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: 4
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Lol

Now that’s funny !

Snag



posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

that greta kid should watch out she will look like rgb in 90 yrs



posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

With the transcript of the call they were caterwauling over released, I'm not so sure. Executive privilege is a thing, and they would have had to prove there was reason to suspect the call was not what it clearly said it was in order to get that information.



posted on Jan, 21 2020 @ 11:15 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I’m not sure if they would have to prove anything.

Presidential communications are confidential .,

But under the 1947 national defense act. The President is required to keep the house and senate up-to-date on all relevant intelligence actions .

Trumps claims of Russian/Ukrainian interference in a 2016 elections would be an intelligence issue . Therefore by law they would be entitled to any relevant information . That would be a possibility to open the door . If the door opened their scope would be far reaching . Everything would be relevant .

At that point all that’s protecting the information is executive privilege.

It’s all a moot point anyway .

The Democrats were in such a hurry they failed to do the legwork then wait for the results .



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dr UAE

The first article (Obstruction of Congress) is the result of the House demanding information that the Executive branch thought should be covered under Executive Privilege. Per the Constitution, a difference of opinion between the two branches needs to be resolved by the Judicial branch.

House Democrats decided to not follow the Constitution and instead make it an Article.

The second charge (Abuse of Power) is merely the House attempting to redefine the Executive branch's Article 2 powers.

Something that also needs to be brought to the Judicial branch for interpretation if there is a difference of opinion between the Executive and Legislative branches.

Neither Article, therefore, is Constitutional.

Because Democrats in the House did not follow the Constitution.


Where in the constitution does it say the House must consult the Judicial branch to impeach?
edit on 22-1-2020 by Pyle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

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.


Like I said: they failed to identify a crime. Neither "Obstruction of Congress" nor "Abuse of Power" is a real criminal offense. The constitution specifies that Impeachment is reserved for High Crimes & Misdemeanors, which the articles of impeachment manifestly fail to establish.


The first article (Obstruction of Congress) is the result of the House demanding information that the Executive branch thought should be covered under Executive Privilege. Per the Constitution, a difference of opinion between the two branches needs to be resolved by the Judicial branch.

House Democrats decided to not follow the Constitution and instead make it an Article.

The second charge (Abuse of Power) is merely the House attempting to redefine the Executive branch's Article 2 powers.

Something that also needs to be brought to the Judicial branch for interpretation if there is a difference of opinion between the Executive and Legislative branches.

Neither Article, therefore, is Constitutional.

Because Democrats in the House did not follow the Constitution.




Where does the constitution say the Congress must consult with the Judicial branch to impeach?

Also the president has to invoke executive privilege and specify what parts of documents are covered and what testimony is covered. Trump has done no such thing. Instead just denied anything and ordered the WHOLE executive branch regardless of proximity to the president (executive privilege is protect the ability to consult with his closest advisers freely) to defy congress. NO president has done that ever.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

You're just now realizing that President Trump is radically different...just as he promised, and was elected for?

Congratulations Pyle! Better late than never.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

He promised to be "the most transparent president ever" but look where we are now. Hiding anything and everything he can from people.

Congratulations. you played yourself.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle


He promised to be "the most transparent president ever" but look where we are now. Hiding anything and everything he can from people.

Yeah, I liked how Trump hid the phone call transcript... right under everyone's noses! Genius!

Much better hiding place than, oh, I don't know, secret closed hearings in the basement under the Capital?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

or using bleach bit to scrub your computer.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: lakenheath24

Iran just put a bounty on trump. 3 million.

We're goin to regret not droning the Mullahs too.




Is putting bounties on presidents part of the geneva convention rules of war



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: carewemust

He promised to be "the most transparent president ever" but look where we are now. Hiding anything and everything he can from people.

Congratulations. you played yourself.


Trump"s "hiding" of things is just an MSM point and isn't real or true 👁️ 😃 👁️



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 07:12 AM
link   
It's just crazy watching people, who you would think are rational, intelligent people, spout absolute untruths and complete lies as if they are truth. Yet, this is what the elected Dem leaders have done, and then for some insane reason, rational people say "YEAH! I totally agree with them, I better parrot it to anyone within earshot or keyboard range". Then they have the gall to blame Repubs for doing the EXACT same thing they JUST did, and call fowl. I'm so at a loss as to how intelligent people push this insanity as sensical when anyone, with even a slight lick of common sense, can smell it it stinks so bad. It's madness. To me, it's some Twilight Zone crazy that I can't escape from. This can't be real.
edit on 22-1-2020 by BoscoMoney because: cuz



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 07:16 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.

I'm not sure I follow your logic, would you care to expand upon this a little more please. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Dr UAE

The first article (Obstruction of Congress) is the result of the House demanding information that the Executive branch thought should be covered under Executive Privilege. Per the Constitution, a difference of opinion between the two branches needs to be resolved by the Judicial branch.

House Democrats decided to not follow the Constitution and instead make it an Article.

The second charge (Abuse of Power) is merely the House attempting to redefine the Executive branch's Article 2 powers.

Something that also needs to be brought to the Judicial branch for interpretation if there is a difference of opinion between the Executive and Legislative branches.

Neither Article, therefore, is Constitutional.

Because Democrats in the House did not follow the Constitution.


Where in the constitution does it say the House must consult the Judicial branch to impeach?

I'm sure it doesn't, but it likely says somewhere in there the process for ratifying changes to the constitution and the powers of the executive branch. That would likely end with those changes being taken before the judicial branch, BEFORE, the impeachment process begins in order to have legal grounds upon which to impeach.



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Dr UAE

The first article (Obstruction of Congress) is the result of the House demanding information that the Executive branch thought should be covered under Executive Privilege. Per the Constitution, a difference of opinion between the two branches needs to be resolved by the Judicial branch.

House Democrats decided to not follow the Constitution and instead make it an Article.

The second charge (Abuse of Power) is merely the House attempting to redefine the Executive branch's Article 2 powers.

Something that also needs to be brought to the Judicial branch for interpretation if there is a difference of opinion between the Executive and Legislative branches.

Neither Article, therefore, is Constitutional.

Because Democrats in the House did not follow the Constitution.



Where in the constitution does it say the House must consult the Judicial branch to impeach?


The poster nor the Constitution says that the House must consult judicial to impeach. It does state that a difference between executive and legislative branches needs to be enforced via our judicial branch. As in their subpeona requests issue. Thus without the Judicial branch deciding and enforcing the executive to respond...the house subpeonas were null and void. Thus had no real merit to be considered Obstruction of Congress. That article should be dead on arrival when it hits the Senate Floor.
edit on 1 22 2020 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Pyle


He promised to be "the most transparent president ever" but look where we are now. Hiding anything and everything he can from people.

Yeah, I liked how Trump hid the phone call transcript... right under everyone's noses! Genius!

Much better hiding place than, oh, I don't know, secret closed hearings in the basement under the Capital?

TheRedneck


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



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
I would love a no kidding audit of foreign aid.
This is where the swamp is centered. How else do those congressional retards make millions.

a reply to: carewemust



Are you telling me it is strange how someone can be elected and by the time they retire from public service their whole family is wealthy????

SHAME ON YOU !!!



posted on Jan, 22 2020 @ 08:45 AM
link   
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



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join