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.

 

Pelosi Just Did It

page: 11
86
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
News coming out the "Complaint" will be given to Congress this week along with an IG report that says the "Complaint" was politically motivated and may be unfounded !!!!

Or it implicates Biden 😎



Good luck with that.


On this one, Trump is going to be one step ahead of Biden.



Trump has never been one step ahead of anyone.



I really hope it was not silly that told you that.

battin 1000




posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
News coming out the "Complaint" will be given to Congress this week along with an IG report that says the "Complaint" was politically motivated and may be unfounded !!!!

Or it implicates Biden 😎



Good luck with that.


On this one, Trump is going to be one step ahead of Biden.



Trump has never been one step ahead of anyone.


So what evidence or proof do you have that Trump did anything wrong?

Lol

Nothing?

We know for a fact that Hunter Biden made $50,000 a month working for a Ukrainian gas company. He knew absolutely nothing about the Ukraine or the gas industry.

You still dont want anyone to look into that right?

But you also are against government corruption?

Lolz🤪



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Exactly. With that logic every future Pres. should automatically be under impeachment "inquiries" as soon as They're sworn in.


edit on 24-9-2019 by murphy22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Scepticaldem

You're right about several things.
Pelosi warned her party for months about attempting impeachment without the right evidence and for some reason she caved to the pressure.



caved to evidence.

Same reason Mitch McConnell is equivocating.

Let the evidence be seen and decide from there.



How do you cave to evidence and then insist on seeing the evidence?



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

You're frothing. Like you have that little bit of spittle at the corners of your mouth-type of frothing.

Calm down.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear

Have some light reading, on me:


A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.


It's entirely about the political will to impeach and always has been. That is the process. Is the lower house willing to impeach? If so, is the upper house willing to remove? That is the entire process.

Pelosi could hold a vote tomorrow on impeachment. Or they can have investigations or hearings or do nothing. It's up to the lower house to decide when and how they go about the process.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   
de ja vuu all over again..




posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
She just killed the DNC.

She rolled the dice and I don’t think she has the backing of the People that she thinks she has. The People will not accept a half baked scheme of impeachment as a CYA.

Congrats.


Somebody did something?


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07



Biden needs to be investigated.
a reply to: Gothmog

does the president? yes or no?


He has been investigated, NON STOP for just about everything imaginable for the past 3 years......where the f**k have you been?
edit on pm99201919America/Chicago24p09pm by annoyedpharmacist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: missed_gear

Have some light reading, on me:


A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.


It's entirely about the political will to impeach and always has been. That is the process. Is the lower house willing to impeach? If so, is the upper house willing to remove? That is the entire process.

Pelosi could hold a vote tomorrow on impeachment. Or they can have investigations or hearings or do nothing. It's up to the lower house to decide when and how they go about the process.


So you are literally saying they need no substance to impeach.

As was stated earlier, according to your logic every president sworn in should be immediately under impeachment. Right?

Lolz🤪



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

take a few aspirin

I gave you a star

and almost spit on my keyboard.

you make to much sense



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Pres. Trump has been under "impeachment inquiry" before he even became Pres.

The only thing Pelosi did? Is give their game a name.

edit on 24-9-2019 by murphy22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

yeah read them back when i was in highschool but its been a few years but i seem to remember them saying that only the senate can be trusted on such matters(vs leaving it up to a potentially biased scotus) and last time i checked the senate was not for impeachment only the politically motivated dems in the house

constitutioncenter.org...

At the 1787 convention, delegate Edmund Randolph quickly brought up the subject as part of his Virginia Plan. William Patterson’s rival New Jersey Plan had its own impeachment clause. National Constitution Center scholar-in-residence Michael Gerhardt explained the differences in his book, “The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis.” “The Virginia Plan provided for removal of officers upon impeachment and conviction by the federal judiciary, while the New Jersey Plan neglected to include impeachment by the lower house and provided for removal only through application of a majority of the state governors,” he said. Alexander Hamilton then introduced his own plan based on the British legal system, where governors, Senators and other officials could be removed for “mal- and corrupt conduct” after being charged by the lower house and tried by the upper house. As the convention debate unfolded, not everyone favored impeachment, especially for the chief executive, or President. Gouverneur Morris and Charles Pinckney were both concerned about impeaching a President. Morris feared that a President would feel beholden to the branch of government that could impeach him, leading the President to become “a tool of a faction.”


blog.yalebooks.com...

time.com...
and

The Federalist Papers repeatedly assert that only a crime against the safety and integrity of the State can serve as a predicate for impeachment and removal. It is important that the Senate is commanded by the constitutional text to “try” the case referred to it by the House; that Senators must take a special oath to apply the law of the Constitution to the matter; and that the entire proceedings are presided over by the Chief Justice in special convocation. In Federalist #65, Alexander Hamilton is at pains to show that the Senate can in fact act in, “their judicial character as a court for the trial impeachment.” A second widely repeated fallacy is that the grounds for impeachment are whatever the House takes them to be by voting an indictment. But if the grounds for impeachment were whatever the House chose, then an official could be impeached for failing to take a religious oath — in direct contradiction of Article VI. “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” could be interpreted so as to function as a Bill of attainder or as an ex post facto law, both of which are prohibited by Article I, Sec. 9. A third fallacy is that the commission of a crime is a necessary condition precedent to impeachment, or conversely that any serious statutory crime can serve as the basis for impeachment. On the contrary, as the House Judiciary Committee concluded in 1974, “the crucial factor is the significance of its effect upon our constitutional system…”
so what crime exactly is trump alleged to have done that endangers the safety of the state?under the Constitution he cant be charged with treason as were not at war with Russia or Ukraine. is it because he does policies and whatnot that make democrats mad? or goes against their agendas? we have heard before he even took office that the democrats wanted to impeach him stop him and that he couldn't be allowed to win. they have already tried and failed 3 times in the house to get the votes and i do not see the senate voting to impeach based on this new Ukrainian thing(they will hold a trial if the house gets the votes though)

