It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


White House formally tells Democrats it won’t cooperate with impeachment probe

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:35 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen
Democrats are hindering due process 😃


posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:35 PM

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: proximo

How do you know hes lying? Maybe it's the republicans that are. And yes, I have listened to the republican version of the story also... from various media outlets.
It's just that I've learned not to trust them as far as I could throw them.

How do I know he's lying????

Well, for one I read Volkers written testimony - which is a summation of what he was going to say and it refutes all claims about Trump wanting a quid pro quo.

Secondly Schiff has absolutely no credibility. First he lied about never talking to the whistleblower. Second his whole performance of Trumps gangster talk - which was complete BS meant to decieve. Third this is the same A hole who said he had secret Russian collusion info for 2+ years when he had nothing.

Third the supposed text messages they did release shows this Taylor guy was trying to bait someone into saying some crap about Trump doing something improper and the Ambassadors said they did not think anything was done improperly.
That is somehow being spun as a smoking gun to lefties - HOW??

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:40 PM
a reply to: Gorgonite

You ought to look up the word request. They can be denied, fair and square.

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:43 PM
a reply to: Gorgonite

I have already proven why. The congress is a legislative body, not an investigative body. They can only send out subpoena's (you know, legally backed demands) if there is a legitimate legislative purpose, according to SCOTUS. Impeachment only becomes a legitimate legislative purpose once a committee or the house has voted on it.

They can send all of the requests they want. No one has to oblige a congressional request. Especially not the executive branch.

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:56 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly my point'

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:03 AM
a reply to: Gorgonite

i see your Lindsay Grahm and raise you a Jerry Nadler but it does go to prove a point i have brought up about the need for term limits and why its a disadvantage to be a long term politician as give it enough time some one will come up with a sound bite from your past video here if you would like his words

Twenty-one years ago, Nadler said that the Starr Report was inherently biased against Clinton: “'We should always remember this is a prosecutor's report — by its nature it's a one-sided report.” He complained about Clinton not being allowed to get a sneak peak at the Starr Report before it was made public: “The President is asking for two days. The Republicans say no.” In October 1998, Nadler attacked the legitimacy of the independent counsel investigation: “Starr thinks he is going to be investigating things in four years … I find that astonishing and appalling. Is this a permanent inquisition against the president?” The language Nadler used was reminiscent of the “witch hunt” language used by Trump in reference to Mueller’s investigation. In a February 1999 article in the New York Times, Nadler called the Starr Report and impeachment efforts by Republicans a “partisan coup d'etat.” He said he didn’t think Clinton had obstructed justice and that even if he had, it would not be an impeachable offense. “An impeachable offense is an abuse of Presidential power designed to or with the effect of undermining the structure or function of government, or undermining constitutional liberties,” Nadler said.
so it is kind of funny seeing trump get crap for calling it a coup when one of the people who wants him impeached said the exact same thing about Clinton over 20 years ago perhaps he was just using old Jerrys script . the major difference between Clinton and trump though is so far no independent counsel has been appointed to investigate him vs Clinton having one appointed (STAR) and nixon (lol who fired him on" bloody saturday") . there was a special counsel appointed for the Russia thing but so far no ones been appointed to this Ukrainian thing (those do take time historically usually months to years) but i was surprised it took this long for the ghram quote to show up as its been all over various social media for more then half a day now. then there is this gem

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) was confronted on Sunday about his comments–made during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment–saying a president can't commit obstruction of justice. NBC's "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked Nadler about his past comments, in which he was defending Clinton during the impeachment proceedings against him.
so flipitiy flops from each party on this one

the main obstacle to trumps impeachment and or removal is the senate not the house,sure house could impeach him but it takes the senate to remove and i dont think Mitch is gonna give up carte blanche to keep appointing federal judges or the wonderful distraction trump makes in the media to take the heat off of the bulk of other republicans,hell Mitch is using this to raise money for the RNC but here is where several senators up for re election in 2020 stand (both republicans and dems) in case you were curious

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:18 AM
a reply to: proximo

That is somehow being spun as a smoking gun to lefties - HOW??

They abandoned all rational and critical thought. They just repeat what the media says even if it's a blatant lie.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:23 AM
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

On that note, here's the 2020 senate election map.

Looks like a D+1 to R+3 election. Not enough room for dems to take over.

The bolder colors mean the R or D incumbent is retiring.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:30 AM
a reply to: Gorgonite

You guys said the same thing about russian collusion. You're getting played again. Enjoy.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:39 AM
a reply to: Dfairlite

yep thats how i took it too but thanks for the map, and dont forget if/when trump wins re-election pence is another +1 for the republican side as far as the senate goes

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:55 AM
a reply to: Pyle


How many Fast and Furious?

Obama blocks release of 'Fast, Furious' documents

Obama Asserts Executive Privilege Over The Department Of Justice's Gun Running Scandal


How many IRS investigations under Obama?

