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.

 

So How Goes The Impeachment Inquiry?

page: 12
48
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



Extorting Foreign Countries for help in domestic political campaigns is not foreign policy.

says who?
is it now illegal for trump to pressure mexico to stop illegals from crossing the southern border?
cause he did that
what about the trade discussions with china?

lol
none of diplomacy depends on anyones opinion but the potus

some day you will understand that




Presidential Abuse of Power is exploiting the Office of President for personal gain at the expense of the Interests of the United States.

The U.S. Congress appropriated Military Aid for Ukraine, who is currently invaded and occupied by the Russian Government. The Pentagon approved those funds. President Trump withheld that money for Personal gain.

Securing the US Border with Mexico is in the U.S. interests.
A favorable Trade deal with China is in the U.S. interests.
Ukraine being able to defend itself from Russian invasion is in U.S. interests.

With Ukraine Trump refused to execute on US Interests despite Congress and every other branch of government's will in order to achieve a personal gain.

A better analogy would be for Trump to NOT secure the border with Mexico until border states pledged their electors to him in the coming Presidential election.

Or for Trump NOT to sign a trade deal with China that would favor U.S. Companies until those companies donated funds to his re-election campaign.
edit on 30-10-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



Presidential Abuse of Power is exploiting the Office of President for personal gain at the expense of the Interests of the United States.

ok
how has he gained?
i will wait.....



The U.S. Congress appropriated Military Aid for Ukraine, who is currently invaded and occupied by the Russian Government. The Pentagon approved those funds. President Trump withheld that money for Personal gain.

is the free press from the non existent impeachment inquiry gain?

also
is the cic not allowed to review pentagon spending?
i was under the impression they were



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



Presidential Abuse of Power is exploiting the Office of President for personal gain at the expense of the Interests of the United States.

ok
how has he gained?
i will wait.....


Being successful is not a pre-requisite for a crime to have occurred.

That is not a complex concept.

No police officer ever arrested a bank robber and then set him free once he handed over the money.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump’s call with Ukraine president manifests criminal and impeachable behavior
www.foxnews.com...



Federal law defines as criminal the solicitation of aid – anything of value – for a political campaign from a foreign national or foreign government, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

Federal law also prohibits bribery and attempted bribery, which is defined as withholding the performance of an official duty conditioned upon the personal receipt of a thing of value, whether the thing of value arrives or not.

edit on 30-10-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris
but what about your "gain"
your repeated quote says nothing to support your abuse of power claim?

also what you are citing usually results in a fine
will you be impeaching for a parking ticket next?



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

Is elimination of a potential president that withheld foreign aid until a federal level prosecutor of another country was fired not in the national interest?

If a quid pro quo is a legitimate basis for impeachment then shouldn’t these same people be revoking Biden’s eligibility to continue to run for President for the exact same thing with larger numbers and a more personal benefit while Vice President?

Can’t claim the moral high ground while being guilty as sin.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

also
is the cic not allowed to review pentagon spending?
i was under the impression they were



Sure. That review involves the OMB and Pentagon.

The Pentagon has said they twice approved the funds and were frustrated and clueless as to why it was held up.

The OMB said they also did not know why it was held up. The OMB official that signed off on the hold has refused to testify and the OMB and WH have refused all subpoenas for any documentation or testimony that might prove this was a legitimate review.

In contrast, there are multiple State and WH officials that have now testified very clearly as to why the funds were withheld.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris
so then you are just in disagreement with how the cic is conducting his business?
the pentagon does not get to question the cic do they?

what is a "legitimate" review?

is corruption not a legitimate reason?

seems to me this is more "opinion" on how potus gets to do his job.

will you impeach on opinion alone?



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

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Extorris

Is elimination of a potential president that withheld foreign aid until a federal level prosecutor of another country was fired not in the national interest?


Biden was not with-holding aid for personal gain, he was with-holding aid on behalf of the US Government, plus UN, Plus IMF, plus EU, plus the Ukrainian people themselves who were protesting for the Corrupt Prosecutors removal.




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



Biden was not with-holding aid for personal gain

are you actually selling that hunter is not his son now?
lol
mkay

have a good day



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
so then you are just in disagreement with how the cic is conducting his business?


Correct. Impeachment precisely affords the US Congress a remedy when they disagree with how a President, immune from prosecution, "conducts his business".

An easy standard to apply is whether the activity would otherwise be prosecuted if it were not the President.

Any congressperson that tasked personal inter-mediators outside of government to meet with Ukrainians and demand assistance with their domestic political campaign before releasing Military Aid appropriated by congress would be immediately indicted for extortion and a bevy of other charges.

