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.

 

The Impeachment In A Nut Shell

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: elDooberino
a reply to: chr0naut



It was more than one whistleblower and I don't recall reading anywhere that they said they weren't privy to the phone call.

Are you being serious? There was one whistleblower. He was not on the call. This was established on day one.


Trump–Ukraine scandal - Whistleblower complaints
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You could also read the rest of the Wikipedia article if you wish.




The original Ukrainian investigator was fired because he wasn't looking into corruption, not because he was.

Shokin, the prosecutor has testified in an EU court that he was investigating Burisma.


He opened several investigations but after two years there were zero results because apart from doing some initial paperwork, he never actually investigated anything.


Incidentally, his replacement gave Burisma's owner a slap on the wrist in the form of some fines. So, Biden/Obama have Shokin fired because he's not investigating Burisma's prolifically corrupt owner and the guy they favored to replace him only gives the owner a slap on the wrist? How bout that.


So, indict Biden on it. It still doesn't exonerate Trump. It has nothing to do with Trump's guilt or otherwise.
It has everything to do with Trump's guilt or otherwise.
Also, how do you expect Biden to be indicted if Dems have deemed trying to start an investigation an impeachable offense? Kind of difficult to have an indictment without an investigation first.
The whole point is that there's more than enough smoke to warrant an investigation. If an investigation is warranted, it's not an improper request. It might be one thing if Trump just out of the blue asked Zelinsky to investigate Burisma/Biden and report back to him with any dirt but that's not what happened. He asked that Zelinsky look into it and talk to the Attorney General. Between Burisma's super shady reputation, Hunter's salary, his inexperience, Joe Biden being point man in Ukraine as tons of money is being poured into the country, and his billion dollar quid pro quo, it was an appropriate request.

And as far as the whole quid pro quo claim against Trump, no one has testified to having first hand knowledge of a linkage between the aid and the investigation. After a parade of witnesses, anyone who claimed to know of a linkage says they heard it from Sondland or someone he had told.
What did Sondland say in testimony?
He said he "presumed" there was linkage. When pressed further, as to whether or not he ever asked Trump, he says he once asked him what he wanted from Zelinsky. Trump responded that he didn't want anything. "No quid pro quo". Trump continued by saying he just wanted Zelinsky to do what he ran on, which was to clean up corruption.
Even Zelinsky and his ambassador deny there was ever any pressure or linkage of aid to an investigation.

The Dems are systematically destroying their own party and, frankly, I find the whole thing pretty entertaining.


Well, we will have to see how the impeachment vote goes. Because they have the facts before them and are choosing to proceed with it, and several posting here seem to have gaps in their knowledge.

I honestly think that Trump is on shaky ground right now but will get through this and do another term.

Then, perhaps, he'll take it as the mandate of the people to continue to divest Congress and the Judiciary of power, saying that everyone else is corrupt but himself. Then, of course, he'll demonize any opposition as "leftist terrorists and third columnists" and will begin a purge against anyone who still holds hope for the Constitutional United States. But, as he's doing it, he'll hold a flag and a machine gun and have eagles and stars on all his stuff, and play the anthem in the background. And 'his' media will declare their fealty, in tears of joy. And you'll all start killing each other in a frenzy of nationality and patriotism.

Or not...




posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: chr0naut the difference is biden admitted it trump denied it




Charles Manson also denied ever killing anyone. Ever.




posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: FearTheSlit
get it right i have supported trump since he took office always said give him a chance and i am really impressed with what he's achieved i wish my countries prime minister was as dedicated to her job as him and by the way he has always denied any wrongdoing and i for one believe him



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: FearTheSlit
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, and I've made real contributions to this community. Not stir the honeypot like you cenobites.


I know this may be hard to bear but cenobites are fictional.



Also, this community centers around debate. To properly debate a topic, sometimes you muse that an adversarial position. Stirring the honeypot, so to speak.

I see my my purpose here as to "comfort the disturbed and to disturb the comfortable".

That is how you do good debate (IMHO).

edit on 18/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: valiant

You were dead on with the pointless comment.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump asked about Crowdstrike and Biden which an investigation into by the US Governement had already started on Prior to Joe "I am running because I have to" decision to run that he was following up on as it obviously involved Ukraine. Joe Biden literally bragged about what Trump was investigating him for. and it is on video Kind of not as open as shut as same crime both guilty if one is.

Why no discussion about Crowdstrike the software cpu that determined the "Russians hacked the Dnc" even when the data transfer speeds were far to fast for it to have been a hack job? Why does no one mention this?

Do you see it The difference One is actual corruption (Biden) the other is called investigating the corruption that he perpetuated.