Tea party groups get revenge against IRS as judge approves $3.5 million payout


How many Whitewater?

The Clintons were never charged with any crime. Fifteen other people were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Jim Guy Tucker, who resigned from office.[44]

Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, resigned (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker's business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; U.S. Associate Attorney General; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:28 AM

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, that article is over 2 weeks old. They received the transcript of the call they were seeking, and in order to go further with their inquiry now, they need to vote. Everything directly relating to their 2 whistleblowers is in that transcript which was given to them openly as soon as they started complaining about it.

Now they need to vote for more.

Where is the evidence of that requirement? If you're telling the truth, it should be easy to find that information. I've offered links and evidence..

I sourced it, you refused to reply to me.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:33 AM
None of this is going to matter anyway.
The dems got their tail caught in a crack.

"The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation," he claimed. "This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky," he added, noting Petro Poroshenko was still Ukraine's president at that time.

But by all means dems keep the media attention up on the corruption in ukraine.
Rooting out corruption is a good thing right?

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 09:00 AM

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly my point'

So if you're Democrats looking to remove the sitting President by fair means or foul, it would seem the best avenue would be to hold that vote and get yourself some legal standing. Either the President has done something you can impeach him on or he fights you and creates a potentially impeachment worthy scenario over nothing, but you really need the legal standing to do it either way.

So if they haven't taken that vote, why not? It leaves them legally impotent to create real legal remedy either way.

The answer is that they won't risk the real legal scenario for one of a few reasons: they know they can't pass a vote, they don't want to bring their actual evidence into the light of day because it doesn't bear up under scrutiny, or something similar. So they are basically playing this as a political ploy attempting to drive down the President's numbers heading into election season counting on the gullibility of the public to not actually understand the full impeachment process.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 09:55 AM

originally posted by: RazorV66
Imagine the Dems surprise when their guns go off and they realize they were all loaded with blanks.

Yes... this:

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 09:57 AM

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Impeachment only becomes a legitimate legislative purpose once a committee or the house has voted on it.

Wrong. It has to be the whole House, not a single committee.

It is plain as day.

The House of Representatives has the sole Power of Impeachment.

Not The Speaker.

Not some Committee.

The House - meaning, the whole House.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:22 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree in spirit, however I think that they do have the legal standing. As I understand the process, a simple majority vote is needed to impeach a president at which time the process is handed over to the Senate.

However I also understand that in order to carry out an impeachment inquiry, that full vote of the House is not needed but rather can be set in motion by the House Judiciary Committee. So at this point, even without the full vote of the House to ''inquire'' I think that the ''legal'' standing has been established.

What I don't know is if the WH needs to legally submit to the inquiry. I don't think it does. Should the House hold that vote for impeachment which then passes on into the Senate, at that point I would assume that having been indited WOULD have to legally provide the Senate with all information requested.

I know that the WH has promised to oblige if the full House votes for the ''inquiry''. So if that is the stand of the WH then I think that putting that forward would only help the cause of those who seek this impeachment.

I also think that that promise is merely a Trumpian bluff. Were I at a poker table I would call that bluff, not with a weak hand of just the Judiciary Committee, but with the ''full house'' (get it?) vote.

At this point they either may or may not have the evidence that they need for impeachment. However I think that they DO have sufficient cause to move forward with an ''inquiry''. They just do not have the authority to demand the cooperation of the WH.

So I agree as well that much of this is to drive down his numbers, and that is the theater that is being acted. Meanwhile, the WH claiming that the inquiry is unconstitutional is also theater for his base.

So I say, hold that vote as requested. If there are Dem Reps who are wary of loosing support in their own districts then let them vote no. That is what they are supposed to do, vote for their people.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:42 AM
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

However I think that they DO have sufficient cause to move forward with an ''inquiry''.

so all future potus calls with foreign leaders that lead to "whistleblower" complaints should open an impeachment inquiry?

so you have effectively destroyed the executive branch powers of diplomacy and foreign policy because "joe told me this"?


posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:24 PM
a reply to: shooterbrody

NO. That is not the case,, You can minimize the gross over reach of Trump all you want and all you will get is an unleashed Executive Branch. Is that what you are after? A Big Man in the oval?

We have been allowing more and more ''executive privilege'' for at least the last 20 years and you want to give the WH more?

Do you really think that 'all'' potus calls will get whistle blower warnings?

And your suggestion that '' joe told me this'' is completely laughable. These people didn't just walk in off the street, they have been in government service for this kind of oversight and are doing their jobs. Again, judging them just ''joe'' is a joke.

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:27 PM
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

No it hasn't, even if you want to go that far, Nadler hasn't at any point been involved in this part of the process. Nadler is Chairman of Judiciary, and he has been conspicuous in his absence on this impeachment inquiry.

Schiff is Chairman of Intel.

And neither of those Committees has taken any formal vote to make this a legislative process to give anything they're trying to do legal standing. So it's all a bunch of empty threats to create the impression they can do this.

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in