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.

 

The Party of Collusion

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: HanyManny
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So when he is impeached, how will you feel?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?

So sad....


Actually when he's elected again I fully expect there to be a giant rash of people jumping off buildings, out of windows, throwing themselves in the streets and audible cacophony of gutteral mental screaming heard round the country.

Which one of those are you going to do




Nice fiction. Hope that serves you well when Trump is impeached by the house.


They haven't done a damn thing in three years. Do you really think a party proven to be as incompetent as the Democratic Party has can accomplish a task as monumental as impeaching a president in the next year?




posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny
did you spend a lot of time in the "trailer park"?

how do you know voters interests were not served by the results in 16?
if you weren't satisfied with the 16 outcome I suspect you will hate the 20 outcome.

good luck in the "trailer park"



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: cfnyaami
And now Trump is calling on China to investigate his political rival. Trump is breaking the law again. He's out of control and not acting presidential in the least.
a reply to: HanyManny



Once again, I will let the experts on this branch of the law wade in. However, as a person who has passed the bar in my state (many, many years ago), and had to write the section on constitutional law (which was horrible, and I got low scores on that section), I can say that it is pretty clear that an investigation is under the domain of the house, and that the process should work itself out.

Not saying anything about removal. That is a process that has never happened in our history. But the process is pretty clear, and has nothing to do with "whataboutism" for other people.

It seems to me that Trump supporters want to muddy the waters and compare apples to oranges. If Biden in the past did something that is criminal, then that is one thing.

To connect that with what Trump is doing right now, as president, is an entirely different matter, and requires a different remedy according to the constitution. To conflate the two is meaningless, arbitrary, and pointless. One case is about a former vice-president using power to direct a foreign power to make internal changes to their legal enforcement in regards to corruption, the other is a blatant attempt by a sitting president to use the threat of withholding US (taxpayer) funds to get a foreign leader to provide political "dirt" on their political opponent.

These are two separate issues, and should not be conflated. Because of this conflation, the two should be investigated as two claims, and not connected claims.

There is no case law as far as I know where one party can claim immunity from prosecution because another party has not been prosecuted. That is silly. It would mean that because another party was not brought before a court, tribunal, or impeachment process based upon a suspicion of guilt, that another party should not even be investigated because the former party's crimes were not investigated.

This is nonsense.

No legal standing for this perception, and it is all a bunch of jail-house lawyer talk.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

From what I've read, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti corruption activists in the Ukraine familiar with the case, disagree with Trumps narrative.

www.rferl.org...


Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Kyiv-based Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), told RFE/RL that Shokin "dumped important criminal investigations on corruption associated with [former President Viktor] Yanukovych, including the Burisma case."


Also it seems that the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevskiy was dormant when Biden made his demands.


For one thing, Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption advocates who were pushing for an investigation into the dealings of Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevskiy, said the probe had been dormant long before Biden leveled his demand.


To further show that Shokin was negligent in his duties.


Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.


If the narrative was that Biden kept Shokin in office to shield his sons company from investigation. Then yes. We'd have a scandal. But that's not what happened. Shokin was actively working to bury investigations into Burisma. If anything Bidens intervention took the obstacle into Burismas investigation out of the way. Potentially hurting his son in the long run.
edit on 3-10-2019 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Except we know it was not dormant. Any source saying it was is lying. Burisma documents prove it, Burisma literally apologized for what was happening to Shokin.

Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors


The day Shokin was fired Burisma started working on the new prosecutor, that would be pointless if the investigation was stalled and no longer ongoing.

In addition, Burisma’s American team offered to introduce Ukrainian prosecutors to Obama administration officials to make amends, according to that memo and the American legal team’s internal emails.



At the time, Shokin’s office was investigating Burisma. Shokin told me he was making plans to question Hunter Biden about $3 million in fees that Biden and his partner, Archer, collected from Burisma through their American firm. Documents seized by the FBI in an unrelated case confirm the payments, which in many months totaled more than $166,000.


thehill.com...


Lutsenko has alleged that Yovanovitch had given him a list of people not to prosecute. The State Department called the allegation “an outright fabrication”.

www.reuters.com...

As for the British connection ...

The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: “These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution … and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.”


