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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zelun

Right. Twice the courts ruled in favor of the Democrats subpoenas. Trump is taking it to SCOTUS.


Are you admitting that the matter is still in the appeals process? That sounds to me like POTUS is exercising a right to appeal, not obstructing congress...




posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun





Are you admitting that the matter is still in the appeals process?


I've been saying all along, that this matter is already in the courts. That's why there is no reason to get in line again. The House has the sole power to impeach, and they impeached Trump for defying congressional subpoenas, not because he claimed executive privilege, but because he refuses to acknowledge Congress' constitutional power to subpoena and impeach, and ordered his staff to defy congressional subpoenas. Trump obstructed Congress' efforts to perform their duty of checks and balances regarding the whistleblower's complaint.

Since the indictment involves accusations of foreign meddling in the upcoming election, the House leaders thought this case was too urgent to let Trump delay accountability by using the courts to buy time and distraction.



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



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well that's a non-starter. It's not obstruction if done through legal channels.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Or do you hold the opinion that you can violate people's rights, as long as you feel you're justified in doing so?



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well that's a non-starter. It's not obstruction if done through legal channels.


Trump didn't go through legal channels. He ignored the subpoenas and demanded his staffers to defy them, because he deemed them illegitimate. Trump didn't go to the courts to challenge the subpoena's legality. Congress took the Trump administration to court.

If Trump would have addressed the subpoenas and then rejected them claiming they violated executive privilege, we would be having a different discussion. But he didn't. He refuses to acknowledge Congress' constitutional duty of oversight and checks and balances. He claims that he is above the law and he has something not on any legal books anywhere in the USA, "absolute immunity", that extends to anyone who has ever talked to him while he is president. He claims he can't be investigated. But he can't go to the courts for that, he has to claim that as a defense when he's sued by Congress for non-compliance.


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



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

hmm. I'd read a source if ya got one handy.



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Here ya go:

Don McGahn defies congressional subpoena after President Trump orders him not to testify www.salon.com...


Current White House counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter Monday to House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., saying that the Justice Department "has advised me that Mr. McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the president." He added, "The president has directed Mr. McGahn not to appear at the Committee's scheduled hearing."


House Democrats Take Don McGahn to Court Over Ignoring Their Subpoena to Testify time.com...

Judge rules Trump’s “absolute immunity” claim “fiction,” orders Don McGahn to testify to Congress www.salon.com...


"the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings."

As such, Jackson continued, "This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life."


www.commondreams.org...

int.nyt.com...=1



posted on Dec, 19 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think I see what you're saying. McGhan being currently in an appeals process is immaterial, the question is whether the DoJ instructions to him were unlawful.

ETA: thanks for following up!
edit on 19-12-2019 by Zelun because: thanks



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




why were these witnesses not called before the vote


They, and a bunch of documents, were subpoenaed, but Trump ordered his staff to ignore the subpoenas. That's why Trump has been impeached for obstruction of Congress.

Trump is allowed to do that. You go to the courts. If these documents and witnesses are necessary why did the House vote and not wait for the courts to rule? Congress does not overrule the Executive.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: pavil




Then the House should have waited for the Courts.


"The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment". The courts have on authority over impeachment.


The courts are the ones who compel witnesses to testify.

Yeah, Obama's administration acknowledged Congress' right to subpoena, but cited executive privilege as to the content.

You just admitted Trump is allowed to ignore Congress. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Oops.

The federal judge who ordered former White House counsel Donald McGahn to appear before Congress is temporarily delaying the effect of her ruling.

time.com...


It’s also expected to win a longer-term stay of Jackson’s decision through the next month considering that the appellate court did just schedule arguments that would be of little importance if McGahn had already been required to appear.

www.politico.com...

There is no order in effect, it's on hold, put on hold by the courts. Obstruction is not possible when the courts are the ones saying he can't testify yet.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think I see what you're saying. McGhan being currently in an appeals process is immaterial, the question is whether the DoJ instructions to him were unlawful.

ETA: thanks for following up!

If the courts have sided with the DOJ and put the testimony on hold then they are by definition lawful. Congress does not decide that, the courts do.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
"There is zero evidence that he is doing that (coordinating with foreign governments to interfere in the 2020 election)"

All the evidence points to that.

By all means... show it. Point to it. Link to it. Good luck, because it doesn't exist, except in the minds of deranged TDS sufferers.


"No, he didn't. He said that 'quid pro quos happen all the time, get over it'. And he is right."

