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.

 

Get Your Tickets....This Could Become The 'Never-Ending-Impeachment-Circus Show'

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


It's Christmas Eve... and that one present I want this year is the
nightmare come true for the DemRats: Amy Coney Barrett.

She might have reinforced the idea of originalism sufficiently at
Notre Dame to make an appointment the cluster bomb the Feds
need to clean house. And the Senate, and a few hundread (no typo)
NGO maggots as well. Meanwhile, back at the thread...

All the tickets in the world to this $#Tshow won't hide what the Dems
are doing NOW: trying to just undermine the President and make him
look bad enough to make next years' DNC electable. Good luck, Nancy.

I also hope you can get Pence indicted and simply slide in as Hillary's
placeholder, just like you want. It would be my delightful revenge to
watch you sweat like an inside-out used Trojan yourself .
Because, people perceived to have outlasted their usefulness to the
Clintons don't appear to get a lot of time later to spend with grandkids.
edit on 24-12-2019 by derfreebie because: Brief apology to the decent DNA leaking out presently.




posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: chr0naut

Thats literally so far from American law I honestly think you've probably never even been here once!


I have never been there once. Being there doesn't teach you anything about law, either. Your argument isn't even rational.

If there is such a statute in US State or Federal law, protecting presumption of innocence (even inside a court room), then publish a link to it. Prove me wrong.


So in America under reasonable suspicion of a crime you can be investigated further...like breathalyzer, or a car search, house search, records...you get the point right. So you can be investigated pretty easily...and it is the job of the investigators to gather enough evidence for the supposed crime so that the prosecution can argue a case that removes all doubt of the crime. You have to prove guilt...the defenses job is to show reasonable doubt...thats how it works here. You are innocent until a judge or jury depending on the type of trial convicts you guilty.


Presumption of innocence only stands in a court of law, and that under British Common Law. There is no US statute or written law that protects presumption of innocence. Nor is there in the Constitution.

The 'presumption' of the investigators does not clear anyone of an accusation. They are investigating with the presumption that they will find evidence of guilt. If someone is innocent, they will never find evidence of them committing a crime, and so investigation to find evidence of innocence would be futile. You don't investigate those you presume are innocent. If you investigate, you must be looking for evidence of guilt.


And remember that reasonable suspicion of a crime...that means investigations usually have to have a judge sign off on any of the searches...until then you can observe and thats about it.


No, you can confiscate property, you can hold suspects, you can interrogate (causing distress and anguish. In the US investigators can even lie and deceive them to get a confession. That is not true of other countries) and, as Trump has often demonstrated, there is no limitation on how much you can continue to accuse or insinuate suspicion.


So hopefully you learned something here and maybe one day you can tell us all about whatever law they have in your country...

Since you like Wiki which btw is weak as hell when making any serious argument...

Let me give you a quality PDF summary from a legal documents sight to help you understand a corner stone of American legal precedent.


Do you think you have schooled me?



Are you aware that there is more recent case-law that overrides 'Cotton vs US'?

Recently, the New York Police were challenged on the legality of 'stop and search', where they had no 'reasonable suspicion' prior to arrest, but did so anyway. The Police won, which meant that the 'Cotton vs US' precedent doesn't have legal force any more.

Have you ever seen a cop show where they interrogate a suspect for hours, wearing them down until they confess? Is that presumption of innocence?

Have you ever seen where they "throw someone in the slammer'" to sweat it out of them. You do that to innocent people, do you?

What about where you breathalyze someone and they have a high reading, but you can't be legally sure and charge them until they have a more definitive blood test. So the Police get take motorists into custody, against their will, to the station for the blood test. Are they being treated as being innocent of being over the limit? And of course, if the majority of those taken back to the station also happen to be 'of color', that puts an even more unjust slant on the practice. Doesn't something seem a bit wrong with your law there, to you?

Face it, what you believe about US law is just more empty sloganism. Like that you have more liberty than anywhere else (and if you disagree with that, you must be a traitor and un-American).

