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 Desperation of U.S. Democrat Leaders

page: 10
44
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


This is the crux of the obstruction of justice claim. It's up to Congress to decide now.


Theoretically, Congress has already decided. The Senate is never going to impeach Trump. The rest is just a dog and pony show to influence the next election because everyone know that's where the ultimate decision is going to come from.




posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Yes it was.

No, it wasn't, you imbecile.


Cory Lewandowsky was a private citizen.

Irrelevant and has no bearing.


If Trump thought he had the authority to fire Mueller, he wouldn't have needed Sessions to do it,

He doesn't have the legal authority to fire him directly. The law says that it has to be done by the AG.


It was also illegal to ask Don McGann to alter official records and to order him to lie.

That would be a really bad thing to do - if that is really what happened. We don't know for sure.

That said - I don't think the mere act of him asking/telling him to lie is illegal. It would have been illegal had McGann actually altered official records or lied.


Interfering in an ongoing investigation, especially is that investigation is looking at you, is illegal. It's called obstruction of justice.

And Mueller himself, multiple times, and reiterated again in his direct testimony, said very plainly that his investigation was not hindered in any way, shape or form, from beginning to end.

So. No interference = no obstruction.

Get it now?
edit on 1-8-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Mueller explained, that doing so would be unconstitutional, since the accusation would be there, but there would be no way for Trump to be able to confront his accusers or defend himself in court. Due Process would be violated.

What part of Due Process don't you understand?

Oh, I understand it just fine. Enough to recognize pure BS when I see it.

You claim Mueller didn't make a determination because of Constitutional Due Process problems.

Sorry, that is totally without basis. I'll explain as if to a child, so maybe (or not) you'll 'get it' this time...

First, by law, the SC Report was to be submitted to the AG. It was - again, by law - never to be made public. So, there should have been no concern over Due Process questions because no one would ever know what was in it. Also by law, the AG has some discretion, and can make certain things - or the whole thing (minus redactions required by law) - public, if he finds that circumstances warrant it.

Second - even if you ignore this fact, the act of providing all of this so-called 'evidence' of 'possible' this or that without making a determination is, in fact, according to you and Mueller, a violation of Constitutional Due Process because, the act of not making a determination creates the exact situation you stated - Trump has no way to confront his accusers or defend himself in court.

Guess what? This is precisely why, in cases where a declination decision is made, none of the so-called 'evidence' is ever made public, and why none of this should have ever been made public. If I had been Barr, I would have sent the report back to him and told him to a) Make a Determination, and b) if the determination is 'Declination', remove all of the 'so-called' evidence that wasn't enough to warrant a 'prosecution' determination.


Prosecutors don't determine guilt, they present a case with evidence and accusations of guilt,

First, Mueller was not acting as a Prosecutor, he was acting as a Special Counsel, charged with performing an investigation into possible Russian interference in our elections - referred to by the press for years as 'Russia Collusion'.

His job was to investigate, and make prosecution/declination determinations. PERIOD.

So, you obviously don't have a clue, if you thought he was acting as a prosecutor.


to be adjudicated by a court of law. That tool was not available to Mueller, according to his testimony.

He lied.

The court available to him, wrt Trump, was impeachment in the House.

All he had to do was write up his report like this:


We hereby find that there is substantial evidence that the following crimes have been committed by President Trump:

List of crimes

We hereby recommend, in light of the OLC rule preventing the indictment of a sitting President, that this matter be referred to the House of Representatives for immediate commencement of impeachment proceedings.


Mueller was well within his rights to do exactly this. He didn't, because he had exactly squat.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Technically, Mueller did claim to exonerate anyone.

Assuming you meant 'did not' claim to exonerate anyone...

You are correct. He said he could not exonerate Trump, specifically, but he only said this with regard to obstruction.


He stated that they didn't find enough evidence to conclude that any American was guilty of conspiracy.

That was for Part 1.


Trump claimed exoneration.

And he was correct.

