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: 3
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2019 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Who determines if this "high crime" was really committed by the President?

Why is the same subject continually recycled in these threads?

It's been verified that the President of the United States can legally request that Ukraine investigate anything he wants them to ask them to investigate. Ukraine can say YES or NO.
edit on 9/30/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Your position on the “power of the purse” is wrong. When Congress approves aid they attach strings to it. Conditions for the receiving country to follow.

The Trump administration canceled $900 million in aid to Pakistan for not following through on their anti-terror obligations . Then they briefed Congress afterwards .

Pakistan

Trump stopped aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador for not doing enough to stop illegal immigration. Then briefed Congress afterwards .

El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras

Congress was well aware of the funding stop in late August to review spending and look at corruption. They were in negotiations to get Trump to release it because he was within his rights. Check out the politico link embedded they were crying Russia Russia Russia and didn’t bring up a hint of impropriety .

Ukraine

Foreign aid is bribery on a massive scale and has always been a tool of diplomacy. Don’t you remember Obama threatening to withhold aid in his make Africa gay campaign ?

As I’ve said repeatedly when federal law is brought up. Three elements are needed for a conviction the hardest one to prove is corrupt intent.

That’s what would be needed outside of the impeachment process .

“You can indict a ham sandwich”. The new entry into the lexicon is what redneck said “you can impeach on a hangnail” .

But I’ve known Trump would be impeached since the day after the midterm so have at it.

It’s only going to help .
edit on 30-9-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TheRedneck

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



Agree with care. Thanks TheRedNeck!

Cheers



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


A high position of power is what I meant by "high level".

That may be your definition, but not the one you linked to. That word "only" makes a difference.

I'm looking forward to finding out who the whistleblower is. I actually wonder if they don't have some ties to Ukraine. There were two people on that call, and I'm sure it was recorded for posterity from both ends of the line.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


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

I'm not sure how one could imply a threat over an action that the one being threatened doesn't realize may be under consideration?

I mean, they have to know there's a threat for it to be a threat, don't they?


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

Don't people ask for favors where you are? Without threatening?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Don't people ask for favors where you are? Without threatening?


i dont always ask people for favours .........

but when i do ..............

they are 101% aware - i will break thier legs if they dont help me




posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Maybe the democrats should try fielding somebody who can actually, y'know, win an election, instead of basing their strategy of removing the opposition "by any means necessary."
Just a thought. After all, that's how I was taught a democracy/republic was supposed to work.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

...the Supreme Court could be requested to define whether a hangnail during a press conference could be considered a "high crime and misdemeanor."

TheRedneck


This is their tactic after 2020. It'll be the only angle they haven't tried.

I'm calling it now.



edit on 9/30/2019 by MykeNukem because: sp.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Excellent OP and great breakdown on the process of impeachment.

Twitter runs afoul of ignorant Americans, all smart and educated in their own right and area of expertise, but civil law? They would all fail, HARD.

Here is what I think will happen, the House WILL impeach, they will do it because they went all in, even pelosis, to back out now would be even MORE disasterous if they don't or at least kepted trying.

They know, as we know, that the Senate won't convict, therefore reducing impeachment to a finger wag by the house.

But this is what they want, it does several things, it shows their base of radical leftist that they followed through on their word to impeach and that Trump has the Senate block it, making good ammunition and feed for their low info voters. Now, had they backed out, there support would erode so hard.

Essentially, another Clinton repeat, which will lead to another Trump election victory, history repeats itself.

After Pelosis empty impeachment call, no formal vote on an impeachment inquiry ever came to pass, Trump raked in 15 million in small dollar donations within 13 hours.

At the end of the day, nothing really changes, except just more exposure on the political parties and the democrats abuse of power.
edit on 30-9-2019 by Arnie123 because: Hmmm


EDIT01: Can we stop calling it a whistleblower? This was a SPY, I mean, dudes literally CIA, a spook and if I remember ATS since the beginning, that ain't a good thing and should factor heavily into perspectives.

The Dems have unlocked everything at their disposal, no limit to the BS, I admire the Repubs for being good boys, but at some point, they need some more bite to defend the POTUS, seems like he is the one holding the shield up.
edit on 30-9-2019 by Arnie123 because: Mmmhmmmm



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think the democrats stance would hold more value if they hadn't have tried to impeach Trump since the day he won the Republican primary.



posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

  • Improperly Influencing a Foreign Government

    This is a little more nebulous, but could be a possibility. The problem with that is that the Articles of Impeachment would have to exactly specify what Trump supposedly did that was considered improper influence. Asking for assistance with an investigation is not a possibility; there is a ratified treaty allowing for this exact action.



  • I hope we can all appreciate the irony of the CIA accusing someone else of improperly influencing a foreign government.



    posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 02:33 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: underwerks
    a reply to: M5xaz

    If that type of response is all you have I really feel sorry for you guys.



    My response is merely a reflection of your/left's own UNDEMOCRATIC hissy fit....whatever happened to respecting the results of an election ?.....and please point out where Trump did anything remotely as bad as the dead in Benghazi, the $100 million to Hillary from RUSSIA for UraniumOne and her felonious handling of CLASSIFIED emails, copies of which were sent to Chinese firm...
    edit on 30-9-2019 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



    posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 04:43 PM
    link   
    a reply to: carewemust


    Who determines if this "high crime" was really committed by the President?


