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.

 

Nuclear Bomb Memo is about to explode - Mark Taylor

page: 3
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: SRPrime

It would have been good stuff.. except for the main factual error..... Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House.
He was not removed from office, because of the results of the party line vote in the Senate.


Except the part where the senate doesn't vote, but they hold an actual trial and have found both of the presidents that had been "indicted" with the intent to "remove" them from office, innocent.

Nixon Resigned before the house vote and was pardoned on the same day by his successor, so he completely dodged the entire trial despite being the only guilty president that should have ever been impeached. He was never indicted, nor impeached, he just quit and let his VP pardon him to squash the entire thing.

Really the most abusive thing that ever happened in American history, with the exception of what's happening now -- which is undoubtedly much bigger, and similarly, the same exact content of what Nixon was facing. Using his authority to undermine, surveil, and rob his political opposition.

Nixon was a republican who sabotaged a democrat office, the entire DNC is now trying to do what nixon did to the current and sitting POTUS. Complete with money trail and hidden text messages and email transcripts proving that their actions were absolutely intentional.

The Senate had to 'vote' for that acquittal.
It came down along party lines.

On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against.[24] (Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted "not proved" for both charges,[25] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty".) The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[26]

wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton


I don't feel like I have to tell you that every trial is a vote, it's a vote of the jury, or the vote of arbitration, or a vote from the judge, and that calling a trial a vote is absolutely disingenuous even though all trials are concluded with a vote.

In the case of a senate trial; the senate is the jury, and with a jury that large -- it will never be unanimous.

You can say party line vote, but then explain the 50/50. It had nothing to do with "party lines" and everything to do with more people thought he was a victim in a witch hunt that explored his private relationships for no reason; the entire thing started over real estate deals. The entire witch hunt into his sexual endeavors only started because they came up with nothing in their real estate investigation.

It's pretty obvious that what happened to Bill is quasi the same thing that's happening to Trump right now, only less corrupt. Bill got to the middle of his second term before his "impeachment" despite the real estate dealings being publicly known about prior to his first election.

So why tell me that the Senate didn't vote?



Except the part where the senate doesn't vote

^^that was you^^, straightening me out.

It was a vote.

I am happy that you admitted it.

The vote did fall along party lines, regardless of what their 'reasoning' might have been.


It's not a vote; it's a trial that concludes in a vote, to say it's just a vote is disingenuous. It's not the same thing as the house -- the house doesn't watch a trial before voting, they just vote based upon the articles of impeachment.

I suppose if I added the word "Just" you'd figure out the context right?

"The senate doesn't vote; they hold a trial"
vs
"The senate doesn't just vote; they hold a trial"

Despite you knowing exactly what I meant?

Or do y'all just nope out on the first sentence every time?
edit on 28-1-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: pravdaseeker



Up until trumps presidency the FBI, has been doing a bang up job...Now suddenly they are the bad guys. Give me a break, you people need to stop drinking trumpaid.

The POTUS, is painting the FBI to be the bad guys, to make his few supporters stand by him.....The fact this week he said fake news, fake news, about him wanting to fire Muller, should have woken you up, but no, you just keep sticking up for the man.

Now dreams and predictions are all you have left.
Oh and here why not read this....



www.yahoo.com...


Amazing how beliefs can change once information comes out , huh ?
Bang up job ? Yeah , for Clinton , Obama , the DNC , and one George Soros



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: pravdaseeker



Uranium One deal is all you have, and its a big freaking DUD......LMAO.....wake the hell up....trumpaid has been on the market for a little over a year, and it shows..........Uranium One deal LOOK IT UP!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem




God allowed Hitler into power for a reason. To encourage the Jews to go back to Israel.


So god allowed the extermination of so many millions as a friendly nudge (encouragement) so Israel could have a homeland. I see. So the Balfour declaration that was published in 1917 wasn't Gods doing; or did it need Hitler to move things along. What sort of god is this?



For not following through on all things, he will eventually be removed from power by God


So if the wall is not built or some of his EO's are challenged he will be removed by God? hmmm...



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: visitedbythem




God allowed Hitler into power for a reason. To encourage the Jews to go back to Israel.


So god allowed the extermination of so many millions as a friendly nudge (encouragement) so Israel could have a homeland. I see. So the Balfour declaration that was published in 1917 wasn't Gods doing; or did it need Hitler to move things along. What sort of god is this?



For not following through on all things, he will eventually be removed from power by God


So if the wall is not built or some of his EO's are challenged he will be removed by God? hmmm...



Im sorry you don't understand. Sometimes you cant see the forest from the trees.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: visitedbythem

Hello visitedbythem.... I admit, that for a moment or two, after reading your first response I was like HUH?

But then like 15 seconds later, I went, OH I get it... interesting concept.

If one looks at how God dealt with His chosen people, according to the Bible...

Well, it wasn't always "peaches and cream" for the Jews..like being "led into captivity" in Babylon for a pretty long time.
And, there was the ground splitting open and consuming a bunch of golden calf worshipping Jews, who angered God with their idolatry; especially so soon after deliverance from Egypt. This was when Moses smashed the first set of the 10 commandments...but you know this. (I add this for other readers of the thread..)

OF course there is also the Romans and their rule over God's people..temple being destroyed, etc.

So, I see where you are coming from, in that sense. Yeah, why would God break a pattern of "hard love" for His children? This is from a Biblical outlook, not one that most people would hope how God gets things done. It isn't politically correct for sure..Ha! But hey, that how God rolls sometimes.

