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.

 

2nd judge refuses to block House subpoenas for Trump bank records

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Still waiting on the bill and vote.

Trump's only change was saying he would sign whatever they came up with, then rejecting the utter garbage they came up with. I don't care about news from a year ago, Republicans are still now demanding border wall funding.




posted on May, 24 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: luthier
He isn't just a person he is the president.

We should know who is paying any of the top politicians.

They should have to sign or not take job that they need to have transparency in financial matters.


So why don't you demand the same of every politician? More so people like Pelosi who has more money than she could have earned from her government job...

Not to mention, why don't you call Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, etc, as "traitors who have been paid millions of dollars by a Russian bank linked to the Kremlin?..."

We have real evidence that Hillary and Bill Clinton were being paid by the Russians meanwhile Hillary and the Obama administration were approving deals that benefited the Russians and were detrimental to the U.S. For crying out loud, during the time both Clintons were being paid by the Russians, Hillary voted yes to sell 10% american uranium to the Russians and make it their property...

Not to mention the FACT that the "Steele dossier" is nothing but lies FROM THE RUSSIANS, and which was paid by Hillary/the DNC, and that Steele is a foreign agent who admitted he wanted to change the U.S. election results and wanted to stop Trump becoming, or being POTUS...





I do demand that of every politician. They would first have to sign off on it or know it comes withthe job including for trump. But I don't thi knwe should pretend there isn't reason to have federal elected officials have open records because of people like the Clintons. .



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


First off I misspoke and thought it went all the way through.

However Grassly Grahm when they had the control of house and Senate had a bipartisan bill the president would not agree too and the whole stand off shutdown occurred. Which produced absolutely nothing.

Anyhow the president should not use emergency acts to pass things that he can't be a leader and get the votes on. Both Congress and trump are at fault and all should be ousted if they can't learn to make laws together.

And by the way nobody thinks a wall will do anything drastic or be cost effective. As a conservative that should matter.

Tijuana has a wall. They use drones, tunnels, trucks, submarines, slingshots, and all kinds of ways. Crime is totally unaffected.

Now I am not a crazy lib there is a serious problem with failed states and the cartels (like who sent the caravan to Tijuana) but that is a whole different debate. And instead of trump bypassing Congress, declaring an emergency to give saudia Arabia more money without congress permission he should talk about taking out the cartels and hitting a reset with our neighbors..literally taking out the cartels like they are ISIS and then helping build a neighbor we actually live near at least.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

And by the way nobody thinks a wall will do anything drastic or be cost effective. As a conservative that should matter.



Are you an expert in the business? How do you make such a statement if not? Is a wall more effective than nothing? As a drone expert I would rather focus on a small area of a wall than 200 random miles where people could cross everywhere or do you think everyone will have their own ladder, tunnel, truck, submarine, slingshot etc


In each of your descriptions you are also suggesting an increase in complexity in getting into the country and that is what security is all about.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   
My friend the cartels have already had children here.

The drugs and crime and people are smuggled through Tijuana every day.

We should plan on helping Mexico get rid rid of the cartels.

This isn't some ISIS crap in the middle east it's in our yard. A cartel sent people to Tijuana...why? It has a wall?

We don't need to worry as much about peasants coming in or fleeing destabilized countries as we do who the cartels send over every single day in tunnels, trucks, boats, subs, etc


Over the years, officials have found nearly 200 tunnels along the 2,000-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border, mostly in Arizona and California. They range from rudimentary crawlspaces to “super tunnels” that cost upwards of a million dollars to build and are equipped with elevators, electric lights, and disguised exits and entrances.


However something better than nothing is not the beat plan right...it has no bearing on "most effective for the cost"
edit on 24-5-2019 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xtrozero

My friend the cartels have already had children here.

The drugs and crime and people are smuggled through Tijuana every day.

We should plan on helping Mexico get rid rid of the cartels.

This isn't some ISIS crap in the middle east it's in our yard. A cartel sent people to Tijuana...why? It has a wall?

We don't need to worry as much about peasants coming in or fleeing destabilized countries as we do who the cartels send over every single day in tunnels, trucks, boats, subs, etc.


You are talking about two different issues here. One is the cartels as in they have resources, but the other is those peasants as you call them that have come in the millions, or 10s of million that do become a big issue. The borders are being overrun with all resources being used up not by the cartel but by the masses.

