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: 7
17
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I actually agree with the "liberal" agenda. Just not the "progressive" agenda.

My family escaped and move out of progressive/Socialist nightmares, i would hate to see America becoming or turning into one.




posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
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?



Trump and the executive branch HAVE gone to court. The court will decide and act as arbiter, just as the Constitution intended.
So yes, it is OK . More than ok.
Please learn your civics.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Yes, I think trump has done something that is deserving him being removed from office.

Very well; I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that point. I disagree strongly, but that is far and wide different than just wanting someone removed because you don't like them.


The house has followed the same rules that were in effect while the republicans were in the majority.

There are several differences between the Clinton impeachment and the Trump impeachment. Clinton was accused of a specific instance of criminality that had hard evidence supporting it: perjury and interfering with a witness to cover up said perjury. His perjury was on videotape. That does not mean I agree with the impeachment; I didn't then and I don't now. I simply do not think the issue was serious enough to override the vote of the people.

Nixon might have been a different story. We'll never know, because there was no reason to present evidence after he resigned and was pardoned. I do know he was accused of a specific instance of criminality and that his own actions indicated hard evidence existed.

Trump has been accused of a specific potential criminal instance with no hard evidence yet presented. Opinions are not hard evidence and neither is hearsay. His conversation with Zelensky can be read two ways... one, as the Democrats are claiming, that indicates an abuse of power; the other, as Trump is saying, that indicates a desire to cooperate with Ukraine in continuing the same investigation that targeted him for over two years. Only two people know what was going through the minds of the leaders: Trump and Zelensky. Trump has explained why he did what he did, and Zelensky has stated multiple times that he felt no pressure to do anything to receive military aid. Just as I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt. The law actually requires such in cases of criminal prosecution... "beyond a reasonable doubt."

What someone thought he meant or what someone heard him say out of context is irrelevant.


As far as bias, it's a nice scapegoat, anyone who just doesnt jive with what you want must be bias.

That's not what I am talking about. Bias in either direction can color the testimony of accusers. That bias must be taken into account in determining innocence or guilt.

Suppose for one moment that your neighbor got upset at you for some reason... doesn't matter why. That neighbor can then hold that grudge against you and one day see you yell at your kid. They call the authorities and make a formal complaint. You get a visit from Child Protective Services who then want to know how many times a day you hit your child, why is the child crying, etc. I actually know a couple, used to be close to them when they lived closer. Great parents with a beautiful little girl. One day she was playing and accidentally fell against a heater and burned herself. Horrified, my friends picked her up and rushed her to the hospital. After she was treated, they were then taken into a little room and questioned: how did she get burned? Why weren't you watching her? How many times has this happened before? They asked the little girl if her parents were ever mean to her, did her parents hit her, did anyone push her into the heater?

That is improper and it is exactly what I see happening to Trump. Those investigators saw a little girl with burns and decided her parents were guilty of child abuse, and then set out to prove it. People heard something Trump said and immediately decided he was abusing his power and set out to prove it. They never could prove anything against my friends, and so far nothing has been proven against Trump.

If we ignore witness bias, yes, Trump could be proven guilty... but so could my friends, and so could you. All witness bias weakens testimony. It has to if we want justice.


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.

Laws yes. The President makes the policies, though. Donald Trump is the President. The policies are whatever Donald Trump wants them to be.

One of those laws, incidentally, directs the President to certify that foreign aid is not going to a corrupt government before releasing it. Trump would have been in violation of the law had he not put a temporary hold on the funds to check out the Ukrainian government.

Proper channels are whatever channels the President decides they are. Donald Trump is the President. Donald Trump decides what a proper channel is.

The ambassador's name was not 'drug through the mud' until the phone call transcript was released, in response to the whistleblower's accusation. I had never heard of her before that. Donald Trump has the right to defend himself by presenting evidence in his favor whether it offends someone or not.

The discussion into investigating Burisma started before Joe Biden announced his candidacy. Volodymyr Zelensky won the Presidency, and had his first conversation with Donald Trump, on April 21, 2019. Joe Biden announced his candidacy on April 25, 2019. One could call that suspicious timing, perhaps indicative of someone trying to place themselves in a position to avoid future prosecution.

In any event, announcing candidacy for President is not an excuse for not investigating a crime. Hillary Clinton was under an FBI investigation twice while she was running against Donald Trump in 2016. We now know Donald Trump was also under investigation by the FBI during that same year. Why is Joe Biden exempt from investigation all of a sudden? He hasn't even won the nomination yet and thus is not a candidate for President; he is a candidate for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Trump is not in that race.


