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.

 

‘Kushnergate’ is a big fat nothing-burger

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

He met with a banker from a sanctioned bank. Any way you cut this what he did was illegal. He wasn't in a position to act in a diplomatic capacity yet and if it was business having to do with the billions he owes on 666 Fifth Ave then he still broke the law because the bank is sanctioned and Americans are forbidden from conducting business with entities the state has sanctioned.
It's not a bull # story.
He's in a bit of doo doo now.




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Oh it's their fault?
What about his Twitter account. No one pushes his phone in his face .



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah I see. Thanks for the hypocrisy.


Thanks for not addressing the point - which clearly means you can't.

What's to address? You lectured me on jumping to conclusions when I didn't jump to any conclusions and have been saying the whole thread NOT to do that and you are defending the OP (and the NY Post) jumping to conclusions because of some flimsy bs reasoning about building a narrative.


The point of the OP is that WaPo have spun an old story to feed into a current narrative...something you seem to be ignoring. You dismiss the oddities of that approach, and yet cling to unnamed sources, protecting them with strange logic about an anonymous source in the 1970's.


The facts are pretty clear - WaPo re-purposed a story to build an attack on the current administration, with the only difference being an anonymous source quoting a letter they have not even seen. Justifying that by blithering on about an anonymous source from nearly half a century ago is weak to say the least.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Anonymous also doesn't mean reliable. Whose to say the letter wasn't written by a DNC staffer?

Do you think that when they get such a letter they accept it at face value? No they do as much as they can to verify the info. They don't just say hey I got a letter let's print it.
Many times the source is requesting anonymity. Not the paper.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The point of the OP is to dismiss the Kushner investigation because the source is anonymous. That is jumping to conclusions. Whether you like it or not Kushner is being investigated now for what he did before the elections. This may or may not be illegal, and we won't know until the investigation is either finished with him or indicts him. Until then saying one way or the other what will happen here is jumping to conclusions. You are being a hypocrite by accusing me of doing that while defending this stupid OP that is doing just that.

This play RIGHT into my original point about you guys not caring about these particulars due to your sycophancy. Thanks for proving my original point. Y'all will bend over backwards to defend this administration even if it means contradicting yourselves in the same conversation.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

The point of the OP is to dismiss the Kushner investigation because the source is anonymous. That is jumping to conclusions. Whether you like it or not Kushner is being investigated now for what he did before the elections. This may or may not be illegal, and we won't know until the investigation is either finished with him or indicts him. Until then saying one way or the other what will happen here is jumping to conclusions. You are being a hypocrite by accusing me of doing that while defending this stupid OP that is doing just that.

This play RIGHT into my original point about you guys not caring about these particulars due to your sycophancy. Thanks for proving my original point. Y'all will bend over backwards to defend this administration even if it means contradicting yourselves in the same conversation.


The OP is not just about anonymous sources, it is also about the fact the story has been recycled.
It is not sycophantic to ignore anonymous sources. It is wholly correct to ignore gossip until such a time something is proven. I certainly will not take a view that a half century old anonymous source is grounds for not dismissing gossip. Kushnergate IS a 'big fat nothing burger' until proven otherwise.

As always - when you have some evidence of any wrong doing then feel free to post it. Till then I will continue to assume innocence until guilt is proven.

edit on 5/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Here's something to consider...continuing investigation.
What happened in February was what was known then. What's happening now is the continuing part.

They are pulling the Manifort criminal investigation into it now and Meuller has said he is considering calling in Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein to question them about the memo they signed to fire Comey as it related to obstruction of justice considering trumps interview where he said he fired Comey because the RUSHER story was fake news. Remember???

More and more info coming in every day.
Continuing investigation.
On going story.
To be determined.
To be continued.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Sure whatever you want to believe to help you sleep at night. All I see is hypocrisy from you. I'm not allowed to jump to conclusions but you are perfectly allowed to do so because "reasons".



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not good no matter what reason Kushner gives for this meeting because the bank was sanctioned.

