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.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Oh! I'm extremely sorry.
*ahem* Trump is great. He cares about me and my family. It is all real and there is no such thing as "divide and conquer" anymore, the whole divisive narrative coming from Washington and the media is totally organic and not scripted at all.
How's that? 😂
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Ahabstar
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
Right now, we're observing am investigation/hearings. Trump has not been accused of anything.
[quote]
just when I thought the bold face lies, obfuscation, and clearly false comments from democrats, anti trump, and the main stream press could not possibly be topped you step up to the plate with this one.
it took multiple readings and comprehension time to digest what you stated.
let me re quote "right now, we're observing am investigation/hearings. Trump has not been accused of anything."
do you REALIZE what you stated and REALLY BELIEVE IT?
Lets first take it at face value and limit it to just this SPECIFIC situation (for brevity sake) .
the press has HOUNDED DAILY with accusations of first quip pro quo and now "bribery and intimidation".
this is coming from almost (if not all) main stream media, democratic representatives, the "witnesses" for democrats and even more bluntly from the congressional commodities themselves.
so all that is just "faux / fake news"?
common you cant expect anyone to believe what you just stated and be taken as anything but a raving anti trump political fool?
but lets broaden out to what the truly scary effect of what your stating.
we have a LEGAL RIGHT of "probable cause" that MUST BE PRESENT for any " investigation/hearings" to happen.
this applies to EVERYONE from the most strung out junkie in the street to the president of the United States and everyone inbetween. this is to be applied EQUALLY no matter what (in this case) political party they represent or how well "liked" they are.
in laymen s terms there must be as part of "probable cause" (if not the very meaning) an "ACCUSATION(S)"
no legal/investigating entity can engage in " investigation/hearings" unless this has been met.
from the cop on the beet to yes even a congressional committee .
especially if you expect ANY legal proceedings to convict someone of a crime.
so if we follow this comment and application to ANYONE after trump your advocating people being "investigated" to see IF , MAYBE , POSSIBLY (i say again IF, MAYBE, POSSIBLY ) there is a crime somewhere.
so your all for throwing out "probable cause" and let ANY AGENCY investigate ANYONE AT ANYTIME.
So if (just for discussion) say the local county courts want to hold " investigation/hearings" on YOU just because your ok with that?
bet not NOR SHOULD YOU.
but what your advocating in going after trump if allowed to stand cannot be just used on him.
once it has been turned into ACCEPTED PRACTICE then it is free FOR ANY AGENCY to be used ON ANYONE.
you cant cry "but it was just for trump because he was so bad".
So I ask in all seriousness...
are you gonna REALLY STAND BY your comment with all the implications it has toward destroying our rights?
just to get one man?
scrounger
originally posted by: Sillyolme
She did not say that.
She said if he has exculpatory evidence he should present it.
Rolls eyes.
"If the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known, and that's part of the inquiry," Pelosi said.
"So far we haven't seen that but we welcome it," she added.
originally posted by: Wildmanimal
a reply to: xuenchen
Actually,
The President of the United States of America
has to prove nothing to the political Soviet Style Inquisition.
They, Pelosi and Crew, must prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. The politically biased accusations and method of
"guilty by accusation in a court of public opinion"
will not hold water nor merit.
We no longer have to "Sign The Bill before We The People Read It".
S A V V Y ?
If the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known,” Pelosi said. “So far we haven’t see that.”
originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: xuenchen
Posting Pelosi quote for clarity.
"If the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known, and that's part of the inquiry," Pelosi said.
"So far we haven't seen that but we welcome it," she added.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Another day, another misrepresentation.
Here’s what Pelosi said:
If the president has something that is exculpatory — Mr. President, that means you have anything that shows your innocence — then he should make that known,” Pelosi said. “So far we haven’t see that.”
Source
The OP is another misrepresentation (expected at this point), but haven’t we been hearing for WEEKS that the Dems should let Trump defend himself? DUE PROCESS!!!
The Speaker offers it, and what do the Trump zealots cry then?
“SHE’S DEMANDING HE PROVE HIMSELF INNOCENT.”
Look up exculpatory. Apparently, you guys don’t understand the concept either.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen
Pelosi may have evidence clearing Trump of any wrong doing, but what she did by saying that was she doesn’t have any evidence and wants to know what evidence Trump has to clear himself.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen
Pelosi may have evidence clearing Trump of any wrong doing, but what she did by saying that was she doesn’t have any evidence and wants to know what evidence Trump has to clear himself.
Hmm ... so going with the common courtroom analogy, when the judge tells the defense they can make their case, he’s really admitting that the prosecution doesn’t have one?
That doesn’t seem right, does it?