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: 6
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

They didn't ask Trump to release anything, they asked him to EO the files as no longer classified. There is a huge difference between the acting head of a department providing unredacted, yet still classified, documents to a Congressional panel and those documents being made unclassified by the Executive. A HUGE difference. Trump encouraged the DOJ to comply with the House, Rosenstein drug his feet...




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.


But all these FISA documents show that your claim is not true. It was not based on the dossier, only a part of it was. There were other valid concerns for it and 3 different Republican judges approved it. People have to stop repeating this as it is not true. The judges and everyone who has seen the documents agree the wiretaps application and the renewals were solid.
edit on 25-7-2018 by Kharron because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Judges who were lied to by the FBI.
www.foxnews.com...

Next defense of the illegal FISA warrant?



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Quick bit of trivia here: who appointed Rosenstein in the first place? Must be one of those pesky Obama holdovers.

If only Trump could appoint who he wanted to Rosensteins position, he could be sure of which way the investigation is going to go...




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

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.


Yes, you are saying guilt wont matter, only sides, then goes on to say this



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.


Nope, youre not partisan at all...
BTW, iam no fan of the GOP, nor the DNC for that matter, corrupt as hell both of them - but it doesnt matter to you, you only see what you want to see

You want Trump impeached, right? So you have a motive to let rosenstein go free, in the hopes that he will fullfill your dreams - atleast that is how it sounds like to me

Why do you try to make it sound like iam on some sort of side here, if it is not to divide?
Please tell me where i have ever said anything about liking the GOP? or are you the one making stuff up, "to promote your agenda of dividing America in favor of your chosen political party."



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

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.


And even if by a long shot Republicans choose to come together (yeah right) it still won’t pass the senate.

Which makes this nothing but political theater. Doesn’t it seem strange this was dropped right before a recess and there wasn’t a vote forced on it?



That should be enough right there to give people an indication of what this really is.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

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?


Ah so now it's not about holding senators accountable?
Impeachment being political and not criminal makes it ALL about the midterms.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Kharron

Judges who were lied to by the FBI.
www.foxnews.com...

Next defense of the illegal FISA warrant?


First time I heard this. I have to make food, but I'm leaving the Fox link pinned, I'll read it later. You have anything better than Fox? Please.

I do read Fox but that's why I know they cannot be trusted, especially on stories no one else picks up. All I've read so far, from both left and right, and what I've gotten through on the documents, is pretty impartial and justified. And Fox makes no quotes to support their claims so it's hard to know which pages they're talking about. In the article you linked there is a lot of believe, assume and guess. I need something more solid than that to be persuaded.

Edit: Besides, Fox News is making an assumption, based on the same docs we're are reading. The judges had ALL the information and they were all Republican appointed. Tough choice who to trust, Republican judges or Republican MSM?
edit on 25-7-2018 by Kharron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The problem with any impeachment proceedings is that one has to have numbers. And from what is seen the numbers are not on the side of the Republicans, and they are seriously lacking in such.

Here is how it breaks down, according to what I could find:

In the House of Reps, it would require a majority vote of 285 votes in favor of proceeding and then in the Senate it would require a vote of 67 to convict.

Now here is the problem: The Republicans only have 236 in the House and 51 in the Senate, with one out, leaving only 50.

So it is lacking in the numbers for this to proceed if the Democrats decide to vote against such.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

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?


Ah so now it's not about holding senators accountable?
Impeachment being political and not criminal makes it ALL about the midterms.


I’m not naive enough to believe our government is going to prosecute itself in any type of meaningful way.

The only purpose of this (11 people signed on!) is to give you guys another false sense of hope. Which really shows how little they think of you, because anyone who graduated civics in High School should be able to work out the numbers needed in their head.

Yet everyone is running around screaming “Rosenstein is going to be impeached!”

Lmao.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:02 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: 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?


Have you even read the letter you linked?


Because DOJ and FBI continue to obstruct the Committee´s investigation, it is time to put the facts in the public domain, consistent with the need to protext intelligence sources and methods



To enable the public to understand the DOJ´s and the FBI´s basis for obtaining the FISA warrant and three subsequent renewals, we respectfully request that you declassify and release publicly, and in unredacted form, pages 10-12 and 17-34, along with all associated footnotes, of the third renewal of the FISA applcation on Mr. Page. That renewal was filed in June 2017 and signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.



In addition, we enclose for your information a letter signed by all 13 Committee Republicans to the Presiding Judge of the FISC, asking her to conduct an investigation into DOJ´s conduct in obtaining the FISA warrant and three subsequent renewals


These guys ask to release parts of it to the public, because FBI and DOJ is obstructing the investigation!

Rosenstein was asked by CONGRESS!!

How does this not make sense?



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The problem with any impeachment proceedings is that one has to have numbers. And from what is seen the numbers are not on the side of the Republicans, and they are seriously lacking in such.

Here is how it breaks down, according to what I could find:

In the House of Reps, it would require a majority vote of 285 votes in favor of proceeding and then in the Senate it would require a vote of 67 to convict.

Now here is the problem: The Republicans only have 236 in the House and 51 in the Senate, with one out, leaving only 50.

So it is lacking in the numbers for this to proceed if the Democrats decide to vote against such.


Arent these guys sworn in to serve and protect the constitution?? Does the constitution tell them to vote however they see fit or does it tell them to uphold the laws?



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:12 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: 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?


Have you even read the letter you linked?


