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.

 

**BREAKING** GOP lawmakers introduce articles of impeachment against Rosenstein

page: 4
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

how's all the losing going for ya?

man, I need a break from all the winning lately




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CB328



PRISON SENTENCES, TREASON, DEATH SENTENCES MILITARY TRIBUNALS



You people are insane, and you are all traitors for supporting the Criminal in Chief.


Proof? Or are you just going to start sending us to the camps indiscriminately?


We don't think like him, so something must be wrong with us.

Re-Education is the only answer.


There is a word for that..



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
Something just crossed my mind -- what if the President did not want to ask the DoJ to unredact the FISA documents because he knew this impeachment was coming?


I'd say that's very possible, and well within the decision and authority of the administration to do. This is, afterall, a Congressional matter and any direct action by Trump opens the door up to someone calling it a conflict of interest. Seems like a professionally responsible move to stand back and allow Rosenstein to dictate his own fate, ya?


I was kind of terrified of that idea when I asked it. It would imply collusion between two branches of the government against the third one.


Seeing the obvious isn't collusion, it's simply identifying likely outcomes. This Rosenstein impeachment has been threatened by Congress numerous times as they attempted to get access to documents. His stubborn continued refusal to comply and insistence on playing games basically brought us to this point. You're asking "was it collusion for Trump to not "save" Rosenstein by releasing the documents himself via Executive Order." My question in response to that is "Why? Under what rationale should Trump have been expected to save Rosenstein from Rosenstein's ego?"



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Annee
Sounds like a desperation move to me.

Could trigger something else.


It could, such as exposure of just how deep the corruption at the FBI has run.


Power Corrupts - - however, it doesn't corrupt everyone.

Power also Corrupts those with an agenda to try to take down those they don't want to have power.


Cleverly worded. I read that and immediately "The Resistance" and the Deep State jump up to fit the bill of "those with an agenda to try to take down those they don't want to have power." I know that you're thinking 180 degrees opposite, however.

You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain. At times it looks like we're watching a squad of supervillains fighting each other, ya?



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Annee

RESOLUTION Impeaching Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.



And who is it that's trying to do the impeaching?


People? Human beings?

Ohh thats right, they dont believe the same as you, so they no longer fits into those categories, and therefor they must be corrupted, rigth? sounds like YOU dont want them in power, are you corrupted??


What does what I believe have to do with anything?

Here is the first 2 paragraphs from the article linked in the OP.


A group of conservative House lawmakers on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the top Department of Justice (DOJ) official overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The introduction of the resolution is the latest sign of escalating efforts among conservatives to oust the DOJ’s No. 2 official.


Can you read that? The GOP is introducing resolutions.

What exactly does that mean? It means they are INTRODUCTING resolutions.

Are they backing them up with hard core fact? Do they have hard core proof?

My guess is they're "grabbing at straw" - - hoping something will stick.

Time will tell.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: BlueAjah
All of the Articles of Impeachment are very detailed and make perfect sense.
www.scribd.com...



Thanks for that link.

So, are charges enough for this to be voted on or does evidence need to be presented? Some of those charges are pretty crazy and I am always for a good investigation. If one side says everything has been provided and another says it has not, should we not have someone independent look into it and see if it has been released?

Why are we taking anyone's word on any of this? I see allegations from both sides and people taking sides with who sounds better to them.

Can 11 people in Congress just write up charges and it goes for a vote, without any investigation? If it's that easy, how come we don't see this every day? How come we don't see dozens of impeachments a year? This stinks to me. I want to see corruption eradicated but there is more corruption behind this.


You do know the keep records of everything, right? it is pretty easy to find out what was asked for, and what was given.
The DOJ allready admitted that they redacted a lot more than what they needed to redact in those papers, is that not proof enough for you?


