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.

 

More democratic insanity. No, really.

page: 5
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I have yet to see,read, or hear anyone provide first hand knowledge of Trump ever saying he is scared of running against Biden in the 2020 election.

I have not seen, read, or heard anyone provide first hand knowledge of Trump telling Ukraine to help him specifically in this upcoming election.

I have not seen, read, or heard anyone provide first hand knowledge of Trump telling Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden specifically and falsify any evidence to make Biden look bad.

What am I missing? A simple request that Ukraine follow through on corruption investigations, is not abuse of power for personal gain nor does it mean that such an investigation would be bad for Biden. Why is such so scary?




posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: network dude

Call it whatever you want. I call it political suicide. A complete perversion of justice being perpetrated by the Republicans and right out in the open. Only the willfully ignorant will not have a problem with this.


How in the world is this perversion of justice? Both sides have 24 hours to provide details, offense and defense. Then Roberts will have 16hours to ask a list of questions provided by Senators.

After that is done, then if it is determined that they cannot make a decision with certainty one way or another, they may decide witnesses for clarification. Why unnecessarily waste witnesses and Senate time if they are not needed?



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts


What am I missing? A simple request that Ukraine follow through on corruption investigations, is not abuse of power for personal gain nor does it mean that such an investigation would be bad for Biden. Why is such so scary?

You're missing an old saying my Daddy used to say a lot:

"A bit dog hollers first."

It's only scary because it will be bad for Biden. Biden himself is telling us that by his own statements. If not, he wouldn't be so scared of it.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: network dude

House impeachment articles are unconstitutional.



WRONG! But you know that.


Technically the articles presented to the Senate are not constitutional.

You ignoring that doesn't make you correct.

At the end of the day, one of us is right.

The other one is you.



Ha!

Now I have to clean up all the coffee I just spit all over my keyboard!



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Schumer's nose is getting longer as he talks this morning.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Pyle


1 (technically 2 documents but the second one is irrelevant) document that isnt even a complete transcript but only after the fact recollections where...

Oh, so you admit the whole impeachment push is based on "1 document that isn't even a complete transcript"? That "incomplete transcript" is the only record of the call; White House phone calls are not recorded electronically. The two people most involved in the call, the caller and the callee (Trump and Zelensky) have both stated multiple times that there was no implied withholding of aid. So if it is an "incomplete transcript" and neither major participant has alleged wrongdoing, there is no impeachment case.

So I suppose we should just throw out the case now. Thanks for clearing that up.

TheRedneck


GOOD JOB! You ignored everything I posted after that! You are the best at ignoring things that dont fit your talking point.

An incomplete transcript that fits with all the other evidence. But keep being ignorant instead of denying it. Here let me repost everything you failed to even read.



...the president tells the Ukrainian president to talk to Rudy and evidence points to the fact that Rudy delivered the message for Trump after the call about everything and the fact that aid was held up only after said call aprart from the documents requested and hell they are even releasing some heavily redacted through FOIA but NOT to congress.

So if you ACTUALLY follow the evidence instead of willful ignorance (you know deny ignorance like you should be upholding as a mod) you might see a bigger picture of events. Iran-Contra was not just a secret meeting with Iran, Nixon's bullcrap wasnt just a break-in, Johnsons wasnt just the removal of the secretary of war, and Bay of Pigs wasnt just a failed CIA op, ect. If you focus on one event in the larger picture you are failing.


Please try to follow.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle


GOOD JOB!

Thank you! I try.


You ignored everything I posted after that!

Yes, I did.

Once you dismiss the primary source of evidence as false, there is nothing left to corroborate. What does all this other "evidence" corroborate? The same document that you claim is wrong? Does that not mean everything that corroborates the incorrect document is also wrong? Corroboration with a falsehood means the corroborating evidence is wrong as well.

If A is false and A = B, then B is false.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Another mysterious death in Hillary Clinton's orbit.

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
If the Senate went full blown partisan and didn’t allow the Democrats to call one witness. I still wouldn’t care after the charades the Democrats pulled in the House.


IMO it would not be partisan at all

they had the control, they had the time, and most importantly if someone refused to testify / turn over documents they had the JUDICIAL BRANCH to file charges to make them.

they WILLINGLY make the CHOICE to call the witnesses they did, to ask the questions they did, to not allow questions they didnt like , CHOOSE NOT TO USE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS TO get testimony / documents and MOST IMPORTANTLY ....... TO VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT WITH WHAT THEY HAD....

at this point BY ANY LEGAL STANDARDS they have to STAND ON WHAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED.

if they wanted something that is not there then maybe , oh maybe INCLUDED IT IN THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS.


