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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Turner is as specious as many posters here. What a jack-ass.

what is it you say about those who go to directly to ad hom attacks?
this is why we can't have nice things karen!


That's a comment on a video, not a tactic in a discussion.

/shrug




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Mueller said it at the hearing. Ted lieu put words in his mouth and he had to make a statement clarifying that they found no evidence of a crime. YouTube “Mueller clarifies” and it’ll pop up.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
As if you were the arbiter of disussions?
Lol
Is your office next to the office of exonerations?



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




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


Meaning the entire House.

Nothing less.

And right now that's all the Dems have - less.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter

Right. Impeachment requires a simple majority vote in the House.

Investigation does not.

edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Format



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
As if you were the arbiter of disussions?
Lol
Is your office next to the office of exonerations?





Har.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
As if you were the arbiter of disussions?
Lol
Is your office next to the office of exonerations?





Har.

that sums up your posts quite nicely

tlb



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Which ones, the ones where I provided clear and reliable evidence to support my claims? Or the one's in which I demonstrated that you have zero evidence for yours?



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
all of them

while you provide some points, you also include crap and intentionally leave out information when it suits your cause
no worries
you are still the label slinging lefty that was here in 16
you can still call trump hitler
we dont mind
we get that it is baked in and bamn

kind of like the exoneration garbage you dug up


so yes "har" sums up your contributions here nicely



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
all of them

while you provide some points, you also include crap and intentionally leave out information when it suits your cause
no worries
you are still the label slinging lefty that was here in 16
you can still call trump hitler
we dont mind
we get that it is baked in and bamn

kind of like the exoneration garbage you dug up


so yes "har" sums up your contributions here nicely




I concentrate on verifyable facts which you cannot and have not refuted (like reports from the CRS).

Regarding the regular spurious claims you and others make, I ask for your proof and when you provide none, I am glad to point that out.

The quips your posts commonly direct at mine are nonsense.

I don't think I'm the topic here, and even if I were, why in the world do you think I care what you think about me?

Do you have something on topic to say? If not, shoo.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   


I concentrate on verifyable facts which you cannot and have not refuted

about that whole "exoneration" thing you brought back from the garbage bin ........
that is an example of your "verifyable facts" no?

so yeah
"har"



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Frankly, if you have something to say to me that's personal, just put it in an DM; let's try to improve the overal quality of discussion, eh?

For the last time, I responded to another post's dishonesty, you are the one who decided to blow it up with off-topic posts like these.

Did you have anything to say about the reports from CRS I've quoted, that literally put the lie to the ridiculous claims by the White House and those who endlessly echo Republican talking points here that the impeachment inquiries are unconstitutional? Do you have some further insight or evidence to offer regarding how the Sixth Amendment does or doesn't apply?



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Is that your personal definition of exonerate? Because the term is used in different contexts, and in this case Mueller was making clear that while Trump could not be prosecuted under current DOJ policy, the President was not exonerated by the report.

Who do you believe exonerates individuals?

Your brought it
now "others" are responsible for such?

nice try



Turner is as specious as many posters here. What a jack-ass.

you also brought the ad homs
again nice try

for you to whine about such now only exposes your hypocrisy
nothing new there tho

as to the thread topic
from the op:


Anyone who follows the impeachment can plainly see it is so baseless that it could never work.

I agree with this statement fully.
The dems haven't taken a house vote so they are not investigating anything in any serious manor. They, as we, know their subpoenas aren't worth the paper written on without the floor vote to make them enforceable.
Not cooperating with their half ass side show is in no way obstruction, and even they know this.

If they attempt to fling this partisan bs to the senate, the senate will simply dismiss it, and rightfully so.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Is that your personal definition of exonerate? Because the term is used in different contexts, and in this case Mueller was making clear that while Trump could not be prosecuted under current DOJ policy, the President was not exonerated by the report.

Who do you believe exonerates individuals?

Your brought it
now "others" are responsible for such?

nice try


Please get on topic. You just quoted that I posted in response to another poster.



Turner is as specious as many posters here. What a jack-ass.



you also brought the ad homs
again nice try


Was I having a discussion with the guy in the video? No? There was no "ad hom" in my post. Get over it.

As to your repeated specious claims, you're mistaken and have been amply proven to be. Committee subpoenas have the same weight they always have, there's no requirement for a formal vote to initiate impeachment, etc. etc.

edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Corrected poor quoting methods from another user



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Please get on topic.

lol
impersonating a mod may not be a crime, but when you do it, it is hilarious
calling posters here "specious" isn't ad hom eh?
lol
you are so cute!




Committee subpoenas have the same weight they always have

you are simply incorrect, as pointed out several times here recently, I have neither the patience or desire to prove you wrong again
at this point it is not even a "nice try"



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Is that your personal definition of exonerate? Because the term is used in different contexts, and in this case Mueller was making clear that while Trump could not be prosecuted under current DOJ policy, the President was not exonerated by the report.

Who do you believe exonerates individuals?

Your brought it
now "others" are responsible for such?

nice try


Please get on topic. You just quoted that I posted in response to another poster.



Turner is as specious as many posters here. What a jack-ass.



you also brought the ad homs
again nice try


Was I having a discussion with the guy in the video? No? There was no "ad hom" in my post. Get over it.

As to your repeated specious claims, you're mistaken and have been amply proven to be. Committee subpoenas have the same weight they always have, there's no requirement for a formal vote to initiate impeachment, etc. etc.


so you agree that they wont vote because they will be losing political points with their voters at home.....

Lol

Nice to see you back after 3 years! Hopefully it is on your own dime this time....

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Nope, I don't agree that political points will be lost. Apparently, the percentage of Democratic voters who believe Trump should be impeached is in the 80 percentile range.

Thanks for welcoming me back. I don't have any idea what you're talking about with on my own dime. Isn't it still against T&C to accuse others of being shills? Tsk tsk.
edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem



so you agree that they wont vote because they will be losing political points with their voters at home.....

that is a fair point
I would wager it is quickly dismissed by some



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Nope, I don't agree that political points will be lost. Apparently, the percentage of Democratic voters the believe Trump should be impeached is in the 80 percentile range.

Thanks for welcoming me back. I don't have any idea what you're talking about with on my own dime.


Political points will definitely be lost

Being the loudest doesnt make yall the most!

It's hot garbage to impeach Trump for asking another country we have a treaty with to investigate an old dirty politician.....

You know this cause you are much smarter than the average lefty

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem



It's hot garbage to impeach Trump for asking another country we have a treaty with to investigate an old dirty politician.....

Yes it is
Tho that is not what was really said.
www.cnn.com...


I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.

"finding our what happened with this whole situation" is not asking to open an investigation



The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

"find out about that" also is not asking to open an investigation

this whole event is simply based on poorly constructed lies about a conversation between the president and another world leader
similar to the leaking of trumps conversation with the president of mexico or australia

the president is in charge of diplomacy and foreign policy no matter how mad it makes the left
win the election in 2020 if you want to change that




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join