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: 5
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Ha ha haaaaa

“What’s the point in disputing any of the facts in e President’s letter”

That’s a good code phrase for “the letter is one hundred percent factual and true”

Ha ha haaaa

Another day, another MASSIVE exodus of supporters from the left




posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   
LOL this is rich. Not even American and you think you know better than their president.

You seem so angry -- still crying about the overwhelming and crushing defeat of your political left there?


a reply to: AngryCymraeg


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seriously? It's all been meticulously detailed elsewhere.
By the way, I cannot even begin to describe how much you have disappointed me in the past few years. I used to look up you as a good and sensible mod.


Yet with all the 'meticulous documentation' you can't actually name anything.
Hmmm. Can you at least point to some crime he has committed cited in the impeachment report?

You're embarrassing yourself in this thread - so please get specific and make your case... otherwise why are you here?



And here we have yet another example of the tactics of the more... egregious of the Trumpsters. Ignore all the coverage, all the live testimony on TV, all the barrage of facts, call for a nice neat list (which they will instantly dismiss) of exact legalities.
Try reading this and have a think about it. Or have a look at this.
But let us face facts. Those who truly support the Blessed Donald, for whatever reasons, will never be able to admit that their idol can do anything wrong. Who cares about the US Constitution and any possible crimes?
Which is, to me, ludicrous. Sharpiegate, which nominally harmless, said everything about the wretched man and his inability to admit that he can ever be wrong.
This saddens me. I thought that some people on this website were better than that. The double standards sadden me as well.


Here's the list from link 2, which also covers link 1.

1) Campaign finance violation - the Presdient did not at any point ask for help with his camapign. Any suggestion he did is based on no evidence at all, just accusation. The President of the USA is constituionally empowered to invetigate criminal activity and Joe Biden running for office does nto exempt him. If what President Trump did can be interpreted as a campaign contribution then the logical conclusion would be that NO ONE running against him whilst he was President in his first term could be investigated. There is no such amnesty from the law.

2) Bribery - not even the Democrats in Congress went for that. Given aid was released and that Ukraine were already investigating Biden and their own involvement in the 2016 election, no such bribe could be shown to have taken place. If all foreign negotiations were classed as Bribery then every President would be in jail inside their first 3 months. 'you give me this and I'll give you that' is called negotiation between countries.

3) Honest Services fraud
“The theory is that by performing an official act in exchange for personal gain, a public official defrauds his constituents of his honest services to make decisions and take actions that are in the best interests of the public,”
Given that investigating corruption is not for the purpose of personal gain and is within the President's remit to do so, this one is a non starter. To make this about Trump's personal gain would require, you know, actual evidence that Trump asked for the investigation to aid his campaign. There is none.

4) Extortion
Your own article in left wing Vice.com debunks this one
"“It depends on whether Trump is seeking tangible, transferable property, like actual evidence of Biden’s crimes, or whether he is seeking something intangible (an ‘investigation’),” Sandick wrote. “Extortion has been interpreted narrowly to preclude a prosecution when the property sought is purely intangible and non-transferable.”

Extortion seems unlikely to apply to this case, given the language of the relevant federal statute, said Robert Eatinger, former acting general counsel for the CIA."

5) Witness intimidation
Again, your own link laughs this one off
“I think that Trump would argue that he was being colorful and not actually threatening to kill the whistleblower,” Sandick said. “I wouldn’t charge it based on what we know now.”

6) Obstruction of Justice
Covered in an earlier post - absurd on it's face
The additional citiation of obstruction because he moved the transcript to a more secure server doesn't fly because he released the transcript to the public! Not a very convincing argument to suggest he tried to hide the details of the call when he actually published it.

7) Conspiracy
Several people were on the call, including people dialling in that were not even known to the President. To suggest he was engaged in a conspiracy is somewhat lame. Even vice.com are not enthusiatic about this one.
So, you cited vice.com a left wing outlet and not even they could come up with a convincing case. In fact they were not doing anything more than spitballing about what crimes Trump might have committed NOT THAT HE DID commit.

At least you made a slight effort, though I doubt you actually bothered to read your own link or try to understand the arguments.

The most important thing to note : There is no evidence to support any of the above crimes.
Perhaps you can do what you were asked to do and actually cite evidence?
You said evidence was meticulously documented, after all.
Please tell me you didn't mean you'd read a Vice.com article which was actually about crimes Trump "might" have committed.

I think it might be time for you to admit you have NO evidence at all.
edit on 17/12/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 17/12/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seriously? It's all been meticulously detailed elsewhere.
By the way, I cannot even begin to describe how much you have disappointed me in the past few years. I used to look up you as a good and sensible mod.



Instead of showing proof, you attack his integrity? That's pretty low.

I've always and still know Tex for being a person that actually focus on FACTS when he's making his point. Even his opinions are more factual than majority of news outlets in comparison. Funny stuff.


How about you give something with real substance? Otherwise you're just slinging dirt because you don't have anything else to offer.


I was hoping for at least some substance on the actual points and opinions raised in the letter from those US citizens that are FOR impeachment, but so far nothing.


No, no you really didn't. You posted the letter, declared it to be game over for Pelosi, or near enough to that, and then you sat back and waited for the reactions.
You would dismiss any and in fact all points from a pro-impeachment standpoint anyway, so what's the point?