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.

You really should actually research Viktor Shokin. He has never been formally accused of a crime. His successor, however, spent some time in an EU prison for corruption and money laundering. You won't hear about that on CNN, but you will if you simply search for the names online.

It is possible for both Russia and the Ukraine to simultaneously meddle. Showing that one did so does not absolve the other.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

On that point, I actually watched Adam Schiff today state that Trump's appeal to the courts was an abuse of power.

I kid you not. He actually said it is an abuse of power to file a lawsuit.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You must not have watched the hearings or paid A N Y attention to politics for the past year or to be able to google search, but witnesses testified about the ambassador being smeared And that it was well known in the state department. It was public knowledge before the call memo was released, we just didn’t have the big picture at the time.

May 07, 2019

U.S. ambassador to Ukraine is recalled after becoming a political target

So, why do we lie then?

PS I would love to really eviscerate all the othe bogus “facts” you post but just doing that one point on mobile took far to long. Been seeing so much Gish gallop lately and it is the worst thing for debates and forum posts.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

And you must not be able to read. What I said:

I had never heard of her before that.

That is the truth. The first I heard about this ambassador was in the transcript of the call. I distinctly remember wondering who she was. Now you want to claim she was some sort of household name because you found a link?

She can still be fired for any reason the President deems, whenever he deems, however he deems, regardless of who she is. She works for him... capisce?

Please, feel free to 'eviscerate' all you want. Don't expect a reasoned response though. You want to attack, hoss, we're in the Mud Pit and I've never been one to shy away from a little mud. Sling at your own risk.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Imagine expecting an elected official to actually govern honestly and work for America instead of their political party.

What a crazy idea.

I know, isn't it? Even crazier, we finally got one that is doing just that!

KAG 2020!



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: UKTruth

On that point, I actually watched Adam Schiff today state that Trump's appeal to the courts was an abuse of power.

I kid you not. He actually said it is an abuse of power to file a lawsuit.

TheRedneck


He and Nadler also claimed today that Guilianni travelling to Ukraine proves that the Constitution is under attack!
Bit of a window into the type of police state rule that the Democrats have in store for America if the country is dumb enough to hand the Executive Branch to them.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Calling anyone from center to right a Nazi, an idiot, a racist, bigot, homophobe, deplorable or by any other means to shame or bully them to gain their votes really isn't going to work.

Insulting 150 million US citizens (or nearly a billion western conservatives) isn't going to win them over and more so, it will drive the remaining centrists and liberals not so far to the left, away from their parties.

I say encourage them to keep up with the tantrums, the name calling, the doxing, the intimidation and underhandedness...

Progressives worldwide are handing the world to conservatism on a silver platter..!!

First the US got it's trump, then Australia's federal Election voted out a large number of Progressives (the individual state elections will finish that job), then Britain got their Trump in.. Other nations will eventually follow.

The progressive left is committing political suicide world wide...

Just let them do what they do and enjoy the ride.. LOL
edit on 16-12-2019 by Ironclad1964 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shawmanfromny

He did say its in the bag for the president even though they have not been presented with the evidence yet.
He said the jury is on the side of the defendant.
Y'all love to whine and cry about things not being fair but it seems you really don't recognize it when you see it.

They have to take an oath to be impartial. HA! I seriously doubt any of the GOP will keep that oath.
They will all have their fingers crossed behind their backs.

The fix is in.

yah the a Senate Republicans will
try to fix what the House Democrats broke.



posted on Dec, 16 2019 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You don't even live in the US. I know civics and the legal system.

If an ordinary citizen pulled this stunt, they would go straight to jail for failure to appear, contempt, evidence tampering, ect..



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: UKTruth

You don't even live in the US. I know civics and the legal system.

If an ordinary citizen pulled this stunt, they would go straight to jail for failure to appear, contempt, evidence tampering, ect..


I am not American, that's right.
Yet your comments confirm I have vastly more knowledge than you do about your own laws and system of govt.
Embarrassing for you, really.



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod


If an ordinary citizen pulled this stunt, they would go straight to jail for failure to appear, contempt, evidence tampering, ect..

If any other prosecutor attempted one tenth of what Adam Schiff has actually done, the case would be thrown out immediately and they would be disbarred on the spot and probably face prosecution for malicious prosecution.

And I do live in the US.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You know that one House Democrat was caught watching golf on his phone during one of the hearings. You know he is just sitting there waiting for the vote regardless of what any witnesses are saying.
edit on 17-12-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Were there witnesses, or was this the house debating? I was under the impression it was just their two day spouting of the same talking points over and over again.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join