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.

 

Dems planning to impeach over "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress"

page: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes or no? Does impeachment of Federal judges fall under the same Article as impeachment of Presidents?

Yes or no? Is there any Article in the Constitution that states Articles apply differently to Presidents than Federal judges?

Yes or no? Has chronic intoxication ever been a Federal law?

Yes or no? Was the first person in US history to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate a Federal judge that was found guilty of chronic intoxication?




posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
So you found no us president impeached for other than an actual crime?
cool
I found the same as well

Nothing wrong with your backing a purely political impeachment, it is well within the houses' right to do so; just dont be shy about it.
Your not ashamed of the dem majority house are you?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

So the believe that the President exists outside and above the Three Branches of Government? I mean that must be the case since you believe precedence that has been established for a Federal Judge doesn't apply to the President.

Can you please specify the article and section of the Constitution that specifically applies only to the impeachment President? I can't seem to find it.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

has a president been impeached without a crime? as in the current example?
why is this so hard for you to answer?
are you ashamed of the house of representatives?

You support this precedence by the house?

so then you will support it when reversed?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Just spit-balling here but is the logical conclusion to this an eventual scenario where one party controls all three branches (including the SC majority), they can just make new laws and outlaw any other party forever so that they have permanent control of the government?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

That is what the Progressives wanted....and almost got. Woodrow Wilson put it all in play after T Roosevelt started it in the early 1900's...
edit on Decpm31pmf0000002019-12-10T14:33:29-06:000229 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Wayfarer

That is what the Progressives wanted....and almost got. Woodrow Wilson put it all in play after T Roosevelt started it in the early 1900's...


What happened with that (since obviously they didn't succeed)?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: shooterbrody

Just spit-balling here but is the logical conclusion to this an eventual scenario where one party controls all three branches (including the SC majority), they can just make new laws and outlaw any other party forever so that they have permanent control of the government?


no
we dont outlaw any political party here
we have nazis and communists
even democrats



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

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: shooterbrody

Just spit-balling here but is the logical conclusion to this an eventual scenario where one party controls all three branches (including the SC majority), they can just make new laws and outlaw any other party forever so that they have permanent control of the government?


no
we dont outlaw any political party here
we have nazis and communists
even democrats



Zing!

So then is it your opinion that is this paradigm shifting political apocalypse that's upon us now exist in a perpetual state of internecine political warfare forever more?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer
possibly
tho I do not think all in washington espouse the bamn approach we have seen in the last 3 years

I also do not know how it will effect those rolled over
They may react in kind, and I do not think cooler heads will prevail in the senior circuit

so it may very well be a perpetual state of internecine political warfare forever more
which will make those scotus appointees that much more important



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Meaning Progressives have wanted all of the control since the T Roosevelt started the changes that altered our country. Woodrow Wilson was the second POTUS of the 20th Century to further push the Progressive agenda and FDR drove it home. It is where we got the FED Reserve, Taxes, Private Land Grabs and most of our rights eroded over the last century..all of the rules changed. Last 2 presidents to stand up to the agenda where JFK and Reagan...and they both got shot.

Go back to that era and look at political parties if you think it is nuts now. There is no 2 party system. There are Progressives and the rest of us...that's it. They are your RINO's as they call them.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I am not sure what has being worse? the nothing burger "Russian collision? " or this clown of impalement hearing where clearly the Libealrs are still upset and crying over the 2016 election and blame Putin for it without evidence.

This Russia obsession is bad man. No different from the Iranian obsession.
edit on 10-12-2019 by ChefFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes. Looking through the 11 Articles of Impeachment brought against Andrew Johnson I find it hard to identify a single crime.

If we look at the Articles of Impeachment that would have been brought against Nixon had he not resigned, two of the three look very familiar. Abuse of Power and Contempt of Congress.

Now since I've answered your questions, are you actually going to answer mine?



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 03:47 PM
link   
To be honest, I can't quite reconcile in my mind which government administration is the worst here in the west, but more specifically, between the US and UK governments, previous administrations included. It doesn't matter what colour each successive administration comes under, because in both the US and the UK, both the main parties are either blue or red, and yet, both colours, when running the administration, governed as if they belonged to neither colour, nor for the people who elected them.

