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.

 

Impeachment!!

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer



Trump still being president means he can make Zelinsky's life hell even without withholding aid.

you think trump made him sit down and negotiate a cease fire with the russians recently?





I've only a cursory understanding of that having come out in the news somewhat recently. I recall at the time surmising that given the constant border fighting/casualties between Russian and Ukraine that it only looks good for Zelinsky to negotiate a stoppage to the killing of Ukrainian troops.




posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer
would someone clearly, as you describe, in a battered spouse role be negotiating in opposition to the batterer?

it cant be both, can it?

perhaps he is actually his own man?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody



If someone claimed they heard Trump say "Investigate Biden or you won't get any defense money" why would you not just say that the person was lying and can't be trusted?

lol
no one has claimed such

were there not actual mechanisms in place for his actions I may be inclined to believe this was some kind of scandal
1 potus can review funds going to foreign aid to ensure there is no corruption; this is established policy other potus' have done such to other nations
2 the us has an anti corruption treaty with ukraine, asking for enforcement of such is not a crime

sorry
there is nothing here
other than some busybodys attempting to invent a crime
they failed and exposed themselves


If it really was about anti-corruption why did Trump drop it when word of this malfeasance emerged? Why does someone doing something totally legal and on the up-and-up stop said legal action suddenly when detractors claim what he's doing is illegal?


There was nothing to drop - it was a request for Ukraine to do the investigations. As far as I know he has not said don't do the investigations.

Nor should he.

At BEST the evidence suggests a press conference announcing Ukraine would investigate Burisma / and 2016 election interference for a MEETING.

Almost every whitehouse meeting has some condition put on it - it is the normal course of business. As it should be - we want the president to look out for America's interests.

If you think that is impeachable - than every single president should have been impeached - because they have ALL done that.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The whole "must go on CNN to announce investigations into Bidens" took away any plausible explanation that he was working in the interest of the country.

Rudy this past week tweeting up a storm about investigating Bidens sort of destroyed the GOP's claim that this was about investigating overall corruption.

It isn't that bad though for him. Only about 48% polled support impeachment and about 44% don't.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo


If you think that is impeachable - than every single president should have been impeached - because they have ALL done that.



He only asked for investigations into his main political rival in the upcoming election. I'm sure that was just purely coincidence.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer



He only asked for investigations into his main political rival in the upcoming election. I'm sure that was just purely coincidence.

only?
crowdstrike is his political opposition?

wow

either twisted or misunderstood



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer



He only asked for investigations into his main political rival in the upcoming election. I'm sure that was just purely coincidence.

only?
crowdstrike is his political opposition?

wow

either twisted or misunderstood





The Crowdstrike Server in Ukraine is just nonsense though, there is no server (it was stored on a cloud). I genuinely just took that to be senile ramblings kind of talk and not substantive...



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Why did Trump withhold Ukraine money exclusively then as opposed to other countries aid money (who were equally notorious for being corrupt)?

Its none of my business, or yours. It is his prerogative as President.

PERIOD.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Why did Trump withhold Ukraine money exclusively then as opposed to other countries aid money (who were equally notorious for being corrupt)?

Its none of my business, or yours. It is his prerogative as President.

PERIOD.


This isn't accurate though. Its the United States Money, taken from yours and my pockets, and appropriated by a duly elected Congress. The fact that the President is playing seeming political games with that money is ALL OUR BUSINESS.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer



He only asked for investigations into his main political rival in the upcoming election. I'm sure that was just purely coincidence.

only?
crowdstrike is his political opposition?

wow

either twisted or misunderstood





The Crowdstrike Server in Ukraine is just nonsense though, there is no server (it was stored on a cloud). I genuinely just took that to be senile ramblings kind of talk and not substantive...

but it wasn't your characterized "only"
it makes a big difference
also
how do you know the potus does not have info you do not?
asking about "crowstrike" is a legitimate anti corruption activity(tho you may think it loony)

i would love to understand how you decide what is substantive and what isnt

what happened to taking what is ACTUAL EVIDENCE and not some second hand rumor of what someone thinks?

and to hang in the balance impeachment on such?
really?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

The investigation into Ukraine Biden 2016 corruption began months before Biden announced he was running for president.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer



He only asked for investigations into his main political rival in the upcoming election. I'm sure that was just purely coincidence.

only?
crowdstrike is his political opposition?

wow

either twisted or misunderstood





The Crowdstrike Server in Ukraine is just nonsense though, there is no server (it was stored on a cloud). I genuinely just took that to be senile ramblings kind of talk and not substantive...

but it wasn't your characterized "only"
it makes a big difference
also
how do you know the potus does not have info you do not?
asking about "crowstrike" is a legitimate anti corruption activity(tho you may think it loony)

i would love to understand how you decide what is substantive and what isnt

what happened to taking what is ACTUAL EVIDENCE and not some second hand rumor of what someone thinks?

and to hang in the balance impeachment on such?
really?



