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: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They didnt wait because if trump has his way he will delay this in the courts right up until election time.
Thats one of his prime moves. Tie everything up in the courts until people just give up.
So they decided to move on what they had. Their case would be that much stronger with these witnesses but stands on its own either way.
And Schumer will call them during any trial you can count on it.
They will have to vote on it. Trump will claim executive privlege and the whole country will see it as a cover up ala Richard Nixon and its all over.




posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

oh lordy yes. By all means.
I know you think they will get something if Hunter Biden or even Joe Biden are forced to testify but that will be laughed out of chambers when they do.
Then the dems get to call Mulvaney, and Pompeo, and Bolton, and Rick Perry and Giuliani too.
Are they all willing to lie?



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah o k.
not too many twists to get to that destination though was there? LOL



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




None of your remaining blathering changes anything.


Nor yours. Trump is impeached for abuse of power and obstruct of Congress.
PERIOD.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
oh lordy yes. By all means.
I know you think they will get something if Hunter Biden or even Joe Biden are forced to testify but that will be laughed out of chambers when they do.

Yes, you're right, Joe and Hunter will be laughed out of the Senate chambers when they take the 5th on every question.
Then the dems get to call Mulvaney, and Pompeo, and Bolton, and Rick Perry and Giuliani too.
Oh, no, dearie, the dems won't get to call any witnesses not deemed relevant... just like the House refused the Rs calling witnesses.
Fair is fair, right?


Are they all willing to lie?

Of course not, why would they do that? Even if the Senate decided to be magnanimous and allow the dems to call witnesses, it would not be a problem. Mulvaney's so-called 'bombshell' presser ... wasn't, as I just showed earlier with the entire transcript, in context. Pompeo? War-monger Bolton? What are they gonna testify to?

Silly, silly, silly... so sad.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
Trump is impeached for abuse of power and obstruct of Congress.
PERIOD.

Not until Pelosi transmits the Articles to the Senate. Nope, still not impeached.

But it doesn't matter either way. The dems are done. 2020 will be a landslide for Trump and the Rs.

KAG2020/2024/2028!



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Zelun

Telling people to defy subpoenas is obstructing congress.


I think it sounds like Executive Privilege, but that's up to the Judiciary to decide.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Zelun

It was congress who took trump to court not the other way around.


Yes, I didn't understand that initially. However, I do not feel that diminishes the President's right to appeal. The House wasn't willing to wait for the appeals process to finish. It's my understanding that they didn't even begin to petition the Court in some of the other orders the President 'defied.' I think they should have expended every already-existing check between the branches before voting to impeach.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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.


Nothing you say changes the fact the courts have said he does not have to testify yet. Nothing. I sourced and quoted it. When the courts are telling Congress no determination has been finalized then Trump can not be obstructing anything. It's literally impossible unless you burn the US Constitution.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They didnt wait because if trump has his way he will delay this in the courts right up until election time.
Thats one of his prime moves. Tie everything up in the courts until people just give up.
So they decided to move on what they had. Their case would be that much stronger with these witnesses but stands on its own either way.
And Schumer will call them during any trial you can count on it.
They will have to vote on it. Trump will claim executive privlege and the whole country will see it as a cover up ala Richard Nixon and its all over.

The obstruction is Trump not giving in without a court order, which is his right under the Constitution. It is still in the courts, he can not be obstructing if the courts have not made a final decision.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Zelun

Telling people to defy subpoenas is obstructing congress.

Actually it's not. They are equal branches. It is not obstruction until the courts order the witness to appear, which has yet to happen. In fact the courts have already put a stay on the subpoena for now while it goes to appeal.

Learn the Constitution then get back to us.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Nothing you say changes the fact the courts have said he does not have to testify yet.


But both court ruled that he did. The only reason their orders are stayed is because Trump's attorneys are trying to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

FACT: Trump ignored congressional subpoenas, and ordered his staffers to defy them.
FACT: Congress took his staffer to court.
FACT: The court ruled the staffer had to obey the subpoena and testify.
FACT: The appeal court ruled the same thing.
FACT: Trump's attorney's ask the courts for a stay, of said staffer having to testify, while they appeal to SCOTUS, which is granted.
FACT: We don't know if SCOTUS will take this case yet.

Since the president is claiming "absolute immunity" for him and his staff, a non-existent legal status, my money is on SCOTUS not taking this case.

Trump's refused to acknowledge Congress' congressional duty to oversight and checks and balances. Had he claimed executive privilege, you might have an argument. But right now you, nor the president can claim his magical cloak of invisibility, "absolute immunity", justifies his obstruction of Congress.


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



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Fact: The courts have put it on hold while the appeal is being heard.
Fact: That means he does not have to testify yet, and it is literally impossible to be obstruction because the courts have ordered it until appeals happen.



posted on Dec, 20 2019 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Trump isn't being impeached on how he handled the McGahn subpoena. He being impeached for how he obstructed the Ukraine scandal impeachment inquiry.

The House isn't going to let Trump keep committing crimes and corrupting elections based on a frivolous claim of magical and legally non-existent "absolute immunity" against congressional constitutional oversight and checks and balances.


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



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

McGahn was your example of obstruction. So far you have listed zero crimes and zero forms of obstruction. You and Schiff now have something in common.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




McGahn was your example of obstruction.


Nope. McGahn was my example of why The House isn't going to go to the back of the line, to file another lawsuit, again, against Trump and his administration about getting subpoenas regarding the Ukraine scandal recognized as legitimate.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then be my guest, cite examples of obstruction.



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They're enumerated in the 150 or so pages in the Intelligence Committee's report. Basically, Trump abused his power by trying to use his office and congressionally appointed aide to strong arm (bribe/extort) a foreign country to do his bidding by opening and announcing investigations into his political rivals.

Trump could make the obstruction charges, stemming from his refusal to acknowledge Congress' constitutional duty of oversight and checks and balances, and their impeachment inquiry subpoena power, go away if he allows Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton to testify, and submit the receipts (documents).


edit on 22-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl




None of your remaining blathering changes anything.


Nor yours. Trump is impeached for abuse of power and obstruct of Congress.
PERIOD.


This is what denial looks like. They really are thinking he is not impeached.



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Just stop. There is nothing they need to take the fifth on. That whole thing is a crock of #.

But since you brought it up. Two of trumps spawn took the fifth when they were asked about the russian stuff.
If you are insinuating that taking the fifth implies some kind of guilt.

Just so we're on the same page.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join