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.

 

Questions about the Impeachment

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc
These questions have been going around in my head for a while. I didn't vote for Trump, but I think that if these questions haven't been raised by Congress, that the Impeachment trial won't be fair.


An Impeachment trial doesn't need to be "fair" in the same way a criminal trial needs to be "fair". An impeach and its trial has very little in common with trials in our criminal justice system. This narrative that they are the same or mirror each other is due to MSN and pundits using the criminal trial process to explain what an impeachment is to low information voters.

An impeachment and its subsequent trial is completely a political process; and as such those who have the most political power get to carry out the proceedings anyway they want. If they enough support they could impeach and remove a president for nothing more than not liking the color of his hat. And such an outcome would be completely "fair" because that would be the will of the people.

The problems we are having right now in this country is that a minority of politicians knowing full well that they don't have enough support and power are trying to push the mater anyway. They are using the tool of impeachment to dirty up their political opponents prior to an election; so to them it doesn't matter that they don't have enough support to remove the president.

These people are living in the moment; they are treading longterm prosperity of the country for short term political gains. And to be perfectly honest this is not a trait exclusive to our political leaders; all of us, from those who let their kids watch YouTube 24/7 to CEOs who trade away their core competencies for a stock bump, are trading away the long term for the short term. This is going to be our biggest obstacle going forward; much bigger than global warming and gun rights.




posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: chr0naut

The Executive are required to inform and get approval for many things that Trump is bypassing.



Please enlighten us on the many things Trump has bypassed without approval?


Trump ordered an airstrike in a country the US is not in conflict with, on a citizen of another country that the US is also not in direct conflict with. He did so without informing Congress first.

Trump also made a call to the Ukrainian PM requesting that they reopen a closed investigation without Trump receiving the proper prior approval and deputization to do so from his Attorney General.

Trump issued several Executive Orders without Congressional or Judicial assent (EO's are delegated legislation), some of those orders have been both overruled as unconstitutional, and therefore adjudicated as unlawful, as well.

The President cannot make and enforce laws outside of the three branch system.



The President must place requests for budget and must use the allocated funds in the way that the Congress says.
When has he not?


There are several instances of Trump manipulating budget allocations contrary to the dictates of Congress.

The President shut down government and has also implemented invalid emergency conditions to secure funding against the dictates of Congress.

Both are overreach and relate directly to abuses of funding legislation by bypassing the Constitutional stipulations that Congress is the budgetary controller in government.



Also in the Constitution is the principle of birthright citizenship. It is described quite clearly. Trump has said that he will abolish birthright citizenship.
Saying and doing are two different things. As a result of illegals blatant widespread abuse of birthright citizenship most Americans think birthright citizenship should be abolished. Since you don't live in our country you're not aware of how it effects us on many levels.


The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship.

If the entire US public really thinks that it is being abused, then there are legal and approved processes to amend the Constitution. I imagine it would require a referendum/s, along with Congressional and Judicial input.

There are already 27 ratified amendments to the Constitution, so the process does have precedent.

The President can't just look at a popularity poll and mess with the Constitution.



Also, the Congress are the only ones who can declare war. The commander in chief can fight a war as he sees fit but he cannot start a war.


Moot point, no one's declaring war nor will they due to the logistics of declaring war. There's multiple reasons why we haven't declared war since WW2.


The Congressional legislation was clearly designed so that the US did not arbitrarily start wars without whole government mandate and this is to prevent a President from arbitrarily invoking wartime powers so that they can override the balance of power under the Constitution.

It wasn't designed to be bypassed because it is inconvenient. That stuff is there for a reason.

Governments that just ignore sections of the Constitution are unconstitutional. It is an absolute.

edit on 19/1/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

Also in the Constitution is the principle of birthright citizenship. It is described quite clearly. Trump has said that he will abolish birthright citizenship.

Fake news. Trump has said he wants to end it for non-citizens.


Um, if they are citizens according to the Constitution, then they are not non-citizens. You don't need to declare non-citizens as being non-citizens because they already are.

Removing birthright citizenship from the Constitution and law does not mean that only the children of undeclared immigrants would be affected. It grants the government the right to remove all citizen rights, from nearly anybody, at whim.