Even Israel's beginnings were fraught with war.. 1947 onwards...so yeah, I think I get where you were coming from.

So, now as I type this to you, the Andrew McCabe has resigned from the FBI....supposedly because of a disagreement with the President, a "row" it was reported as..Ha!

Another cliff hanger in the "soap opera" news from Washington D.C. Me thinks it is involving the upcoming memo release..but who knows for sure..

Nuke bomb might be putting it lightly..Ha.. possible "supernova"??

Pravdaseeker



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

But I do understand what you wrote - you conveniently overlooked the Balfour declaration and talked about Hitler. I can only go by your words; its up to you to show some consistency in an argument "for" God.



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: SRPrime

It would have been good stuff.. except for the main factual error..... Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House.
He was not removed from office, because of the results of the party line vote in the Senate.


Except the part where the senate doesn't vote, but they hold an actual trial and have found both of the presidents that had been "indicted" with the intent to "remove" them from office, innocent.

Nixon Resigned before the house vote and was pardoned on the same day by his successor, so he completely dodged the entire trial despite being the only guilty president that should have ever been impeached. He was never indicted, nor impeached, he just quit and let his VP pardon him to squash the entire thing.

Really the most abusive thing that ever happened in American history, with the exception of what's happening now -- which is undoubtedly much bigger, and similarly, the same exact content of what Nixon was facing. Using his authority to undermine, surveil, and rob his political opposition.

Nixon was a republican who sabotaged a democrat office, the entire DNC is now trying to do what nixon did to the current and sitting POTUS. Complete with money trail and hidden text messages and email transcripts proving that their actions were absolutely intentional.

The Senate had to 'vote' for that acquittal.
It came down along party lines.

On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against.[24] (Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted "not proved" for both charges,[25] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty".) The obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[26]

wikipedia: Impeachment of Bill Clinton


I don't feel like I have to tell you that every trial is a vote, it's a vote of the jury, or the vote of arbitration, or a vote from the judge, and that calling a trial a vote is absolutely disingenuous even though all trials are concluded with a vote.

In the case of a senate trial; the senate is the jury, and with a jury that large -- it will never be unanimous.

You can say party line vote, but then explain the 50/50. It had nothing to do with "party lines" and everything to do with more people thought he was a victim in a witch hunt that explored his private relationships for no reason; the entire thing started over real estate deals. The entire witch hunt into his sexual endeavors only started because they came up with nothing in their real estate investigation.

It's pretty obvious that what happened to Bill is quasi the same thing that's happening to Trump right now, only less corrupt. Bill got to the middle of his second term before his "impeachment" despite the real estate dealings being publicly known about prior to his first election.

So why tell me that the Senate didn't vote?



Except the part where the senate doesn't vote

^^that was you^^, straightening me out.

It was a vote.

I am happy that you admitted it.

The vote did fall along party lines, regardless of what their 'reasoning' might have been.


It's not a vote; it's a trial that concludes in a vote, to say it's just a vote is disingenuous. It's not the same thing as the house -- the house doesn't watch a trial before voting, they just vote based upon the articles of impeachment.

I suppose if I added the word "Just" you'd figure out the context right?

"The senate doesn't vote; they hold a trial"
vs
"The senate doesn't just vote; they hold a trial"

Despite you knowing exactly what I meant?

Or do y'all just nope out on the first sentence every time?

It is a trial that is completely outside of the Judicial Branch.
It is nothing more than a political vote.

They can drone on about evidence and charges... but in the end, the parties are not obligated to anything other than politics.

edit on b000000312018-01-31T08:08:54-06:0008America/ChicagoWed, 31 Jan 2018 08:08:54 -0600800000018 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: visitedbythem

But I do understand what you wrote - you conveniently overlooked the Balfour declaration and talked about Hitler. I can only go by your words; its up to you to show some consistency in an argument "for" God.


We don't construct light. We either stand in it or we dont. God is light. Lucifer once bore light. Now he pushes darkness. The absence of light



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: visitedbythem




God allowed Hitler into power for a reason. To encourage the Jews to go back to Israel.


So god allowed the extermination of so many millions as a friendly nudge (encouragement) so Israel could have a homeland. I see. So the Balfour declaration that was published in 1917 wasn't Gods doing; or did it need Hitler to move things along. What sort of god is this?



For not following through on all things, he will eventually be removed from power by God


So if the wall is not built or some of his EO's are challenged he will be removed by God? hmmm...



Im sorry you don't understand. Sometimes you cant see the forest from the trees.


There is nothing to understand. Your position is literally a contradiction in terms: God allows free will but also exercises complete control over that free will apparently......



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

Oh well whatever - your logic doesn't really make sense



posted on Feb, 4 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: pravdaseeker

Oil is not the problem. If the USA doesn't produce oil, some other country will produce it anyways to meet the worlds Demand. The only reason why the globalists who is against Trump don't want America to produce oil is because it prevents the banks from circulating the dollar around the world.

Think about it, if the oil goes out, then the dollar returns to the USA. They need other countries to produce oil and sell with the Dollar. Then the dollar is circulated and is actually worth something. If the dollar is not circulated than it is good as toilet paper. This is just how the bankers control the world.

The leftists are too stupid to understand geo politics, but it has always been this way, which is why the globalists bankers don't like Trump, he is f***** up their agenda by putting America First. The bankers want to control the world and America First would slow down the process.



new topics




 
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join