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.

 

Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Simple.

We voted for Trump because we knew what Hillary was like from past experience, and we knew where the Democrats were headed as a party. Trump, as unorthodox and unlikable as he is, was preferable to Democrats in power. Look at what you see in the House and you see the results. Look at how they handled things for the two years Obama had his Supermajority, and you see why. Look at how they run California and Illinois and New York ... Austin, TX, and you see why.

They haven't learned a damn thing about how to govern the country, and most of us would rather Trump than let them take us over and run us into the ground any more.

And looking at this crop of Democrat candidates and crap they're spewing, and you see why the House is so desperate to break all precedent and try this sham. None of these candidates are going to be appealing to anyone in the ballot box either. They're all left of Stalin and Mao.




posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just opinion....




BOB BARR: House democrats’ 21st Century Star Chamber


www.mdjonline.com...

Finally, in their public pronouncements, Democrats sound more like the Queen of Hearts in Alice’s Wonderland — calling for sentence first, then the trial — than they resemble public servants sworn to uphold the basic principles of due process, equal protection of the laws, and other norms of fair process for which our Founding Fathers declared the 13 colonies independent and separated from the British Crown. Free of that very same sovereign that subjected its citizens the corrupt and unaccountable Star Chamber proceedings.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Republican's #1 agenda is to do whatever it takes to keep Democrats out of office. Why now is it bad that Democrats join their own version of that quest?

Ummm, no, 'whatever it takes' is strictly a leftist mantra.

Sure, Rs want to keep as many Dems out as possible, but they aren't resorting to fake Russia fake Abuse of Power fake News etc to accomplish the goal, they simply point out the differences in policies...


I think some serious reflection is needed if you truly feel like this is all a one-sided thing......



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
"Again, that isn't how it works.

Either the House votes to initiate an inquiry, or it is a private investigation of a few rogue House members, nothing more.

And historical precedent says it should all be in the open."

Historical precedent says no such thing.

Really? Actual History says otherwise.
edit on 23-10-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   
all is not as it has been made out to be......

www.foxnews.com...



"In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy [acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill] Taylor's whole argument," McCarthy said.


seems some who were actually in the session have some doubts......



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr




The founding fathers wanted it to be public if a president was to be removed from office they wanted the people to make the decision.

Please quote the Article of the Constitution which specifies this.


Im not here to teach you history. If you are unfamiliar with the topic i suggest you start here.

The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis.

After reading that i suggest reading this

Constitutionalism, Conflict, and Consent: Jefferson on the Impeachment Power



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
I find it very strange the first whistle blower seems to have disappeared.


There must be some Fox News Conspiracy I am unaware of?

What makes you think that the original Whistle-blower has "disappeared"?

With the President's Chief of Staff confessing the Abuse of Power on National Television, Trump releasing the transcripts and now 2 of the 3 people tasked with the Shadow QPQ operation detailing it, the already investigated and confirmed WB Complaint seems less important.

It is like a robber who was caught red-handed inside someone's home stealing stuff complaining in court he wants to know the identity of the neighbor that called 911.

Very weird.



I figure Pelosi needs to call a vote.


The Constition trumps what you figure.



Many senators have already decided this is unfounded.


Before reviewing the full evidence? Interesting.


There is no reason for these proceedings to be hidden


Sure there is. Deposing witnesses behind closed doors prevents people from coordinating what lies they are going to tell.



The other thing i see happening is eventually they will have a republican speaker and a democrat president and the payback will occur. This is so dangerous and a game we shouldn't be playing.


Right. We might end up with a President getting impeached for not being faithful to his wife?

I think a US President using hundreds of millions of dollars in desperately needed Military Aid to extort a Foreign Country for personal gain is not "a game".



And my final wtf why are they interviewing anyone they have the call.


Because Trump has denied that he held up the Military Aid in order to get Ukraine to publicly announce they were investigating his Political Opponent.

Trump's Chief of Staff has contradicted this and said "it happens all the time" and "get over it".

Best to get the facts before impeaching a President.



Unless they come up with something the senate will just vote that nothing happened and move on.


Come up with something? Apart from Transcripts of the call and 2 of the 3 people Trump tasked with the shadow QPQ operation saying it was the Military Aid in trade for help with Trump's re-election Campaign, plus Trump's own Chief of Staff accidentally speaking the truth?

Either way, who cares how the Senate "Votes"?

The full evidence will be aired and history will record who voted to legitimize a US President using Military Aid Appropriated by congress to extort foreign countries for personal gain.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
all is not as it has been made out to be......

www.foxnews.com...



"In 90 seconds, we had John Ratcliffe destroy [acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill] Taylor's whole argument," McCarthy said.


seems some who were actually in the session have some doubts......



My favorite interview with McCarthy was when he was mindlessly defending Trump's phone call without even reading it.



