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.

 

Democrats Already Attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Dont know where you got that I think its gonna be some kind of debate when I point out that they are gonna have to quietly sit and listen... no cellphones allowed, so they cant even twitter their thoughts..
Thus my suggestion that Robert's might want to invest in around 100 muzzles... to sit quietly is asking a bit much from our senators.
For the most part, I think you are right in your description of how this will happen, I've read about the same thing. The house dems will and republicans will each send a team over a group to present their 'case's to the senate and the president will send his team. The senators get to outline the rules for the hearing, which will be about as bipartisan as the house was, but then the get to quietly sit and listen basically.. at least according to what I read. I dont even think they will get to ask witnesses questions but I may be wrong on that.
But, if their only role is to sit, listen, and decide...
I think they will all agree to a very quick process. Demanding silence from them is like condemning them to hell.




posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If I get subpoenaed and don't go to court, I go to jail. If I do not produce documents in an investigation I go to jail. When Trump and his cronies do it you guys think it is ok?



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
the republicans want a fascist government...they can no longer win with ideas, they need to win by fear of the other



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
the republicans want a fascist government...they can no longer win with ideas, they need to win by fear of the other


Way to Ignore the last 19 years.

From 9-11 to fake crimes and impeachments.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
the republicans want a fascist government...they can no longer win with ideas, they need to win by fear of the other


You just described the left and why they use climate change to scare people into accepting their authoritarian rule.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

You don't even realize that you've lost the argument, do you?

Stooping to personal insults when you've nothing left to speak of...a sure sign that you've lost the argument.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I wish these Democrats would quit defecting from Pelosi.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

...and what ideas have been brought forth by Democrats recently??

Other than impeach, impeach, impeach, IMPEACH!!!, I mean?

That isn't an idea, by the way. Instead of trying to work with the man, y'know, that whole bipartisan stuff y'all are always on about... Nope, instead we get...

Undermine. Obfuscate. Impede. Overthrow. Rinse, and repeat...

Ideas? I fear that the Democratic party has forgotten what those are.


edit on 12/15/2019 by seagull because: oops.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: jimmyx
the republicans want a fascist government...they can no longer win with ideas, they need to win by fear of the other


You just described the left and why they use climate change to scare people into accepting their authoritarian rule.


And think about sending the NAT GUARD to take away peoples boomsticks.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Well, to be fair, you can’t enact totalitarian rule if the population is armed.




posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well, you can...

But it's considerably harder to do.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Dont know where you got that I think its gonna be some kind of debate when I point out that they are gonna have to quietly sit and listen...

Probably from this:

Robert's probably ain't gonna want to do much more than be a figurehead. He'll let the dems and republicans hash it out between them.

In any case, John Roberts is a stickler for law and always has been. I'm sure you remember him chewing out Trump on twitter over calling a judge an "Obama judge." Once the trial is underway, he's in charge... not McConnell.

As to the rules being partisan, McConnell has already stated that he would push for fair treatment based on legal precedent, something that Shiff and Nadler have consistently ignored. The final vote may be partisan, as will the deliberation after the trial (all juries deliberate), but I expect the trial itself to be fair and impartial as any.

The thing is that fair treatment means both sides will get to call whoever they choose to make their case. Since the abuse of power charge is based around the supposed withholding of military aid to Ukraine as reported by the whistleblower, the whistleblower will likely be called to testify. Adam Schiff knows the name of the whistleblower, so he will be called. The request for investigation is legal and proper if it was not done with reasonable suspicion, which means Joe and Hunter Biden will be called. That's where things will get interesting: all will be under oath and penalty of perjury, and anything said will be on transcript. That opens the door for future prosecution through the normal court system of anyone involved in Ukrainian corruption affecting the 2016 election.

I can all but promise Bill Barr will at least be listening to the trial intently.

It won't just be Democrats either. For some reason, Lindsey Graham is dead-set against having a trial, and that makes me wonder if he's not knee-deep in the same corruption. I'd bet money Mitt Romney will get his behind pulled into trouble as well. Neither of them can be jailed, but they can be publicly disgraced and removed from office by the voters.

Gonna be an interesting watch.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Hes gonna let them hash out the rules.
The house followed the rules that were already in place, many put there when the republicans were the majority. I cant say that I agree with how the house did things but the dems were pretty much railroaded when the republicans were in charge.

