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.

 

How Not to Impeach a President

page: 2
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Point of Order


"unnamed sources say"

sorry that is bad


Mkay, no matter which side does it.

can we try another source?


just trying to be fair.....




posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I smell an effervescent Supreme Court case in the making 😎



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, the violations mentioned in 18 USC § 601 would be appropriate, if it can be proven there is a quid pro quo. However, one of the key aspects is that a threat to withhold funds must be made. In this case, it has been reported that Zelensky did not even know about Trump freezing the funds until some time after the call. Therefore, there can be no threat that existed in the mind of Zelensky at the time of the call and therefore no proof of a quid pro quo.

Had Trump said anything about like "I'm wondering if those funds are appropriate" or "I need to let you know the funds may be held up," or even if Zelensky was aware that the funding was in jeopardy at the time of the call, you might have a point. But that didn't happen.

18 USC § 601 is also a very minor violation... only a felony if the maximum sentence is imposed and then a minor felony. By itself, it is not a "high crime or misdemeanor."

As for the Republicans deserting Trump, his approval rating is hovering, last time I heard, in the upper 40% range. Congress' approval is at 17%. In about a year, these Republicans, most from states which voted for Trump, will have to face their voters. If they do so after voting to negate their votes for Trump (and make no mistake, that is what this is about: negating the votes of the people), it's going to be a tough sell to get re-elected.

TheRedneck


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks
You are advocating impeachment with no crime?
I really really hope the dems attempt that.
Even slow Americans understand what high crimes and misdemeanors are.

Funny you left out the Ags determination.
Or maybe not.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


18 USC § 601 is also a very minor violation... only a felony if the maximum sentence is imposed and then a minor felony. By itself, it is not a "high crime or misdemeanor."


It is a high crime. The legal definition of high crime means a crime that was committed by someone at a high level, such as President.


A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice.


Link

A felony is a felony. At the least it is applicable as a high crime and misdemeanor, and as such is a violation of 18 USC Section 601.

The rest is your interpretation of the events in relation to the law. Which is markedly different from the legal minds who have analyzed it. So we'll see.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks
The doj determined no such action took place.
Sorry Charlie



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


You are advocating impeachment with no crime?


Impeachment isn't a legal process, it's a political one. And one that was meant that way by the founders of this nation.


The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[3] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[3] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense.


Link



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks
The doj determined no such action took place.
Sorry Charlie



Again, we aren't talking about campaign finance violations. Usurping Congress' power of the purse is an entirely different matter.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks
Lol
Sure
I hope they try that bs
Especially when the AG has made a determination.
No crime citizens but we are going to remove the potus you voted for.

Is nancy really that deluded?



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


Given the President has already publicly admitted enough information to make him guilty of usurping Congress' power of the purse, yes.

Assuming of course that you refer to the national emergency declared on the southern border, it cannot be a crime to follow a law, by definition. Trump followed the law (50 USC § 1631) to the letter.

As far as emoluments go, an emolument is a gift given. Payment for services or products rendered under ordinary conduct of business is an exchange of value, not a gift. If a foreign dignitary were to pay extra for a suite at Trump Towers, that extra would be an emolument. If someone were to tip Trump Enterprises while staying at Trump Towers, that tip could be an emolument (one would have to prove that the tip was not in simple appreciation of service and was not an ordinary transaction... which could be done). Paying for a room at standard rates normally charged is not an emolument and is not illegal. That is one of those charges I mentioned that could force the case to go to the Supreme Court for clarification.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks
The doj determined no such action took place.
Sorry Charlie



Again, we aren't talking about campaign finance violations. Usurping Congress' power of the purse is an entirely different matter.

www.law.cornell.edu...
18 U.S. Code § 601

Really?



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Assuming of course that you refer to the national emergency declared on the southern border, it cannot be a crime to follow a law, by definition. Trump followed the law (50 USC § 1631) to the letter.


No, I'm referring to the call with the Ukrainian President. It's in the article:


I haven't been a litigator since 2015. I haven't conducted a proper cross-examination since 2014. But if I couldn't walk a witness, judge, and jury through the transcript of Donald Trump's call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and demonstrate that a quid pro quo was more likely than not, then I should just hang up my suit and retire in disgrace…

First, right near the beginning of the call, President Trump signals his displeasure with Ukraine. He notes that while the United States has been "very good" to Ukraine, he "wouldn't say" that Ukraine has been "reciprocal" to the United States. There's nothing subtle about this statement. It's plain that Trump wants something from Ukraine….

