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.

 

Using tax dollars to force firing of prosecutor looking into family needs investigated everytime

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
How does the impeachment article allow the democrat senators to request Ukrainian aid on investigating trump?

That wasn’t part of an impeachment process


I never said that any letter was a part of the impeachment process, but again you seem to be arguing that investigative privileges granted to elected officials in the Legislative and the Executive branches should somehow be equal. Perhaps you could link this letter if you need further explanation regarding it.


originally posted by: Grambler
And I assume you feel obama admins entire investigation into trump was a crime as well?


If you have a tape, transcript, or evidence that such a request came directly from Obama, then hell yes, but if by "admin" you mean the F.B.I. taking it upon themselves to investigate him due to his questionable behavior during the election, then no.


Weird, I missed you in the threads about that for two years saying this was a crime


Quite possible. In my 14 years of membership here I've definitely taken a few extended breaks (especially after twitter caught fire and twitter-fare became the new standard in posting).
edit on 11/8/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

There is nothing in the constitution that says the executive branch, whose role it is to enforce the law, may not enforce laws of it is against someone who may run against them

There is nothing that says a US president may not ask a counterpart to have their admin cooperate with us authorities m investigating corruption

There is nothing that says it illegal for the president to do that, but not the senate


But maybe I’m wrong, please post the link



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: redmage

There is nothing in the constitution that says the executive branch, whose role it is to enforce the law, may not enforce laws of it is against someone who may run against them

There is nothing that says a US president may not ask a counterpart to have their admin cooperate with us authorities m investigating corruption

There is nothing that says it illegal for the president to do that, but not the senate


But maybe I’m wrong, please post the link


But there is a little Treaty, called, "TREATY WITH UKRAINE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS"

Which can be found at the following link:

www.congress.gov...



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
There is nothing in the constitution that says the executive branch, whose role it is to enforce the law, may not enforce laws of it is against someone who may run against them


Using the power of office of the President for personal political gain against domestic political opponents has long been considered authoritarian, and an abuse of power. Abuse of power has long been considered to qualify in the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause regarding standards for impeachment in the Constitution.
edit on 11/8/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Grambler
There is nothing in the constitution that says the executive branch, whose role it is to enforce the law, may not enforce laws of it is against someone who may run against them


Using the power of office of the President for personal political gain against domestic political opponents has long been considered authoritarian, and an abuse of power. Abuse of power has long been considered to qualify in the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause regarding standards for impeachment in the Constitution.


That assumes knowing trumps motive was for personal gain

He could have just been investigating corruption

And we have no proof he issued a quid pro quo unlike with Biden

Also using the office of the senate for personal gain would also fall into that catergory, so I guess let’s remove Pelosi, schiff, etc



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

If it can be shown that Trump and his team were after more than just one or two cases than that would show he was after corruption and not just using it as an excuse to go after a political opponent.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You're missing the point.

Biden admitted he was the front man. Which essentially opens up doors to loose ends.

Just like how Mueller had his hands tied because what he investigated lead to again, loose ends and he had to report BS, which made him look like a fool.

Trump has his hands so deep into the billionaire world, he will never get caught. That's why he was chosen by the republicans to be a front man.

Here's the thing. Biden didn't do anything wrong, look at the facts.



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
That assumes knowing trumps motive was for personal gain

He could have just been investigating corruption


That's why an investigation is needed. His request regarding Biden gives the glaring appearance of a clear conflict of interest.


And we have no proof he issued a quid pro quo unlike with Biden


There's first hand evidence from the Vindman testimony (he was on the call), and the corroborating testimonies of others. Whether that meets the standard of proof to the Senate remains to be seen (if articles of impeachment do pass in the House).


