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.

 

Trump is Sending Nancy Pelosi a Demand Letter for a Full Vote

page: 8
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut
You do understand what obstruction of justice is and how if a person has control over the armed forces and DOJ that it makes obstruction a whole different ball game than for everyone else?


Yep, Tweets are truly obstruction of justice.....


- Issuing several orders, through several channels, to fire the investigators (remember Trump was the boss of their boss).
- Giving misleading statements about his ties with Russia (to investigators and to the public).
- Ordering the Director of the FBI to stop the investigation and then later, sacking him. (From the letter that Trump sent to Comey informing him that he was fired: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” It is clear that Trump was firing Comey because Comey did not stop the investigations. Trump's own words in the letter damn him).
- Attempting to stop the Attorney General from recusing himself from and the investigations and ordering the AG to take the investigations away from the appointed officers.
- Trying to get the FBI director to release false public statements to the effect that Trump was not implicated.
- Instructing those under investigation to withhold information from the investigators.

These were the most obvious and overt instances of government corruption in decades. The guy who was metaphorically going to "drain the swamp", was pouring in raw sewage!

... and you think it was about some Tweets?

edit on 4/10/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

All standard Democrat In-You-End-0 🍌 🐇



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: chr0naut

you keep using this word Exonerated


Please re-read my previous post. I did not use the word "exonerated" in it.


yet it is not applicable, unless you do not subscribe to "innocent until proven guilty"

I know you do not live in the USA so you may be under some misunderstanding.

Exonerated in this instance means nothing. I know what a shock, A US goverment offical decived you.

can you cite the legal precedent for using "exonerated" in this instance?

if not then you are pushing BS, no way you would do that would you?

you like intelligent debate, wonderful, use factual words, and you will get it.

use BS words and you are ignored.

you do not want to be ignored, or worse, treated with scorn like the pink queen.


However, since you requested some specifics in regard to my previous to the previous post use of the word "exonerated", Mueller (or his team of lawyers) specifically used the word "exhonerated" in the report on their investigations.

They are fully aware of the meaning of the word in a legal sense, within the US system.

The implications of their use of the word, combined with the principle of presumption of innocence in procedural jurisprudence (which by the way, is part of British Common law but does not exist as a legal statute, or constitutional clause, in US law - state or federal - at all. A grave oversight for a country that purports to be the pinnacle of legal rights, but this is somewhat beside the point due to the principle's application in US case-law), are that there was evidence of wrongdoing but that a determination has not been made as to the guilt of the prosecuted.

It means that there is proof of guilt, in the minds of the investigators. Since a team of the best lawyers in the US deems to use it specifically in the case against Trump, I feel justified in repeating it's use in that scenario.

edit on 4/10/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

All standard Democrat In-You-End-0 🍌 🐇



Are you some sort of Democratic Party fifth columnist, releasing incrementally crazier responses, until others, who have given your posts affirmations in the past, come realize with embarrassment that they have been totally caught up in a nonsense that has clearly become an insult to intelligence?


edit on 4/10/2019 by chr0naut because: Insert random cheesy music video or animated gif of someone slowly poisoning themselves through the inhalation of a toxic emulsion.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Could someone quote for me the part of the Constitution that gives the President power to command the House Speaker to do anything at all?

Hmmm ... I thought not.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

not exactly what you were talking about id gather but he does have the power to conviene the senate and house which would presumably include the speaker of the house en.wikipedia.org...

In the United States of America, Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution gives the President of the United States the power to "on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses or either of them." [1] This power exists for urgent or extraordinary situations that require congressional action when Congress is adjourned. Presidents have exercised this power 46 times to recall only the Senate and 28 times to recall both Chambers of Congress, most recently by Harry Truman in 1948.[2] The Senate itself differentiates between "extraordinary sessions" called by the Presidential proclamation and "special sessions" that merely indicate a session not normally scheduled.[3] The term "session" can refer to either the formal start and end of a Congressional session or the daily sessions of the chambers of Congress.[4] Thus a formal "special session" will only happen when Congress has adjourned sine die and is not simply in recess (in other words Congress may or may not already be in an official session, but in recess, when convened).[4]
so yeah if he decides to do this he absolutely can at least order her to show up to special sessions ,so i guess he could do this and then politely(lol who are we kidding) ask them if they want to go forward with impeachment have house members who want an impeachment raise their hands and then ask the senate what they feel about it and have them raise their hands and "get the feeling of the room" so to speak in a nonbinding vote. i feel it would be a pretty funny move by him as kind of a put up or shut up moment filled with trumpisims and then broadcast it all on cspan .

