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.

 

Its Looking Like Schiff - Vindman - Ciaramella Conspired to Impeach President Trump.

page: 4
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I'm not on the side of Schiff - Vindman - Ciaramella but the word Conspires does not fit with a 'Legal' path or endeavor.... which the idea of planning an Impeachment is

of course the elected President had not already done anything to warrant a pursuit of an Impeachment, so the premature 'Impeachment Set-Up' was not based on anything but 'Hate Speech' from the trio of Anarchists on a ideology rampage (in the cause for defeated HRC's brand of progressivism/socialism)


~ Is 'Hate speech' illegal in the United States?

There are no laws that make “hate speech” illegal in the US. However, there are laws against hate crimes. A hate crime happens when someone commits an act that is already a crime, and their motive is in part based on hatred of the victim as a member of a particular group.
from Bing.com/answers


 
ETA


originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
a reply to: network dude
Being paid a salary, albeit a generous one, to sit on a company board is money laundering?


Nope... the infraction is illegal as being Influence Peddling which includes getting undue Compensation because of the Government Job Position One has (& family members have too)
edit on th30157331199309062019 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

edit on th30157331269809182019 by St Udio because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Regardless of his talents and how much he was paid it wasn't money laundering though was it?


Money laundering is the illegal process of concealing the origins of money obtained illegally by passing it through a complex sequence of banking transfers or commercial transactions. The overall scheme of this process returns the money to the launderer in an obscure and indirect way


Wiki



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Truth is Dems will not impeach Trump, because the Senate Republicans can subpoena his witnesses ask all the questions they want and it would expose the dems for treason.

It's a fake inquiry just to release fakenews and hurt Trump, but people are wise to it, so really the Dems are only hurting and exposing themselves.
edit on 9-11-2019 by ambassado12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

What manifort was found guilty of... which, leads me to ask... why did trump allow ukraine to drop their investigations into manifort. Even more unusual, it seems he rewarded them with a better deal than obama ever offered them..



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Manafort was guilty of not registering as a foreign lobbyist just like Podesta and the rest of the Democrats. They just get an out of jail free card because they hate Trump.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
a reply to: network dude

Regardless of his talents and how much he was paid it wasn't money laundering though was it?


Money laundering is the illegal process of concealing the origins of money obtained illegally by passing it through a complex sequence of banking transfers or commercial transactions. The overall scheme of this process returns the money to the launderer in an obscure and indirect way


Wiki


Hard to say. Where did his money come from? Was there extra in US aid, that funneled back to the kids, which in turn funneled back to the parents?

Like I said, it's shady enough to deserve a look. If nobody did anything wrong, there is nothing to fear. Sound familiar?



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ambassado12

He was found guilty of more than that...



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

So Ukraine's largest natural gas producer was in receipt of US aid, some of which was filtered back to Joe Biden via his sons salary of up to $50,000/month, for 5 years starting in 2014 and it's only when Biden Snr is becoming a threat to Trump that it needs investigating?



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Well technically the question of money laundering be posed is accurate.
$$$Aid is sent from US/EU.
$$$aid goes missing (stolen)
$$$aid stolen from bank gets laundered through bank owners private gas company
Private gas company pays high salary to Biden's son.


Money laundered? Enough suspicious connections to warrant an investigation into Bidenz's son to determine whether that money stopped there or via transactions continued on to another party cleanly.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   
And I had such hopes that you guys had SOMETHING ...

Hunter Biden being paid a lot of money for his last name is not a crime.

The crap about the other kids on the Burisma Board is fake news.

Loan guarantees are not cash.

Zero evidence of any wrongdoing on either Biden's part, no quid pro quo but a crapton of tit-for-tat.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You do not have a transcript of the phone call. You have a ten minute summary of a thirty minute call which has been edited according to witnesses who say it included much more.
You guys will be much better off if you start dealing with the truth instead of this fantasy version.



edit on 1192019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   


$$$Aid is sent from US/EU.
$$$aid goes missing (stolen) Who stole it and when?
$$$aid stolen from bank gets laundered through bank owners private gas company Who owned both the bank and gas company?
Private gas company pays high salary to Biden's son. Was that excessive or in line for what other board members were paid?


EDIT:


Burisma Holdings is owned by Brociti Investments Limited, a Cyprus-based company owned by Ukrainian former politician and businessman Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky was minister of natural resources under Viktor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine.[29] Brociti Investments acquired Burisma Holdings in 2011.[30] Before that acquisition, Mykola Zlochevsky and Mykola Lisin each owned a 50% interest in Burisma Holdings.[10][30][31] Lisin, a Ukrainian politician, died in a traffic accident in 2011.[31]


So that who owns Burisma

Look a bit shady that the former Resources Minister ended up owning his countries largest gas producer. That probably deserves investigation especially as Yanukovych wasn't exactly above reproach.

What bank were you referring to? And how did the US aid end up there?



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Eric worked for Biden. That's all one needs to know.....



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Update: GOP Witness List includes Hunter Biden and "The Whistleblower".

House Republicans plan to call Hunter Biden, the Ukraine whistleblower and a range of other witnesses to testify in the upcoming public Trump impeachment hearings, according to a witness list obtained exclusively by Fox News.

It is unclear, at this point, how many of the Republicans’ proposed witnesses will be approved by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and the Democrats, because the newly-approved resolution governing the impeachment inquiry give the approval power to the chairman and the members of the majority.
Source: www.foxnews.com...

I guess "TheWhistleblower" will be this guy's official name at the hearing, LOL. (Like "TheJoker" "TheRiddler", etc.)

Spineless MSM...FoxNews Included.




posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Zero evidence of any wrongdoing on either Biden's part, no quid pro quo but a crapton of tit-for-tat.


Tit-for-tat' and 'quid pro quo' are not the same?



quid pro quo

(noun) Something given for something else; a tit for tat

(noun) Something that is given in return for something else or accepted as a reciprocal part of an exchange.

www.wordnik.com...

THINK before you argue.

Carry on.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Was at the gym and for some reason they had CNN on and they were droning on and on about vindman, I noticed something on the point by point breakdown of what he said...last bullet said he believed trump did something wrong, not had evidence of wrong doing, or first hand information... just believed, what happened to evidence.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Quid pro quo literally this for that. Usually referring to a deal to do something FOR someone in exchange for something they do FOR you.

Tit-for-tat usually refers to a person who does something TO someone because of something someone did TO them.

If you didn't get the nuance and had to look it up, my apologies. Arguing from the dictionary is so cute though. I don't mind



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

So the man gave his testimony of what he saw and did first hand, and because of a single word choice. ... All that was meaningless?

I don't see that, sorry.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Reminder...
This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!


All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images. Please read new thread.

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

No they are not the same at all.

One is reciprocal and the other is revenge.




top topics



 
60
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join