Also using the office of the senate for personal gain would also fall into that catergory, so I guess let’s remove Pelosi, schiff, etc


Which personal gains would that be? I'm pretty sure there has been an issue with Pelosi regarding conflicts of interest and possible abuse in a stock trade, and wouldn't be surprised to find out more, but in context, again it seems like you're conflating the Executive and Legislative branches. It's called "checks and balances" and investigation of the President falls to the House (Pelosi, Schiff, etc).



posted on Nov, 8 2019 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It is corruption plain and simple.
Biden his time for 40 + years in the swamp.
What did you expect?
A Career Politician self serving "Pig at the
Taxpayer Trough". Nothing more, nothing less.
No need for discretion or sentiment.
Just wash their evil filth out of your mind.
S&F

edit on 8-11-2019 by Wildmanimal because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Crowd strike, firing prosecutor, Biden’s role, Ukrainian election interference

Sounds like more than one

Meanwhile, Biden was it after one prosecutor, the one invest his son



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

That’s why an investigation into Biden is needed

Why do we have to assume he wanted the prosecutor investigating his son fired for non personal reasons?

Pelosi et al hate trump

Their personal reasons are to remove him from office



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Grimpachi

Crowd strike, firing prosecutor, Biden’s role, Ukrainian election interference

Sounds like more than one

Meanwhile, Biden was it after one prosecutor, the one invest his son


Interesting if true. Is there any evidence Trump has pushed to investigate the firing of the prosecutor or the election interference?

Crowdrstike was the Manfort thing and as far as Biden's role that is pretty well documented.

Has Trump shown any concerns about corruption in any other country besides Ukraine? Last year, when the Kyiv government was plagued by corruption was there any effort by Trump to withhold aid to pressure investigations?

On May 23, Sondland and other U.S. officials personally told Trump about Zelensky’s anti-corruption initiatives. Sondland said Trump didn't want to hear about it. A May 23 letter from the Department of Defense certified Ukraine’s compliance with the anti-corruption requirements for getting military aid. Trump ignored the letter and blocked the aid anyway.

Both Volker and Sondland said that Gulliani Trumps go to man was only focused on two cases. Crowdstrike and Burisma. When Ukraine offered a statement pledging to crack down on corruption, Giuliani said that wasn’t enough. Volker testified that Giuliani, in a phone call, explicitly “said that the statement needs to mention Burisma and 2016. And if it doesn’t do that, it’s not credible.”

If the claim Trump was only focused on corruption is going to hold any weight they need to show he was focused on more than those two cases. One which can hurt a political rival and the other that would cast doubts on the Muller report.

IMO the whole thing comes down to if it can be proven that Trump was working in the interest of the US or if he was working in the interest of himself.
edit on 9-11-2019 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

What does crowd strike have to do with Biden or Manafort?

Trump said blatantly he was interested in why the prosecutor was fired

Trump has discussed corruption in all sorts of countries

When discussing with the Ukrainian President, he discussed the possibility of corruption involving them

He cited corwdstrike, which has nothing at all to do with Biden, and the firing of shokin, which did

Meanwhile, we Baka and Biden withheld a billion dollars to fire only one prosecutor in Ukraine; the one who happened to be looking a Biden’s sons company

Where were the claims only looking at this one prosecutor seems shady?



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




What does crowd strike have to do with Biden or Manafort?


Biden's role with the firing of the prosecutor is documented that I don't feel the need to go into it.

Manfort is the one who came up with the crowd strike angle.



Trump said blatantly he was interested in why the prosecutor was fired


Then he probably should have looked up public records and articles on it. The US and several other nations were on record as to why he was fired.



Trump has discussed corruption in all sorts of countries


How many countries has he withheld aid with his people telling them they needed to open up investigations and do so publicly naming those being investigated?



He cited corwdstrike, which has nothing at all to do with Biden, and the firing of shokin, which did


I never thought you would think I meant that Biden had anything to do with it. Manfort started the rumor that crowd strike is the one who hacked e-mails. Trump has been pushing that narrative for a while. It would make him look a lot better as far as the Muller report if an actual connection could be made. It would certainly help Trump politically.

Speaking of Manfort the Ukraine had 4 active investigations going on into him
Rudy Giuliani accused Biden of interfering in a Ukrainian investigation for political gain. Giuliani may have done exactly that in 2017.

A timeline of key events in June 2017 shows Ukraine dropped its Manafort investigation days after Giuliani met with top government officials.





Meanwhile, we Baka and Biden withheld a billion dollars to fire only one prosecutor in Ukraine; the one who happened to be looking a Biden’s sons company


The money that was withheld is known and was known. Congress was notified about the move and there was international support of it being done.
If it can be shown it was done for personal gain there should be an investigation, but if the sole reason is someone sn worked there only fools would believe that.

