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.

 

Help me to understand. . . . .

page: 9
36
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


That is our constitution, system of justice and democracy. Did I intercommunicate something?

I wish I could agree with you.

I can't. The Constitution is under dire attack and is becoming more irrelevant as time goes forward. As is the law.

The purpose of the law is to provide a fair and equitable framework for enforcement of societal standards. Society has agreed that killing another without just cause is wrong; thus we have laws against murder, with self-defense being an acceptable defense. Society has agreed that rape is wrong; thus we have laws against rape. Society has agreed that using campaign funds to 'trick' voters is wrong; thus we have laws for campaign finance. These may be ineffective, but we are trying to accomplish that goal of not allowing politicians to 'trick' voters.

We have a Constitution that is above the law. The Constitution is a contract between the people, the states, and the Federal government. It establishes the powers of the Federal government and the authority under which it may operate, while specifically stating what powers it may not have as well. Without that Constitution, there is no legitimate Federal government. One may notice that, unlike most individual contracts, there is no ":separation clause" in the Constitution that allows part of it to be struck down while allowing the rest to survive. It is either valid or not valid.

What I am referring to is a simple question: do we or do we not live in a nation of laws? I have debated this topic many times under many different legal situations, and every time I refer to the actual law as written. Yet, I am rebuked, because of some legal theory that exists for no other reason than to change the meaning and scope of the law in question. In this case, we have direct evidence, actual confession, that the laws have been violated, yet the punishment in those cases have been either a fine paid or absolution over some legal theory that is specifically mentioned in the law itself as inapplicable. (I refer to Obama's campaign finance violations and Clinton's absolution by Comey over the private email scandal.)

In the same breath, a highly questionable violation, which does boil down to a simple accounting error, is called out as a reason to impeach a sitting President.

That is unequal and unfair application of the law, and thus, if upheld, makes the law null and void. When that unfair application is applied through Constitutional arguments, it threatens to make the Constitution itself null and void. If the Constitution is null and void, then all laws under it are also null and void, and the Union is dissolved. Any attempt to maintain Federal law after that point is nothing short of a political coup that brings us toward an oligarchy instead of a Republic.

I know it's fun to toss around legal theories. It's human nature to want to win. But in this case, there will be no winner... there cannot be, outside of course those few who will receive the reins of power illegally while they can hold them. Those few will not be anyone posting on ATS.

Now, there will be many here, likely including you, who say that all that above is hyperbole. So be it. But the truth will come forth with the passage of time. History has shown us this quite often. Enslavement of the masses rarely occurs at the point of a sword; more often it occurs slowly over time, with those to be enslaved agreeing with their enslavement until they are powerless to resist their self-imposed masters. We seem to be traveling that old familiar road once again.

But what do I know? I'm just a dumb old redneck. Ignore what I said...

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris


That is our constitution, system of justice and democracy. Did I intercommunicate something?


Society has agreed that using campaign funds to 'trick' voters is wrong; thus we have laws for campaign finance. These may be ineffective, but we are trying to accomplish that goal of not allowing politicians to 'trick' voters.


Campaign Finance Laws are not designed to prevent campaigns from tricking voters.
Campaign Finance Laws have never ruled on the veracity, accuracy or morality of a campaign ad.
Campaign finances are spent on lies, race baiting, fear mongering. None of that is regulated.
They are designed to restrict specifically who can contribute to a campaign and how much.



What I am referring to is a simple question: do we or do we not live in a nation of laws?

Yes.



In this case, we have direct evidence, actual confession, that the laws have been violated, yet the punishment in those cases have been either a fine paid or absolution over some legal theory that is specifically mentioned in the law itself as inapplicable. (I refer to Obama's campaign finance violations and Clinton's absolution by Comey over the private email scandal.)


Each were investigated and consequences meted out in keeping with the law.
Again, the illegal contributions to the Obama campaign did not involve a convoluted conspiracy to hide the transactions from FEC, IRS and public. The Obama Campaign submitted the list of transactions precisely so that they could be reviewed and any errors seen by the FEC. You can't be so dull as to believe a conspiracy involving two Shell Corporations and a 3rd party Tabloid Publisher to hide the transactions is equal to several individual donors giving more money than they were permitted and the Obama Campaign openly providing those transactions for review and consequences?

