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: 14
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I need you to do us a favor though...

sure its in the call and everyone agrees that its in the call.

all the rest is just gravy.
Including all the testimony about how it was a shakedown to get information. Like a mafia boss.




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

When Trump threatened to close the border with Mexico unless Mexico started policing it's side, was that extortion?

Think carefully before answering.


100% it was also a quid pro quo.


It's also called foreign policy.

When we (the US) make funds contingent on equal rights, gay rights in other countries, it is foreign policy and done at the discretion of the president.

Looking into corruption in the 2016 election is perfectly legal based on the treaty we have with Ukraine and at the discretion of the president.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Sure they felt so much pressure that they took four more months to get this guy to resign.
And its a friggin lie that anyone was looking at Bidens son. Stop. Its been proven to be a lie.
You cannot keep presenting it as true and stay within the terms and conditions which state you cannot post a known lie.
So stop.
And stop saying that what BIden did and what trump was doing were anywhere near the same thing.
Biden had no horse in the race no matter what you think. What you believe is a lie.
Trump on the other hand was in it for himself and withheld needed aid where people then died for his own personal gain.

Not the same.

Im curious, how many Moons and Suns do you have where your at? Here on planet Earth we have one of each in case you're wondering.






You cannot keep presenting it as true and stay within the terms and conditions which state you cannot post a known lie.

Hmmm...Then how do you get away with it? You do it daily. Maybe you should stop posting?
edit on 19-11-2019 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sillyolme

When Trump threatened to close the border with Mexico unless Mexico started policing it's side, was that extortion?

Think carefully before answering.


I don't know. Did he ask them for dirt on a political rival? Do you not see the difference?


Yes he was. Hearsay of some guy who works with a woman who is married to another woman who was havin affair with a man who plays league with the cousin of the proctologist for one of the janitors who cleans the toilets in the building next door to the Oval Office's scheduler's husband's hot dog cart has allegedly told Schiff, under penalty of perjury of course, that Trump was threatening Mexico if they didn't cough up all info they possess on this dude:


Still a more believable BS story than the ridiculousness the Left has tried to pull from their asses in their never ending efforts to not have to accept the outcome of an election, by the way.

edit on 19-11-2019 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

because a memo and a transcript are not the same.
Transcript infers that it is a word for word record of what was said and this is clearly not that and even says so right at the top of page one.
It says it is not a verbatim record and witnesses have had to have the record corrected.
But regardless, the words are in the memo, and the people who heard the call were distressed by it. They didnt walk away saying wow what a perfect call. They walked away and said WTF was that?
These guys who heard the call are saying it was wrong.

WRONG




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Asking for a political favor to go after a rival is NOT foreign policy. I mean in this administration it may be



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

When Trump threatened to close the border with Mexico unless Mexico started policing it's side, was that extortion?

Think carefully before answering.


100% it was also a quid pro quo.


It's also called foreign policy.

When we (the US) make funds contingent on equal rights, gay rights in other countries, it is foreign policy and done at the discretion of the president.

Looking into corruption in the 2016 election is perfectly legal based on the treaty we have with Ukraine and at the discretion of the president.


You are correct. It is not ok, however, to ask a foreign government ( who you are claiming as major problems with corruption btw) to look into someone for political gain.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Innocent until proven guilty. Let’s not forget what country we live in folks.

With that I digress for the night.

Good night folks

Peace.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Was that a yes or a no? I faded off with the excessive description but the hot dog guy in front of the WH has some pretty good dogs! But the falafel guy down the block is better.
edit on 11/19/19 by FredT because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: DBCowboy

Asking for a political favor to go after a rival is NOT foreign policy. I mean in this administration it may be


It is part of the treaty the US has with Ukraine to investigate criminal activity.

If the Bidens have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT

I don't know. Did he ask them for dirt on a political rival? Do you not see the difference?


Once again making arguments completely out of context?...

First... Whom told whom first that there was evidence linking Biden, and other Obama officials, to corruption with the former Ukrainian administration?...

Here, let me help you, this article is from 2 months before the call between POTUS Trump and the Ukrainian President...


...
By John Solomon, opinion contributor — 04/07/19 07:30 AM EDT
2,546
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
...
Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, told me he and other senior law enforcement officials tried unsuccessfully since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.

We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States,” Kulyk told me in a wide-ranging interview. “However, the [U.S.] ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.
...
Sworn statements from two Ukrainian officials admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton. The effort included leaking an alleged ledger showing payments to then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort;

Contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump;

Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukraine relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings;

Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers;

Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. Embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil;

Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.
...

Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats?