Because DOJ and FBI continue to obstruct the Committee´s investigation, it is time to put the facts in the public domain, consistent with the need to protext intelligence sources and methods



To enable the public to understand the DOJ´s and the FBI´s basis for obtaining the FISA warrant and three subsequent renewals, we respectfully request that you declassify and release publicly, and in unredacted form, pages 10-12 and 17-34, along with all associated footnotes, of the third renewal of the FISA applcation on Mr. Page. That renewal was filed in June 2017 and signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.



In addition, we enclose for your information a letter signed by all 13 Committee Republicans to the Presiding Judge of the FISC, asking her to conduct an investigation into DOJ´s conduct in obtaining the FISA warrant and three subsequent renewals


These guys ask to release parts of it to the public, because FBI and DOJ is obstructing the investigation!

Rosenstein was asked by CONGRESS!!

How does this not make sense?


How come you only read a part of that letter, come on? You make a claim at the bottom of your post that Rosenstein was asked by Congress (all in caps) but conveniently ignore that the letter to the President is also from Congress. Take a look at the header of the letter I linked. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC 20515

The same Congress asked both, and both refused to declassify it for public, right? One is getting impeached but his boss is not. I smell a setup.

We'll see soon enough. Take care.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

The problem is there is no impeachable offense!

Disgraced Agent Strzok - a Trump Hater must be held accountable
for he crimes he has committed!!! Even he said there is no there there!

The entire "Russia probe" is a HOAX.


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



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:25 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: 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?


Have you even read the letter you linked?


Because DOJ and FBI continue to obstruct the Committee´s investigation, it is time to put the facts in the public domain, consistent with the need to protext intelligence sources and methods



To enable the public to understand the DOJ´s and the FBI´s basis for obtaining the FISA warrant and three subsequent renewals, we respectfully request that you declassify and release publicly, and in unredacted form, pages 10-12 and 17-34, along with all associated footnotes, of the third renewal of the FISA applcation on Mr. Page. That renewal was filed in June 2017 and signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.



In addition, we enclose for your information a letter signed by all 13 Committee Republicans to the Presiding Judge of the FISC, asking her to conduct an investigation into DOJ´s conduct in obtaining the FISA warrant and three subsequent renewals


These guys ask to release parts of it to the public, because FBI and DOJ is obstructing the investigation!

Rosenstein was asked by CONGRESS!!

How does this not make sense?


How come you only read a part of that letter, come on? You make a claim at the bottom of your post that Rosenstein was asked by Congress (all in caps) but conveniently ignore that the letter to the President is also from Congress. Take a look at the header of the letter I linked. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC 20515

The same Congress asked both, and both refused to declassify it for public, right? One is getting impeached but his boss is not. I smell a setup.

We'll see soon enough. Take care.


Nope not right

One refused to declassify STUFF WITH NO SECURITY RISK, to the public
Another refused to declassify secret stuff to congress, who is supposed to overlook these things, many many times did he refuse to hand over the papers they asked for. Redacted a lot more than needed, may had potential conflict of interest etc.

What is it you dont get!?! 2 totally different thinks... sigh
edit on 25-7-2018 by IAMNOTYOU because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:41 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.



No what he is saying that he will likely be found NOT GUILTY in the senate. Much like when the GOP forced the Clinton Impeachment.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

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.



No what he is saying that he will likely be found NOT GUILTY in the senate. Much like when the GOP forced the Clinton Impeachment.


So guilt or innocence is based on what party you belong to instead of facts.




posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

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?


Ah so now it's not about holding senators accountable?
Impeachment being political and not criminal makes it ALL about the midterms.


I’m not naive enough to believe our government is going to prosecute itself in any type of meaningful way.

The only purpose of this (11 people signed on!) is to give you guys another false sense of hope. Which really shows how little they think of you, because anyone who graduated civics in High School should be able to work out the numbers needed in their head.

Yet everyone is running around screaming “Rosenstein is going to be impeached!”

Lmao.

As impeachment is political the house can impeach rr with a simple majority can they not?
Perhaps rr should simply comply and deliver the requested material as Congress has legal congressional oversight.
Once the house passes the simple majority vote the red dogs in the Senate will be put on the spot.
RR is quite expendable as he is only a placeholder until the investigation is over.
This move keeps sessions hands clean, trumps hands clean, and will force the red dogs in the Senate to vote on record.
Pretty smart if you ask me as the investigation can continue rr or no rr.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Pyle

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.



No what he is saying that he will likely be found NOT GUILTY in the senate. Much like when the GOP forced the Clinton Impeachment.


So guilt or innocence is based on what party you belong to instead of facts.



Based on the facts at hand he would not be voted out by the senate in any impeachment trial brought forward. Because impeachment isnt about criminal guilt or innocence, it is only about removal from office or not.



posted on Jul, 25 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

Back.

Oh so now they are both from Congress? Good we can agree on that, at least.

I'll say it again... these documents are very rare to see, this release is the first one in the 40 years this court has existed. And they are also a part of an ongoing investigation. Two major rules were broken here -- one, Top Secret docs released to the public and to the legislators; two, documents in an ongoing investigation released. In any normal atmosphere this would never have happened, and they would never even be asked for them. But to calm things down they were released.

And 11 people, some of whom always put on a show and distract people, are putting on another one and disregarding a fact that the release of these docs is unprecedented, but they want more -- after the fact that entire D.C., apart for a handful of them, agrees there was no foul play. But they're gonna keep dancing and flailing their arms and distracting those who can be distracted, while something worse goes on.

This won't go anywhere, mark my words, but we need to pay attention to why this is staged this way. It smells very fishy.




top topics



 
56
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join