The only rational jump of intellectual honesty one can make is that both parties are actually colluding in pushing and furthering an agenda they both either believe in, or more pertinently...belong to, as if they have both agreed to simply help themselves to wealth and power to maintain their own perceived status of entitled privilege. On this thread you have all been discussing things from 'sides', as if there are actual 'sides' to choose from. There are no sides in today's politics, only agendas pushed and imposed on the people. The choice of having a side to choose is nothing but an illusion peddled to keep you distracted and divided. Neither party, for you, are fit for the purpose you elected them for. They don't govern for the people, they govern for themselves. Your only purpose to them is to keep the machinery ticking over maintaining their grip over you, without you becoming a privileged member of them.

Let's call them what they see themselves as...the self-entitled privileged class (SePC), and every aspect of our society is slowly being socially engineered to ensure that they remain the self-entitled privileged class, and they will use whatever means necessary to keep it that way.

The impeachment is a joke, they are fighting amongst themselves like feudal lords. The only real difference between them is the ideological difference in how to apply the global agenda that they both believe in. I would suggest that you could in theory have impeached every president going back at least 4 decades, maybe even further. It's as if they fear Trump might inadvertently make public secrets they want to keep hidden from the people. You can no longer look at your elected representative and view them as actually representing you, no matter what they said on the campaign trail.

Do you know what the greatest benefit of democracy is supposed to bring? I'll tell you, even if you already know, it is supposed to bring about an opportunity for a positive change. Our democratic processes haven't brought about a change in decades. Yes, we change the faces, but the same privileged class position remains in situ drawing ever greater benefit and power unto itself.

This is the unequal system we are all living under and it needs breaking down and resetting and made to function under the noble principles for how society should be structured and function. The obscene edifice we have today is a mutation of ideas of the privileged few who intend, by hook or crook, to continue lording it over us all. In their eyes, in their perception, the highest position any of us can achieve is as a 'serf' to their needs. Government no longer exists for the people's benefit, but simply for the comfort of the people's illusory traditions still being in place.

Do you actually really and truly believe that the Democrats are seeking impeachment for the people's benefit? Not one of you could be so naive.
edit on 10/12/19 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/12/19 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Dems planning to impeach over "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress"

Two things D's are clearly guilty of themselves.

Their double standards are alive and well.

ICYMI people were playing 'judge' and 'Witness' yesterday.


If these crimes are valid actual crimes, when applied to the Democrats, then they must also be valid actual crimes, when applied to Trump. The reasoning is clear and simple.

So if you are going to charge that the Democrats are guilty of these crimes, you must also hold that Trump is still guilty and is not excused.

And, the other thing, if the Democrats did something that is an actual valid crime, that also in no way excuses Trump from committing the same actual valid crime. He would still be guilty of committing the crime.

Two 'wrongs' don't make a 'right'.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

The Mueller report did not find anyone in the Trump campaign, beyond those already charged, guilty of conspiracy with Russia in interference with the 2016 election process.

That is somewhat different than clearing Trump of colluding with Russia.



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan






Democrats released their two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday, and they are a complete joke.

Not only did the Democrats back away from charging Trump with bribery, obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation, campaign finance violations, treason, or any of the other wild claims they floated, but the two articles themselves are fraudulent, based on blatantly false claims of law and fact.

Line by line, here they are:

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In his conduct of the office of President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump Solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

This is false. Trump never discussed the 2020 election with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, nor did he ask them to interfere in our politics. That is simply Democrats’ spin, based on the complaint of the so-called “whistleblower,” which was disproved by the release of the actual transcript of Trump’s conversation with Zelensky. Trump asked Ukraine to look into its widely-reported interference in the 2016 election, and to look into the circumstances in which then-Vice President Joe Biden demanded, on pain of losing $1 billion in loan guarantees, that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who had jurisdiction over a dormant investigation of a corrupt Ukrainian company, Burisma, on which Biden’s son, Hunter, served as a well-compensated board member. Democrats demanded Ukraine cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s supposed “collusion” with Russia in 2018. By their own new definition, that would qualify as pressuring Ukraine to interfere in U.S. politics.

He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.

Trump asked Zelensky to work with the U.S. Attorney General, which suggests he actually wanted real investigations. Democrats claim Trump only wanted an “announcement” of investigations. Their only evidence is the testimony of Gordon Sondland, who testified that Trump told him that he wanted “nothing” from Ukraine, and who admitted that most of what he believed about “investigations” was the result of his own personal presumptions.

