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.

 

As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The complaint — which was filed Aug. 12 but not released until Sept. 26 — is corroborated by a memo of a July 25 phone call that Trump placed to the recently elected president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.




posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 11:00 PM
link   
A couple of tidbits found while looking into this.



And there is also this article which attempts to breakdown and link the imf funds flowing through the ukraine to many attached to clinton/ Obama cabal.
link to article

If someone could clean up the first image that would be great.
I have no apps that will do a decent job of it.
edit on 20-11-2019 by Notoneofyou because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

www.lawfareblog.com... they sort of can actually , it would be a procedural version of "whats the definition of a trial" (a play on words for clintons what the definition of is is ) and is exactly what happened with johnsons impeachment shenanigans


The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rule’s call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that “the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses”: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight. This discussion does not engage in depth with all the parliamentary possibilities and intricacies. But it is sufficient to say for present purposes that, if the House of Representatives were to impeach the president, Senate Republicans would be in a position, if so inclined, to scuttle any trial.
so yeah they can and its been done before but a lengthy trial in the senate has its advantages

republicans can call witnesses which they certainly would do which could be real fun

they can as McConnel has hinted at DRAG it out as all the senators would be compelled to attend every day but sunday which would make the 5 democratic senators running for potus in 2020 have a good deal of difficulty campaigning and hey its wensday and we had a debate tonight if they are compelled to be in senate it could make it hard for them to attend the debates while the senate decided to read pages from a book for 18 hours if they so choose almost like a filibuster

they in theory could only call trump and again waste the democratic candidates running in 2020 time by basically making them listen to one of his "rally speeches" and let him talk about what ever he wants to talk about for a few weeks and just irk the hell out of the dem senators

hell they could even change the rules of an impeachment hearing in the senate to avoid the issue entirely from same link

But such a duty is not the same as a clear-cut constitutional obligation expressed in the text, and, depending on events and their political impacts, the Republicans may be motivated to exploit the difference. If a Senate majority can readily enough accomplish the result of altering its rules and sidestepping a trial, then the opposition can only respond to this initiative through the application of public pressure and the threat of harsh electoral justice meted out in the next election. No one disputes that there is no judicial remedy or other means of enforcing the constitutional duty that Tribe identifies.


or they could do what i think they are gonna do and "have a trial" but have it last 5 minutes where they just call for a vote all the republicans say not guilty and were back to where we are now dems waning to impeach and republicans saying NOPE



posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   
No articles needed, that graph speaks volumes.
MSM, nothing to see hear. Just helping the poor, vaccinations and all.

originally posted by: Notoneofyou
A couple of tidbits found while looking into this.



And there is also this article which attempts to breakdown and link the imf funds flowing through the ukraine to many attached to clinton/ Obama cabal.
link to article

If someone could clean up the first image that would be great.
I have no apps that will do a decent job of it.



posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   


or they could do what i think they are gonna do and "have a trial" but have it last 5 minutes where they just call for a vote all the republicans say not guilty and were back to where we are now dems waning to impeach and republicans saying NOPE
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

And this is likely.
Unless they ask him to resign.

But it would be far better to beat him in an election, preferably by a woman.



posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 11:48 PM
link   

edit on 11202019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2019 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Notoneofyou

What does this have to do with a fake news story about an investigation involving the Bidens?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

I thought the report came from TASS



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Who knows at this stage. After 3 years of being repeatedly wrong I'm sure you guys have to have a coincidental win coming your way.

Just keep tossing # buddy.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

why on earth would they ask him to resign? he is their golden goose appointing 2 scotus judges and over 150 federal judges ,illegal immigration down 65% ,stock market doing amazingly well to record levels actually ,gun control cases before scotus for the first time in 10 years that could roll back dem gun control efforts in at least 5 states . with a probale two more scotus picks in term 2 (3 if Clarence Tomas resigns under him) and his trumpy personality proving the perfect foible in case things start goign wrong they can just blame trump for anything and the party survives + throw in record fund raising for the RNC and he is again the republicans golden goose

as far as a female winning in 2020 who do you think is the one that will beat him? Kamala Harris who's polling lower then skim milk(around 1-2%)? Tulsi Gabbard who the DNC is already throwing under the bus and calling a "russian agent"? or Elizabeth warren who wants to tax the bejesus out of Americans pander to illegals who's meme team is named after a massacre by natives of white settlers?

outline.com...

He’s slowed down processing of legal immigrants, almost doubling average wait times for those applying for green cards, employment visas, citizenship, and other benefits by the end of 2018. And he’s slashed the refugee admissions cap to a historic low of 18,000, down from 110,000 just two years ago. Some within his administration want to go even further. Miller has been the architect of sweeping administrative changes that aim to keep out all but the wealthiest immigrants.
i can source the other claims as well if you want but figured this may be the one you would question the most but good luck beating him at the ballot box with the candidates the dems are running currently female or otherwise www.politico.com...

According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey released on Wednesday, 56 percent of voters expect the president to be reelected next year, including 85 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents. By comparison, more than a third of Democrats (35 percent) say the same.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   
That aughta do it!
Can't spell it out any easier than that.
What is the problem again, oh yea....Trump is mean and a jerk.
Um....ok.

