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.

 

republicans got their ass handed to them

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
It is rather odd a low level army officer(LT. Colonel) to be offered a defense minister job out of the blue like that.

Not so odd for a CIA spook or FSB.


We're hearing now that his boss and other team members on the NSC wanted him fired because of his obvious bias and worries that he was leaking "need to know" information but his termination was blocked by an Obama holdover in the White House HR department...

Who just happens to be a close friend of the Obama family.

Coincidences, coincidences...





posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Grambler




Vindman later admitted the word "demand" was never used in the transcript.

Neither was corruption, as the claim about "corruption."

Just because the word "demand" wasn't used doesn't negate that aid was conditioned on an investigation or a public statement thereof.



And yet they didnt or havent as of yet that we know of carried out that investigation, and they have still received their aid.............

so..........


As stated, irrelevant.

That's a tired argument, that "they received it so nothing was improper."

But nice narrative.


So the actual fact that what Trump is being accused of didn't actually happen is irrelevant?

Just... wow.

So how is the weather in Narnia this time of year?



Dont you DARE insult Narnia like that!


Narnia has their bad people too...




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   
www.dailywire.com... we see the dems call of a Lieutenant colonel and raise them a retired Lieutenant General who was actually on the call to Ukraine


Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who is Vice President Mike Pence’s National Security Adviser, released a statement on Tuesday stating that he was on President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and that he heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. Kellogg’s statement came in response to Jennifer Williams, special adviser on Europe and Russia for Vice President Mike Pence, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee hearing. Kellogg wrote, “I was on the much-reported July 25 call between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky. As an exceedingly proud member of President Trump’s Administration and as a 34-year highly experienced combat veteran who retired with the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army, I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns.”


here is His full response

Full statement from Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg about the testimony of Jennifer Williams: Statement from Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg National Security Advisor Office of Vice President Mike Pence Beginning January 20, 2017, I was privileged to serve as Chief of Staff at the National Security Council. Since April 23, 2018, I have served as National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States. In my role in the Office of the Vice President, Jennifer Williams, a detailee from the U.S. Department of State, has reported to me since April 1, 2019. I was on the much-reported July 25 call between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky. As an exceedingly proud member of President Trump’s Administration and as a 34-year highly experienced combat veteran who retired with the rank of Lieutenant General in the Army, I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns. Ms. Williams was also on the call, and as she testified, she never reported any personal or professional concerns to me, her direct supervisor, regarding the call. In fact, she never reported any personal or professional concerns to any other member of the Vice President’s staff, including our Chief of Staff and the Vice President. Today, in her testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Ms. Williams also accurately testified regarding the Vice President’s preparation for and conduct during his September 1 meeting in Poland with President Zelensky. In her testimony, she affirmed that the Vice President focused on President Zelensky’s anti-corruption efforts and the lack of European support and never mentioned former Vice President Joe Biden, Crowdstrike, Burisma, or investigations in any communication with Ukrainians. In my over 40-years in uniform and additional federal service, I am honored to serve this President and this Vice President as we advance the interests of the American people.
seems Williams did not want to follow the chain of command



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Liquesence




As stated, irrelevant.


Yes were well aware that facts are irrelevant to the rabid left......

its much more relevant than the rest of your post by far.....to be fair






But nice narrative.



One need not succeed at a crime for one to commit a crime.

But I'm sure you knew that, right?


One would have at least have conspired to do the actual crime to commit one...

But I'm sure you knew that, right?

/facepalm


Ignorance is no defense.

But I'm sure you know that, right?

/facepalm



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Grambler




Vindman later admitted the word "demand" was never used in the transcript.

Neither was corruption, as the claim about "corruption."

Just because the word "demand" wasn't used doesn't negate that aid was conditioned on an investigation or a public statement thereof.



And yet they didnt or havent as of yet that we know of carried out that investigation, and they have still received their aid.............

so..........


As stated, irrelevant.

That's a tired argument, that "they received it so nothing was improper."

But nice narrative.


So the actual fact that what Trump is being accused of didn't actually happen is irrelevant?

Just... wow.

So how is the weather in Narnia this time of year?



It did happen. Whether he succeeded or not is what is irrelevant.

