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.

 

Ex-National Security Council official testifying to Congress

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Oraculi

Why closed doors?? He said he would comply in an open and public hearings. So why the closed doors?? So they can just make up more he said she said and not cite a single piece of evidence??

I cannot wait for crow farm 2.0, I suspect much less of you all will be willing to dine on crow on the second pass around.


Same reason law enforcement keeps there investigation secret until they go to trial.

1) they may not find anything criminal but it could still be damaging.

2) so witnesses dont get influenced by reports or things others have said

3) So its harder for suspects to coordinate stories/evidence.

4) other people may be implicated (see also #1 for this one)

5) they may have insufficient evidence at this time but may reopen later if more evidence is found. So keeping what they do know under wraps may allow the finding of more information later, either through tips, new witnesses or the suspects slipping up.




posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The constitution guarantees the accused to face their accuser..this is in violation of that.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: tinner07

The sooner you learn that no one on ats really knows what they are talking about.
The less what people say here will bother you.


Yeah , I get you ^^^^^



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07



they should follow normal protocols
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

Normal protocol is for the President to release his taxes.... you all say he does not have to follow protocol... why change of heart now? why?




Protocol ?
I say voluntary .
And I would be correct.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

So why would Schiff kick out a colleague and member of the judicial committee today and prevent anyone not a part of his kangaroo court from witnessing the testimony? That was a member of the HoR too not some reporter...



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Pyle

So why would Schiff kick out a colleague and member of the judicial committee today and prevent anyone not a part of his kangaroo court from witnessing the testimony? That was a member of the HoR too not some reporter...


Are you talking about Rep Matt Gaetz who was not a member of the committees who were deposing a witness? Committees dont normally let non-members in to closed door sessions.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

So you think its proper to bar any member of the house from impeachment proceedings if they'd like to be present? He wasn't trying to have any active involvement just wanted to witness what went on. Do you think thats improper? He does have an obligation to serve his constituents and I would think being as well informed on such a proceeding would be important to his vote when the time comes.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

What are "impeachment proceedings" again? I could swear that the Intelligence Committee is dealing with a referral from the CIA IG.

It seems to me that the Intelligence Committee are following the Rules as set up by Republicans a few short years ago the letter.
edit on 14-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Behind Closed Doors.

In secret.

Pfff


Americans are starting to see how "dirty" Democrats in Congress are. No matter what the witnesses say, if Americans feel the process was not fair to both sides, they will not swing into the "Impeach Trump" column, like Pelosi, Schiff, Cummings, Nadler and Waters are attempting to achieve.
edit on 10/14/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Yet, Americans are swinging to the impeach column. More every day.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: carewemust

Yet, Americans are swinging to the impeach column. More every day.


I wouldn't believe that.. this impeachment 'farce' just like the 'russia collussion' farce and the ''Jnr Hotel Meeting'' farce or the ''Stormy Pay off'' farce or the ''steele dossier'' farce or the ''ukraine call'' farce and emboldening Trumps supporters.

The democrats refused Gaetz from sitting in today's deposition.

Schiff today said the Whistle Blowers testimony isnt important - that says it all right there.

this is another farce!



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Sadly, impeachment is not a farce this time. And of course, Russia did attempt massive interference in our 2016 election and the Trump campaign's fingerprints are all over it. Trump Junior did think he was getting dirt on Clinton from the Russians they just conned him due to his culpability, and Stormy Daniels was paid off regarding her affair with Trump.

These are facts, not farce.

The Uktraine call is not a farce, and Trump doubled down in public using his high Office to ask foreign powers to intervene in our electoral process. Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Calling known facts farce doesn't make it true.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Sadly, impeachment is not a farce this time.


wrong, this isn't even impeachment.

The Democrats have not held a vote for impeachment proceedings and are refusing to allow Republicans to be involved.
Under an impeachment Republicans are allowed to subpoena and question the same people the Democrats are. However, today Gaetz was refused this right.

its a farce - its the definition of a farce.

This whole thing started because of a whistle blower
Then it became Trumps ''quid pro quo'' phone call to Ukraine.
Then it turned out there was no quid quo pro
Then it turned out the whistle blower was Bidens staffer
Now Schiff says the whistle blower isn't important

Ukraines own President says the phone call was fine with no threats or quid quo pro.
The ONLY person saying it was a dodgy phone call are the Democrats who for the past 2yrs pushed the Russia farce.

jesus age mary and christ when are you guys going to wake up to reality - its embarrassing.





posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

No vote is necessary for "impeachment proceedings" and if it is, just show me where I find that in the Constitution (ETA, or the Rules of the House, or the Rules of the Intelligence Committee, or the Jefferson Manual or anything aside from media claptrap.)

Refusing to allow Republicans to be involved ... how so? Holding private testimony to insure that witnesses continue to be protected?

You have something against whistleblowers? Why, because the government is always rigth?

There was a quid pro quo; it's right there in Trump's heavily edited transcript.

No, the whistleblower was not Biden's staffer. The whistleblower has worked in the White House for years and has been previously associated with Biden.

What do you expect the Ukranian President to say sitting next to Trump in the White House? He got his trip to Washington and he got his military aid.

No, it seems to me that anyone who isn't a Trump zealot understands that the President attempted to use the power of his office for purely partisan reasons.

I'm fully awake friend. I don't agree with your claims becuase they're not even close to being factual. I don't know if that embarrasses you or not, but telling the truth doesn't embarrass me.
edit on 14-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Pyle

So you think its proper to bar any member of the house from impeachment proceedings if they'd like to be present? He wasn't trying to have any active involvement just wanted to witness what went on. Do you think thats improper? He does have an obligation to serve his constituents and I would think being as well informed on such a proceeding would be important to his vote when the time comes.


Its a closed door meeting, I dont think its improper to bar uninvited people. Had it been an open meeting of the committee I would have a problem with it.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Dont try to use reason with a unreasonable person. Just sit back and watch them Reeeeeeee.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
If they get trump in any jail in will walk hilery and say
" now you hang your self"



posted on Oct, 15 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Oraculi

I love how it is good news for ALL Americans only when liberals get their way.

When you start demanding investigations into Democrats let me know. I said from day 1 investigate Trump if you want, but investigate everyone not just Republicans.

When you start demanding everyone who lied to the FBI goes to jail let me know. I said it was a BS charge, but if that's what the law demands then treat everyone the same.

Until then you care about what is good for your cause, and nothing more.



posted on Oct, 15 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They have no power to override Executive privilege. Right now what we have is a fishing expedition, which should surprise no one because they say they are just going to find something, anything, to get Trump.

EVERY American should be terrified of the government having the ability to search for a crime to pin on someone.



posted on Oct, 15 2019 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




These are facts, not farce.

That is all farce and mostly you said the same CNN did. Its clear you believe whatever CNN says.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join