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: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Deny all you like.

He is impeached.




posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

But he did not claim any executive privilege. He just told them to defy the law.

If he meant to claim executive privilege he should have done that.



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He told his staff to defy the law.

They had already been subpoenaed.

His acceptance of any equality would have included respecting the subpoena. He is a child pulling a tantrum.



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl

Deny all you like.

He is impeached.



He is still your President....I know that gives you comfort, bless your pea picking little heart.



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No. You are simply in denial.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 05:55 AM
link   
The Democrats are actually really crazy...

This whole thing started from a whistle blower.

And the Democrats never expected trump to release his transcript of the call.

So now when asked about the whistle blower and witnesses they cannot and will not produce..they actually have said we dont need the whistle blower anymore. Trump is his own whistleblower now that they have the transcript.

Bottom line is the Democrats have no one willing to be sworn in to tell the truth when the time comes.

And because of this circus show, this needs to blow back into the faces of these treasonous Democrats



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He told his staff to defy the law.

They had already been subpoenaed.

His acceptance of any equality would have included respecting the subpoena. He is a child pulling a tantrum.

By that logic the acceptance of any equality would have been not issuing subpoenas. What law did he break, cite it? This is why we have courts, until he defies a court ordered subpoena he has not done anything wrong.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
He is impeached.

You don't get it. It doesn't matter. Either way, Trump is/will wear it like a badge of honor, as he should.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump amends his will such that the following will be put on his tombstone:

Single-handedly responsible for the total destruction of the demwit party.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Show me where the courts have ordered testimony, and there is no appeal with a stay. The house moved on without waiting for the courts, they have de facto acknowledged they do not need the testimony as far as I am concerned. If the testimony is needed they should have waited.

We all know the fix was in from the start, so witnesses did not actually matter.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




The house moved on without waiting for the courts, they have de facto acknowledged they do not need the testimony as far as I am concerned. If the testimony is needed they should have waited.


That's an opinion. The House Democrats have a different opinion.

Remember, Trump didn't ask the courts to intervene. Trump took the stance that congressional subpoenas are illegitimate. The House sued for redress.

Congress decides what is a "high crime and misdemeanors". It's up to Congress to determine whether or not their own constitutional mandate of oversight and checks and balances has been obstructed and denigrated by the President of the United States.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
I stated it as an opinion. The fact I stated is they are equal branches, it is up to the courts to decide who is right, and thus far the Democrats have no court order, therefore they have no right to have the witnesses. That is a fact.


Congress decides what is a "high crime and misdemeanors"

How nice that Congress can decide anything they want is an impeachable offense. Next thing they will say Trump is consuming too much oxygen by breathing while being orange.

Maybe soon it will simply be not being a Democrat is impeachable.
edit on 23-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04





posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I missed in your reply where you discussed how the courts have not issued an order for the witnesses to testify, and in fact, have issued a temporary stay while it is appealed. I will give you another chance.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk




Because these alleged 'witnesses' don't exist,


They exist. The Democrats have asked that the Senate call 4 key witnesses, who ignored their subpoenas.


Those witnesses are acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Mulvaney’s senior advisor Robert Blair, and Associate Director for National Security at the Office of Management and Budget Michael Duffey. They’re all current or former members of President Donald Trump’s administration who have direct knowledge of his discussions with Ukraine about political investigations and military aid. All four were called to testify as part of the House inquiry, though they declined to show up.

dnyuz.com...


The Subpeonas were not ignored.
The Whitehouse invoked executive priviledge and went to the courts for them to arbitrate.
The Democrats couldn't wait, so just made the quite ludicrous claim that using the courts was Obstruction of Congress.

Democrats fumbled the ball and ended up impeaching based on zero evidence, just their own partisan beliefs.
It's highly likely they will impeach AGAIN for the same reasons at a later date - and thus hammer the final nail in the coffin of their credibility.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




The Whitehouse invoked executive priviledge and went to the courts for them to arbitrate.


No. No the White House did NOT invoke executive privilege for subpoenas issued regarding Ukraine. They are claiming the the president and his staff have "absolute immunity".


Four White House officials, including the top lawyer on the National Security Council, defied subpoenas from House investigators demanding they appear for depositions Monday.

Although the White House did not flatly assert executive privilege as the reason, it came extremely close, Kitrosser said.

