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.

 

Impeachment Resolution ‘Loophole’ Allows Democrats to Reject White House Witnesses

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrats only want to hear witnesses that indict Trump.

They don't want to hear any evidence to the contrary.

Kangaroo Court.


Their supporters agree with their stance too.




posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrats only want to hear witnesses that indict Trump.

They don't want to hear any evidence to the contrary.

Kangaroo Court.


What evidence would that be? That Trump didn't make the phone call to Zelensky? That there wasn't a quid pro quo?

Trump stated it on national air. Mulvaney admited it on national air.

If that's impeachable, what possible evidence can there be to counter that?



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Does anybody really love Trump.


Not really.

His wife is a hawty.

But Donny Moscow does nothing for me.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

It's a 12 vote margin.

Thin.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What's wrong with Quid Pro Quo?

When Trump threatened to close the border to Mexico unless Mexico started policing it's borders, that was Quid Pro Quo and no-one batted an eye.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Does anybody really love Trump.


Not really.

His wife is a hawty.

But Donny Moscow does nothing for me.


You don't consider yourself a Trump supporter?

(I'm being serious, if I missed the humor, sorry.)



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Trump is not campaigning. The dEms are.

Biden is not his political rival, because Trump is not campaigning. The election cycle has not started.

So, he can ask any leader of any country to help with investigation anyone he wants to. At all.

So no impeachable offences have occurred at all.

Either way, Biden won’t be the nominee anyway.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

What's wrong with Quid Pro Quo?

When Trump threatened to close the border to Mexico unless Mexico started policing it's borders, that was Quid Pro Quo and no-one batted an eye.


I have continually said that was the weakest possible hook to hang impeachment on. I can't see that what the President did outstrips the considerable diplomatic latitude that the President is given in the Constitution.

However, perhaps there is more to it than we have seen? Also (and I know you don't agree) Mueller.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Please.

Please bring Mueller into it.

I've had a day, I need a laff.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
Trump is not campaigning. The dEms are.

Biden is not his political rival, because Trump is not campaigning. The election cycle has not started.

So, he can ask any leader of any country to help with investigation anyone he wants to. At all.

So no impeachable offences have occurred at all.

Either way, Biden won’t be the nominee anyway.


Really?



President Donald Trump greets supporters at the rally kicking off his re-election bid in Orlando, Florida, on June 18, 2019




Source
edit on 31-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Please.

Please bring Mueller into it.

I've had a day, I need a laff.


Would have done it in June if it were up to me.




posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes

Really



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrats didn't roll over and die for the Republicans. Big deal. Republicans do exactly the same thing to Democrats when they are in the majority. Stop whining about it.




Way to go champ.
edit on 31-10-2019 by network dude because: wrong video



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes

Really


Look again.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deplorable

originally posted by: CynConcepts
discover the truth before escalating a case to the Senate for trial?

Mitch McConnell would simply say, "Innocent until proven guilty. There's no proof, so he's not guilty. President Trump is declared innocent."

What would that take? 13 seconds?


So you're in favor of trampling the Constitution then?

The Chief Justice will be presiding. Mitch won't be able to say boo without permission.


Perhaps if you want to bring the Constitution into the argument you might want to understand it first.

Impeachment powers were given to the House first in the Constitution so that the House of Representatives (key word:Represent) could first determine if there was an offense that rose to the level of impeachment.

It was given to the House so that the Representatives of ALL citizens (including people who represented citizens who actually voted for the current President) could determine that.

By Democrats essentially running the impeachment process then it does not represent the full House, thus disenfranchising half of the citizenry.

But keep on thinking this is a "legitimate" inquiry.

You are in the minority in thinking that.

Which doesn't exactly win Presidential elections.




posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Has the presidential election cycle begun?

No. It hasn’t.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Democrats only want to hear witnesses that indict Trump.

They don't want to hear any evidence to the contrary.

Kangaroo Court.


What evidence would that be? That Trump didn't make the phone call to Zelensky? That there wasn't a quid pro quo?

Trump stated it on national air. Mulvaney admited it on national air.

If that's impeachable, what possible evidence can there be to counter that?


Yeah sure, whatever you say.


Evidence such as this -



A top White House adviser on the National Security Council testified Thursday to the House impeachment inquiry that he didn’t believe “anything illegal was discussed” during President Trump's July 25 call with Ukraine’s president, even as he confirmed details about Trump's efforts to push Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

Tim Morrison -- who handled Russian and European affairs for the NSC -- was listening in on the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky from the White House Situation Room, he acknowledged Thursday.

But Morrison, in an opening statement reviewed by Fox News, said: “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.”


Pretty much contradicts what the “Coached by the Dems” witnesses have been saying



"Mr. Morrison's testimony is very damaging to the Democrat narrative," said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C. "They've all of a sudden gotten quiet today because this particular witness is very credible and has given evidence that suggests some of the other witnesses have been less than candid."



www.foxnews.com...



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: Gryphon66

Has the presidential election cycle begun?

No. It hasn’t.


The photo is from Trump's kick-off rally in June 2019.

Don't be obtuse. You're wrong.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deplorable

originally posted by: CynConcepts
discover the truth before escalating a case to the Senate for trial?

Mitch McConnell would simply say, "Innocent until proven guilty. There's no proof, so he's not guilty. President Trump is declared innocent."

What would that take? 13 seconds?


So you're in favor of trampling the Constitution then?

The Chief Justice will be presiding. Mitch won't be able to say boo without permission.


Hm. How exactly would this be trampling the Constitution? The rules say the Senate can determine how they want to handle the process without interference from anyone else.


Does the Constitution say that? Or does it say there will be a trial on the Senate when Impeachment is delivered administered by the Chief Justice?

I'll be glad to link it for you.


Stop deflecting and being patronizing. The House and the Senate set their own rules for the process. The Constitution is extremely vague about how it will happen, just that it will happen.


Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


Link


There is no set procedure for the trial. How it is conducted would be set by the Senate leadership.

Link

You might be a little less arrogant and a little more open to listening to others. It is refreshing to hear both sides to make sure you get to the truth.



posted on Oct, 31 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Please.

Please bring Mueller into it.

I've had a day, I need a laff.


Would have done it in June if it were up to me.



Collusion, obstruction of justice, quid pr quo, bad hair piece, two scoops, bigly.




top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join