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.

 

Did Trump break the law

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

How many Christians the US let in in WW2 from Germany?




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: dfnj2015

If laws don't matter then stop bitching about democrats violating your rights. You can't have both ways. If you said anything bad about Obama ever you are a hypocrite because as the commander in chief, using your logic, he can do whatever he wants.
Trump cannot legally attack another country without congressional AND UN security counsel approval unless the US is attacked first.


What law did Obama break exactly? And if he did break the law, then why wasn't he impeached? So either the Republicans are complicit or the are incompetent. You choose which one you think it is!

If as you say, "Trump cannot legally attach another country bla bla bla", then say it: Trump broke the law. Or, keep being an ends-justify-the-means partisan.


edit on 17-4-2017 by dfnj2015 because: typo



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Kali74

How many Christians the US let in in WW2 from Germany?


I understand Christian's desire to always be the ones being persecuted but we are talking about Trump bombing the Muslim country Syria.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Do you need everything spelled out to you? It's probably legal. I certainly don't see any legal troubles that will arise from it. If there were, you'd see more of a deal being made out of it currently. Any talk about this is just talk. If the legality was truly in question legal proceedings would have already been started.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

See, there's the rub... I actually agree with the majority of that!

Obama should not have broadened our range in the Middle East.

Bush should not have started the mess in the first place.

Clinton should have severed ties with Saddam Hussein.

Bush should have followed our agreements with Saddam Hussein.

Reagan should have broken ties with Saddam Hussein.

Carter should have left Iran alone and never hooked us up with Saddam Hussein.

The only part of this that gets my ire up is the continual disrespect shown to someone who, hopefully, will win this ISIS war and back us the Hades out safely. According to 'popular' opinion, the Presidency has no power to use the military control immigration, or even direct employees since January 6th, 2017. So how does anyone expect things to get better?

If a single letter of the law has been broken by Trump, I demand that Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, both George Bushs, Ronald Reagan... well, he's dead, so scratch him only for that reason, Jimmy Carter, Loretta Lynch, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole long list of people like them be incarcerated immediately for life! I'll add Donald Trump to that list if or when (probably when) he breaks the law anywhere near to the extent they did.

I want out of the Middle East! If that entails nuking the place, so be it. This rhetoric and division has to stop.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dfnj2015

Do you need everything spelled out to you? It's probably legal. I certainly don't see any legal troubles that will arise from it. If there were, you'd see more of a deal being made out of it currently. Any talk about this is just talk. If the legality was truly in question legal proceedings would have already been started.


I heard Congressmen Mark Takano claim it was illegal. The Democrats can't do anything about it. The Republicans control both houses. So it's up to people like you to complain.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dfnj2015

See, there's the rub... I actually agree with the majority of that!

Obama should not have broadened our range in the Middle East.

Bush should not have started the mess in the first place.

Clinton should have severed ties with Saddam Hussein.

Bush should have followed our agreements with Saddam Hussein.

Reagan should have broken ties with Saddam Hussein.

Carter should have left Iran alone and never hooked us up with Saddam Hussein.

The only part of this that gets my ire up is the continual disrespect shown to someone who, hopefully, will win this ISIS war and back us the Hades out safely. According to 'popular' opinion, the Presidency has no power to use the military control immigration, or even direct employees since January 6th, 2017. So how does anyone expect things to get better?

If a single letter of the law has been broken by Trump, I demand that Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, both George Bushs, Ronald Reagan... well, he's dead, so scratch him only for that reason, Jimmy Carter, Loretta Lynch, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and a whole long list of people like them be incarcerated immediately for life! I'll add Donald Trump to that list if or when (probably when) he breaks the law anywhere near to the extent they did.

I want out of the Middle East! If that entails nuking the place, so be it. This rhetoric and division has to stop.

TheRedneck


What you are saying about all the past presidents is JUST NOT TRUE if you believe this:

"The resolution, however, allows the President to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities in only three situations: First, after Congress has declared war, which has not happened in this case; second, in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” which has not occurred; third, when there is “specific statutory authorization,” which there is not.