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: ErEhWoN

why on earth would they ask him to resign? he is their golden goose appointing 2 scotus judges and over 150 federal judges ,illegal immigration down 65% ,stock market doing amazingly well to record levels actually ,gun control cases before scotus for the first time in 10 years that could roll back dem gun control efforts in at least 5 states . with a probale two more scotus picks in term 2 (3 if Clarence Tomas resigns under him) and his trumpy personality proving the perfect foible in case things start goign wrong they can just blame trump for anything and the party survives + throw in record fund raising for the RNC and he is again the republicans golden goose

as far as a female winning in 2020 who do you think is the one that will beat him? Kamala Harris who's polling lower then skim milk(around 1-2%)? Tulsi Gabbard who the DNC is already throwing under the bus and calling a "russian agent"? or Elizabeth warren who wants to tax the bejesus out of Americans pander to illegals who's meme team is named after a massacre by natives of white settlers?

outline.com...

He’s slowed down processing of legal immigrants, almost doubling average wait times for those applying for green cards, employment visas, citizenship, and other benefits by the end of 2018. And he’s slashed the refugee admissions cap to a historic low of 18,000, down from 110,000 just two years ago. Some within his administration want to go even further. Miller has been the architect of sweeping administrative changes that aim to keep out all but the wealthiest immigrants.
i can source the other claims as well if you want but figured this may be the one you would question the most but good luck beating him at the ballot box with the candidates the dems are running currently female or otherwise www.politico.com...

According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey released on Wednesday, 56 percent of voters expect the president to be reelected next year, including 85 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of independents. By comparison, more than a third of Democrats (35 percent) say the same.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


What is now being suggested is that a Ukrainian MP claims Zlochevsky was named in a “signed suspicion” which is wing suggested is like a criminal referral in the US


So am I understanding correctly that this "signed suspicion" would be the recommended charges of the investigative agency to the prosecuting agency? So basically the investigators saying, "This is what we found and what we believe this guy can/should be criminally charged"?

With the prosecuting agency making the final call of what and who will be charged? (If at all...)



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Notoneofyou

What does this have to do with a fake news story about an investigation involving the Bidens?


To set the stage. To show how corrupt Ukraine is in relations to the DNC players.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
If someone could clean up the first image that would be great.




posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I don’t mean to spoil anyone’s fun, but Pelosi has invalidated the WHOLE THING in a memo to her caucus in which she states that they have to impeach because they can’t trust the Electorate.

It doesn’t matter what Trump did or didn’t do. It doesn’t matter that the Senate will acquit him. The whole thing is tainted, corrupted, made of no potency.

She is an unmitigated, blundering, dishonest, traitorous woman, and she should be removed from her high Office.

The House will impeach. The Senate will acquit. Life will move on, and if Mr. Trump does get re-elected, he will basically have NO LIMITATIONS on his actions.

You can thank Nancy Pelosi for that.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN


“These two both are professional disinformers,” Aslund said. “This is generally known in Ukraine. This is not outstanding news. Anybody who’s anybody knows about these two. They are not credible.”


Not "credible"? "Professional disinformers"?

No. They are members of parliament doing their jobs. Disinfo indeed. There are so many weasel words and qualifiers in that article that it's nothing more than disinfo in and of itself.

But it seems to me that it might help explain Schiff's hurry to publicly proclaim Sondland's presumption of a quid pro quo as fact and make sure that was the night's headline...

“After you testified, Chairman [Adam] Schiff ran out and gave a press conference and said he gets to impeach the president of the United States because of your testimony and if you pull up CNN today, right now, their banner says ‘Sondland ties Trump to withholding aid,'” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

“I’ve said repeatedly Congressman, I was presuming,” Sondland replied.


“No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Sondland responded.

“So, you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?” Turner pressed.

“Other than my own presumption,” Sondland replied.

There is a video of Sondland's testimony at the link:

Rep Mike Turner Gets Witness To Admit Bombshell, Debunks CNN Headline In Real Time

Combined with the news of "signed suspicion" statement out of Ukraine, all I see is desperation on Schiff's part...

The most dangerous people in the world are those with everything to lose and nothing to lose. From where I'm sitting, Schiff has EVERYTHING to lose. Desperate times call for desperate measures, right?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I don’t mean to spoil anyone’s fun, but Pelosi has invalidated the WHOLE THING in a memo to her caucus in which she states that they have to impeach because they can’t trust the Electorate.


I missed that -- thank you. I'll have to check that out now.

And wow. Just fricking wow. That's a whole other level of desperation. This is as bad as Hillary's "deplorables" and Mitt's "47% takers" comments. I truly don't know how she thought that would go over well with the voters!



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

There is only one and I quoted the witnesses.


“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's afternoon hearing.

Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: "No."

Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."

Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., covered similar ground in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"

"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.

"And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"

"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.


Did you miss that?



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ErEhWoN

All of your quotes are opinions and interpretations of what was said. I quoted him. I don't need someone else to think for me and tell me what people mean by what they say, why do you?


“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's afternoon hearing.

Former National Security Council (NSC) aide Tim Morrison: "No."

Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."

Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., covered similar ground in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"

"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.

"And, Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"

"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.



posted on Nov, 21 2019 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErEhWoN



He admits trump told him the opposite, that he didnt want a quid pro quo.
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, AFTER the whistle blower complaint came out.
Of course he would say that, they knew they were being watched then.

Except Trump never said he wanted anything other than Ukraine to fight corruption at any time, ever, to anyone. We have the transcripts, people heard the call, every single one has admitted there was no quid-pro-quo despite trying to make Trump look bad.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join