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.

 

House GOP Release List of Witnesses For Impeachment Hearings

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66

quid pro quo
[ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō]

NOUN
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.

Honest question, how is this not the core of diplomacy, darn few countries in history have ever done something just because its the right thing to do...


It is.

That’s what Mulvaney said.

It’s what I’ve said.

I’m not sure about your question.


Oh the reason its a issue it is the illegal version of quid pro quo that the democrats will say Trump admits to doing if he admits it.




posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

The President can act to protect national security as he sees fit within the confines of the law.

Withholding aid, or more exactly, not allowing the sale of weapons to any foreign power is well within that authority.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrazyFox
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is this better
Burisma investigation already started


That's HUGE! Thanks for bringing it to our attention.



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: CrazyFox
a reply to: Gryphon66

Is this better
Burisma investigation already started


That's HUGE! Thanks for bringing it to our attention.


Indeed! Particularly ...



Volker says he met Lutsenko in 2018, but that he disbelieved the allegations: “Ukraine has a well-deserved reputation for rampant corruption. Nonetheless, I believed that these accusations by Mr. Lutsenko were themselves self-serving, intended to make himself appear valuable to the United States, so that the United States might weigh in against his being removed from office by the new government.


And ...



Per Solomon, “Kholodnytskyi, the lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Lutsenko’s office, confirmed to me in an interview that part of the Burisma investigation was reopened in 2018, after Joe Biden made his remarks.” Kholodnytskyi said, “We were able to start this case again… [But] we don’t see any result from this case one year after the reopening because of some external influence,” citing problems with a separate Ukrainian agency that he said was dragging its feet in gathering evidence.


Yes, VERY important information.

LOL.

Source



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Regarding the GOP's 1st Witness on the list: DEVON ARCHER.

(May 2014) Twitter is abuzz with questions about the involvement of Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter with a gas company in Ukraine. The company, Burisma, allegedly appointed Hunter Biden to its board of directors.

In late April, around the time the vice president made an official trip to Ukraine, Burisma allegedly appointed Devon Archer, one of Hunter Biden’s business partners, to its board as well. Here’s a brief write-up on the story from the Moscow Times, an English-language news service based in Russia.

These dual announcements raise more questions than they answer. The prominence of the individuals involved — Hunter Biden is the vice president’s son, while Devon Archer was a major bundler for John Kerry and also his stepson’s college roommate — raises the question of whether the entire thing awry.
thefederalist.com...



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The only people who are going to be called are the people who can answer to this Ukraine phone call and the attempt to extort the Ukrainian president. The trying to get the dirt. Not the fake dirt he was trying to get.


Who was President Trump speaking to when he supposedly committed the act of "quid pro quo"? Mr Zelensky right? The president of Ukraine? You know, the guy on the other end of that phone call. Well it seems President Zelensky made a statement about this. Let's have a look.


Zelensky spoke at a daylong event with media inside a Kiev food market, and said he believes the transcript released by the White House is accurate and that he knew the U.S. had withheld $400 million in military aid due to concerns about corruption and concern for American "taxpayer money." But the issue, he said, was never linked to Trump's desire that Kiev rekindle an investigation into an energy company with ties to former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

"There was no blackmail," Zelensky said. "They blocked this money and nobody asked us [for] anything,"


Hmm so the President of Ukraine and President Trump are in agreement with the accuracy of the transcript released by the White House and President Zelensky stated that there was no quid pro quo.

Please quote from that transcript where there was quid pro quo?

Can you?

Something tells me you cant. I have asked at least 15 people now to please quote from the transcript where there is quid pro quo and it's strange that not one person can quote it for me.

Do you suppose Zelensky would change his mind and completely reverse his position? Chances of that is pretty close to zero.

Oh and now you have this here to explain...seems there is a significantshift in the factualtimeline. ..here have a look at this and tell me what you think....

Document reveals Ukraine had already reopened probe of Hunter Biden-linked firm months before Trump phone call



SOURCE



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct


I have asked at least 15 people now to please quote from the transcript where there is quid pro quo and it's strange that not one person can quote it for me.

That's because they can't. The entire investigation is based around what others with no direct knowledge think Trump was thinking. Just looks at the actual statements made: "Trump thought he could...", "Trump wanted to...". "Trump thought he would get away with..."

