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: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

Eric ciaramella, also known as The Whistleblower, must be called to testify.

Once everything in this article is exposed before the Senate, The house impeachment articles will be nullified.

www.thegatewaypundit.com... ch-more/

Adam Schiff colluded with this guy to get the impeachment fuse lit.




posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

I wonder if they can call IG Atkinson if there are witnesses ? I really want to read those transcripts .



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: toolgal462

I wonder if they can call IG Atkinson if there are witnesses ? I really want to read those transcripts .


They should at least be compelled to provide the transcripts to the Senate!



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

With regards to the transcript:


But you don't think thene was any malicious intent

to specifically not add those edits?
A I don't think so.
a Okay. So, othenwise, this recond is

complete and

I think

you used the tenm "verY accunate"?

A Yes.
a Okay. So, if we'ne tnying to undenstand what happened on
the calI, this centainly is a veny accurate necond?
A Connect.

a And you were on the ca1], so -A Yes.
a -- you'ne a good person to say that.
There's been some discussion a couple diffenent - - at a couple
diffenent points today about whethen, you know,

when

the Pnesident used

"I'd like you to do us a favon" constitutes a demand.
And, in youn mind, it did.
A That's -- I continue to stand by what I said in the statement.
the tenminology
emphasis mine

READ: Testimony Of Alexander Vindman, The White House's Ukraine Specialist - NPR



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

They tried to push this through like a 30 minute Judge Judy show just to claim he was impeached. Congrats. Yes, he is impeached. Time to move on.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No, it's an impeachment trial.

But, even if I was a complete moron...I wouldn't need brush up on my Civics lessons here.

Why can't we have witnesses? Why can't Bolton testify to the President's actions?



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
We have a president on trial without witnesses being allowed to speak.

This is America today.


Do you really want the answers, as in what the Constitution allows for in an impeachment? Or do want to continue to say "why not?", like a toddler when you try to explain to them that they cannot fly like the birds.


edit on 29-1-2020 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: DBCowboy

I would think you would want him to. But ok. If you don't care, you don't care.


Why would I care?

This is purely political.

It is an attack from democrats to oust a sitting president.

That's all this is.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: toolgal462

I wonder if they can call IG Atkinson if there are witnesses ? I really want to read those transcripts .


Chief justice Roberts can make himself useful by demanding that the house transfer those transcripts over to the Senate to be included in the overall evidence.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

They have not proven that is what happened yet , you are not the judge or the jury . If that is what you truly believe , your chance to voice your opinion will come in November 2020



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody

No, it's an impeachment trial.

But, even if I was a complete moron...I wouldn't need brush up on my Civics lessons here.

Why can't we have witnesses? Why can't Bolton testify to the President's actions?


Cause the senate says so
The senate gets to make the rules
And the gop owns the senate

This is in no way a judicial trial
Sorry for your misunderstanding

You understand there have to be 67 votes to remove?
There are not 67 dem senators.
Is math also hard for you?



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted


I want the whole truth. I want firsthand witnesses.



You had them already.

Like an election, you can't stop the process because
you do not like the results.




posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm sorry that quotation has a lot of errors. It must be pasted from a different language? n's are r's and such...

Not trying to be snarky or anything...the quote is just all over wrong.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:25 PM
link   
on dems crying wolf www.cnn.com...

The problem is that the complaint is based on second-hand knowledge, hearsay and various news reports. The whistleblower himself plainly says, "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described." Instead, the complaint is filled with statements that start with "I was told" or "I learned." Most egregious is the final line of the footnotes, when the whistleblower acknowledges: "As of early August, I heard from US officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that US aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it."I'm not an attorney, but I do know that would be unlikely to stand up in a court of law. Yet it is the basis of the impeachment inquiry. The cornerstone of the complaint is the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The complaint does not match the rough transcript released by the White House. The whistleblower claimed Trump "sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid". But the rough transcript indicates President Trump asked for a "favor" in investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. He also mentioned allegations against Joe Biden's son, and said "if you can look into it." Most importantly, it does not show a quid pro quo arrangement
so umm from cnn not fox not breibart or gateway pundit CNN the title of the article is "After the Mueller report, Dems need to stop crying wolf"

thehill.com... the hill say the same thing

and ny post nypost.com...

Keep crying wolf about Trump, and no one will listen when there’s a real crisis
from 2016 lol so yeah its not that we think hes above the law were just tired of the dems shotgun approach to tossing literately every thing he does or says at a wall and hoping something sticks

spectator.org...

Democrats’ Impeachment and the Boy Who Cried Wolf Remember what happened to the boy?
spoiler alert the boy got eaten just like trump is gonna eat the dems in 2020

www.salon.com... even left of marx salon calls the dems out for their shenanigans

The debunked "Russian influence" nonsense is infantilizing liberals The Russian money spent to influence the election was negligible. Its persistence as an explanation is bad for Dems
but oh no those evil russian memes that were alleged to influence an election oh woe is me ,the only major plot twist we have left in 2020 is exactly how bad the DNC is gonna Knee cap sanders this time and anger his militant base ,or weather HRC will jump back into the race near the late stages and hand the re-election of trump to republicans on a silver platter .

but we as republicans cant get lazy and over confident we all need to get every one we know voting for him in 2020 even if it means giving rides to people who need them as we cant make the same mistake Clinton voters did in 2016 and not show up because it appears to be a shoe in ,its why im either voting for warren or biden in my states dem open primary then trump in 2020 as anything that stokes dem in fighting before nomination is an extra boost to trump



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Admitted


I want the whole truth. I want firsthand witnesses.



You had them already.

Like an election, you can't stop the process because
you do not like the results.



No. I haven't. No firsthand witnesses. No Bolton, Pompeo, Trump himself, Mulvaney.

Not one. The senate can provide that. The house should have.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The House has completed their investigation and Articles called upon, it is DONE.

The Senate will now vote to acquit with all the materials currently present.

If you wanted witnesses, you should have called them during the House investigations.

Since that didn't happen, well too bad.
edit on 29-1-2020 by Arnie123 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2020 by Arnie123 because: Heh 😝



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'm sorry that quotation has a lot of errors. It must be pasted from a different language? n's are r's and such...

Not trying to be snarky or anything...the quote is just all over wrong.


Yah, it's English



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Admitted

Eric ciaramella, also known as The Whistleblower, must be called to testify



They only want the witnesses that work for their
treasonous agenda.

Its game over on Friday as far as it goes at the moment.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No, the math I get. I know how many it takes to remove. That will never happen. Not as things are.

My thread is about witnesses and why no one wants to hear firsthand ones.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Admitted

Well then, vote your opinion that is all you have left.

Call your Democrat favorite and tell them they blew it.







top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join