IMO the sentae republicans need to GROW A SPINE and tell the DEMOCRATS (sorry no republican support and even a few democrat defectors) you had your chance, NOW LIVE WITH WHAT YOU SENT.


they should not get to "redue" their impeachment articles in the senate...
that is NOT HOW ITS SET UP...

or more bluntly , not refind or pc, but no less the truth...... SUCKS TO BE YOU , YOU BLEW IT.

scrounger



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
I have yet to see,read, or hear anyone provide first hand knowledge of Trump ever saying he is scared of running against Biden in the 2020 election.



If I might point out a fact on this point that not only factually proves it, but destroys the whole "interference with the presidental 2020 elections"

that is their has NOT BEEN a declared democratic presidential candidate.

In fact there hasnt even been ONE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.

so in truth there is NO OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE to run againtst trump.

So unless the democrats are ADMITTING the primary system is a farce (in the last election it was under the "super delegates" for hillory ) and you already have choosen Biden , then there is no "presidental rival" .

If you want to claim because he is in the running that its "presidental interference" then you must be ready to charge ANYONE who is getting "dirt" on their opponent.

so even on the basic premise that an "investigation of a presidental candidate" is a LIE

Scrounger



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

we clearly read your comment of "recolections " by witnesses

there is a teeny tiny requirement for "hearsay" and "recollection" to be considered CREDIBLE EVIDENCE (or evidence in any way for that matter) is "Corroborating evidence".

Here is the definition

Corroborating evidence (or corroboration) is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car.

we have the ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT (btw few democrats have said this isnt accurate or complete) that is available to ANYONE.

no where is there "qup pro quo" (remember the ORIGIONAL CHARGE/ACCUSATION) listed.

the two people (president trump and president of ukriane) OPENLY AND MULTIPLE TIMES said there was no "qup pro qup" .

most of the "witnesses" (including the whisle blower) did not hear the call DIRECTLY....

Ukraine didnt even start the investigation after the call

hell even the claim "they withheld the aid" falls appart since it was given within the timeframe set by congress.

so where is the Corroborating evidence of the witnesses hearsay?


BTW before you say the tired old "trump refused to turn over documents, stopped people from testifying, ect" rant .

the FACTS ARE this

suppenas (by the rules) are required to be OPENLY VOTED ON by the whole house (yes if done probably by party lines it would have been passed but probably isnt it happened)

if refused, the house MUST GO TO THE JUDICIARY (aka courts) to present their case as to why they must be enforced.
ONLY IF THE COURTS find JUST CAUSE will they suppenas would be LEGALLY VALID.

BOTH WERE NOT DONE BY HOUSE DEMOCRATS .

but back to your origional rant/argument

unless you have Corroborating evidence then peoples "recollections" are hearsey AND NOT FACTS.

but you really dont argue from facts now do you

scrounger



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Whistleblower report was first.

Funds released without comment after people started asking questions about hold.

Trump releases “Perfect phone call” “transcript” that show him asking for a favor in return for aid. Said favor is an investigation into Bidens and crowdstrike and to talk to Rudy and Barr (though the justice department had not opened any investigation at that time).

White House denies all documents and witnesses but doesn’t invoke any legal basis for doing so.

Witnesses that break the White House stonewall plan verify Trump asked for those thing on the call and that the hold was condonditioned on action being done.

Documents slowly released under FOIA continue to show potential wrong doing and extent of the effort to hold funds despite heavy redactions.

Lev Parnas who worked for Rudy in this schem tells all with documents.

Senate trial starts.

A condensed time line. Bet you make some lame excuse again and pound the table just like Trump’s lawyers in the Senate Trial, maybe you will lie less?



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: TheRedneck


Whistleblower report was first.

factual comment. good start.

Funds released without comment after people started asking questions about hold.

and without fail you go right to OPINION (at best) or repeated anti trump rant (more likely). First (to give you credit) the funds were released (not withheld as typical told). But comment is NOT REQUIRED OR NEEDED. especially since as long as its done before the deadline. Where a reapplication/continuation request is filed. As for "after epole stared asking questions" since no comment was given your ASSuming... in short NO PROOF...

