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: 7
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Pelosi is clearly unfit to be house speaker at this rate




posted on Nov, 15 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
I somehow dont believe this nonsense.



A lot of Senators are not to happy about his diversion of Pentagon funds for his wall, either.

Yes and i am sure those Pentagon funds would have being better used at spreading and funding the neo fascist militants in Ukraine and the so called Moderate rebels in Syria right? hows that freedom and democary in Libya coming along?

Source
The Pentagon funds meanwhile are being used to fund right wing nationalist party Svoboda which also have a number of militant forces in Eastern Ukraine which had being accused of burning homes and people alive.
edit on 15-11-2019 by ChefFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Okay. Impeachment is criminal as in high crimes and misdemeanors right? Do I really need to bold the text?



Separation of powers means a President is not subject to criminal legal proceedings while in office.

Impeachment is a political process legal in form only.

I haven't clicked the OP article because Gateway pundit wants to litter my cache with tracking cookies (142 of them according to Chrome).

The evidence the Democrats have exposed thus far has been broad, consistent and compelling.

If President Trump is telling the truth about his innocent motivations for withholding Aid and how things unfolded he should definitely start refuting the evidence with actual documents, correspondence or testimony. The stonewalling is not working as that wall is crumbling quickly, three more people gave depositions today and Sondland testify's next week.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Caractacus


The evidence the Democrats have exposed thus far has


They have really now? i dont think so.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: Caractacus


The evidence the Democrats have exposed thus far has


They have really now? i dont think so.


OK



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 06:00 PM
link   
the former standards of establishing Evidence by Foundational Issues, AKA 'the rule of Law...
thecommonsenseshow.com... n


… is now superseded by the Impeachment Inquiry panel of persons in the House Intel. Committee , led by Adam Schiff but organized/blessed by the Self Appointed Speaker of House Authority, Nancy Pelosi who has already judged Trump as a Guilty 'Enemy of the State' and committed high crimes … and needs removed under the 'Rules' of the NDAA (NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT)


the recent conviction of STONE (up to 50 yrs) for 'Thought Crime' is also using the application of NDAA rules, instead of the former standard of 'Rule of Law'

J ASSANGE, is also subject to NDAA punishment, under the Pelosi regime (coexistent with the Trump-Pence Admin, as yet still in place under the defunct Constitutional 'rule of Law')


America has at present TWO Presidents, one operating under the NDAA rules, the other President is running the gauntlet of Impeachment/Removal under the superseeded Constitution provisions 'by rule of law'


At least that's the current discussions within the group I confer with, lately on an almost daily basis


Trump might sit in the Oval Office, much like a Guilded Cage for the many months until election day 2020


according to some Deep State actors, We the People have spoken & We have the USAs first female (anti) POTUS
installed by NDAA Martial Law and a POTUS guilty of being an Enemy of the State but still not yet Removed



Does that outline/synopsis of recent events, even come close to being realized ? or just sound like a Action Adventure/ Political Drama story line for a 2 hour Movie ?

contributions to the Core Elements of the Suspense Drama would be Appreciated... or are you scared of being designated a Red Dot mailbox owner
edit on th30157395063816302019 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 07:01 PM
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 ?


This is not a criminal case where the "reasonable doubt" standard applies. Actually, the Constitution does not set out any particular standard for either the House or Senate. So, it is whatever each entity says it is.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio




At least that's the current discussions within the group I confer with, lately on an almost daily basis


Let me guess...

This group has something to do with "Q Anon"?



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

But Nancy said in plain English that Trump needs to show some evidence of innocence.

Why are YOU hacking-up the facts ? πŸ˜ƒ πŸ˜ƒ πŸ˜ƒ πŸ˜ƒ πŸ˜ƒ πŸ˜ƒ πŸ˜ƒ πŸ˜ƒ

That's not exactly what she said. Frankly, if he did have anything to prove his innocence, then he should submit it to help hire cause albeit not legally necessary. It would probably be wise to save it for the actual impeachment so ther Dems don't have much time to twist it all up.

Unfortunately, it's beyond difficult to prove one's innocence which is why we aren't required to do so.

My issue with Pelosi's statements in the video is that she speaks matter of factly that President Trump IS guilty. What he [definitely] did was worse than Nixon.

She's trying to sell it as though he's already been tried and convicted like it's already in the history books or something. Jacks my jaws, man.

There is no "allegedly" to her references to Trump.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...
If and when...(not really if), the House Judicial Committee reviews the evidence from the investigation, they will craft "Articles of Impeachment". These articles will be sent to the Senate, where the public trial will be held.

