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.

 

DJT JR Was Set Up by the DNC. Russian Lawyer worked for Fusion GPS, Group behind phony Dossier

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody

Lets pretend no law was broken.

Would you really be comfortable with the idea of the POTUS having won because of Russian interference?

Now laws may very well have been broken, but just take the issue of law out of it, its still very disturbing. What bothers me more than anything right now is how Trump supporters such as yourself seem to be ignoring this possibility, you are blinded by politics.


There is no evidence that Trump won because of Russian interference.
Moreover - foreigners also helped the Clinton campaign... in fact received money to help her.


Ok....

Its not so much about if Trump won because of Russian interference its more that if he won with it, if it was even part of the campaign then it contributed to his win

This whole thing could become very dangerous.

I find it strange how so many toe the "no Russian collusion" dogma on ATS yet at the same time believe 9/11 was a false flag. I say that because this could be potentially the next 9/11 in terms of its scale as a conspiracy yet on the worlds largest internet forum a lot of members are ignoring it or trying to paint it as something else.
edit on 11-7-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

I'm betting you're going to say you do?

Know the law?

This doesn't help you're argument you know.
It's such a childish way to try and I don't even know what you're trying to do...trying to make a point?
I don't get why everyone keeps asking me that question like it's supposed to prove something.
I don't know what laws
I'm not a lawyer.

But there are lawyers that do know. I'm thinking Bob Mueller is one.
I'm thinking all those special prosecutors he's hired for his team know those laws inside and out.

I know that this is a never ending story of Russians and trump and lies and hidden secret meetings and more lies, and I know that trump and Kushner are desperate for money.
I know the Jr. knew that the Russians were helping his father. I know he agreed to this meeting thinking he was getting dirt and it's obvious that the Russian lady expected something in return for her information.

The fact that she had no usable info doesn't matter.
It was Russia helping trump and trumps son accepting that help with the expectation of reciprocity.
That my darlings is collusion with a foreign national to mess with our election.

So cry me a river boys. He's caught.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody

Lets pretend no law was broken.

Would you really be comfortable with the idea of the POTUS having won because of Russian interference?

Now laws may very well have been broken, but just take the issue of law out of it, its still very disturbing. What bothers me more than anything right now is how Trump supporters such as yourself seem to be ignoring this possibility, you are blinded by politics.


What are you on about?
Now NO law was broken? Make up your mind.

The ONLY evidence I have seen of "russian interference" is stupid fake news stories on the internet. If you are so stupid that you believe everything you read on the internet without verifying it, you get what you deserve. I am "blinded by politics" because I know the onion is fake?

As you are from the UK as your avatar suggests? How is this any different that what has been shown as evidence?
www.theguardian.com...


Barack Obama has warned that the UK would be at the “back of the queue” in any trade deal with the US if the country chose to leave the EU, as he made an emotional plea to Britons to vote for staying in.

Is that not a "foreigner" attempting to influence your election?
Was it a crime?



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

No. If Hillary were involved in any pay to play shenanigans through the Clinton foundation, that in and of itself would be illegal... she was supposed to be fully detached from the foundation as SoS. IIRC.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

That would be a ridiculous argument. Good thing it's not the one I'm making huh?



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: shooterbrody

Most likely this federal election law:

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals



§ 30121.
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)
a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)
an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)
a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)
an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)


Legal Information Institute



This is all about the receipt of foreign donations.
Try again.


I suggest you read it again.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: butcherguy

No. If Hillary were involved in any pay to play shenanigans through the Clinton foundation, that in and of itself would be illegal... she was supposed to be fully detached from the foundation as SoS. IIRC.

What in the above ^^ indicates that the information of such shenanigans would have been obtained illegally.
Just because Hillary attempted to break a law doesn't mean that the Russians obtained any information illegally. If she presented a pay to play scheme, she would be breaking a law. If the Russians didn't pay, they would have done nothing wrong, but would have the 'dirt' on her.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Doesn't matter. They thought she did.
They knew Russia was interfering with the election. Russia told them they were working to get his daddy elected.
He agreed to the meeting thinking that it was going to be Tit for that. That was what he was looking for.
Mens rea...intent. LOL



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody

Lets pretend no law was broken.