As far as there being more witnesses called.. dont be so sure. If yous get a whistleblower then we should get a Bolton, or many even rudy. Rudy would be fun to watch. I would especially like to see him answer under oath just what he was doing in Romania.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Yeah, I'm certain Guiliani will be called, and Bolton as well. I have no problem with that. As long as the trial is fair and not skewed (as those in the House were), let the chips fall where they may.

I don't understand how you can call what we just witnessed in the House as fair and impartial, though. There is nothing fair about calling witnesses for one side only (or admittedly calling three witnesses for one side and one witness for the other, who is then pretty much badgered and/or ignored as it suited the narrative), leading witnesses, reading misleading 'parodies' into the official record, denying point of order objections without explanation, lying about intent to call witnesses... I could go on for days about all the improper activities used by the majority party in the House.

'Fair' is not just another way of saying one gets to 'win.' 'Fair' means both sides get equal treatment and equal opportunity to present a case.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Where did I say it was fair? I said they followed the same rules that were in effect when they were in the minority, rules that the Republicans were fine with as long as they could use them to railroad them, which I watched plenty hearings, the hearings on healthcare, planned parenthood, ect.. the republican whines of today sound quite familiar.
Being the majority I guess has its perks.. fair or not.
But, to be honest I'm kind of disgusted with both parties. They should be more interested in investigating what actually happened and giving us a clear understanding of the facts and not scoring their political wins. Which probably meant waiting for the courts to rule on some of those cases. Then maybe we could have heard from Bolton, rudy, and the rest, and who knows maybe something would have came out that helped trumps case.
I disagree with the idea that we deserve to hear from the whistleblower because he came forward believing that he would have the protections granted to whistleblower and just reading through a couple of threads here has convinced me that revealing who he is will put him in danger. Besides, there is really nothing more that could be revealed by him that the other witnesses haven't given us more information on than he could. And, quite frankly, the bidens are really kind of irrelevant. There is proper channels for gaining the assistance of other countries in investigations, and they dont include rudy, Igor and Lev romping around causing havoc in our diplomatic endeavors. It's just an attempt to divert an impeachment of trump to a trial of biden. It's like saying I know this person stole my stereo out of my home so I broke into his house to prove it. Even if he did steal the stereo, you are still guilty of breaking into his house. All you've managed to do is maybe give the thief an interesting cell mate. .. you!!



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Yeah, I'm certain Guiliani will be called, and Bolton as well.


I don't think they want Guliani called.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Where did I say it was fair?

I'm just going to be blunt here... one of two things has to be true. Either you genuinely believe that Trump is guilty of something impeachable, in which case you want a fair trial, or you just want him to be impeached at any cost, in which case you don't want a fair trial because you really want to remove the voting rights of 63 million Americans. There is no third option I can see.

If you want the former, that's fine; we have no argument. I want a fair trial as well and the chips to fall where they may. If the latter, though, I cannot consider you a fellow American any more as you have become a traitor to the United States of America. It's that simple. If you are indeed a traitor and simply want the President impeached, this is way beyond a political disagreement. It is a war worth fighting, even if on a physical level. My right to vote is not up for debate and never will be.

You need to understand that, and it applies to anyone who holds that view. I'm not saying you are a traitor; I am saying that I am convinced of late that some are and therefore can become unsure about others.

The whistleblower is important because it helps to build a case. Who were the people he talked to and reported on? Did they have a political bias against the President? Was there some sort of echo chamber going on where gossip could be coordinated into charges without any direct evidence? Unlike the hearings the last couple of weeks, a trial relies on hard evidence, and every witness is subject to having their testimony impugned. If you were watching the Judicial Committee hearings, you hear those very concerns raised: some key witnesses actually remembered things after hearing other witnesses testify or after talking to other witnesses. That is not trustworthy testimony and the defense has every right to point it out.

There is also no legal requirement of anonymity for any whistleblower under law. There are laws protecting a whistleblower from retaliation, which would not be necessary if a whistleblower's identity were not known.

The President has every right to conduct foreign relations as he sees fit, within the letter of the laws passed by Congress. There is no law that says a private citizen cannot meet with foreign leaders; it happens all the time. Rudy Guiliani has stated multiple times, as have some Ukrainian officials, that Ukraine has tried several times to pass corruption information to the State Department and have been ignored. Given that President Trump was under a formal investigation for Russian collusion, it is perfectly proper for Guiliani to investigate any situation that could have bearing on actual election collusion in the 2016 elections, which his client was accused of.

