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.

 

Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump pushed to oust her

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The waters are so muddy around any story that comes out that even you don't know if it's true or not, you just choose to believe whichever side you want. Literally every "scandal" that the MSM shoves down people's throats these days had enough ammo for both sides to claim "victory", literally every one. Not a coincidence.

And yeah, you absolutely do have a bias. Quit denying the obvious.

False. Someone is innocent until proven guilty. A story is fake until it has actual evidence supporting it. I don't care about who can 'claim victory', I care about actual substance.

The fact you think I follow and support Q means you have no clue what I think or believe, but I absolutely have a bias. I am sick and tired of the MSM and Democrats constantly running fake news stories with 'anonymous sources'. I don't accept anonymous sources of either side, but one side is clearly behind the vast majority of fake news in this country designed to create division and hatred. Can't have people not fighting each other so the MSM does their duty.
edit on 11-10-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   
The President is entitled to remove anyone he likes from the executive branch - yes, even if he just plain doesn't like them.
OP, you need to stop reading sensationalist clap trap from 'news' sources crying about the President actually exercising his powers.

If your idea of things 'heating up' revolves around the President firing this whiny idiots ass, then you must be in a very cold place indeed.
edit on 11/10/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oraculi
Read that again, the Congress already has evidence of obstruction of justice and will use the events of yesterday and today to support that. Heating up.



How actually stopped her from testifying? And how was this testimony attained if nobody "allowed" her to testify? It's a shame our schools fail at teaching critical thinking skills.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Oraculi
As far as obstruction of justice, I have yet to see that pesky vote they need to take before they have actual subpoena power.

Got a link for that?



The Constitution

How do you read all I posted and then ask a question directly contradicting everything you just read?

Oh no! *gasp* Is it possible... you DIDN'T read?!

The subpoena has been issued, the inquiry is ongoing, that already happened today. Keep up.

Oh and the vote comes after the inquiry, this part of the inquiry did not need a vote. Keep up.


~sigh~

It doesn't say anything about subpoenas in the Constitution.

Try reading it sometime.

It DOES, however, address the power of subpoena in the House Rules.

The Intelligence Committee cannot issue a subpoena without a vote in the Intelligence Committee.

Have a link for that vote handy?

Because otherwise, Schiff is issuing pieces of paper with the word subpoena on the top of it that have no legal backing.

Hope that cleared that up for you...




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




The Intelligence Committee cannot issue a subpoena without a vote in the Intelligence Committee.
Nah.


10.
SUBPOENAS (a)Generally. All subpoenas shall be authorized by the Chair of the full Committee, upon consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, or by vote of the full Committee.

docs.house.gov...

No vote required, but if there was one, do you think it would have been voted down? Really?

Hope that cleared that up for you...

edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Oraculi

Because I am Assuming She is " Corrupt " ? What OTHER Reason would he Possibly Have ? The Draining of the Swamp does Not just Stop at U.S. Borders .......



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trump is innocent even if guilty around here. You won't even consider the fact that he has skeletons in his closet, I've never seen you criticize him once. Not once. Doesn't the bible speak against idolatry? You are Christian aren't you?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake

How does that disprove what I say? Of course the Democrats do it, how does that negate the fact that ATS does it too?

You should really think your arguments through because that example in no way takes away from mine. Not even close. 😂



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trump is innocent even if guilty around here. You won't even consider the fact that he has skeletons in his closet, I've never seen you criticize him once. Not once. Doesn't the bible speak against idolatry? You are Christian aren't you?

Since he has never been guilty of anything then yes, he is innocent. End of story. Feel free to show me where any investigation has concluded he did something wrong.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just curious, the document says adopted in 2019 ... so is that a recent change?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Yovanavitch was appointed in May 2016...right in the middle of the now confirmed effort by the DNC to get the Ukranian Govt involved in getting dirt on Manafort and after Manafort joining the Trump campaign

A statement from the Ukranian embassy has confirmed that Alexandra Chalupa - a paid DNC operative - was actively working with both the US Embassy in Kiev, headed by Yovanavitch, and the Ukrainian Embassy to dig for dirt.


In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.



The fresh statement comes several months after a Ukrainian court ruled that the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and a parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko wrongly interfered in the 2016 American election by releasing documents related to Manafort.


What we have is not only clear evidence of, but an actual court ruling, that the Ukrainian and US Govts were colluding to gather dirt on Trump's campaign. Right in the middle of all of this is Yovanavitch and a paid DNC operative

thehill.com...

There can be zero doubt that the DNC and US Govt, in 2016, colluded with the Ukrainian govt. in an attempt to tip the scale and interfere in the 2016 election.

It's no surprise at all that she was fired. She's lucky she is not in jail.
edit on 11/10/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Just curious, the document says adopted in 2019 ... so is that a recent change?

Change?
114th Congress

(a) Issuance of Subpoenas.—In accordance with clause House Rule XI, clause 2(m), a subpoena may be authorized and issued by a majority of the Committee or by the Chairman in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari




The Intelligence Committee cannot issue a subpoena without a vote in the Intelligence Committee.
Nah.


10.
SUBPOENAS (a)Generally. All subpoenas shall be authorized by the Chair of the full Committee, upon consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, or by vote of the full Committee.

docs.house.gov...

Hope that cleared that up for you...



It really did.

So Schiff can authorize a subpoena after consulting with Nunes or with a full vote of the committee.

Any indication that Nunes was consulted and gave his OK?

And care to clear this up for me while you're at it?


9. INVESTIGATIONS

(a)Commencing Investigations. The Committee shall conduct investigations only if approved by the Chair, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.

(b)Conducting Investigations. An authorized investigation may be conducted by members of the Committee or Committee Staff designated by the Chair, in consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, to undertake any such investigation.


Got a link to where Schiff and Nunes sat down and Nunes decided "Let's Do This!"




edit on 11-10-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's Called " Due Process " . Something Mr. Bootae Seems to Forgotten or just Ignored ..........



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trump University. Definitely not guilty there, so why not lie to yourself to justify supporting a liar? Both lies just cancel each other out, right? 😂
edit on 10/11/2019 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trump University. Definitely not guilty there, so why not lie to yourself to justify supporting a liar? Both lies just cancel each other out, right? 😂


What crime was it he was charged and judged on? I have looked and looked but can't find it.
edit on 11-10-2019 by KnoxMSP because: (no reason given)



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

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trump University. Definitely not guilty there, so why not lie to yourself to justify supporting a liar? Both lies just cancel each other out, right? 😂



No court found Trump guilty of anything relating to Trump University.


But Trump entered settlement talks days after the 2016 election, agreeing to pay the millions under terms that let him admit no wrongdoing.


It seems it may be you who is lying... or just not clear on what innocent until proven guilty actually means.

edit on 11/10/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit




It's Called " Due Process " .

What does due process have to do with the issuance of subpoenas?



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




Got a link to where Schiff and Nunes sat down and Nunes decided "Let's Do This!"
It doesn't say "agreement", does it?

Do you think Shiff agreed with the subpoenas that Nunes issued?


edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari




Got a link to where Schiff and Nunes sat down and Nunes decided "Let's Do This!"
It doesn't say "agreement", does it?

Do you think Shiff agreed with the subpoenas that Nunes issued?



So why no action? If they have him dead to rights, like others like to say, then why hasn't an official impeachment began, and subpoenas flying all over Washington?
edit on 11-10-2019 by KnoxMSP because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join