So the British actively thwarted Shokin and then blamed Shokin for it.

When Shokin was fired the new prosecutor got marching orders from the US ambassador about who he could go after and who he could not.

The story you are posting is the one Joe Biden told. Since that time official documents have been made public that prove that narrative has major holes and is unlikely to be true.
edit on 3-10-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Are people really this stupid? Biden is on film admitting to using his power to influence Ukraine. Trump is conducting foreign relations, with no proof he threatened or coerced anyone. There is no proof Ukraine even knew about the 400M.

How Manny passed the BAR is beyond me as well. Any atty/lawyer worth their salt would see the extreme difference here, between Biden's admitted guilt, and the haters assumption of guilt for Trumps dealing with the Ukraine.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Law 101, by Jay Feinman is a wonderful introduction to law in the United States. It is entirely readable and understandable for most people. I would suggest that every American read the book, and also look at the on-line tests in their states for passing the bar.

I wish we had the resources that are available to student of law when I was going through the process. Today there is no reason why the average person, if they so choose, cannot make themselves available to the concepts of constitutional law, and the other, mundane elements of law.

If you read and understand Feinman's book, you should be pretty much "blow away" at how law works, but also not be such an ignorant (not a dis, just a truth) person on how fairness and law do not intersect.

Buy the book and read it this weekend, instead of a case of beer and ranting. Your rants will turn into good discussion on the constitution, real estate law, taxes, and the right of individuals, rather than jail-house rantings.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is a mess. It's a he said she said. Some are saying there was an investigation, Ukrainian prosecutors saying there wasn't.

I don't see how the UK thwarted Shokins investigation. He impeded by not cooperating with the UK.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is a mess. It's a he said she said. Some are saying there was an investigation, Ukrainian prosecutors saying there wasn't.

I don't see how the UK thwarted Shokins investigation. He impeded by not cooperating with the UK.



You do realize that there is corruption in the UK govt as well, right? They are involved in the Barr/Durham investigation going on right now.

They are in Italy, Russia, UK, and Aus right now conducting interviews. Its literally in the news right now. Popadoplous' story doesnt seem so far fetched anymore.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP
Once again, they are two different things. Despite your attempts to disparage my arguments ( or me personally) the Trump administration has tried to conflate the two issues, and that is gas lighting.

Believe what you want. The issue a sitting president using his to influence a foreign leader to provide "dirt" on a political rival using US taxpayer fund as a club is something that the House should consider as a "high crime."

It is extortion.

This is a crime, according to the constitution.

Do you think the US law, which is highlighted in the ultimate document (constitution) should be ignored?

This is the real question here. Do we allow a sitting president to flaunt the constitution, or will the congress check him.

Check out the "Federalist Papers", where the authors of the constitution discuss how to check the power of the executive, and see what they say.

Ya know, you can make fun of lawyers, but we have kept this country stable, and constitutional for over 230 years. Law is not justice, it is law. So if you don't feel justice is served, maybe try to change the law, or the constitution.



edit on 3-10-2019 by HanyManny because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is a mess. It's a he said she said. Some are saying there was an investigation, Ukrainian prosecutors saying there wasn't.

I don't see how the UK thwarted Shokins investigation. He impeded by not cooperating with the UK.



Not a he said/she said. Trump admitted to his crimes in the "transcript." Read the damn thing.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

You're babbling about nothing at all.

Trump got under your skin and it's making you insane.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TomLawless
a reply to: HanyManny

You're babbling about nothing at all.

Trump got under your skin and it's making you insane.


Maybe you are right. I get a little bit upset when my cherished constitution is being ripped to shreds by a would-be dictator.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny
a reply to: KnoxMSP


Believe what you want. The issue a sitting president using his to influence a foreign leader to provide "dirt" on a political rival using US taxpayer fund as a club is something that the House should consider as a "high crime."

It is extortion.

This is a crime, according to the constitution.




Evidence, evidence, evidence. When did you ever present a case without evidence?

Your views and biased outlook are making your story sound a little thin, and not very lawyerly. Like I said, any lawyer worth their salt...

