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 media and Dems defense of Bidens quid pro quo is absurd

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

(IMO) Adam Schiff had Alexander Vindman purchase that uniform for the "show" appearance before his committee that day.

In his capacity on the National Security Counsel staff, Vindman didn't wear a military uniform. Probably ate a lot of fast foods too.

Here is a photo of Vindman performing an official function in Ukraine: twitter.com...




posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

I don't know about all the BS in your post. But I do know the following statements were made:

Sullivan: "Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values"

A week later, Taylor was even more concerned, texting Sondland: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Vindman: "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine"

Vindman: "I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics"

This why we need people to testify under oath with threat of jail time for perjury. Maybe Trump is innocent. Or, maybe if enough people testify the truth will come out.

I don't understand why Republicans do not support the rule-of-law. Does only the rule-of-law apply to Democrats?


Vindman is an obese Soldier. Highest award is one no Soldier wants which is a Purple Heart. He can't be trusted period and I am a retired officer myself. I would have given him 3 months to get in shape and then discharged him out of the military with other than honorable. He is a disgrace to those who served wearing that fat body suit in public. I would say the same if he was testifying about Obama phone calls. Willing to bet his command sees him in that fat body suit and gives him a warning shot.


So did you find it odd that he showed up in full dress uniform to testify against his CIC? I wondered if that was even legal...

His uniform of the day was a suit where he worked.

I thought maybe the Democrats just dressed him up in an attempt to give more credibility to his testimony.

But what an out of shape toad, right?



It wasn't odd at all because he is (for a lack of a better term) a POS. He wore that uniform that didn't even fit to hijack the honorable people who serve and use it as a visual weapon. Didn't work on me.

Him being a COL, he should have had an award higher that a Purple Heart and no way his Command would have allowed him to wear that uniform to that hearing being that he was busting out of it. They would have told him to wear a suit.

It's fine though because he added nothing of value to the conversation other than others in the military laughing at him. I have gone on military boards with people making fun of his appearance worse than me.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

I don't know about all the BS in your post. But I do know the following statements were made:

Sullivan: "Soliciting investigations into a domestic political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values"

A week later, Taylor was even more concerned, texting Sondland: "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Vindman: "I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine"

Vindman: "I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics"

This why we need people to testify under oath with threat of jail time for perjury. Maybe Trump is innocent. Or, maybe if enough people testify the truth will come out.

I don't understand why Republicans do not support the rule-of-law. Does only the rule-of-law apply to Democrats?


Vindman is an obese Soldier. Highest award is one no Soldier wants which is a Purple Heart. He can't be trusted period and I am a retired officer myself. I would have given him 3 months to get in shape and then discharged him out of the military with other than honorable. He is a disgrace to those who served wearing that fat body suit in public. I would say the same if he was testifying about Obama phone calls. Willing to bet his command sees him in that fat body suit and gives him a warning shot.


So did you find it odd that he showed up in full dress uniform to testify against his CIC? I wondered if that was even legal...

His uniform of the day was a suit where he worked.

I thought maybe the Democrats just dressed him up in an attempt to give more credibility to his testimony.

But what an out of shape toad, right?



It wasn't odd at all because he is (for a lack of a better term) a POS. He wore that uniform that didn't even fit to hijack the honorable people who serve and use it as a visual weapon. Didn't work on me.

Him being a COL, he should have had an award higher that a Purple Heart and no way his Command would have allowed him to wear that uniform to that hearing being that he was busting out of it. They would have told him to wear a suit.

It's fine though because he added nothing of value to the conversation other than others in the military laughing at him. I have gone on military boards with people making fun of his appearance worse than me.


I am getting the same reaction from my military brothers and sisters.

It was embarrassing to us.

Especially from a fat field officer with... a purple heart as his highest commendation.

Seriously?




posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You started off strong with points 1-6 but then went way into left field with points 12+, entirely conjecture and not rooted in actual facts or presented evidence.

I'm not gonna sit here for an hour and refute all 20 something points you've tried to present because it's just a waste of time and, honestly, not worth the effort. Maybe I'll get, like, 5 stars for it, but ATS is Trumps-ville and you're not going to honestly listen.

