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: 7
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

That's the problem with knee-jerk reactions and merely repeating talking points.

I am not in favor of abolishing the EC and

California currently has 18 times the power in the EC that a State like Wyoming has... It's not in any way an equitable balance for the smaller States. That's a lie that has become a chant.




posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

That's an interesting question but it has little to do with my argument. The claim that I countered was that if the Coastal Liberal States were in charge the economy would suffer, when in actuality pick a State that's poor and it's probably dark Red.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

That's the problem with knee-jerk reactions and merely repeating talking points.

I am not in favor of abolishing the EC and

California currently has 18 times the power in the EC that a State like Wyoming has... It's not in any way an equitable balance for the smaller States. That's a lie that has become a chant.


I don't care if cali has a multi-billion dollar whatever. I don't care whatever stats you want to keep quoting.

They. Make. No. Difference.

The. Electoral. College. Isn't. Going. Away. So. Whatever. Stats. You. State. Are. Meaningless. And. For. No. real. Purpose. Other. Than. Petty. Arguing.

Later, and anyone who continues to engage in this meaningless garbage, you are performing an exercise in futility. It goes, no where.

Fred..



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: fredrodgers1960

Read my post and get back to me.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The PROBLEM with the current implementation of the EC is that because of the stranglehold of the two-party system, the voters in each state that isn't proportional are basically disenfranchised by the winner take all system.

Each STATE is represented equally in the SENATE, which is the reason why so many aspects of governance requires the consent of the Senate most importantly ALL legislation.

Think about it.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The winner take all system is a blight. I don't know why or when it was implemented, but it is certainly bullsh!t that should be changed.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   
You should ask the 30,000 people at the world series game last night. I heard Trump wouldn't throw the first pitch because his man boobs would jiggle.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The EC is fine. California, NY, and Texas all need split into smaller states. Each with their own EC votes. Maybe Illinois as well.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


We were discussing abuse of Congressional power by the Republican House.

And that is the problem... that is what makes this partisan. Were we to be discussing abuse of Congressional power by the House, that could be a topic worthy of discussion. In the same vein, had the investigation by Mueller been into Russian interference in the 2016 election, it would have been much more legitimate... but it was not. It was concerning Russian interference in the 2016 election by the Trump campaign, and any other actions that might be uncovered. That is an improper investigation because it seeks not to solve a crime, but to implicate an individual.


Congresswoman/Congressman usually refers to a Representative; Clinton was a Senator.

The Congress of the United States is divided into two Houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate is a part of Congress. I will not be held liable for the inability of others to understand that.

I specifically used the word "Congressman" because at that moment I was not completely sure if she was a Senator or a Representative. I thought she was a Senator, but rather than chance being incorrect (and unwilling to spend time and energy to look up such a minor point), I covered both Houses of Congress.


If the matter with Clinton was about criminal activity, she should have been indicted. If not during the Obama Administration then under Trump. She wasn't and hasn't been. Why not?

You know the answer to that as well as I do: her investigators did not wish to commit suicide. However, that same excuse could also be used to exonerate Trump. He isn't in jail, so he is innocent of all charges. Or does that only apply to Democrats?


Donald Trump has committed multiple crimes in plain sight from violations of the Campaign Finance laws, to the Emoulments Clause to obstruction of justice not to mention varous cover-ups along the way.

Crimes which apparently are only crimes for him. According to the FEC, he has committed no campaign finance violations; the Emoluments Clause concerns gifts, not fair commerce; there have been no legitimate allegations of Obstruction of Justice, only allegations without evidence.


I do not see lies every time he speaks; I see lies when he lies which is a lot and well-documented.

Only documented by those who have twisted meanings in order to declare a simple statement as a "lie." For example, "Mexico will pay for the wall." I understood clearly that he was not talking about the President of Mexico cutting a check to the US... he was talking about the wall saving us more than it cost at the expense of Mexico.

A lie is not a lie when it exists only in one's biased interpretation.