Why is someone who has not won a nomination at this time since no votes have even be cast be immune from investigations that began before he even decided to run (by both the Ukraine and the US)?




posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Steveogold

My mistake. It can be hard to tell sometimes.


originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FearTheSlit

Then, perhaps, he'll take it as the mandate of the people to continue to divest Congress and the Judiciary of power, saying that everyone else is corrupt but himself. Then, of course, he'll demonize any opposition as "leftist terrorists and third columnists" and will begin a purge against anyone who still holds hope for the Constitutional United States. But, as he's doing it, he'll hold a flag and a machine gun and have eagles and stars on all his stuff, and play the anthem in the background.



You mean like your hero?




originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FearTheSlit

And you'll all start killing each other in a frenzy of nationality and patriotism. 




You can only hope. Though we all know who we'll really be killing.


originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FearTheSlit

I know this may be hard to bear but cenobites are fictional.


ce·no·bite

/ˈsenəˌbīt/

noun

a member of a monastic community.

Though Hellraiser does come to mind with your type.


originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FearTheSlit

Also, this community centers around debate. To properly debate a topic, sometimes you muse that an adversarial position.



Indeed, though let's not mince words here; your purpose isn't to debate. It's to maintain the status quo, embolden the left and support the overthrow of a democratically elected president. All of which you are failing miserably at. Falling into Trump's traps with every step, as his name sake suggests.


originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FearTheSlit

Stirring the honeypot, so to speak.



You know what kind of honeypot we're talking about here. Don't make me bring up Tavistock...


Oh and you should really change your display pic. We know you don't really give a damn about Assange. Not to mention the quote is a direct contradiction of your stance on the Burisma scandal. Get your morality straight...
edit on 18-12-2019 by FearTheSlit because: Morals



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Should the President direct U.S. flags lowered to half-mast, due to this tragedy?



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrazyFox
a reply to: chr0naut

Trump asked about Crowdstrike and Biden which an investigation into by the US Governement had already started on Prior to Joe "I am running because I have to" decision to run that he was following up on as it obviously involved Ukraine.


And what are the details of those investigations?

Trump has just been impeached for asking for the Ukraine to investigate Biden. The previous investigation in the Ukraine, into corruption at Burisma, did not find anything relating to Hunter Biden. Barr has said he would open investigations into possible corruption relating to VP Biden but there was no suggestion of an investigation into Biden prior to Trump's 'phone call.

As for CrowdStrike, they are not under investigation. They were working for the FBI as external experts in the investigation of the two Russian intrusions into the DNC's servers.


Joe Biden literally bragged about what Trump was investigating him for. and it is on video Kind of not as open as shut as same crime both guilty if one is.


Joe Biden spoke at a press conference in January 2018 about his part in getting the corrupt Ukrainian Inspector General replaced. Biden did not make a suggestion as to whom the replacement might be and the replacement immediately began investigating Burisma, finding corruption there and prosecuting it. Trump didn't make the 'phone call until the morning of 25 July 2019. Barr did not announce an investigation into Biden until 5 October 2019.


Why no discussion about Crowdstrike the software cpu that determined the "Russians hacked the Dnc" even when the data transfer speeds were far to fast for it to have been a hack job? Why does no one mention this?


Because Crowdstrike were not doing anything wrong and were, in fact, working for, and with, the FBI and the DNC to investigate the breach. (Additionaly, Crowdstrike is a company. Their software product (that it used in its forensics of the DNC hack) is called Falcon. A CPU is a piece of hardware.

Crowdstrike used Falcon to analyse millions of data transactions and to compare them to a very large database of previously known cyber intrusions. From this data the Crowdstrike experts drew conclusions in regard to the most likely perpetrators and also looked at the timing, methods, sequence and scope of the attacks. These conclusions were borne out in the conclusions of other data forensic companies and the FBI. The Mueller investigation followed the money trail and other evidence, identifying the names and other details of the individual perpetrators.

Why don't all the right-wing apologist opinion pieces ever mention Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect that were also investigating the DNC hack and that they all came to very similar conclusions to the FBI and Crowdstrike, as to the nature, source and extent of the attacks?

As to the data transfer speed issue, Government networks (both Russian and US) do not run on the same infrastructure as residential DSL and consequently have transfer rates far in excess of residential speeds. The assumption that the files could not have been transferred in the time window assumed a maximum data transfer rate of 20 meg per second. To give you a sense of scale, VDSL2, which we had in 2008, has a max data transfer rate of 100 meg per second. So, the article was totally incorrect based, as it was, on what a hack journalist could get connecting back to his office.