Ask yourself, what would make you a citizen of the US?

You can't claim your family heritage, or birth in the US, does if you remove birthright citizenship.

You can't expect to show a birth certificate, or drivers license, or tax receipt as proof.

You'd need to have a citizenship document, like when people are naturalized. Do you have one of those?


The Constitution does not give BC to non-citizens, and we have several Supreme Court cases that suggest they do not get it. We know for a fact it did not cover Native Americans at all. We also know the Supreme Court ruled a Chinese citizen was granted BC due to legal residence and business in the US. There is no ruling or wording that grants BC to illegals, and it actually used to NOT be given.

Elk v. Wilkins
US v. Wong Kim Ark

Even Wong Kim Ark was a bit of activist judging. Sen. Trumbull stated “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country. Being a Chinese citizen and not a US citizen unarguably means you have allegiance to that country.

Even that, the most progressive ruling ever on the matter, precluded illegals from benefiting from the ruling.


So, because the US Constitution was framed when slavery existed, then slavery is OK?

You can't use old misapplication of the law to excuse it today.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc
I have questions about this Impeachment of President Trump that I haven't seen raised anywhere else. This is disconcerting as i think they should have been asked all along.

1.) If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not? As head of the Executive Branch, the President has the right to ask foreign officials to investigate U.S. Citizens. This is usually done through diplomatic channels, but Trump seems to like being part of 'the deal'.


He did. While on the phone call he said Barr would contact his people and they would discuss the matter.

"I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."


2.) As Commander-in-Chief, does President Trump have the right to stop the U.S. military from aiding a foreign power? Whether Congress earmarked money for it or not?


I know this was answered at least a couple of times so the answer has been given.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

Based on my understanding of the situation...

1) Joe Biden is not immune to investigation, regardless of what party e belongs to. The charge about Trump investigating his political rival is ridiculous on the face of it, since Joe Biden is not Trump's rival for President. If he gets the Democratic nomination that can change, but right now Trump has no rival for President.

2) As I understand it, Congress can pass legislation requiring the President to send military aid somewhere, but that legislation would have to either be signed by the President or passed by a 2/3 supermajority in both houses (veto-proof). In the absence of such a requirement, yes, the President has the authority to tell the military where to deploy to.

Now, the President cannot declare war, which means that should he attack another country unprovoked, he would then be in violation of the Constitution. Any attack has to be retaliatory or pre-emptive against a known threat. An unprovoked attack would be an act of war and would violate his Constitutional authority.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Birthright citizenship was never being removed. Stop lying.

Claiming having a border and immigration laws is the same as slavery is hilarious progressive tripe.

Birthright citizenship was never meant for illegals. Basically no developed country on Earth except the US gives it out that way. So claiming the times have moved on beyond that is simply a very stupid comment.
edit on 19-1-2020 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: HalWesten
On the contrary, we right-wingers would love it if left-wing liberals would go live in a country that best suits your mindset.
Left-wing liberals' views are so far off from being constitutional that it would require cancelling our existing constitution and them creating a brand new one that limits what the citizens can do instead of limiting what the government can do.

Everything you just said is nowhere near what we really want so I don't know where you get those ideas.


The Constitution has power balanced between the branches of government. Attempts by the Presidency to override Congress are unconstitutional.

One of the checks and balances is the power and procedure to impeach the President. It is entirely Constitutional. Attempts to curtail that are unconstitutional.

Another stipulation is that the President must not isolate himself from communication with Congress. The Executive are required to inform and get approval for many things that Trump is bypassing.

Setting of budget and allocation and funding is purely the remit of Congress under the Constitution. The President must place requests for budget and must use the allocated funds in the way that the Congress says.

Also in the Constitution is the principle of birthright citizenship. It is described quite clearly. Trump has said that he will abolish birthright citizenship.

Also, the Congress are the only ones who can declare war. The commander in chief can fight a war as he sees fit but he cannot start a war.


Thanks for the government lesson but I learned all of that in grade school.


Many right-wing pundits harp on about the Democrats being unconstitutional, but if you asked them what specific details of the Constitution are being infringed, they could not point to any specifics. However, Trump has had several EO's rejected for their unconstituionality.


