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.

 

David Pecker gets federal immunity in Michael Cohen case

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




But it makes him look bad, and may help the dems in the midterms.


Heh.

www.foxnews.com...

But, you know...polls.

Word is, Dems are discouraging candidates from pushing the impeachment thing.

Trump's big endorsement didn't seem to help:
www.nytimes.com...
edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If you take a moment to stop being disgusted at the state of out political system, there is a lot of interesting strategy going forward here.

Dems have to be careful about making impeachment the issue because it could spur trumps base and hurt them in close house races.

However, by sort of winking and nodding that they will go after trump without being to explicit, they could drive their base out.

I look for the republicans to make the race more about impeachment than the dems.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




I look for the republicans to make the race more about impeachment than the dems.

You mean the "we have to protect Trump" thing. Damage control. Defense.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




I look for the republicans to make the race more about impeachment than the dems.

You mean the "we have to protect Trump" thing. Damage control. Defense.


Or maybe "the establishment democrats and their corrupt deep state intel pals with do anything to overturn the results of the election"

I guess its a matter of perspective



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Or maybe "the establishment democrats and their corrupt deep state intel pals with do anything to overturn the results of the election"

You think that an impeachment means that Hillary would become president?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




Or maybe "the establishment democrats and their corrupt deep state intel pals with do anything to overturn the results of the election"

You think that an impeachment means that Hillary would become president?


Did I say that?

I think it would overturn the election by removing the person that was legally elected president.

Notice I didnt say reverse the results.

But please, if youd like to be embarrassed in another meaningless semantic argument, we can do that.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




In Trump's case there's hush money - - how and where did it come from. Was it his personal money (doubtful, since Trump doesn't use his own money). So, if it's campaign money - - he's using basically public money.


It was acknowledge that the money came from Trump's business interests, not his campaign funds.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




I think it would overturn the election by removing the person that was legally elected president.
I see. In that case I guess the death of Roosevelt would qualify as overturning an election then.

Thing is, there's a lot of chatter about an impeachment being an overthrow. It isn't. Right? That's not your position?


edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




I think it would overturn the election by removing the person that was legally elected president.
I see. In that case I guess the death of Roosevelt would qualify as overturning an election then.

Thing is, there's a lot of chatter about an impeachment being an overthrow. It isn't. Right? That's not your position?



So you do want to play the semantic game!

Hahahahaha!

So sad!


verb (used with object)

to destroy the power of; overthrow; defeat; vanquish.


www.dictionary.com...


Impeachment is not, of course, a judicial proceeding. But because of its dramatic potential to reverse a democratic election and overturn the will of the people, due process and fundamental fairness are as plainly required as in any court proceeding.


clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov...

The deep state seeks to overturn the will of the people by keeping anyone who dares challenge them out of the office.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



to destroy the power of; overthrow; defeat; vanquish.


So, you do think an impeachment is an overthrow of government.



The deep state seeks to overturn the will of the people by keeping anyone who dares challenge them out of the office.
Oh god.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler



to destroy the power of; overthrow; defeat; vanquish.


So, you do think an impeachment is an overthrow of government.



The deep state seeks to overturn the will of the people by keeping anyone who dares challenge them out of the office.
Oh god.


'No mr semantic, I think impeachment will " overturn (vanquish, defeat) the will of the people"


edit on 23-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
Again, what do I know really. A guess on my part is that this ''deep state'' is nebulous and not a tight network of cabalistic conspirators. Their number one goal is to maintain a functioning economic system over which they already have the majority share of control due to owning the big banks and other corporations.

So when I say that I consider Trump to be 'deep state'' it is not because he is even near being one of those wealthy elitists but rather a wanna-be elitist. He is like a bottom rung elitist. He wanted to break into the higher realms of the economic deep state.

Hand in hand with their control of the world economic system is the maintenance of the status quo which necessary for the economy they feed off of. Trump threatens that status quo. A weak example would be the sniper team that lies in ambush with orders to hold fire until ordered and one guy decides that he wants to get in the first shot and takes it jeopardizing the whole plan.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm behind on all these laws as well and don't know as I will ever catch up, or want to for that matter.

Edwards turned out to be sleazy and legally he got off scott free.
But once he got caught it cost him his political future.

As for Trump being greasy and sleazy it could go without saying that I agree. And while I know that this is an asset in the eyes of many of his supporters I am also of the hope that those qualities are not acceptable to ALL of his past supporters. That hopefully enough of them will say we need less sleaze and vote against his machine in November strongly enough that the rest of the party will give him the boot in 2020. A long shot, I know.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler



to destroy the power of; overthrow; defeat; vanquish.


So, you do think an impeachment is an overthrow of government.



The deep state seeks to overturn the will of the people by keeping anyone who dares challenge them out of the office.
Oh god.


'No mr semantic, I think impeachment will " overturn (vanquish, defeat) the will of the people"



I think there might be one problem here though. If it turns out that Special Counsel can actually prove that illicit campaign dealings, as Cohen put it "in coordination with and at the direction of (Candidate for Federal Office) in an effort to influence the election", and that becomes the basis for impeachment, it would mean that the will of the people were already overturned by the same illicit dealings and the impeachment thus becomes a correction to reflect the will of the people.
edit on 23-8-2018 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

I see a problem in that this practice is S.O.P. for many rich men, and for that matter, what about the Congress's slush fund, paying off sex and abuse claims from staff members. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Those Congressmen don't have deep enough pockets to pay those victims' five or six figure settlements, and using their own campaign funds would violate these same laws. So in D.C. Swamp world, you and I pitch in to pay off their philandering.



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join