I know you're not that dense, so I'm sure you know that.



I'm not as dense as you are, obviously.

Just handing your Ad Hom back.

And when you leave the thread, please pick up your dignity...

It's laying right there on the floor with your morals.




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Meh I respect allegiance, to your party affiliation, you sound somewhat down to earth, yet the democrats cannot prove bribery, quid pro quo, and or any breaking of the law wouldn’t you agree with that?

Speculation, innuendos, hypotheticals, and opinions are not facts.

But if we look at Biden’s oh boy, we don’t have speculation we don’t have innuendos, or hypotheticals we have a refusal to give aid unless someone got fired lol 🤷‍♂️

Just making a point.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Oh yeah, you were one of those "Asking a legal counsel if something would be illegal is equivalent to obstructing justice" honks in the waning days of the Russian Collusion investigation farce, weren't you? That explains a lot in the context of your arguments here. Save yourself a lot of typing time and just spam this from here on out:
IT'S ILLEGAL BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE ILLEGAL AND THE NARRATIVE NEEDS IT TO BE ILLEGAL
and save us the read time along the way.


Oh, yeah, so you're one of those "it's not illegal because the bank robber failed to get away with the money" type of illogical wanks?

That explains a lot


Your analogy would be appropriate, except that "the bank" says it wasn't robbed or attempted robbed.



But they (Ukraine) expressed their concerns on several occasions, according to testimony.


Based on the opinions of partisan Trump-haters.

No proof.

Just opinion.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Grambler




Vindman later admitted the word "demand" was never used in the transcript.

Neither was corruption, as the claim about "corruption."

Just because the word "demand" wasn't used doesn't negate that aid was conditioned on an investigation or a public statement thereof.



And yet they didnt or havent as of yet that we know of carried out that investigation, and they have still received their aid.............

so..........


As stated, irrelevant.

That's a tired argument, that "they received it so nothing was improper."

But nice narrative.


So the actual fact that what Trump is being accused of didn't actually happen is irrelevant?

Just... wow.

So how is the weather in Narnia this time of year?



It did happen. Whether he succeeded or not is what is irrelevant.

I know you're not that dense, so I'm sure you know that.



I'm not as dense as you are, obviously.

Just handing your Ad Hom back.

And when you leave the thread, please pick up your dignity...

It's laying right there on the floor with your morals.



I'll take that into consideration.

I might offer that you take your own advice, while you're at it.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

I am solidly against the democrats and this farce of a hearing but Schiff's closing was solid for the D's. He got Volker to admit that when he said he saw nothing wrong with Trump asking to investigate Burisma, Volker didn't connect at the time that "investigating Burisma" meant investigating Biden and that if he had known the true meaning of investigate Burisma at the time of the call, he (Volker) would have raised his concerns within the state dept. Also, there was testimony that Sondland took a telephone call where Trump was yelling so loud into the phone asking whether Ukraine had started the investigation that Sondland had to hold the phone away from his ear and that's how others overheard that phone call. Finally, Schiff got Volker to confirm that it was US policy that the Obama administration actually wanted the prosecutor fired that Biden is on video bragging about getting him fired.

Nunes had a weak closing, just basically restated that it's a clown show and hoax but didn't go into anything the Republicans had proved. Most importantly, Voler and Morrison both testified that they were both on the telephone call, they both had spoken to Trump, they both had spoken several times to the Ukraine president and at no time was there any mention or knowledge of pressure by Trump to investigate nor was there any questions by the Ukranian's as to whether there was really a need to investigate Biden to receive aid. These are the two top Ukranian diplomats and they both testified that no one on either side (US or Ukraine) ever thought that an investigation was demanded. No one on US side ever asked about whether an investigation was started and no one from Ukraine asked whether an investigation was necessary, despite numerous contacts between top diplomats after the call. Thus, no one ever gave a second thought to starting an investigation after the telephone call. I thought that was huge admission/testimony by the top Ukraine diplomats. Nunes should have driven this point in his closing.