I have to disagree with you there, even though several lower courts have dealt with EOs that have been deemed unconstitutional, the SC is going to have the last word on a lot of those and many of them are in limbo right now. Regardless, several presidents (Lincoln, Truman, Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush 1 & 2, Clinton, Obama and others) have enacted EOs that were found to be unconstitutional, this is not unusual. I think it's partly to see how far they can push the envelope, which Obama did countless times and many of his were found to be unconstitutional, and partly I think they know it'll be rejected but they want to get discussions going in congress and in the courts on what they believe are bad rules or laws and that is an effective way to do it. But comparing recent presidential EOs is a specious, anti-Trump argument in this case anyway, look back a few presidencies and you'll see EOs by the thousands, not hundreds in some cases.


The Presidency has no personal power to make changes to the Constitution yet Trump is doing and saying things that are against Constitutional edict. The President, in the oath of office, has a primary role of defending the Constitution but look at what he is actually doing and saying.


Again, I don't need a lesson in how our government works. What things specifically? You said Right-wingers aren't answering, but you mentioned the same type of thing without specifying what he supposedly is doing wrong. I'm just trying to understand your thinking.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Trump ordered an airstrike in a country the US is not in conflict with, on a citizen of another country that the US is also not in direct conflict with. He did so without informing Congress first.


He didn't have to. Unless you have evidence that says otherwise, the terrorist in question was involved in a direct attack on American soil (embassy) and planning future attacks, and he did inform congress afterward which was his only requirement to them.


Trump also made a call to the Ukrainian PM requesting that they reopen a closed investigation without Trump receiving the proper prior approval and deputization to do so from his Attorney General.


I answered this in a previous message.


Trump issued several Executive Orders without Congressional or Judicial assent (EO's are delegated legislation), some of those orders have been both overruled as unconstitutional, and therefore adjudicated as unlawful, as well.


I answered this in a previous message as well. You would do well to read up on American history if you are going to comment on our governmental system, you've had several errors which could have been avoided if you had done so beforehand. I'm just trying to help you, you seem like a smart guy. You are definitely a Trump-hater, that's obvious, though I'm not sure why since he doesn't affect you or your country whatsoever.


The President can't just look at a popularity poll and mess with the Constitution.


LOL! As I said, you should probably learn a bit more about our presidential history before making comments like that. I answered this in the other message as well, several of our presidents have done just that. Most were rebuked, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not limited to Trump. I think it's interesting that you're focusing on him and ignoring the rest of history altogether.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CryHavoc

Based on my understanding of the situation...

1) Joe Biden is not immune to investigation, regardless of what party e belongs to. The charge about Trump investigating his political rival is ridiculous on the face of it, since Joe Biden is not Trump's rival for President. If he gets the Democratic nomination that can change, but right now Trump has no rival for President.


And that is what the Democrats aren't being honest about. One of many things, but still.

Not to mention the timing, which they also ignore but proves Trump was not in the wrong in how he handled this issue.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Birthright citizenship was never being removed. Stop lying.

Claiming having a border and immigration laws is the same as slavery is hilarious progressive tripe.


I never said they were the same. I was trying to point out that a previous infraction against the explicit wording of the Constitution does not grant carte blanche to repeating the infraction in a similar instance.


Birthright citizenship was never meant for illegals. Basically no developed country on Earth except the US gives it out that way. So claiming the times have moved on beyond that is simply a very stupid comment.


Actually, birthright citizenship is a fairly standard thing in British Common law and derives from Ancient Roman law. Hence it stands as a citizen right in a significant number of countries.

Jus soli
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Trump again says he's looking 'seriously' at birthright citizenship despite 14th Amendment - CNN

Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report - Fox News



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CryHavoc

Based on my understanding of the situation...

1) Joe Biden is not immune to investigation, regardless of what party e belongs to. The charge about Trump investigating his political rival is ridiculous on the face of it, since Joe Biden is not Trump's rival for President. If he gets the Democratic nomination that can change, but right now Trump has no rival for President.

TheRedneck


If Joe Biden is currently part of the secret coup against the president does that than make him Trumps rival?



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa



HE had 45 IN SESSION DAYS to release the money BEFORE having to tell congress and ask for it to be held longer.