Upon in camera review of documents at the Department of Justice, it was revealed the Department, under the supervision of Mr. Rosenstein, attempted to conceal certain facts as documents provided to Congress were heavily and unnecessarily redacted. Most of the redacted documents containing material investigative information did not contain law-enforcement-sensitive information, the Department’s stated basis for redactions



The Department of Justice acknowledged the unnecessary redactions and agreed that some information should not have been redacted in an April 16, 2018 letter to Representatives Meadows and Jordan.


what about the potential conflicts of interest?? does it not matter?




Why are we taking anyone's word on any of this? I see allegations from both sides and people taking sides with who sounds better to them.


you mean just like you decided, the people making the impeachments, must be the most corrupt ones, cause that sounds best to you??



I want to see corruption eradicated but there is more corruption behind this



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
Something just crossed my mind -- what if the President did not want to ask the DoJ to unredact the FISA documents because he knew this impeachment was coming?


I'd say that's very possible, and well within the decision and authority of the administration to do. This is, afterall, a Congressional matter and any direct action by Trump opens the door up to someone calling it a conflict of interest. Seems like a professionally responsible move to stand back and allow Rosenstein to dictate his own fate, ya?


I was kind of terrified of that idea when I asked it. It would imply collusion between two branches of the government against the third one.


Seeing the obvious isn't collusion, it's simply identifying likely outcomes. This Rosenstein impeachment has been threatened by Congress numerous times as they attempted to get access to documents. His stubborn continued refusal to comply and insistence on playing games basically brought us to this point. You're asking "was it collusion for Trump to not "save" Rosenstein by releasing the documents himself via Executive Order." My question in response to that is "Why? Under what rationale should Trump have been expected to save Rosenstein from Rosenstein's ego?"


I don't know how this is making sense to you and how easy it is to come to terms to. This stinks to high heaven to me. It's so convoluted and it all contradicts other parts of it.

The DoJ says they released all they were asked and are accepting new requests. These charges say they have not released documents. Who will investigate those claims, on either side?

President was asked to ask the DoJ for un-redacting, he refused to. Not direct, ask. Either he knows nothing is there or he is complicit and the charges against one should be placed against both. Besides, this is the first time that this court has released such documents in 40 years it existed. I'm all for transparency, full transparency, and even I will say I'm impressed these were released, first time in 4 decades. That's huge, even with redactions. If nothing was released, it could still be said, well, they have never been released before. But now they have, but it's not enough.

This reeks of a witch hunt, but as always, I can't wait to see what comes out of it. I want the whole swamp drained, I don't care where it starts, as long as it ends with all of them gone. This looks like two branches of our government colluding to eliminate the third one, and that sets off warnings to me.


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
If Rosenstein did nothing wrong, then he has nothing to worry about, right?


I mean, you can have an investigation with partisan people but they won't necessarily be biased.


amirite?





posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Annee

RESOLUTION Impeaching Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.



And who is it that's trying to do the impeaching?


People? Human beings?

Ohh thats right, they dont believe the same as you, so they no longer fits into those categories, and therefor they must be corrupted, rigth? sounds like YOU dont want them in power, are you corrupted??


What does what I believe have to do with anything?

Here is the first 2 paragraphs from the article linked in the OP.


A group of conservative House lawmakers on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the top Department of Justice (DOJ) official overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The introduction of the resolution is the latest sign of escalating efforts among conservatives to oust the DOJ’s No. 2 official.


Can you read that? The GOP is introducing resolutions.

What exactly does that mean? It means they are INTRODUCTING resolutions.

Are they backing them up with hard core fact? Do they have hard core proof?

My guess is they're "grabbing at straw" - - hoping something will stick.

Time will tell.




Yes, i can read. You say the GOP introduces resolutions, as opposed to the DNC, right??

So tell me, if the resolutions was from the other side, would they had been more trustworthy?

Keep guessing all you want, i dont know what is gonna happen - but the fact that it is GOP that is introducing this, shouldnt be enough for you to just dismiss it as false, you dont see a problem with that?



