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.

 

President Trump's Senate Impeachment Options - DISMISS or ACQUIT or FULL-BLOWN TRIAL.

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AutomateThis1

Biden announced his candidacy, if memory serves, four days after Zelensky took office... and recall that Zelensky was, in effect, Ukraine's version of Trump: anti-corruption, anti-establishment, and not a politician.

I agree that the Democrats are pretty much shooting themselves in the foot. I have to make a decision later this year concerning our Senator: Doug Jones, a Democrat, will be running as incumbent. I'm watching him like a hawk right now, because I want to be absolutely sure he's not on board with this impeachment scam. if he is, he's out as far as I'm concerned; if he's not, then I'll look at voting record and performance. So far, he's not said anything I consider unfair or uncalled for.

TheRedneck




posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So where is the evidence that Trump personally asked Zelensky to dig up evidence of Hunter Biden after it was determined there were no implications of wrongdoing on his part?

And last I heard Zelensky himself said that Trump didn't make any threats of withholding funds, and honestly I'm not going to buy into anything that has to do with Russian/Ukrainian wordplay. If Zelensky had been pressured he would have said so. He made his own decision.

I'm really just asking for some straight up answers.



posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


There are e-mails from Michael Duffey National Security associate director, directing the State Department to put a hold on the payment of the military aid money to the Ukraine, while it was under evaluation by the President.

Did those emails say why Ukraine was being evaluated? And even if they did, were they notarized by Donald Trump?

Here again,

originally posted by: TheRedneck

If Joe heard Bob telling Ted that he heard Bill on the phone saying Jerry was going to murder Sam... well, that's not exactly enough to accuse Jerry of anything, especially if Sam is still alive and saying they were talking about video game play.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Is Doug Jones running for president? I haven't heard anything about that.



posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AutomateThis1


Is Doug Jones running for president? I haven't heard anything about that.

Hahaha, no... he's up for re-election. I was just using him as an example of how the turmoil over the impeachment is affecting me. He's my Junior Senator.

I have to say that, so far, he makes a lot more sense than any Democrats who are actually running for President, though.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 13 2020 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with that. I just wish we as a collective people had held the bar much higher and stuck to our guns. Literally and figuratively. The crop of politicians we have running the show at a federal level are garbage. They're only in it for themselves, and they aren't working together.

Then, we've got citizens who participate in politics like it's a damned sports event, two groups of people who are vocal about rooting against the other team. The extremes of which scream bloody murder that the other side is pure evil, a larger portion of the two who are just in it to out meme each other and think it's all a joke. Then, we've got the majority of the citizens who care, but only a small percentage of them actually vote, and most of them only do so every four years.

I know very few people who actually vote at their local levels, and then wonder why we get what we get at the national level.

But, back to the original point of this thread.

I would love to see this thing get a fair balanced trial, but I just don't know if it's going to happen.

At this point I say just dismiss it(neverrrmind), and let's see what the peoples will is at the voting booths.
edit on 13-1-2020 by AutomateThis1 because: Just saw that the Republicans announced plans to reject a dismissal.



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AutomateThis1

Worse than garbage... the current crop of politicians are completely ignoring the very foundations of the country because they don't fit the narrative.

I want to see the Bidens exposed... not because I personally have anything against Joe or Hunter (Joe is actually kind of funny in a creepy, icky sort of way) but because I honestly believe there's more than just evidence on the Bidens over there in Ukraine. Based wholly on the reactions of the various persons who have spoken out on the issue, I'd say Pelosi is neck-deep in that corruption as well, as is Lindsey Graham, Adam Schiff, probably Mitch McConnell, and of course Hillary and Obama. Ukraine, if Zelensky is who he says he is, could well be the keystone that, once knocked out of place, allows the entire house of cards to come tumbling down.

That's what I want: a government that works for the people instead of only for themselves. Trump, to me, is a means to that end. If he is removed from office, be it by the will of the people or by coup, as long as the corruption is exposed I'm good. Donald Trump can simply go back to being a billionaire; he never needed this job.