Trump releases “Perfect phone call” “transcript” that show him asking for a favor in return for aid. Said favor is an investigation into Bidens and crowdstrike and to talk to Rudy and Barr (though the justice department had not opened any investigation at that time).

sigh... again the transcript IS AVAILABLE... show me EXACTLY WHERE it CLEARLY STATES what you say trump said. Because unless all the democrats in the impeachment hearings are blind NO SUCH WORDS were ever stated or put into evidence. along with if such words existed why then all the "witnesses" giving their "testimony" on what they "thought he meant". again PROOF to back up your claim

White House denies all documents and witnesses but doesn’t invoke any legal basis for doing so.

um no they fought LEGALLY to turn over or testify. The FACTS are they can LEGALLY (as any defendant under CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS) fight it . the democrats are required for subpoena to have a FULL VOTE in house . If someone refuses then they are REQUIRED TO ENFORCE IT by GOING TO THE COURTS with JUSTIFICATION why it should be done... THE COURTS then decide if such subpoena is legal and enforceable... something the DEMOCRATS DIDN'T DO.. so not only does trump and those called have "legal basis", but the democrats DIDNT HAVE because they didnt go to the courts. another factual failure on your part yet again

Witnesses that break the White House stonewall plan verify Trump asked for those thing on the call and that the hold was conditioned on action being done.

sigh .. again NO FACTS COMMENT GIVEN. they (as I previously posted in challenge to your comments and you seem to ignore... big surprise) is what they testified to was OPINION AND RECOLLECTION... with no collaborating evidence to support their claims.. in fact the TRANSCRIPT along with trump and president of Ukraine denied... so again FACTS TO BACK UP CLAIMS or your just peddling bs

Documents slowly released under FOIA continue to show potential wrong doing and extent of the effort to hold funds despite heavy redactions.

"potential wrongdoing " is OPINION... where are these FACTS to back it up and why are they not in impeachment records? Because they dont exist outside of someones OPINION... along with EXACTLY WHERE is the wording why the funds were "effort withhold "? again they were distributed and within the timeframe set by congress... as for "redaction"... unless you have security clearance to see what was under them you DONT HAVE FACTS....Again with opinions/assumptions that are NOT FACT.

Lev Parnas who worked for Rudy in this schem tells all with documents.

again his RECOLLECTIONS with NO VERIFIABLE PAPERWORK to back them up. something that would have been "leaked" by now.. along with your star witness is under investigation (along with inditement as I understand it) for FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS. your gonna try to claim someone accused of faking documents is now being honest? BTW if he was the "smoking gun" then why didnt the democrats WAIT and have him in impeachment hearings.... sorry again fail

Senate trial starts.

another fact you actually have right... but since its a "trial" you have no finding of guilt... so does not help you except giving you two facts out of many not... bad ratio I might add

A condensed time line. Bet you make some lame excuse again and pound the table just like Trump’s lawyers in the Senate Trial, maybe you will lie less?


no that title well belongs to you.....since trump is PRESUMED INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY IN COURT (SENATE HERE BY 2/3 MAJORITY) OF LAW a right granted TO ALL US CITIZENS be president or homeless person on the streets. as for "pounding with lame ass excuse" you are giving an OPINION AGAIN. since your not a senator your OPNION is more worthless.... lastly as for the dramatics you cannot mock one side over another at best doing the same thing.. thats hyprocy and you do wear it well I may add.


sigh

again with another rehashing same rants and opinions with same lack of substance.

I will give you this... at least in your ignoring FACTS and using opinions with liberal adding of rants are consistent.
too bad easily disproved with facts rants and no substance .

scrounger
edit on 23-1-2020 by scrounger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: scrounger

Thank you for once again proving my point that people are not paying any real attention and going off on the same lies put out.

Starting in the very first paragraph. Congress MUST be notified if the president withholds funds, by the president or the Comptroller General. Not after 45 days, but when it happens. Congress has 45 days from the start of the hold to approve of the hold or not, automaticity diasaproved if 45 days pass with no yes vote. So the fact that the money was held from July 25 to September 11 with no comment is a big deal legally speaking.

No time to go through the rest a job came up. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
a reply to: network dude

Call it whatever you want. I call it political suicide. A complete perversion of justice being perpetrated by the Republicans and right out in the open. Only the willfully ignorant will not have a problem with this.
It's like IQs are being reducing by lefist being willfully ignorant.

It's like they ignore the fact that the impeachment has been a Partisan case pushed by a Democrat majority and passed along party lines and being completely secretive about it.

What a hypocrite 🤭

This IS political suicide, perpetrated by Democrats and their liberal media lackies, all right out in the open 😶

Quite frankky, you have no idea what you're talking about and nothing more than a deluded hyper partisan 😌
edit on 23-1-2020 by Arnie123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Another mysterious death in Hillary Clinton's orbit.

mobile.twitter.com...

Whoah. I didn't hear about that one.

It sounds like that story is getting ready to open up.

If Barr does nothing, then we'll know that he really was brought in to cover up the big stuff, likely by bringing down a few high profile morons like Comey and Clapper, all the while burying the Clinton financial crime syndicate and the Ukrainian corruption involving lots of high profile politicians of both persuasions.



