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.

 

A Trial Without Witnesses

page: 16
12
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:08 PM
link   
LOL..so many absurdities.
We can only hope that indictments from John Durham are coming soon.


originally posted by: Scepticaldem
Whatever happened to Joe Biden saying in march 2019 that he

"had no idea Hunter was on the board of an Ukrainian energy company"?

That happened and then no one on the news talked about it anymore!

Admitted, do you believe that in 2019 Joe biden didnt know his son was making $1,000,000 a year from an Ukrainian energy company?

Lolz🤪





posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem
Oh I think he will be held accountable ethically and criminally
He should have stayed in his little house kingdom



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I said I was done. But this is still my thread.

This is the stupidest damn thing I've read all through it.

I'm going to bed.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
I said I was done. But this is still my thread.

This is the stupidest damn thing I've read all through it.

I'm going to bed.


Do you think Joe didnt know about Ukraine laundering some of the billion dollars that he threatened to withhold from them, to his son?

Or do you believe "I didnt even know my surviving son had a job in the Ukraine"?

Lolz🤪



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Ah just another Fruedian slip from Schiff. As a lawyer, he is fully aware how much the hearsay witnesses are worth (nothing at all)

All we get is opinion after opinion from the prosecution and as usual they offer zero evidence to back it up. One after one, they claim he's a threat to national security and treasonous and them fail to offer one single example to support the claim. They are not very good people old friend



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: proximo

Are you kidding?

The show...even just the show...of a relationship with the president of the free world gives great clout on the world stage.

It carries great weight.

He (zolensky) can't just "say it". He is in or he isn't. It's a big ask.


Look it is obvious you have been brainwashed to believe this.

I have heard this left wing talking point, it is ridiculous.

It’s not only congress that would push back against trump, so would our allies.

It is just not a logical take.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
I said I was done. But this is still my thread.

This is the stupidest damn thing I've read all through it.

I'm going to bed.


Yes, I am sure it is past your bedtime. Especially here in the U.S. when the latest time right now is just about 8:30pm ET. Your mom will get mad if you are on the Internet past that time I am sure.

Unless, that is, you are NOT in the U.S. and forgot that little point, living here for 42 years and all, comrade.

ATS members are not twitter or reddit users. We actually have brains, and use them.

Imagine that.


edit on 1/29/2020 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
I said I was done. But this is still my thread.

This is the stupidest damn thing I've read all through it.

I'm going to bed.

Dont forget your matches
And the lamp



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I’m watching the hearings live right now and a question was asked of the House Managers where the response was something like this:

Schiff actually stated that in “order to have a FAIR trial...witnesses MUST be called.”

If that is the case, why weren’t Republicans allowed to call ANY witnesses of their own in the initial stages????

I have waited for an hour for some “smart” Senator to ask this question of Schiff. Somehow, an idiot on his couch (me) can think of this immediately and yet...it’s crickets and STUPID QUESTIONS being asked instead.

For instance, the very next question was asked by Bernie Sanders. It was this, “If we all know Trump is a lier according to the WP, why should we trust him when he says no quid pro quo?

Wtf kind of asinine question IS that!? He has one question and he asks that cornball one?

I hate my country right now. It’s disgusting what is happening.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrBuddy
I’m watching the hearings live right now and a question was asked of the House Managers where the response was something like this:

Schiff actually stated that in “order to have a FAIR trial...witnesses MUST be called.”

If that is the case, why weren’t Republicans allowed to call ANY witnesses of their own in the initial stages????

I have waited for an hour for some “smart” Senator to ask this question of Schiff. Somehow, an idiot on his couch (me) can think of this immediately and yet...it’s crickets and STUPID QUESTIONS being asked instead.

For instance, the very next question was asked by Bernie Sanders. It was this, “If we all know Trump is a lier according to the WP, why should we trust him when he says no quid pro quo?

Wtf kind of asinine question IS that!? He has one question and he asks that cornball one?

I hate my country right now. It’s disgusting what is happening.



I agree the republican questioning is leaving a lot to be desired.

