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.

 

I think the Impeachment is an attempt to negotiate out of being investigated.

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
The strangest thing is happening too.

They are using debunked fabrications to base an impeachment.

So what happened to all those "provable" obstruction items in the Mueller Report that were such a slam dunk for impeachment ?

😎 😃


When were they debunked?

I just thought they weren't prosecuted. You know, something about not indicting a sitting president?


This has been thoroughly debunked. Mueller even cleared up the confusion and said that was a moot point because there was nothing to indict. I just thought if you’re gonna be wrong you should at least have the facts


Quoting from the Mueller Report




Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


Emphasis mine. You will find that quote on page 8 of Volume II of the report.




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
The strangest thing is happening too.

They are using debunked fabrications to base an impeachment.

So what happened to all those "provable" obstruction items in the Mueller Report that were such a slam dunk for impeachment ?

😎 😃


When were they debunked?

I just thought they weren't prosecuted. You know, something about not indicting a sitting president?


This has been thoroughly debunked. Mueller even cleared up the confusion and said that was a moot point because there was nothing to indict. I just thought if you’re gonna be wrong you should at least have the facts


Quoting from the Mueller Report




Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


Emphasis mine. You will find that quote on page 8 of Volume II of the report.


can you also quote the legal precedent for exonerated?

I could not find it, thanks in advance



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
You either missed the part in which barr made the determination or intentionally left that out.
Also please link anything that states we in the usa have to be exonerated.

I will wait.....
Thanks in advance



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Until the House votes, there is no formal impeachment proceedings, and no subpoena power with regard to impeachment matters, only blathering and yammering."

Prove it.

Objection: asked and answered (many times)... oh, ok...

Article I Section II Clause V if the US Constitution states:

"The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Now, kindly point out where it mentions some Committee. Or the Speaker. Or any subset of The whole House of Representatives.

Can't? Thats ok, I'm sure you can present a rational argument that the above can mean anything other than the WHOLE House, acting in the only way it can, by voting on a bill/resolution initiating impeachment proceedings, or simply by going straight to voting on Articles of Impeachment.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I see your BS detector went off as well.

this should be interesting.

I wonder if they will reply.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

So now we're not talking about the Mueller Report, we're talking about Bill Barr???

I didn't leave that out; it's not relevant. I gave you the link above, show us in the Mueller Report where Barr states anything whatsoever.

Hell, even easier for you, quote Barr's actual statement regarding the "determination" you're referencing.

Thank you kindly.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: shooterbrody

I see your BS detector went off as well.

this should be interesting.

I wonder if they will reply.


You should get that checked. Surely you understand the difference between Bob Mueller and Bill Barr???

The claim above that I responded to and showed to be false was that Mueller had exonerated Trump ...



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati



I wonder if they will reply.

Does it really matter?
When the hitler label was applied in 16 what else would we expect?
A sudden epiphany?
I seriously doubt it.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
lol
as if mueller actually wrote that....
mkay

almost as funny as the exonerated crap
did that verdict come from the office of exoneration?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Nope, you've not answered anything, though you keep repeating the same nonsense.

The Constitution (as I've said many times in discussion with you) gives the House the power of impeachment.

There is no Constitutional requirement (or procedural or any other kind of requirement) to have a vote to investigate.

You keep claiming that there has to be a resolution to investigate which is absurd and baseless.

If you have proof give it.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

you used the term exonerated

show the legal precedent for that term

the default position of everyone in the USA

is "exonerated" before any trial

Prove otherwise.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
lol
as if mueller actually wrote that....
mkay

almost as funny as the exonerated crap
did that verdict come from the office of exoneration?




So ... now you understand that Mueller and Barr aren't the same person? Small progress at least.

Did I say that there was some "verdict from the office of exoneration"? No?

Stop making stuff up as you go along. I'm not in the mood to waste time on such today.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gryphon66

you used the term exonerated

show the legal precedent for that term

the default position of everyone in the USA

is "exonerated" before any trial

Prove otherwise.


As I said, the Mueller Report uses the term "exonerated." I quoted it for you. Other than that, do your own research.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
lol
as if mueller actually wrote that....
mkay

almost as funny as the exonerated crap
did that verdict come from the office of exoneration?




So ... now you understand that Mueller and Barr aren't the same person? Small progress at least.

Did I say that there was some "verdict from the office of exoneration"? No?

Stop making stuff up as you go along. I'm not in the mood to waste time on such today.


Oh sorry was there a memo I missed that we are supposed to not hurt your feelings?

Really??

really really?

mom!!!!!!!!



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



So now we're not talking about the Mueller Report, we're talking about Bill Barr???

You can pretend the 2 are not joined.
It is not the truth tho.
When mueller did not do his job, the AG did.
Sorry you seem not to understand that basic fact.


Interesting you choose to avoid the exoneration bs.
wise choice



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gryphon66

you used the term exonerated

show the legal precedent for that term

the default position of everyone in the USA

is "exonerated" before any trial

Prove otherwise.

lol
I would love to see that
doubt we will tho
I am actually surprised that stinker was referenced.
seems that is all that was available for the smear?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

As usual, you're 'in the weeds.

Another poster claimed that Mueller/the Mueller Report cleared Trump.

I showed that it doesn't.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



I showed that it doesn't.

that is impossible
but so is your askew view in general

we don't "clear" people in this country, even with your so called hitler in office
even he hasnt gone that far



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gryphon66

you used the term exonerated

show the legal precedent for that term

the default position of everyone in the USA

is "exonerated" before any trial

Prove otherwise.


As I said, the Mueller Report uses the term "exonerated." I quoted it for you. Other than that, do your own research.


I have, it's not a legal term, can you explain why a bunch of legal experts, don't know legal terms?

Or who Joseph Mifsud is or who GPS Fusion is. I know who they are but Mueller didn't seem too.

that is very suspect.
as if the Mueller report was not written by him.

so why the use of litterally illegal terms?

I guess it's because it is not a legal document??

could that be it?

If that report is not a legal ducument it cannot be used for legal purposes can it??

SO leagally it cannot exonerate or presecute anyone..

is that Correct?

SO all that time and money was wasted for nothing and

President Trump is COMPLETLY innocent. which is where he started, and it has legally not changed.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You keep claiming that there has to be a resolution to investigate which is absurd and baseless.

If you have proof give it.

From the other thread...

How about this...

You agree that The House of Representatives has the sole Power of Impeachment. No way you can disagree (unless you are mentally ill), because that is the exact words used.

So, answer me this... what is the meaning of the term 'the Power of Impeachment'?

Or, asked another way... do you not understand that, by your argument, the process of an 'impeachment inquiry' or investigation does not fall within the meaning of the term 'the Power of Impeachment'?

"The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

It doesn't say 'the sole power to vote on Articles of Impeachment'. It plainly says 'the Power of Impeachment'.

An impeachment inquiry/investigation is by its very nature a process included within and encompassed by the meaning of the term 'the Power of Impeachment'.

I'll also add...

This requires one to understand that the only way 'The House of Representatives' can act, as the body known as 'The House of Representatives', is through the act of voting, as a body (the whole House) on a bill/resolution.

If you honestly cannot comprehend that, then I guess you are actually mentally ill, and I'll just say a prayer for you and move on...



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join