As far as Ms. Clinton and the FBI's conclusion not to prosecute, they would have had to prove intent for the laws to be applicable. For intra-departmental disciplinary action, she would have had to be working in government at the time.

In a nation of laws, prosecutors must operate within those laws and the law did not provide a route to successful prosecution.



In the same breath, a highly questionable violation, which does boil down to a simple accounting error, is called out as a reason to impeach a sitting President.


I have yet to see congress start impeachment proceedings and I have a hard time believing you have read either the AMI plea agreement or Mr. Cohen's if you are characterizing these transactions as a "simple accounting error"?


That is unequal and unfair application of the law


That opinion is based on the false proposition that the violations you mentioned violated the same laws?



Now, there will be many here, likely including you, who say that all that above is hyperbole.


One man's hyperbole is another man's reality. Best to examine facts and logic in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


Campaign Finance Laws are not designed to prevent campaigns from tricking voters.
Campaign Finance Laws have never ruled on the veracity, accuracy or morality of a campaign ad.
Campaign finances are spent on lies, race baiting, fear mongering. None of that is regulated.
They are designed to restrict specifically who can contribute to a campaign and how much.

And do these laws restrict how much the candidate themselves can contribute?


Each were investigated and consequences meted out in keeping with the law.

No. Obama's may have been, but not all of them.


As far as Ms. Clinton and the FBI's conclusion not to prosecute, they would have had to prove intent for the laws to be applicable.

Incorrect. The law does not mention intent, and many have been prosecuted and spent time in prison for doing much less than Clinton. Comey himself, during his announcement of no intention to prosecute, stated that such should not be construed to mean that others performing the exact same act would not be prosecuted. That is open and overt refusal to follow the law when it applies to one person, and intent to follow it to the maximum on others, and thus nullifies the law completely. That is the danger I am seeing, and the danger you seem oblivious to.


I have yet to see congress start impeachment proceedings and I have a hard time believing you have read either the AMI plea agreement or Mr. Cohen's if you are characterizing these transactions as a "simple accounting error"?

You really need to stick to one argument. I have no desire to argue for Cohen; the charges were serious and indicated someone who has lived a life of playing fast and loose with the truth for financial gain. I can easily see why he was convicted.

However, you seem to be unaware of the number of cries for impeachment that have come from the Democratic Congressmen since Trump first took office (and some even before that). Perhaps it is selective blindness. The fact remains that the stated goal of the House, once the new Congress is seated in January, is to start impeachment proceedings for whatever 'crime' they can concoct.

The fact also remains that the allegations against Cohen are being openly stated to lead to allegations against Trump for impeachment purposes. That is nothing shy of refusing to acknowledge and conspiring to overthrow a fair election, as surely as if a dictator in a third world country refused to surrender his power to a duly elected leader. If you really wish to live in that kind of country, move to Saudi Arabia.


That opinion is based on the false proposition that the violations you mentioned violated the same laws?

A moot argument. The law is the law. Selectively choosing which laws to enforce based on who may or may not have violated them is no different than selectively choosing who will and will not be prosecuted.


One man's hyperbole is another man's reality. Best to examine facts and logic in my opinion.

Perhaps you should try that then.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't know about the other congressmen you cite, but I doubt their approach is as creative as the one Trump employed.

It's genius, really. Have a publication pay someone, with which Trump had an affair, for exclusive rights to her story. And instead of writing the story, just put it in a filing cabinet and use the threat of breaching a non-disclosure agreement to keep the story about the affair under wraps.

And pity the doormat Melania for having to stand by her man while all of this is playing out. And I thought Hillary was the doormat of doormats for being meh about Bill's indiscretions.

Over the years Trump has become masterful at cover-ups and payoffs. It's too bad the people he worked through to facilitate the payments aren't as smart as he is. Then he wouldn't have gotten caught, and we wouldn't need to watch the fallout.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

However, you seem to be unaware of the number of cries for impeachment that have come from the Democratic Congressmen since Trump first took office (and some even before that). Perhaps it is selective blindness.


The "selective blindness" accusation seems unwarranted. I am hoping the otherwise interesting discussion does not devolve into insults.

