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.

 

Adam Schiff says NO Whistleblower Testimony -- it's Redundant and Unnecessary

page: 7
46
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Caractacus

So. That’s all you got? So, no evidence of an impeachable offense?




posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux


Quote what witness attested to, or provided first hand evidence of,” Attempted extortion/bribery and abuse of power. Solicitation of a foreign country to interfere in the presidents domestic re-election campaign.”.



originally posted by: neutronflux

If you heard or recognized evidence for the same is a different debate.




edit on 13-11-2019 by Caractacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Caractacus

Care to fix your quotes so your post makes sense?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caractacus

originally posted by: neutronflux


Quote what witness attested to, or provided first hand evidence of,” Attempted extortion/bribery and abuse of power. Solicitation of a foreign country to interfere in the presidents domestic re-election campaign.”.



originally posted by: neutronflux

If you heard or recognized evidence for the same is a different debate.





Still having quote trouble?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: RickinVa

Schiff is running this like a Grand Jury. That was his specialty before becoming a Congressman. Grand Jurys hear the prosecutor, witness testimony, then find the defendant guilty, or exonerated.


That is not what a grand jury does. They hear the prosecutor’s evidence and if needed witness testimony, to decide if there is enough to bring the case to trial. They DO NOT decide innocence or guilt.


Who decides if the defendant is guilty?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Caractacus

originally posted by: neutronflux


Quote what witness attested to, or provided first hand evidence of,” Attempted extortion/bribery and abuse of power. Solicitation of a foreign country to interfere in the presidents domestic re-election campaign.”.



originally posted by: neutronflux

If you heard or recognized evidence for the same is a different debate.





Still having quote trouble?


No.

If you are confused let me know how and perhaps I can help?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: RickinVa

Schiff is running this like a Grand Jury. That was his specialty before becoming a Congressman. Grand Jurys hear the prosecutor, witness testimony, then find the defendant guilty, or exonerated.


That is not what a grand jury does. They hear the prosecutor’s evidence and if needed witness testimony, to decide if there is enough to bring the case to trial. They DO NOT decide innocence or guilt.


Who decides if the defendant is guilty?


In impeachment proceedings, the US Senate.

In public opinion, the public.

In Courts a Jury.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caractacus

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Caractacus

originally posted by: neutronflux


Quote what witness attested to, or provided first hand evidence of,” Attempted extortion/bribery and abuse of power. Solicitation of a foreign country to interfere in the presidents domestic re-election campaign.”.



originally posted by: neutronflux

If you heard or recognized evidence for the same is a different debate.





Still having quote trouble?


No.

If you are confused let me know how and perhaps I can help?


Sigh

See the picture below.



Please link to where I made such a post?
edit on 13-11-2019 by neutronflux because: Added right puc



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Caractacus

Now...


Quote what witness attested to, or provided first hand evidence of,” Attempted extortion/bribery and abuse of power. Solicitation of a foreign country to interfere in the presidents domestic re-election campaign.”



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes. that post was error and that was my post.

Thanks for being specific.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I dunno about y'all but i cant watch the news with him in it. It scares the living bahgeebies out of me. And how to you not hear from a witness last i checked that's not how it worked in an ACTUAL courtroom....




top topics



 
46
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join