Do you see it The difference One is actual corruption (Biden) the other is called investigating the corruption that he perpetuated.

Why is someone who has not won a nomination at this time since no votes have even be cast be immune from investigations that began before he even decided to run (by both the Ukraine and the US)?




Neither Trump nor Biden should be, nor are, immune from investigation, and/or prosecution.

The President may have hidden behind the inability of the Judicial branch to indict him but it doesn't protect him from Congress which is Constitutionally granted the duty and power to investigate and try a President.

As Congress is the equivalent of the Judicial system the case of the Presidency, so impeachment is the equivalent of a court finding a non-President guilty. Trump has been found guilty of both of the charges outlined in the articles of impeachment.

All that now remains is the sentencing, which is done by the majority vote of both houses.

edit on 19/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


(post by FearTheSlit removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FearTheSlit

Blaming Biden doesn't clear Trump.


do you even know what Trump was impeached for?

eta:
It's obvious you don't. Trump was impeached because he asked Zalinsky to look into Biden's son's corruption, based on previous articles that were written in the MSM. So that might be wrong of him to ask, up to the point that corruption actually did exist. And if it did, then not only was trump not guilty of a crime, he may have saved the world from having a corrupt US leader.

These are the facts and they are undisputed.
edit on 19-12-2019 by network dude because: sometimes even really really dumb folks figure out how to "internet".



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: FearTheSlit
a reply to: toolgal462

Wow. Look at this "person's" profile. Been a member since 2012, didn't start commenting until the impeachment.


Woah, someone better slow their roll. I have been here and posting long before the impeachment debacle.

And you have misread one of my replies, so get your head out of your rear.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CrazyFox



And what are the details of those investigations?

CLASSIFIED

Trump has just been impeached for asking for the Ukraine to investigate Biden. The previous investigation in the Ukraine, into corruption at Burisma, did not find anything relating to Hunter Biden. Barr has said he would open investigations into possible corruption relating to VP Biden but there was no suggestion of an investigation into Biden prior to Trump's 'phone call.

Is that the one Joe had the prosecutor fired for? The one ran by Obama's pick or the one they announced in Jan of this year?

As for CrowdStrike, they are not under investigation. They were working for the FBI as external experts in the investigation of the two Russian intrusions into the DNC's servers.

They should be


Joe Biden literally bragged about what Trump was investigating him for. and it is on video Kind of not as open as shut as same crime both guilty if one is.


Joe Biden spoke at a press conference in January 2018 about his part in getting the corrupt Ukrainian Inspector General replaced. Biden did not make a suggestion as to whom the replacement might be and the replacement immediately began investigating Burisma, finding corruption there and prosecuting it. Trump didn't make the 'phone call until the morning of 25 July 2019. Barr did not announce an investigation into Biden until 5 October 2019.

Did that investigation come as a result of the investigation that started in Feb of Ukraine corruption. You know the one before Joe ran "Because he has to?" Connecting dots is something we are taught as children.


Why no discussion about Crowdstrike the software cpu that determined the "Russians hacked the Dnc" even when the data transfer speeds were far to fast for it to have been a hack job? Why does no one mention this?


Because Crowdstrike were not doing anything wrong and were, in fact, working for, and with, the FBI and the DNC to investigate the breach. (Additionaly, Crowdstrike is a company. Their software product (that it used in its forensics of the DNC hack) is called Falcon. A CPU is a piece of hardware.



The same FBI who relied on the Steele Dossier? Why is the FBI not working with Assange? The same guy who offered a reward for information on the death of Seth? Typos are a busy bee sometimes. Why isn;t the FBI cyber team not investigating it? Why are they working with a bogus company?




Crowdstrike used Falcon to analyse millions of data transactions and to compare them to a very large database of previously known cyber intrusions. From this data the Crowdstrike experts drew conclusions in regard to the most likely perpetrators and also looked at the timing, methods, sequence and scope of the attacks. These conclusions were borne out in the conclusions of other data forensic companies and the FBI. The Mueller investigation followed the money trail and other evidence, identifying the names and other details of the individual perpetrators.

Why don't all the right-wing apologist opinion pieces ever mention Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect that were also investigating the DNC hack and that they all came to very similar conclusions to the FBI and Crowdstrike, as to the nature, source and extent of the attacks?

Why don't left wing zealots not investigate Seth?

As to the data transfer speed issue, Government networks (both Russian and US) do not run on the same infrastructure as residential DSL and consequently have transfer rates far in excess of residential speeds. The assumption that the files could not have been transferred in the time window assumed a maximum data transfer rate of 20 meg per second. To give you a sense of scale, VDSL2, which we had in 2008, has a max data transfer rate of 100 meg per second. So, the article was totally incorrect based, as it was, on what a hack journalist could get connecting back to his office.

