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.

 

D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: toysforadults
Another future nothing story.

If this is anything like the previous long line of events from what is current happening in the THEATRE of politics (I am eluding to the fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side I will have to automatically assume this is more nonsense until proven otherwise.



If politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, according to you, how can Democrats be the only ones employing it?


Where did I say that the Democrats are the only ones employing it? Please link the quote.

He literally bolded the phrase in question. Here, I'll do it again:

fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side


Still doesn't show me saying that the Democrats are the only ones doing it, it simply states that the Democrats are doing NOT that only the Democrats are doing it.




posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dragonridr

I'm admitting nothing. I'm just pointing out the facts of the present reality. Don't put words in my mouth.


Funny you should say that.
edit on 12-6-2017 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

You'd be wrong. The majority of Americans who answered think he's hiding something and don't trust him.
I don't know where you live that you have not caught on to that simple fact.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: toysforadults
Another future nothing story.

If this is anything like the previous long line of events from what is current happening in the THEATRE of politics (I am eluding to the fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side I will have to automatically assume this is more nonsense until proven otherwise.



If politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, according to you, how can Democrats be the only ones employing it?


Where did I say that the Democrats are the only ones employing it? Please link the quote.

He literally bolded the phrase in question. Here, I'll do it again:

fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side


Still doesn't show me saying that the Democrats are the only ones doing it, it simply states that the Democrats are doing NOT that only the Democrats are doing it.

I guess you don't know what the word "mostly" means even you used it in that sentence.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I have no idea what you are even rambling about (nor do I care),


That's clear. You didn't read my post (which wasn't directed at you), saw the word Clinton, and immediately freaked out.
If you're not going to read what I actually typed, why bother responding? It is possible to have a discussion without throwing around V cards:



let alone it hurting me in any way.



The only way congress will be able to interfere in Trumps business is if there is a violation of law. As of anything now, I don't see any evidence of that. If they are going with the emoluments clause route, there will need to be evidence shown of such, which also has not been seen.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

In fairness, almost every President has had a Presidential foundation in their name. It is supposed to be a not-for-profit awareness foundation.

Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation
Gerald Ford Presidential Foundation
Barack Obama Foundation
George W Bush Foundation
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Foundation

The Clinton foundation is no different. It was founded in 1997 and unless you wish to scrutinize every single Presidential foundation since the beginning of time with the same boldness and vigor that you want to scrutinize the Clinton Foundation, then it shows a particular bias on your part.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

alphabetaone,

I appreciate your statement, and you may well be right. However, there are some circumstances where all one can do is display a logical process, so that whomever comes to read these pages in the future, knows that someone was watching the right hand, regardless of how many were duped into looking the other way, either by their own wilful natures, or by the machinations of the people pulling the strings more broadly. Though I would rather have a real and engaging discussion about the issues, with people who are not blinkering themselves to avoid having to face the enormity of their errors over the last two years, I do not really have that option at the moment. Practically everyone I have heard support Trump about this Russia connection and the VARIOUS holes in his Presidency from a legal and constitutional standpoint, has been so utterly biased toward him, even at the expense of the Constitution, that there has been no discussion to have.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


That's clear. You didn't read my post (which wasn't directed at you), saw the word Clinton, and immediately freaked out.
If you're not going to read what I actually typed, why bother responding? It is possible to have a discussion without throwing around V cards:

Don't be bitter because I don't want to want to beat your dead horse with you and let you deflect from the topic in the OP.

The only way congress will be able to interfere in Trumps business is if there is a violation of law. As of anything now, I don't see any evidence of that. If they are going with the emoluments clause route, there will need to be evidence shown of such, which also has not been seen.

What does this have to do with congress? Are you aware of the differences between the Judicial and the Legislative branches?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
more crying...



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Mostly and only are not the same thing and yes the Democrats are very boisterous and obnoxious with their rhetoric in a way that just doesn't suite conservatives. Their opposition is mostly done at the voting booth.

Just incase you don't know allow me to define mostly and only.

Mostly:


as regards the greater part or number.


Only:



and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively.


Mostly would indicate that I believe that the Republicans do it as well just not in as great a number. Only would imply that I think only the Democrats do it.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


Mostly would indicate that I believe that the Republicans do it as well just not in as great a number. Only would imply that I think only the Democrats do it.

Fantastic. Partisan confirmed. True independents realize that both sides are equally guilty.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: toysforadults
Another future nothing story.

If this is anything like the previous long line of events from what is current happening in the THEATRE of politics (I am eluding to the fact that politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, a play acted out to keep us docile and distracted) coming from the Democratic side I will have to automatically assume this is more nonsense until proven otherwise.



If politics is mostly smoke and mirrors, according to you, how can Democrats be the only ones employing it?


Where did I say that the Democrats are the only ones employing it? Please link the quote.


I apologize, you're right, I missed your parentheses.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

I addressed the Clinton Foundation because of the largely claimed pay to play scenario and the lack of going through any court system.

In other words, it was more about business models than persons names that sit on them.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

You do know there is a Trump Foundation right? It's also For-Profit. AND it's not the target of this lawsuit. That's a different investigation being headed up by New York.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Sorry if it has already been asked, but, can Trump fire these Attorney Generals?



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
These 2 should be doing real jobs like cleaning up their states before spending and wasting the time of the taxpayer on something that really means nothing. The Obamas and Clintons went in poor and came out rich and no one cares. I guy with money gets elected and he is made to be Satan. The antithesis of Obams statement when he said "If you've got a business you didn't build it" ...

The POUTS and VPPOTUS are exempt from conflict of interest law and the only reason in modern times it has not been brought up is that we have not had something externally wealthy or such a businessman in the White house in the last 50-60 years.

Again, this is just something a member of Congress(probably the Black Caucus) will grab once again and try to use as an impeachable offense.

Want to know what an impeachable offense is? Not working with the president to lower taxes or get rid of Obamacare....things that actually affect the nation as a whole.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: toysforadults


Mostly would indicate that I believe that the Republicans do it as well just not in as great a number. Only would imply that I think only the Democrats do it.

Fantastic. Partisan confirmed. True independents realize that both sides are equally guilty.


Oh please, stop it.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

No. They are state/District AG's, I believe.
edit on 12-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs
So this lawsuit has nothing to do with impeaching Donald Trump. Maybe you should go back and reread the OP article. This is literally the last sentence/paragraph in the article so I know you didn't read it all because you think this is about impeachment even though no one, including the article, is even saying that word:

The suit seeks an injunction to force Trump to stop violating the Constitution, but leaves it up to the court to decide how that should be accomplished.



posted on Jun, 12 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh but you're not interested in his taxes. He's already told us we're not. And Kelly Ann agrees..

If Maryland and DC can show they are losing business due to trumps hotel getting all the traffic especially foreign governments they have a case.
It's been reported that Saudi Arabia has spent a few hundred thousand dollars there since trump took office.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join