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Annee

RESOLUTION Impeaching Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.



And who is it that's trying to do the impeaching?


People? Human beings?

Ohh thats right, they dont believe the same as you, so they no longer fits into those categories, and therefor they must be corrupted, rigth? sounds like YOU dont want them in power, are you corrupted??


What does what I believe have to do with anything?

Here is the first 2 paragraphs from the article linked in the OP.


A group of conservative House lawmakers on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the top Department of Justice (DOJ) official overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The introduction of the resolution is the latest sign of escalating efforts among conservatives to oust the DOJ’s No. 2 official.


Can you read that? The GOP is introducing resolutions.

What exactly does that mean? It means they are INTRODUCTING resolutions.

Are they backing them up with hard core fact? Do they have hard core proof?

My guess is they're "grabbing at straw" - - hoping something will stick.

Time will tell.




Yes, i can read. You say the GOP introduces resolutions, as opposed to the DNC, right??

So tell me, if the resolutions was from the other side, would they had been more trustworthy?

Keep guessing all you want, i dont know what is gonna happen - but the fact that it is GOP that is introducing this, shouldnt be enough for you to just dismiss it as false, you dont see a problem with that?


This has nothing to do with the DNC.

GOP are trying to stop something.

It's about what the GOP is doing.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



PRISON SENTENCES, TREASON, DEATH SENTENCES MILITARY TRIBUNALS



You people are insane, and you are all traitors for supporting the Criminal in Chief.


The only traitors are the deranged lunatics like you that are up to their necks in the Leftist dumpster fire.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Kharron

how's all the losing going for ya?

man, I need a break from all the winning lately


Losing? Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard me say anything other than - investigate them?

I just get the feeling this is an attempt at consolidating power in the government, and my Constitution hairs start standing up. There is more to this than there would appear to be.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Annee

RESOLUTION Impeaching Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.



And who is it that's trying to do the impeaching?


People? Human beings?

Ohh thats right, they dont believe the same as you, so they no longer fits into those categories, and therefor they must be corrupted, rigth? sounds like YOU dont want them in power, are you corrupted??


What does what I believe have to do with anything?

Here is the first 2 paragraphs from the article linked in the OP.


A group of conservative House lawmakers on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the top Department of Justice (DOJ) official overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The introduction of the resolution is the latest sign of escalating efforts among conservatives to oust the DOJ’s No. 2 official.


Can you read that? The GOP is introducing resolutions.

What exactly does that mean? It means they are INTRODUCTING resolutions.

Are they backing them up with hard core fact? Do they have hard core proof?

My guess is they're "grabbing at straw" - - hoping something will stick.

Time will tell.




Yes, i can read. You say the GOP introduces resolutions, as opposed to the DNC, right??

So tell me, if the resolutions was from the other side, would they had been more trustworthy?

Keep guessing all you want, i dont know what is gonna happen - but the fact that it is GOP that is introducing this, shouldnt be enough for you to just dismiss it as false, you dont see a problem with that?


This has nothing to do with the DNC.

GOP are trying to stop something.

It's about what the GOP is doing.


Yes, and when the DNC tries to stop TRUMP, it has nothing to do with Trump, but the DNC, right? Or is it always just about what the GOP is doing?

So when the GOP introduces something, it cant be true? Wow, good to know, thank you

edit on 25-7-2018 by IAMNOTYOU because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Hate to break up you guys right wing back slapping party, but which 15 Democrat senate votes are you all counting on to vote to impeach Rosenstein?

Because, I mean, this couldn’t just be a political stunt by a small number of Republicans to curry favor with the president. As every other *bombshell* you guys continually stake your lives on has been...

Nah.


edit on 25-7-2018 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron
It would imply collusion between two branches of the government against the third one.


DOJ is under the Executive Branch, not the judicial. This is the Legislative Branch against the Executive Branch with the cheif Executive (Trump) staying mostly out of it.


