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.

 

Pelosi Says President Trump Has to Show the Impeachment Committee Proof of Innocence

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   

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? 😂


lol




posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Ms. LubeWrack!



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Much much better, you no longer need to be reeeee-educated .



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

She’ll just have a couple of belts to steady her nerves. It will be alright. Just don’t let her keep the key...



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Nancy says she has evidence of bribery, then a few seconds later she says the Committee hasn't even decided whether or not to even impeach 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Nancy says What Nixon did looks almost small !!

😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 04:25 AM
link   

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



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 05:01 AM
link   
She did not say that.
She said if he has exculpatory evidence he should present it.
Rolls eyes.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Wildmanimal

Of course not. And he would never answer questions under oath either.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 05:51 AM
link   
it just popped into my head last night...

the whole Trump Impeachment exercise is based on the NDAA 'rules of law'... Trump is Guilty unless he proves his innocence, the targeted individual can be prosecuted relentlessly (just as Trump has been since the first Spying into his campaign in 2015)
~the totally bizarre, Impeachment Inquiry Process, was fashioned on the NDAA 'rules of law' by Schiff/Pelosi et al...~

Pelosi has engaged the (dormant) NDAA 'rules of law' to antagonize Trump, because Pelosi is conducting the first stages of the Calexit Process of Seceding from the US of A and thus dumping all governmental authority exercised by the Executive branch over California & the USA


((take the idea and develop it more, dear reader))



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
She did not say that.
She said if he has exculpatory evidence he should present it.
Rolls eyes.


so what your saying is he needs to provide EVIDENCE he is INNOCENT.

I dont care how you try to play somatic word games it isnt up to him UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to prove he is innocent in an investigation or trial... its up to them to PROVE HIM GUILTY.

though I do find it quite sad that you defend a comment about how she is saying if he has evidence he should provide it when at every level they have been denying anyone even asking a question of witnesses if it doesnt apply to proving trump has done something illegal.

to be honest this public hearing is the FIRST TIME any "republican" has been allowed unfettered questioning of the witnesses.

scrounger



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 06:56 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:00 AM
link   

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 ?



According to the Democrats in Congress these days, as Pelosi openly admitted, guilty until PROVEN innocent no longer applies in the Democratic Party run US justice system. The old style "prove you aren't a witch by floating in the lake while bound and in heavy clothing" is the new Democratic Party method of justice.

According to the Democrats in Congress, third hand gossip by several is better than one with first hand knowledge.

I know, I know - this is an inquisition not a trial. Oops, inquiry not a trial.

Add this to Sanders saying the people don't need to know how much his policies will cost them. Boom. Totalitarian authoritarian government is what is being enacted and proposed by the Democratic Party.

Scary for the future of the country.


edit on 11/15/19 by The2Billies because: addition



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:03 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:05 AM
link   

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.





What is more exculpatory than a transcript of the phone call? Oh, that's right according to the Democratic Party, actual first hand transcript of what happened is no good. The only acceptable evidence would be a train of third hand gossip mongers.

Thanks Democratic Party for ensuring no future US President will be able to have a private diplomatic conversation with any world leader. Because the Democrats have set the precedent that all private diplomatic Presidential conversations can be made public and will be made public at the whim of Congress.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:08 AM
link   

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.


They would IF Schiff allowed it. He shuts up Republicans, won't allow the witnesses that could give exculpatory evidence. Remember he has scrubbed the witness list the Republicans gave him to suit his gossip game performance.

Can you think of more exculpatory evidence than the fact Ukraine got the money before the conversation took place? Why isn't the transcript considered exculpatory evidence, because it is first hand? Yep - according to the Democrats only gossip is good testimony by people who are far down on the gossip chain.

Even a kid knows the gossip game and how it works. Yet, according to the Democratic Party, someone down the gossip chain knows the truth while the first person (transcript) is not to be trusted what was actually said.

Ok, we all buy it. So when are courts in the US going to start using this method of deciding guilt or innocence Oh yea this is an inquisition not a trial/ oops an inquiry.

And we all still believe Santa is real because so many people tell us he exists, there are even movies about him and how he is real.

Thanks Democrats for enlightening us on how third hand gossip is what we should believe over first hand information. A new US justice system at work!




edit on 11/15/19 by The2Billies because: addition



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   
It’s not gossip nor hearsay when witnesses testify about meetings they were in, memos that they read, conversations they had, or the knowledge that there was months of preparation by Guiliani and co. for that call that you guys are so stuck on.

You’ve been crying for a fair “trial” and then when the testimony goes in a way you don’t like, you wail and cry.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:23 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   

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?



posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   

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?


Any good prosecutor will have already looked for evidence or anything that would clear the person on trial.

That's just common sense.

What Pelosi is doing is goading Trump to release evidence SHE may not already have.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join