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.
Judging by your OP and perspective, I'm not so sure you'll recognize Truth if it reached up and bit you on your arse.
originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody
That's the truth.
I would love to hear from some too.
The math does suck here. But mostly the partisanship.
originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
Surely if all the "evidence" is innuendo, hearsay and subjective interpretation. Witnesses that were there or have evidence can clear up this case and exonerate Trump.
If all the witnesses say, "this never happened." It should be a pretty quick proceeding.
What does Trump have to hide that they don't want witnesses?
originally posted by: Admitted
originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.
So, the withholding of aid for an investigation into a political rival is just bupkus? A farce? Completely false?
The many people to have attested to such are just bipartisan and want the President out?
That's what you believe?
originally posted by: Arnie123
Judging by your OP and perspective, I'm not so sure you'll recognize Truth if it reached up and bit you on your arse.
originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody
That's the truth.
I would love to hear from some too.
The math does suck here. But mostly the partisanship.
No offense, but you're trying to approach this through an emotional appeal and quite frankly, that doesn't work in hyper partisan environements, see CNN, MSNBC for examples.
You mimic the same language and it's nauseating.
originally posted by: toolgal462
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.
originally posted by: Tekner
originally posted by: toolgal462
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.
Give me the answer to 2+2, but not 4, I don't want to hear 4, give me a real answer
Fair enough, however, wouldn't mind watching the OP get eviscerated in their own thread for a bit longer.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think the OP knows that the evidence is nothing so the OP is more frustrated by the actions of the House than anything else. And why should the Senate aid in the ineptitude of the House?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
originally posted by: Admitted
originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.
So, the withholding of aid for an investigation into a political rival is just bupkus? A farce? Completely false?
Aid was not withheld, Ukraine received it.
The many people to have attested to such are just bipartisan and want the President out?
Yes.
That's what you believe?
Lets look at facts.
Ukraine got their aid.
The president, if he so chooses, can ask any nation a question surrounding corruption.
these two items are facts.
Indisputable.
originally posted by: Admitted
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.
originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: elDooberino
I'm aware that the house got the witnesses they could get without long court battles.
The White House prevented many from testifying.
Those are who I want to hear from.
They complain about no direct evidence and bar the people with direct knowledge from testifying.
Let's hear them.
originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: proximo
I think repeating impeachments are a terrible idea. The precedents being set here are atrocious.
Even more so if we don't see all the evidence. The House failed. I don't want the Senate to fail.
Hear witnesses. It's pretty simple.
originally posted by: Arnie123
Judging by your OP and perspective, I'm not so sure you'll recognize Truth if it reached up and bit you on your arse.
originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody
That's the truth.
I would love to hear from some too.
The math does suck here. But mostly the partisanship.
No offense, but you're trying to approach this through an emotional appeal and quite frankly, that doesn't work in hyper partisan environements, see CNN, MSNBC for examples.
You mimic the same language and it's nauseating.
originally posted by: Admitted
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Admitted
This is a PARTISAN POLITICAL process
Dems rule the house
Gop rules the senate
Were it actually a "fair" process these articles would not have been brought
Why expect more from the gop than the dems?
No. Had Trump not withheld aid from Ukraine for the purpose of getting an investigation into the son of a political rival these articles would not have been brought.