No one from the USA should have been doing business with them in any capacity and the bank has no diplomatic actions to employ as they only deal in big government real estate deals.
Not too fishy given the billions Kushner needs to pay over the next two years for the property at 666 Fifth Ave.
edit on 652017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Sources that choose to remain anonymous. You can understand that right?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Then why was Clinton and the foundation selling glowing stuff to Russia?
Uranium one?

It's ok for the Clinton cabal???

Please explain your logic



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Sure whatever you want to believe to help you sleep at night. All I see is hypocrisy from you. I'm not allowed to jump to conclusions but you are perfectly allowed to do so because "reasons".


No, once again it is perfectly acceptable to hold the line that a person is innocent until proven guilty and to dismiss unnamed sources' information as gossip. It is NOT acceptable to give credence to gossip just because half a century ago an unnamed source was correct.

If you want to live in a society that smears people with no evidence and tries people in the media, that is your call, but don't expect people who believe in human rights to play along.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".


edit on 5/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Oh I don't trust him in the slightest and he is probably just as guilty as the rest of that circus is, but as long as the investigation is ongoing I'm making a point of withholding judgement on guilt until it is finished. I don't want to develop my biases any further than they already are in case an outcome I don't like comes out. This is is why I keep using non-committal answers and am being vague about my opinions on the matter. Unlike the OP and the various Trump sycophants who have posted in the thread to support and star him, I know better than to declare a truism based on flimsy reasoning. I also don't have definitive evidence of Kushner's guilt and he isn't under indictment. So until that situation changes I have no basis to declare him guilty either.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
www.newsmax.com...


"Notwithstanding my personal affection for Director Comey, I thought it was appropriate to seek a new leader," Rosenstein said in prepared remarks for appearances before House and Senate lawmakers that were released Friday by the Justice Department. He even said he had discussed the need for a change with then-Senator Jeff Sessions last winter. Sessions is now Rosenstein's boss as attorney general.




Contradicting reports that Comey may have been fired after seeking additional resources for the Russia probe, Rosenstein wrote that he, his staff and acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe weren't aware of any such request.


Had Rosenstein not signed off on trump firing comey I think there would be trouble. With the AG and the Acting AG signing off on it no one will ever prove obstruction because of the firing.

Good luck with that "gottcha" obstruction game since there wont be any charges for collusion.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

How is carrying out an investigation a violation of "innocent until proven guilty"? Are you just throwing random buzzphrases out hoping that they'll stick as a realistic argument? Because you aren't making sense at all right now with the words and expressions you are using.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

How is carrying out an investigation a violation of "innocent until proven guilty"? Are you just throwing random buzzphrases out hoping that they'll stick as a realistic argument? Because you aren't making sense at all right now with the words and expressions you are using.


Telling people they are sycophants for not believing gossip from unnamed sources, citing a half century old example of a time when gossip turned out to be true is what you are doing.

Kushner has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Those that don't presume his innocence, investigation or not, are at odds with the human rights we all have in free society.

So, are you presuming Kushner is innocent?... doesn't sound like it...

Oh I don't trust him in the slightest and he is probably just as guilty as the rest of that circus is


edit on 5/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Telling people they are sycophants for not believing gossip from unnamed sources, citing a half century old example of a time when gossip turned out to be true is what you are doing.

You keep bringing that point up like it is some major concept of my argument. I merely mentioned that as a response to Network Dude talking about the good old days. Why you keep harping on it is beyond me.


Kushner has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Those that don't presume his innocence, investigation or not, are at odds with the human rights we all have in free society.

So, are you presuming Kushner is innocent?

Actually the system works by not presuming guilt until proven guilty; not presuming innocence until proven guilty. And legally, yes, there is a HUGE difference over being not guilty versus innocent. The first can be shown in court the second is impossible to prove. So in that regard, yes I've already stated in this very thread that I'm not presuming guilt.


So, are you presuming Kushner is innocent?... doesn't sound like it...

Please don't quote my words out of context as some sort of attempt at a "GOTCHA!" moment. I notice you didn't even finish quoting the entire sentence I wrote there.
edit on 5-6-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So do you presume Kushner is innocent?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not going to repeat myself a third time now.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not going to repeat myself a third time now.


You've not said it.. do you presume Kushner is innocent or not? Simple question.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join