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: 12
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl


Now, make a valid argument against the fact that the President has considerable powers when it comes to Foreign Affairs - or
.


I already have (several times in this thread). You keep rehashing your same point couched in different phrasing as if it sheds some new light or understanding on the discussion but it doesn't progress us forward in any appreciable way. The president has considerable but vague powers and the vagueness is ultimately at the mercy of the Supreme Court to decide in each specific situation.






...And also, who is this poster shouting outside my window at midnight for me to stop posting on ATS? Show yourself coward, I will never stop posting on ATS!




posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarerbut in the end as far as I can tell when an impasse such as what I've described above happens it seems it goes to the Supreme Court to decide.

Which is why it's laughable the House is trying to impeach Trump when the actual solution is send it to the courts.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarerbut in the end as far as I can tell when an impasse such as what I've described above happens it seems it goes to the Supreme Court to decide.

Which is why it's laughable the House is trying to impeach Trump when the actual solution is send it to the courts.


Impeachment is for Trump's obstruction of justice and abuse of powers.

The Supreme Court is the entity to decide if/when Trump holds foreign aid money up whether he's allowed to legally or not.

These are two separate concepts being conflated.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
"Now, make a valid argument against the fact that the President has considerable powers when it comes to Foreign Affairs - or
."

I already have (several times in this thread).

No, you haven't, you've just done some crying about orange man bad.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
... orange man bad.


This is the argument made from a weak position when a person no longer has any worthwhile ammunition of debate left.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

What obstruction? Who makes a finding of obstruction? When did they make that finding?

Do you mean the Russian thing, which has now been determined to have basically been an illegal witch hunt, where Trump did nothing wrong, and a determination has been made Trump did NOT obstruct justice? Asking for a friend.
edit on 11-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl


If Congress appropriates money to a nation or group that the President determines has serious corruption or national security issues, the President is well within his Rights - and in fact is duty bound - to withhold the funds - either temporarily, or if he determines it is an actual National Security risk, permanently.


Exactly. Congress approval was made upon the reviews of the prior Ukranian administration. Zelensky was elected amongst election proproganda rumors that he was actually a Putin puppet. It is obvious that our President should put a hold on defense aid until it is determined that Zelensky was serious about anti-corruption in his new government. That just seems like common sense to me.

Obviously, the President has this power to ensure the security of the US and our western allies. I would not expect to give US Aid to any country based on old info and data of prior administrations who are no longer in power. Pause agreed distributions and reconsider upon new data on the new power of the land first!



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

What obstruction? Who makes a finding of obstruction? When did they make that finding?

Do you mean the Russian thing, which has now been determined to have basically been an illegal witch hunt, where Trump did nothing wrong, and a determination has been made Trump did NOT obstruct justice? Asking for a friend.


The Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice relate to the Ukraine quagmire, not Russia. Ultimately the Senate will act like the jury in the impeachment 'trial' and determine whether the evidence presented constitutes obstruction/abuse of power, and what/if any remediations' are asked of the president. Of course its been known confidently from the beginning the impeachment dies in the senate, so rest assured there is zero chance it progresses past that point.
edit on 50am19famWed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:45 -0600America/ChicagoWed, 11 Dec 2019 10:33:45 -0600 by Wayfarer because: spelling



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Now that we removed the Russian argument, so how did he obstruct justice in regards to Ukraine? Was it when he released the transcripts of the phone call? Or when he used executive privilege?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Now that we removed the Russian argument, so how did he obstruct justice in regards to Ukraine? Was it when he released the transcripts of the phone call? Or when he used executive privilege?


Oh, well specifically ordering everyone under his purview not to cooperate with the house's investigation is probably the most blatant example, but also directing his subordinates to lie/obfuscate the truth is pretty odious too.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
"... orange man bad."

This is the argument made from a weak position when a person no longer has any worthwhile ammunition of debate left.

Or, it is the argument one makes when the opponent is arguing from the standpoint of 'orange man bad'.

That is how people like you operate... you ignore evidence you cannot refute, claim you have 'answered' or 'provided the evidence' when you haven't, then try to convince themselves (and others) that they won the argument.