“He also mentioned to me in the past that the corruption related to the DNC server – absolutely, no question about that”, a confident Mulvaney declared.

Yeah, good try, but what you just posted, in context, is an outright fabrication. A lie. Please stop lying, Sookie, all you are doing is demeaning yourself.

Here is what he said, in context (I don't usually link to politifact, but in this case they at least quoted most everything as he said it):

Mulvaney: "(Trump’s) like, 'Look, this is a corrupt place. I don’t want to send them a bunch of money and have them waste it, have them spend it, have them use it to line their own pockets. Plus, I’m not sure that the other European countries are helping them out either.’

"So we actually looked at that, during that time, before — when we cut the money off, before the money actually flowed, because the money flowed by the end of the fiscal year — we actually did an analysis of what other countries were doing in terms of supporting Ukraine. And what we found out was that — and I can’t remember if it’s zero or near zero dollars from any European countries for lethal aid. And you’ve heard the president say this: that we give them tanks and other countries give them pillows. That’s absolutely right, that the — as vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine, they are really, really stingy when it comes to lethal aid. And they weren’t helping Ukraine, and then still to this day are not. And the president did not like that. I know it’s a long answer to your question, but I’m still going.

"So those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me in passing the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money." Now, there was a report —"

Q: "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"

Mulvaney: "The look back to what happened in 2016 —"

Q: "The investigation into Democrats."

Mulvaney: "— certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate."
Reporters press Mulvaney to clarify if aid hinged on the DNC investigation

Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."


So, as you see, what you posted, because you cherry picked a few lines and took them totally out of context - resulted in you, Sookie, posting an outright lie.

Apologize. You should be ashamed.


"Prove it. Let me save you some time. He said nothing of the sort."

Trump interview: Election commission issues warning after president admits he would take information on rivals from foreign powers www.msn.com... m-foreign-powers/ar-AACQuSn

Yeah, umm, do you not understand the difference between listening to something someone has to say, and, to quote you, "coordinating with a foreign government about smear campaigns against his political rival"?

Really?

Sookie, get help. You're going to have real problems after the 2020 slaughter header your way.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Ashamed? Democrats are happy when you tell them they did a good job taking words out of context.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
"If we have witnesses vital to impeachment, and it is in the House where discovery is made, why were these witnesses not called before the vote?"

The White House blocked them from appearing.

No they didn't. They told them not to, but they could have done so anyway, like all of the others did.


"Can anyone explain why the Democrats took a vote if they believe there are vital witnesses that still need to testify?"

They had evidence from the witness who did appear, but the blocked witnesses would have offered even more evidence, which is why they were ultimately blocked from appearing.

They were all under the same standing order not to comply. Some disobeyed. Some didn't. It was their decision.


That said, they can still be witnesses in the trial, if allowed.

I seriously hope they do call them. If they do, they will also be calling Ciaramella (the whistle-leaker), and recalling Vindman (the source who committed perjury during the House testimony), Schiff (who will be under oath this time, soi when he lies, he will be subject to prosecution for perjury as well), both of the Bidens, former Ambassador Yavanovich (who also committed perjury), etc etc etc - yes, please, lets call witnesses in the Senate trial.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

If they have vital information and are necessary how can the House already have voted? Either the House has all the information required and voted at the right time, or they do not and they voted prematurely. Only one of those can be true.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

This impeachment is a literal political goldmine, the fact Mitch doesn't want to mine it tells me there are high ranking GOP who are also involved in wrongdoing along with the Dems.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl
This impeachment is a literal political goldmine, the fact Mitch doesn't want to mine it tells me there are high ranking GOP who are also involved in wrongdoing along with the Dems.

Yep... I'm hoping Trump tells Mitch he wants a full trial calling all necessary witnesses. Mitch did say he would 'take direction from the WH lawyers...



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

You can add more words, but it doesn't make Mulvaney's statement any less damning for Trump.


edit on 20-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I think I see what you're saying. McGhan being currently in an appeals process is immaterial, the question is whether the DoJ instructions to him were unlawful.

ETA: thanks for following up!

If the courts have sided with the DOJ and put the testimony on hold then they are by definition lawful. Congress does not decide that, the courts do.


No, two courts decided AGAINST Trump's administration, not the DOJ. The House Committee sued MCGahn for failure to comply, the DOJ has nothing to do with this. Trump and his lawyers are now appealing the decision, that MCGahn can't ignore congressional subpoenas ad must testify, to the Supreme Court. No word yet ad whether or not they'll actually hear the case.


edit on 20-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join