Or it could have been transferred onto a portable device which then went to Julian


Do you see it The difference One is actual corruption (Biden) the other is called investigating the corruption that he perpetuated.

Why is someone who has not won a nomination at this time since no votes have even be cast be immune from investigations that began before he even decided to run (by both the Ukraine and the US)?




Neither Trump nor Biden should be, nor are, immune from investigation, and/or prosecution.

The President may have hidden behind the inability of the Judicial branch to indict him but it doesn't protect him from Congress which is Constitutionally granted the duty and power to investigate and try a President.

As Congress is the equivalent of the Judicial system the case of the Presidency, so impeachment is the equivalent of a court finding a non-President guilty. Trump has been found guilty of both of the charges outlined in the articles of impeachment.

All that now remains is the sentencing, which is done by the majority vote of both houses.


Lol good one the Senate has not held a trail yet but ok dokey.




Show me where Joe Biden has been selected to be the Democrat representative to run for President not a poll where they asked 1000 people. Until you show that result everything about the Trump impeachment is nothing but a sham, a distraction, a giant reeeeee if she won we would not be investigated, a dying cry of a failing party whose decades of corruption are finally being exposed to the sheeple.

Show the results of the not yet run primary where Joe Biden was selected. Until you do you have nothing but smoke and mirrors and the smoke is running out, leaving only the mirrors which point directly back at the corruption that the Dems are trying to hide.

Explain to me why all the fuss about who leaked the e-mails instead of the content of the e-mails? Go read them and then we can chat on equal footing.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrazyFox

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CrazyFox



And what are the details of those investigations?

CLASSIFIED

Trump has just been impeached for asking for the Ukraine to investigate Biden. The previous investigation in the Ukraine, into corruption at Burisma, did not find anything relating to Hunter Biden. Barr has said he would open investigations into possible corruption relating to VP Biden but there was no suggestion of an investigation into Biden prior to Trump's 'phone call.

Is that the one Joe had the prosecutor fired for? The one ran by Obama's pick or the one they announced in Jan of this year?

As for CrowdStrike, they are not under investigation. They were working for the FBI as external experts in the investigation of the two Russian intrusions into the DNC's servers.

They should be


Joe Biden literally bragged about what Trump was investigating him for. and it is on video Kind of not as open as shut as same crime both guilty if one is.


Joe Biden spoke at a press conference in January 2018 about his part in getting the corrupt Ukrainian Inspector General replaced. Biden did not make a suggestion as to whom the replacement might be and the replacement immediately began investigating Burisma, finding corruption there and prosecuting it. Trump didn't make the 'phone call until the morning of 25 July 2019. Barr did not announce an investigation into Biden until 5 October 2019.

Did that investigation come as a result of the investigation that started in Feb of Ukraine corruption. You know the one before Joe ran "Because he has to?" Connecting dots is something we are taught as children.


Why no discussion about Crowdstrike the software cpu that determined the "Russians hacked the Dnc" even when the data transfer speeds were far to fast for it to have been a hack job? Why does no one mention this?


Because Crowdstrike were not doing anything wrong and were, in fact, working for, and with, the FBI and the DNC to investigate the breach. (Additionaly, Crowdstrike is a company. Their software product (that it used in its forensics of the DNC hack) is called Falcon. A CPU is a piece of hardware.



The same FBI who relied on the Steele Dossier? Why is the FBI not working with Assange? The same guy who offered a reward for information on the death of Seth? Typos are a busy bee sometimes. Why isn;t the FBI cyber team not investigating it? Why are they working with a bogus company?




Crowdstrike used Falcon to analyse millions of data transactions and to compare them to a very large database of previously known cyber intrusions. From this data the Crowdstrike experts drew conclusions in regard to the most likely perpetrators and also looked at the timing, methods, sequence and scope of the attacks. These conclusions were borne out in the conclusions of other data forensic companies and the FBI. The Mueller investigation followed the money trail and other evidence, identifying the names and other details of the individual perpetrators.

Why don't all the right-wing apologist opinion pieces ever mention Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect that were also investigating the DNC hack and that they all came to very similar conclusions to the FBI and Crowdstrike, as to the nature, source and extent of the attacks?

Why don't left wing zealots not investigate Seth?

As to the data transfer speed issue, Government networks (both Russian and US) do not run on the same infrastructure as residential DSL and consequently have transfer rates far in excess of residential speeds. The assumption that the files could not have been transferred in the time window assumed a maximum data transfer rate of 20 meg per second. To give you a sense of scale, VDSL2, which we had in 2008, has a max data transfer rate of 100 meg per second. So, the article was totally incorrect based, as it was, on what a hack journalist could get connecting back to his office.