I don't know how this is making sense to you and how easy it is to come to terms to.

Because I've been following Rosenstein's gameplaying with Congress over the past 6 months, as well as the trials of various DOJ employees who were working behind the scenes with the previous administration to not only influence an election, but ensure they had aces up their sleeve if Trump got elected.


The DoJ says they released all they were asked and are accepting new requests. These charges say they have not released documents. Who will investigate those claims, on either side?
Yes, defendants usually deny they did anything wrong... that's to be expected. As for who will investigate, a Senate committee, same as with any other impeachment trial.


This reeks of a witch hunt

Yes, we've been saying this since it all first came to light and Mueller was appointed as an *ahem* "independent" council to dig up dirt on Trump, continuing to dig until he found something... still digging, still nothing, yet still many in the Deep State losing their lids saying "If we say we suspect something, there MUST be something!" It is the definition of a witch hunt.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



PRISON SENTENCES, TREASON, DEATH SENTENCES MILITARY TRIBUNALS



You people are insane, and you are all traitors for supporting the Criminal in Chief.


Thankyou for helping us recognize how to identify the real U.S. haters.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
It would imply collusion between two branches of the government against the third one.


DOJ is under the Executive Branch, not the judicial. This is the Legislative Branch against the Executive Branch with the cheif Executive (Trump) staying mostly out of it.


You are correct, my bad. In which case the President had not only the authority but the obligation to ask Rosenstein to un-redact when he was asked to do so. Since he refused to, we now have two officials, in the same branch, refusing to un-redact documents.

Why is the lower one getting impeached and not the higher one? Neither one complied.

Edit: Thinking about the answer to this question again leads to collusion.
This is not good.
edit on 25-7-2018 by Kharron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
It would imply collusion between two branches of the government against the third one.


DOJ is under the Executive Branch, not the judicial. This is the Legislative Branch against the Executive Branch with the cheif Executive (Trump) staying mostly out of it.


You are correct, my bad. In which case the President had not only the authority but the obligation to ask Rosenstein to un-redact when he was asked to do so. Since he refused to, we now have two officials, in the same branch, refusing to un-redact documents.

Why is the lower one getting impeached and not the higher one? Neither one complied.


So the president was obligated to unredact those papers and show it to the public? why?
Rosenstein was asked to show it to the congress, and allegedly refused, how is that the same thing?

ETA

I do actually agree that he should be obligated to unredact EVERYTHING!! If people wants what is good for you, and take on the responsibility to rule youre life, they dont need to keep secrets to justify their actions, do they?
edit on 25-7-2018 by IAMNOTYOU because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Sessions will face enormous pressure to fire Rosenstein before this goes through the full Senate.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Kharron
It would imply collusion between two branches of the government against the third one.


DOJ is under the Executive Branch, not the judicial. This is the Legislative Branch against the Executive Branch with the cheif Executive (Trump) staying mostly out of it.


You are correct, my bad. In which case the President had not only the authority but the obligation to ask Rosenstein to un-redact when he was asked to do so. Since he refused to, we now have two officials, in the same branch, refusing to un-redact documents.

Why is the lower one getting impeached and not the higher one? Neither one complied.


So the president was obligated to unredact those papers and show it to the public? why?
Rosenstein was asked to show it to the congress, and allegedly refused, how is that the same thing?

ETA

I do actually agree that he should be obligated to unredact EVERYTHING!! If people wants what is good for you, and take on the responsibility to rule youre life, they dont need to keep secrets to justify their actions, do they?


Not the public, the legislators asked the President to ask the DoJ to give them unredacted versions. Both the President and the DoJ refused to comply. The legislators are now charging the DoJ official with non compliance, leaving the President out of it. That is what I'm wondering about.

As burdman pointed out, they are the same branch, which I did not realize. He could easily have instructed the DoJ to make those available to the Congress but he did not want to. Why?



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join