On the other hand, the Trump administration didn't even notify Congress when it withheld approved aid. There was no international support for opening an investigation. Congress wasn't even aware of it. There is the highly unusual "request that there not only be an investigation but it was to be announced publicly naming the company.

Can it be shown that Trump has taken such interest in any other country or investigation that would not benefit him personally? If the Trump administration's real reason is to pursue corruption why wouldn't they be pushing to reopen the investigations into Manfort?



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Exactly what o was criticizing I the op

Other countries said it was cool, so it is fine

That is absurd

You make it seem because trump only withheld aid from one cou trying one situation that’s reason to investigate

Yet that’s exactly what Biden and Obama did

And the firing of the prosecutor looking into Biden’s sons company didn’t end corruption as the man the Obama admin said was guilty, Zlochevsky, walked free under the new prosecutors that were allies with Obama

If Obama and Biden were so concerned with ending corruption, why did they not protest the NABU allowing Zlochevsky off?

Can you name me one other time they or any admin has withheld aid to fire just one prosecutor?



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
You may want to listen to Joe Biden himself. Goto time stamp 51:00 and Joe will tell you himself exactly what he did. Its a fact if it comes from the mouth of the person who did it right...a confession I think thats called... youtu.be...

youtu.be...a reply to: Sookiechacha




posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

If Joe Biden broke the law put the effer in jail!!! Having the rule of law has to be a bi-partisan issue.

"The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, was passed in 1977. The program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666, was passed in 1984.[23] In the program bribery statute, "Congress, for the first time, directly federalized the crime of bribery of or by local officials."[24]"

Please, if you have evidence of Joe Biden breaking federal laws indict the mother effer!!!


There needs to be an investigation in order to gather evidence...duh. So, you agree with the OP. That's good to know next time you preach about President Trump doing wrong in his attempt to investigate corruption.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 07:49 AM
link   
With such confidence in Bidens innocence, why not welcome an investigation to clear up this, "matter"? It should be simple to prove innocence through the proper authority? It seems as though you alone hold the truth and want to shield others from seeking it out, how strange.

a reply to: Sookiechacha



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler




But we do need to agree on some things no matter our political/ideological etc. beliefs if we are to have a functioning country.


That's right. So, as long you present lies as facts, this thread will either become nonproductive insult fest, or an anti liberal echo chamber.


Everywhere I turn it's an anti liberal echo chamber.

Maybe because your party consists of antifa, BLM, LGBTQ, illegal aliens, hollyweird and muslims.

When you see them organize and create long lines at polling stations, you will run to the red as well,unless you can relate?

And Democrats promised they will confer with each group before anything is passed.
Ha ha ha



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oraculi
a reply to: Grambler

Look at this from the standpoint of a prosecutor. Or an investigator.

What single piece of evidence exists to warrant beginning an investigation into Hunter Biden? We know he worked on the board of Burisma, but what single shred of evidence exists to start an investigation?

You know there must be one, correct? Having an opinion that something went wrong is not enough to start an investigation. Some starting point is needed with factual evidence, such as a crime or evidence of a crime.

What is that evidence? Other than the fact he worked there, what evidence of corruption or wrong doing is there that you can list for us?

Second: If you ARE able to find any incriminating evidence and are able to list it here, why has not the Trump Justice Department acted on that in the past two and a half years? Why do WE not have an investigation into the Bidens?

And this is a big one: why are we asking foreign governments to do the criminal justice work on American citizens when we are not doing it ourselves? Does that not raise a red flag?


Hunter bidens resume is evidence that he has no business being in Ukraine and no business being in the energy industry.
That would be like an elementary teacher handing In her resume for an FBI agent and landing the job.
Red flags. And evidence of pay for play.

Other evidence would be hunter bidens interview where he admitted he would not have been there receiving that paycheck if it were not for his last name. I believe in the interview he even admits it even looks bad.

Last piece of evidence would be biden on tape saying you ain't getting no money unless that prosecutor is fired.

You cannot withhold funds to manipulate charges being gathered on family members.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join