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.

 

Jim Jordan Asks Ambassador Taylor, a Democrat Key Witness, important Questions

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: panoz77

He said it in Sept. He doesn't say that now when asked. He walks away saying he cannot get involved with US politics.
Thats what he says now...
Why won't he say it now?
Oh I know... testimony of witnesses that would show his country he is a liar and a puppet of Donald J Trump. Thereby ruining any chance of reelection since he swore to go after corruption and not lie to support it.


Perchance, the Ukranian President has his own politically corrupt officials to deal with, let alone, pander to a media that apparently is disinterested in the actual truth. He made his statement in September. It is what it was.

What is a shame is we tell Ukraine to investigate the corruption in their politics while the Democrats scream that we can not investigate our own select Politicians. Zelensky is realizing the hypocrisy of it all.




posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: panoz77

Next week the witnesses are people who had first hand knowledge.
So that talking point has an expiration date.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

So where were you when the testimony yesterday talked about irregular channels with Mulvany and Giuliani.
Lets pretend they were not pressuring Ukrainian officials with trumps wants and holding up aid to get fake dirt.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

There's no way you're gonna spin this to make me think differently.


NO, really?

I bet everybody here is stunned.

I believe everybody is even more stunned to learn you put any thought at all into your political views. Are you still waiting for the super secret portion of the call that will definitely get Trump this time?



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Lets deal with known facts and not perchances.
Because that is just another way to say perhaps which is just another way to say maybe and thats not facts thats supposition and imagination.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

Lets deal with known facts and not perchances.
Because that is just another way to say perhaps which is just another way to say maybe and thats not facts thats supposition and imagination.


Haha...yes, indeed. Known actual facts and not suppositions and imagination. Please all should take that to heart as you watch and listen to these impeachment inquiry testimonies.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: panoz77

Next week the witnesses are people who had first hand knowledge.
So that talking point has an expiration date.


For God’s sake.
So when the nothing burger is served, you will come back and say you were wrong again right?
I’ve lost count, how many times will it be?



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I’m going around in circles ?

LOL.

Here’s the claim again: it is asinine to continue to claim that anyone who was not listening to the call doesn’t have any evidence to provide. We all have heard the call now. We know what’s there.

Are you saying we don’t know what the call says? It’s not my expression that’s the problem, it’s your assumption.

We all know what Trump said and what Zelensky said. Period, done, we all know.

Those who are giving evidence about other matters, like, the lead up to the call, the actions of Rudy G and his cohorts, etc. are providing background and context.


It isn't my assumption... You are the one assuming what POTUS Trump said when in fact there is no evidence for this claim that "he used quid pro quo..."

STOP going around in circles, and EXCERPT from the transcript where POTUS Trump used "quid pro quo..." GO AHEAD...

In fact, let me even make it easy for you...

Here is the entire transcript...

Ukraine Call Transcript

Let me even make it even more easier for you.

Here is a real example of "quid pro quo..."


...
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden said he told Poroshenko.
...


Did Joe Biden Implicate Barack Obama in Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Scandal?


See how easy it is to show real "quid pro quo"?... Biden DEMANDED that Ukrainian authorities had to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor whom was investigating Hunter Biden and his link to the corrupt Burisma Holdings. And he said if they did not fire the prosecutor the Ukrainians would not get the over $1 Billion U.S. dollars...

I didn't assume anything about Biden's statement, and it was real easy to show his use of "quid pro quo" by excerpting EXACTLY what Biden said...

Now, stop going around in circles trying to claim you know what was in POTUS Trump's mind, and EXCERPT from the transcript where President Trump used "quid pro quo"...







edit on 14-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comments.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: St Udio

Let’s say Taylor is “anti-Trump” ... does that change the facts they are relating?

Cross examination acknowledges that some witnesses are hostile. They’re still called.




Yes. It changes quite a bit when put into perspective.

Let me explain it to you like a 2 year old would understand since you cannot rationalize the difference like an adult. Its like in Wreck-it Ralph during bad guy group therapy when Zangief says people tell him ' Zangief, you are bad guy, but you are not a bad guy."

If the fact is Trump withheld money to reignite an investigation into corruption that was shut down by the corrupt, then he may have to be the bad guy to hold these people accountable, but he is not a bad guy.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

So where were you when the testimony yesterday talked about irregular channels with Mulvany and Giuliani.
Lets pretend they were not pressuring Ukrainian officials with trumps wants and holding up aid to get fake dirt.


Humm. Let me ask you something. Do you not know at all U.S. laws such as when you are being accused of something you didn't do you still should get a lawyer, and that lawyer under the rule of law, "The Right to Evidence Disclosure/aka has the right to Discover/find all evidence?"
This means the defense, in this case Giuliani, has a right to go where the evidence is that would help his client. Under this right, the President's counsel is able to turn every rock, cross-examine witnesses, and even if he/she needs to that lawyer can go to where there is evidence that could help his client. In this case the client is President Trump.


...
The Constitution requires that the prosecution disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence within its possession or control.

The Right to Discovery: Brady Material

Courts have held that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t impose a general duty on the prosecution to disclose “material” evidence to the defense. “Material” is generally shorthand for “relevant”; it’s often used to refer to evidence that, if disclosed, could affect the outcome of a case.
...
Defense attorneys routinely submit requests for discovery, and they make sure to ask for the above evidence, which often goes by “Brady material.” The government violates the law by not turning over this kind evidence, even if the failure to disclose wasn’t intentional or was beyond the prosecution’s control.
...
Here’s an example of a discovery law, from California:

The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney all of the following materials and information, if it is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or if the prosecuting attorney knows it to be in the possession of the investigating agencies:

(a) The names and addresses of persons the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses at trial.