but hey the census is coming up wonder what the constitutionality of adding a question to the American people on if they want impeachment or not? could end up being the largest "survey" ever done



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

His Millions of Deplorable's would Also like to send this Attachment along with it .........




edit on 4-10-2019 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Actually that question is not on the census and Trump is using another way to get the numbers.



posted on Oct, 4 2019 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Please re-read my previous post. I did not use the word "exonerated" in it.


yet it is not applicable, unless you do not subscribe to "innocent until proven guilty"

I know you do not live in the USA so you may be under some misunderstanding.

Exonerated in this instance means nothing. I know what a shock, A US goverment offical decived you.

can you cite the legal precedent for using "exonerated" in this instance?

if not then you are pushing BS, no way you would do that would you?

you like intelligent debate, wonderful, use factual words, and you will get it.

use BS words and you are ignored.

you do not want to be ignored, or worse, treated with scorn like the pink queen.


However, since you requested some specifics in regard to my previous to the previous post use of the word "exonerated", Mueller (or his team of lawyers) specifically used the word "exhonerated" in the report on their investigations.

They are fully aware of the meaning of the word in a legal sense, within the US system.

The implications of their use of the word, combined with the principle of presumption of innocence in procedural jurisprudence (which by the way, is part of British Common law but does not exist as a legal statute, or constitutional clause, in US law - state or federal - at all. A grave oversight for a country that purports to be the pinnacle of legal rights, but this is somewhat beside the point due to the principle's application in US case-law), are that there was evidence of wrongdoing but that a determination has not been made as to the guilt of the prosecuted.

It means that there is proof of guilt, in the minds of the investigators. Since a team of the best lawyers in the US deems to use it specifically in the case against Trump, I feel justified in repeating it's use in that scenario.


In other words, there is no mention of the word "exonerated" in US law. The word means nothing because you are PRESUMED INNOCENT. Therefore, you have nothing to be "exonerated" from. Unless you were falsely convicted; that would be a different story because you would have been found GUILTY.

You can try to spin it with all the fancy words you want but your time would be better spent focusing on facts.
Fact: In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty.
Fact: The report provided no proof that Trump was guilty



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

- Issuing several orders, through several channels, to fire the investigators (remember Trump was the boss of their boss).


You and the left have a hard time understanding what is a desire, thought or voiced frustration and what is a direct order. Trump speaks his mind with very little filter and we all know that, but it doesn't mean everything he says or tweets is a direct order as you all seem to think they are. No one was fired, removed, reorged etc... The investigation was never hampered in anyway.



- Giving misleading statements about his ties with Russia (to investigators and to the public).

I'm not sure what this means in any relationship to any of this. Pretty much a nothing burger here my friend... Just throwing crap on the wall to see if something sticks.



- Ordering the Director of the FBI to stop the investigation and then later, sacking him. (From the letter that Trump sent to Comey informing him that he was fired: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” It is clear that Trump was firing Comey because Comey did not stop the investigations. Trump's own words in the letter damn him).


Comey lied to the President's face a number of times, also the dems were screaming for his firing months before...want me to post them all? Trump had zero faith in him and so he had to go. Now that we see just how screwed up the whole FISA part was I don't blame Trump in the least. More importantly his firing did not stop or even slow down the investigations, actually had no effect in the least, so what obstruction of justice was it again that you see with this?



- Attempting to stop the Attorney General from recusing himself from and the investigations and ordering the AG to take the investigations away from the appointed officers.


What the hell is "attempting" did he like grab his leg or something.. lol. He spoke of his displeasure, he spoke that he didn't want AG to do it, and spoke that he felt the AG let him down... In the end the AG DID recuse himself and Trump moved on. There was no justice to obstructed here...geez



- Trying to get the FBI director to release false public statements to the effect that Trump was not implicated.
- Instructing those under investigation to withhold information from the investigators.


The FBI waffled back and forth with "the President is not under an investigation" and so on.. In ALL these points you are trying to make NOTHING happened.. You are complaining about Trump complaining and you want to call it obstruction of justice while not a single obstruction ever happened.

