Trump Guilty of Obstructing a Coup d'état
Wouldn't President Trump obstructing an attempted coup d'état of the United States be valorous patriotism of the highest order?
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...mcoup-detat-em
April 22, 2019 ~ By Jim O'Neil
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.—18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.
Granted, President Trump may have been a bit peeved at being falsely accused of being Putin’s water boy, but heck, I’d be a bit ticked off myself. The scurrilous anti-Trump innuendoes and outright lies spread by a weaponized FBI, CIA, State Dept. and various other federal agencies amounts to an attempted coup against America’s duly elected president. Such blatant treason cannot be allowed to go unpunished. Nor can the two-tiered “justice” system We the People currently suffer under be allowed to stand. If we no longer have rule of law in the United States then we are no longer a free republic. Period.
I don’t think you need to be Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots here folks. In any event, something to think about. Something else to think about—wouldn’t President Trump obstructing an attempted coup d’état of the United States be valorous patriotism of the highest order? You bet it would.
~~~~~~
Trump is bringing down the deep state piece by piece and they know it and are becoming more desperate how to "Impeach" him but there is nothing there on which to impeach him. However, many of those seeking to "Impeach" him are themselves traitors/seditionists. Hence they are able to be impeached but better yet, hanged and we have plenty of rope awaiting them. Karma is coming and the Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrats are seeing it daily and getting more desperate while losing and losing and losing. They were elected by us to represent us and have royally failed and so they can be removed as lousy employees.
According to card carrying DSA Democrats like Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Nadler, Waters, Schiff and Swalwell obstructing their attempted coup d'état is an impeachable offense.
The authors headline says it all. Trump has shown a steel spine the likes of which hasn't existed in a LONG time. The Dems are finished. With the coming Nunes indictments, the IG Horowitz report, the coming declassification of factual evidence, the Progressive Commie Democrats pretty much won't even exist by 2020.
Ultimately, Barr is your source of information. Trump's biased employee is not a credible source. He is busy protecting Trump. I will prove it.
One thing was crystal clear from Barr's press conference on Thursday and
before the Mueller Report was released: No collusion! Barr's willingness to echo Trump's favorite two-word mantra was evident throughout his remarks.
"The special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes," Barr said.
It's true: Mueller did not establish that there was a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election. But Mueller uncovered "multiple links" connecting Trump aides to Russian officials and that there was at least some willingness to collaborate -- like Donald Trump Jr. and the
Trump Tower meeting. Mueller could not prove conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, Barr's use of the word "collusion," which he repeated multiple times,
raised some eyebrows in the legal community.
In the report, Mueller intentionally steered clear of that political phrase because it "is not a specific offense" under US law, "nor is it a term used in federal criminal law." Strange Barr would use it.
Barr cleared Trump of obstruction. "After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report... the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense," Barr said.
Mueller did not struggle with whether there was enough evidence to bring a case of obstruction of justice.
The challenge was that they amassed compelling evidence but couldn't indict a President even if they wanted to, DOJ rules.
Here's what the report actually said: "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."
Barr downplayed the role that DOJ guidelines played when Mueller considered whether Trump violated the law. Internal DOJ policies say that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The policy comes from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
"We specifically asked him about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion," Barr said at his press conference. "And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position."
The OLC opinion had a major impact on Mueller's internal deliberations. In effect,
Mueller framed his entire obstruction investigation around the notion that he couldn't bring any charges against Trump even if he found ironclad evidence against him, because of the OLC opinion. He specifically left the matter up to Congress.
"Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress," Barr said.
"With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice," Mueller said.
Barr became a Trump lackey. It is difficult understand why this proud professional lowered himself to this role, sacrificing every bit of his self-esteem.
4 times Barr twisted and cherry-picked Mueller's report - CNNPolitics