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.

 

The democrats should file for impeachment

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   
LOL they really should, they are pansies and afraid to do it. They know they will lose again when the Senate says there is no evidence.
edit on 1-6-2019 by ambassado12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



During the Watergate era, as Congress sought to investigate whether to impeach the President, a federal judge found that the House of Representatives could function "simply as another grand jury," according to a case of that era. In that situation, an impeachment proceeding in Congress for President Richard Nixon allowed the House to get access to grand jury materials.


As this thread says, let them start impeachment and then they can get access to it I guess.



Also, under the national security/foreign intelligence exception to grand jury secrecy, the attorney general can provide grand jury information to the chairs of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees without asking for court permission.


The AG can or must provide the info? If he must, then he and I are in the wrong. Otherwise, saying he can sounds like it's at his discretion.



Yeah, it is a bind, but Congress clearly can have precedence over Grand Jury. Which was my previous point.


If that was your point, why did you bring up Barr's boss(Trump) at all?



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.


Barr has not been held in Contempt.

Stop the Bull🤫it 😆😆



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut



During the Watergate era, as Congress sought to investigate whether to impeach the President, a federal judge found that the House of Representatives could function "simply as another grand jury," according to a case of that era. In that situation, an impeachment proceeding in Congress for President Richard Nixon allowed the House to get access to grand jury materials.


As this thread says, let them start impeachment and then they can get access to it I guess.



Also, under the national security/foreign intelligence exception to grand jury secrecy, the attorney general can provide grand jury information to the chairs of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees without asking for court permission.


The AG can or must provide the info? If he must, then he and I are in the wrong. Otherwise, saying he can sounds like it's at his discretion.



Yeah, it is a bind, but Congress clearly can have precedence over Grand Jury. Which was my previous point.


If that was your point, why did you bring up Barr's boss(Trump) at all?


Who else would the OP's "impeachment" proposal be referent to?

And Barr's dilemma is resultant of the possibility of the release of the unredacted Mueller report, whose obstruction allegations have potential for consideration as contributory grounds in an impeachment investigation of Trump. They are inextricably linked.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.


Barr has not been held in Contempt.

Stop the Bull🤫it 😆😆


Sure, the full Congress hasn't voted on it yet.

Can you think of any valid reason that 'all them Democrats' are going to vote against the select committee's charge?

edit on 1/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.


Barr has not been held in Contempt.

Stop the Bull🤫it 😆😆


Sure, the full Congress hasn't voted on it yet.

Can you think of any valid reason that 'all them Democrats' are going to vote against the select committee's charge?


Several Reasons.

Like eggs in faces of Democrats when the sunscreen proves defective 😆😆😆😆



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.


Barr has not been held in Contempt.

Stop the Bull🤫it 😆😆


Sure, the full Congress hasn't voted on it yet.

Can you think of any valid reason that 'all them Democrats' are going to vote against the select committee's charge?


Several Reasons.

Like eggs in faces of Democrats when the sunscreen proves defective 😆😆😆😆


Perhaps the Dem's knees will spontaneously explode and then they will be forced to roll around on Democarts and Trump and all the little Republicants will then be free to dance around Times Square in a pink tutus singing their show tunes?




posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




You, you vile leftists, have already shown that a person is guilty before proven innocent, so you've abolished the 5th, 14th amendments.


Kinda like "lock her up" right? Who are the vile ones in that case? Everybody that has said it? Or is it ok because Hillary?

And this "coup" that you speak of... Who was going to be put in place as leader if it was successful?...Pence? What makes YOU think it was an attempted "coup" other than parroting what someone else has said?



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: DBCowboy




You, you vile leftists, have already shown that a person is guilty before proven innocent, so you've abolished the 5th, 14th amendments.


Kinda like "lock her up" right? Who are the vile ones in that case? Everybody that has said it? Or is it ok because Hillary?


I'm not a lawyer, not a law maker, not in a court of law, can not make laws, cannot enforce laws. I'm just a citizen with an opinion. But you'd want to censor me, apparently. Because you don't want me to voice my opinion.




And this "coup" that you speak of... Who was going to be put in place as leader if it was successful?...Pence? What makes YOU think it was an attempted "coup" other than parroting what someone else has said?