Trump speaks his mind with little filter, but it is just that...bitching




edit on 5-10-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManWhoWasThursday
a reply to: Pyle

Except that is false under the concept of three coequal branches of government (individual committees are not). The House does have sole power of impeachment, but that is a separate topic.

Except that the SCOTUS ruled during the Watergate that many examples of Executive Privledge are immune to Congressional Subpoenas EXCEPT for when Congress calls for a formal impeachment inquiry. Since the House hasn't voted on it,there is no formal impeachment inquiry.

This puts the pressure on the dems. Without the formal inquiry, Trump can claim executive privilege on almostany request by Congress involving private conversations with foreign leaders. The courts have no choice but to side with him.

Even if they declare a formal inquiry, if they don't have the evidence to impeach and remove, chances are it is a Trump and GOP win in November.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Arizonaguy

" if they don't have the evidence to impeach and remove, chances are "... the Senate Will REFUSE to Even Acknowledge it .



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Who will blink first ? 😃

House Oversight Committee subpoenas White House in impeachment inquiry


The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the White House late Friday, with the Democratic chairmen of three House committees saying that President Trump "has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction, and cover-up" in response to the ongoing impeachment inquiry related to his conduct on a phone call with the president of Ukraine.

In a letter to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., gave the White House until Oct. 18 to produce documents.

“We deeply regret that President Trump has put us — and the nation — in this position, but his actions have left us with no choice but to issue this subpoena,” the chairmen wrote.



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The President has a " Full House " , the Dems a Pair of Deuces ........RAISE !



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That's possible
Although there's some debate about it
Mainly the language and debate about shall, may, and will



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

That's possible
Although there's some debate about it
Mainly the language and debate about shall, may, and will



... and "won't" 😎



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: dumpaling

originally posted by: chr0naut

Please re-read my previous post. I did not use the word "exonerated" in it.


yet it is not applicable, unless you do not subscribe to "innocent until proven guilty"

I know you do not live in the USA so you may be under some misunderstanding.

Exonerated in this instance means nothing. I know what a shock, A US goverment offical decived you.

can you cite the legal precedent for using "exonerated" in this instance?

if not then you are pushing BS, no way you would do that would you?

you like intelligent debate, wonderful, use factual words, and you will get it.

use BS words and you are ignored.

you do not want to be ignored, or worse, treated with scorn like the pink queen.


However, since you requested some specifics in regard to my previous to the previous post use of the word "exonerated", Mueller (or his team of lawyers) specifically used the word "exhonerated" in the report on their investigations.

They are fully aware of the meaning of the word in a legal sense, within the US system.

The implications of their use of the word, combined with the principle of presumption of innocence in procedural jurisprudence (which by the way, is part of British Common law but does not exist as a legal statute, or constitutional clause, in US law - state or federal - at all. A grave oversight for a country that purports to be the pinnacle of legal rights, but this is somewhat beside the point due to the principle's application in US case-law), are that there was evidence of wrongdoing but that a determination has not been made as to the guilt of the prosecuted.

It means that there is proof of guilt, in the minds of the investigators. Since a team of the best lawyers in the US deems to use it specifically in the case against Trump, I feel justified in repeating it's use in that scenario.


In other words, there is no mention of the word "exonerated" in US law.


You are kidding, right?


The word means nothing because you are PRESUMED INNOCENT. Therefore, you have nothing to be "exonerated" from. Unless you were falsely convicted; that would be a different story because you would have been found GUILTY.

You can try to spin it with all the fancy words you want but your time would be better spent focusing on facts.
Fact: In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty.


Have you considered that you can be arrested and held in prison prior to a court case? Where is presumption of innocence there?

How can the police or FBI function if they presume innocence?

It is clear that the presumption of innocence only stands procedurally during the court case, not during the investigation, nor anywhere else outside the courtroom.


Fact: The report provided no proof that Trump was guilty


Really. What about the 10 specific instances of obstruction. Surely they are evidence of, like, obstruction of justice?



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: chr0naut

- Issuing several orders, through several channels, to fire the investigators (remember Trump was the boss of their boss).
You and the left have a hard time understanding what is a desire, thought or voiced frustration and what is a direct order. Trump speaks his mind with very little filter and we all know that, but it doesn't mean everything he says or tweets is a direct order as you all seem to think they are. No one was fired, removed, reorged etc... The investigation was never hampered in anyway.