Of course, considering that there is still more corruption to come to light, I'll be happy to see him continue until 2024.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Option 3 would be optimal but would open Trump up to witnesses that may or may not help his case. It's the riskiest in my opinion. You never know what side of the bed Bolton woke up on and Guiliani is liable to say anything. I have a feeling that Mitch is going to go with option 1 to keep Trump in Office.



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ltheghost

McConnell is "knocking" calls for new witnesses, as of this morning.

thehill.com...

Could change by the time Nancy transmits the articles on Wednesday.



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 10:59 AM
link   
"Where's Hunter?"



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Every impeachment trial has included witnesses. If Trump did nothing wrong, then McConnell and the GOP should be just fine calling witnesses. Otherwise, it will just look like a partisan coverup.

So too, if they really think the Bidens have something to hide with respect to Burisma and all the alleged corruption Trump was so anxious to root out, then they should call them to testify.

History is watching.



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 11:04 AM
link   


History is watching.

yep
saw the phony whistleblower and the hearsay used to forward this mess
history is actually watching

why was the form changed right before the admission?
history is watching and all.....



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

If the whistleblower is indeed phony, then wouldn't witnesses only help clear Trump?
Why do they have such a problem releasing 3 sets of documents and allowing 4 witnesses to testify?

Inductively, it suggests they have something to worry about.



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77



If the whistleblower is indeed phony, then wouldn't witnesses only help clear Trump?

you mean the witnesses the house democrats denied prior to voting on the articles of impeachment?
those witnesses?

why did the house dems have such a problem allowing those witnesses?

perhaps schiff and his purjured self has an issue?



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The WH was clearly going to attempt to run the clock out by tying things up in court.
And now that Bolton has changed his stance around answering a subpoena and testifying, Trump is talking about pulling that executive privilege BS.

I'm not going to jump to conclusions, but allowing witnesses to testify would be helpful, don't you think?

If Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and the whistleblower is phony, etc., then witnesses and documents wouldn't hurt, would they?

If there's something to the Biden/Burisma thing, then presenting evidence and calling witnesses wouldn't hurt, would it?

Let the truth come out; that's what I care about.



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77


The WH was clearly going to attempt to run the clock out by tying things up in court.

What clock? Is there some Constitutional time limit on how long an investigation can take? I haven't seen one.

The courts are specifically there for this very reason: whenever there is a disagreement between the Executive and the Legislative, that disagreement is settled by the Judicial. That's why they are there!

If what you say is true, why do people get a court trial before being sentenced? Isn't that just taking up time? They're obviously guilty, because they're trying to "run out the clock" by tying the case up in the courts. Shouldn't we just toss them in jail and figure out for how long later?

Also, if what you say is true, we have royalty in the United States after all, in the form of 535 Congressmen. They decide what the President can and cannot do, they interpret the Constitution, they make the laws, they conduct the investigations, and they determine when the Judicial can speak. That is a complete overthrow of the US government!

Please, think about what you are claiming...

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

If there isn't anything to hide, why can't those people testify?
Why won't they hand over those documents?
Why not let the truth come out?
What are they afraid of?



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Personally I expect old mitch to sweep this under the rug asap, good chance that any bad stuff that comes out will implicate him and some of his cronies.



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77



The WH was clearly going to attempt to run the clock out by tying things up in court.

so then the answer is not to call the witnesses?
lol
mkay



And now that Bolton has changed his stance around answering a subpoena and testifying, Trump is talking about pulling that executive privilege BS.

so this will end up in court anyway?
or do you have no respect for executive privilege?



If Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and the whistleblower is phony, etc., then witnesses and documents wouldn't hurt, would they?

when again did you stop beating your wife?
why do people think the 4th and 5th amendments only apply to themselves?



If there's something to the Biden/Burisma thing, then presenting evidence and calling witnesses wouldn't hurt, would it?

wasnt that what trump was discussing with the president of ukraine?
lol
bad then ok now?



Let the truth come out; that's what I care about.

i doubt that
or are you now calling for the president of ukraine to investigate burisma and hunter biden?
are you now calling for the whistleblower to actually testify?
are you now calling for adam schiff to testify about coaching the whistleblower?

like I posted
i doubt it



posted on Jan, 14 2020 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: carewemust

can i choose option " Z" :

kill them all ?????????????



At least you live up to your name.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join