Hell, we've already started devolving into calling a decorated war veteran an 'obese piece of #.' I'm sure we can go lower! Let's start going after his family next!!!



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

You got it. Would love to see this guy court martialed.

His testimony amounted to "I was worried the President's actions were going to jeopardize U.S./Ukraine relations".

This arrogant f**k thinks he, and his NSC colleagues, drive foreign policy!

I've also got my money on him being the one responsible for leaking classified info to Ciaramella.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Grambler

You started off strong with points 1-6 but then went way into left field with points 12+, entirely conjecture and not rooted in actual facts or presented evidence.

I'm not gonna sit here for an hour and refute all 20 something points you've tried to present because it's just a waste of time and, honestly, not worth the effort. Maybe I'll get, like, 5 stars for it, but ATS is Trumps-ville and you're not going to honestly listen.

Hell, we've already started devolving into calling a decorated war veteran an 'obese piece of #.' I'm sure we can go lower! Let's start going after his family next!!!


On your last line because all the rest of your post isn't worthy of a response...

1./ Since when did the left ever give a sh!t about the military?

2./ He's a POS. A military officer that literally isn't fit for duty. He's useless and should be thrown out.

3./ Of course nobody is going to go after his family. We're not the left, after all...


edit on 5-11-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: dfnj2015


I don't understand why Republicans do not support the rule-of-law. Does only the rule-of-law apply to Democrats?


Lol.
Funniest quote of the day.
Do some more like this and you may just break the internet.
All bad people need to see jail time.

P
I think the funniest is holding the two simultaneous positions

"Investigating Biden is illegal and impeachable" and "If bidens guilty show me the evidence of it!"

Great stuff


I never said, "Investigating Biden is illegal and impeachable". I said if you have evidence then indict the mother effer!

Otherwise, everything you've posted is nothing but meaningless mud-slinging drivel. It makes you feel good. But it's nothing but right wing delusional nonsense.



That's all utterly rediculous, like all of your other posts are. Just deny everything, operating in the exact same way as all democrats behave. It isn't even partisan to say that, it's purely observational of the behavior you and they render constantly. It's your own personal meme.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
On your last line because all the rest of your post isn't worthy of a response...

1./ Since when did the left ever give a sh!t about the military?


I mean...I served in the military so I kinda do?


2./ He's a POS. A military officer that literally isn't fit for duty. He's useless and should be thrown out.


I don't know the guy but I'd figure anyone chosen to serve on the NSC isn't 'useless.'


3./ Of course nobody is going to go after his family...


...yet.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Not for your "Rule of Law" Party.
H.Res.604

I think we all know how that went, don't we? So lying to Congress is an unpunished crime as long as you are in the "Rule of Law" Party.

Back to the point you keep bring up about throwing people I jail. Investigations have to be made, evidence has to be legally obtained, and a trail must be conducted before anyone can be thrown in to jail. It's this funny thing we have called "Due Process". It's a Constitutional right guaranteed and stated in the Bill of Rights. I know it must be great to live in that Stalinist mind of yours, but we in America seem to like following the law.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:20 PM
link   
“You must present evidence without ever investigating”

DERP



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: elDooberino

Adam Schiff told all the witnesses he colluded with that the whistle-blower's complaint would be based on the (fake) call transcript that Schiff read to Congress and the Public on live TV last month.

Schiff wrongly assumed that President Trump was a typical President. One who wouldn't dare make a top-secret conversation like that public.

The above scenario is the only way to explain why all Democrats and the Liberal Media are REACTING as if Adam Schiff's fabricated lies are what President Trump actually said.

People who are not in on that scam, read the Trump-Zelensky call transcript and wonder, "What the hell are these Democrats and MSM smoking??"

President Zelensky himself says that there was no Quid-quo-pro between he and Trump.

Yet the Democrats and media keep acting as if Schiff's fabrication is actually what was said....and Trump should be impeached, as a result.

As President Trump correctly stated during last night's rally: "THESE PEOPLE ARE CRAZY!"

(Irony: Democrats are helping President Trump's re-election efforts, but are sacrificing their own re-elections in the process.)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak

It's no different than; "You have to vote for the bill in order to know what's in it"

It seems that language isn't a specialty of the S/T people.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Grambler

You started off strong with points 1-6 but then went way into left field with points 12+, entirely conjecture and not rooted in actual facts or presented evidence.