None of which is even evidence. It's opinion. And in the end, opinion means less than nothing... the very fact that opinion is being used so much to support these allegations is in itself evidence that there is no evidence. If there were, I have no doubt it would be plastered across every newspaper front page and be the lead story on every news channel and be proclaimed literally on billboards along the highways.

I outlined every single person on the list and explained their connection to the allegation of improper election interference. What was one poster's response? That that was all irrelevant because it didn't show that Trump was guilty, as though there is no possibility of innocence. I have never heard so many people say things like that before. The very core of our justice system is the ability of the accused to present evidence of innocence, yet it seems that keystone of justice has become an unwanted and unneeded option for many.

I wonder how they would react of they were accused of a crime and not allowed to even know who initially accused them, not allowed to present evidence in their favor, not allowed legal counsel... no, I lied, I don't wonder. I know. They would be screaming about unfair practices and corruption.

Such is the world we live in, and such will remain the world we live in until there is a bloody revolution or a resurgence of justice in the law.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


Trump isn't being impeached because of his, so far, unfounded conspiracy theories. He's being impeached for trying to force a foreign government into legitimizing his conspiracy theory, to help him in this 2020 reelection bid.

If Republicans think they can derail the impeachment hearings, to try to force the House of Representatives to legitimize Trump's excuses for violating his oath of office, I think they are in for a disappointment.


Tell us, do you have some reading comprehension problem? Do you not understand what it means when the Ukrainian authorities have wanted to give this evidence to the Trump administration since 2018, and POTUS Trump had the conversation with the Ukrainian President on July 2019?


...
Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

“We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the (U.S.) ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.
...


Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats? 04/07/19 07:30 AM EDT

Do you understand what happened first according to the dates? Or are you too dumb to understand it?

BTW, that ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, whom stalled the Ukrainian authorities from obtaining visas is the one POTUS Trump fired because she was still working for the Obama/Biden/Hillary cabal, and the POTUS has every right to fire her and put someone else in her position... Obama did it and none of you complained about it...

In fact Obama fired more people than all other POTUS before, or after him, and he put in office Obama/Biden loyalists. Which is why POTUS Trump has had such a hard time finding the right people. More so since every time he wants/has wanted to fire an Obama/Biden loyalist morons in the left have been claiming he has abused his powers when that is false.

BTW...what oath of office did POTUS Trump violate?... Be specific, excerpt his comment and cite the rule he violated...



edit on 12-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Rudy had to go get the evidence against DNC/Hillary, because deep-state Obama/Hillary sympathizers in the State Department and the DOJ wouldn't accept it.



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   
BTW, as I wrote in another thread, Adam Schiff just denied ALL WITNESSES the Republicans asked for...


By Max McGuire/ 11/12/2019/ Impeachment, Today's Action Alerts

When the House of Representatives voted to formally authorize their impeachment 'inquiry,' they promised that Republicans would be able to call witnesses during the public hearing. But there was a catch: Rep. Adam Schiff (R-CA) had to approve all of the GOP's witness requests.

Over the weekend, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) sent a list of people the GOP wants to hear from. The list included Adam Schiff himself and the so-called whistleblower — suspected to be CIA employee Eric Ciaramella. Those were expected.

But the rest of the witness list was surprising. Of course, Republicans want to talk to Hunter Biden. But they also want a man named Devon Archer to testify. Archer also served on the board of the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. He is the man on the left of the picture above, shown golfing with both Joe and Hunter Biden.
...
What did Adam Schiff do? He rejected all of these witnesses. He will not allow them to testify at all.

This whole impeachment investigation is a sham and the GOP is just going to let it continue on…

Adam Schiff Just Rejected All of the Republicans’ Impeachment Witnesses

Adam Schiff is a lying weasel whom apparently thinks he is Stalin...



posted on Nov, 12 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Rudy had to go get the evidence against DNC/Hillary, because deep-state Obama/Hillary sympathizers in the State Department and the DOJ wouldn't accept it.


Exactly, and as POTUS' Trump counsel on the "impeachment sham" Giuliani had all the right to go to Ukraine to find evidence that would help his client.

Yet, since socialists/democrat leaders think that the majority of Americans are idiots, and they are right since socialists/democrats are agreeing with them, the socialists/democrats like Schiff keep making up rules that don't exist and claim that the POTUS broke those rules.




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join