hell nixon fought tooth and nail for years to block releasing documents yet trump is set to release the unredacted report tomorrow ,dems have been obsessed with his taxes and if there was an issue the irs would have gone after him allready. silly kind of spilled the beans they want this inquiry not to look into ukraine but to look for any tiny shred of inpropriety in hopes that this lets them win and reeks of being politically motivated even more so since the muller report failed to "stop trump" like they had been saying for the last 3ish years they fear what he has acomplished with the courts the flipping of the 11th circut of appeals and damn near the 9th . ca(50 lawsuits and counting) and ny(4 or 5?) have been constantly issuing lawsuits against him since he got elected and been one of the most investigated presidents in history and its all been mostly nothing bugers so far least as he him self goes. www.nytimes.com... y&assetType=REGIWALL

fivethirtyeight.com... and as reation to attempts to imepach him over the failed russia stuff i predict a comparable reaction to this Ukrainian shenigans

On average, in all polls since the start of 2017, 38.5 percent of the public favored impeachment and 55.7 percent opposed it, which is fairly close to a mirror image of Trump’s approval and disapproval ratings. And there had been absolutely no sign that the public was moving toward impeachment. If anything, the opposite was true and impeachment had become slightly less popular. Polls conducted after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report to the public on April 183 showed an average of 37.3 percent of the public favoring impeachment, and 57.3 percent opposed. The two polls in the database conducted since Mueller’s testimony to Congress on July 24 showed even worse numbers: 33.5 percent in favor of impeachment and 59.5 percent against.
keep in mind the above numbers are the public not political individuals and they seem to be overwhelminly against impeaching him and they are the ones who will decide to re elect him or not come 2020



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

To be fair polosi is much more knowledgeable about politics than any of us. ( unless any of you are career politicians?)
So I'm not going to count her out yet.

Things should start to move quickly now though.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

That's why I think she said what she said and what she did.

She's setting the stage for a democrat loss because no party has won after an impeachment process.

She's protecting the fact that there are nothing but losers waiting in the wings and she's giving her party cover.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Well considering she's been in office since Lincoln freed the slaves, I would hope she would have picked up a thing or two by now.
That being said I'm not sure she's right in the head anymore.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: Ahabstar
She just killed the DNC.

She rolled the dice and I don’t think she has the backing of the People that she thinks she has. The People will not accept a half baked scheme of impeachment as a CYA.

Congrats.


It's nothing more than timing to the run up of the election. They (the bat shlt crazy left) actually think it will somehow detract from Trump getting re-elected. All the bat shlt crazy left is doing is GALVANIZING those opposed to the left ENSURING Trump gets re-elected.

Which brings me to this question. Is this the actual intent? Or are the bat shlt crazy left really this stupid?


They certainly have seemed to be HELL BENT on losing as much support as possible over the last three years


Yes, they certainly have. Perhaps the old guard dems realize they have no future and the only future is through the younger socialist left. By creating this ridiculous distraction they drive people from the old guard left to the new socialist left.

Hmmm....



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

That’s true. And I feel a little sorry for her. So I made up a quick little logo change for her. Hope she likes it.




posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
www.nbcnews.com...

There's also the question of whether the Ukraine story will resonate outside of the Democratic base. Will independent voters (who opposed impeachment 60-34 percent in the Monmouth poll) shift in a significant way? Will there be any kind of movement among Republicans? The less unpopular impeachment becomes, obviously, the less risk Democrats will face of stirring a backlash. And if the Ukraine story were to evolve in a way that created majority support for impeachment, they could end up on solid political ground.
seems that independent voters are very against impeachment of trump

and also from same source

2. The potential danger for Dems Trump is not a particularly popular president. His approval rating is generally in the high 30s to the mid-40s; it's never broken 50 percent in the Real Clear Politics average. His disapproval number is often over 50 percent. This is why the public's aversion to impeachment — so far — has been striking. In Monmouth’s poll, for example, 57 percent of voters said that Trump shouldn't be re-elected in 2020 and that it's time for someone else to be president. And yet, only 35 percent said they wanted to see him impeached and removed from office now. It's possible this reflects a sense among some voters that impeachment would represent overreach, and that the question of Trump's fate should be adjudicated by the public in November 2020 — and not by Congress before then. This is a variable that was not in play during the last two impeachment drives, with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. Both of them were in their second terms, free from facing the voters again. If polling on impeachment does not budge after this week's developments, it will raise the possibility that voters feel strongly that the final decision on Trump should be theirs. Democrats, if they still went ahead with impeachment, would be ignoring this at their own peril.
so basically what me and several others on the right have stated here if you want to "stop him" or "beat him" do it at the ballot box



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

I've been saying since this all started way back when that they had to and it was only a matter of time before they went for it.




top topics



 
86
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join