Moving on.

That's a good thing. We do not change the rules to suit the ones who we want to win in the United States of America. Again, you seem to be thinking of Russia.


You know that the Senate terms of office are staggered by one-third every election year and even so, the Republicans majority is a very narrow three votes; ask again in 2020.

Oh, I will; don't fret yourself.


Obstructing justice IS the crime!

Obstructing justice cannot be a primary crime. There must be justice to obstruct.

If someone accuses me of robbing a bank and I proclaim my innocence, hire a lawyer, tell the investigators over and over that I am innocent, file legal actions when I see an investigator using improper and unfair investigative practices, that does NOT make me guilty of obstructing anything, certainly not "justice!" Maybe you would have better luck calling it what it is: obstructing a kangaroo court.


Clinton obstructed justice. In my opinion, so has Trump.

Yes, Clinton obstructed justice. A little. Nowhere near what I expect to be qualifications for impeachment.

I have yet to see Trump obstruct anything. In the present case, he released the entire transcript of the call before it was demanded. He complied with the investigations until they showed themselves to be improper. He has demanded as a condition for future compliance only a fair and equitable legal process... including a House vote to make the inquiry official.

Your opinion is not law; neither is mine. Law is the violation of a US Statute (or local statute, but we are discussing Federal law here). If it ain't written in that statute as illegal, it ain't illegal!

You seem to be thinking of Russia again.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Those same deep red poor states also had singular investments in a popular industry at one time. Cotton for some, mining for others, let’s not forget pre dust bowl grain farming. Lighter red states had more diversity in their economies. And while CA and NY do well in film and investments as a diversity, there isn’t room for much of their population in those fields for providing jobs.

Chicago and Detroit are special cases of the transition from agriculture to industry/manufacturing that goes back to Reconstruction Era Post Civil War on up to the Dust Bowl and Great Depression, to finally the post WW2 Boon for rebuilding Europe with the only unbombed factories left after the war. Of course the post war boon was already flailing by 1964 when Johnson proposed a return of New Deal Socialism as The Great Society, commonly referred to as the Welfare State by critics.

As much as today’s nonsense stems from to outrage of Nixon resigning ahead of Impeachment, thus Democrats missing out on their pound of flesh, it is still the fight against socialism and (by association) communism here in the US. This fight will continue on under every Republican President until they finally get one. But at what cost? Will they kill the DNC in the process just to get one due to revenge filled shortsightedness?

Magic 8 Ball says Yes, without a doubt.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gryphon66

The PROBLEM with the current implementation of the EC is that because of the stranglehold of the two-party system, the voters in each state that isn't proportional are basically disenfranchised by the winner take all system.

Each STATE is represented equally in the SENATE, which is the reason why so many aspects of governance requires the consent of the Senate most importantly ALL legislation.

Think about it.


Ok, thought about it.

Electoral college has nothing to do with impeachment.

Did yall see Schiff this morning blowing a gasket and claiming "Trump is guilty" cause another person didnt show up to drunk Nancy's "inquiry"....

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The EC is fine. California, NY, and Texas all need split into smaller states. Each with their own EC votes. Maybe Illinois as well.


Making the EC votes awarded proportional to the popular vote in the State would achieve the same end.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You are incorrect. There is no requirement for a vote to begin impeachment investigations.

You are incorrect, as has been proven in my thread on this very question. Your inability to refute anything with anything other than 'liar liar' is on display for all to see.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




The impeachment inquiry is proceeding, it was just acknowledged by a Federal court and provided with grist for the mill.


Why does a power granted to a house of Congress need to be 'acknowledged' by a federal court?


What a nothing burger.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Okay that's some very elegant gish galloping there Redneck, well done. My first quote there regarded the alleged inequitable situation on the Intelligence Committee due to Schiff being able to issue subpoenas on his own. That is a DIRECT result of the abuse of Congressional Power by the House Republicans in 2015 particularly Trey Gowdy.

