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: 5
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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?



Seems the foot is on the other shoe.




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

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 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



Are you off in your own little world?

A "Group" - - 11 total of GOP lawmakers.

You might think about whether or not the rest of the GOP are gonna jump on board.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

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?


Do you have sources??



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
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.


Making senators explain votes to keep corrupt government officials won't effect midterms at all?
Dems are so far behind they think they are in the lead.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:18 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: 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 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



Are you off in your own little world?

A "Group" - - 11 total of GOP lawmakers.

You might think about whether or not the rest of the GOP are gonna jump on board.


So impeachments should only be made, if EVERYBODY is on board from the start?

Can you please tell me, how many does it take before i need to take news like this seriously? 50? 100? 150?

Does it need 7 billion people to introduce this, before it can be taken seriously?

Yes i must be off in my own little world, i didnt know they needed a certain number of people before anyone should listen to them, but iam looking forward to hear what numbers we should be looking for, in case something like this ever comes up again. I dont wanna waste time on something that cant be true because they dont got the numbers...

ETA:

It is funny how it is now 11 GOP lawmakers, when YOU all the way through this thread, refers to them as "The GOP", you kept asking people to look where this came from, and provided the answer, from the GOP, right?
edit on 25-7-2018 by IAMNOTYOU because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:18 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.


Again, no he did not. Recall, this case was essentially about an unlawful wiretap of Trump. He's distancing himself from the authority matrix related to it... effectively recusing himself. In a perfect world, Jeff Sessions would be able to do his damn job and this would have already become water under the bridge, but alas, Sessions was demanded by the left to recuse himself (initially from the Russian Collusion probe, now apparently from anything which involves his actual position's job description... worthless as tits on a bull that AG has turned out to be.) Trump acted properly in not interfering in what is an investigation circling around himself.

In fact, I'm wondering if the collusion here was the left egging the DOJ on to continue to resist releasing the documents ordered by Congress as ordered in an effort to get Trump to involve himself, then accuse him of interfering with justice, and he simply outsmarted them by remaining out of the actual authority matrix on this. Considering the gnashing of teeth I'm seeing suddenly over Trump not ordering the unredacted documents be released, that scenario seems a lot more plausible than the one you're putting forward... at least to me.



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

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Kharron

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?


Do you have sources??



Well, since the documents were already released to the public, what did you think they were asking him for? Another copy of redacted ones?



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

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: underwerks

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


From who? Something like 2.5% of House Republicans support this, so where are you counting on this support and votes coming from?

And even if the house votes to impeach Rosenstein, it still has to go through the senate, which requires around 14 Democrats to vote for it.

Again, this is just political theater, this isn’t going to happen.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
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?



So if he's guilty, you're saying that his punishment should be based on partisanship.




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Kharron

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?


Do you have sources??



Well, since the documents were already released to the public, what did you think they were asking him for? Another copy of redacted ones?


I dont guess, i need facts - Do you have a source?



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks
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.


Making senators explain votes to keep corrupt government officials won't effect midterms at all?
Dems are so far behind they think they are in the lead.



Ahhh, so now it’s the midterms.

What happened to impeaching Rosenstein?

That not going down anymore?




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

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.


Again, no he did not. Recall, this case was essentially about an unlawful wiretap of Trump. He's distancing himself from the authority matrix related to it... effectively recusing himself. In a perfect world, Jeff Sessions would be able to do his damn job and this would have already become water under the bridge, but alas, Sessions was demanded by the left to recuse himself (initially from the Russian Collusion probe, now apparently from anything which involves his actual position's job description... worthless as tits on a bull that AG has turned out to be.) Trump acted properly in not interfering in what is an investigation circling around himself.

In fact, I'm wondering if the collusion here was the left egging the DOJ on to continue to resist releasing the documents ordered by Congress as ordered in an effort to get Trump to involve himself, then accuse him of interfering with justice, and he simply outsmarted them by remaining out of the actual authority matrix on this. Considering the gnashing of teeth I'm seeing suddenly over Trump not ordering the unredacted documents be released, that scenario seems a lot more plausible than the one you're putting forward... at least to me.


But he always claims there is no collusion and the DoJ has even come out and said Trump was not under investigation, correct?

So he can't recuse himself from something that does not exist. I appreciate the attempt to apply it whichever way it fits, but let's choose one. Is Trump being investigated and therefore he needs to recuse himself or is he not?

This wiretap was about a person who identified himself in his words as working or being a consultant for the Russians, had Russian ties and so on. I did not see anywhere in those wiretap docs that I've read so far that they were after Trump.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks
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?



So if he's guilty, you're saying that his punishment should be based on partisanship.



Nope.

I’m saying regardless if he is guilty or not, the number of votes needed for impeachment doesn’t exist.

Soooo... you guys might have to wait a little longer before calling for the deaths of people you don’t know over politics. As one of your comrades did on the first page.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


I would like to see people who have broken the law be punished.

But then again, I don't add a partisan caveat like too many appear to do.




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks
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?



So if he's guilty, you're saying that his punishment should be based on partisanship.



Nope.

I’m saying regardless if he is guilty or not, the number of votes needed for impeachment doesn’t exist.

Soooo... you guys might have to wait a little longer before calling for the deaths of people you don’t know over politics. As one of your comrades did on the first page.


WOW

So it doesn matter if he is guilty or not, democrats wont impeach him, no matter how guilty he is, because... teammate??

Now we know where you stand, not on the justice side - I hope they get youre corrupt ass too!!!

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



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

A FISA warrant obtain due to a fraudulent foreign dossier on Donald J Trump... I don't give a rat's hairy ass what the DOJ claims, that FISA warrant was obtained with the hopes of hearing something they could oust Trump over... they heard nothing, so they instead went after associates of his based on flimsy connections which, I might add, they could easily nab dozens of DC connected people from both parties on if they so desired.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


But then again, I don't add a partisan caveat like too many appear to do.


I assume you tried to type that with a straight face.




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks
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?



So if he's guilty, you're saying that his punishment should be based on partisanship.



Nope.

I’m saying regardless if he is guilty or not, the number of votes needed for impeachment doesn’t exist.

Soooo... you guys might have to wait a little longer before calling for the deaths of people you don’t know over politics. As one of your comrades did on the first page.


WOW

So it doesn matter if he is guilty or not, democrats wont impeach him, no matter how guilty he is, because... teammate??

Now we know where you stand, not on the justice side - I hope they get youre corrupt ass too!!!

I’m saying that going by the numbers, the votes don’t add up to impeach him.

Anything past that, is something you’re making up yourself to promote your agenda of dividing America in favor of your chosen political party.

Pathetic.

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



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU

originally posted by: Kharron

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?


Do you have sources??



Well, since the documents were already released to the public, what did you think they were asking him for? Another copy of redacted ones?


I dont guess, i need facts - Do you have a source?


The request to release unredacted version. scribd

If the President does not want to, why should those below him do so? From their wording it would seem they have already seen the unredacted versions, correct? We're assuming, but safe assumption after reading this letter.

If they asked the President for an unredacted version to be released a month ago and he refused, why charge his underling for refusing to do the same?

How is this making sense?



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: underwerks

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


From who? Something like 2.5% of House Republicans support this, so where are you counting on this support and votes coming from?.


We don't have any idea what percentage support it, yet. We will know soon enough if GOP House leadership brings it to the floor for a vote.




top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join