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.

 

Whistle blower allegation proves dems, media corruption in Biden Ukraine story

page: 10
61
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: IAMTAT




Kerry's stepson was a partner with Hunter Biden and Whitey Bulger's nephew in the CHINA deal.


Ooh. stand corrected.


Not a problem.




posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Did you hear Rudy Guiliani this morning? He straight-up accused the Bidens of laundering money for the Ukrainians. $3 Million routed thru a few different shills (including Biden's son's company) to get the money into the United States without it being tied to Ukraine.

He also implied that Joe Biden was lying when he said he only mentioned the matter once, and that they can prove it.


Trump should dump Giuliani. Having a raving lunatic speak on his behalf does not help his cause.

LOL. This isn't even the first time the Bidens have done this. Joe himself received a nice bundle of money from the Chinese.

Maybe that's why Obama didn't want Biden to run for president.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
can someone give me a link to the start of the impeachment hearings?
the person making that claim (Gorgonite) will suffice (but his last link was broken)


You might be confused. I don't see where in Gorgonites post you got that?

Either way, here you go on the link.

LINK



U.S. v. Nixon is also widely understood to mean that executive privilege cannot be used to cover up wrongdoing. That view was endorsed by current U.S. Attorney General William Barr during his Senate confirmation hearing.

One lesson of U.S. v. Nixon is that an executive privilege claim is particularly weak when Congress has invoked its power to remove a president from office through impeachment, said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri.
thanks in advance.




the other question I have is how does the whitehouse know of a whistleblower?


Apparently the Newly Appointed Director Of National Intelligence brought the Complaint to the WH rather than the Intelligence Oversight Committee as is the rule.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Did you hear Rudy Guiliani this morning? He straight-up accused the Bidens of laundering money for the Ukrainians. $3 Million routed thru a few different shills (including Biden's son's company) to get the money into the United States without it being tied to Ukraine.

He also implied that Joe Biden was lying when he said he only mentioned the matter once, and that they can prove it.


Trump should dump Giuliani. Having a raving lunatic speak on his behalf does not help his cause.

LOL. This isn't even the first time the Bidens have done this. Joe himself received a nice bundle of money from the Chinese.

Maybe that's why Obama didn't want Biden to run for president.


Obama KNOWS Biden is a senile loose cannon and can't help blurting out incriminating s#it...like his bragging at the CFR meeting about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor, investigating his son for corruption, fired by witholding billions of US taxpayer money to Ukraine.

BTW...Biden ALSO had his brother James cashing in...for a $1.5B US government housing construction contract in Iraq.

edit on 23-9-2019 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

www.aljazeera.com...

The first impeachment hearing was the one featuring Corey Lewandowski

www.apnews.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gorgonite
a reply to: thedigirati

www.aljazeera.com...

The first impeachment hearing was the one featuring Corey Lewandowski

www.apnews.com...


The slight difference between "Impeachment Inquiry" , "Impeachment Proceedings" , and "articles of impeachment" might be worth noting.

I advocate full articles of impeachment at this stage. Let it go to trial in the senate. Senators can go on public record condemning, endorsing or defending these activities. The trial will full documents and evidence and Trump can be removed or exonerated. Everybody should know what they are voting for come 2020 in the WH, House and Senate.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



Specifically the material must contain Diplomatic or Military secrets according to SCOTUS

and what else would the conversation between trump and the head of state be?
thanks for admitting that

you still have yet to address the official statement from the Ukrainians, wonder why that is?



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Did you hear Rudy Guiliani this morning? He straight-up accused the Bidens of laundering money for the Ukrainians. $3 Million routed thru a few different shills (including Biden's son's company) to get the money into the United States without it being tied to Ukraine.

He also implied that Joe Biden was lying when he said he only mentioned the matter once, and that they can prove it.


Trump should dump Giuliani. Having a raving lunatic speak on his behalf does not help his cause.

LOL. This isn't even the first time the Bidens have done this. Joe himself received a nice bundle of money from the Chinese.

Maybe that's why Obama didn't want Biden to run for president.


...like his bragging at the CFR meeting about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor, investigating his son for corruption, fired by witholding billions of US taxpayer money to Ukraine.


If you find THAT suspicious you should really catch up on the news about Trump extorting a foreign nation for help with his campaign. You should be able to find it easily in the news.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorgonite
The contents of a potus's conversation with another head of state are privileged, imo.
He could have been talking about robbing a bank and imo there is nothing congess can do about it.
It is a constitutional power.

What do you make of the official statement from the Ukrainians?



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



I advocate full articles of impeachment at this stage.

awesome
it wont get out of the house and it will be done



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



Specifically the material must contain Diplomatic or Military secrets according to SCOTUS

and what else would the conversation between trump and the head of state be?
thanks for admitting that

you still have yet to address the official statement from the Ukrainians, wonder why that is?



I'm sorry but I can't find where you have linked to a statement by the Ukrainians that you would like a response on. I may have missed it and I apologize if that happens to be the case. Could you kindly repost this statement?

I would like to follow up with you and understand your position better. Earlier, you claimed that Trump's conversations with foreign leaders were protected by executive privilege. Extorris and I both linked to references from Watergate showing that if the materials were either criminal or subject to an impeachment investigation that executive privilege does not protect it.

