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.

 

Shifty Schiff Sets Up 2020 Elections as Illegitimate Unless Trump is Impeached

page: 11
62
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Just where is this magical "evidence" you keep eluding to? The phone transcripts showed nothing, unless your going by shiftys reading of it as evidence.




posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chance321

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: Wayfarer
The title of the OP is clear enough. What the Democrats are doing is Treasonous. Overthrowing a sitting President. AG Barr will be more explicit for you. Heads better roll.



What the democrats are doing is alarming. Trying to overthrow an elected President from the very beginning over nothing. But to be also trying to dictate who we can elect unless they get their way.


Now you're just parroting propaganda. First, let me reiterate, Trump is not getting removed from office. There is no crime in the universe he could commit that would get a Republican controlled senate to vote him out, FULL STOP. Second, impeachment isn't overthrowing anyone, it's bringing redress to crimes committed in the only available manner afforded to the legislature by the constitution. Thirdly, nobody is preventing anyone from voting for Trump again in 2020, and the impeachment effort has no connection to that whatsoever outside of the concept of removing him from office (and even then, though I'm not absolutely sure, I think he could still technically run for president again in 2020, so even the worst case scenario as you imagine it wouldn't prohibit people from voting for him).



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chance321
a reply to: Wayfarer

Just where is this magical "evidence" you keep eluding to? The phone transcripts showed nothing, unless your going by shiftys reading of it as evidence.


I personally think the most magical of evidence is when Trump admitted on the white house lawn that he withheld aid from Ukraine because of them not investigating Biden. Secondly would be when he asked on the white house lawn for China to also investigate Biden.

I've always been a sucker for direct admissions, as you may be able to discern



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I personally think the most magical of evidence is when Trump admitted on the white house lawn that he withheld aid from Ukraine because of them not investigating Biden.

Can you source that so I can see him saying it?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

I personally think the most magical of evidence is when Trump admitted on the white house lawn that he withheld aid from Ukraine because of them not investigating Biden.

Can you source that so I can see him saying it?


Sure.

Here.

And here's Mulvaney's confirmation of the arrangement between Trump and Ukraine vis-a-vis the monetary aid/Biden investigation



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

You mean for this?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I watched it, he never once says what you claim. In fact he never mentions aid once. Please source him saying what you claim.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chance321
a reply to: Wayfarer

You mean for this?


No, you see, quid pro quo isn't illegal per se, but a quid pro quo arrangement specifically to hurt a political rival is.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Chance321
a reply to: Wayfarer

You mean for this?


No, you see, quid pro quo isn't illegal per se, but a quid pro quo arrangement specifically to hurt a political rival is.

What about a quid pro quo to prevent an investigation that would hurt you personally?

If Biden is innocent how is he hurt? Wouldn't that help him when he comes out clean?
edit on 11-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Chance321
a reply to: Wayfarer

You mean for this?


No, you see, quid pro quo isn't illegal per se, but a quid pro quo arrangement specifically to hurt a political rival is.

What about a quid pro quo to prevent an investigation that would hurt you personally?

If Biden is innocent how is he hurt? Wouldn't that help him when he comes out clean?


Because Trump's desire was to smear Biden with the concept of him being investigated. Actually going forward with an investigation wasn't something Trump really cared about, but merely the appearance of one. Its why he had his lackey's inform Ukraine they needed a formal announcement (for the obvious PR angle they were going to use to hurt him politically) and that the investigation itself wasn't necessary.

Then, as soon as folks caught wind publicly to what Trump was doing, he magically released the money as if he was just palling around and oh what a coincidence the day after people find out what he's doing is the day he lets the money go to Ukraine.....



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Democrats are the ones who made the story public. If Biden was found innocent there is no smear. You keep making these claims with zero evidence and no sources. At this point it is basically just lying.



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

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Democrats are the ones who made the story public. If Biden was found innocent there is no smear. You keep making these claims with zero evidence and no sources. At this point it is basically just lying.


Ignoring the evidence already readily available/apparent and claiming there is none is the lie my friend.



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


Ignoring the evidence already readily available/apparent and claiming there is none is the lie my friend.


Catch me back up. What lie are you talking about?

OAN reporter that's been traveling with Giuliani is getting ready to release a transcript between Biden and Ukraine's former president discussing the firing of the prosecutor for investigating Burisma. That should be coming out very soon according to the reporter.





edit on 11-12-2019 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Wayfarer


Ignoring the evidence already readily available/apparent and claiming there is none is the lie my friend.


Catch me back up. What lie are you talking about?

OAN reporter that's been traveling with Giuliani is getting ready to release a transcript between Biden and Ukraine's former president discussing the firing of the prosecutor for investigating Burisma. That should be coming out very soon according to the reporter.






Yeah, the prosecutor Biden fired for not going after corruption enough. Biden then held the money until a prosecutor who would go after corruption (including looking into the company his son sat on the board of - which really doesn't make sense why Biden would WANT a prosecutor to look after his sons company for corruption) was put in place.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Democrats are the ones who made the story public. If Biden was found innocent there is no smear. You keep making these claims with zero evidence and no sources. At this point it is basically just lying.


Ignoring the evidence already readily available/apparent and claiming there is none is the lie my friend.

I keep waiting for you to provide evidence. So far you posted a video that proved you wrong and me right. If there was evidence you would provide it .. because you already tried to do so and failed. The only reason you won't provide any is it does not exist.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Which is why the new prosecutor has said he was told by the US he could not go after Burisma, Burisma was let off the hook, Biden was VERY happy after Burisma investigation was ended, and then Biden was pissed when Burisma investigation started back up.

Please tell me, once Biden got the guy he wanted in place, what happened to Burisma?
edit on 11-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

Which is why the new prosecutor has said he was told by the US he could not go after Burisma, Burisma was let off the hook, Biden was VERY happy after Burisma investigation was ended, and then Biden was pissed when Burisma investigation started back up.

Please tell me, once Biden got the guy he wanted in place, what happened to Burisma?


This is Russian propaganda that's been parroted ad-nauseam by the Republicans. Its a base lie, but you keep doing your part in the cog-wheel of Republican hegemony.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

So you are saying the prosecutor never made that comment?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Wayfarer

So you are saying the prosecutor never made that comment?


Suspiciously well after the fact and well within the circumstances of damage control from Ukraine (upon which American aid/support is still hyper critical).



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

So how is it Russian propaganda when you admit he said it. Are you claiming the Russians forced him to say it? The stuff you say is so crazy it's ridiculous.
edit on 11-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join