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.
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
originally posted by: xuenchen
Nancy Pelosi needs to provide 100% proof that she has never taken 2nd or 3rd hand dark money from illegal sources that support illegal immigration and smuggling 😎
Your understanding of the legal processes is.. failing.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude
Do you need a hug?
The real problem is how unhinged posters have tanked the discourse on ATS.
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
originally posted by: xuenchen
Nancy Pelosi needs to provide 100% proof that she has never taken 2nd or 3rd hand dark money from illegal sources that support illegal immigration and smuggling 😎
Your understanding of the legal processes is.. failing.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude
Do you need a hug?
The real problem is how unhinged posters have tanked the discourse on ATS.
Don't ever change!
My god how you have been missed!!!
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude
Do you need a hug?
The real problem is how unhinged posters have tanked the discourse on ATS.
Don't ever change!
My god how you have been missed!!!
Keeping in mind that after an almost 3 year investigation, it was found that Trump didn't break the law.
Small children in Appalachian shacks without Internet access
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude
Keeping in mind that after an almost 3 year investigation, it was found that Trump didn't break the law.
And finally, talk to Michael Cohen. Some of the crimes he's doing time for now, Trump was 100% guilty of.
originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: theantediluvian
Small children in Appalachian shacks without Internet access
I'm from Hazard Kentucky.
Thanks for putting your elitist attitude on display.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: theantediluvian
I'll offer you a chance at being honest on your own.
Did Mueller tell Barr that he couldn't charge Trump because of that rule?
Remember, facts matter, lies make you look like a lying tool bag. Don't be a lying tool bag.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: theantediluvian
Small children in Appalachian shacks without Internet access
I'm from Hazard Kentucky.
Thanks for putting your elitist attitude on display.
Nowhere in your job description is there a part where your mission is to discredit the president at every move he makes.