Or it could have been transferred onto a portable device which then went to Julian


Do you see it The difference One is actual corruption (Biden) the other is called investigating the corruption that he perpetuated.

Why is someone who has not won a nomination at this time since no votes have even be cast be immune from investigations that began before he even decided to run (by both the Ukraine and the US)?




Neither Trump nor Biden should be, nor are, immune from investigation, and/or prosecution.

The President may have hidden behind the inability of the Judicial branch to indict him but it doesn't protect him from Congress which is Constitutionally granted the duty and power to investigate and try a President.

As Congress is the equivalent of the Judicial system the case of the Presidency, so impeachment is the equivalent of a court finding a non-President guilty. Trump has been found guilty of both of the charges outlined in the articles of impeachment.

All that now remains is the sentencing, which is done by the majority vote of both houses.


Lol good one the Senate has not held a trail yet but ok dokey.




Show me where Joe Biden has been selected to be the Democrat representative to run for President not a poll where they asked 1000 people. Until you show that result everything about the Trump impeachment is nothing but a sham, a distraction, a giant reeeeee if she won we would not be investigated, a dying cry of a failing party whose decades of corruption are finally being exposed to the sheeple.

Show the results of the not yet run primary where Joe Biden was selected. Until you do you have nothing but smoke and mirrors and the smoke is running out, leaving only the mirrors which point directly back at the corruption that the Dems are trying to hide.

Explain to me why all the fuss about who leaked the e-mails instead of the content of the e-mails? Go read them and then we can chat on equal footing.


I don't advocate Biden as a candidate. I wouldn't vote for him or Trump. But then, I'm also not an American.


(post by FearTheSlit removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak

Maybe it is a set up.

Maybe they are just setting up areas for controlled destruction, so the whole election process becomes so volitale they will have to shut down the election process altogether.

Their actions really don't make any sense on the surface, it almost forces you to look for what is being hidden.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
"There is no doubt. There is no question. It was as blatant and egregious a quid pro quo as there could ever be. Investigating Biden should be a no-brainer. But the no-brains group went after Trump instead. But its not a partisan act... uh huh..."

So, indict Biden on it. It still doesn't exonerate Trump.

You're absolutely right. The on has nothing to do with the other.

There is actual evidence of Bidens likely guilt. There is zero evidence of Trumps guilt.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

My point is that since Joe Biden has not won the primarie and hence the democratic nomination to oppose President Trump he is not Trump's opponent Bernie Sanders has a better chance at winning the nomination than Joe does. So not an opponent just an old man who likes to smell hair, who did not want minorities in his backyard, who gets confused easily, is lost frequently, who bragged about withholding aid. If you honestly can look in the mirror and state that Joe Biden alleged corruption does not merit a peek, just a lil glimpse at all. because if it does there is no case for impeachment Period it is Just the President performing his Treaty Bound duties.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
"There is no doubt. There is no question. It was as blatant and egregious a quid pro quo as there could ever be. Investigating Biden should be a no-brainer. But the no-brains group went after Trump instead. But its not a partisan act... uh huh..."

So, indict Biden on it. It still doesn't exonerate Trump.

You're absolutely right. The on has nothing to do with the other.

There is actual evidence of Bidens likely guilt. There is zero evidence of Trumps guilt.


No court can read the minds of a perpetrator. Motive can only be assumed in ALL cases of law.

Trump had probable motive, and we know he definitely did the act. He admitted to it and was witnessed doing so. There is official record in the transcript.

I would think those things are strongly evidential.




posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrazyFox
a reply to: chr0naut

My point is that since Joe Biden has not won the primarie and hence the democratic nomination to oppose President Trump he is not Trump's opponent


What? Are you serious?


Bernie Sanders has a better chance at winning the nomination than Joe does.


I'd prefer Bernie, too.


So not an opponent just an old man who likes to smell hair, who did not want minorities in his backyard, who gets confused easily, is lost frequently, who bragged about withholding aid. If you honestly can look in the mirror and state that Joe Biden alleged corruption does not merit a peek, just a lil glimpse at all. because if it does there is no case for impeachment Period it is Just the President performing his Treaty Bound duties.


I agree that Biden's actions merit investigation (and if you recall, it was investigated. Trump was asking to have the Ukranian corruption investigation re-opened and to specifically target the Bidens) but no matter what Biden did, it doesn't excuse what Trump did.

Trump has been impeached for what he (and no one else) did.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join