President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps

This is false. President Zelensky has said numerous times that he felt no “pressure” from Trump, and that there was no “quid pro quo.” Numerous witnesses testified that Ukraine did not even know any aid was on hold until Politico reported it in late August, more than a month after the call. While some witnesses said that some Ukrainian officials at the embassy in Washington may have been aware of a holdup with the aid, none of them could say exactly when.

by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.

This, again, is false. Numerous witnesses testified that aid was never conditioned on investigations. The Ukrainian government itself has repeated — even today — that it never believed U.S. assistance depended on announcing, or conducting, investigations. The claim was just a presumption by Sondland, who also testified that Trump told him there was “no quid pro quo,” and admitted he had no direct knowledge of any link between aid and investigations.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit.

The president specifically asked Zelensky to “do us a favor,” referring to the “country.” (Democrat legal “expert” Pamela Karlan tried, absurdly, to argue that Trump meant the “royal ‘We’.”) Investigating both foreign election interference and corruption involving American officials is a matter of public interest. Numerous witnesses agreed that the Bidens had a conflict of interest with Burisma — at the very least — and that it was worthy of investigation. Moreover, Democrats spent years arguing that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s alleged “collusion” with Russia was justified because the country had to know if a possible future president was compromised — either by foreign misdeeds or by compromising information in hands of a foreign power. The same applies to Biden.

In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States

The argument that Trump “compromised” national security rests on the idea that Ukraine is essential to American national security interests. That may or may not be true, but if so, then President Barack Obama should have been impeached for appeasing Russia and allowing it to invade Ukraine. In truth, questions of national security and foreign policy are largely within the president’s own constitutional purview; his decisions are not impeachable. Regardless, there was never any interruption in U.S. aid to Ukraine, and the key military aid — the Javelin anti-tank missiles that Trump provided, but Obama had not — was never affected, as numerous witnesses testified. If anything undermined U.S. national security, it was the Democrats’ decision to pursue impeachment in a way that exposed the secretive details of internal decision-making and foreign policy to anyone, friend or foe, who wanted to know.

and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process.

The only violation of the democratic process is Democrats’ attempt to overturn the 2016 election. As Democrats argued vehemently during the Clinton impeachment in 1998-9, such an effort should not be undertaken lightly. And as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) argued — before her impeachment effort failed to earn Republican support — impeachment should only be done with bipartisan support lest it be seen as a purely political endeavor.

He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

On the contrary: protecting our elections, investigating corruption, and preventing foreign aid from being misused by corrupt governments are all the duties of the President of the United States, in furtherance of his Oath of Office.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents Within and Outside the United States Government

Trump did not have “agents.” He had Senate-confirmed diplomats, as well as informal diplomatic channels. As numerous witnesses testified, there is nothing inherently wrong or unusual in a president using informal diplomacy.

— corrupt



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Article from Gateway Pundit.

Per the Washington Post, the House Judiciary Committee will vote on the two articles mentioned above later this week.

The 2 lamest, most wishy-washy "crimes" possible.

"Abuse of Power" is entirely subjective, almost by definition. And the House seems to be doing an excellent job obstructing itself. In fact, Trump arguably has been facilitating Congress by refusing to aid the Dems' monkey poo throwing exercise.

Any mention of any kind of real crime (like bribery) has apparently disappeared, and Mueller's report has reportedly been flushed down the memory hole (since it cleared Trump of colluding with Russia).



Because there was NO quid pro quo

This is hilarious



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak



Game , Set , Match ...........Its OVER.....


www.breitbart.com...
edit on 10-12-2019 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   
It’s ok lefties. Just because this is a massive fail.

You’ve still got election fraud and dishonest leftist vote-counters that you can rely on
DEMocrat-rigged voting machines and lost ballot boxes and fascist left wing masked gangs to intimidate voters with on Election Day
Dead votes and MILLIONS of illegal votes
Social media networks to influence the low iq voters
And EVERY citizen from EVERY country on earth to post and repost fake news

All is not lost, yet.

By any means necessary is still the game plan. Stay the course

(Just keep your fingers crossed that ‘a russian’ doesn’t post a meme, because THAT is how hillary lost last time)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join