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.

 

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

page: 15
42
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire



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

when all it takes is "joe told me this" or "i read this in the wapo"? then yes I do
even with the noted "political bias"




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.

unelected politically biased civil servants?
you will of course provide the source giving them constitutional power over the executive branch?
i will wait




posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

How do you know they are politically biased? Do you just assume that bias because they are reporting presidential over reach? And again, you assume that ''all it takes'' is whatever. These people listen in on all potus calls, right? They have been listening in for decades of White House service, basically since Nixion. Right? So all those years of no whistle blowers on into Trump.

Were there ''biased'' whistle blowers during Reagan? Bush? Bush 2. Were there any whistle blower warnings for the first two years of Trump? NOPE. But now, there have been. Why... Because of bias? Or because this guy has stepped over a line established thought decades of established standards.

You claim bias. I claim he has over stepped his authority as potus ...



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Because the IG said so...
www.cnn.com...


The intelligence community's inspector general, Michael Atkinson, acknowledged an indication of possible political bias in his assessment of the complaint but made clear that it did not change his overall conclusion that it appeared to be credible.




Do you just assume that bias because they are reporting presidential over reach?

no
because the IG said there was bias




These people listen in on all potus calls, right?

no
this whistleblower had NO firsthand information
someone leaked it to them



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Judiciary panel advances impeachment drive as Pelosi changes the subject
The committee approved guidelines for its impeachment probe, while the speaker avoided the issue at a news conference.


This, I think indicates that the HJC did approve guidelines for impeachment.

www.politico.com...


The party-line vote came as House Democrats have struggled to articulate a unified message on impeachment, with senior party leaders avoiding the term even while the Judiciary Committee embraces it.


This was from Sept. 16th. That ''probe'' is continuing more intensely since the whistle blower release.
And I suspect that Nadler is keeping out of the limelight after his embarrassing face down with Lewandowski.

And sadly, like the terminator, Nadler vill be baaaack.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


The intelligence community's inspector general, Michael Atkinson, acknowledged an indication of possible political bias in his assessment of the complaint but made clear that it did not change his overall conclusion that it appeared to be credible.


So a man, appointed by Trump, has no political bias? Come on Shooter, let's look at that again. A man of bias claims that there ''is an INDICATION of POSSIBLE political bias'' has made it clear that there it appeared to be credible.

So that blows a huge hole in your ''political bias'' suppostion.



this whistleblower had NO firsthand information
someone leaked it to them


Not true. The complaint said that he or she had some first hand knowledge. The rest came through channels of others in the group reporting to this person. Plus there is now a second person from that group claiming more ''first hand '' information. That ''no first hand stuff'' is totally WH driven baloney.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You


The complaint said that he or she had some first hand knowledge


Then it should be easy to cite and quote a named source the original complaint listed first hand knowledge. But if it’s true “ The complaint said that he or she had some first hand knowledge” why was it required to change the complaint reporting form?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Democrats have really made leaps and bounds to openly expose their corruption and lack of care for the constitution when it doesn't fit their agenda. Democrats are doing the same thing they did in the 1800's when they founded Jim Crow Laws and tried to stop the Civil Rights Act 100 years later. Republicans are putting the racist anti-Constitutional democrats back in their place once again.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   
If he would have just told 'em to go F themselves....

Best ringtone I ever had.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The possibility of a landslide in 2020 (reminiscent of Regan)seems all the more plausible, with each action and word spoken by Dems.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Has any Democrat explained why they're NOT going after any of those Mueller Obstruction things listed in The Report ?

This phone call case is weakening by the day 😎



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The Dems Will Lose the House in 2020 . They Will also be Subject to a Large Republican Majority in the Senate in 2020 . With President Trump Reelected , the Dems then Become a Sleeping Bear without Claws ............Zzzzz
edit on 9-10-2019 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
If innocent, why in the world would he not agree? He can make them all look like fools, right? Evidence speaks for itself. Surely he has no worries? He should totally just agree and then when the facts prove he was innocent, he can laugh in their faces... haha!! Right?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Wait, the ig is good when he takes the complaint but he is bad cause trump appointed him?
Lol
Seriously?
Were the ig biased as you claimed he would have dismissed the complaint.
Nice try to get it both ways.
Lol
www.cbsnews.com...

ALL SECOND HAND
You are incorrect.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Here is the bias noted

www.cbsnews.com...

The whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump's July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a registered Democrat who had a "prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential contender," a source familiar with the matter tells CBS News.

The person said the intelligence community inspector general, Michael Atkinson, told Congress the whistleblower's political affiliation, but would not disclose to lawmakers which 2020 candidate the whistleblower was connected to, out of fear that doing so might expose the whistleblower's identity.


Lol
bias noted
Lol

Only a rep from a political rival.
Yep the power to say "joe told me bad stuff"
IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION!!!!

Dangerous imo



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   

edit on 31America/ChicagoWed, 09 Oct 2019 23:26:24 -0500Wed, 09 Oct 2019 23:26:24 -050019102019-10-09T23:26:24-05:001100000026 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
The ig saying so

Lol

The authority in this complaint case.





edit on 9/10/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Nixon's impeachment inquiry did begin with a vote:


After the Saturday Night Massacre, Rodino began his committee's investigation. On October 30, 1973, the House Judiciary Committee began consideration of the possible impeachment of Richard Nixon.[21] The initial straight party-line votes by a 21–17 margin that established an impeachment inquiry were focused around how extensive the subpoena powers Rodino would have would be.[22]

Over the next two months, as the impeachment investigations began...

Wiki

A vote in the House Judiciary Committee. We haven't seen that vote yet. I know this doesn't answer your question specifically, but yes, traditionally an impeachment inquiry begins with a vote. Why hasn't the Judiciary Committee voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry? I think its because impeachment isn't the goal, rather innuendo. Or maybe they're worried what the House Minority party might do with subpoena powers? They really do need to call a vote though, if they want to keep using the "I" word.
edit on 10-10-2019 by Zelun because: use preview next time, jerk



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Subpoena power. Yes, current House rules give committees broad subpoena powers, but I don't think that necessarily applies to individual members, or the whip for that matter. Check out this article from csmonitor. It basically explains why this thread is having such a hard time finding a winner.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

On the other hand, look at this article from Politico dated September 12th. Ah, it seems the Judiciary Committee did take a vote on a resolution regarding an impeachment inquiry. The language is mostly with regards to Grand Jury testimony from the Mueller investigation. I wonder why they aren't saying "we did take a vote, here it is." Do you ever wonder why?




top topics



 
42
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join