Maybe Mexico doesn't want help wink wink...Maybe the answer is to make all drugs legal. This problem I have with your statements is you say the wall doesn't work because drugs still get through. If I suggest that without the wall 3000 times more successful drug crossings would happen, would you then see the wall as successful? In the end it does increase complexity which forces the cartel to increase their crossing complexity that will increase discovery no matter what even when you suggest that drugs do make it in still.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

You would be incorrect. The amount of drugs that get in are the amount needed plus new addicts.

You also fail to understand the real bad hombres get through the wall..

It is great at stopping villagers though.


If Mexico doesnt want the help that is where we put pressure. We use the CIA seal team to execute. Not in the middle east.



posted on May, 24 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I think it should be dealt by Congress as well.

What happens when Congress refuses to act?



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chr0naut

Wow you got this completely backwards. Criminal charges against a president would "violate the constitutional separation of powers" Simply put The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its duties.

The checks you want are in the fact that Congress has the power to remove him from office. This removes the executive protection.Your version would give Congress all the power


Nonsense. The removal of a criminal from office does not abolish that office. Remove the President and the VP becomes temporary President until a new one can be elected.



posted on May, 25 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sillyolme
They were there to have a meeting on infrastructure.

No they weren't. If that was true, crazy Nancy wouldn't have gone on national TV an hour before the meeting with more ridiculously unsubstantiated accusations of criminal conspiracy.


Trump was not prepared.

Actually, he was extremely well prepared for what happened. He told them to kiss his ass. It was glorious.


Actually, it is the President's job to 'suck it up' and 'do the job'. To 'not do the job' on the grounds of personal insult indicates his childishness, fear and that he is loosing control.

It is another inglorious failure of a weak man.



They were ready with plans... he had do do to offer.

Yeah. Uh-huh. Plans that included Medicare and free College tuition for all, all paid for by a mysterious entity known only as 'the rich'.


The rich actually exist.

The top 10% in terms of wealth hold 76% of all the wealth. This means that 90% of citizens only hold 24% of the wealth.

It is stupid to tax the poor, harder, when the rich are better able to afford to fill the growing need for public money.

Trump is also one of the rich, allegedly.



They are ready to continue investigating to get the answers the american people want.

A tiny minority of butt hurt radical leftist petty-tyrant-wanna-be american people, maybe.

The rest of us are sick and tired of it, and applaud Trump for first exhibiting extreme patience and giving the SC all the time he required and all the cooperation he could (with one minor exception - testifying personally, which no one in their right mind should ever do if they don't have to), then telling them to kiss his ass when they refuse to accept the results of a grand total of 4 separate investigations - a 9 month long FBI investigation started before the election, a House and a Senate investigation, and finally the 2 year long SC investigation (supported by 40 FBI agents and 19 democrat lawyers, all of whom hated Trump with a passion).


Trump personally wasn't under investigation by the Special Counsel. He wasn't called in for questioning by the SC who was also never going to indict a sitting President.

Nor have any of the investigations interrupted Trump's ability to do his job. None of them.


He thinks you cant do both.
Apparently some folks can walk and chew gun at the same time. Imagine that.


Some folks can juggle four bowling balls and an egg.




I saw that! Do you all get paid for every time you work in the assigned talking point of the day?


Could you please direct me to someone who would pay me to express my opinion on ATS. I would be able to allocate far more time to it if my income were subsidized by such munificence.




posted on May, 28 2019 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
He rejected a bipartisan deal.

No he rejected a ply by RINOs and democrats to pass a watered down version with no wall funding.


He can't use the emergency declaration to get what he wants.

He can if what he wants is to deal with an emergency at the border... meaning, just what he did. It is done. Get over it.


There is a crisis. It's a legislative one.

There is a very real crisis at the border. Yes, it is cause by an immigration policy that has been intentionally left broken for decades - and yes, both parties are to blame - because it serves as a platform for vote stumping.


The president is one part of that problem as is Congress.

No, Trump is just the first President in a very long time that actually wants to solve problems, rather than politicize them for personal and party benefit.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

Trump is a criminal.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: sine.nomine

New York is moving to change a law so that the statute of limitations does not run out for sitting presidents.