Citation required. I think you're mistaken.


Now, whenever presidents want to rescind or freeze congressionally appropriated funds, they must first notify Congress by sending a "special message" that details the amount of money involved and the reasons to rescind or withhold it.

If the president is asking to permanently rescind money, Congress must give its approval. But if Congress does not pass a bill approving the retraction within 45 days, the money must be made available for spending, according to the law.

www.politifact.com...


It has been cited by other members in multiple threads. I will not do your HW for you.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: CryHavoc




If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would we even be raising the question of whether Trump did the right thing or not?


Good question but there is no way to ever know. Another question that can't be answered is, If Joe Biden wasn't a rival from an opposing political party, would trump have ever even talked with ukraine about it?



Giuliani was starting his investigation in mid to late 2018. Lutsenko opened two investigations in March 2019. Biden didn't declare until April 2019, stating he "had to run". For the immunity of being a potential political rival?

Democrats in Congress were starting to panic in early 2019, as news about Rudy potentially obtaining dirt on Joe Biden and the DNC began to spread.

May-2019: We must Investigate Giuliani ASAP!: thehill.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CryHavoc

Based on my understanding of the situation...

1) Joe Biden is not immune to investigation, regardless of what party e belongs to. The charge about Trump investigating his political rival is ridiculous on the face of it, since Joe Biden is not Trump's rival for President. If he gets the Democratic nomination that can change, but right now Trump has no rival for President.

TheRedneck


If Joe Biden is currently part of the secret coup against the president does that than make him Trumps rival?



One thing's for certain. Trump's rivals in the U.S. Senate should play no role in his Impeachment Trial. No votes, no questions...NOTHING.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: chr0naut
Trump ordered an airstrike in a country the US is not in conflict with, on a citizen of another country that the US is also not in direct conflict with. He did so without informing Congress first.
He didn't have to. Unless you have evidence that says otherwise, the terrorist in question was involved in a direct attack on American soil (embassy) and planning future attacks, and he did inform congress afterward which was his only requirement to them.


On December 31, 2019, the Embassy in in Baghdad was approached by 'several hundred' protesters, who had just attended a funeral for militia men killed in previous US actions.

The protesters set fire to a green zone gate house reception area and some trailers.

They did not penetrate the embassy, and so they were not on US soil. No one was injured. As an 'attack' on the embassy, it failed.

On 31st December 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo named then-Popular Mobilization Forces deputy chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq leader Qais Khazali and PMF commander Hadi al-Amiri (both of which were present at the embassy attack), and PMF chairman Falih Alfayyadh as responsible for the attack. No mention of Solemaini.

As an excuse for killing someone not actually identified with the attack at all, it is as weak as water.

Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Although Trump said there was evidence that Solemiani was going to attack other US targets, House Armed Services committee chairman Adam Smith, said there was "no evidence" of a future Iranian attack presented during a classified White House briefing given to lawmakers on Wednesday 8th January 2020.

Qasem Soleimani: Iran was targeting four US embassies, says Trump - BBC news

Top officials struggle to explain Trump’s claim on embassy attacks - Politico



Trump also made a call to the Ukrainian PM requesting that they reopen a closed investigation without Trump receiving the proper prior approval and deputization to do so from his Attorney General.
I answered this in a previous message.


And I responded that Trump did not have the deputization from the Attorney General required to validate his request as being under the treaty. The terms of the treaty were quite clear and I posted a link to the treaty itself, so that you may verify that what I wrote was accurate.



Trump issued several Executive Orders without Congressional or Judicial assent (EO's are delegated legislation), some of those orders have been both overruled as unconstitutional, and therefore adjudicated as unlawful, as well.
I answered this in a previous message as well.


You answered that those EO's are still pending legal review in the supreme court.

List of pending United States Supreme Court cases
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The only cases still pending in the Supreme Court, in relation to Trump, are him trying to keep his financial records away from investigators.


You would do well to read up on American history if you are going to comment on our governmental system, you've had several errors which could have been avoided if you had done so beforehand. I'm just trying to help you, you seem like a smart guy. You are definitely a Trump-hater, that's obvious, though I'm not sure why since he doesn't affect you or your country whatsoever.


