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.

 

Why I believe Trump and the RNC pulled a scam on the public with the TWO pledges they BOTH signed.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I believe the dating 'error' on Trump's pledge yesterday -- to not break from the party and to support the nominee -- was a skillfully crafted and intentional 'error' to absolve Trump from any future fraud issues because he has every intention of breaking with republicans and splitting the conservative vote at some point.

For anyone who wasn't paying attention yesterday, the media first released this version of the pledge -- BACKDATED to August 3, 2015 -- in Trump's handwriting:



After a period of time long enough for people to start noticing and commenting on the date 'error' -- probably less than an hour -- suddenly a second version appeared in the media that was dated in Reince Priebus' handwriting that read '9-3-2015:'



There was no explanation that the second version was a corrected version -- people just assumed it was. But I really don't think it was. I think we had the wool pulled over our eyes and clearly BOTH Donald and Reince were in on the scam.

Here's what really happened:

I noticed in a photo that Eric Trump posted on Twitter that Donald had a SECOND BLANK PLEDGE in front of him when he signed the first one. He also had not dated the first one, yet, even though he was holding it up and it had been signed.

Here is that photo:




Clearly, Trump intended to sign TWO pledges and so did Reince. ONE IS TRUMP'S COPY, THE OTHER BELONGS TO THE RNC.

The copy that says August 3 is TRUMP'S copy.

And he gave the RNC a copy with NO date, but Reince dated THEIR copy September 3.

***

Why is this a problem? Because it is a legal fabrication to backdate an event on an agreement/document/contract if it did not actually occur on that date. However, if you are backdating an agreement pertaining to an event that did actually occur on the earlier date listed, then you are simply memorializing it: legally.


Yet, on August 6, Trump REFUSED to make such a pledge on LIVE television at the Republican debates.


It's all very hinky, IMO, and clearly the RNC is aware of what these pledges say and their legal significance. So, for me, this just confirms that the RNC, DNC, and Trump are all in cahoots. (And, in my personal opinion I think together they have hatched a plan to deliver a Bernie Sanders victory, but that's a different subject.) Trump's copy shows the one and only date he INTENDED to write. Given the RNC's blatant knowledge of the two copies signed by BOTH parties to the agreement, it cannot be reasonably argued that the RNC is not completely IN ON whatever Trump has up his sleeve. I think Trump is just protecting himself from any Complaints his donors might file by backdating and then DISCLOSING publicly that he backdated the agreement.

Why was disclosing the backdating necessary?

Earlier, I was reading a legal analysis on backdating documents/agreements/contracts and I found some VERY interesting takeaways that explain how Trump has avoided any potential fraud claims from any third parties who may be affected by his backdated agreement -- namely donors who might actually have standing to try to recoup their donations if he breaks with republicans or does not support the republican nominee, etc… Normally, any third party affected by a backdated agreement would NOT be subject to the backdated 'effective' date, UNLESS the backdating is DISCLOSED to them.

Obviously, Trump has disclosed his intent to backdate the pledge -- these images are on his Twitter page.

Here are some SNIPs from the legal anlysis I read:


"Backdating, even in its most benign form, can potentially mislead a court or some other third party into believing a document was executed on an earlier date. To mitigate this possibility, backdating should always be disclosed."


AND


"By disclosing the execution date, no one privy to the document could possibly believe the document was executed on an earlier date."


AND….this is what the analysis says when the 'effective' date is different from the date that the agreement was actually signed (the execution date):


"When the dates do not coincide, the execution date is irrelevant to the event governed by the document."


Backdating legal documents -- Legal Analysis

In other words. Trump just happened to do everything RIGHT to sign a non-binding agreement and cover his butt from any fraud allegations by third parties affected by this pledge. I just don't buy that this is all so innocent and meaningless. It feels like silly games because it is.

***

EDIT: The fact is, this pledge is an agreement signed by two parties -- so regardless of whether it is entitled 'Pledge,' 'Agreement, or 'CONTRACT,' it would be treated as a contract if presented to a court of law.
edit on 4-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Remember this is / was a Pledge. Not a sworn statement. He can back out at anytime regardless of any so called date.
He is IMHO a Trojan Horse as I have said from the start.
Just a matter of time and he will do the dance. Giving the White House to Billary.... God Help Us All.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
It's hard to take a pledge seriously

especially when a billionaire signs his name with a Sharpie.




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DogMeat

It is an agreement signed by two parties no matter if it is entitled 'Pledge,' 'Agreement, or 'CONTRACT.' It would be treated as a contract if presented to a court of law.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Really?

This sounds to be almost as complicated as Barack's birth certificate issue.

Lets get Sheriff Joe on it immediately.






posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DogMeat
Remember this is / was a Pledge. Not a sworn statement. He can back out at anytime regardless of any so called date.
He is IMHO a Trojan Horse as I have said from the start.
Just a matter of time and he will do the dance. Giving the White House to Billary.... God Help Us All.


I agree he is a Trojan Horse 100%. I just don't believe it's Hillary and her ongoing email scandal that the DNC is banking on. I think it's Bernie Sanders. And I think eventually Joe Biden will enter the race to split Hillary's votes and throw the race to Bernie.


edit on 4-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
He should not have signed.

If I were in that situation I would have said nope, that just proves you will pick someone else instead.

It should not matter if someone else is chosen and he goes 3rd party or does not "endorse".

They seem to be scared he might get popular vote for Republican Candidate.



I think I ran out of care



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I want to see his birth certificate.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
Really?

This sounds to be almost as complicated as Barack's birth certificate issue.

Lets get Sheriff Joe on it immediately.






It's not the slightest bit complicated. Not for me anyway. It's just very sneaky.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MrDesolate

I am pretty sure his birth certificate was released...it's his PASSPORT that hasn't been released despite public demand to see it.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Lemme see here now.

MCain > Romney > Trump !

At least the GOP would be consistent.

Consistently stupid.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Lemme see here now.

MCain > Romney > Trump !

At least the GOP would be consistent.

Consistently stupid.



Or consistently compliant with helping democrats win.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neo96
Lemme see here now.

MCain > Romney > Trump !

At least the GOP would be consistent.

Consistently stupid.



Or consistently compliant with helping democrats win.


That I cannot argue.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Trump is a sellout.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: EvilBat

I agree with you. I was disappointed that he signed any agreement with the RNC. The biggest thing that Trump had going for him was the appearance of being disenfranchised from any political party and remaining outside of their "control". This pledge he signed made him beholden to the RNC. For that reason, I can no longer support Trump even for whimsical reasons.

Simple fact is he sold out... it also didn't take him long to do it. I'm glad it happened now rather than after 2016.


edit on 9/4/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I knew it was to good to be true!




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Trump should have signed the pledge because he knows full well that he has just been carrying water for Jeb.
Trump was told long ago that he had no chance at being nominated by the GOP. He played his role very convincingly though.

His Xmas surprise should be very entertaining....



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Trump should have signed the pledge because he knows full well that he has just been carrying water for Jeb.
Trump was told long ago that he had no chance at being nominated by the GOP. He played his role very convincingly though.

His Xmas surprise should be very entertaining....


Trump has hated and hated on the republican party from day 1. It is inexplicable to me why he ever began a campaign as a candidate for a party he clearly despises...unless his goal was to fracture and hurt the party from the outset...and help democrats.

(But I think they are all in cahoots and don't identify with either party or Trump in any way whatsoever.)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

Really?

This sounds to be almost as complicated as Barack's birth certificate issue.

Lets get Sheriff Joe on it immediately.




The law offices of Orly Taitz have been notified.




posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar

Trump is a sellout.


Or a buyout?




new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join