Congress is also looking to enact such a law.
www.politico.com...



Rep. Eric Swalwell said Tuesday that lawmakers are working on legislation to extend the statute of limitations for crimes committed by presidents, allowing them to be charged once their terms end.


Another democrat change to bring down Republicans but will only hurt democrats, again.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: LDragonFire

Trump is a criminal.


I guess he's in jail then.

What a fantastic contribution to the discussion.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I'd love to see the tax returns and investigations into the loudest mouths screaming for impeachment. I'm confident enough to bet the rest of my paychecks this year that all the screaming democrats will be found guilty of tax fraud among other illegal things.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Dude you are seeing it play out right before your eyes.

Silly child, yes, I know, I am witnessing the self-destruction of the democrat party - and in part the RINOs side of the republican party - right before my eyes, and it is a glorious sight indeed!


These things are easily proven...I do not have time for silly arguments that can be proven in ten seconds.

That is actually hilarious... you don't have 10 seconds to prove something so easily proven. Yet I'm sure you will happily wast an hour or two of your time trying to prove something not so easily proven.


Yesterday I had decided not to engage with you and I guess I forgot it.

Yes, like you forgot not to engage with anyone with two functional brain cells to rub together. You keep forgetting, and you keep making yourself look Silly.


I am going back to that now.
You can address me if you wish....
just know that I will not read another post you write. I see your name I scan right past it.

You should strive to be more like Trump, and actually keep your promises. I'm sure I'm not the only one that would appreciate it.


Those who read the Mueller report know that Mueller did not look at trumps financial records.
Not at any time.

I assure you, they did, they simply left the fact that they didn't find anything out of the report in order to give the House rats something to play with to continue their smear campaign up to the 2020 elections, in the vain hope that it will give them some leverage. But that's ok, it will backfire spectacularly, just as has everything they've tried ever since election night 2016.

The reality is, they looked at anything and everything to try to find something to 'get Trump'. If you seriously believe that they - 19 lawyers and 40 or so FBI agents all of whom are TDS sufferers (hate Trump with every fiber of their being) didn't - then you are ... well, you are just what you appear to be, a poor, sad TDS sufferer who deserves what they get.



posted on May, 28 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: luthier

I'd love to see the tax returns and investigations into the loudest mouths screaming for impeachment. I'm confident enough to bet the rest of my paychecks this year that all the screaming democrats will be found guilty of tax fraud among other illegal things.


Pelosi, for one, won't release her tax returns.

By the left's reasoning, she must be a criminal and/or hiding something.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Jeeze. Its so painfully obvious how many of you, on both sides, really don't believe in our basic freedoms.

"I wanna see his tax returns. Other presidents did it!". To bad. We have a right to Privacy, and to be secure in our persons, and all that. There is no law requiring this, as it goes against BASIC RIGHTS.

"I wanna see the financials of Congress Dems!! It's only fair!" This is even more disturbing, as it's coming from people who are against Trump's being forced to reveal his.

It's stupidity. Plain and simple.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjsr420
Jeeze. Its so painfully obvious how many of you, on both sides, really don't believe in our basic freedoms.

"I wanna see his tax returns. Other presidents did it!". To bad. We have a right to Privacy, and to be secure in our persons, and all that. There is no law requiring this, as it goes against BASIC RIGHTS.

"I wanna see the financials of Congress Dems!! It's only fair!" This is even more disturbing, as it's coming from people who are against Trump's being forced to reveal his.

It's stupidity. Plain and simple.


There's a difference between saying I'd like to see Nancy's returns and what's being done to the President, which is states like California trying to set a legal precedent that they MUST release them. I'd like to see a lot of things I'm not legally entitled to. I don't think there should be a law giving me whatever I want. That's the big difference.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

They should have to release tax returns. Every elected official. It prevents bribes.

However since that is not a law you need to pass to pass the law and then the newly elected official in the next elections is basically signing away knowingly that position has a concession for your 4th amend rights. Many job positions already have stiff like this and you willingly sign it away.

If you don't want the job (after such laws are passed) you don't have to take it


However you can't move the goal posts during a term without signing an agreement.

Of course refusing to be transparent and prove you aren't a fraud or taking money is telling.

Egomaniacs generally don't give up the option to brag about how good they are with money or how good their grades were in college.







 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join