Since POTUS Trump's call with the Ukrainian President occurred in July 2019, two month before this article was published, doesn't this means that the Ukrainians have wanted to give this evidence to the Trump administration since 2018, hence they would have mentioned this first?

As a side note. Isn't it ironic that Obama's U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch which POTUS Trump fired, was stalling the visas of the Ukrainian officials whom have wanted to give this evidence to the Trump administration?...

To me it seems ironic since Yovanovhich has perjured herself by claiming that she didn't know of any reason why POTUS Trump would want her fired...

Second of all, you do seem to forget that it was the Obama administration, which must have had the go ahead from the highest person in office Obama himself, used Russian and Ukrainian lies (from the former Ukrainian administration) to investigate everything and everyone involved with Presidential candidate Trump.

What the Obama administration did was to use LIES to dig dirt on a Presidential candidate.
What POTUS Trump did was ask for a favor to investigate the corruption which the Ukrainians themselves admitted was linked to Biden as well as others...

In one LIES and DECEIPT were used to dig dirt on a political candidate, and to this day those same lies are being used to try to impeach the POTUS...
In the other the POTUS asks the Ukrainian President for a favor in the investigation that the Ukrainian themselves admitted shows corruption in which Biden and his son were involved in.

Yes, there is a big difference between the two. But instead you are making false arguments in one case, and ignoring completely the other case.






edit on 19-11-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

That was Schiff cutting off the trail to the whistleblower's identity which the GOP was sneakily trying to worm their way to.
They had been warned but like the thugs in the back of the class that they are they cant help themselves.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

When Trump threatened to close the border with Mexico unless Mexico started policing it's side, was that extortion?

Think carefully before answering.


100% it was also a quid pro quo.


It's also called foreign policy.

When we (the US) make funds contingent on equal rights, gay rights in other countries, it is foreign policy and done at the discretion of the president.

Looking into corruption in the 2016 election is perfectly legal based on the treaty we have with Ukraine and at the discretion of the president.


You are correct. It is not ok, however, to ask a foreign government ( who you are claiming as major problems with corruption btw) to look into someone for political gain.


If the bidens have done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.




posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Then if Trump has nothing to worry about then the same applies no?

Where are those tax returns?????



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I think I figured it out!

This is a parody account, right? Like those twitter accounts that are the most insane caricatures of a liberal/conservative; always making comically ridiculous arguments and pronouncements. I guess some people aren't really into that kind of humor, or don't get satire, but I think they're hilarious, personally.
You're really good at it. I'm impressed by your dedication to staying in character the way you do.

You really had me going there for a bit!

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



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: DBCowboy

Then if Trump has nothing to worry about then the same applies no?

Where are those tax returns?????


Where's the law that says he has to release them?

Please remind me.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

When Trump threatened to close the border with Mexico unless Mexico started policing it's side, was that extortion?

Think carefully before answering.


100% it was also a quid pro quo.


It's also called foreign policy.

When we (the US) make funds contingent on equal rights, gay rights in other countries, it is foreign policy and done at the discretion of the president.

Looking into corruption in the 2016 election is perfectly legal based on the treaty we have with Ukraine and at the discretion of the president.


You are correct. It is not ok, however, to ask a foreign government ( who you are claiming as major problems with corruption btw) to look into someone for political gain.


If the bidens have done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.



Except you know....you can just pay someone in Ukraine to get the courts to have the outcome you want...unless you think there isn't really corruption in Ukraine and the presidents "reason" for holding aid was lie...

That's why you don't ask a foreign government. You ask the American intelligence agencies....seeings how you are in charge of them.
edit on 19-11-2019 by Auth3nt1k because: Added last part.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Was that a yes or a no? I faded off with the excessive description but the hot dog guy in front of the WH has some pretty good dogs! But the falafel guy down the block is better.


The falafel guy must have slipped in before Trump's immigration bans?



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
He did say all that.

Volker was playing both sides.

He also went after trump about his tweets, said biden and son did nothing wrong and that he loves john mccain. And he sounded like he personally thinks trump was in the wrong with asking for investigations into biden.

How can any of us trust volkers words after today?

And morrison sounded like a weasel lawyer. Never really answering anything. he said " I'm just telling you what I was told" a lot.

The more I think about this and read these post the more today's round of questions feel like a dud for both sides.



posted on Nov, 19 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Was that a yes or a no? I faded off with the excessive description but the hot dog guy in front of the WH has some pretty good dogs! But the falafel guy down the block is better.


The falafel guy must have slipped in before Trump's immigration bans?


Shhhhhhhhhhh. Like Vindman, and my father, he was one of those.......... But the falafel is good!!!!!!!




top topics



 
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join