Then the president's legal team can present a vigorous defense, confront witnesses, etc. with the "impartial" Senate jury and Chief Justice judge.



Wrong. Schiff doesn't plan on allowing Republicans to bring their own witnesses... He already did this for these open impeachment sham... Since Schiff illegally used a SCIF, that evidence cannot be presented to the public, and neither can most Republicans in the House or Senate see this evidence. Instead Schiff will make up his own statements similar to how he made up the call between President Trump and the Ukrainian President.

Schiff, Pelosi, et al are socialist dictators. Democrats have shown their true nature... Nothing but a bunch of dictator wannabes whom would deny people's rights simply for being in the opposite political party, and for not kowtowing to the left and their globalist leaders...



edit on 16-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy




This is not a criminal case where the "reasonable doubt" standard applies. Actually, the Constitution does not set out any particular standard for either the House or Senate


No , it sets it out as a right for all of us .......constitutionally.......therefore it still applies.. ...House or Senate doesnt matter, thats not how constitutional law works.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: St Udio



At least that's the current discussions within the group I confer with, lately on an almost daily basis

Let me guess...This group has something to do with "Q Anon"?


 


Nope, It's a throw-away Group, who pop a couple beers and casual chat... locals/neighbors/ & a few who keep in touch via internet connections



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

Okay. I still find your post confusing as #.



a reply to: ElectricUniverse



Wrong.
Schiff doesn't plan on allowing Republicans to...


Good thing that when it goes to trial Mitch McConnell and the Republicans will in charge.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

Hahaha! This is true. I just can't wait for the dirt to come out on the other side. Barr and Durham know stuff.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Nancy... remember this isn't the USSR. In the United States of America, it's INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty. Dolt.
This women needs to retire. Her addle-brain is failing. She should stop drinking. It shows...


It's Bizzaro world yet again....
edit on 11/16/2019 by Pharyax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Pelosi sure knows how to pull those triggers doesn't she? Her and everyone else in Washington are putting on quite the show, it's been very effective in creating the Divided States of America.

Divided we fall. Pelosi is doing a great job of playing her part. I wonder how good of friends her and Trump actually are behind the curtains? Probably the best of friends.




I really think about this more and more every day. There is logic to prove both sides for people who choose to wear Red or Blue proudly. Or just choose to rip on one color. Either way, they are right, by their own logic and use of facts. And they are fighting against someone doing entirely the same thing that they are doing. It's a merry-go-round of us fighting against each other, not coming together as a community.

I notice it now - because what the president is being accused of right now is exactly what the last president was accused of during the election campaigns. They both are being accused of using presidential powers to dig dirt on a political candidate. Both sides are in outrage that the president who is using the powers is in direct violation of everything we hold our dearest most bleeding hearts to. And yet nobody will see that this happened exactly the same 3/4 years ago.... The sides have only switched on who is on defense and offense.

We are spinning and spinning, and where ever we stop, we surely won't know - only whoever is guiding this whole crazy journey.

UNLESS - we really are just nuts as a whole, the human race, and we are just doing this sh#t to ourselves... lmao



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You know, with the sheer number of self-professed insiders we have here, it seems to me that more of these crazy predictions would come true ... you know ... once in a while?

I mean ... broke clocks and all that.



posted on Nov, 16 2019 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Myollinir

There’s a certain symmetry isn’t there?



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 17 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: F4guy




This is not a criminal case where the "reasonable doubt" standard applies. Actually, the Constitution does not set out any particular standard for either the House or Senate


No , it sets it out as a right for all of us .......constitutionally.......therefore it still applies.. ...House or Senate doesnt matter, thats not how constitutional law works.


You could not be more wrong, although many people believe that the reasonable doubt standard is enshrined in the Constitution. I taught Constitutional Law at an ABA accredited law school and I can assure you that the standard appears nowhere in that document. It is a holdover from English Common Law, and became part of that as a result of certain religious beliefs. It was said, " According to judicial law prior to the 1780s: "the Juryman who finds any other person guilty, is liable to the Vengeance of God upon his Family and Trade, Body and Soul, in this world and that to come."[2] It was also believed "In every case of doubt, where one's salvation is in peril, one must always take the safer way. ... A judge who is in doubt must refuse to judge." In any event, the standard only applies in criminal cases and only at the trial, which can result in conviction. It doesn't apply at the arraignment, or preliminary hearing, or grand jury proceeding. The standards there are akin to "reason to believe." I would invite you to take a look at Victor v. Nebraska (1994) and James Q. Whitman What Are the Origins of Reasonable Doubt?, History News Network, George Mason University, February 25, 2008.




top topics



 
51
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join