Now my question, it's pretty apparent Hunter Biden's deal with Burisma is corrupt so what's wrong with Trump asking Ukraine to investigate? That's where the crime occurred and where the evidence is located, isn't it? So why shouldn't Ukraine be asked to investigate corrupt acts occurring in their territory? It's not like Trump is demanding that Ukraine fabricate information or create a fake dossier like the Democrats... The republicans need to better disclose VP Biden's corrupt acts as VP in charge of Ukraine (i.e,, calling state dept and President of Ukraine to demand they intercede and stop Ukraine from investigating Burisma and it's owner) and link it to Hunter's position: Futher, why did the Obama administration want that prosecutor fired and make it official US policy to fire that prosecutor - was he really corrupt or was he getting too close to finding the OBama administration's corruption?)
edit on 19-11-2019 by Southcoast57 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2019 by Southcoast57 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2019 by Southcoast57 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

I agree and these "hearings" are a waste of our money
and airwave space to broadcast on TV.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Grambler




Vindman later admitted the word "demand" was never used in the transcript.

Neither was corruption, as the claim about "corruption."

Just because the word "demand" wasn't used doesn't negate that aid was conditioned on an investigation or a public statement thereof.



And yet they didnt or havent as of yet that we know of carried out that investigation, and they have still received their aid.............

so..........


As stated, irrelevant.

That's a tired argument, that "they received it so nothing was improper."

But nice narrative.


So you are in favor of prosecuting mindreading thought crimes.

Good to know. I don’t think the majority of Americans are with you on that.
edit on 19-11-2019 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

eh Ukraine expressed concerns alright but it was before trump won ,you know when they were trying to help Hillary get elected which oddly enough no one seems to care about happening
www.politico.com...

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
which makes the whole impeachment thing even more irksome



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo



So you are in favor of prosecuting mindreading thought crimes.


What thought crime?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Morrison was the best witness for the repubs, but he also went on record saying he sees nothing wrong with pushing Ukraine to investigate US citizens or Trump's political rival. I also thought it was funny that he said there was nothing wrong with the phone call but did feel the call needed to be secured because it could be damaging.

My guess on this is that he would rather be seen as someone with poor morals than someone who complicit with going along with what Bolton called a drug deal.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


Formal Title
Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998, and with an Exchange of Notes signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application.


Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

www.congress.gov...



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Oh yeah, you were one of those "Asking a legal counsel if something would be illegal is equivalent to obstructing justice" honks in the waning days of the Russian Collusion investigation farce, weren't you? That explains a lot in the context of your arguments here. Save yourself a lot of typing time and just spam this from here on out:
IT'S ILLEGAL BECAUSE I WANT IT TO BE ILLEGAL AND THE NARRATIVE NEEDS IT TO BE ILLEGAL
and save us the read time along the way.


Oh, yeah, so you're one of those "it's not illegal because the bank robber failed to get away with the money" type of illogical wanks?

That explains a lot


Your analogy would be appropriate, except that "the bank" says it wasn't robbed or attempted robbed.



How's this...bank is hit with ransomware attack. Locked out of all systems. Hacker demand money for return of access. 2nd hacker(good guy hacker) sends original hacker his home adress and tells him they will report what they are doing. Original hacker returns system access to the bank.

The bank tells the press it was a system error. Of course they arnt gonna admit they were hacked.

Is the original hacker only guilty of hacking their system or are they guilty of extortion?


Of fking course they are guilty of extortion!



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

There are appropriate channels for that just like both Volker and Morrison said.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: proximo



So you are in favor of prosecuting mindreading thought crimes.


What thought crime?


Apparently you think trump was thinking he wouldn’t give the aid unless he got an investigation of Biden.

But that never happened.

As far as I know there is not one witness even saying he said that out loud and definitely not to any Ukrainian. Sondland in fact has testified he told him no quid pro quo - the exact opposite.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   
This was a bad day for Nunes.

His two witnesses claim their was a quid pro quo.

Morrison immediately goes to lawyers after hearing the call.

Ambassador Volker claims that the entire time he thought they were just asking Ukrainian took look into Ukranians at Burisma....seriously?

He now says he understands that it was an investigation into hunter and says he would have raised his concerns if had know that before.

I cannot wait to hear from Sondland tomorrow.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

So the Ukrainians are lying.

Proof?








 
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join