The evidence at hand that sparked the Mueller appointment was, however, information on collusion between the Trump CAMPAIGN (not just Trump himself) and agents of the Russian governement that was sourced multiple vectors not "just the Steele dossier" as so often gets bandied about. And sure enough, it turns out that Mueller got multiple indictments and convictions from the investitgation both of Trump Campaign members and Russian agents in issues that arose from Mueller's work and proved conclusively that Russia did indeed meddle in our election.

As far as the comparison to the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS paid Steele for his work, and then sold that to the law firm that then sold it to the Clinton Campaign. That's just another example of the fine traditions of "plausible deniability" in American politics but it's not techically illegal. No, I don't like it because in spirit at least, it's the same damn thing that Trump and Co. were accused of. The Dems are just more sneaky.

LOL ... you're being a bit specious there Redneck. You know at least that I know what the structure of the Congress is as well as you know that we have commonly referred to Senators and Congressmen. Had you described Clinton as "a Member of Congress" you would have been correct, however, in any common reference in American English what you said was technically incorrect or at least uncommon usage. No need to be defensive, really.

OH MY GOD REALLY??? LOL. SO the reason the Trump Admin hasn't "locked her up" is because they feared SUICIDE? Thank you Redneck, I needed that laugh.

Trump isn't in jail because he is (currently) the President of the United States, and you know as well as I do that DOJ policies are the only thing standing between him and an orange jump suit (see, I can do hyperbole too!) Seriously though, even with multiple scenarios of obstruction of justice played out on Twitter and the news cycle, Trump is safe because of the DOJ.

At the moment.

IF you think I depend on the "Top 10000 Lies from Trump" in the corporate media to reach my own conclusions, you've gone squirrelly all of a sudden. The fact that you can take Trump's spurious claim (at best) about Mexico paying for The Wall and spin that straw into the gold you offered ... tells me plainly just how deeply you're suffering from cultural programming. And that saddens me considerably. Moving on.

There must be justice to obstruct? LOL. You mean like firing the FBI Director that wouldn't drop the investigation you don't like? Riiight. Using the President's bully pulpit every day to continually attempt to discredit and lie about the Mueller Investigation? That kind of justice?



ob·​struc·​tion of justice | əb-ˈstrək-shən- Legal Definition of obstruction of justice : the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process


Source

LOL ... yeah 2020's going to be a hoot, eh? I wish T&C let us take bets, but it doesn't. See you then.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66




The impeachment inquiry is proceeding, it was just acknowledged by a Federal court and provided with grist for the mill.


Why does a power granted to a house of Congress need to be 'acknowledged' by a federal court?


What a nothing burger.


In this case, to release information from the grand juries involved. Keep up.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You are incorrect. There is no requirement for a vote to begin impeachment investigations.

You are incorrect, as has been proven in my thread on this very question. Your inability to refute anything with anything other than 'liar liar' is on display for all to see.


The only thing you've proven in any thread you and I have had any interaction in is that you're convinced of your own dubious abilities.

Everything I've claimed has been fully substantiated by primary and secondary sources. You're only source is ... well ... you.

LOL.



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing you've proven in any thread you and I have had any interaction in is that you're convinced of your own dubious abilities.

Everything I've claimed has been fully substantiated by primary and secondary sources. You're only source is ... well ... you.

As I said... liar liar...



posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

And THAT is why I bothered to come into the Mud Pit to read your thread. LOL. That was worth it!

So ... following your theory, why didn't the Democrats impeach Reagan or Bush I? If they're only after a Republican Presidential Heart, so to speak?

And who's fighting Communism again (still)? The Democrats? Wow, I would love to see that argument.




posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing you've proven in any thread you and I have had any interaction in is that you're convinced of your own dubious abilities.

Everything I've claimed has been fully substantiated by primary and secondary sources. You're only source is ... well ... you.

As I said... liar liar...


Yep, you're the only one who uses that phrase, so apparently it fits you.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join