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.

 

Trump's charity claims could violate fraud laws

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: panaque
The Clinton Foundation is completely corrupt. I dont think Donald has much to worry about on that front. Funny how the media portrays little things for Trump being so heinous, yet Killery gets a free pass on decades of wrong doings.


Trump's wrong doings go back decades too though... Charity fraud isn't a "little thing" either. It is a major white collar crime.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: panaque
Funny how the media portrays little things for Trump being so heinous ...

Too little. Too late. Once Trump cinched the GOP nomination it was over.

Now the long wait until Trump turns the name calling Hillary's way. It's gonna be like taking candy from a baby ... wailing and everything. Ahhhhahahahaha



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

The FBI is the best of the best. I think people forget they have the best people and resources at their disposable to pursue criminal matters. SD IG does not have anywhere near that firepower and that report was fairly scathing. It's sound reasoning and logic to assume the FBI will not be kind at all and likely uncover a lot more than what the IG found.
Maybe people turn a blind eye to it....so far they have so I see no reason for them to stop supporting her. She has her staunch supporters and so does Trump. It really comes down to the independents. I have seen this in another election years ago and it went to the lesser of the two evils. Right now I would say that is Trump despite the DNC media blitz. That works on their supporters but not on independents.
edit on 20-6-2016 by LifeMode because: typo



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
a reply to: Snarl
I have seen this in another election years ago and it went to the lesser of the two evils. Right now I would say that is Trump despite the DNC media blitz. That works on their supporters but not on independents.

I'm having such fun with this ...


I think Americans went with the lesser of the two evils in both of 0bama's elections. They're just going with Trump this time.

I truly see Hillary as a more despicable creature than Trump. Trump, not being an establishment politician, is simply the icing on the cake. Just look at how the establishment GOPers are taking this. LOL

What this election is going to come down to is getting people to the polls. I wouldn't waste my time voting for Romney or McCain ... and I'm expecting many voters feel the same way about Hillary. Am so glad Bernie fought all the way. His supporters (the vast majority of people ... not simply delegates) fall into that Independent category ... and are most likely gonna stay home and let Trump win by default.

Nice post, BTW. Welcome to ATS.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is a YUGE difference between what you have described and Hilary's PERSONAL email server. One is a charity that is run by a director who is not Trump and may have run afoul of some obscure laws. The other is cut and dried personal incompetence by Hilary. I am not sure what planet you live on, but it ain't the same one as me.


So because there is a difference between the severity of the illegal activities that makes it ok for Trump to have broken the law? Is that the logic you are presenting?


It doesn't matter what Trump does, it's always defended.

Even when it comes to possible illegal activity his cult following comes in to say, "But but but Hillary! But but but emails! But but but but but!," in a vain attempt to defend their messiah.

It's funny. It's clear some don't care about the fact that Trump could have possibly broken the law - they defend that. They're so blinded by partisan-politics they become "okay," with "their guy," doing the same sneaky # as the "other side," does. But when it's the "other side," they loose their minds.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: panaque
Funny how the media portrays little things for Trump being so heinous ...

Too little. Too late. Once Trump cinched the GOP nomination it was over.

Now the long wait until Trump turns the name calling Hillary's way. It's gonna be like taking candy from a baby ... wailing and everything. Ahhhhahahahaha


Yeah. About that. When is he going to get around to actually doing that? Here is an example of him dropping the ball on a real easy opportunity to do JUST that.


Last week’s violent anti-Trump protests in San Jose, which Trump ignored the night they occurred in favor of tweets about an upcoming visit to a golf resort opening in Scotland.

A normal campaign might have held events across California the next morning demanding Clinton and Bernie Sanders repudiate the protests and distributed messaging instructions to surrogates to push the story across cable news. Instead, the story was quickly overshadowed by Trump’s ongoing attacks on Curiel.

The protests would have also been an ideal opportunity to solicit donations from grassroots supporters horrified by the violence, but Trump – who self-financed his campaign in the primaries – is still getting his own small-donor operation off the ground. Source


Also how is him insulting that judge been working out for him? You can't still think that was a good move on his part do you?
edit on 20-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
When is he going to get around to actually doing that?

I would imagine about three weeks before election day. Hillary's past can't be re-written and there's no point in boring the audience.

Also how is him insulting that judge been working out for him? You can't still think that was a good move on his part do you?

I don't know. I don't give a fat-baby's-ass about Trump, and don't follow along with anything to do with him unless it's posted here on ATS. And then, only if it piques my interest.

Did the judge put him away on a Contempt Charge? Then ... I guess it worked out fine. Is there something I should know?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
When is he going to get around to actually doing that?

I would imagine about three weeks before election day. Hillary's past can't be re-written and there's no point in boring the audience.


Lol. That would make sense. Not just for Trump, but in politics in general. So clearly THAT card will never be played, and we all know how Trump likes to jump on petty insults and run them into the ground. So he is the last person to use good judgement like this.