PELLEY: What do you make of this exchange? President Zelensky says, “We are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.” And President Trump replies, “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

MCCARTHY: You just added another word.

PELLEY: No, it’s in the transcript.

MCCARTHY: He said- “I’d like you to do a favor though”?

PELLEY: Yes, it’s in the White House transcript.

www.cbsnews.com...

It is almost as funny as when McCarthy said Trump was working for the Russians

GOP Majority Leader last year: Trump is on Putin’s payroll
“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, "
www.reuters.com...



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: xuenchen
Have they published a full transcript of the Damning statements and testimonies ? 😎 🦚 😎


All transcripts, evidence, depositions etc. get released in full along with articles of impeachment if/when they are voted on and forwarded to the senate.

This is the investigative phase. Once indicted, the evidence is laid on the table for trial in the senate.


no this is a leak from schiff to make it look like the witness said something they didnt by twisting the context.


It is the written text of the opening statement of the witness.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris
so that somehow makes him not in the session yesterday?






posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

You are aware Ukraine didnt know the aid was being withheld do you. To prove intent here will be very difficult. With Ukraine having no knowledge of the aid being held they cant be forced to do anything.

Look i dont like Trump but bottom line is hes either the worst blackmailer in history or he didnt intend to hold it because he wanted an investigation. First rule of extortion make sure they know when you tell them what to do that they have no choice. They believed the aid was still coming because Trump sent them aid and even included arms sales. If you actually read the transcript Ukraines president is asking about buying missiles.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

Impeachment is a politcal process, no where in the constituion does it have LEGAL protections

it's not a LEGAL proceding, it's a political one

YOU can't have it both ways.

it's either a legal process or a political one.

if it's a legal process the defendant has the right to face his accuser (full stop)

if it is a political process, he does not.

you fell for the Schiff

Show, in the Constition, where it says the the impeachment is a legal process..


this is the "fake" part of this impeachment inquiry, the Democrats are haidnig behind Legal precedent (which does not apply) to a political process.

when the Republicans cry foul, the Democrats say "impeachment is what ever we say it is", when republicans want a more open process schifty schiff say "we have to keep it in the dark for legal reasons"

THATS THE BS RIGHT THERE.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dragonridr

Simple.

We voted for Trump because we knew what Hillary was like from past experience, and we knew where the Democrats were headed as a party. Trump, as unorthodox and unlikable as he is, was preferable to Democrats in power.


In other news, water is wet.

Yes, yes...Democrats evil, Hillary eats babies and Liberals think the same about GOP and Trump.

People vote against stuff as much as they do for stuff. Same as it ever was.

None of that excuses what is going on.

You could be entirely right that President Trump is better in policy than HRC would have been. It is irrelevant.

This is not a Policy question or even a political question, it is a constitutional question.

Do we the people want to endorse, defend and legitimize all US Presidents using the Power of the Office to extort foreign governments for personal gain? Not only inviting, but demanding at threat of withholding funds appropriated by congress, foreign countries interfere in domestic elections?

Just insane.

The constitution is not liberal or conservative.

The ends do not justify the means.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Extorris

Impeachment is a politcal process, no where in the constituion does it have LEGAL protections

it's not a LEGAL proceding, it's a political one

YOU can't have it both ways.



Where have I asked to have it both ways.

I would also suggest you give that more thought.

The constitution which empowers the house to conduct Impeachment proceedings and the Senate to conduct the trial is VERY MUCH a legal document.



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Extorris

You are aware Ukraine didnt know the aid was being withheld do you.


Factually incorrect. You should read Taylor's opening statement. He details specific people/names/meetings with Ukraine officials discussing the Aid being withheld.

Taylor was the US Ambassador to Ukraine selected and appointed by Trump and Pompeo.
edit on 23-10-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris
all 2nd and 3rd hand



hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/
noun
information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.


to bad he didn't document at any point speaking to the president

simply a disgruntled employee imo



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



Taylor was the US Ambassador to Ukraine selected and appointed by Trump and Pompeo.

oops
that is not true



posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



Taylor was the US Ambassador to Ukraine selected and appointed by Trump and Pompeo.

oops
that is not true


Thanks for the catch. I do appreciate accuracy.
He WAS US Ambassador to Ukraine (2006-2009),
but is CURRENTLY the "chargé d'affaires for Ukraine. (Diplomat who heads an Embassy in the Absence of the Ambassador)

He was asked to come back and fill the role by Pompeo in May of this year.




posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris
as he described in his written statement released yesterday





posted on Oct, 23 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Phage

So, when a crime is being investigated all testimony is public?




where any previous impeachment hearings done this way? If so, please cite the instance.



That sounds.. stupid.

You investigate and publish everything BEFORE the case is judged upon?
Every lawyer on Earth just had a chill up their spine...


this isn't a hard question. In fact, the answer is in most history books. See if you can muster up the brains to check into the answer, before you argue the basics of the question.




top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join