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.

 

The year 2020 is when our Constitution finally got flushed down the toilet

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
However, you should lay the blame at the feet of the Democrats for being just bad lawyers and managers.

There's little doubt that the whole impeachment was a waste of valuable time and energy in addition to being poorly executed. The Democrats would have been much better served by trying to find a viable candidate who doesn't have the Clinton stink on them and who can articulate a policy of progressive economic growth coupled with social compassion. Where's that candidate?


Oh, and I'm hearing that some Dems are now calling for Pelosi (you like her and think she's doing a great job) to resign.

She was going to be a huge player in the Clinton Administration. But that didn't happen. Instead she let an obsession cripple the party when it should have been rebuilding. It makes sense for her to go away.




posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


" Trump's acquittal does not mean he is innocent. "


Yes It Does .........................NEXT .....




posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightFlight
a reply to: dfnj2015

What and/or which crime(s) ?

Please cite specific US Code Number(s).

I want to know...


Good luck, I've asked several times and have been ignored every time.

The funny thing about this is the irony of it all. We'll find out in November if the rest of the country was paying attention.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: elDooberino

POTUS should not be using his power to pressure other countries into investigating political opponents. Even if there is evidence to suggest there may be corruption. It's a conflict of interest.

Trump has interest and gain involved in having Biden investigated. Therefore, he should not use his power to be involved in a Biden investigation.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: dfnj2015

It says in the Constitution that after impeachment there is a trial before the Senate.

Surely at a trial you examine evidence and take witness testimony? Surely a fair trial is to determine if someone acted as alleged in the charges? To acquit or convict based on party allegiance is a travesty against the Constitution.

What happened in the Senate was not a trial.


A Senate trial is not the same as a trial you see on a TV show.
There is no requirement to call additional witnessess. The rules were followed.
The Impeachment managers were allowed to bring forward all the testimony from their witnesses.


But not the witnesses themselves. You cannot cross-examine a piece of paper.


A vote on additional witnesses was actually allowed but they were denied by a majority in the Senate.

It sounds to me like you want, in this case, the MINORITY party in the Senate, who had just brought a partisan impeachment from the House, to dictate the rules. In other words, reagrdless of who the PEOPLE have placed in Congress, you want your party to dictate everything.


It wasn't supposed to be about party allegiance. It was supposed to be a trial.


Well, tough luck.

The Constitution worked beautifully once again- a partisan impeachment with zero evidence of any crime and a bunch of accusations claiming the nebulous abuse of power was thrown out - just as it should have been.


There was evidence and two articles of impeachment. It was thrown out along party lines. Now there are those who are suggesting that the Republican senators who wanted to actually evaluate the charges are "traitors to the party and to Trump".

How messed up is that?


The Senate are jurors. Not prosecutors or defence lawyers.
If you were so woried about cross examination you'd have been up in arms that the President's lawyers were not allowed to cross examine in the House investigation or supply their own witnesses. You said nothing. So spare us the sanctimonious babble.

The case was thrown out because there was zero evidence of any crime and an unwillingness to entertain the acutely partisan Democrats for one moment more than was necessary.

Quite the contrary to your ridiculous screeching in the OP, the Constitution held firm and protected the country from the vile partisanship the founders were actually concerned about.
edit on 6/2/2020 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Surely at a trial you examine evidence and take witness testimony? Surely a fair trial is to determine if someone acted as alleged in the charges? To acquit or convict based on party allegiance is a travesty against the Constitution.


Evidence and witness testimony happens in Congress. The Senate's job is to vote on if removal is necessary. It's should be a UNANIMOUS decision not to remove a President because somebody, who may not even exist and was not called by the Democrat lead House to testify about exactly why he should be removed. Jeez, you talk about evidence and testimony as if the House allowed it. And don't call me Shirly.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

For one thing, there's been no direct evidence that he pressured anyone. The people who were supposedly pressured deny it.
Like it or not, the President has the authority to request a corruption investigation when a legitimate basis exists. In fact, some would argue it's his responsibility to look into such matters, especially when the appearance of impropriety is so publicly visible.

Don't forget. We now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Trump campaign was unlawfully surveilled by the Obama administration. It continued into his administration.
Maybe I missed it but I don't really recall you expressing any concern about that. Do you think people should be held accountable for that?



