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.

 

The testimony today by Vindman was meaningless

page: 2
30
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage




Asking foreign assistance for help in a domestic election. It was made very clear that such behavior is against the law during the Russian debacle, so he can't feign ignorance with his Ukraine call, or with openly asking China for help investigating Biden out on the WH lawn.

But it was ok for Hillary Clinton to ask for the same?




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And if that's illegal, then the democrats are in trouble because the dossier is from a British national.


I wish that were true, but the issue there is that the dossier was solicited by an American conservative think tank to beat Trump in the nomination process, and only later passed on to democrats by that American think tank/PAC, so unfortunately an illegal direct connection gets lost and diluted. The think tank/PAC wasn't running for office, and the dems were gifted it by American conservatives.
edit on 10/30/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ChefFox

I wish she did so they would have something solid to nail her on, but she didn't.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: DBCowboy
And if that's illegal, then the democrats are in trouble because the dossier is from a British national.


I wish that were true, but the issue there is that the dossier was solicited by an American conservative think tank to beat Trump in the nomination process, and only later passed on to democrats by that American think tank, so unfortunately an illegal direct connection gets lost and diluted. The think tank wasn't running for office, and the dems were gifted it by American conservatives.



No.

Hillary paid for it through her lawyers.

If this is illegal, then the rule of law is not being applied equally, which is a much larger problem than just a hatred of Trump.

In my opinion.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You're confusing British National with British Government.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Hillary paid for it through her lawyers.


She paid a conservative American PAC/think tank for the dossier that they tried to use against Trump in the Republican nomination process. She didn't solicit foreign nationals for it.
edit on 10/30/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT


No, he's confusing an American conservative PAC/think tank with a foreign entity.

The dossier was solicited by American conservatives to use against Trump in the Republican primaries, and only later, after they failed and Trump won the primaries, was it sold off to Dems by that American conservative group.

Basically, the conservative PAC/think tank gets away with it because it wasn't Jeb or his campaign doing it, and Hillary gets away with it because she got it from an American source. One more reason PACs and SuperPACs should be done away with.
edit on 10/30/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Hillary paid for it through her lawyers.


She paid a conservative American PAC/think tank for the dossier that they tried to use against Trump in the Republican nomination process. She didn't solicit foreign nationals for it.


Let me ask you something.

Will the democrats benefit in the 2020 election if they impeach Trump?



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not Nostradamus.

I can't see the future.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not Nostradamus.

I can't see the future.



So you don't see the democrats benefitting from eliminating Trump?

Or are you afraid to answer?

See, Trump is being accused of benefitting because he is investigating a possible crime.

Yet democrats have no problem benefitting when they are investigating a possible crime.

And you don't see the dichotomy here?



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So you don't see the democrats benefitting from eliminating Trump?

Or are you afraid to answer?


Not afraid at all, I simply don't know. Like I said, I'm not Nostradamus.

Furthermore, who said they're going to eliminate Trump at all? It could blow up in their face like the Clinton impeachment did for Republicans (impeached but not eliminated), or it could energize their voters for a grand turnout.

You're asking for a prediction that could easily go either way.
edit on 10/30/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not Nostradamus.

I can't see the future.

...or facts either.

Your opinion isn't facts, so your BS spin on the events is amusing and comical, exactly what this thread postulated, that who would question a War Hero and here you are, first post in, "He's a decorated war hero guys!!" Lol, easy feed for aspiring fool and exactly as predicted, thanks for not disappointing us.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

If you're going to use quotation marks, then you should at least be honest about it.

I never said anything about a "war hero", what I said was "military officer", and that's not an opinion. It's a fact. He is a military officer.

The only "BS spin" is your straw-man argument misquoting me to take a jab at something I never said.

If your dishonesty makes ya feel better and gives you a chuckle, then have at it. I'm sure your misquote and straw-man lie will earn you many stars around here.

edit on 10/30/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Oh you know what you meant, "Decorated Military Office", in other words, never question these guys, lmfao. It's the shame BS with the War Hero, like I said, SPIN.

Furthermore, he didn't have first hand knowledge, you're LYING.

When asked where wad the "Demand", he stumbled, thought for a bit and said, the entire call was. Pitiful.

You got nothing.
edit on 30-10-2019 by Arnie123 because: Heh



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

You make a lot of baseless assumptions.

It's fine and proper to question anyone, but the fact that he is a decorated military officer does lend credibility to his testimony.

You seem to be confusing credibility with infallibility.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that he did have first hand knowledge of the call, if you have evidence that such is not the case then I'd love to see it.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage




Asking foreign assistance for help in a domestic election.

That never occurred during the call.
What you are saying here is that if you are a candidate, you are free to break the law without worry of being investigated.




or with openly asking China for help investigating Biden out on the WH lawn.

If China has information pertaining to Joe/Hunter Biden's crimes, they should give it to us.
If they find you guilty of corruption in China, they execute you.... then they send your family a bill for the bullet used for the execution.
edit on b000000312019-10-30T09:26:24-05:0009America/ChicagoWed, 30 Oct 2019 09:26:24 -0500900000019 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
What you are saying here is that if you are a candidate, you are free to break the law without worry of being investigated.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. We have countless agencies whose job it is to investigate crimes. Our laws dictate that Trump needs to leave it to them. Basically, Trump needs to recuse himself from that process because his involvement is against the law when it comes to asking foreign entities to investigate political opponents due to a blatant conflict of interest.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
Moving the goalposts again.

Whistle blower testifies and it's all cries of "It's not first had knowledge so it means nothing!"

Decorated military officer with first hand knowledge comes forward and now it's cries of "It's just an opinion so it means nothing!"


First hand knowledge of a conversation that was transcribed and released by the POTUS where this decorated military officer said the transcript was correct. What did this decorated military officer have to add other than "he was concerned", LOL. The transcript was already released. Are you trying to tell us, that this decorated military officers recollection is better than the transcribed text done during the call?? Opinions are meaningless, lol



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage




Our laws dictate that Trump needs to leave it to them.

So the chief law enforcement officer in the United States doesn't have any say in enforcing our nation's laws?
Interesting.



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: panoz77

You should read the first paragraph of the first page of the "transcript".



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join