Orange. Man. Bad.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Now that we removed the Russian argument, so how did he obstruct justice in regards to Ukraine? Was it when he released the transcripts of the phone call? Or when he used executive privilege?


Oh, well specifically ordering everyone under his purview not to cooperate with the house's investigation is probably the most blatant example

That's called his right as President. The Democrat recourse is to have the courts compel testimony and override executive privilege.

You have yet to cite one example of obstruction.
edit on 11-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Now that we removed the Russian argument, so how did he obstruct justice in regards to Ukraine? Was it when he released the transcripts of the phone call? Or when he used executive privilege?


Oh, well specifically ordering everyone under his purview not to cooperate with the house's investigation is probably the most blatant example

That's called his right as President. The Democrat recourse is to have the courts compel testimony and override executive privilege.

You have yet to cite one example of obstruction.


If you want the examples you can go read the house's articles of impeachment they just released. I'm not here to spoonfeed you information you are going to promptly ignore and then complain about me not providing proof.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Now that we removed the Russian argument, so how did he obstruct justice in regards to Ukraine? Was it when he released the transcripts of the phone call? Or when he used executive privilege?


Oh, well specifically ordering everyone under his purview not to cooperate with the house's investigation is probably the most blatant example

That's called his right as President. The Democrat recourse is to have the courts compel testimony and override executive privilege.

You have yet to cite one example of obstruction.


If you want the examples you can go read the house's articles of impeachment they just released. I'm not here to spoonfeed you information you are going to promptly ignore and then complain about me not providing proof.

There are none. No obstruction occurred. You can't answer because there is no answer. Trump has every right to invoke executive privilege. The solution is to go to the courts and compel testimony and the release of evidence. Until the courts compel it, obstruction is literally impossible since Trump has the right to not do it.

I love how you try to put the blame on me for not accepting your information, when your information has turned out to be wrong every single time. You claimed Trump admitted he withheld aid until Biden was investigated .. and then showed a video of Trump saying he thinks Biden did something wrong and if he were Zelensky he would investigate. Never once did Trump say what you claimed. I am sorry you are clueless and can not back up anything you say. Just more TDS from you.
edit on 11-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Now that we removed the Russian argument, so how did he obstruct justice in regards to Ukraine? Was it when he released the transcripts of the phone call? Or when he used executive privilege?


Oh, well specifically ordering everyone under his purview not to cooperate with the house's investigation is probably the most blatant example

That's called his right as President. The Democrat recourse is to have the courts compel testimony and override executive privilege.

You have yet to cite one example of obstruction.


If you want the examples you can go read the house's articles of impeachment they just released. I'm not here to spoonfeed you information you are going to promptly ignore and then complain about me not providing proof.

There are none. No obstruction occurred. You can't answer because there is no answer. Trump has every right to invoke executive privilege. The solution is to go to the courts and compel testimony and the release of evidence. Until the courts compel it, obstruction is literally impossible since Trump has the right to not do it.


So I take it you are sworn never to tarnish yourself by reading the articles of impeachment laid forth the other day by the house? What a well learned and wise man who avoids unpalatable information so that they can better argue in ignorance.
edit on 50pm19fpmWed, 11 Dec 2019 12:04:17 -0600America/ChicagoWed, 11 Dec 2019 12:04:17 -0600 by Wayfarer because: grammar



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

You made a claim about obstruction and Trump certainly did it, I asked you to detail what he did since you are so certain he did it, you failed to do so, again. End of story. Keep twisting, the noose only gets tighter.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

...Keep twisting, the noose only gets tighter.



Uh, you do realize you aren't living in a Tom Clancy novel right?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Nope, you do realize you keep making claims and have yet to be able to back a single one up, right? I love the video you provided that proved Trump never once said what you claimed.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Nope, you do realize you keep making claims and have yet to be able to back a single one up, right? I love the video you provided that proved Trump never once said what you claimed.


It did.

Just because in your Orwellian wisdom you see 2+2=5 doesn't mean there isn't evidence, merely that you are incapable of recognizing it.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Every post you make where you refuse to post all this evidence you claims exists just makes you look that much more foolish.

Question, when Congress wants evidence from the WH and the WH says they are not entitled to it what is Congress recourse?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join