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:31 PM
link   
49% approval now, up 10 points, and Democrats going on TV saying Gallup polls can't be trusted now.

I've been telling you idiots for years you're doing nothing but alienating moderates and Independents. Keep doubling down on the # that lost you 2016. Cause it can't possibly be that you did anything wrong.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: dfnj2015

It says in the Constitution that after impeachment there is a trial before the Senate.

Surely at a trial you examine evidence and take witness testimony? Surely a fair trial is to determine if someone acted as alleged in the charges? To acquit or convict based on party allegiance is a travesty against the Constitution.

What happened in the Senate was not a trial.


And what happened in the house was not an investigation. I’m not being contrary, this time. I’m just letting you know your confirmation bias is showing.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: elDooberino

POTUS should not be using his power to pressure other countries into investigating political opponents. Even if there is evidence to suggest there may be corruption. It's a conflict of interest.

Trump has interest and gain involved in having Biden investigated. Therefore, he should not use his power to be involved in a Biden investigation.


Are you THAT UNAWARE of the

TREATY OBLIGATION (Clinton era treaty)

to investigate the corruption prior to releasing aid $$$?????????

Perhaps if you spent less time guzzling Kool-Aid, you'd have more time to learn some real facts vs the Marxist globalist MSM brainwashing lies from the wholly owned media 04:00 talking points dispensed to their media stooges.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: chr0naut
I think that if you look to history, America abolished slavery very late in the piece. Also, it's current incarceration rates show that it is probably one of the least 'free' countries in the world (in terms of the personal liberty of its citizens). Even in fiscal terms, nothing is really 'free' in America.

And, while there are, and have been many brave Americans, there are and have been many American cowards. America does not have any special social standing in that regard.

So the whole "land of the free and home of the brave" is just jingoist nationalist nonsense and has been since Francis Scott Key penned it in a 'wild-West' America with crime, poverty, slavery, and vast injustice.


... and that my friends is why its ok for our government to try and take away our ability to vote for our representatives, because we aren't really free anyway so why should it even matter.




If Trump were removed, it doesn't change your right to vote.

One might say that the Electoral College seriously messes with your voting rights, in terms of the value of the average American's vote.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: dfnj2015

It says in the Constitution that after impeachment there is a trial before the Senate.

Surely at a trial you examine evidence and take witness testimony? Surely a fair trial is to determine if someone acted as alleged in the charges? To acquit or convict based on party allegiance is a travesty against the Constitution.

What happened in the Senate was not a trial.


A Senate trial is not the same as a trial you see on a TV show.
There is no requirement to call additional witnessess. The rules were followed.
The Impeachment managers were allowed to bring forward all the testimony from their witnesses.


But not the witnesses themselves. You cannot cross-examine a piece of paper.


A vote on additional witnesses was actually allowed but they were denied by a majority in the Senate.

It sounds to me like you want, in this case, the MINORITY party in the Senate, who had just brought a partisan impeachment from the House, to dictate the rules. In other words, reagrdless of who the PEOPLE have placed in Congress, you want your party to dictate everything.


It wasn't supposed to be about party allegiance. It was supposed to be a trial.


Well, tough luck.

The Constitution worked beautifully once again- a partisan impeachment with zero evidence of any crime and a bunch of accusations claiming the nebulous abuse of power was thrown out - just as it should have been.


There was evidence and two articles of impeachment. It was thrown out along party lines. Now there are those who are suggesting that the Republican senators who wanted to actually evaluate the charges are "traitors to the party and to Trump".

How messed up is that?


The Senate are jurors. Not prosecutors or defence lawyers.
If you were so woried about cross examination you'd have been up in arms that the President's lawyers were not allowed to cross examine in the House investigation or supply their own witnesses. You said nothing. So spare us the sanctimonious babble.

The case was thrown out because there was zero evidence of any crime and an unwillingness to entertain the acutely partisan Democrats for one moment more than was necessary.

Quite the contrary to your ridiculous screeching in the OP, the Constitution held firm and protected the country from the vile partisanship the founders were actually concerned about.


I am incapable of screeching in a text-based forum. Your language gives you away.




posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff


If the free press is supposedly anti-Trump, you must have learned about all those "vile things" from some other source.

What is the source of your information about the "vile things" that the Dems have supposed to have done?

Nancy, Chuck, and Adam’s projection.