In the next paragraph, Zelensky responds with the key ask. He wants more Javelin missiles, an indispensable weapon system in Ukraine's conflict with Russia. It's an anti-tank missile that helps address the yawning power imbalance between the two countries….

And what is Trump's response? The next words out of his mouth are, "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it." He raises Crowdstrike, the firm the DNC used to investigate the Russian election hacks. From context, it seems as if Trump is asking for additional assistance in investigating the 2016 election-interference scandals….

But then, in the following paragraph, Trump continues his ask. He says he is going to ask Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney, to call Zelensky, and he asks Zelensky to take the call. Then, Trump says this: "The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great." He continues, "Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it . . . It sounds horrible to me."

And what is Zelenksy's response? He pledges that the new Ukrainian prosecutor will be "100 percent" his person and that "he or she will look into the situation."



The quid pro quo interpretation of this exchange derives further support from the fact that Trump had just put a freeze on the delivery of some $400 million in US aid to Ukraine, and had also made clear to Ukrainian officials that he would not even do a call with President Zelensky, unless the Biden investigation was on the agenda. Trump has since claimed that the aid freeze was put in place out of concern about corruption in the Ukrainian government. But that story is undercut by the fact that the Trump administration had previously certified that Ukraine had taken sufficient steps to combat corruption to qualify for the aid.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks
The doj determined no such action took place.
Sorry Charlie



Again, we aren't talking about campaign finance violations. Usurping Congress' power of the purse is an entirely different matter.

www.law.cornell.edu...
18 U.S. Code § 601

Really?


Yes really. Please show how campaign finance law is relevant.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks
It is not
But it is what you cited.
It is also what the doj said did not occur.

So what crime then?



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


The legal definition of high crime means a crime that was committed by someone at a high level, such as President.

The link you posted does not say that. It says (and I would agree) that a "high crime and misdemeanor" is one which can only be committed by someone in a high position of power. 18 USC §601 can be committed by anyone who is a candidate for public office, and thus does not fit that definition.


The rest is your interpretation of the events in relation to the law. Which is markedly different from the legal minds who have analyzed it. So we'll see.

Well, I'll openly admit I am not a lawyer. But I have successfully defended myself in court on multiple occasions, some of them pretty legally intensive. So I think I have a pretty good instinct.

I have to give you kudos, underwerks. You have made some very reasonable arguments so far in this thread. Even though I disagree with them, well done!

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


No, I'm referring to the call with the Ukrainian President. It's in the article:

Oh, right! My bad.

The thing is, there was no threat made because Zelensky did not know the funds were at risk. How do you threaten someone with something they don't know about?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

An excellently presented and educational Opening Post (OP) TheRedNeck. Thank-you!




posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


The link you posted does not say that. It says (and I would agree) that a "high crime and misdemeanor" is one which can only be committed by someone in a high position of power. 18 USC §601 can be committed by anyone who is a candidate for public office, and thus does not fit that definition.


A high position of power is what I meant by "high level". And as such I believe it's applicable here.

I've always defended myself in court as well. We'll see how it plays out. But I believe there is more than enough here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is in violation of usurping Congress' purse.

And the totality of charges that will be levied against him still remains to be seen. We have the whistleblower testimony before congress still to come, and I'm sure that will open up a lot new avenues. Which is why I think it's premature to state there isn't any "there" there.

We just have to wait and see.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:51 PM
link   
The House will not impeach. Their leverage ends with the threat of impeachment for the media to chew on.

POTUS Trump isn’t going anywhere.

Good news is he will be able to add at least one more SCOTUS appointment but likely two.

Just sit back and enjoy your tax break and the strong economy. Ignore MSM.



posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: underwerks


No, I'm referring to the call with the Ukrainian President. It's in the article:

Oh, right! My bad.

The thing is, there was no threat made because Zelensky did not know the funds were at risk. How do you threaten someone with something they don't know about?

TheRedneck


It doesn't have to be an obvious threat to prove without a reasonable doubt. It just has to be implied.


In the next paragraph, Zelensky responds with the key ask. He wants more Javelin missiles, an indispensable weapon system in Ukraine's conflict with Russia. It's an anti-tank missile that helps address the yawning power imbalance between the two countries….

And what is Trump's response? The next words out of his mouth are, "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it." He raises Crowdstrike, the firm the DNC used to investigate the Russian election hacks. From context, it seems as if Trump is asking for additional assistance in investigating the 2016 election-interference scandals….


"I would like you to do us a favor though.."

As the article states, when taken in context, it's obvious what this is.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join