perhaps that explains your ignorance on the subject.

If an action does not rise to the threshold of a criminal act, you are saying that the action is STILL a crime in Trump's particular case because... Orange Man Bad?

If it is not a criminal act by the definition of the law concerning it, then by definition it is not a criminal act.

This isn't rocket science.





posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Wiping servers and smashing cell phones doesnt doesnt get a prosecution today so its really had for me to take anything about this seriously.

The bar has been lowered so far that its nonexistent.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




None of the legal experts insisting that Trump deserves impeachment have been able to explain how you can obstruct justice when no crime is present. Or how someone, president or not, is not allowed first amendment protections when issuing opinions on Twitter.


This is a tired, worn out excuse that has no legal basis. Even William Barr isn't arguing there was no obstruction of justice, Barr is arguing that Trump's intent was pure, and that while he committed obstructive acts, were done out of frustration, not corruption, and therefore don't reach the threshold of criminal acts.

In the meantime, early on, page 8, I think, of Volume 2, the Mueller report explains that it's Congress' jurisdiction and authority to decide to on the question of presidential corruption.
Nope.

It's done.

Pelosis even said that if you want to impeach, convince the Senate first. Won't happen. Dead stick in the water.

Carry on with your life and start focusing on something more meaningful that will contribute positively to your parties pick.l because as of right now, they drowning and burning, no real leadership or any actual legislation.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

AG William Barr's exact words:
Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. www.emptywheel.net...#-claim-that-trump-obstructed-the-investigation-out-of-frustration-and-anger/



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: LDragonFire


Or did you just let CNN tell you what to think?


That describes most of our left-wing members.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




I'm sorry that you feel that actual law is tired and worn out.


Please cite this law?



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Is bringing evil things to light really bad? Maybe it came about in a wrong way, but if it had anything to do with really hurting Hillary's run I'm happy for it.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
This "case closed" stuff has got you leftist in a frenzy.

At what point do you all just accept defeat here?
Trump won(again).
You all lost(again).
Get over it!

It's not like this administration has done anything harmful to you personally. In fact your quality of life has probably gone up under Trump. But don't let that all stop you from jumping on the collectivist short bus just to stay part of the group and fit in.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




allegations

and
there were "allegations" of collusion as well
why did you drop that talking point?

there is a reason mueller left them as allegations
too bad you either dont understand that word or what it means

when the investigation is done and they are still "possible" it means there is a lack of evidence



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Ha! Trump is lying, again. I just found this:

Bannon recalled that the White House had invited Mueller to speak to the President to offer a perspective on the institution of the FBI. 532 Bannon said that, although the White House thought about beseeching Mueller to become Director again, he did not come in looking for the job.

Page 293, Section 530 of the Mueller report, Volume 2 www.documentcloud.org.../

So, Mueller didn't meet with Trump looking for the FBI position. He was there to advise the president and offer a "perspective on the institution."



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




there is a reason mueller left them as allegations


Yep. Because only a court of law can declare a person guilty. In the case of a sitting president, Congress is that court, with a Supreme Court justice presiding over the hearings.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
From here to election, it's No Holds Barred.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


Which is why the right is celebrating, and why the left is still trying to find new nothings to get mad about.


You guys sure have a weird way of celebrating.




posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   
On a side note: I wonder who the elected officials were that was named by el Chapo behind closed doors? It would be quite interesting if those names were leaked.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

or perhaps because he lacked the evidence of intent needed to charge obstruction?
it is also the reason he is able to say he can't exonerate him.

Back to congress again, when are the dems going to start that impeachment I hear so much about?
That requires "High crimes and misdemeanors" right?
Too bad mueller didnt expose any of that.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did Trump coordinated with the Russians to interfere in the elections?

To me seems like they just didn't wanted Hillary to win.

And well, who can blame'em?


edit on 30/5/2019 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did Trump actually state that Mueller was at the White House seeking the Directorship of the FBI ?

All the articles from that time period cited "sources".

I remember hearing Trump say Mueller was there for "a job", not stating exactly "what job".

Another dud with a wet fuse😆



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: cognizant420

How exactly did Russia interfere? Just a some social media posts? Or did the actually hack voting machines? If no voting machines were hacked then how exactly did Russia interfere? Anyone can say anything they want online, atleast in usa, I still dont understand what the interfering was.


I too am not sure how some social media posts are seen as anything at all, real or faked. We also do not know if the Russians actually hacked Hillary's server and even if they did it seems it was a fishing hack job that even the DNC and RNC and maybe dozens of other agencies were targeted with the only difference that Hillary's was unprotected and successful.

Normal ops for much of the world...

The true interference seems to be Russian's involvement in helping to create the Steele dossier that is full of bad actors and paid for by Hillary/DNC...

Holy crap people


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



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
From here to election, it's No Holds Barred.

oh I don't think we have seen anything yet....
this will be a very interesting ride
the big prize seems very much up for grabs



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: CynConcepts

Is bringing evil things to light really bad? Maybe it came about in a wrong way, but if it had anything to do with really hurting Hillary's run I'm happy for it.


It is only bad to those who do evil things.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join