As far as "cries for impeachment that have come from the Democratic Congressmen since Trump first took office"?

Same as it ever was. You must know this, correct?



During Barack Obama's tenure as President of the United States from 2009 to 2017, certain Republican members of Congress, as well as Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich,[1] stated that Obama had engaged in impeachable activity and that he might face attempts to remove him from office.[2]

Rationales offered for possible impeachment included
false claims[3] that Obama was born outside the United States,
that he allegedly allowed people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity,
an alleged White House cover-up after the 2012 Benghazi attack,
and failure to enforce immigration laws.


Some of the times "Congressmen" publicly called for impeachment of President Obama


May 2010 - Darrell Issa
August 2011 - Michael Burgess
June 2012 - John Kyl
May 2013 - James Inhofe
August 2013 - Tom Colburn
2013 - Blake Farenthold
August 19, 2013 - Kerry Bentivolio
December 3, 2013 - House Judiciary Committee

en.wikipedia.org...



The fact remains that the stated goal of the House, once the new Congress is seated in January, is to start impeachment proceedings for whatever 'crime' they can concoct.


Hyperbole, not facts. Who speaks for "The House" and when did that person declare the "Stated Goal" would be "to start impeachment proceedings for whatever 'crime' they can concoct."?




The fact also remains that the allegations against Cohen are being openly stated to lead to allegations against Trump for impeachment purposes.


The law is the law, crimes are crimes.
Impeachment is a separate question.



That is nothing shy of refusing to acknowledge and conspiring to overthrow a fair election, as surely as if a dictator in a third world country refused to surrender his power to a duly elected leader. If you really wish to live in that kind of country, move to Saudi Arabia.


Emotional, ideological, unreasoned hyperbole.

Impeachment is a constitutional process. There has been no impeachment proceedings announced.
We are a nation of laws and uncovering crimes and holding people appropriately accountable for crimes committed is not a conspiracy of any sort.
Our founding fathers believed strongly in the ability to remove "duly elected leaders" from power for sufficient "high crimes and misdemeanors" and thus enshrined in the constitution. They feared any leader that could not be held accountable.
I very much do want to live in the democracy our founders created, where a President is not a King and Saudi Arabia is very much not that. Ironically, it is a dictatorship model that you seem to be suggesting the USA should adopt.






edit on 14-12-2018 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


As far as "cries for impeachment that have come from the Democratic Congressmen since Trump first took office"?

Same as it ever was. You must know this, correct?

According to that, the first talk of impeachment against Obama was in 2010, over two years after he took office. Compare that to calls for impeachment that began in earnest even before Trump was inaugurated.

Also, while there are always some people bringing up the specter of impeachment, it is not normally considered serious.


Hyperbole, not facts. Who speaks for "The House" and when did that person declare the "Stated Goal" would be "to start impeachment proceedings for whatever 'crime' they can concoct."?

  • Al Green (Texas)
  • Brad Sherman (Calif.)
  • Maxine Waters (Calif.)
  • Steve Cohen (Tenn.)
  • Luis Gutierrez (IL)
  • Adriano Espaillat (NY)
  • Marcia Fudge (OH)
  • John Yarmuth (KY)
  • Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
From www.axios.com...

Articles of impeachment have already been presented in November of 2017, less than one year after Trump's inauguration. Thankfully, the attempt failed, but the cries still go on. I never heard of Obama actually having a vote on articles of impeachment.



This is what I considered "selective blindness." Talk of impeachment has been the norm for two years now. It is common knowledge for anyone who watches the news at all.


The law is the law, crimes are crimes.
Impeachment is a separate question.

it is an intertwined question. Cohen is subject to the laws... Trump is subject to impeachment. Cohen's legal troubles have come exclusively from his association with Donald Trump. He may have committed the crimes, but the investigations were obviously inspired by investigations into Trump. Do I need to list another obvious 'proof'?


Emotional, ideological, unreasoned hyperbole.