What I would like to know is do you honestly want to place the presidency above the law? You have been arguing for a carte blanche executive privilege policy. Do you worry that if that precedent was set what future presidents could get away with? Do you care if the president breaks the laws of this nation?



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



Specifically the material must contain Diplomatic or Military secrets according to SCOTUS

and what else would the conversation between trump and the head of state be?


Oh, Trump has already said what it was. A congratulations call, plus BTW they discussed Joe Biden and his son and re-opening investigations and how it would be in his interest to do so, or as Trump put it.

"The Conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place, was largely the fact the we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his Son creating to the corruption already in Ukraine"

Which one of those topics do you think qualifies as a National Secret immune to Subpoena?

According to USA vs. Nixon SCOTUS unanimously ruled that Executive Privilege only applies to subpoenas with Military and Diplomatic SECRETS and even then Tapes/Documents still need to be produced in redacted form.

So you are proposing that Trump tell the supreme court that a Whistleblower complaint he is keeping from congress alleging a "Promise" made in the conversation regarding Joe Biden and Son is "Secret" Material and redact it?

How do you think that will work out?



edit on 23-9-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gorgonite
The contents of a potus's conversation with another head of state are privileged, imo.
He could have been talking about robbing a bank and imo there is nothing congess can do about it.
It is a constitutional power.

What do you make of the official statement from the Ukrainians?



I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you just happened to overlook my earlier post. However, you are undeniably incorrect in this statement. The Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege DOES NOT cover evidence requested in an impeachment hearing or criminal behavior.

If the accusations are true, then the president acted in a criminal manner. At this point, the president has all but confirmed that he did indeed ask about investigating Biden. The only question now is what form did that request come in? Did the president threaten to withhold aid unless Ukraine worked with Rudy? Or was it simply mentioned as a suggestion in passing? Honestly, none of us know the answers to these questions, but since a Trump-appointee actually labeled the complaint as serious and urgent, it would seem the president did something wrong.

I'm surprised anyone would argue that the president is above the law.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gorgonite

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gorgonite
The contents of a potus's conversation with another head of state are privileged, imo.
He could have been talking about robbing a bank and imo there is nothing congess can do about it.
It is a constitutional power.

What do you make of the official statement from the Ukrainians?




If the accusations are true, then the president acted in a criminal manner. At this point, the president has all but confirmed that he did indeed ask about investigating Biden. The only question now is what form did that request come in?


This is where the Whistleblower complaint get's interesting. According to the IG it involved a "Promise".

Given or received? A Promise to release funds? A Promise to re-open a closed investigation?



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorgonite
www.washingtonexaminer.com...



Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko denied reports that President Trump pressured Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky during a July phone call that is reportedly the subject of a whistleblower complaint.



Prystaiko, however, dismissed the claims in a Saturday interview, saying, "I know what the conversation was about, and I think there was no pressure. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers."

Was trump not calling him in a "diplomatic" capacity?
Sorry you, or any other non elected bureaucrat, don't get to question potus's motives when he is fulfilling the duties of his office.
it was a privileged conversation between two heads of state.
SPECIFICALLY mentioned as protected by the scotus.



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



"As it happens, the House has already begun impeachment hearings against the president."

quote from Gorgonite


yes, I am confused.


Impeachment hearings are not the same as an "inquiry" (a made up term the democrats use)


edit on 23-9-2019 by thedigirati because: leagalease



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorgonite



Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege DOES NOT cover evidence requested in an impeachment hearing or criminal behavior.

scotus did rule about diplomatic matter which this was, only potus gets to decide how to conduct diplomacy
what impeachment hearing?
there are procedures for such
as I understand it there has not been a floor vote for such an investigation which would proceed any inquary



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Hunter Biden owns investments in Chinese nuclear power company accused of stealing US nuclear secrets.



Hunter Biden’s BHR [Bohai Harvest] also invests in China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN).
In Nov 2015, CGN acquired Malaysia’s 1MBD energy assets.
In 2016, DOJ charged CGN with stealing nuclear secrets from the US stretching back almost 2 decades.

In Aug 2019, the US @CommerceGov added CGN (Hunter Biden’s Investment) To it’s “entity list”, barring US companies from selling products to CGN.

threadreaderapp.com...

----------------------------------------------------------



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



How do you think that will work out?

It will be dropped by the msm in a couple of days when they realize potus has privilege when conducting diplomacy on behalf of the usa.
As there are no official "impeachment" activities going on in the house, it will be dropped there as well as they do not have the votes to pass impeachment on the muller report let alone a 2nd hand story from an unknown bureaucrat who
doesnt have direct knowledge of anything really; and they in no way have the votes in the senate for impeachment. Especially when the Ukrainians have denied what has been accused.

I, however would love to see the dems take this to the scotus. Potus's privilege in this matter is long established. As head of the executive branch he alone determines diplomacy and foreign policy. I would love to see a separation of powers standoff.



edit on 23/9/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2019 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorgonite

Just an FYI there are no impeachment "hearings" you are mis informed.

please continue.

everything that you quoted on Nixon has no bearing

this is an "inquiry" not a hearing.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join