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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Pelosi: GOP Led Congress Might Impeach Hillary If Elected

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I agree the charges would be valid. My concern is the impeachment after she already left office.




posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac




And she's fine with that- she'll rule the world or destroy it trying.


She wouldn't be the first to think that... Nero comes quickly to mind. Only he didn't have WMD's...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

All of this is simply speculation. Right now, it is a numbers game, and the Republicans do not have the numbers to make this even a viable case. And mind you that it would be a trial. So if they proceed and it fails, that means the books are closed on all that surrounds it, and she could not be brought up on any charges relating to the impeachment.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I would day they are more accurately plotting to NOT impeach her especially before the election. Other wise, if they were worth their salt....... Which they aren't, she would be in prison now.
edit on 21-10-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
you do understand that if the government stopped working, the current laws would not go away.

they just would be unable to make new ones.


I was just being a smartass, but no, I do not understand that.

If the government stops working, then the IRS and military stop working. If the IRS stops working, there is no funding to enforce federal laws. If there's no enforcement of federal laws then they cease to exist, while if there's no military funding the country will topple from unemployment because defense is our primary industry.

Take it a step further, if federal funding ceases, state budgets face tens of billions in deficits. This results in either drastic state cutbacks as the money for things like highways and schools is suddenly gone. Or it means taxes go up, each state effectively becomes their own nation, and we dissolve from one country to 50.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Ok.

Maybe we need to shut everything down and see what we can live without.

Clean house.

Government is too big.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Or you can do that through the budgetary process rather than shutting everything down.

Besides, most stuff, if you were to take it away from the feds would simply be picked up in state taxes and you would still pay. The main difference being that state governments get much less attention and have much less transparency than the feds so it's a stretch to call that an improvement.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

" Is she being paranoid, hyping this up, or does she really think they will? "

The Women is Legally Insane , I thought everyone knew that by now .












posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I see the government as a heroin addict. I'm trying to cure the addiction.

All you're doing is replacing it with meth.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

I see the government as a heroin addict. I'm trying to cure the addiction.

All you're doing is replacing it with meth.


We already have hopium and nannywanna.




posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, I just want the government to continue to remain publicly accountable. It takes 50 people like the Judicial Watch folks to be a PITA for the feds. But if that authority were given to the states it would take 50 times as much (2500 people) to accomplish the same thing. As a result it's simply not feasible to have watchdog organizations over every state and expect them to have any teeth. Worse yet is when it goes to the county level and no one is watching. When power is centralized, it means efforts to bring transparency and oversight are also centralized.

If you decentralize power, the same things are still done, but there's no oversight.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

The difference is, I don't think thee government should be doing all that it is doing.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

she is using scare tactics to try to convince the democrats to vote in democratic representatives to congress.
which I find rather funny since all that is on my ballot is the candidates for president, of which I still don't know who I would put down, just know it won't be trump but don't like hillary as an option that much either. so probably a third party...
a few amendments, one, yes that is right, one person running for school board, and the representative to congress who I wrote to awhile back to ask for help about something, which he did help me out so I don't care if he has a R by his name!!!

sorry, guess if it's up to my vote, hillary will be impeached!

lol... my husband and me would always refer to hillary as the wicked witch of the east, and polosi as the wicked witch of the west. they can just brew themselves up a protection spell for hillary as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I think we were on different paths of thought....

If she takes the election, she should be impeached
on Day 1. There is enough evidence...this needs to
happen, no matter the outcome.

Yes, she could have been impeached a while back
as Secretary of State, I think it is too late for that.

So be it then, impeach her if she is elected. If she
is not, investigate the DOJ, the FBI and get to the
bottom of the stinking rot of corruption.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: lordcomac




And she's fine with that- she'll rule the world or destroy it trying.


She wouldn't be the first to think that... Nero comes quickly to mind. Only he didn't have WMD's...



or twitter.

He blamed it on the Christians.

Sorta true coz he'd light them on fire for parties and maybe one was too close to a tent.





posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Absolutely. Even more so based on these
emails from the DNC leaks and Podesta leaks.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
They need the narrative that any impeachment that might happen isn't because of actual high crimes and misdemeanors but only because "everyone knows" that the GOP is on a perpetual anti-Dem witchhunt and they were planning to get 'er as soon as they stepped through the door.


I do agree with your insights here Ketsuko!

Nancy was so in love with Obama...not sure she feels the same way
about Clinton but both of them are in their twilight, at best.

The both dream of one last shot in the spotlight, clinging
to each other though there is no love lost between them.

Nancy is pure Democrat crony politician....



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Ok, here you go, lets say for arguments sake the house votes and brings up charges of impeachment. It is a trial, the Jury is the Senate. The jurors will be the Senators, the judge the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Now the republicans will have to have a lead attorney to present the evidence and show guilt. She will be allowed to have lawyers to defend her. All of this would be public and on the record. And after all is said and done, the Democrats in the Senate will vote not Guilty, and thus acquitting her of all charges. Now here is the rub, any and all charges that are there, can never be brought up again on the same charges again. She remains in office, and all that is accomplished is more political divide.

The numbers are not there to get a guilty vote. It was not there for the impeachment of Bill and he was acquitted on the charges then, and they could not go after him again on any of those charges. They do not have the numbers to remove her from office, even on day 1.

And from the looks at the down ballot races, the republicans are set to lose more seats in both the senate and the house.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Aazadan

The difference is, I don't think thee government should be doing all that it is doing.


What is the government doing that it shouldn't be doing? Who should be doing it?



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

There's enough to rite a book, honestly.

I think DC interjects itself into things best left to the individual or even state government just to justify it's continued growth.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join