(b) Statements of all defendants.

(c) All relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the investigation of the offenses charged.

(d) The existence of a felony conviction of any material witness whose credibility is likely to be critical to the outcome of the trial.

(e) Any exculpatory evidence.
...
(California Penal Code Section 1054.1 (2016).)
...

Criminal Discovery: The Right to Evidence Disclosure

Other states have similar codes in which the defense has a right to discover all evidence.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand this. It is really simple, Giuliani is President Trump's counsel, and Giuliani has a right to get all evidence even if that evidence is in another country...

Neither President Trump, nor Giuliani broke any law...
If they did break any laws you go ahead and excerpt the code, and give us a link, to what you think they violated.




edit on 14-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: shorten excerpt & correct comment.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme

Lets deal with known facts and not perchances.
Because that is just another way to say perhaps which is just another way to say maybe and thats not facts thats supposition and imagination.


You mean the facts and evidence you and others are ignoring?...

President Trump asked for a favor... He didn't demand anything...


Ukraine Call Transcript

Let's say, if you saw a woman trying to enter the main door to her apartment but she was carrying a lot, and you are right next to her with nothing in your hands and she asks you: "Could you do me a favor and open the door for me?"

If she demanding anything in exchange for you opening the door?...

A favor is not a demand...




edit on 14-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add evidence & correct comment.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   

edit on 14-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Blah, blah blah, blah blahblah...

Still you don't provide an excerpt from the call proving your claims...



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gryphon66

Blah, blah blah, blah blahblah...

Still you don't provide an excerpt from the call proving your claims...


My claim is that we know what was said, as opposed to all the idiotic claims of hearsay.

Blah.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme

Next week the witnesses are people who had first hand knowledge.


First hand knowledge of other 2nd hand information and 3rd hand speculations 😃



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

So where were you when the testimony yesterday talked about irregular channels with Mulvany and Giuliani.
Lets pretend they were not pressuring Ukrainian officials with trumps wants and holding up aid to get fake dirt.


"Talked about" but not proven anything 😃



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

Lets deal with known facts and not perchances.
Because that is just another way to say perhaps which is just another way to say maybe and thats not facts thats supposition and imagination.


Went to McDonalds 3 months ago.

They gave me an empty bag and insisted somebody else put the burger and fries in the bag 😃



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme

Next week the witnesses are people who had first hand knowledge.


First hand knowledge of other 2nd hand information and 3rd hand speculations 😃


So, testifying about meetings they were in, memoranda they read and conversations they had with colleagues and superiors is ... speculation?

BS. No thing about the testimonies is hearsay. We have the transcript, and they have the knowledge.

Now, complain that it’s a dumb reason to impeach a President, and I’m right there with you, but don’t repeatedly misrepresent the facts of the matter.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


My claim is that we know what was said, as opposed to all the idiotic claims of hearsay.

Blah.


PROVE IT... You keep babbling away without posting any corroborating evidence for your FALSE claims...

Again, a FAVOR is not a DEMAND.

President Trump asked the Ukrainian President for a favor, which he can do, and ALL POTUS have asked favors from other countries... But Biden did pressure Ukraine, and did use "quid pro quo," which is a crime.

Biden violated the Hobbs Act.


9-131.000 - The Hobbs Act - 18 U.S.C. § 1951
...
9-131.010 - Introduction

This chapter focuses on the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951) which prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy statute at 18 U.S.C. § 371. Although the Hobbs Act was enacted as a statute to combat racketeering in labor-management disputes, the statute is frequently used in connection with cases involving public corruption, commercial disputes, violent criminals and street gangs, and corruption directed at members of labor unions.
...

9-131.000 - The Hobbs Act - 18 U.S.C. § 1951


Public corruption
Primary tabs

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, may violate federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.
...

Public corruption


2402. Hobbs Act -- Generally

The Hobbs Act prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce "in any way or degree." Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy statute at 18 U.S.C. § 371. The statutory prohibition of "physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section" is confined to violence for the purpose of committing robbery or extortion. United States v. Franks, 511 F.2d 25, 31 (6th Cir. 1975) (rejecting the view that the statute proscribes all physical violence obstructing, delaying, or affecting commerce as contrasted with violence designed to culminate in robbery or extortion).

The extortion offense reaches both the obtaining of property "under color of official right" by public officials and the obtaining of property by private actors with the victim's "consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear," including fear of economic harm. See this Manual at 2405 and Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 265, 112 S.Ct. 1181, 1188 (1992) (only a private individual's extortion of property by the wrongful use of force, violence, or fear requires that the victim's consent be induced by these means; extortion of property under color of official right does not require that a public official take steps to induce the extortionate payment).
...

2402. Hobbs Act -- Generally

BTW, the entire Obama administration, including Biden and those Obama put in power whom still work in the government, violated the Hatch Act as well.




Political Activity

DOs and DON'Ts
...
Hatch Act Rules
No Use of Official Authority

A Federal employee may NOT use his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. Prohibited activities include, but are not limited to:

Using his or her official title while participating in political activity
Using his or her authority to coerce any person to participate in political activity
Soliciting, accepting, or receiving uncompensated individual volunteer services from a subordinate for any political purpose.
...

Political Activity DOs and DON'Ts



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

So where were you when the testimony yesterday talked about irregular channels with Mulvany and Giuliani.
Lets pretend they were not pressuring Ukrainian officials with trumps wants and holding up aid to get fake dirt.

Irregular is not ILLEGAL
Please present EVIDENCE anyone was pressured.
Not 2nd hand accounts but actual EVIDENCE

Just because you dont like his foreign policy decisions does not make them ILLEGAL.

Caw
Caw



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join