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.

 

Trump must be impeached. Here’s why.

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
This law professor, as well as another student of the constitution that we all know, seem to have studied the constitution the way a locksmith studies a lock.




posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Bill Clinton was impeached 20 years ago...stayed in office...and made many millions of dollars as a free man since.

President Trump would probably receive an "Impeached 2017" plaque to place in his trophy case.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Hey the media already have none President Trump, indicted, FISA warranted, impeached and jailed.

And the sad thing is, those that feed on that believe it.


edit on 15-5-2017 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


I believe the house has to actually take a vote to begin the process; the house would not put forward someone for impeachment they were not SURE were guilty would they? You pretend to not know how the process works tho, it is better for your ridiculous argument that way.


I'm not pretending anything. You said, "innocent until proven guilty." Nothing that was suggested by the professor is a violation of due process. Is it?

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.


Yes there is. Wouldn't want to jump to conclusions like "impeachment" until it is done would you? That cuts both ways.


Uh, the whole point of the professor's article is that the outcome of the FBI's investigation is likely irrelevant because there's ample evidence of obstruction of justice.


One would still need that elusive thing called evidence and a majority voote from the house. Trump was smart enough to get the AG and deputy AG to sign off on firing comey. No matter trumps motive his hands are clean, unless you think the AG and deputy AG are in on it.


Trump was stupid enough to go on camera with Lester Holt and say this stupid thing:


“And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.'”


That's a tacit admission that he fired Comey over the FBI investigation. He blew up the false narrative about Comey that his own team was actively promoting and if you weren't emotionally invested in Trump, you'd see it clearly for what it is.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Thought it would have happened by now, guess not.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
The back peddling and circles Trumpets are attempting is hilarious. I laughed pretty hard reading this thread of trump back patters. Its all coming crashing down, and none of you can see it. Its the typical. "Oh the left is nutty." And "I know more than a Harvard law professor'.


And I actually read the words: Besides Trump colluding with Russia isnt even against the law.


Putting aside the validity of the statement. Can you imagine if Hillary had any collusion with Russia and she won? The right would be screaming hang her instead of lock her up.
edit on 15-5-2017 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

What if, and I mean that with emphasis, he knows already that it is bull?

I know what the media says, but if we look at what the POTUS actually says, he has stated that Comey told him as well as Clapper, no investigations.

No investigation = no obstruction. He's not, nor could he stop any investigation to lets say Flynn.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: theantediluvian

What if, and I mean that with emphasis, he knows already that it is bull?

I know what the media says, but if we look at what the POTUS actually says, he has stated that Comey told him as well as Clapper, no investigations.

No investigation = no obstruction. He's not, nor could he stop any investigation to lets say Flynn.


If the queen had balls, shed be king



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


So they built up the big avalanche sh*t storm.......and this was the play. Not the evidence but the seriousness of the charges. Like so many that went to the Gulag.

Beside Harvard must not have gotten the memo.......they just don't have that sort of weight anymore.


edit on 15-5-2017 by Logarock because: n



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Oh know....the dems needed his diversionary stance, back and forth, wishy wash "I thought I say a pussy cat I did see a pushy cat" ect but we cant to anything to pussy cat. He played it well and if you ask me Trump let it ride, gave dude some rope, gave folks time to let the very real subterfuge sink in and then clipped him.

Whats going on here, if you are a political student, noticed it or not, is Trump isnt getting the credit for political depth i.e. understanding temperament ect and when to move on this. The only folks flapping around are the same ol that flap.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Believe me once the Democrats have any evidence for impeachment they'll act.

They think they're saving the world and history will celebrate them as heros.



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It will violate due process if there is no evidence. You got any to source?

Please provide evidence of obstruction.
Trump did say he wanted to fire comey, but the key point is that he did not. He had comeys boss evaluate his performance, and that performance was found lacking. Trump could have done alot of things, but he did not. Trump is within his boundries as president to fire comey for no reason. Just because you don't like the fact that Trump ran his mouth, it does not change the evaluation from the DOJ.

Or do you not agree with the deputy AG's recommendation?
You do know the deputy AG also said there is no need for a special prosecutor/independent council as well?



posted on May, 16 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why is it that all the Harvard Constitutional law professors seem to know nothing about the constitution or the law?


Because Obama was taught at Harvard and he likens the Constitution to just a Piece of Paper



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join