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.

 

Impeachment Witnesses

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Mach2

I made nothing up. Impeachment isn't a judicial event, it's the purview of Congress and the House of Representatives. It doesn't involve the Judicial Branch and the Judicial Branch has no authority in matters of impeachment.



There are rules governing the use of impeachment, the Democrats tossed out the rules set up by those who created and developed it.



Actually, and I am surprised everyone keeps (conveniently?) forgetting this;

The Democrats used the rules of impeachment set forth by the Republicans to impeach Clinton.

Talk about being “hoist(ed) by your own petard”!


Actually, Clinton directly lied to congress under oath. His version of what defines sexual relationship did not coincide with ninety nine percent of people's definition is society was. Trump never lied under oath to congress. I did not think that they should have impeached Clinton for what he did, considering he was married to Hillary at the time. I think maybe Good old Bill was thinking about his last ten years with Hillary when he was on the stand testifying.




posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Mach2




While you are correct that the judicial branch has no say in the house precedings directly, they most definitely have the final say on whether privilege applies.


Trump did NOT site executive privilege. He ordered his staff and his aides to ignore the subpoenas as illegitimate. If he had sited executive privilege, he would have had to acknowledge Congress' authority to issue subpoenas in the first place, which he refused to do.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So there is a Mountain of evidence already. They voted to impeach based on the case they presented. If they thought more evidence was needed, they should have taken the time need for it. Instead they chose to hit the accelerator. And they actually voted.

Why does Trump have to prove his Innocence? That's not how it works. In many trials, the Defense doesn't call any witnesses nor provide any proof of Innocence.

The prosecution has to prove guilt or wrongdoing.

edit on 19-12-2019 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2019 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy




Since it is a dispute between branches of government, it is the job of the SCOTUS to make a decision.


Trump hasn't challenged the subpoenas in court. He has ignored them.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha Then why didn't the Courts deny him? Instead they are hearing his argument. I get you don't like it but that's how our system works.

Why didn't the House take it to the Courts then. They could have and chose not to. Who's to blame for that?




edit on 19-12-2019 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2019 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2019 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil




So there is a Mountain of evidence already. They voted to impeach based of the case they presented.


Correct.




Why does Trump have to prove his Innocence? That's not how it works. In many trials, the Defense doesn't call any witnesses nor provide any proof of Innocence.
The prosecution has to prove guilt or wrongdoing.


Most trials have witnesses. If the Senate wants to hold a trial and call no witnesses, then they can only deal with the mountains of evidence provided by the Intelligence committee. The evidence points to Trump coercing a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent, for his personal benefit, and holding up promised aid as incentive for them to do his personal bidding. If Trump has evidence to the contrary, this is his last chance to present it, and clear his name.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

C'mon now. He doesn't have to prove his Innocence at all. The Democrats need to PROVE their case. That's how this works.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil




Then why didn't the Courts deny him? Instead they are hearing his argument.


What court is hearing Trump's argument that impeachment inquiry subpoenas, issued by the Intelligence Committee, are illegitimate?

I know that a court is hearing MCGahn's subpoena case, which was issued as a result of the Mueller report, that described obstruction of justice, which is not part of these impeachment articles. And, I know that SCOTUS will decide whether or not Trump's taxes have to turned over to NYSD prosecutors and to the Ways and Means Committee. Also, not a part of these impeachment articles.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

They have proved their case. Republicans aren't even arguing that he didn't do it. Trump withheld congressional approved aid, that he signed into law, and the Pentagon signed off on, without alerting Congress, to coerce Ukraine's new president to open an investigation into his political rivals, the Bidens.

Does anyone think he didn't?

edit on 19-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
you described an argument about policy
that is what the house dems have impeached the potus for
well done



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

You are correct. There are three branches of government. When two of those branches disagree, they take it to court where evidence can be presented.

The Democrats do not want the evidence revealed. They lie and hide. It is what they do best. They are doing all they can to keep the light of day from shining on their shenanigans.

They want the POTUS to have to give his State of the Union address next month as an impeached president. It is all politics with them. Remember, they not only hate this president, they hate the American People. They only love us for our money...you know, the taxes we pay and they use. Dems love their tax-funded slush funds.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Clinton lied under oath.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

This argument is one for the Courts to decide on. It's obvious you don't like that. Too bad. They will rule on it.

Blame Schiff and Nadler for not going through the process to properly fight Trump's moves.

Do you ever fault the Democrats for poor tactics in this?



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords




The Democrats do not want the evidence revealed.


Why do you think that? Domocrats issued the subpoenas that Trump ignored and ordered his staff to defy. If they didn't want to hear what the witnesses and documents have to say, why demand them?

If you think that the evidence that these witnesses and documents will offer is exculpatory evidence to clear the president and blow holes in the Democrats case, why wouldn't they present it?


edit on 19-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If they proved their case, then what in the Hell are you arguing about even?

A good half of America and half of Congress dont agree. You need 2/3rds in the Senate.

Next you will want to change THAT part of the Constitution.

If you HAVE the evidence to prove your case, then let the trial commence.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Have all the transcripts of every witness interviewed been released by Schiff?



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: Sookiechacha

C'mon now. He doesn't have to prove his Innocence at all. The Democrats need to PROVE their case. That's how this works.








Do you honestly think democrats know how this works? All they know is that they've screamed for impeachment since 2016 and were willing to do whatever it took to impeach Trump. That's why Twitter and Facebook went crazy last night with people thinking the impeachment removed Trump from office. Like Forrest Gump, they don't know any better.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil




Do you ever fault the Democrats for poor tactics in this?


I understand why the Democrats took this path.

Yes, they could have let this wind it's way through the courts, and sued the Trump administration for failing to recognize Congress' authority during impeachment inquiries, but that could take years, and Republicans are already complaining about how the long the Mueller report took. Democrats are still fighting the administration to honor their subpoenas regarding citations in the Mueller report, and access to Grand Jury transcripts.

MCGahn's subpoena was deemed legitimate by 2 courts, and now the Trump administration is asking SCOTUS to look at it. SCOTUS is going to look at his tax cases this coming June. Those cases are already in the works. Dem's think they have enough to impeach Trump based on evidence they already have, and don't need to get in a legal line to get Bolton, Mulvaney or other OMB staffers' testimony to prove their case. But, Trump's refusal to acknowledge those subpoenas added another article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress.


edit on 19-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did you not keep up with the rules the Demwit Schiff was setting? They weren't affording the Republicans the same rights in calling witnesses. They were setting restrictions on them. They were limiting their questions even.

It was a sham and a scam just like the Russia Hoax. Trump had every right to fight this in court. Nancy and the rest of her idiot haters couldn't wait for THAT...nooooooo...evidence revealed in Court was too risky for them. Now they want to delay the trial.

Sookie, I know you are a Trump hater and a dyed-in-the-wool lefty, but surely you have a shred of common sense to see what is happening. If this was happening to one of your favs, you would be spitting nails.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

No, she doesn't. (have a shred of common sense). You'll see that in her response.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join