It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler
For the record, I think Mulvaney is right. Quid pro quo is foreign policy.
That’s assigned to the President in Article II.
So far, this has been a farce, albeit a Constitutional one.
I’ve decided that the Framers meant it to be this way. Allowing the People’s House to Impeach officers while making it virtually impossible to remove them unless there were real egregious issues involved. Intentionally or not, they were geniuses.
originally posted by: network dude
I mentioned this before, but where in the process of reporting to your superiors and chain of command is spreading gossip to a whistleblower? I did a quick peak at the UCMJ and didn't see it there. I only served 6 years, so it's possible they never told me, or I just forgot. If spreading gossip that's classified is kosher, someone please let me know.
I would say it’s more than that.... Soros is involved, ax it’s been posted elsewhere in one of these threads. I know I sound like a broken record about Soros, but what is he doing running the State Dept? Ive said before he runs the Democrat Party, but his puppet strings teach right into the State dept. I hope people will really consider the implication.
originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
This President does things differently. Nobody likes it. They just can't accept it and get over it. Just because he does things differently and takes a different approach to politics, the deeply entrenched Statesmen are afraid that their life's work is being undermined, instead of realizing that the People WANT it to be done differently than it has been. That would be supporting their country, not this display of a complete waste of our tax money.
The President was investigating corruption of the 2016 election, that just coincidentally, was involved with a soon-to-be (not at the time) political opponent and his son and colleagues of his. If his job is to ensure that our tax money is used as aid, and not funneled off into an oligarch's account, which has been proven to have happened with Burisma, he is doing his job by looking into where that money went, and by not wanting to give more money until it is understood and resolved.
And that can be viewed as a Quid Pro Quo? It doesn't get any clearer what the intention was.
Yah Im guessing you weren’t as respectful when people were saying “General Betrayus”. ??
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neo96
That's Lt. Col. Turtle to you private.
when your whole defense is trying to smear the witness you are already on the losing side.
Hint... a defense includes things that prove innocence. He should be working on the "why he did this" because he sure isn't getting away with "he didnt do this".
originally posted by: neo96
The guy reminds me of a turtle.