Then please explain to me exactly how serious impeachment calls without proof of a crime as required by the Constitution is not a denial of voting rights and an attempt to overthrow a free and fair election? I, along with many others, chose to send Donald J. Trump to Washington DC as our choice for President. We won the election. Whether or not anyone else agrees with our reasoning is irrelevant and moot. We won the election. But now we have a fairly large and growing list of people in the Federal government who want to remove him without just cause. That, sir, is exactly what I characterized it as: an attempted coup, worthy of a third-world despot.


Impeachment is a constitutional process. There has been no impeachment proceedings announced.

Incorrect. I refer you to November 15, 2017.


Our founding fathers believed strongly in the ability to remove "duly elected leaders" from power for sufficient "high crimes and misdemeanors" and thus enshrined in the constitution. They feared any leader that could not be held accountable.

They also feared the result of allowing one branch of the government to abuse their power by threatening another. That is why Congressmen are under the same umbrella of protection as the President, to prevent a President from using threats of arrest and imprisonment to throw a vote on legislation. I would be every bit as upset with Trump for doing something like that as I am with Congress trying to impeach without one of those "high crimes and misdemeanors."

As a matter of fact, if you will search back through my posting history a few years, you will find that I was a vocal opponent to our Governor at the time, Robert Bentley, despite originally supporting his election. The primary reason? He did exactly that... he tried to use his power as Chief Executive of Alabama to force votes in our legislature to go his way. That is dangerous, and my opinion of him shifted 180 degrees from support to calls for his removal over that one issue. And before anyone tries to bring political alliance into this, Bentley was a Republican who ran on and governed by conservative values. Well, except for that situation anyway.


I very much do want to live in the democracy our founders created, where a President is not a King and Saudi Arabia is very much not that. Ironically, it is a dictatorship model that you seem to be suggesting the USA should adopt.

I advocate for no ruling class a'la Saudi Arabia. The status quo at this time, however, can easily lead to one. Tell me, what change in government can be effected by all of the people speaking with one voice, when fairly elected individuals may simply be removed from office whenever government deems it, without any thought to actual crimes?

None. At least none short of a bloody coup, which is certainly not desirable.

Your apathy toward this situation is dangerous.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

According to that, the first talk of impeachment against Obama was in 2010, over two years after he took office.


By a congressman? Yes. May 2010 Daryl Issa. I encourage you to examine your math timeline.

As to the other items, I don't consider 5 Democrats filing rhetorical articles of impeachment as "Proceeding". I consider it rhetorical pandering, as any rational person would in understanding the high bar the constitution has set for actually beginning impeachment proceedings.

This is what I mean by emotion and hyperbole. 5 Democrats hold a press conference declaring they have written articles of impeachment, the other 200 Democrats run away from it and the other 200 GOP in the house laugh, while you see it as the fall of democracy.

That said, the President does appear to severely corrupt in multiple ways. Personally I'd rather see him stand for re-election in 2020, but if proof of indisputably impeachable offenses arise before then Congress should do it's constitutional duty and act.
edit on 14-12-2018 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Blackjackass will have another username by next year, bet on it!



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


By a congressman? Yes. May 2010 Daryl Issa. I encourage you to examine your math timeline.

Yes, by a Congressman. No one else has the power to impeach.

And you are correct about the timeline... it was 16 months, not over two years.


As to the other items, I don't consider 5 Democrats filing rhetorical articles of impeachment as "Proceeding".

What would you call it then? Articles were filed and voted on. That is the procedure.

I consider it dangerous when even faced with a guaranteed failure in a GOP-led House, these Congressmen went ahead and held a vote anyway. Many of the Democrats who 'ran away' likely did so because they did not want to risk their re-election prospects by voting to impeach a President on spurious charges when there was zero chance of success. On the other hand, as of January there is a possibility of success once the Democrats take majority control of the House.

Now, that does not mean Trump is going anywhere... that requires a 2/3 super-majority conviction in the Senate, where the GOP still holds a majority. But I do think it speaks to the mentality of certain members of Congress who would apparently happily overturn a fair election simply because they disagree with the American people. That is still despotism. How much despotism do you consider an acceptable level? I say none.


That said, the President does appear to severely corrupt in multiple ways.