Besides, less than a month before the election isn't enough time to reach enough people to swing the election in three weeks. Not with how well-oiled and able to combat petty accusations Trump can throw at her. Plus by then, his image will be so destroyed by Hillary's well-oiled attack that any votes he'd manage to siphon away from her would probably land at Gary Johnson's feet (though I will admit that I prefer that outcome FAR more than them going to the Trumpet).

Oh yeah, he also needs concrete evidence to make anything stick. You can say she is guilty all day, but with no evidence then you might as well be pissing in the wind.


I don't know. I don't give a fat-baby's-ass about Trump, and don't follow along with anything to do with him unless it's posted here on ATS. And then, only if it piques my interest.

Did the judge put him away on a Contempt Charge? Then ... I guess it worked out fine. Is there something I should know?


Yet you are defending him here. So you aren't a Trump supporter? Well in any case, let me fill you in. Trump's racist remarks against Curiel have apparently spearheaded a renewed surge to kick Trump out of the race on the right, has caused many Republican backers to rescind their support, and even call in doubt the party locksteppers who repudiated his words but didn't renounce their support. On the left side, they are jumping on it like an attack dog going for the throat, as has been shown by my source.

If you honestly think that Trump can do as much damage as Hillary in three weeks with what Hillary is doing to his image in the 6 months leading up to the election then I have a bridge to sell you. If he doesn't get in gear then his election results will probably be the most embarrassing election results for ANY general election candidate, which spells horror stories for the Republican party and Conservatism in general for the next 4+ years.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That was not a good move but I do see his point. The judge is a staunch democrat also hispanic. Sure he is not the biggest Trump fan on the planet. Thinking he would be completely objective is kinda hard to imagine.

But Hillary also insulted the SD IG saying it was all b.s. basically, just a GOP attack. Pretty much the same thing but she used a lot more tact.

Bottomline: Both defended themselves in full force and will continue to do so even if they are found guilty. They will blame it on a judge, IG, Head of the FBI. They will never admit to any wrongdoing.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That was not a good move but I do see his point. The judge is a staunch democrat also hispanic. Sure he is not the biggest Trump fan on the planet. Thinking he would be completely objective is kinda hard to imagine.

So what? You play with the hand you are dealt, and calling out the judge's race, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the case and him, is a textbook definition of a blow below the belt. There is no point to making that call.


But Hillary also insulted the SD IG saying it was all b.s. basically, just a GOP attack. Pretty much the same thing but she used a lot more tact.

Bottomline: Both defended themselves in full force and will continue to do so even if they are found guilty. They will blame it on a judge, IG, Head of the FBI. They will never admit to any wrongdoing.

Who cares about their ego? This is about the repercussions of their words. Something that Trump could give two #s about, but something that Hillary clearly cares deeply about.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yet you are defending him here. So you aren't a Trump supporter?

Nope & Nope.

I'll vote for Trump, because if he wins, he's gonna wipe out the GOP establishment ... and I hope Ryan is the first to fall. I also think he's gonna Fire a bunch of government slugs ... and I hope he leaves the positions vacant.

If Hillary prevails ... the wrecking ball is going to slam against the Constitution again. IMHO, it can't take another four years of punishment. Yeah ... I'm voting for Trump.

Thanks for bringing me up-to-speed on the Judge thingy.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Text

Text
How do we know the private email server wasn't deliberate because she had a deal with a certain foreign country who gave generously to the Clinton Foundation and wanted easy access to the emails of a high US gov't official in return??

Sal

a reply to: Metallicus




There is a YUGE difference between what you have described and Hilary's PERSONAL email server. One is a charity that is run by a director who is not Trump and may have run afoul of some obscure laws. The other is cut and dried personal incompetence by Hilary. I am not sure what planet you live on, but it ain't the same one as me.

edit on 20-6-2016 by SallieSunshine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Why aren't you voting for Gary Johnson then? At least he listens to others for help and isn't driven purely by ego.
2016 by the numbers: Will Gary Johnson disrupt Clinton vs. Trump race?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

Why aren't you voting for Gary Johnson then? At least he listens to others for help and isn't driven purely by ego.
2016 by the numbers: Will Gary Johnson disrupt Clinton vs. Trump race?

Because Gary Johnson's candidacy is only present to drain enough votes from Trump to tip the election Hillary's way. It's just as easy to stay at home.

Can you imagine what the SCOTUS is gonna look like if she picks the next set of Justices?

Can you imagine the outcome of a gun-grab? (and I believe she's just tyrannical enough to try and pull it off).

Can you imagine the spending spree Paul Ryan would have to write blank checks for?

Can you imagine Huma Abedin as Chief of Staff?

Can you imagine the 'luv fest' Bill and Anthony could pull off from the White House?

You think Hillary's not taking everything this time which is not bolted down at the end of her term? LOL

The reasons to vote Trump ... just to eliminate Hillary seem endless. Plugging for Johnson means all of the above ... and more. I wouldn't have participated in OWS even if someone paid my way there and put me up in a five star hotel. The two-party system is a reality. Much as I don't like it, I have to accept it.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Snarl

Why aren't you voting for Gary Johnson then? At least he listens to others for help and isn't driven purely by ego.
2016 by the numbers: Will Gary Johnson disrupt Clinton vs. Trump race?

