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.

 

Comey's Public hearing - opening statement

page: 22
38
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

the purpose of a pardon is to mitigate punishment,no?
if trump thinks flynn got screwed by comey a pardon would even the score




posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


President serves at the pleasure of the US citizens

That requires no investigation, no impeachment, no concern of laws, no nothing except a vote. We get to do that again in 2020... not before.

Come 2020, you need no proof of anything to decide your vote.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Technically, it is to correct wrongful sentencing under the law... but in reality, yeah, it removes punishment. Usually for political purposes.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

and the president decides whats wrongful, no?
and it wouldnt get more political than flynn

after what comey exposed yesterday ALOT of the russia narritive is political



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

For Federal crimes, yes, the President decides. For state crimes, the Governor decides. Traditionally, the ultimate authority figure in government has the power to pardon, as a final check against abuses by the government.

Trump could legally and easily pardon every individual in his campaign if he so chose, by the stroke of a pen. That would end the investigation. It is to his credit that he hasn't even mentioned doing so, and further illustrates the lack of any desire to obstruct justice.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Trump could legally and easily pardon every individual in his campaign if he so chose, by the stroke of a pen. That would end the investigation.


Yep. And start a new investigation into an abuse of power.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Trump could legally and easily pardon every individual in his campaign if he so chose, by the stroke of a pen. That would end the investigation.


Yep. And start a new investigation into an abuse of power.


It's not an abuse of power for the President to issue pardons.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Issuing pardons is not abuse of power.

He would have to answer to the voters in 2020, though, and that could be an issue.

ETA: actually, there is no law against "abuse of power." That's a catch-all vernacular phrase to indicate corruption... which Comey just proved exists primarily in those other than Trump.

TheRedneck

edit on 6/9/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Issuing pardons is not abuse of power.



..it is IF (like in the case of the Clinton impeachment proceedings)


Article IV: States that using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding, in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false, and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. States that William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry.
States, with reference to each article of impeachment, that: (1) in so doing, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States; and (2) William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.




He would have to answer to the voters in 2020, though, and that could be an issue.


True, but not just though...don't forget midterms are going to be more near-term important. The LAST thing President Trump wants right now is to lose control of the House or Senate.



ETA: actually, there is no law against "abuse of power." That's a catch-all vernacular phrase to indicate corruption... which Comey just proved exists primarily in those other than Trump.



Well as ive shown above, there is a law against it depending on your view of "law" in this instance. Obviously a sitting President cannot be charged, but it is cause for action or removal.

Also, youre mistaken that the take away is only limited to those other than President Trump. It was a public hearing and the vast public awareness is such that he was and is continuing to be corrupt.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

That is not related to pardons.

Can you show me a case where a pardon has led to a successful charge of abuse of power against the President of the US.

Was Bush charged after he pardoned Casper Weinberger?
edit on 9/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: alphabetaone

That is not related to pardons.

Can you show me a case where a pardon has led to a successful charge of abuse of power against the President of the US.

Was Bush charged after he pardoned Casper Weinberger?


That's not the point. Your argument is based upon a theoretical that never happened in the first place, and the theory is based upon a blanket series of pardons, not a singular pardon, that would have drawn serious blowback and suspicion.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: alphabetaone

That is not related to pardons.

Can you show me a case where a pardon has led to a successful charge of abuse of power against the President of the US.

Was Bush charged after he pardoned Casper Weinberger?


That's not the point. Your argument is based upon a theoretical that never happened in the first place, and the theory is based upon a blanket series of pardons, not a singular pardon, that would have drawn serious blowback and suspicion.



I would suggest your claim that Trump would be open to abuse of power charges if he pardoned Flynn and co. is more the theoretical position here, as I can't find a single instance in history where a President has been charged with abuse of power after a pardon.

Bush potentially even pardoned himself as part of the group (7 people) pardoned over the Iran Contra affair. Weinberger was pardoned for almost the exact same thing as Flynn was under investigation for.

What you perhaps should have said is the President would open himself up to a string of accusations from his enemies and the media, but there is no chance of him being charged with abuse of power.
edit on 9/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

*I* am not forwarding the pardon argument, you guys are by suggesting the investigation could have easily been concluded by pardoning everyone involved. Which would be true. But in tandem with the firing of former director Comey who is now on record and under oath (so clearly the "FAKE NEWS" spin has flown out the window, as well all the other "sources say" arguments) making well documented claims with only a flimsy rebuttal by a corporate shyster who has a record of screwing up litigation, and a wave of pardons would certainly draw an abuse of power investigation.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: UKTruth

*I* am not forwarding the pardon argument, you guys are by suggesting the investigation could have easily been concluded by pardoning everyone involved. Which would be true. But in tandem with the firing of former director Comey who is now on record and under oath (so clearly the "FAKE NEWS" spin has flown out the window, as well all the other "sources say" arguments) making well documented claims with only a flimsy rebuttal by a corporate shyster who has a record of screwing up litigation, and a wave of pardons would certainly draw an abuse of power investigation.



You are speculating on the first abuse of power charge in history for Presidential pardons. The firing of Comey is perfectly legitimate and there is nothing that Trump is on the hook for. Who he chooses to pardon is entirely up to him. His only limitation is a pardon relating to impeachment.