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Listen---Hunter Biden isn't the problem here. Hunter Biden is how a corrupt machine gets exposed.

We all know politicians use their kids as fronts for financial security. We all know they are already exempt from insider trading.

But what happened is career politicians on both sides got massively carried away. They saw the true opportunity in all this money that flows in foreign aide. Is it illegal??? Well...as much as I think it should be I imagine that just like with everything else government----they found a cagey way to get around it. But to get caught will ruin families because stuff like this is the stuff the public hates because its why NOTHING EVER GETS DONE. We know this because career politicians are getting massively wealthy. Yesterday I was reading that Sleep Joe got 17 million in book revenue after leaving office. That seems like a lot of money for a politicians book...especially for a career snoozer like Joe. Now---haven't we already seen a certain state governor (or mayor) caught in a scandal where money was laundered to her under book sales that were en masse????

Hunter is going to take the whole thing down. But it isn't going to happen in these trials---its going to happen here:

www.cnbc.com... ed-to-arkansas-court-for-paternity-case.html



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle


Whistleblower report was first.

Which was unsubstantiated by any other evidence, and was all hearsay. Very well; investigate anyway. I have no problem with that.


Funds released without comment after people started asking questions about hold.

False. Trump declared two reasons for holding funds temporarily: leverage to use in getting other countries to assist more, and a suspicion of corruption in Ukraine.

He did this on national TV.


Trump releases “Perfect phone call” “transcript” that show him asking for a favor in return for aid. Said favor is an investigation into Bidens and crowdstrike and to talk to Rudy and Barr (though the justice department had not opened any investigation at that time).

Which you already declared was false.

The DoJ does not as a rule announce all ongoing investigations publicly. Do you have inside information from the DoJ? I'm sure we would all like to hear it. What's your clearance level?


White House denies all documents and witnesses but doesn’t invoke any legal basis for doing so.

False. The documents and testimony were denied due to Executive Privilege (which can be invoked without a specific declaration) and explained as a response to a refusal to allow Trump equal representation in the hearings.


Witnesses that break the White House stonewall plan verify Trump asked for those thing on the call and that the hold was condonditioned on action being done.

And with only one exception, none had even spoken to or with Trump himself. That one exception was Sondland, who testified that his statement was an assumption and not direct knowledge.

Also, every single witness was asked if they knew of any crime or impeachable offense that occurred. All said no, they knew of none. That includes Sondland.


Documents slowly released under FOIA continue to show potential wrong doing and extent of the effort to hold funds despite heavy redactions.

Which corroborates Trump's own statements about why he was waiting to release the funds.


Lev Parnas who worked for Rudy in this schem tells all with documents.

Lev Parnas is under indictment by the SDNY already. He has a long history of legally questionable activities, and his association with Guiliani has been used ad nauseum to try to discredit Guiliani. Now his word is unquestionable?

His statements have also been refuted by both Guiliani and Trump, and Guiliani claims to have documented evidence that parts of his statements are lies. I want to see this evidence before assuming he is suddenly trustworthy.


Senate trial starts.

Yes, you finally got one correct. The existence of a trial is not evidence of guilt, by definition.


A condensed time line. Bet you make some lame excuse again and pound the table just like Trump’s lawyers in the Senate Trial, maybe you will lie less?

You have already, in that one post, stated two demonstrable untruths. I have stated none. I have instead stated why your so-called evidence is insufficient to build a legal case. If you wish to characterize that as "pounding the table," then perhaps you might wish to turn off the TV after the prosecution finishes their opening arguments. Wouldn't want you to have an aneurysm...

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle


Congress MUST be notified if the president withholds funds, by the president or the Comptroller General. Not after 45 days, but when it happens.

Please indicate where in the budget allocation a specific deadline to release funds is stated? A few hundred million dollars cannot be spent immediately... that is simply impossible. Budget allocations are to be allocated by the end of the fiscal year unless otherwise indicated. I have been able to find no otherwise indication.

The Impound Control Act is not implemented until the funds are not to be allocated by the specified disbursement date. Otherwise, every single agency in the US government is in violation, because they all wait until close to the end of the fiscal year to spend the last of their funding.

The funds to Ukraine were released for allocation in early September. The end of the fiscal year is September 30.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 23 2020 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
This whole thing going on is definitely hard on the cardiovascular system. Make no mistake where this is all going. MARXISM plain and simple. It is just a matter of time before the civil war starts. There is simply not enough room for communists and Constitutional Nationalists in this country. They, the Marxists, will either leave for a more suitable place to live or die. Most freedom loving Americans will not stand for 1984 being thrusted upon us. Screw Igsoc, screw commies, and screw any Democrat or Republican who backs this coup de tat.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join