Treaty 106-16 says Trump can work with the Ukraine to investigate corruption. If you dont like it maybe you should change the law?
edit on 3-10-2019 by KnoxMSP because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   


The issue a sitting president using his to influence a foreign leader to provide "dirt" on a political rival using US taxpayer fund as a club is something that the House should consider as a "high crime."

nope
simply a potus working within a senate ratified treaty with an ally following up on work done prior
all perfectly legal
your opinion is not the only opinion



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: HanyManny

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is a mess. It's a he said she said. Some are saying there was an investigation, Ukrainian prosecutors saying there wasn't.

I don't see how the UK thwarted Shokins investigation. He impeded by not cooperating with the UK.



Not a he said/she said. Trump admitted to his crimes in the "transcript." Read the damn thing.


If you have evidence that Ukraine knew their aid was being held and that Trump used that as a bargaining tool where is it? Otherwise you are spouting conjecture.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

What collusion.

Why are you against seeing if what Biden did was wrong? He bragged about getting the guy fired. Him being fired saved his son from investigation. You see no conflict there?


Your pushing a fake story, it has no legs, you probably know it's a fake, yet you and many others keep pushing it.

The actual story was written about, when those events occurred, by a very well respected journalist..Jim Risen.
Look for the story...then read it, it's a good exercise doing that little bit of research.



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: HanyManny

There are no crimes. We just spent 30 million on an investigation that revealed a couple of tax frauds. One of whom, specifically Manafort, who was also knee deep in the DNC Ukrainian corruption but that investigation targeted President Trump but found nothing.

The Democratic party has screamed impeachment since election day but nothing yet. The President ask for help in an investigation which the prior VP was by his own admission squashed and once again they scream impeachment. Why is the Democratic so afraid ?

We know, that the Secretary of State violated law by using a private server for email. What was she hiding ? We know classified material was exchanged on that unsecured server multiple times as per the Director of the FBI. The server issue is a minor violation, simply a way for her to hide what she was doing, the mishandling of classified material is more serious but nada and nothing.

We know the Obama campaign waa guilty of campaign finance laws, recieved the largest single fine in the history of FEC violations. Did Republicans scream for impeachment ? No, but with no evidence of FEC violations, and no fines, Democrats have been screaming for impeachment. If there are crimes being committed as you claim right now, then bring it.

The crimes that this President is being accused of are all crimes already committed by the other party whom are simply covering their backsides by redirecting attention and screaming impeach 45 every day since his election. If there are ever crimes alleged with a modicum of evidence, I will line up for impeachment but two different justice systems is not going to help the case. When Democrats can prove something I will listen but they better be prepared to impeach their own, as of right now they are only impeaching themselves and its freaking hilarious !



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP

I think the reason why the house is pushing forward is that the evidence was presented by Trump himself in the so called "transcript." Reading it as a contract lawyer, I don't make many claims. However, as I recall my constitutional law training, I was stuck by how blatant his attempt was to use US funds as a chip to get compliance to find "dirt" on Biden.

I don't often go into court, and when I do it is usually in defense of a contractual issue on the federal government's side: ie what does this clause mean, who wrote the clause, what is the meaning of "proper" and "compete."

Often times I settle between the government contracting officer and the contractor so that no court time is abused to reach a resolution. This save taxpayers big bucks.

Rarely, I get hired by a contractor to try and resolve their claims against the government. Rarely. Because I find that the federal government usually is fair to to contractors to the the point of paying them even when they don't deserve payment.

Occasionally I take a case where a contractor really got screwed. I like putting the heat on the government on those cases.

However, those rare cases, like the current case against Trump, where the defendant comes out and ADMITS, WITH A "TRANSCRIPT" of how he broke the law, where it is a slam-dunk.

I love those cases.You don't even go to court. You send a briefing to a judge, and next week it is over.

For presidents, it is on TV. But Trump delivered the proof, and now it is up to the house to impeach. He will get impeached. Case close.

Stop run. ###

What will the Senate do?

WHo knows.
edit on 3-10-2019 by HanyManny because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

So basically your argument is that Biden should not be investigated at the behest of the US, even though we have a cooperation treaty for such, because he is running for POTUS and that would be election meddling? So if I commit fraud out of country I get instant immunity from investigation because I'm running for POTUS? How does that make any sense?




top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join