Been saying "coup" long before the media has been saying it, so don't know what to tell you.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Agree one billion trillion percent. Lets bring impeachment on. What made my mind up was that Mueller punted intentionally, so that he could NOT be sued or put into prison himself. So he weasel worded his report so Congress can chew on it. Plus, that crap about not being able to indict a sitting President. Really? So what took two years. Fine bring up actual charges as Trump has enough bucks to have it heard out in court, assuming he has any rights as a President.

One thing I have to say about Trump regardless as to whether you like him or not, his presidency has exposed this government and MSM for what it is; CORRUPT and in my opine, its run by The 4th Reich.






edit on 1-6-2019 by Waterglass because: typos



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: DBCowboy




You, you vile leftists, have already shown that a person is guilty before proven innocent, so you've abolished the 5th, 14th amendments.


Kinda like "lock her up" right? Who are the vile ones in that case? Everybody that has said it? Or is it ok because Hillary?

You don't have the moral high ground sport.

That was after she labeled half the nation as deplorable. Besides if "lock her up" is the best you got then Kath Griffen has a message for you.



And this "coup" that you speak of... Who was going to be put in place as leader if it was successful?...Pence? What makes YOU think it was an attempted "coup" other than parroting what someone else has said?

We don't parrot.
That's your camp.
It was a coup because the whole Russian collusion thing was a nothing burger. Just an attempt to over throw an elected president. By definition that's a coup. Just because your ideological leaders were the perpetrators doesn't mean it didn't and isn't happening.

You'd have to be a moron to see this isn't normal political discourse in this country. You're not a moron are you?
edit on 1-6-2019 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump knew what he was doing when he placed Manifort in 💥The💥Sun💥Burn💥


Well, he was warned that Mannafort had some dubious connections and had published some decidedly un-American things.

And that only matters to Democrats when its politically expedient. I'd believe they actually cared about anything to do with Russia if they had gone after Van Jones and Jay Carney for it, seeing as they are both communists (or soviets if you prefer).

Shoot, I guess Obama and Hillary's "Reset" means..What, now, exactly?


It wasn't the Democrats who warned Trump about Mannafort, it was the FBI and the Republican Party executive, including McCain.


Yes. Have you missed (ignored) everything regarding the FBI, and McCain?



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
the Democrat Party elites (along with the Zombie followers) need to get to the real work of the Country, infrastructure/judicial reform/intellectual property security/trade & commerce without intervention by Globalists/verifiable denuclearization/Terrorist identification & neutralizing drug-cartels/Civil Laws superseding religious-cult rules-ideology are a few of the important issues which need attention

… instead of the grandstanding by Democrats-behaving-badly culture that haunts the Hall-of-Congress, presently

Every Representative Seat in the House should be tested by a 'Recall Vote', then a Permanent Special Council to 'Oversee' that the verified Congress representatives that passed the re-call vote...is doing the Peoples Work instead of collecting pay to make Trumps Administration wear cement boots in a Morass...
the Dems as a whole & RINOs individually are a product of the Beltline fascist Deep-State, Enemy-of-the-State, PC group-think which has chemically castrated the nation



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump knew what he was doing when he placed Manifort in 💥The💥Sun💥Burn💥


Well, he was warned that Mannafort had some dubious connections and had published some decidedly un-American things.

And that only matters to Democrats when its politically expedient. I'd believe they actually cared about anything to do with Russia if they had gone after Van Jones and Jay Carney for it, seeing as they are both communists (or soviets if you prefer).

Shoot, I guess Obama and Hillary's "Reset" means..What, now, exactly?


It wasn't the Democrats who warned Trump about Mannafort, it was the FBI and the Republican Party executive, including McCain.


Yes. Have you missed (ignored) everything regarding the FBI, and McCain?


Yes, Trump seems to be so totally alone.

The FBI, the Democrats, the Republicans, the DOJ, Congress, long gone rivals, his lawyers, his campaign managers, the Press... The list of conspirators against him goes on and on.

One question, though, how do you build such a conspiracy, of so many people who would totally disagree with each other and never talk to each other, and somehow keep it a relative secret, apparently for decades?

Is such a belief even a rational idea to hold?



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you get a reply to that post I will be amazed.




posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
You said:


In that situation, an impeachment proceeding in Congress for President Richard Nixon allowed the House to get access to grand jury materials.


