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: Caractacus
originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: Gryphon66
The DOJ has zero authority to launch in investigation in a foreign country.
Either does the President of the Untied States.
That is kind of the whole thing.
www.foxnews.com...
Holmes said Sondland told Trump that Zelensky “loves your ass” to which Trump responded: “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: HalWesten
You can continue to believe that, or you can accept the FACT that there was indeed an attempt at helping Clinton beat Trump in 2016 - BY UKRAINE. Just accept the truth and move on, please. You look like a fool every time you deny that it happened.
Facts speak for themselves and require neither insults or ALL CAPS.
originally posted by: HalWesten
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: Gryphon66
The DOJ has zero authority to launch in investigation in a foreign country.
Either does the President of the Untied States.
That is kind of the whole thing.
And you would be incorrect, the treaty between our two countries allows for either to ask the other to help uncover criminal acts.
originally posted by: JAY1980
What a piece of Schiff...
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: HalWesten
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: Gryphon66
The DOJ has zero authority to launch in investigation in a foreign country.
Either does the President of the Untied States.
That is kind of the whole thing.
And you would be incorrect, the treaty between our two countries allows for either to ask the other to help uncover criminal acts.
That treaty forbids involvement from private citizens like Giuliani.
It also requires precise documents be filed via DOJ to the Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and has limits and guidelines on how requests are communicated.
That treaty was structured to prevent exactly this type of illicit purported scheme.
If that treaty is in any way is relevant it is only as an example of how the treaty was violated via President Trump's demand.
I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.
We've got Trump now!
originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: shawmanfromny
I cant get past it. Wth is wrong with Schiff's eyes? It's like he's seen a ghost. I see the invisible puppet strings being pulled though.
originally posted by: HalWesten
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: HalWesten
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: Gryphon66
The DOJ has zero authority to launch in investigation in a foreign country.
Either does the President of the Untied States.
That is kind of the whole thing.
And you would be incorrect, the treaty between our two countries allows for either to ask the other to help uncover criminal acts.
That treaty forbids involvement from private citizens like Giuliani.
It also requires precise documents be filed via DOJ to the Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and has limits and guidelines on how requests are communicated.
That treaty was structured to prevent exactly this type of illicit purported scheme.
If that treaty is in any way is relevant it is only as an example of how the treaty was violated via President Trump's demand.
I'm looking at the treaty and "private citizen" is not in the text. "Private Parties" is, once, in Article 1(4) in the context of not being able to gather evidence or impede the execution of a request.
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: HalWesten
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: HalWesten
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: Gryphon66
The DOJ has zero authority to launch in investigation in a foreign country.
Either does the President of the Untied States.
That is kind of the whole thing.
And you would be incorrect, the treaty between our two countries allows for either to ask the other to help uncover criminal acts.
That treaty forbids involvement from private citizens like Giuliani.
It also requires precise documents be filed via DOJ to the Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and has limits and guidelines on how requests are communicated.
That treaty was structured to prevent exactly this type of illicit purported scheme.
If that treaty is in any way is relevant it is only as an example of how the treaty was violated via President Trump's demand.
I'm looking at the treaty and "private citizen" is not in the text. "Private Parties" is, once, in Article 1(4) in the context of not being able to gather evidence or impede the execution of a request.
What was Giuliani doing?
originally posted by: HalWesten
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: HalWesten
originally posted by: Caractacus
originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: Gryphon66
The DOJ has zero authority to launch in investigation in a foreign country.
Either does the President of the Untied States.
That is kind of the whole thing.
And you would be incorrect, the treaty between our two countries allows for either to ask the other to help uncover criminal acts.
That treaty forbids involvement from private citizens like Giuliani.
It also requires precise documents be filed via DOJ to the Ministry of Justice in Ukraine and has limits and guidelines on how requests are communicated.
That treaty was structured to prevent exactly this type of illicit purported scheme.
If that treaty is in any way is relevant it is only as an example of how the treaty was violated via President Trump's demand.
I'm looking at the treaty and "private citizen" is not in the text. "Private Parties" is, once, in Article 1(4) in the context of not being able to gather evidence or impede the execution of a request. However, in Article 2 that establishes how cooperation is handled, the Attorney General or his designee is authorized for the USA. Period. That is the only time it's addressed so your statement is incorrect.
Despite your obvious hatred for Trump, he did nothing that violated anything regarding the treaty or the phone call.
By the way, Trump actually said this in the phone call:
I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.
Proper channels were followed. End of discussion.
Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not
intended to create rights in private parties to obtain,
suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution
of a request.
Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central
Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the
Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be
the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney
General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the
Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General.
The article provides that the Central Authorities shall
communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the
Treaty.
Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which a
Requested State's Central Authority may deny assistance under
the Treaty. A request may be denied if it relates to a military
offense that would not be an offense under ordinary criminal
law. A further ground for denial is that the request relates to
a political offense (a term expected to be defined on the basis
of that term's usage in extradition treaties). In addition, a
request may be denied if its execution would prejudice the
security or similar essential interests of the Requested State,
or if it is not made in conformity with the Treaty.
Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written
requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information
required in each request. The article permits other forms of
requests in emergency situations but requires written
confirmation within ten days thereafter unless the Central
Authority of the Requested State agrees otherwise.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Caractacus
It's not that big of a deal, because none of those people were with the President when he described what he wanted.
And a Quid-Quo-Pro is not illegal.