Because Gary Johnson's candidacy is only present to drain enough votes from Trump to tip the election Hillary's way. It's just as easy to stay at home.


You should have read my link:

It's not clear whether Johnson would help Trump or Clinton more - the CBS poll, as mentioned before, found Clinton's lead slightly widening when Johnson is added to the mix. But Bloomberg found the opposite - that Clinton's lead is actually bigger when Johnson is removed from the equation - while Clinton's lead in the Fox poll was the same with or without Johnson.



Can you imagine what the SCOTUS is gonna look like if she picks the next set of Justices?

I have and I'm a-ok with it. Maybe drugs will finally be decriminalized/legalized. Especially the hold up with medical marijuana. Better than another several decades of a conservative court pushing against morality measures. Or would you prefer the number 1 contributor to domestic violence in the country, the conservative war on drugs, continues?


Can you imagine the outcome of a gun-grab? (and I believe she's just tyrannical enough to try and pull it off).

This is just your fears speaking. Regardless of any gun restrictions placed on the US populace, all existing guns owned by the populace would be grandfathered in. This is evidenced by the machine gun ban which did what I just said. So I suggest you stop humoring these fears. They are ridiculous.


Can you imagine the spending spree Paul Ryan would have to write blank checks for?

Paul Ryan? The Republican? Huh? Plus don't pretend like Republicans don't recklessly spend either; we both know that they merely pay lip service to being fiscally conservative. I know you're smarter than that. If anything, the answer to this question is more of the same.


Can you imagine Huma Abedin as Chief of Staff?

Sure. What would be wrong with that? Because she's Muslim?


Can you imagine the 'luv fest' Bill and Anthony could pull off from the White House?

So what? It may be unethical, but it's not illegal, so who cares? JFK is regarded as one of our best Presidents EVER and he slept around on Jackie FAR more than Bill did, and with far hotter women.


You think Hillary's not taking everything this time which is not bolted down at the end of her term? LOL

Rampant speculation...


The reasons to vote Trump ... just to eliminate Hillary seem endless. Plugging for Johnson means all of the above ... and more. I wouldn't have participated in OWS even if someone paid my way there and put me up in a five star hotel. The two-party system is a reality. Much as I don't like it, I have to accept it.

Well at least you are honest about selling your soul to get rid of overblown fears you've cultivated.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Like it or not, they're both entitled to due process the same as you or I.

The problem is that "you or I" generally can't afford to enjoy it.

Their being indicted during the election cycle, in the end, means nothing.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   


Even when it comes to possible illegal activity his cult following comes in to say, "But but but Hillary! But but but emails! But but but but but!," in a vain attempt to defend their messiah. It's funny. It's clear some don't care about the fact that Trump could have possibly broken the law - they defend that. They're so blinded by partisan-politics they become "okay," with "their guy," doing the same sneaky # as the "other side," does. But when it's the "other side," they loose their minds.


"could have possibly" is way different than definitely did, as Clinton's actions were. I'd also assign WAY more weight to the fact she's basically accepted donations from nearly ALL of our enemies via her foundation (a CLEAR example of conflict of interest if there every was one). It's a question of degrees of crookedness....


This is just your fears speaking. Regardless of any gun restrictions placed on the US populace, all existing guns owned by the populace would be grandfathered in. This is evidenced by the machine gun ban which did what I just said. So I suggest you stop humoring these fears. They are ridiculous.


It's hardly "ridiculous" given her public statements regarding what she thinks of the 2nd Amendment. Nor is it ridiculous when you consider the current administration's statements about guns. There is a very valid reason that this right is in the Constitution, and it has nothing to do with hunting or home self defense. Granted, it isn't like we'd successfully stave off a modern military takeover, with shotguns and pistols, but it IS a deterrent to keep a people free. The idea that an armed populace is a free one.

Besides, check this out: www.redflagnews.com...
edit on 20-6-2016 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
Pending Federal Criminal Investigation & over 30 Pending FOIA Lawsuits: Hillary Clinton

Civil cases involving possible fraud courses and charity donations: Donald Trump




One is clearly more a threat to American Citizens and US laws than the other. Not even close.



Hmm.... You number at least some "cases" against Hillary, but don't number anything against Trump.

Why is that?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Metallicus


One is a charity that is run by a director who is not Trump and may have run afoul of some obscure laws.


A director chosen by Trump. If he can't hire an underling who is neither incompetent nor a crook, what do you think his cabinet is going to look like?


It still couldn't look as bad as Obamas...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Metallicus


One is a charity that is run by a director who is not Trump and may have run afoul of some obscure laws.


A director chosen by Trump. If he can't hire an underling who is neither incompetent nor a crook, what do you think his cabinet is going to look like?


It still couldn't look as bad as Obamas...


If Trump wins, you'll consider the Obama years to be the Good Old Days.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join