A POTUS above the law was never the intent of the Founding Fathers and impeachment is not only the remedy, but a constitutional duty.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



Securing the US Border with Mexico is in the U.S. interests.
A favorable Trade deal with China is in the U.S. interests.

your opinion
the president is elected to DETERMINE what the us interests are

that is the sticking point it seems

sorry you dont like trump
just because you dont like him doesnt mean he doesnt get the same potus power as barak



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris
a difference of opinion was not meant to trigger impeachment
nice try
a crime triggers impeachment, that is why it is described as such




An easy standard to apply is whether the activity would otherwise be prosecuted if it were not the President.

simply incorrect
one does not prosecute a difference of opinion




A POTUS above the law was never the intent of the Founding Fathers and impeachment is not only the remedy, but a constitutional duty.

this was EXACTLY what the founders in visioned
conducting diplomacy may entail breaking the law
conducting war may entail breaking the law
simply stated the president has powers the regular citizen does not have
having a difference of opinion on how he uses those powers does not mean he commited treason bribery high crimes or misdomeanors




Any congressperson that tasked personal inter-mediators outside of government to meet with Ukrainians and demand assistance with their domestic political campaign before releasing Military Aid appropriated by congress would be immediately indicted for extortion and a bevy of other charges.

the president is not a congress person
sorry
bs comparison



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

it's a waste of time because Dems would never impeach Trump they don't want anyone else to cross examine their partisian plants. They just want to run the kangaroo court until the election is over and hope and pray they can drag down Trump's poll numbers.

But they won't Americans are not stupid, it will backfire. Either way they lose, so at least they are trying something, but I think this circus will only make them lose more not less.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



Securing the US Border with Mexico is in the U.S. interests.
A favorable Trade deal with China is in the U.S. interests.

your opinion
the president is elected to DETERMINE what the us interests are

that is the sticking point it seems


You seem to believe a President is a King. A President does not DETERMINE what is in the U.S. Interests, the people of the United States do and a U.S. President works as an agent on their behalf.

When he instead prioritizes his own gain over U.S. interests the People's Representatives have a constitutional duty to intercede.




sorry you dont like trump
just because you dont like him doesnt mean he doesnt get the same potus power as barak



Pres. Obama was subject to the same constitution that the current POTUS is.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
a difference of opinion was not meant to trigger impeachment
nice try
a crime triggers impeachment, that is why it is described as such



No "crime" is necessary for impeachment because a President is not subject to Criminal Prosecution.

Thus your description of a "disagreement" on how the President "Conducts Business".

The "Business" of a President is unique in that it is not subject to criminal prosecution.
The President's attorneys literally made the case last week that he could shoot someone in the street and would not be subject to criminal prosecution as long as he was President.

In that context a disagreement on how a President "Conducts Business", an activity immune to criminal prosecution, is exactly what Impeachment is designed for.

You don't seem to be engaged in rational debate.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



A President does not DETERMINE what is in the U.S. Interests, the people of the United States do and a U.S. President works as an agent on their behalf.

yep
he was elected
he gets to set foreign policy
or do you now disagree with the constitution an how powers are separated?

the bureaucrats have no place in setting policy
they just are angry potus is enforcing such

another reference to "gain" without showing such....




Pres. Obama was subject to the same constitution that the current POTUS is.

yep
and no bs investigations
and no bs impeachment activities

yet



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



No "crime" is necessary for impeachment because a President is not subject to Criminal Prosecution.

yep
and this is EXACTLY why the house dems refuse to take a full house vote
the constitution outlines treason bribery high crimes and misdemeanors as reasons for impeachment
even us lowly citizens understand ALL involve crimes and none of which congress has shown the president to be involved with

so go ahead
attempt impeachment without the actions described in the constitution
see how that works our for you



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



No "crime" is necessary for impeachment because a President is not subject to Criminal Prosecution.

yep
and this is EXACTLY why the house dems refuse to take a full house vote
the constitution outlines treason bribery high crimes and misdemeanors as reasons for impeachment


The President has exceeded those requirements like none before him.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris
were that the case mueller and others would have recommended impeachment
not some mealy mouthed bs whistleblower

attempting to undo an election over accusations of something that is remedied with paying a fine is bs



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



Extorting Foreign Countries for help in domestic political campaigns is not foreign policy.

says who?
is it now illegal for trump to pressure mexico to stop illegals from crossing the southern border?
cause he did that
what about the trade discussions with china?

lol
none of diplomacy depends on anyones opinion but the potus

some day you will understand that




Presidential Abuse of Power is exploiting the Office of President for personal gain at the expense of the Interests of the United States.

The U.S. Congress appropriated Military Aid for Ukraine, who is currently invaded and occupied by the Russian Government. The Pentagon approved those funds. President Trump withheld that money for Personal gain.

Securing the US Border with Mexico is in the U.S. interests.
A favorable Trade deal with China is in the U.S. interests.
Ukraine being able to defend itself from Russian invasion is in U.S. interests.

With Ukraine Trump refused to execute on US Interests despite Congress and every other branch of government's will in order to achieve a personal gain.

A better analogy would be for Trump to NOT secure the border with Mexico until border states pledged their electors to him in the coming Presidential election.

Or for Trump NOT to sign a trade deal with China that would favor U.S. Companies until those companies donated funds to his re-election campaign.


What exactly is Trump "gaining"?

He donates his salary every paycheck.. and is a lock to win the election in 2020 (seriously, which DNC candidate has a real chance of beating him?)... He is already wealthy... not using his office to enrich himself like the Clintons or 0bamas... So... What exactly does the President have to gain out of this?



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join