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.

 

My thoughts on the impeachment of President Trump

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.

And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.




posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   
That was refreshing to read.

Regardless of how you "feel" about Trump what the resistance has done and has been doing is doing is simply wrong and they need to be held accountable. This is not the way you "fight" politically, go after his policies and vision for our country and beat him at the booth.
The Democrats want a much different country than Trump, so they should just make the case.


originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Wayfarer

Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.

And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.




posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

The Democrats want a much different country than Trump, so they should just make the case.


originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Wayfarer

Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.

And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.



But this impeachment hearing is one of the ways they are making said case.

I keep saying this over and over again, but TRUMP isn't getting removed from office. There is no universe in the multiverse where a Republican controlled senate votes to remove Trump. If Trump starting going nationwide shooting his own supporters in the face door to door the senate still wouldn't vote to remove him. Its just not going to happen, so the concept that these proceedings may lead to that is a fallacy I think.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

But if that one piece is so strong, stronger than anything thus far ... why didn't they go there? The House is where they make the case of a crime, yes? It would seem that would be one, right?

Why spend all of yesterday on conjecture and theory when they had this?


edit on 5-12-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

But if that one piece is so strong, stronger than anything thus far ... why didn't they go there? The House is where they make the case of a crime, yes? It would seem that would be one, right?



I'm sorry I'm getting a little scattered between our other threads. Can you clarify which piece you are referring to?



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


Technically Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions are considered 'under oath'. Word on the grapevine is the contradictions made apparent by the recent testimony prove that Trump is likely guilty of that very thing now.


That would put him on par with Clinton wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer


Technically Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions are considered 'under oath'. Word on the grapevine is the contradictions made apparent by the recent testimony prove that Trump is likely guilty of that very thing now.


That would put him on par with Clinton wouldn't it?



Oh yes indeed it would, and that's why I brought it up.

As I explained to Krakatoa its just a rumor (and something I only caught wind of on Tuesday myself), so its unsubstantiated as of this moment and would come out in the senate trial (if at all). Normally I keep mum on the unsubstantiated stuff but I think we've already in essence heard the 'ammunition' from witnesses over the hearings this past week that refute some of Trump's responses to Mueller, so I personally feel its a foregone conclusion (but wanted to be up-front about the value of the information in this exact moment).



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I respectfully disagree with your reply.

The Democrats should focus on no borders, weed and medicaid for all, higher taxes, more regulations to save the planet.
That is what they believe they should stay on point...oh yea and free college.
I know I missed a lot but that is what I hear from them.



originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

The Democrats want a much different country than Trump, so they should just make the case.


originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Wayfarer

Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.

And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.



But this impeachment hearing is one of the ways they are making said case.

I keep saying this over and over again, but TRUMP isn't getting removed from office. There is no universe in the multiverse where a Republican controlled senate votes to remove Trump. If Trump starting going nationwide shooting his own supporters in the face door to door the senate still wouldn't vote to remove him. Its just not going to happen, so the concept that these proceedings may lead to that is a fallacy I think.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I respectfully disagree with your reply.

The Democrats should focus on no borders, weed and medicaid for all, higher taxes, more regulations to save the planet.
That is what they believe they should stay on point...oh yea and free college.
I know I missed a lot but that is what I hear from them.



originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

The Democrats want a much different country than Trump, so they should just make the case.


originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Wayfarer

Thanks for clarifying. I agree. I see too many partisan people here and elsewhere that take "unnamed sources" and hearsay as "gospel truth" because it fits their biased perception. I typically wait for facts to emerge. So far, and I have watched the raw feeds on CSPAN, of each of these "hearings" and "investigative interviews" and so far not one actual fact of a high-crime or misdemeanor has been presented that supports an impeachment. It has all been presumption, assumption, and "I heard it from..." testimony.

And I never voted for Trump....but support the office.



But this impeachment hearing is one of the ways they are making said case.

I keep saying this over and over again, but TRUMP isn't getting removed from office. There is no universe in the multiverse where a Republican controlled senate votes to remove Trump. If Trump starting going nationwide shooting his own supporters in the face door to door the senate still wouldn't vote to remove him. Its just not going to happen, so the concept that these proceedings may lead to that is a fallacy I think.


Oh I'm just explaining what I think is the Democratic strategy here.

I tend to agree insomuch as I think there really aren't any more 'undecided' voters out there that are going to be swayed by impeachment hearings further, so at this point the best Democratic position should be to campaign on their platforms, so-to-speak. I think that's partially why we're going to see this all wrapped up, completed, and forgotten about in the next 2-3 months.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Onlyyouknow

It's a big club and we aren't in it. Obviously neither is the President.
And people supporting this club of gawd damn criminals would likely
join that club. While the rest of us and Donald Trump despise it. And
are looking to it's demise. What we are seeing is the clubs fight for
survival. That's why they don't care about anything else. Because the
vipers can't care about anything else. And BTW it's the same damn
club they been beating the american people over the head with
for decades now. It takes a pretty screwed up perverse mind to
want to continue down the road the demonbrats were taking us.

