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.

 

Trumps direct and to the point letter to Nancy Pelosi

page: 11
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You're right, the House going after him for obstruction when SC Justice Ginsburg has already ruled in Trump's favor on the issue of tax returns, and the SC is the avenue available to the House is hilariously unconstitutional. #OrangeManBad though.




posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Who cares?

Does it matter?

Vote your conscience.

See you on the otherside



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You do realise that the orange man is bad....dont you?

I pray you do realise what the orange man is.

I know you do.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   
So your best attack is still on the size of his hands? What a respectful individual you are, so understanding And considerate, never one to body shame. You can’t go into more specifics You just know you hate the man and that’s OK to do. Just remember that’s who you are, hateful, body shaming and ignorant in your bloodlust.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
perhaps you could get the english to tooth impaired english translation and it would make sense to you?




I get what you're saying - can I get it translated out of its original Orange Angry Bloviatarian? That's an excellent point. Does anyone here speak that strange and bizarre rant of a language?. And I can't imagine what the original original version was like. His handwriting is deeply strange.


I purposely did not put this in the mudpit as this is now a historical record of what the Democrats have done and are doing to the President, from his and many millions of other people's perspective.
If you actually do understand the Constitution and have done some study on what impeachment really means - e.g. Hamilton notes and Federalist papers then please do highlight where you think the President is wrong in his assessment.


Historical record? Have you hit your head on something old fruitbat? It's nothing of the sort. It's a ragbag of lies, bloviating nonsense and froth. Have you even been paying attention to the hearings in Congress? Vindman? Sondland? Hill? All the others? He's claiming that only his version of reality is the true one.
This is the work of a man who has lied so much that he has never known what truth is. It's nonsense - a desperate PR stunt. It will achieve nothing and will be quickly forgotten.


Typical globalist retard answer.
You said nothing at all. Trump committed no crime, it is however a crime to read your blather and i shall hensforth pretend you and your " view driven nonsense" dont exist.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You do realise that the orange man is bad....dont you?

I pray you do realise what the orange man is.

I know you do.

If you hate a strong America and you hate a strong economy then yes, if you hate the fact that most of the wage growth is going to the BOTTOM 40%, he is terrible. Please tell me you don't hate those things, I pray you don't. Wouldn't say I know you don't, I think you do.
edit on 18-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: sunkuong




Vote your conscience.


I did last time, and I will again.

I will NEVER vote for anyone in a party that clearly lies,cheats,steals,spies,rigs, and goes to foreigners to write dossiers used to legimitize spying a presidential campaign.

TRUMP 2020.

Because the other side of the coin have clearly shown the entire world their NAZI tendencies.

Prepare for Trumpgeddon 2.0
edit on 18-12-2019 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: XCrycek

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
perhaps you could get the english to tooth impaired english translation and it would make sense to you?




I get what you're saying - can I get it translated out of its original Orange Angry Bloviatarian? That's an excellent point. Does anyone here speak that strange and bizarre rant of a language?. And I can't imagine what the original original version was like. His handwriting is deeply strange.


I purposely did not put this in the mudpit as this is now a historical record of what the Democrats have done and are doing to the President, from his and many millions of other people's perspective.
If you actually do understand the Constitution and have done some study on what impeachment really means - e.g. Hamilton notes and Federalist papers then please do highlight where you think the President is wrong in his assessment.


This is a historical record of a half senile president that one day says he would gladly participate in the impeachment hearings and next day launches child-alike attacks and does everything in his power to stop the impeachment.


The letter makes it clear he's following events and interpreting them pretty accurately. I'd say his mind is pretty sharp and has nailed the message in terms of what his base thinks. Now, is it all true? Not all of it is factually correct, some of it is his opinion on motive, but the key lines of attack are in the main factually correct and supported by documentation.


Why just not for once admit he is lying? He is a lying s.o.b no matter how hard you tray to spin it and call it something different. It's not factually incorrect, it's called LIES.


You'll have to be more specific. What are you referring to exactly.
Which part of the letter is a lie?