Dismiss? No. Debate. Yes.
Just as I debated your '7 crimes Trump MIGHT have committed' link, which you seem to have not read yourself.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Vice. That's a powerful source right there....

And the live testimony? Did you even watch it? Sondland was a star witness for the Dems, and he stated in his testimony that Trump did not want anything from Ukraine, when they spoke face to face.

Vindman was concerned about a change in foreign policy, which the Commander-in-Chief (Vindman's boss) has every right to determine.

The lady that testified is a disgruntled former employee, whom Ukraine says had a list of people they could not investigate or else (sounds like quid pro quo to me).

The rest comes form 2nd or 3rd hand accounts. Which last I looked was not evidence.



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: UKTruth

Woah! Pretty powerful.

Anyone who reads this and doesn't agree - I don't know what to tell ya. Everything he's said in there is 100% FACT and TRUTH. I charge anyone to dispute one sentence with counter proof.

If none, then oddly enough, we should all be in agreement on just what this is - A farce attempt at illegally removing a duly elected official simply because they don't like him and nothing more.



He claims that they found nothing. He's delusional.


Yeah - what did they find. I watched almost every minute of the public hearings.

They found NOTHING. NOTHING.



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

they found differing opinions not a scrap of actual hard core evidence that would have brought most of the country into the impeach him camp.


Round objects. Let me guess - if Obama has been accused of the same things you would now be calling for his immediate execution for high treason.
It'a the utter lack of consistency and basic logic that baffles me right now about the pro-Trump people out there.


NO, he did FAR FAR worse. No impeachment hearings took place. Nobody even suggested the idea.

He was a pitiful horrific president, but Republicans value the rule of law and would never try and nullify an election because they don't like a guy or his policies.

You fools don't even see that. But it's not surprising, just about everything you say about Republicans is completely wrong.



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Chance321

well they had a pretty bad day other then gates getting jail time(which he gets to do on weekends lol) , the spending bill got passed so trump got his 11ish billion for the wall and border security , the military got a 3ish percent raise ,some things in it the dems like so yay for some bipartisanship for once ,trumps letter seems well received by republicans and we wont have a government shut down



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




In Other Related News ...........


" Jerry Nadler Misses Procedural Impeachment Vote over Family Emergency ..."




www.breitbart.com...



A Coward with No Guts to Face those who he has Lied to and have been Caught . A Yellowbelly Indeed ........(







posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Trumps direct and to the point letter to Nancy Pelosi

That's a pretty good effing letter.



And a greater show is about to begin



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Impeachment in 2019

Democrats: We're impeaching you based on what we think you meant.

Trump: But I didn't say that or mean that.

Democrats: WE get to decide what you meant, and what you meant was bad. So we get to impeach you.

Trump: Da fu'?


I think you should add

Ukranian President / Cabinet: There was no quid pro quo, and we did not feel pressured in any way.

Democrats: You are lying - Trump is such an criminal mastermind he has got you to lie for him too.



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Most of it was meh. Parts I agree with, parts I think are a little sensational.

Good-googly-moogly, Stinker, "Meh?" I expected that of those that are intellectually and/or constitutionally challenged. I won't waste any time on them, but the only "meh" here is your flaccid response and to you I say:


The letter is brilliant, on-target, and a powerful defense of our Constitution. A historical document of distinction.

As much as I wish President Trump was a little more diplomatic at times, he's right that it takes a special--even egotistically quirky--personality to WIN in the face of deep state saboteurs and their low-information minions.

I've despised every president since JFK for good & valid reasons. And I never--ever--thought that I would come to regard Donald J. Trump as one of the greatest, but somehow he's managed to make me a believer.

God Bless America. God Bless Donald. J. Trump. Die, Deep-State, Die.


edit on 17-12-2019 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Bhahahahaha. What a hilarious letter.

*Hannity intensifies

ETA: if you think Donald Trump actually wrote that, well it’s no surprise you’re a Trump supporter.


edit on 17-12-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Yeah , it Was . The President Sure is Not a Yellow Belly " like some in Congress........Hmm...



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Here Here, long live the President, long live the Republic!,,



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Do you think Schiff and Nadler actually write the snip they say ?

Hell even Obama never wrote jack snip.



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Pelosi has built the gallows of Haman.
edit on 17-12-2019 by Joeshiloh because: correct



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT


Good-googly-moogly, Stinker, "Meh?" I expected that of those that are intellectually and/or constitutionally challenged. I won't waste any time on them, but the only "meh" here is your flaccid response and to you I say:


He hasn't undergone trial yet, which is where constitutional rights say you can cross examine, provide evidence, ect. That would be allowed in the senate.

The Republicans had closed door house meetings for Clinton too, if that was unconstitutional, why has the congress not made new laws since saying such, or the SCOTUS brought that up then or now?

Care to point out how I was wrong? Because I was pretty specific in the first post to the context I was referring to.

You and I know the impeachment is BS, and he won't get removed. But just because the democrats are wrong, doesn't mean whatever he says is right.

Personally, I just try and understand what's "true" or factual to the best of my abilities. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I don't think right now is one of those times.



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

one lump of coal for you , and no soup .



posted on Dec, 17 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
One other point. Can we please start a campaign or petition or something to call to stop putting '-gate' at the end of the name of any kind of scandal? I think that perhaps we can all agree on this one point surely?



They busted your credibility. I don't think you can save it with that.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join