From the horses mouth so to speak.


The 'projection' that you see on the media is also partisan and very brief. It is clearly being propagandized.


I agree that both “sides” employ propaganda as their tool of their trades.

I also believe that partisanship was on display in BOTH the House and the Senate.

Where I have a problem is with the double standards in relation to the Constitution. It is obvious to me, and I am not an American, that the Dems and some of the Repubs have a hate on for this President and they are using the Constitution as a tool like never before.

Nearly all of the past Presidents that I can think of have strayed from their mandate one way or another. Trump has done nothing worse than they have done yet the media outrage and politicization of the impeachment process is unprecedented.

I didn’t like Bush, Obama, or my very own Trudeau. They have all done some shady stuff. Why the over the top outrage with Trump?


Trump's response to nearly everything is over the top outrage.

In a screaming match, keeping a measured tone just ensures you are never heard, so, in for a penny, in for a pound...




posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Alright, alright. Just tell me this: Why do you suppose Schiff read a fake transcript of the phone call?
Impeachment is serious business; not an SNL skit.
They treated it like a joke and the country laughed in their faces.

But I really would love for a true democrat to explain this to me.

Republican logic tells me when you’re in the right you don’t have to lie.
I have no idea how a democrat thinks
edit on 6-2-2020 by Guiltyguitarist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut




Surely at a trial you examine evidence and take witness testimony? Surely a fair trial is to determine if someone acted as alleged in the charges? To acquit or convict based on party allegiance is a travesty against the Constitution.


Evidence and witness testimony happens in Congress. The Senate's job is to vote on if removal is necessary. It's should be a UNANIMOUS decision not to remove a President because somebody, who may not even exist and was not called by the Democrat lead House to testify about exactly why he should be removed. Jeez, you talk about evidence and testimony as if the House allowed it. And don't call me Shirly.


Trump impeachment: White House blocks crucial witness from testifying to congress - The Independent

Also, the requirement is not to be unanimous (even when written in capitals) but is supposed to be at least a 2/3rd's majority of the Senators.

edit on 6/2/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist




And what happened in the house was not an investigation.


The House investigated, and tried even more, but were obstructed at every turn. Hence the article of impeachment for obstruction.


I’m just letting you know your confirmation bias is showing.


Mirror, mirror.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: chr0naut




Surely at a trial you examine evidence and take witness testimony? Surely a fair trial is to determine if someone acted as alleged in the charges? To acquit or convict based on party allegiance is a travesty against the Constitution.


Evidence and witness testimony happens in Congress. The Senate's job is to vote on if removal is necessary. It's should be a UNANIMOUS decision not to remove a President because somebody, who may not even exist and was not called by the Democrat lead House to testify about exactly why he should be removed. Jeez, you talk about evidence and testimony as if the House allowed it. And don't call me Shirly.


Trump impeachment: White House blocks crucial witness from testifying to congress - The Independent


And you're aware, of course, that other presidents have done the same thing, including President Obama, and you had no problem with it. Everyone here knows you're just a partisan hack.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein


Evidence and witness testimony happens in Congress. The Senate's job is to vote on if removal is necessary


The Senate is part of Congress.

Their job, in impeachment, is the trial. Trials involve witnesses and evidence.




posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


President's lawyers were not allowed to cross examine in the House investigation or supply their own witnesses.


Republicans were present in the scif. They were allowed equal time to question. The president refused to send counsel for the open hearings, when offered. Several of the witnesses were ones republicans wanted to be called.

Stop lying.



posted on Feb, 6 2020 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: chr0naut

Alright, alright. Just tell me this: Why do you suppose Schiff read a fake transcript of the phone call?
Impeachment is serious business; not an SNL skit.
They treated it like a joke and the country laughed in their faces.

But I really would love for a true democrat to explain this to me.

Republican logic tells me when you’re in the right you don’t have to lie.
I have no idea how a democrat thinks


Schiff was clearly putting some spin on, and trying to reinterpret, the official transcript. The clue was where he said, "My summary of the president’s call was meant to be at least part in parody, ... Of course the president never said if I — if you don’t understand me, I’ll say it seven more times."

Since the actual transcript was already released publicly at the time, I'd hardly think that anyone who had been following the news was in any confusion about the fact that Schiff was trying to paraphrase the transcript.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join