It is just something to placate people that their country is 'good' to its citizens.

edit on 24/12/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Special delivery for a Mr. Shawmanfromny



Just sign on the dotted line please...........................



posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: shawmanfromny
Yeah, but you guys frequently said she was delaying, and that it wouldn't happen.

Some did, I didn't - I was actually surprised at how fast she was driving the train, because it was obviously helping Trump, not the demwits.


Now, six days after the impeachment, once again you are saying she is delaying

She is... are you seriously denying that she has failed to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate immediately upon the successful vote, as has been done every time in the past?


Wake up and smell the covfefe!

I've been enjoying the covfefe ever since he sent that typo, thanks!

Are you enjoying the long, slow, painful suicide of the demwit party as much as I am?




The Senate are having a break over Christmas. If she delivered the articles to the Senate, they would have to be recalled as it must take precedence over everything else that the Senate does.

She will deliver the articles. We all know that. It is inevitable. Based upon the time frame previously demonstrated, do you imagine that Trump will make it to November, before the articles are delivered?



posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think Trump will make to November at all?



posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: chr0naut

Do you think Trump will make to November at all?


I have no idea.

The world could end tomorrow (and if it does, tell 'em I knew it!).




posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny



Yeah , and Keep that Creepy Santa Away from my Kids !






posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
The Senate are having a break over Christmas. If she delivered the articles to the Senate, they would have to be recalled as it must take precedence over everything else that the Senate does.

Nope. Ignorance is pleasant no?

McConnell had already scheduled the trial for the 3rd - after their Christmas recess.


She will deliver the articles. We all know that.

Maybe... maybe not...


It is inevitable.

What is inevitable is Trumps landslide re-election.


Based upon the time frame previously demonstrated, do you imagine that Trump will make it to November, before the articles are delivered?

You act as if the Senate must wait... they don't. They can go ahead and hold a quick vote for acquittal, based on the available evidence (since there is no, acquittal is 'inevitable')...

edit on 25-12-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Meanwhile, our great President stays laser-focused on doing WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

theconservativetreehouse.com... rce-and-coast-guard/



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burdman30ott6

90% of US Media says President Trump is SCARED TO DEATH of facing Joe Biden next November. That's why he's pulling strings all over the globe to find anything that can be used against this juggernaut.



The same media also stood over the impeachment like the Grinch standing over Whoville after stealing all the Who presents, decorations, and food and was mystified as to how we Trump supporters viewed the aftermath of the impeachment that was supposed to cripple us with a sense of wonderment and joy... embracing the opportunity it released upon us and seeing it as a grand contribution to a reelection campaign rather than as any sort of hunderance.

At this point 4 years ago I believed he could win... today I know he's already won and that's an incredible feeling.


It was for me a jaw dropping thing to see that impeachment was pursued only because it was like no one ever considered the "opening of the door" that could and likely will happen when the articles are presented and debated. Maybe it dawned on Pelosi. I would consider that its likely that not only it not be upheld, but evidence that is less than favorable to the accusers be brought to spotlight because they opened the door.



posted on Dec, 25 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

We didn't think it would happen because it has literally handed the election to the man she supposedly despises and wants out of his office. Ask yourself why the president goaded, begged her even, to impeach him.
I don't think you realize the simple fact that we *want* a Senate trial. That trial will effectively throw the remaining fistfulls of dirt on the Democrats' 2020 effort casket. Without the trial, the Dems *might* actually hold onto the House... with the trial, likely not


Only the guilty have motive to vote for someone somone who flounts the law.



posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Must be a lot of guilty people in California and New York, then.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Must be a lot of guilty people in California and New York, then.

TheRedneck


My parents used to ask "if your friends were to jump off a cliff, would you follow"?

Or, more colloquially, 7 billion flies can't be wrong. Eat $#it.




posted on Dec, 26 2019 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



You have 7 billion flies in New Zealand? And even more shocking, you counted them?

We just kill them over here. Flypaper. Check it out.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join