I'm not gonna sit here for an hour and refute all 20 something points you've tried to present because it's just a waste of time and, honestly, not worth the effort. Maybe I'll get, like, 5 stars for it, but ATS is Trumps-ville and you're not going to honestly listen.

Hell, we've already started devolving into calling a decorated war veteran an 'obese piece of #.' I'm sure we can go lower! Let's start going after his family next!!!


I literally presented articles showing my point.

You just saying "Nuh uh thats wrong" is not an argument.

The fact you are worried about how mnany stars you would get is telling though.

But just to humor you, Ill go thru points 12+ again.

"12. 12. The NABU was closely aligned with the Obama admin, and was alleged to have buried cases for Obama's admin in the past."

I proved this by linking an article showing the Ukrainian prosecutor Lutsenko alleging exactly that. Your claim I presented no evidence is a lie.

Your 0 for 1. next

"13. The NABU also interfered in the 2016 election by releasing damaging info to DNC operative CXhalupa about manafort."

I provided evidence that Ukrainian courts themselves found the NABU provided dirt on manafort to the dnc. Even left leaning politco has admitted as much.


In a series of answers provided to Politico, a spokesman for Poroshenko distanced his administration from both Leshchenko’s efforts and those of the agency that reLeshchenko Leshchenko leased the ledgers, The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. It was created in 2014 as a condition for Ukraine to receive aid from the U.S. and the European Union, and it signed an evidence-sharing agreement with the FBI in late June — less than a month and a half before it released the ledgers.


www.politico.com...

Your 0 for 2. Next!

"14. So the Obama admin and Biden finally got the prosecutor they said was corrupt fired, and finally got an agency that was favorable to Obama and Dems to control the investigation. "

Two claims here. First we know they got shokin fired, so thats true. Second, I showed the NABU was so favorable to Obama they interfered in the 2016 election to help dems. Your wrong again, 0 for 3. Next.

"15. Despite this, the NABU promptly buried the investigation, allowing Zlochevsky off with a small fine. "

I porvided evidence of this. In addition, we know Zlochevsky was never actually prosecuted for any crimes. I look forward to you providing evidence to the contrary, to dispute the evidence I provided which you lied and said I provided none. 0 for 4. next the last one.

"16. Somehow, the Obama admin and Biden, along with all of the allies of theirs that wanted Shokin fired have remained absolutely silent on the new prosecutors allowing Zlochevsky to walk free. "

We know zlochevsky walked free. I anxiously await you providing evidence that Biden or Obama voiced their anger at the Ukraine and the NABU letting this corrupt oligarch walk free. You wont provide that because it doesnt exist. 0 for 5

Now I know you and so many other trump haters think you are debating by saying "all of your points are wrong", but youy are not. Its a pathetic attempt to avoiud dealing with evidence you cant deal with.

But please, I will await your evidence that any of these points are wrong.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Why are you acknowledging/pandering to a mute point?

Your better than that.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




I don't know about all the BS in your post.


Where in the...

The only reason I can see that you would post such an absurd comment. Is
because the truth of what you read in the OP hurts not only your argument.
But also you on the inside. And the only remedy for that kick in the gut
you feel. Is to quickly conger up any half baked, doesn't matter,
response you can muster. Anything to get that post out there that
makes you feel better. But then we read it? Dear in the head lights.

I think sometimes after you post you can't even believe you wrote it.
All that to say I think you need to take a break amigo.

Because calling the OP BS isn't even the way to approach this thread.

Perfectly concise easy to read and far above your weird response.




edit on 5-11-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: Grambler

Why are you acknowledging/pandering to a mute point?

Your better than that.



I love debate.

I often see that those who disagree with me have no good points, so I am willing to even disprove the trolls that disagree with me sometimes, to make sure I am correct in my points.

Its sad no one can come up with a defense of the dems behavior here.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Is it against the T&C to post a truth that may cause another
member extreme psychological damage?

SnF



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Understood, It's quite mind blowing. Those with such conviction to their "Truth" have no idea why.

Just go with it Nutcracker style...Wooden Soldiers.




posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Mute
Moot..
They have different meanings

My point is it's good to see you again



edit on 5-11-2019 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join