Thus far, he has withstood scrutiny by the MSM on a daily basis, a two-year continuing investigation by a primarily Democratic team of investigators who are examining anyone and everyone around him for any sign of any legal issue whatsoever, and a Congress with members clamoring for impeachment. Yet, to date nothing... literally nothing... has surfaced indicating any serious offenses, unless one considers using Russian salad dressing or having two scoops of ice cream as such.

I am actually amazed that he has been able to withstand such scrutiny. I would imagine few if any of us posting on this board could even do so... that's not to say posters here are corrupt or criminal, but rather an observation that the number of laws in force today is so great that almost anyone can be found to be guilty of something if one were to look hard enough.

So I fail to see where you can make the above statement with a straight face.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris


By a congressman? Yes. May 2010 Daryl Issa. I encourage you to examine your math timeline.

Yes, by a Congressman. No one else has the power to impeach.

And you are correct about the timeline... it was 16 months, not over two years.


As to the other items, I don't consider 5 Democrats filing rhetorical articles of impeachment as "Proceeding".

What would you call it then? Articles were filed and voted on. That is the procedure.


What? Paul Ryan brought the articles to the floor for a vote?
Now that would be fascinating news. Please help me with a citation or link.
Perhaps I am confused on how voting is conducted in the House of Representatives?

Researching the effort, the "resolution" was introduced and "Tabled" by large majorities of both parties.
Tabling is laying it aside indefinitely and preventing an actual vote on the resolution.


edit on 14-12-2018 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

We were both wrong as it turns out. HR 621 in the 115th Congress was introduced to the House floor and then referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it apparently died. It was not tabled.

However, 17 Democrats co-sponsored the resolution... that's a pretty serious resolution to have so many co-sponsors. It likely died in committee because the committees were Republican controlled. That will no longer be the case next month. And if you are interested, the cries for Trump's impeachment are so widespread and well known that Wikipedia even has a page devoted to it.

But, I guess none of that matters. Everything is OK. The Democrats won't go through with it now that they're in power. Again, I ask... is 17 despots in the government enough? Too many?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

And if you are interested, the cries for Trump's impeachment are so widespread and well known that Wikipedia even has a page devoted to it.



Ditto here:
Efforts to impeach Barack Obama
en.wikipedia.org...

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush
en.wikipedia.org...

And do I have to even post Wikipedias page on President Clinton?

But only NOW is the union in peril?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

But, I guess none of that matters. Everything is OK. The Democrats won't go through with it now that they're in power. Again, I ask... is 17 despots in the government enough? Too many?



You misunderstand the definition of despot.
See here:
"a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way."

17 Despots? Out of 435? Unless there is one ring to rule them all, it is impossible for a despot to exist there.

It is like asking if 17 kings ruling England is acceptable. The definition of King only affords for one per nation and England is no longer ruled by a king.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


"a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way."

When government representatives have the power to choose other government representatives, they have absolute power.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris


"a ruler or other person who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way."

When government representatives have the power to choose other government representatives, they have absolute power.

TheRedneck


Bingo! Seeing the big picture is an important part of being a citizen.

Understanding election law and watching how it plays out is a full-time occupation if one is to truly understand it. I've been watching it and studying it for over 20 years and it amazes me. Selective prosecution. Kentucky's current Attorney General is suffering blow-back currently as a result of his deputy being involved in campaign finance illegalities. It was a grand scheme involving not only people serving the governor at the time (the current AG's father) but insurance companies and private individuals conspiring to contribute more than the law allows by contributing money in the names of family members. Thousands of dollars, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars were funneled this way---because---"That's the way we've always done it." And, because there was fairly quick guilty plea entered the investigation stopped dead so we will never know how widespread the actual corruption was.

Just reading an account of it by the very Democrat press in Louisville will make your head spin. The state claims that the the feds wouldn't release information to them. This was Obama's administration. The guilty plea came just after the election when they realized that there was a new sheriff coming to town. The feds convicted the main dude (Longmeyer) and the state then convicted him but allowed the federal fine to take care of any fine the state could have imposed. IT IS CRAZY! www.courier-journal.com...

It is the same no matter which state or federal statutes you study. Selective prosecution and lots of easy-peasy plea deals to stop any further investigations into people holding power.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
We are constantly bombarded with stories...
What are they going to entertain us with next....?







 
36
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join