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.

 

4 Key Pieces of Evidence Undermining Arguments For Impeachment

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Show us all where any law or legislative action prohibits a President from "holding up" appropriations 😎




Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


COTUS, Article II, Section 1




posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

weak as a toothpick holding up a bridge 😎

😃



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

weak as a toothpick holding up a bridge 😎

😃



Sorry to hear that you feel that way about the Constitution. Appropriations are laws passed by Congress. The President is to faithfully execute those laws. That’s the basis of not holding up appropriations illegally.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good tangent without even answering the question 😃 😃

The jitters are getting heavy 😃😃



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good tangent without even answering the question 😃 😃

The jitters are getting heavy 😃😃



Not even close to a tangent. Primary to the duties of the Office is the faithful execution of the laws.

Appropriations are laws requiring some quantity of something to be, well, appropriated.

By law.

That is the direct answer to your question.
edit on 13-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: NOted



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 01:12 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
vellie intalesting 😎

The Role of OMB in Withholding Ukrainian Aid



From your link:



At present, it is unclear whether OMB withheld the money in a manner consistent with its legal obligations.


Good link though. Spot on.
edit on 13-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Legal?
We don't need no stinkin' legal.

No worries though. It's covered.

Whether there is some good legal or other explanation for the long delay in releasing the money is a question that lacks a clear answer, and that might remain unanswered indefinitely if Congress cannot get its hands on the requested documents.

edit on 11/13/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
vellie intalesting 😎

The Role of OMB in Withholding Ukrainian Aid



Ukraine did not know the money was being held until a "Sr. Admin Official" leaked it to POLITICO and someone told Ukraine about it on or about August 28, 2019.

www.westernjournal.com...

As the article points out, this kills off any notion of a Quid-Quo-Pro. And verifies that President Zelensky was telling the truth when he said he was unaware that military aid was being withheld, while talking with President Trump.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

The assertions that I have seen by witnesses is that the Administration through actors like Guiliani had established the prevalent idea as early as May 2019 that if Ukraine didn’t launch an investigation into the Bidens that there would be penalties including VP Pence not attending Zelensky’s inauguration, withholding aid, etc.

It’s pretty obvious that the Ukrainians well knew what was “on the table.”



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   

2. Both President Zelensky and President Trump have publicly and repeatedly said there was no pressure to investigate the President’s political rivals.


This whole 'inquiry' pisses me off.

Clinton hired a british spy through their party middle man Perkins Coie.

And yet it's nothing but Crickets from the FASCIST left about it.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Still not willing to provide a quote of testimony stating first hand knowledge of a Giuliani quid pro quo?
You made the assertion. Back it up.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Iscool
They KNOW that Trump 'intended' to commit these crimes...Trump is guilty because of intent..


That's one thing that people who want him impeach always fail to understand.
It is REALLY hard to prove intent.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Answer it anyway.
Would have taken the same amount of work than dodging it.
Unless you have to try hard to make an excuse, as to why one is OK and the other isn't.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Good points! If Democrats impeach based on Bribery and Extortion, the U.S. might as well stop interacting with other countries. Our hands will be tied.


Huh? This would put the CIA out of business overnight. Oh their INTEL exempt.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

3. The Ukrainian government was not aware that U.S. security assistance was delayed at the time of the July 25 phone call.




I will be interested in how this unfolds. Giuliani's indicted associate claims he was sent to Ukraine in May with a message.



Parnas claims that back in May he delivered a warning to an aid to Ukraine's then president Oleks Zelenksy. Ukraine had two choices. A, open two investigations, one into a company associated with Joe Biden's son Hunter, and another into alleged conspiracies involving the 2016 US election. Or B, US military aid halts and vice president Mike Pence skips Zelensky's inauguration. Parnas will say he gave that warning on Giuliani's orders.

www.buzzfeednews.com...

The other question is whether the timing matters.

Is it relevant whether Trump made the demand and then turned the screws or turned the screws and then made the demand?

Honest question and still open to figuring out the facts here.
edit on 14-11-2019 by Caractacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: xuenchen

Wrong wrong wrong and wrong.


😃 😧 😃



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

weak as a toothpick holding up a bridge 😎

😃



Sorry to hear that you feel that way about the Constitution. Appropriations are laws passed by Congress. The President is to faithfully execute those laws. That’s the basis of not holding up appropriations illegally.


My understanding is that Congress approved the aid before President Zelinsky was elected into power. The Ukraine politics changed hands in that process and it makes sense that the approval should be retracted pending discovery of new President's intentions.

So you are saying that all of our agreements must be set in stone even if a country ends up changing their politics? We should send military weapons as agreed, no matter what? I don't think that is a wise policy and thus, why the President of the US has the power to say, No!



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

weak as a toothpick holding up a bridge 😎

😃



Sorry to hear that you feel that way about the Constitution. Appropriations are laws passed by Congress. The President is to faithfully execute those laws. That’s the basis of not holding up appropriations illegally.


My understanding is that Congress approved the aid before President Zelinsky was elected into power. The Ukraine politics changed hands in that process and it makes sense that the approval should be retracted pending discovery of new President's intentions.



A rational argument, but does not explain the mountain of testimony, including From EU Sondland working directly with President Trump, plus Chief of Staff Mulvaney, text messages and literally everyone involved who has testified saying the Aid release was contingent on the public announcement of investigations.

I am open to your proposal being the truth, but if so documents and testimony from Trump and the WH should be able to immediately stop this process.




top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join