The President has full authority to hire and fire ambassadors, even against the advice of ambassadors. Ambassadors do not establish foreign policy; they implement it.

The only way there could be improper dealings with Ukraine in this case would be if the President did indeed use his power to demand political dirt be produced on an American citizen. If there was reasonable suspicion of corruption in Ukraine, as Trump alleges there was, then no crime has been committed and no impeachment was warranted; in that case we may be talking about malicious prosecution which is in itself a crime. The prosecution must therefore prove that there was no reasonable suspicion when Trump asked for an investigation, and that the express intent was to create an appearance of guilt whether deserved or not.

You know, like Hillary Clinton did with the Steele Dossier.

So it is no stretch of legality to see that the situation surrounding Burisma is indeed a keystone in any defense, and as such Trump has the right to call any witnesses that he deems fit to show his reasoning for asking for the investigations. He has been investigated for three years now and has not been given the opportunity to present his side... now he gets to do so.

And the result is that we are seeing just who the traitors are.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
When have they ever *not* attacked Mitch? Hell, conservatives attack McTortoise as well, for other reasons of course.



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Partisan madness



posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes, I think trump has done something that is deserving him being removed from office. But, I have not heard anyone lay it out like I would so maybe what I am seeing they wouldn't consider impeachable. So, well, it's not my job to decide anyways.
The house has followed the same rules that were in effect while the republicans were in the majority. They have tried the best they could to replicate how the other impeachment were carried out. And, quite frankly they have been more generous to trump than those previous cases. Also, I already said, I really didnt like how the dems handled it, just like I didnt like how the Republicans have handled things while they held the majority. Neither side is gonna change those rules since that would require the majority that is in power to give up a perk that they are currently enjoying. So, whine as much as you want, we have what we have and we all suffer because of it because they are ignoring a significant portion of the body... acting like the minority has nothing worthy of consideration.
As far as bias, it's a nice scapegoat, anyone who just doesnt jive with what you want must be bias. So whatever they say can be discounted. Why does it matter who the whistleblower talked to or who the whistleblower is? Heck vindman came forward and now he needs protection. The little republican senator spoke up, and she is receiving death threats I believe. But ya, let's spread the misery as far and wide as we can. Let's just keep giving the crazies more and more targets. The ones we need to hear from, the ones closest to trump, we arent gonna get to hear from I bet.
Ya, the pres can decide how he wants to handle foreign policy to an extent. But there are laws, and there are policies set up. Proper channels and ways things should be done. If he wanted to change course, he could have at least clued in the people on the ground in ukraine. If he wanted to remove the ambassador, there was no reason to publicly drag her name through the mud. If he wanted to seek assistance in an investigation there were proper channels to do this and a far better time than when the person you are wanting to investigate becomes your potential political rival in your election bid.
By what I heard, it wasn't that our govt wouldn't accept information about the biden bit... it was that they wouldn't let the person providing it into the country because they are sanctioned and not allowed in.
Another thing I heard was that the justice dept has asked the judge to lock up either lev or Igor because hes a flight risk. Turns out he lied about his financials.. he got a million dollar payment coming out of a russian bank.
Another story I recently ran across had rudy playing in romania while working for the president, writing a letter to their president saying how their anti corruption policies were hampering foreign investment, claiming the prosecutors, judges, ect were all corrupt and everyone who was prosecuted should be pardoned... a position that was not held by our state department. Matter of fact it ran quite contrary to the official policy. Come to find out, he was paid to write that letter. I think by one of those who was prosecuted.
I also heard that our own intelligence community briefed the senators recently and told them that the idea that the ukraine was the one meddling in the election originated in russia. And that the biden bit has been debunked. Although his son having that job didnt look too good, he broke no laws. And, the danged prosecutor biden told them to fire was corrupt, he wasn't investigating burisma at that time, and it was the consensus of many countries that he had to go if the money was gonna keep flowing.
There was two reasons I wouldn't vote for hillary. One was she was lying, which to be honest, they all do that but in my book that is a big strike against them. The other was that I knew that she would be plagued with investigation after investigation. I sat the last election out.. since I dont think I can write in Mickey mouse where I am living at now.
But, when it comes to lies and questionable activity, trump has gone far above anything I could have imagined!
Remove him or keep him, I dont think it matters now. We are so far out in la la land its gonna take us decades to actually discover what reality is. We are drowning in lies.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join