    The senate.
    Hopefully after carefully considering the evidence.
    It may be harder for them to back him if they do.



    posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 04:49 PM
    link   
    a reply to: underwerks

    here is my question to you... if trump is found guilty so be it remove him...but will you fully support following the evidence and burning anyone in the DNC also guilty of such? (cause I doubt that ego maniac will go down solo, I fully expect a scorched earth policy as he goes out the door)


    We know for a fact Joe biden did it, he said so himself on camera, makes me wonder who else tried that tactic...



    posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 05:26 PM
    link   
    a reply to: TheRedneck

    This deserves a thread of its own if true twitter.com...


    Strangest thing happening with our TV. Every time we hit the pause button this picture of protesters with a big sign saying #IMPEACH pops up. That’s not even what we were watching! We tried changing channels but it’s only happening on #FoxNews



    posted on Sep, 30 2019 @ 05:28 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: Sillyolme
    a reply to: carewemust


    Who determines if this "high crime" was really committed by the President?


    The senate.
    Hopefully after carefully considering the evidence.
    It may be harder for them to back him if they do.

    There is NO evidence.
    Simply a potus doing his job.

    Wow
    You people have absolutely no winning strategy.



    posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 02:28 PM
    link   
    a reply to: underwerks

    However, Ukraine already said they didn't know about it until a month later, and a few senators already confirmed that they spoke to Trump on why he held it back and he said he was waiting to see if the allies would help. So if this is the direction then it is moot and another dead end.

    Can't be a quid pro quo when the other side doesn't know anything about it. Use some common sense dude.



    posted on Oct, 1 2019 @ 06:30 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: underwerks
    a reply to: M5xaz

    If that type of response is all you have I really feel sorry for you guys.



    But that is essentially what it boils down to..

    Butthurt Liberals, acting like Kindergarten children who didn't get a go playing with the Train Set during Recess..



    posted on Oct, 2 2019 @ 03:56 AM
    link   
    a reply to: underwerks

    Ironic that the same people falsely claiming POTUS Trump forced and coerced the Ukranians are the same people whom ignore that BIDEN DID THOSE CRIMES...

    I dare you to post where in the transcript of POTUS Trump did he threaten them, or stated he would withhold money unless they gave him the info...

    It makes no sense. You ignore the fact that POTUS Trump had the phone call with the Ukranian President in July 2019, and the Ukranians were already trying to give the information to the Trump administration FREELY since 2018...

    Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats?

    Why would POTUS Trump need to bribe the Ukranians for information they wanted to give freely for at least a year?...

    Schiff and Schiff's drones claiming POTUS Trump bribed the Ukranians, and forced them when NOWHERE in the transcript can you read any attempt at bribery or coercion by the POTUS doesn't equal to evidence when he didn't say... More so when the Ukranians themselves stated at no time did POTUS Trump ever coerced them or bribed them...

    In other words... You are claiming crimes that only exist in your mind, like every other crime you left-wingers keep claiming about the POTUS and they have been shown to be FAKE...



    edit on 2-10-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



    posted on Oct, 2 2019 @ 04:33 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: underwerks
    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.



    sigh

    your own quotes NEVER STATE that if he didnt do what trump said you would not get the missiles.

    in fact in that whole section the leader of Ukraine NEVER STATED he thought there was a threat, requirement, or suggestion that if he didnt do what trump wanted he would not get the missiles

    I also point out in your quotes there CLEARLY IS some things left out.
    common logic states that if they were left out and would help your case you be screaming bloody murder .
    so since you have not whatever was left out / not cherry picked would not help your case and in fact maybe even hurt it further than YOUR OWN QUOTE does.

    hell even the transcript (btw trump was ok with releasing but rightly mentioned it would set a bad standard) DEMANDED by the democrats DIDNT SHOW ANY THREAT OR QUO PRO.

    but we do have A CLEAR NO DOUBT COMMENT OF THAT VERY CHARGE OUT OF BIDEN OWN MOUTH (do you really need a link to this) and a CLEAR TIMELINE OF WHEN THE UKRAINIAN prosecutor was FIRED.

    all you have is YOUR OPINION that cannot be substantiated with YOUR OWN PRESENTED FACTS.

    all of it is even more torpedoed by the CLEAR FACT that trump is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN COURT OF LAW (OR BY SENATE DUE AFTER IMPEACHMENT TRIAL) .

    so unless your a senator with ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT before you (has not happened), with all the EVIDENCE GIVEN (where trump lawyer gets to question EVERY ACCUSER) , and a DELIBERATION IS DONE where OVER 2/3 agree with your OPINION.

    then all your doing is ranting with no facts to back it up.

    im sorry to break it to you, but despite the tactic in propaganda of "telling a lie often enough will make people think its the truth", no matter how long you keep posting the same RANTS it WILL NOT MAKE IT FACTS

    no matter how much you believe in your "truth"

    but hey if you want to keep posting emotional ignorant rants ill defend your right to do so.

    btw how did this claim , the russian collusion claim, the claims of all the women filing sexual crime charges, and (by no means the only other claims) stormy daniels work out for you so far?

    scrounger



    new topics

    top topics



     
    41
    << 1  2    4  5  6 >>

    log in

    join