“They are probably trying to have it both ways and trying to avoid the legal and political ramifications of claiming executive privilege while getting the advantage of it,” she said.



The NSC lawyer, John Eisenberg, is “absolutely immune” from congressional testimony as a senior adviser to the president, Eisenberg’s attorney said in a letter. The letter involved separation of powers arguments in making that claim, contending his testimony is comparable to the president himself being forced before the inquiry.


www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The courts have literally issued a stay during appeals and Democrats are claiming obstruction. It's crazy town.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I missed in your reply where you discussed how the courts have not issued an order for the witnesses to testify, and in fact, have issued a temporary stay while it is appealed. I will give you another chance.


I never argued against this. Two courts ruled that MC Gahn must honor congressional subpoenas. The White House asked for a stay, while they appeal to SCOTUS. There is no word yet, whether or not SCOTUS will hear this case.


The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia acted hours after U.S. District Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson issued a seven-day stay of her own order to give her time to consider the government's request for an even longer stay.

Such holds, known as administrative stays, are often issued to give lawyers a chance to file their appeals, and Jackson said her order "should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits" of keeping her ruling on a longer hold.


www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth




The Whitehouse invoked executive priviledge and went to the courts for them to arbitrate.


No. No the White House did NOT invoke executive privilege for subpoenas issued regarding Ukraine. They are claiming the the president and his staff have "absolute immunity".


Four White House officials, including the top lawyer on the National Security Council, defied subpoenas from House investigators demanding they appear for depositions Monday.

Although the White House did not flatly assert executive privilege as the reason, it came extremely close, Kitrosser said.

“They are probably trying to have it both ways and trying to avoid the legal and political ramifications of claiming executive privilege while getting the advantage of it,” she said.



The NSC lawyer, John Eisenberg, is “absolutely immune” from congressional testimony as a senior adviser to the president, Eisenberg’s attorney said in a letter. The letter involved separation of powers arguments in making that claim, contending his testimony is comparable to the president himself being forced before the inquiry.


www.washingtontimes.com...



You just responded by saying that the Whitehouse did invoke executive priviledge.
Glad we agree.

The Whitehouse did indeed also go the courts to invoke executive priviledge as immunity from subpeonas from the SDNY AND the House of Representatives - and the SC agreed that they needed to arbitrate. The Democrats decided they couldn't wait to go through the same process and instead pressed on. That's on them. They have no case and now the Senate needs to judge their evidence free list of accusations.


President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court Thursday to block a subpoena for his financial documents, arguing that the House exceeded its authority when it ordered Trump's longtime accounting firm Mazars USA to turn over his personal records.

The justices have already put a temporary freeze on the subpoena while they consider in the coming days and weeks whether to take up the appeal.
The fate of Trump's attempts on multiple front to shield his financial records is now squarely before the highest court in the land.
The justices have already said they will meet behind closed doors on December 13 to discuss a similar petition concerning a New York grand jury subpoena for Trump's tax returns. In addition, Trump's lawyers are likely to appeal a separate case they lost concerning a subpoena to Deutsche Bank for similar documents. Until the court acts one way or another, the documents will not be released.
In the new filing, Jay Sekulow, one of the President's personal lawyers, argues that "profoundly serious constitutional questions" are at stake and that the "core of the controversy" concerns whether "Congress can exercise dominion and control over the Office of the President."


Schiff, Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats act as dictators. They think they can bypass separation of powers and the Constitution for their own ends.
Not going to fly - The Democrats needed to go to court. They decided not to and submitted lauaghable articles of impeachment.

edit on 23/12/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

No. No the White House did NOT invoke executive privilege for subpoenas issued regarding Ukraine.

Keep screaming no all you like.

Butler said he informed inquiry staff that Ellis had been advised by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel "that the failure to include or allow agency counsel to an interview doesn't sufficiently protect the relevant privileges here, especially for a lawyer," referring to both executive privilege and attorney-client privilege. The Office of Legal Counsel deemed the subpoena "invalid," and Butler said Ellis had "been instructed not to appear."

"Michael is respectful of the legislative branch and will cooperate with a valid subpoena," Butler said.

www.npr.org...

Executive privilege was invoked. Democrats need to go to the courts.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

A stay was issued, which means as of right now there is no legal right for him to testify. Fact.
If Democrats want the witnesses they need to go to the courts. They are a co-equal branch, they do not simply get to override the Executive.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join