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.

 

I found the collusion from last summer.

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I think you need a minimum of three m's for that to work.mmmk?....much better.




posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I just lost 15 pounds in the last two months, I do exercises dancing love it, but sleep is been bad, did took a vacation last December, I think you are right, I need another one but nowhere you can go to stay away from the incredible disparity of what is going in America this days, the whole word is watching.



BTW JinMI, I thing you are cool, yes you are.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: buckwhizzle

I fixed it, per your suggestion



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Shamrock6

It's just different wording lol. Thanks for providing the code


Yea, different in that one is accurate and one isn't lulz.

And Jin is the one that posted the code. I just referenced it.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I won't argue your point. I'll even reinforce it.


Mr. Todd told Mediaite on Friday that Mrs. Wasserman Schultz’s email was a nonissue. “I think it’s clear what it was. Someone complaining about coverage,” Mr. Todd said. “Something that happens daily from every campaign we interact with.”


www.washingtontimes.com...

The bigger question would be; did DWS expect her intentions to be fulfilled, or was it just lashing out. Were/are they more than professional acquaintances?
Email titled "Chuck, this must stop"

“Chuck. See below. I would like to discuss this with you today. Can you reach out to Luis (Miranda) to schedule a call? Thanks,” Wasserman wrote Todd on May 18.





There’s just no evidence that the process has been rigged.

I haven't said there was. I said influenced. Same as the current round of news is. We're off the rigged hype now apparently.





Is this even on the same level as Sean Hannity being a part of Team Trump? Would you say that Sean Hannity's role in the last election and since should outrage people more than #RussiaGate if it turns out that there was collusion between Team Trump and the Russians?


Are we going to compare deep partisan "news" folks and then use them as cannon fodder after this mess is settled one way or another? I would actually be ok with that!

Honest question. Best guess, what percentage of MSM supported Trump/Clinton and what percentage was unbiased?



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

"Only trust news that comes from MSNBC."
-MSNBC



edit on 31-3-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: JinMI

I just lost 15 pounds in the last two months, I do exercises dancing love it, but sleep is been bad, did took a vacation last December, I think you are right, I need another one but nowhere you can go to stay away from the incredible disparity of what is going in America this days, the whole word is watching.



BTW JinMI, I thing you are cool, yes you are.


We all have the choice to tune out, if only for a little bit.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Trust me I do when I take off for the gym, but I been at home stuck sick right now.

Darn I need a break.

Thank you.




posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Sometimes we need an information time out.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Voting doesn't matter. The lobbyists are in charge.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JinMI

Voting doesn't matter. The lobbyists are in charge.



Simply because it's allowed to happen.



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Any comment on the collusion that was just shown in the OP?



posted on Apr, 1 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Yep. Treason, at least in the US Code, requires overt war to be ongoing at the time the act or acts happened.



According to the United States Constitution, Article III, § 3, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Not and, but or


However, Congress has passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the Espionage Act of 1917, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. Some of these laws are still in effect. Some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

link

Collusion isn't automatically treason, but it is adhering to an enemy here if Trump was plotting with Russia to turn the election his way. Or, if by winning the election he was planning to aid Russia with it's plans if those plans work against the United States

Also - we'd have to determine if Russia is an actual enemy. That used to be more obvious

A lot of iffing - it would be interesting to see how this would work out in an actual trial, or be decided by SCOTUS



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

A little too much "iffing" for the crime of treason IMO.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

The Rule of Law

This is why we have investigations - and trials. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there are things you and I can't possibly know right now. Not only that, there is no reason you or I should know them - right now

I've said repeatedly that things are not looking good for our Emperor. I form my opinions (opinions) based on the information that is available to me. Just the same as you

Treason is what it begins to look like to some of us. I would rather we were wrong. We'll see - won't we?


edit on 4/4/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Long before there is an indictment let alone a trial, prosecutors must find certain elements within their case and prove them.

Elements

The elements of treason are the same under state and federal law:
the defendant owes allegiance to the government, and
the defendant intentionally betrays that allegiance by either

levying war against the government, or
giving aid or comfort to the government’s enemies.
Because treason must be intentional, someone who unintentionally aids the enemy, or is forced to by duress or coercion, isn’t guilty of treason. (See The Defense of Duress.) There can be no accomplice liability for treason; every participant is considered a principal.


www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

We are not at war with Russia. No one is pushing for war with Russia. We are not buds nor are we enemies.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

No argument from me - everything by the book

I have nothing against Russia. I agree - how do we determine these days what an enemy is? On the other hand - I am not a fan of Putin. I'm not a fan of Trump either. Could be either one of them is an enemy of the people

The whole thing is exhausting



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Enemy is relative I would suppose. Last administration and current administration would certainly see it differently. Let alone the people's end user evidence and opinion.

Regardless, you are correct. It is exhausting, anything for the clicks/likes/views/shares/upvotes/ratings yadda yadda.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Enemy is relative I would suppose. Last administration and current administration would certainly see it differently. Let alone the people's end user evidence and opinion.

Absolutely agree with this

You know - we should meet back here in 6 months (3?) and see how much more we know - or don't know. I am guessing that you and I are viewing all of this from different positions. But we both seem rational enough, and even tempered :-)

If I had any gumption (which, I'm spending my gumption more wisely in other areas right now - except of course while I'm posting this) I would start a thread and start taking bets

Where are we heading, where will it end? Who will be left standing when it does? What unforeseen plot twists are waiting to freak us out even more than we are right now?

:-)

If it weren't for the fact that this is not doing our country any good at all, and it's pitting us all against each other - it would be a first rate TV show. I can barely look away




top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join