Either way what ever happens I will be lmGDao at the people
supporting this coupe' d'tat. They truly don't understand what they
are bargaining for.




posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
The news about the Impeachment process are always the most entertaining news right now.

I like to go here to see the little trumpistas having their heads blown off, telling themselves "this is a circus! this a witchhunt! this is unnecessary!" while shaking in their boots.

Fun times.

I hope they end soon and Demented Donald gets a nice loud "good bye and never call us back!" on the way out. Soon.


Ya, everyone knows this isn't going anywhere, Mohammed.



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Wayfarer

Based on watercooler gossip? At least Starr had DNA.


Clinton wasn't impeached for DNA, but rather lying.


Surely you don't honestly believe Trump isn't guilty of lying?


Should you then call up congress and tell them they left perjury out of the articles of impeachment?



posted on Dec, 5 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onlyyouknow
a reply to: DBCowboy

It is beyond ridiculous. We have" presumed" and now " inferred". The screeching Karlan about Barron's name was beyond the pale- she looked like a fire breathing dragon, and not a cute one.


Trump made his son a Barron before he ever was elected.




posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I would hope the majority of the country was right in board with you.

This entire process stinks and the Democrats should really.be hearing it from the American people.

Get these people out and fast



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I didn't realize that the House Judiciary (Jerry Nadler) changed crafting Articles of Impeachment from TODAY (Friday), to MONDAY, to distract from the Department of Justice I.G. Report coming on Monday, which will be mostly critical of Democrats.

www.redstate.com...

But Democrat-owned newspapers and media outlets say the Inspector General report will be a big nothing burger. Maybe Pelosi and Nadler know differently?



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Huh? What kind of nonsense is this? Trump's cronies hid the call because they knew it was wrong. Trump has put forth no defense because he has no defense. He resorts to name calling and deflection, like a child would do. he got laughed at and cried his tail on home. Trump released the funds only AFTER he realized he got caught. Why the hell did he make it a point to say no quid pro quo? Because the whistle blower had accused him of a quid pro quo. You guys defending him have no credibility. You'd be better off just being honest and saying you're white and you're afraid 'your' country is leaving you behind and you made at all the blacks and illegals.



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: scauma
Huh? What kind of nonsense is this? Trump's cronies hid the call because they knew it was wrong. Trump has put forth no defense because he has no defense. He resorts to name calling and deflection, like a child would do. he got laughed at and cried his tail on home. Trump released the funds only AFTER he realized he got caught. Why the hell did he make it a point to say no quid pro quo? Because the whistle blower had accused him of a quid pro quo. You guys defending him have no credibility. You'd be better off just being honest and saying you're white and you're afraid 'your' country is leaving you behind and you made at all the blacks and illegals.


You're inferring a mindset based upon the actions you describe.

You say, "Trump released the funds only AFTER he realized he got caught."

You want him guilty based upon what YOU THINK he meant and felt.

Unless you are a mindreader, you don't know why he released the funds when he did, and you have no idea to his motivation.

Trumps guilt is based on what you think and feel and not on facts.



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
Nope, none of that is accurate. I'm not making any assumptions. The facts (those pesky little things) say his lawyers briefed him in late August on the whistleblower complaint, then congress starts asking questions, then he releases the funds. Do you dispute any of that? If so please provide facts to back up your assertion. A much better argument you guys had was he did it, but it wasn't an impeachable offense. You might actually get somewhere with that. But putting your head in the sand and pretending like we don't see what we see, and hear what we hear is kind of ridiculous. If you'd like to have an honest debate, I'm available.



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: scauma

You're assuming guilt on what you think Trump meant when he did what he did.



posted on Dec, 6 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: scauma
a reply to: DBCowboy
Nope, none of that is accurate. I'm not making any assumptions. The facts (those pesky little things) say his lawyers briefed him in late August on the whistleblower complaint, then congress starts asking questions, then he releases the funds. Do you dispute any of that? If so please provide facts to back up your assertion. A much better argument you guys had was he did it, but it wasn't an impeachable offense. You might actually get somewhere with that. But putting your head in the sand and pretending like we don't see what we see, and hear what we hear is kind of ridiculous. If you'd like to have an honest debate, I'm available.


Interesting. I hadn't heard about that timeline. Do you have a source link where I can read up on that?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join