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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Obama Quid Pro Quo.....2008....Impeach?

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Another member pointed this out to me and I find this interesting. A possible quid pro quo deal from Obama.

Is this illegal? Can he be impeached for something like this? Taking money for an appointment?

Anywho...

Source



Subject: Steve phillips > > > > Wants to join ffa board and go see obama donors to raise $. Quid pro > > quo is that some resources go to his c4/527. Thoughts?


Now did this actually happen? Not sure...I have no idea who Phillips is.




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I was curious what a C4 527 was so I found a cached site that explained it:



527s

527s are where the real mess begins to happen. Whereas PACs can work directly and do anything to influence an election but are regulated by the Federal Elections Commission, 527s can only indirectly influence an election in exchange for being completely unregulated by the FEC. What does "indirectly" mean? Basically, it means "issue ads." That seems to be the biggest thing 527s do.

527s can raise money basically any way they want, spend basically as much money as they want, but they can not tell a person how to vote. In other words they cannot say "Vote for McCain this November. However, they can run an entire ad celebrating all the amazing virtues of conservatism and say "please vote with these issues in mind in November." Or, the can totally trash another candidate and say, "remember this when you vote in November." They do this because trashing another candidate can be defined as an "issue" and they don't specifically tell you how to vote, and are not directly affiliated with a specific campaign.

Sometimes 527s can do things that feel "fair." For example, if there was a 527 called Citizens for Health Care Reform, they might run and honest-to-god issue ad, talking about how broken our health care system and how urgent health care reform is. The ad would basically say, "hey we feel like this is one of the most important issues facing Americans today, and we urge you to vote with this issue in mind in November." That's a pretty pure issue ad. Of course, that's not how most 527s work. Most 527s are attack groups dedicated to trashing an opponent under the guise of an "issue ad."


So basically Steve Phillips wants to raise money for Obama while at the same time running a pac like thing that can't specifically tell people to vote for this and that candidate.
Or... Obama would be "donating" money to a 527... wouldnt' that kind of be conflict of interest?

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Thu Oct 20 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Could this be him?

www.americanprogress.org...

It would fit the bill...

John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and the head of Obama’s first transition team, founded the Center for American Progress in 2003
edit on 10pm31pmf0000002016-10-20T16:11:38-05:000438 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Another member pointed this out to me and I find this interesting. A possible quid pro quo deal from Obama.

Is this illegal? Can he be impeached for something like this? Taking money for an appointment?

Anywho...

Source



Subject: Steve phillips > > > > Wants to join ffa board and go see obama donors to raise $. Quid pro > > quo is that some resources go to his c4/527. Thoughts?


Now did this actually happen? Not sure...I have no idea who Phillips is.


Impeached for what?

It appears that he wanted to "see" Obama donors and some "resources" go to Phillips' 527.

Other than the mention of Obama donors, I'm unsure what Obama has to do with it.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It has nothing to do with Obama.

Trump supporters are just getting very desperate and probably feel a little betrayed that the released emails don't have anything bad in them.

So now they are at the point where they are grasping...finding Obama's name in an email and screaming impeachment.

It's kind of sad to watch.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

I don't care for the rest of your post but you're obviously a detriment if you think WikiLeaks has nothing bad in them



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: introvert

It has nothing to do with Obama.

Trump supporters are just getting very desperate and probably feel a little betrayed that the released emails don't have anything bad in them.

So now they are at the point where they are grasping...finding Obama's name in an email and screaming impeachment.

It's kind of sad to watch.


That may be so. I have yet to see anything damaging coming out of these emails.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: introvert

It has nothing to do with Obama.

Trump supporters are just getting very desperate and probably feel a little betrayed that the released emails don't have anything bad in them.

So now they are at the point where they are grasping...finding Obama's name in an email and screaming impeachment.

It's kind of sad to watch.


The best thing about you Kruphix is that your stand is very clear on all this... makes it easier to bypass your posts becauase they reak of Dem propaganda.

You see Trump supporters everywhere, I don't, I'm not even one of them.

But I'll be damn if i didn't fight amoral practice and corruption in politics and by nature I'm a man of balance and since the media refuses to deal with Clinton and all her scandals and the wrongdoings of the Clinton Foundation, someone else has to bring all this attention.

Your demeaning posts luckily cannot affect this. Although I know that Dems, including in my own country has a tendency to live by the rule that the faster you can repeat a lie the faster it becomes truth.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
All they have to do is impeach Hillary Clinton for mishandling of classified information while SoS.


Precedence has already been set where someone resigned office to avoid being impeached, and was impeached regardless by congress after they left office.

If they impeach Clinton, they can impeach the president for failing to keep his SoS in line.


It is all perfectly legal, the Republicans will not do it.
edit on R132016-10-22T10:13:12-05:00k1310Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R132016-10-22T10:13:58-05:00k1310Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14

log in

join