republicans got their ass handed to them

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

Name the law that Trump broke.

Quick.

3. . . 2. . .

He ignored a subpoena...pretty common law

originally posted by: Liquesence

Did he? It's still a memo. It SAYS it's a memo. And not a verbatim transcript.

And everyone whom was actually listening to the call say that the transcript/memo is accurate... Yet you keep inventing that there must be something hidden that was never released...

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

Name the law that Trump broke.

Quick.

3. . . 2. . .

He ignored a subpoena...pretty common law

Total burn.

I say hangin's too good fer him!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No one's saying that.

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k


He ignored a subpoena...pretty common law

Ignoring a subpoena in which Schiff/socialists/democrats want to deny the POTUS more rights doesn't make it a legal subpoena...

Schiff is trying to catch the POTUS on perjury which you, and other left-wingers, don't seem to understand that innocent people have been caught perjuring themselves when they have recalled incidents a bit different than others have... Hence for the need for the POTUS to have rights...such as the right to have his counsel present, and for the POTUS to ask his counsel whether or not he can answer that question and how he has to answer that question...

But hey, Schiff and Vindman both have been caught actually perjuring themselves, actually lying, by claiming they don't know the identity of the "not a whistleblower", even though when Vindman was asked about a contact that Vindman mentioned he had met Schiff stopped VIndman and said he can't tell the Republicans the identity of the "not a whistleblower..." Hence they do know the identity of the "not a whistleblower..."

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

Maybe Trump and the DoJ know something we don't.

Unless you are now claiming that you know everything.

Do you know everything?

Well trump is believing the lies Rudy is being paid to feed him...I mean he claimed Shokin was a "very good" literally EVERYONE EXCEPT SHOKIN says he was corrupt and was not investigating corruption.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

Name the law that Trump broke.

Quick.

3. . . 2. . .

He ignored a subpoena...pretty common law

Total burn.

I say hangin's too good fer him!

If you, or any of your family, or friends get subpoenaed I emplore you to ignore it and see what happens.

a reply to: Auth3nt1k

You didn't answer my question.

Do you know everything?

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

Name the law that Trump broke.

Quick.

3. . . 2. . .

He ignored a subpoena...pretty common law

Total burn.

I say hangin's too good fer him!

If you, or any of your family, or friends get subpoenaed I emplore you to ignore it and see what happens.

Yeah, when Schiff subpoena's me, I'll make a big poo in my shorts and tremble a bit.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No one's saying that.

Really?...



Vindman is claiming that he recalls better than those whom wrote what they heard in the call, and in specific he just mentions Burisma, but that he did not think it was a "purposeful omission." Yet Morrison, whom was Vindman's old boss and whom listened to the call, has stated that the transcript is accurate to the best of his recollection. So Vindman apparently heard a word, Burisma, that neither Morrison nor those whom were part of writing the transcript heard. The others heard "the company" instead of "Burisma."

Since Vindman is the one claiming this, while the others don't, isn't it possible that it is Vindman whom is wrong?

BTW, that's the only thing that Vindman seems to claim was different from what he heard. One word the others whom listened to the call didn't hear.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Sorry for the thread drift. He asked about taxes. The subpoena I was referring to was in the 2nd district. Not the impeachment inquiry. Has nothing to do with Schifty Schiff.

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

Name the law that Trump broke.

Quick.

3. . . 2. . .

He ignored a subpoena...pretty common law

I know its hard for some of you, who dont know how law works, or civics, but he is well within his right to do that............

Take a civics class.........

I repeat to all these leftists who cant figure out how the law actually works............

Take..........A ....CIVICS...........CLASS

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Sorry for the thread drift. He asked about taxes. The subpoena I was referring to was in the 2nd district. Not the impeachment inquiry. Has nothing to do with Schifty Schiff.

You mean the same subpoena coming from New York? The same New York which passed a law that if you are linked to POTUS Trump judges can ignore "double jeopardy"?...

...
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals put on hold a subpoena issued by a federal that demanded President Donald Trump turn over his tax returns.
...

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Puts Subpoena on Trump’s Tax Returns on Hold

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No one's saying that.

Really?...

Vindman is claiming that he recalls better than those whom wrote what they heard in the call, and in specific he just mentions Burisma, but that he did not think it was a "purposeful omission." Yet Morrison, whom was Vindman's old boss and whom listened to the call, has stated that the transcript is accurate to the best of his recollection. So Vindman apparently heard a word, Burisma, that neither Morrison nor those whom were part of writing the transcript heard. The others heard "the company" instead of "Burisma."

Since Vindman is the one claiming this, while the others don't, isn't it possible that it is Vindman whom is wrong?

BTW, that's the only thing that Vindman seems to claim was different from what he heard. One word the others whom listened to the call didn't hear.

Actually....the woman literally sitting next to him today said she heard it too. Except in a different place.

Kind of convenient they left it out huh?

Specially seeings how President Z. Says on the july 25th call one of his assistants had talked to Rudy.

What do you think Rudy talked to his assistant about? General corruption?

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

But if hes done nothing wrong then why worry? Hmmmmmm. If its good for the Bidens then its good for the Trump's. Don't get me wrong mind you I hate Dilettantes and Bidens son, is simply an un-emasculated Jared but, again as you said, if there is nothing wrong then there is nothing to worry about no?

That sets a scary precedent doesn’t it? Under your analogy they should be privy to all of your info because you have nothing to hide. Would you be okay with that? I’m thinking that you wouldn’t.

a reply to: Auth3nt1k

So sweet sweet mental gymnastics and more heresy?

Ya totally viable

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k


Actually....the woman literally sitting next to him today said she heard it too. Except in a different place.

Yet others whom were listening to the call, including Morrison, don't agree...

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k
Kind of convenient they left it out huh?

Yet Vindman stated he didn't think it was a "purposeful omission."

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k
Specially seeings how President Z. Says on the july 25th call one of his assistants had talked to Rudy.

What do you think Rudy talked to his assistant about? General corruption?

It is called "the right to discovery" by the counsel of the accused...

Criminal Discovery: The Right to Evidence Disclosure

BTW, it doesn't mean "guilty." The counsel of the accused has a right to finding all evidence even if that evidence is in another country...

Or are you one of those whom wants to deny due process and rights to POTUS Trump like the lying sack of Schiff and other socialists/democrats want?

So sweet sweet mental gymnastics and more here say?

Ya totally viable

I cant WAIT till the president you guys have set comes back on you..........remember #metoo, its gonna pale in comparison to whats coming with this.......

"No I heard this from someone its 100 percent true!"

LoL welcome to the view from under the bus

*I dont know why ATS is making double posts when i hit it once or is messing up quotes so.............my bad"

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Auth3nt1k
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Sorry for the thread drift. He asked about taxes. The subpoena I was referring to was in the 2nd district. Not the impeachment inquiry. Has nothing to do with Schifty Schiff.

You mean the same subpoena coming from New York? The same New York which passed a law that if you are linked to POTUS Trump judges can ignore "double jeopardy"?...

...
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals put on hold a subpoena issued by a federal that demanded President Donald Trump turn over his tax returns.
...

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Puts Subpoena on Trump’s Tax Returns on Hold

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe most states don't have the loophole New York had. Most states you can be charged by the state and the federal government. I believe it actually happens quite frequently.

And yes I know they put a hold on it. Then they ruled that he had to hand them over. Now it has gone to Scotus who has placed a hold....lmao

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Auth3nt1k

So sweet sweet mental gymnastics and more heresy?

Ya totally viable

Where? I stated two facts and asked a couple questions. Care to be more specific?