I see a lot of people who don't like the President trying to diminish what the President can actually do, but the fact is he has huge powers at his disposal and can exercise them as he sees fit. His checks and balances are the impeachment process, but for pardons? No, he wouldn't get impeached - and precedent is on my side in that view.



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


..it is IF (like in the case of the Clinton impeachment proceedings)

No law needs to be broken to impeach an elected official. All that is required is that his/her actions rise to the point that a majority of Congress is willing to take the extraordinary action of removing them from office. By doing so, they risk losing their own jobs if the voters so choose. That's one of the reasons the House members must run for re-election every two years.

It is also why I expect the 2018 elections to be another disappointment for the Democrats. The power to impeach is not a power to be taken lightly, and the sheer audacity of anyone who would call for Impeachment without solid ground (such as obvious perjury, massive abuse of power, or heinous criminal actions) or prematurely cannot be trusted with that power. I think the voters are watching.


True, but not just though...don't forget midterms are going to be more near-term important. The LAST thing President Trump wants right now is to lose control of the House or Senate.

I think we're going to see more shake-ups come next year. The MSM paints a picture of reality as they want others to see it. The misreporting of the polls in the 2016 was not, in my opinion, fake results but rather skewed results, formed by selectively targeting selected areas to yield desired results. The idea is that people will typically go along with majority opinion. The flaw was not realizing just how much pain and anger the country was experiencing due to the political status quo.

That pain is abating some under Trump... I am seeing the job market expand some already... but the anger is still there, fueled by the disrespectful, elitist, and illegal actions taken by those who so adamantly oppose Trump for the sake of opposing Trump. The polls will be skewed once again, and the MSM will be shocked once again.


Well as ive shown above, there is a law against it depending on your view of "law" in this instance. Obviously a sitting President cannot be charged, but it is cause for action or removal.

Also, youre mistaken that the take away is only limited to those other than President Trump. It was a public hearing and the vast public awareness is such that he was and is continuing to be corrupt.

A law is a written, codified rule that specifies prohibited action and indicates penalties for violations. For example, burglary is illegal. There is a written, codified description of burglary and proscribed penalties for committing burglary. There is no written, codified law against 'abuse of power,' and no proscribed penalties for engaging in it.

That's the very definition of a law.

I think public awareness is moving differently than you think it is. Believe it or not, I fully expect Trump to do something terrible before all is said and done. But every time I brace myself for that moment, it never comes. At the hearing, all I heard that even tried to reflect badly on Trump was the allegations of a 6'-7" professional investigator, the head of the FBI, trying to explain how scared he was of Trump, and contradicting himself seemingly at every turn. Nothing that Comey said can be proven, because it is based on his feelings. Were his feelings reasonable, perhaps a case could be made against Trump for intentionally intimidating him, but the comparison between Trump and Lynch makes that seem highly unlikely to me.

Someone who simply despised Trump because he... well, is Trump... could have seen what you say. But that's not the majority of the country, and in a democratic government, the majority wins.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Speaking of pardons on impeachment reminds me of Watergate, my first notice of politics. Nixon and Agnew were both implicated and both were in real danger of impeachment and removal from office, with possible criminal charges to follow. In response, Agnew resigned and Nixon, as President, pardoned Agnew and appointed Ford as the new VP. Nixon then resigned and Ford, now President, immediately pardoned him.

No one in that fiasco was prosecuted. There was no need, because they couldn't be punished. Only the sitting President was not pardoned, and even though he pardoned the man who appointed him immediately before resigning, it did not rise to the level of impeachment.

Nothing even close to that has happened under Trump. There is no evidence of Trump doing anything wrong, only an accusation based on feelings from an admitted criminal that claims he got scared because Trump hoped for a specific investigation outcome.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

Why would Mueller look into a charge of obstruction of justice regarding something that Trump is legally allowed to do?


I would imagine by now, this tone has changed.



You are not making sense.


Seems I was.


Seriously, you are just flogging a dead horse.


Seems I wasn't.



The nonsense about obstruction of justice is...


...precisely what Bob Mueller is investigating and even by President Trump's own admission.



The only avenue left open is impeachment


Seems it isn't.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth

Why would Mueller look into a charge of obstruction of justice regarding something that Trump is legally allowed to do?


I would imagine by now, this tone has changed.



You are not making sense.


Seems I was.


Seriously, you are just flogging a dead horse.


Seems I wasn't.



The nonsense about obstruction of justice is...


...precisely what Bob Mueller is investigating and even by President Trump's own admission.



The only avenue left open is impeachment


Seems it isn't.


No - perhaps you'd like to advise why you think the SC is investigating Trump? Better still , when you can confirm such, get back to me.
Some of us don't take the MSM seriously, especially when they have already been caught lying.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

No - perhaps you'd like to advise why you think the SC is investigating Trump? Better still , when you can confirm such, get back to me.


President Trump himself said he was being investigated. But, I see your point. When he tweets, one never really knows what the truth that comes out of it is.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Trump would not know if he was under investigation... Just like he would know if Obama ordered spying on him...



new topics




 
38
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join