I would ask Schiff over and over about the whistleblower working for Biden till he answers or is humiliated.

Edit: not sure why you would expect a better out of Sanders, he is a known idiot by the policies he supports.
edit on 29-1-2020 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

We did, but Adam Schiff wouldn't allow it during the time in the process when witnesses were proper. He blocked all of the ones Republicans wanted to call and only allowed such questions as he wanted asked from the witnesses he called, and some of those only testified under closed door circumstances so we never go to see their testimony.




posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

The document you refer to...an actual transcript or the non verbatim clearly labelled notatrancript...to which are you referring and can you source it so we may read that which you refer to?



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

guess that would be something to take up with the house, and ask Schif to release the info on the one witness he for some reason does not wanna talk about



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

Just announced that Mitch McConnell has enough Senators...Democrats and Republicans to vote no, and block having Witnesses.


edit on 1/29/2020 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Admitted

Just announced that Mitch McConnell has enough Senators...Democrats and Republicans to vote no, and block having Witnesses.



Don't feel so bad. The House can always carry on with a new set of articles and maybe this time, they'll do it properly and fight through the courts for their witnesses.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

wow so bipartisan support to not impeach the president and now bipartisan support to not have witnesses.......has any one checked on cnn? is don lemon ok? perhaps we should do a welfare check to make sure they aren't having heart attacks

www.politico.com... edit to add link

A trio of moderate Senate Democrats is wrestling with whether to vote to convict Donald Trump in his impeachment trial — or give the president the bipartisan acquittal he’s eagerly seeking. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and are “struggling” over where to land, said Manchin. It’s a decision that could have major ramifications for each senator’s legacy and political prospects — as well shape the broader political dynamic surrounding impeachment heading into the 2020 election.

edit on 29-1-2020 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

www.cnbc.com... they never should have done it in the first place and if they try it a second time even less people will pay attention as it will look vindictive as all hell and make them look exactly as president trump portrays them ineffective ,un united and spiteful

2. Do the Democrats really need more anti-Trump publicity? As the impeachment process moves forward and likely moves to a trial in the Senate, the Democrats are getting what amounts to a free 24/7 negative political ad against Trump on the TV news networks. So what else is new? In case you haven’t noticed. Just about all the TV news coverage of this president has been negative and those networks have barely covered anything else. A recent study by the conservative Media Research Council found that 96 percent of network news stories covering President Trump were negative since the impeachment inquiry began. But that’s only four percentage points higher than the same group’s results from a study about one year ago. Democrats should focus more on positive stories about their own still crowded field of presidential candidates, and something that defines them other than just being anti-Trump. They need something more like the inspirational story of Barack Obama’s quest to become the first African-American to win the White House in 2008, or a young Bill Clinton’s push to move us past the older generation’s Cold War focus in 1992. Focusing only on replacing Trump won’t get that done.
and they should be happy its so far a quick trial as a few of the 2020 dems running have been tied up in the senate for hours on end unable to really campaign ,which if it had gone on for 8ish more days they would have had to skip the next debate



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The virgin House Managers vs.the Chad Counsel to the President.


edit on 29-1-2020 by SKEPTEK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Admitted

It is not up to the court (and that's what the Senate is) to aid in either the defense nor the prosecution of the trial.

It is their job to judge the evidence presented by the House Managers.

The House laid out their evidence.

The Senates only job is to determine if the evidence is enough to oust a sitting president.

It is NOT the job of the Senate to look for more evidence to convict or to look for exculpatory evidence.



I have not read further than this post on page one. Just wanted to say thank you.
this makes the most sense of this issue. The senate are the jury and I know of no other jury that can stop a trial and say...we need to hear from more witnesses before making a determination between the prosecutors vs defense case!



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: sunkuong

I'm pretty sure the "memo" is the closest thing to an actual transcript that exists. 3 or 4 intelligence officers type it as they're listening. They then compare notes and the memo is the product. I also think there's a process in which others who were also on the call have an opportunity to submit edits.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join