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.

 

House report outlines evidence for Trump impeachment

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: tanstaafl

It's a scary thing to see.

I can see how you might think that, but not me...


They're literally rewriting executive power.

No.. they are trying to. Big difference.

The beautiful part is what I think will be the final result...

They go down in flames. Trump wins re-election in a landslide (including the popular vote). R's retake the House in a big way, gain in the Senate (hopefully even losing a few RINOs along the way).

And a new law is passed that places very specific controls on the House with regard to the impeachment process, preventing what the dems have done from ever happening again. Hopefully they'll also submit a simple Constitutional Amendment fixing this problem permanently.




posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

They got the money.

Of course it went 'through' the Pentagon and State department.

Delays are now crimes.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96



You don't consider seizing phone records, leaks of national security matters, and D secret meetings, and refusing Republicans full participation in the Schiff show to be treason ?


Nope. Not by legal definition, it isn't. I am old, but not so old I can't learn.



And I'll never shut up.


Keep talking



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




Nope. Not by legal definition, it isn't. I am old, but not so old I can't learn.


That's obvious.



Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


The Democrat party is waging war against the United States. Because we're suppose to give our money without a second thought to known kleptocrats in Ukraine.

See Schiff,resistance, and propaganda outlets across the television dial.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Schiff and his party fain alliegiance to the United States, but clearly the only allegiance they have is to their Party.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well hell, I will admit when I am wrong and I was wrong. I am a fan of facts. We are not at war so legally there was no treason. I am somewhat mollified at being wrong because it should shut Neo up with his claims of treason against some of the Dems.

So him withholding the funds wasn't Treason but still illegal.

please cite how it was illegal?
I will wait

It was in no way illegal, and furthermore if there was suspected corruption in said foreign nation, it was the DUTY of the president to ensure our tax dollars are not wasted.

I get that people dont like trump.
There is no evidence SO FAR of any actual crime being committed.
He said she said dont cut it.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
If the House goes for impeachment with no hopes of it actually doing anything in the Senate, then the dems will be guilty of abuse of power.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Yes, on what grounds exactly did Congressman Schiff obtain those records on the ranking Republican on the committee? Were those grounds listed at all? Otherwise, it sort of looks like the same shenanigans the Obama White House got up with spying on journos.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



please cite how it was illegal?
I will wait


link



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Keep talking



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I'm still waiting on the actual spending bill number from the congressional site.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Keep waiting



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So you don't want that bull crap link verified.

Very telling.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
the conjured Articles are not Evidence or Impeachable acts... the 'Articles of Impeachment' are a Wish-List of False-Witness conclusions that is wrapped in Subpoena Testimony clothes by the coven of Deep-State conspirators

at least that's what the 'Sealed Envelope' I read ...had written down on the note paper inside It.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96



So you don't want that bull crap link verified.

Very telling.


It is telling that I am not your F'ing secretary. You want to look over the bill look it up yourself.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I did.




On Feb. 15, Congress appropriated $445.7 million to the State Department to assist Ukraine (see here, § 7046(a)(2)), which included the $141 million at issue here. In a joint explanatory statement (page 65 of Division F, for interested readers), Congress broke down the $445.7 million in funding, which included (among other initiatives) $115 million in foreign military financing; $2.9 million in military training; and $45 million in international narcotics control, law enforcement and anti-terrorism funding.


To fight Russia eh



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well hell, I will admit when I am wrong and I was wrong. I am a fan of facts. We are not at war so legally there was no treason. I am somewhat mollified at being wrong because it should shut Neo up with his claims of treason against some of the Dems.

So him withholding the funds wasn't Treason but still illegal.

please cite how it was illegal?
I will wait

It was in no way illegal, and furthermore if there was suspected corruption in said foreign nation, it was the DUTY of the president to ensure our tax dollars are not wasted.

I get that people dont like trump.
There is no evidence SO FAR of any actual crime being committed.
He said she said dont cut it.



Not only this - but the funds were not withheld.

Even if you can prove he intended to withhold them - thought crimes are not crimes. If they were every citizen of the United States would be a criminal because everyone has had illegal thoughts.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: proximo

Isn't it ironic?

Hillary was exonerated because of "intent" and Trump is being impeached because of "intent".



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: shooterbrody



please cite how it was illegal?
I will wait


link


Your article about legality butchers the quote to push a narrative:

JustSecurity.org article:


Now, there was a report —

Q : So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

Mulvaney: The look back to what happened in 2016 —

Q : The investigation into Democrats.

Mulvaney: — certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

Q : And withholding the funding?

Mulvaney: Yeah. Which ultimately, then, flowed.


They try to sneak in the "The investigation into Democrats." in the middle of the answer, which never happened on the transcript.


And here is from Mulvaney's transcript (Full Transcript):


Mick Mulvaney: (21:25)
Now there was a report-

Reporter (M): (21:27)
So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:34)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

Reporter (M): (21:42)
Withholding the funding?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:43)
Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed.




The website itself bends the narrative to make it focus on withholding funds to research a political opponent. When in the transcript Mulvaney is talking about election interference. Mulvaney also was not under oath.



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: shooterbrody



please cite how it was illegal?
I will wait


link

from your own link



The ICA’s definition of a “deferral” is broad:

the review was legal and appropriate

there is no there there
55 days would fit in the "broad" definition of "deferral".

sorry

also, even if what you linked to had any merit, it would not rise to the standard for impeachment
a minor infraction of a clearly administrative law is not treason bribery high crimes or misdemeanors, also where is the proof the issue was with the president and not some clerk?

nope



posted on Dec, 4 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: proximo

Isn't it ironic?

Hillary was exonerated because of "intent" and Trump is being impeached because of "intent".


That is a great way to put it.




top topics



 
17
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join