Do they all (his aides and staff) laugh at him too, while they stand around listening to him tell them to do things and they just ignore them because...?

"Oh, look, his mouth is talking again". "What fun". "Say things to us again, Mr President".





- Giving misleading statements about his ties with Russia (to investigators and to the public).

I'm not sure what this (Giving misleading statements about his ties with Russia) means in any relationship to any of this. Pretty much a nothing burger here my friend... Just throwing crap on the wall to see if something sticks.



- Ordering the Director of the FBI to stop the investigation and then later, sacking him. (From the letter that Trump sent to Comey informing him that he was fired: “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” It is clear that Trump was firing Comey because Comey did not stop the investigations. Trump's own words in the letter damn him).

Comey lied to the President's face a number of times, also the dems were screaming for his firing months before...want me to post them all?


Yes. Due dilligence. Post them all, but from actual first person sources, not from propagandist sites like Fox News.


Trump had zero faith in him and so he had to go. Now that we see just how screwed up the whole FISA part was I don't blame Trump in the least.


The second of Horowitz's FISA investigations were concluded, and a report released, months ago. Since then, nada, crickets...

Face it, Sean Hannity's repeated allegations of dire implications were baseless fake news. I don't think anything is going to happen because there were no actual 'bombshell' revelations of indictable wrongdoing in the report.


More importantly his firing did not stop or even slow down the investigations, actually had no effect in the least, so what obstruction of justice was it again that you see with this?


"I know 'e shot 'im your honour but 'e didn't die, so it wasn't attempted murder, eh?"

You see, just because Trump's attempts were ineffectual, does not mean he isn't guilty of them.

That is not the way the law works.



- Attempting to stop the Attorney General from recusing himself from and the investigations and ordering the AG to take the investigations away from the appointed officers.
What the hell is "attempting" did he like grab his leg or something.. lol. He spoke of his displeasure, he spoke that he didn't want AG to do it, and spoke that he felt the AG let him down... In the end the AG DID recuse himself and Trump moved on. There was no justice to obstructed here...geez


In Sessions letter of resignation, he make it clear why he left: "Dear Mr President, at your request I am submitting my resignation,".

Trump clearly pressured an honest man to leave his job because he would not buckle under and do something corrupt.

So much for draining the swamp - Trump was clearly trying to obstruct the course of justice.




- Trying to get the FBI director to release false public statements to the effect that Trump was not implicated.
- Instructing those under investigation to withhold information from the investigators.
The FBI waffled back and forth with "the President is not under an investigation" and so on.. In ALL these points you are trying to make NOTHING happened.. You are complaining about Trump complaining and you want to call it obstruction of justice while not a single obstruction ever happened.


There are 10 instances recorded in the Mueller report. They are not allegations. They happened. Mueller did not prosecute because he was restrained from indicting a sitting President. And he said so in the report.


Trump speaks his mind with little filter, but it is just that...bitching


Trump also seems to blurt out national secrets, too, at random times. Which is illegal under the Espionage Act.

He is supposed to be the President, not some bumbling game show host!

edit on 5/10/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: jhn7537

They did start the impeachment process lol...


The democrats actually have CRIMINAL investigations that lead to indictments and convictions when they accuse people of felonies..


Who has been indicted that trump has accused of corruption??


No one...


Not a single person is even EXPECTED to be prosecuted....



Not Hillary, not Obama ...


Hell not even nobodies like McAbe and comey..


No one ...

Trump hasn’t proven one single allegation.. and never will...


It will only be “believe my craziness. Even though if I actually had evidence of anything I would have been used it..”



posted on Oct, 5 2019 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What does that have to do with anything lmao...


Nothing... just like any other reply you make... they never include a relevant counterpoint...



Never..


What does “committee equalization” have to do with the democrats paying a price for voting yes?!?!

Nothing....


Because MAYBE the American people as a whole get mad at impeachment....


They won’t.. because conservatives are the minority, OBVIOUSLY that is why they keep losing the popular vote....

But it is at least possible...


But an individual democrat getting hurt because of voting for impeachment....



BWAHAHAHA



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join