It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Perfectenemy
That doesn't mean anything. It's a post disclaimer that won't help and kind of adds fuel to this out of control fire.
The emails explained exactly who this information was coming from and what their expectation was in taking it.
Especially later in the summer...
This statement sounds like a lame attempt to say "nothing to see here" when indeed there is something to see.
Couple this with the Times revelation last week of the man claiming to work for Mike Flynn and higher ups in the campaign who was actively seeking those emails trump asked the Russians to supply. Mr. Peter Smith.
Unfortunately for them Hillary actually wasn't ever hacked and no one has her emails but I digress. He claimed in several instances not only to the Times but to other people that he worked for them.
Mike Flynn has yet to dispute the man's claims and the guy is dead. So Flynn knows something and indeed has a story to tell to use his own words and this man's story is in fact true or he would have disputed it already.
Yes there's an element of speculation there maybe Flynn will eventually dispute the story. I'm thinking he's afraid he will purger himself if he makes a claim not knowing what proof may be out there.
Then there are some money issues that seem questionable in context with the true narrative. Like an unimproved property know to have issues would be worth twice as much two years after it was purchased.
And the constant lies about contacts that keeps changing and being added to.
But maybe it's just me.
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You guys dont think lawyers didn't tell him to go ahead and release that, before he did? (i.e. Nothing Burger)
I need some of whatever ya'll smokin'!
Erasmus, the noted classical scholar, described lawyers this way: A most learned species of profoundly ignorant men. He had a point. How else do you explain the wild pronouncements of lawyers like Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter and Senator Tim Kaine, D-Virginia? Each have suggested Donald Trump Jr. committed treason by meeting with a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. All three lawyers earned their degrees at Harvard or Yale.
Yet, they appear to have slept through their class on constitutional law.
Now, amid the cacophony of claims that the Trump campaign committed the criminal offense of “collusion” with the Russians, no one has managed to point to a statute that makes colluding with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime.
Why? Because it cannot be found anywhere in America’s criminal codes.
There is one final law to be considered. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, soliciting and/or receiving foreign donations is prohibited (11 CFR 110.20). This includes “money or other thing of value.” Is information, by itself, a “thing of value?”
One could attempt to make that argument, but it has never been interpreted that way. Moreover, campaign election laws are rarely the subject of criminal prosecutions. The vast majority of cases are civil violations resulting in fines. But again, both Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer agree that no information related to the presidential campaign was conveyed.
If true, this statute is inapplicable.
As much as President Trump’s opponents may wish it to be, it is not a crime to meet with a Russian. Nor is it a crime to meet with a Russian lawyer or government official. Even gathering information from a foreign source is permissible. Unwise and ill-advised, yes. Illegal, no.
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Perfectenemy
So you think If the reporter had never written the story Jnr would have released his emails?.
Mahahahaha If you do you're an idiot.