The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorized the President to use force only against those groups and countries that had supported the 9/11 attacks. The bombing in Syria was not authorized by any other act of Congress. Thus, Trump’s missile attack violated the War Powers Resolution. "

consortiumnews.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Relevance to now?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Obama supplied tons of TOW missiles to FSA who are affiliated with HTS who are terrorists. Affiliates of terrorists are themselves terrorists. Many TOW have also been supplied to IS and HTS by FSA. Obama did an impeachable offense supplying arms to terrorists.

twitter.com...
edit on 17-4-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Kali74

How many Christians the US let in in WW2 from Germany?


I understand Christian's desire to always be the ones being persecuted but we are talking about Trump bombing the Muslim country Syria.


Um nop.

twitter.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: dfnj2015

Obama supplied tons of TOW missiles to FSA who are affiliated with HTS who are terrorists. Affiliates of terrorists are themselves terrorists. Many TOW have also been supplied to IS and HTS by FSA. Obama did an impeachable offense supplying arms to terrorists.

twitter.com...


Assuming Obama actually made the sale (not some low-level Republican employee), just exactly what law did he break?

And my next question to you is if it is so obvious then why didn't Republicans try to impeach him? Are the Republicans incompetent or complicit, you pick!!!



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Supplying arms to terrorists and their affiliates is illegal. And he did it for free, not for sale.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Wow, you found a blog! Congratulations!

I could probably find one that says fire doesn't burn... but I won't.

In actuality, I was referring to previous establishment figures engaged in crimes of all types. But you proved one thing I was trying to get across in my post: no matter the agreements, no matter the facts, no matter anything, we can never agree on anything. Just because... party!

Incidentally, Nancy Pelosi, who I listed, has publicly agreed with the Syrian missile deployment. So did Chuck Schumer.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


And my next question to you is if it is so obvious then why didn't Republicans try to impeach him?

Good point. By your logic, Trump has not been under Impeachment, therefore everything he does is legal.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Complain about what? Trump doing the same things that previous Presidents have done? Nah. If I'm looking for the juicy bits to get him impeached for breaking the law, this isn't the way to do it. There are juicier controversies involving Trump that are WAY better to complain about and could eventually see some action legally.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015
no he had every right to hit them . he only need congress to declare war. but limited engagements he can do as commander -n- chief . but i wish he hadn't done this . hillary and mcain were on tv saying we should hit assad that right there would have been enough for me to say no. the whole syria conflict is a proxy war . who benefits from removing assad? saudi arabia and qatar. they want to build pipeline thru syria to turkey to europe. who loses assad and russia . the reason hillie was all over this cwhen she was running wasn't the plight of the syrians its because that witch was getting stacks of cash from her saudi masters.




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There are juicier controversies involving Trump that are WAY better to complain about and could eventually see some action legally.

Like?
Up till 2 weeks ago you all would have said Russia.
But after that "Syria thing"...
Not really "complaining" about that anymore.
Though I give you all credit for beating that dead horse into bone meal.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980

Then you agree that the whole point to the expensive, damage free, attack on Syria was a desperate attempt to divert attention from the investigations into Russia's influence on Team Trump?



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

... I told him Trump says "eff the Constitution" for a reason. If my president wants to bomb any country it's his choice. The law is irrelevant. The President has absolute authority as Commander in Chief. I'm so sick of these liberal losers...

I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend, but with people like you it's really hard.

That is one of the dumbest effing things I have ever read that anyone wrote here.

You have serious issues.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner


... I told him Trump says "eff the Constitution" for a reason. If my president wants to bomb any country it's his choice. The law is irrelevant. The President has absolute authority as Commander in Chief. I'm so sick of these liberal losers...


Thank you for admitting that liberals are the ones who are fighting for the Constitution. The line you are espousing is not conservatism, it is fascism.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join