There's a lie already in the first paragraph. He says the impeachment is unconstitutional. How is it? HOW?


Uhhhh...Impeachment for reasons other than those set forth in the Constitution IS unconstitutional.

Simple really.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Abuse of Power is pretty much the perfect example of a high crime. So how are the Articles of Impeachment brought against Trump unconstitutional?



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: UKTruth

Abuse of Power is pretty much the definition of a high crime. So I fail to see how their charges don't meet the criteria.

I'm not saying Trump is guilty. We would need an actual trial for that. I am however saying that I do believe enough evidence was presented to indict, aka impeach.


No, it is not the definition of a high crime, it's not even a criminal act.

It's also a generic term that requires specifics on how constitutionally held power was abused - which the Democrats have cited (but with no evidence):

The Democrats claim that Trump is investigating Biden and asking Ukraine to help for personal political gain in order to win the next election. There is not a shred of evidence to support that anywhere. No statement, no texts, no transcripts, no recordings. All we have is the accusation from Trumps political enemies. Accusations are not evidence.

The Democrats are literally impeaching based on what THEY alone have detrmined was Trumps mindset. That is unconstitutional in every regard.

As for the trial - The entire point of the impeachment process is to assess the evidence and determine whether to Impeach. What are you expecting from a Senate trial? The only reasonable thing to do is review the evidence presented by the House and then throw the case out for lack of any actual evidence.



edit on 18/12/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Abuse of Power is pretty much the perfect example of a high crime. So how are the Articles of Impeachment brought against Trump unconstitutional?


You may have mentioned it earlier, but you were wrong.
Abuse of Power means nothing until the specifics are detailed.

As above, what we have is the Democrats claiming, without a shred of evidence, that Trump was investigating Biden with the help of Ukraine for the purposes of winning an election. In other words we have Trump's political enemies, very openly aiming to impeach even prior to the date he took office, interpreting events to fit their desired outcome.

That said - if you have some actual evidence of the specific abuse of power that the Democrats are claiming, please share it.

edit on 18/12/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
What I find most impressive about this letter is the fact it is now a part of the official record, and a very strategic move. It's 'check' and 'mate'; queen protected by rook, adjacent to king. The irony of it is almost comical in that the roles of king and queen here are reversed, Trump is queen and Pelosi is king...just as the MSM has portrayed it all along. King attempts to take queen, gets taken by rook. King doesn't take queen, queen takes king.

Game over.

No matter how it plays out now, the letter serves as a foreboding warning which democrats have no choice but to heed. Vote carefully, your career may very well depend on it. You might not like it, Congress person, but that's the way it is. What side of history do you want to stake your bet on???

Your move!
edit on 12/18/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
To touch on that point again though in a different manner. I won't pity any president who uses watches the DOJ use espionage act on a whistle blower, which strips them of constitutional rights like what happened with Reality Winner. You could argue what she did was wrong, or even illegal... But in no way does that deny her the right to a fair trial. Any president who does that doesn't deserve to whine about their rights being infringed.

All that said, I don't think he should be removed, just offering my thoughts.

Edit: President can't use the espionage act, but they shouldn't watch the DOJ do it. Just wanted to be as accurate as I can.

Ok, I'll ask - what are you talking about? Where has this occurred with respect to the whistle-leaker?

There was no whistle-blower. It was a leak they attempted to disguise as a whistle-blower.

There is no right to anonymity if you are a whistle-blower, but Schiff lied and said there was. Vindman lied under oath when he said he didn't know who the whistle-blower was. Schiff lied as well, although he wasn't under oath.

One thing for sure... during hearings like this, when the witnesses are under oath, the questioners and commentators should also be under oath. It makes no sense for them to be able to lie without consequences.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: XCrycek
It's just a longer "tweet" filled with the usual bs he spouts every day. There's nothing new nor groundbreaking in it.

Except for the BS part, I totally agree.

He is simply stating the truth as is obvious to any rational, sentient being.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

I wasn't referring to this whistle-blower... They have not been charged with the espionage act to my knowledge.