Well of course I don't know whats going on in his head or what precisely he knows. I've simply read a little on the crowdstrike thing and it seemed pretty clear Trump was perpetually confusing details about it (hence my senility comment). As for determining whats substantive, that's really not up to us but rather in this weirdly specific case the Senate. My decisions thusly are just opinion of course and shouldn't be taken as fact (and if I made them come off that way then I appreciate the heads up that I'm not being clear when I reference them).

As for hanging the balance of impeachment on potentially spurious proof: You and I have chatted about this before, but I'll say it again, I don't think any of the Dems who had a controlling hand in this had any allusions that Trump would be removed from office, hence I feel pretty confident the calculus that went into this is purely political (hurting Trump's 2020 re-election odds and maybe costing some Republican senators their seats).
edit on 50pm19fpmTue, 10 Dec 2019 14:36:34 -0600America/ChicagoTue, 10 Dec 2019 14:36:34 -0600 by Wayfarer because: spelling



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Wayfarer

The investigation into Ukraine Biden 2016 corruption began months before Biden announced he was running for president.



You've said this to me before in another thread but I've had others tell me the opposite (that Biden had declared already)...



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer



I don't think any of the Dems who had a controlling hand in this had any allusions that Trump would be removed from office, hence I feel pretty confident the calculus that went into this is purely political

so then they and not potus get the blame for the PERMANENT damage this has inflicted?
when the next house floats impeachment because we will blame pelosi schiff and nadler?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer



I don't think any of the Dems who had a controlling hand in this had any allusions that Trump would be removed from office, hence I feel pretty confident the calculus that went into this is purely political

so then they and not potus get the blame for the PERMANENT damage this has inflicted?
when the next house floats impeachment because we will blame pelosi schiff and nadler?



Um, well I think we're in agreeance but perhaps I'm just less upset about it.

I fully expect the Republicans to go full scorched earth from hear on out and work solely to the detriment of any Democrat in any office unconditionally above any and all considerations (even more so than they had been doing - sic. Garland).

There is a part of me that imagines this destructive political accelerationism may just bring about the end of the old paradigm sooner and usher in some new politics devoid of the trappings of generations past.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The whole crowd strike thing does come off as ramblings. Trump claimed crowd strike was bought up or owned by a rich Ukrainian.

Maybe he confused rich Ukraniune with the rich Russian born US citizen that owns a large portion of the US-based company called crowdstrike.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer



Um, well I think we're in agreeance but perhaps I'm just less upset about it.

perhaps



I fully expect the Republicans to go full scorched earth from hear on out and work solely to the detriment of any Democrat in any office unconditionally above any and all considerations (even more so than they had been doing - sic. Garland).

and I do not
I expect not
tho I guess I may be a fool for such
you can thank harry reid for the garland mess
amazing how those changes come back on those who made them
just as I see this doing

especially when all we have been told is what a criminal he is
but now there are no actual crimes
amazing



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

amazing how those changes come back on those who made them
just as I see this doing




I know how you feel man. Its like we can sit here screaming out at the world that there's a train on the tracks coming but ultimately nobody believes it until its actively running them over...



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This isn't accurate though.

It is, actually.


Its the United States Money, taken from yours and my pockets, and appropriated by a duly elected Congress. The fact that the President is playing seeming political games with that money is ALL OUR BUSINESS.

No, actually, it isn't, because he isn't playing games, he is doing his job.

Sorry, but neither you nor me - nor Congress, gets to micro-manage The President of the United States.

Get back to me when you have evidence of a crime. Meaning, an actual crime, not just if he does something you don't like.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I know how you feel man. Its like we can sit here screaming out at the world that there's a train on the tracks coming but ultimately nobody believes it until its actively running them over...

I know, right? I mean, the demwits are just sitting there on the tracks, and the train named John Durham is barreling down on them at 200Mph...

Its gonna be ugly (but beautiful) to see Justice done.




top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join