That's what this thread is all about. Congress can see the GJ materials after they start an impeachment proceeding.

If you have proof Trump told Barr not to release the GJ materials then please show it. It's my understanding Barr refused all on his own according to the law. Otherwise Trump is not involved in Barr's contempt charge. Bringing Trump into the discussion is just muddying the waters and trying to drag his name even further through the mud.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut
You said:


In that situation, an impeachment proceeding in Congress for President Richard Nixon allowed the House to get access to grand jury materials.


That's what this thread is all about. Congress can see the GJ materials after they start an impeachment proceeding.

If you have proof Trump told Barr not to release the GJ materials then please show it. It's my understanding Barr refused all on his own according to the law. Otherwise Trump is not involved in Barr's contempt charge. Bringing Trump into the discussion is just muddying the waters and trying to drag his name even further through the mud.


I know I have such limited comprehension but perhaps you could explain to me the level of denial required to think that Donald Trump is a taboo subject in a discussion of the possible impeachment of Donald Trump?



But also, a legitimate impeachment action requires strong evidential grounds for the process to begin. It is not unreasonable that Congress has full access to existing evidence and referrals arising from the DOJ investigation. You cannot and should not build a case based upon assumption and hearsay.

edit on 1/6/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.


Barr has not been held in Contempt.

Stop the Bull🤫it 😆😆


Sure, the full Congress hasn't voted on it yet.

Can you think of any valid reason that 'all them Democrats' are going to vote against the select committee's charge?

perhaps because a non redacted version has been available for them to view?

you just make up what you like on the fly dont ya?



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

So, what the hell was Mueller doing for the last 22 months and what did he find?

You show me, don't be vague and say "It's in the report" I've read the report. have you? it's mostly innuendo in the second half.

So yes do tell, what was Mueller investigating?


The Special Counsel was appointed with an appointment letter of brief that outlined what he was to investigate. Mueller stuck to that brief.

All the stuff in the press (from both 'sides') and in Trump's tweets, vox pop's and rallies (such as all the talk about 'collusion', which is not even a Federal crime), were just opinion, speculation, propaganda and hot air, with no legal importance, reality, or power, whatsoever.

The Mueller report was documentation of the findings from the investigations deriving from the legal brief. It is that simple and clear.

Part 2 of that report was just as factual and evidential as part 1.

No charges were laid because charging a sitting President by a DOJ employee is barred from being permissible on legal grounds as outlined in the Mueller report.

As Mueller suggested, that role of the adjudication and criminal prosecution of a sitting President falls to Congress to determine, based upon any evidence presented, (some of which may be from the Mueller report).

If Congress determines that there are strong enough grounds proving the President acted illegally, and it is agreed by vote, it is Congress who files for impeachment. Not the DOJ.


Bill Barr said you haven't a clue. He might be right.


I doubt that Bill Barr has heard of me and knows even less about what I do or say.

He's also in contempt of Congress, so, there's that.


Barr has not been held in Contempt.

Stop the Bull🤫it 😆😆


Sure, the full Congress hasn't voted on it yet.

Can you think of any valid reason that 'all them Democrats' are going to vote against the select committee's charge?

perhaps because a non redacted version has been available for them to view?

you just make up what you like on the fly dont ya?


Barr is being charged with contempt of the Congressional Select Committee precisely because he has not released an unredacted copy of Mueller's report.

That is why it is likely that Congress will ratify the contempt charge, because the charge is factual.



posted on Jun, 1 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
My only issue is with this statement of yours:

Barr's boss has no power to instruct him to break Constitutional law.


This implies it's somehow Trump's fault Barr didn't disclose GJ materials as Congress asked of him. I'd like to see proof that's the case, otherwise it's just a jab at Trump for no reason other than politics. Obviously Trump is not a taboo subject when discussing his possible impeachment. That was not my intent at all, just calling you out for your AFAIK
erroneous implication.

Congress, if they so desire, has every right to petition a judge for the information they desire. Instead of doing that themselves, they asked Barr to do it for them, why? Select members were granted access to a more unredacted report than what the citizens were given. How many of them took that offer? I believe it was none of them, because they wouldn't be able to leak any info it contained without getting into trouble.


You cannot and should not build a case based upon assumption and hearsay.

Isn't that what started this whole investigation into Trump in the first place?



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join