1. A declination determination on conspiracy [aka 'collusion') - made by Mueller himself, combined with

2. A declination determination on obstruction - made by Barr/RR, because Mueller failed miserably in his duty to make such a determination and so left it up to his boss

... = exoneration. PERIOD.


Mueller stated that he didn't and couldn't exonerate Trump. No, no harm, no foul.

Wrong - great harm, [uextreme foul... because investigators/prosecutors don't do exonerations, they make decisions whether or not evidence supports prosecution or not.

A decision not to prosecute = exoneration in the eyes of the law.

Now, please stfu about it, my fingers are getting tired of correcting your ridiculous lies.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
your response doesn't have anything to do with my statement on why Mueller wanted Congress to continue his investigation.

Actually, it has everything to do with it.


Mueller knows that Congress doesn't need to prove criminality in order for them to impeach Trump, which is why he created his list of 10 "possible" obstructions of justice with no final determination of his own. I think we both can agree on that.

Yep - he wanted to create as much fodder for the lunatic dems as possible, even though there was really nothing there.


Mueller knew he couldn't make a legal determination of a crime, but it's obvious that he wanted Congress to punish Trump regardless.

Yes, but to quote Mueller, that isn't his purview.

His job was to make determinations (prosecute or not).

Wrt to Trump, instead of 'indict and prosecute', he could only recommend referral to the House for impeachment.

But it isn't up to Mueller. That is why all he could do is recommend. That decision would be up to his boss, the AG.

Again. Mueller was not writing this report, or any part of it, for Congress or the Public, he was writing it specifically for the AG.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

This has been my point from the start, Mueller could not write anything for Congress because he is addressing AG Barr.

No one but AG Barr as going to USE this information, no one else is suposed to USE this innformation, other that AG Barr.

So people saying this is a "roadmap" for Congress do not understand the law. Or do not care for the law.

If they wish to make this point, then they are stating there was Bias in the investigation.

How else would Congress get this information? becuase it was not written for them.



posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Keep rattling on how Trump had the right to do anything he wants.

Keep making claims I said something I didn't.

I said, very plainly, that Trump does not have the authority to fire the SC himself. the law says that only the AG can do that.

That is precisely why he told someone to tell Sessions to do it.


In the meantime, Congress is attempting to exercise their Article I duties and responsibilities.

They do not have the authority to engage in witch hunts or fishing expeditions.

Their authority is to impeach or not.

Newsflash: they tried, and failed.


This is the crux of the obstruction of justice claim. It's up to Congress to decide now.

They have decided, by virtue of failing to initiate impeachment proceedings.


Nobody is above the law, not even the President of the United States.

Agreed... nor are members of Congress abusing and/or exceeding their authority, or deep state employees engaging in unlawful spying and outright criminal conduct because they are mad their 'guy' lost the election.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


It's all about intent.

Interfering in an ongoing investigation, especially is that investigation is looking at you, is illegal. It's called obstruction of justice.



His "interference" was that he asked them if they could hurry it, right?

That could be interpreted as asking them to devote more resources and manpower to it (so with more people, they could run down leads faster.)

Devoting more resources to an investigation is hardly obstruction.



Trump just wanted it over, because being under investigation hurts his credibility as president as long as it continues, even if it would finally end up with exoneration. Presidencies only last a few years, and every day, week, and month is precious if you want to achieve anything while you're there.

He wasn't necessarily trying to change the outcome, only the duration.


originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Keep rattling on how Trump had the right to do anything he wants. "When the president does it, it's not illegal" Lord know, Trump thinks Article II gives him that right. In the meantime, Congress is attempting to exercise their Article I duties and responsibilities.

This is the crux of the obstruction of justice claim. It's up to Congress to decide now.

Nobody is above the law, not even the President of the United States.



But he is above prosecution, if he is innocent, and strong evidence doesn't exist against that claim.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Under pressure from very selfish & stupid Democrat leaders, the New York Times has changed Tuesday's headline to be less "Trump Friendly" than it was originally.

See Before vs After at: theconservativetreehouse.com...-167633



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Those are the only people that still read it!

Can't offend their last customers.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   

edit on 6-8-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: double post, sorry



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join