There is no way that you could know what knowledge I have of American history, or not, from the little I have posted.

Attempting to demolish my case by implying I am ignorant is not dealing with the topic but is rather, ad hominem.

I have posted links to authoritative sources that support my case. Are they ignorant too?



The President can't just look at a popularity poll and mess with the Constitution.
LOL! As I said, you should probably learn a bit more about our presidential history before making comments like that. I answered this in the other message as well, several of our presidents have done just that. Most were rebuked, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not limited to Trump. I think it's interesting that you're focusing on him and ignoring the rest of history altogether.


Again, you cannot use past infractions to excuse current ones.

edit on 19/1/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Actually, birthright citizenship is a fairly standard thing in British Common law and derives from Ancient Roman law. Hence it stands as a citizen right in a significant number of countries.

Actually that is a complete load of BS and is more fake news from you. The UK has jus sanguinis, citizenship by blood, and at least one parent must be a UK citizen.

From your source.

Jus soli is the predominant rule in the Americas, but it is rare elsewhere.

As I said, no developed countries other than America have it for the most part. Those that used to RECENTLY got rid of it, such as France in the 90s. Try again.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: chr0naut

The Executive are required to inform and get approval for many things that Trump is bypassing.



Please enlighten us on the many things Trump has bypassed without approval?


Trump ordered an airstrike in a country the US is not in conflict with, on a citizen of another country that the US is also not in direct conflict with. He did so without informing Congress first.

Not required the president can take military action for up to 60 days without informing congress.



also made a call to the Ukrainian PM requesting that they reopen a closed investigation without Trump receiving the proper prior approval and deputization to do so from his Attorney General.

You got this exactly backwards its the president that authorizes the AG to talk to a foreign country.



Trump issued several Executive Orders without Congressional or Judicial assent (EO's are delegated legislation), some of those orders have been both overruled as unconstitutional, and therefore adjudicated as unlawful, as well.
Did you even take government in school? EO's are lawful until a judicial decision decides they are not. And even then the president can appeal the decision allowing the EO to continue as long as the appeals judge will hear the case.



The President cannot make and enforce laws outside of the three branch system.



The President must place requests for budget and must use the allocated funds in the way that the Congress says.
When has he not?


There are several instances of Trump manipulating budget allocations contrary to the dictates of Congress.


Congress authorizes budgets however how the funds are dispersed falls to the executive branch. And yes the president can and every president has reallocated funds.



The President shut down government and has also implemented invalid emergency conditions to secure funding against the dictates of Congress.

The president doesnt have the power to shut down the government the only way that occurs is if congress has not created a new budget. And can keep going your other points are wrong too. But i figure why beat a dead horse. No matter what you are told your going to believe orange man bad i get it.



posted on Jan, 19 2020 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: CryHavoc

Based on my understanding of the situation...

1) Joe Biden is not immune to investigation, regardless of what party e belongs to. The charge about Trump investigating his political rival is ridiculous on the face of it, since Joe Biden is not Trump's rival for President. If he gets the Democratic nomination that can change, but right now Trump has no rival for President.

TheRedneck


If Joe Biden is currently part of the secret coup against the president does that than make him Trumps rival?



One thing's for certain. Trump's rivals in the U.S. Senate should play no role in his Impeachment Trial. No votes, no questions...NOTHING.


That would be the machiavellian move; Trump's rivals in the Senate ask no questions and instead of just abstaining the vote they also condemn house Democrats of misuse of power. They would burn a lot of bridges; but that kinda scorched earth ambition might just payoff in the end.



posted on Jan, 20 2020 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Trump ordered an airstrike in a country the US is not in conflict with, on a citizen of another country that the US is also not in direct conflict with. He did so without informing Congress first.


So what, he didn't have to notify congress. In the interest of national security, it's within Trump's Article 2 powers to do what he did without notifying congress.

I don't know why you keep bringing up war and war time? Once again, we're not going to be declaring war on any country, not sure what you're not getting in that regard.



posted on Jan, 20 2020 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat


If Joe Biden is currently part of the secret coup against the president does that than make him Trumps rival?

Nope. It makes him Trump's target. Legitimate target.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join