Would you really be comfortable with the idea of the POTUS having won because of Russian interference?

Now laws may very well have been broken, but just take the issue of law out of it, its still very disturbing. What bothers me more than anything right now is how Trump supporters such as yourself seem to be ignoring this possibility, you are blinded by politics.


There is no evidence that Trump won because of Russian interference.
Moreover - foreigners also helped the Clinton campaign... in fact received money to help her.


Ok....

Its not so much about if Trump won because of Russian interference its more that if he won with it, if it was even part of the campaign then it contributed to his win

This whole thing could become very dangerous.

I find it strange how so many toe the "no Russian collusion" dogma on ATS yet at the same time believe 9/11 was a false flag. I say that because this could be potentially the next 9/11 in terms of its scale as a conspiracy yet on the worlds largest internet forum a lot of members are ignoring it or trying to paint it as something else.


So? The Ukranian Govt worked with the DNC to dig up dirt on Manafort to help attack Trump's campaign. What's the difference??.. apart from the fact the Ukranian help to the DNC was more involved and included the Govt, of course.
edit on 11/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Doesn't matter. They thought she did.
They knew Russia was interfering with the election. Russia told them they were working to get his daddy elected.
He agreed to the meeting thinking that it was going to be Tit for that. That was what he was looking for.
Mens rea...intent. LOL

There is a whole lot of conjecture in your post.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: shooterbrody

Most likely this federal election law:

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals



§ 30121.
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)
a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)
an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)
a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)
an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)


Legal Information Institute



This is all about the receipt of foreign donations.
Try again.


I suggest you read it again.


Like I said - all about foreign donations and campaign contributions.
Keep trying.
edit on 11/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

It could anyway.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




Now NO law was broken? Make up your mind.


I never said that I asked you a question.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I answered your question and asked one of you.

You chose not to answer and that is enough for me.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Doesn't matter. They thought she did.
They knew Russia was interfering with the election. Russia told them they were working to get his daddy elected.
He agreed to the meeting thinking that it was going to be Tit for that. That was what he was looking for.
Mens rea...intent. LOL


Clearly you drank so much blue koolaid that even you poop is turning blue.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No brainwashing needed on this side when it's all laid out.
Whole lot of brainwashing on your side to believe this oh it was a nothing burger. Because it's not nothing.

And it's in the news day after day after day and America is so friggin over the constant lies and stupid tweets and the inexperience and the whole damn dog and pony show.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

No brainwashing needed on this side when it's all laid out.
Whole lot of brainwashing on your side to believe this oh it was a nothing burger. Because it's not nothing.

And it's in the news day after day after day and America is so friggin over the constant lies and stupid tweets and the inexperience and the whole damn dog and pony show.


the only one dreaming of an alternate reality is you...Now say it with me: PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

When that Russian expects sanctions to be lifted by giving it yes.
Don't be an idiot. Of course that would be against the law.

Everybody already knows Russia hacked the DNC and actively worked to get trump elected. Everybody knows this.
Junior knew it when he agreed to meet with this lawyer with ties to the Kremlin.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Ares2493

This is getting to the point that if no legal consequences are faced someone is going to lose their minds and just start revenge killing.

This is insane. Is this a political party or a mafia run criminal enterprise?

Dont answer that.

There must be law that is respected or there will be no order to enjoy.


edit on 7 11 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: butcherguy

No. If Hillary were involved in any pay to play shenanigans through the Clinton foundation, that in and of itself would be illegal... she was supposed to be fully detached from the foundation as SoS. IIRC.


IF she were involved??
It's not even a question anymore that she was involved in pay to play with the Clinton Foundation.
It's been proven on several occasions.

To Sillyolme - your entire argument is ridiculous.
It's a pretty neat trick for the Russians to take over the minds of people here in the USA and get them to vote for Trump.
Russia influenced the election? Only in the deranged Leftists minds.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join