I specifically used Reality Winner as an example, whom I said may have broken the law, but still deserves a fair trial, which she did not receive.

As I've stated, I don't think the impeachment is just, logical, or beneficial to anyone for that matter (except maybe Trump). But that doesn't mean his letter was eloquent, earth shattering, or even fully correct.

Edit: to explain, I was referring to Trump implying his constitutional rights to a fair trial are being infringed (trial hasn't started yet), and everyone fawning at that while forgetting presidents have been pissing on our constitutional rights... So I won't pity one when they complain about theirs in the wrong manner. (he'd be better just sticking with bringing up the impeachment at all without solid crimes, that at least has an argument).
edit on 18-12-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Just heard an example of why the media really is the enemy of all people who seek truth.
LBC radio in the UK is listened to by millions.
Their Washington correspondent's report on the impeachment was:

1) Trump asked the Ukrainian President to interefere in the US election on his behalf - never happened.
2) No Republicans are supporting the President because he's 'banged to rights' - so they are staying silent - lie
3) The Whitehouse is also not defending itself - lie

So millions of British people just got lied to and many of them will believe it.
Personally, I think such blatant lies by a journalist should be a criminal offence.

The report was during Shelagh Fogarty's show.
She's a rabid anti-Trumper and was also a leading voice in the attempt to disregard the Brexit vote.

It's no wonder so many people have no idea about the truth in the world.
edit on 18/12/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth
Hang on to your hats folks - Trump just took the gloves off.

www.scribd.com...

More to follow because the fall out will be epic.

Looking through the 6 pages to bring out the key points - there are so many.


Tiny hands, so tiny gloves. Thanks for giving me a great laugh. That's the most pathetic and yet hysterical missive I've ever read in my life. If Trump actually wrote that then a) he does not understand the Constitution that he vowed to preserve, protect and defend, b) he keeps admitting to wrongdoing, c) his grammar is terrible and d) he's desperate.
No, the fallout will not be 'epic'. It will be a damp squib.

This is literally all you got. Facts don't give a **** about your feelings sport...

You can't attack his policies because they are working.

You can't attack his administration because they are winning.

You can't attack his corruption because there is none.

Most anti Trump zealots go after his intelligent and the intelligence his supporters at this stage. Like somehow attending a liberal arts collage gender studies class gives you more understanding of the world than someone who has been working an actual job since he/she was 14.

Yet if he and his supporters are so stupid why as a whole is the country better off with these "morons" in charge? Chances are your life has been improved under Trump yet you're so controlled by outside influences you are incapable of seeing it. Just another lost liberal sad...



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: tanstaafl

I wasn't referring to this whistle-blower...

? You said:

"I won't pity any president who uses watches the DOJ use espionage act on a whistle blower, which strips them of constitutional rights like what happened with Reality Winner."

So, you did, in fact, refer to 'a' whistle-blower.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
To touch on that point again though in a different manner. I won't pity any president who uses watches the DOJ use espionage act on a whistle blower, which strips them of constitutional rights like what happened with Reality Winner. You could argue what she did was wrong, or even illegal... But in no way does that deny her the right to a fair trial. Any president who does that doesn't deserve to whine about their rights being infringed.

All that said, I don't think he should be removed, just offering my thoughts.

Edit: President can't use the espionage act, but they shouldn't watch the DOJ do it. Just wanted to be as accurate as I can.

Ok, I'll ask - what are you talking about? Where has this occurred with respect to the whistle-leaker?

There was no whistle-blower. It was a leak they attempted to disguise as a whistle-blower.




Ummm...precisely...or...to expand on your thoughts...it was an effing rumor monger...not even a leaker...and sure as hell not a whistle blower...

A rumor monger...





YouSir



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Personally, I suspect Vindman was the actual leaker and may actually have been the one to speak to Schiff's staff. The whistleblower more than likely is one of Schiff's staff who heard it secondhand from Vindman.

Thus, why schiff did not want Vindman to say who that one other person was he had talked to. A circus of circles, but like any circus, time to collapse the tent and move on to the next big show!



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join