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.

 

Transcript released - WH - No quid pro quo

page: 26
81
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Technically, it is


No it isn't. The Attorney General takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the president. The Attorney General is not the president's lawyer, he's the people's lawyer.




posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

OK, first of all, I need title and statute so we can both know what law we are discussing. You're giving me bill names. While I could look them up, I shouldn't have to. You are an adult.

Title X Section xxxx.

Secondly, I find it hard to believe there is a law that requires anyone to know what someone else is doing. I need to see that for myself.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen




Technically, it is


No it isn't. The Attorney General takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the president. The Attorney General is not the president's lawyer, he's the people's lawyer.



You were saying.......

Eric Holder: 'I'm still the president's wingman'




"I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done.  I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.  So we’ll see," Holder said in an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show.
link



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Context?

Is this "wing man" comment in regard to refusing to prosecute a whistle blower complaint in which Obama and Holder were named?



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




While I could look them up, I shouldn't have to. You are an adult.


So are you. I'm not here to play scavenger hunt with your list of demands or cater to your cognitive needs in order to understand the breadth of this scandal. You can't even remember what the Mueller investigation and report were all about.



Secondly, I find it hard to believe there is a law that requires anyone to know what someone else is doing.


The Hatch Act doesn't indict Trump for Giuliani's capers, it indicts Rudy.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen




Technically, it is


No it isn't. The Attorney General takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the president. The Attorney General is not the president's lawyer, he's the people's lawyer.



Yet the DOJ is the one defending all of Trump's Lawsuits concerning government issues.

And you referred to the State Department when I made my comment.

Need a new alarm clock ? 😃



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hatch Act doesn't apply to Giuliani because he was working in a diplomatic capacity for the SD 😃



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

OK, this is getting ridiculous... US law is codified in a series of titles, separated into sections. Anything not included in those titles and sections is legal. The only possible way to indict someone on any charge is to provide title and section/statute.

The Hatch Act is codified in 5 USC § 7321-7326. It concerns political campaign activity. Rudy Guiliani is retained by the US Department of State in an official capacity as a contact to interface with Ukrainian nationals for the purpose of continuing a dialogue with Ukraine. He is not acting in any capacity whatsoever as a political campaign manager. Thus, 5 USC § 7321-7326 does not apply.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 USC § 78dd–1) also applies only to political campaign activities. As a matter of fact, this one gets very specific:

(b) Exception for routine governmental action

Subsections (a) and (g) shall not apply to any facilitating or expediting payment to a foreign official, political party, or party official the purpose of which is to expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action by a foreign official, political party, or party official.

Subsections (a) and (g) are the subsections which state what is illegal under 15 USC § 78dd–1. Which means nothing is illegal under it if it is the normal conductance of governmental functions.

I know; someone on CNN said that this was a violation of the Hatch Act or the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That don't mean squat. I hear stuff like that on Fox too; it doesn't mean squat either. It's just lip-flapping to convince you that whoever is flapping their lips knows something they obviously don't know.

If you think that you can just throw out a name of a bill and expect others to go "OOOH! That's a law!" you are sadly mistaken. Any charge made will be required to contain the title and statute/section claimed to be violated, and guilt or innocence will be based on that statute. You really need to get this if you want to go around accusing people of breaking laws... unless you enjoy looking foolish.

As far as the FEC regulations go, the FEC has already determined that nothing about this issue is applicable to their rules. This is a normal government activity, not a political campaign.

Now, let's talk about the other things you listed... if you think there is an issue of corruption, then by all means call for an investigation. That's all I did concerning Hunter Biden; I called for an investigation. As a matter of fact, I have uncovered several things about the arrangement that don't add up. Of course, you should remember that every investigation called for that turns up fruitless simply makes the next accusation lass believable.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Can you imagine if Barr bragged he was Trumps "wingman". Heads would explode.



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

LOL
So I should trust your arm chair lawyering over all the legal scholars' articles and interviews regarding this very issue?

Like I said, you can't even remember what the whole Mueller investigation and report was all about, or how it relates to this whistle blower complaint.

Lather, rinse, repeat.




edit on 27-9-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Bill Barr's whole unsolicited job application was a 20 page letter basically promising Trump that he would be just that, his personal wing man.

LOL
www.aclu.org.../executive-bran ch/william-barrs-unsolicited-memo-trump-about-obstruction-justice



posted on Sep, 27 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorgonite

You Demoncrats are so fixated on the throne that you couldn't stop to consider the president isn't worried about the election; he's worried about his country.

Joe Biden extorted the Ukrainian government to the tune of $1 billion dollars if they didn't fire the prosecutor investigating his own son's corrupt company. They fired the prosecutor. Biden gave them $1 billion dollars. There is no questioning this as Biden unapologetically admitted to it on camera:

youtu.be...

Trump suggests they reopen the investigation which was closed via extortion. Let alone by Joe Biden and for investigating his son's company which is openly corrupt. How is this an impeachable offense?



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 01:44 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: KeithCooper

www.fec.gov... go to definitions of "contribution" regarding foreign nationals...click the little book icon, a pop up legal definition of contribution, which is illegal, shows up as ANYTHING OF VALUE, . This is the law Trump has ADMITTEDLY broken.



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: KeithCooper
And the doj found no crime committed.
Sorry



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: CollateralDramage

The OFFENSE was Trump asking SPECIFICALLY for a foreign govt. to look into JOE BIDEN, who is Trumps campaign opponent in the upcoming election. Had Trump never mentioned BIDEN specificaly, Trump would be safe. The law was broken the second he mentioned Biden specifically.



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The DOJ (William Barr) appears to EVERYONE to be involved in the coverup. He will be subpeonaed and face his own justice.. the DOJ opinon is of zero value now that the cow is out of the barn and everyone can see the crime.
edit on 28-9-2019 by KeithCooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: KeithCooper
No not EVERYONE
Perhaps you
The doj opinion is the opinion of the highest leo official in the land and has standing
There was no crime
Sorry



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Now, even though it looks like Trump did in fact break the law...doesn't mean there aren't interesting facts about this entire episode that reeks of deep state action. "Multiple unnamed sources" within the White House that actually had earshot access to a Presidential phonecall....and those sources FORWARDING their EXACT and precise to the letter memories of the phone call to a THIRD PARTY UNNAMED WHISTLEBLOWER (2 levels of anonymony) who happens to follow the precise and exact procedure to get this memo to the Intelligence Inspector General. Was there IN FACT 2 unnamed whistleblowers IN EARSHOT and with knowledge of the President who were "so concerned"?..or just a deep State operative at the NSA capturing dirt on Trump , then using CIA operative to bring this heresay memoranda of concern through proper whistleblower channels in a fiendish deep state ploy to bring down the President? Lol.....well...Trump should be happy if this was indeed the deep state in operation and not just a handfull of innocent law abiding patriots doing their patriotic duties....President Kennedy didn't get it so nicely.



posted on Sep, 28 2019 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Sorry...the DOJ in no way "TRUMPS" the Constitutional legal authority of the US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES in regards to IMPEACHMENT of the US PRESIDENT. The sole power of charging the President with a crime exists with the House and crime is whatever the House says a crime is. The DOJ is impotent in these matters.



new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join