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.

 

What law was violated?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:04 AM
link   
I put this here because lets face it, in this day and age of trolling the thread would be killed anywhere else.

I keep seeing in multiple threads that either the president or his kid committed treason, or they are guilty of collusion. (such a nasty sounding phrase)

But here is my question, What law does collusion violate?

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.

Lets assume (yes I know what that means) for a second that trumps people worked with the Russians to get the wiki leaks that played a large part in Hillary losing out. Looking at the definition of collusion how does that word fit what occurred; how were the people deceived?

Now lets look at the other word that people like to throw around.

Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.
Historical treason :the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.


I do not even see where treason could be applied at any point in the last year, dirty politics sure, bad decisions you bet, treason though no.

So please someone explain to me who is guilty of treason and how the actions of this person fit the definition of treason.

I am not here to argue did they meet or did they not, did they work with the russians or not, I just want to know what laws were violated or how on earth is treason a good fit.




posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf



Lets assume (yes I know what that means) for a second that trumps people worked with the Russians to get the wiki leaks that played a large part in Hillary losing out. Looking at the definition of collusion how does that word fit what occurred; how were the people deceived?

So them lying about meeting with Russians during their interview for their security clearances wasn't deceiving people? Sure sounds like it.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

So thats whats wrong now, (honest question I have Russian fatigue not really following it anymore) not that they worked with Russia to get anti hillary information out there?

ETA: also what law was violated if they did lie?
edit on 18-7-2017 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Irishhaf



Lets assume (yes I know what that means) for a second that trumps people worked with the Russians to get the wiki leaks that played a large part in Hillary losing out. Looking at the definition of collusion how does that word fit what occurred; how were the people deceived?

So them lying about meeting with Russians during their interview for their security clearances wasn't deceiving people? Sure sounds like it.


That would 'just' be lying to get the clearance though. There is no conspiracy aspect, and thus no collusion.

So no, it does not really sound like it, when you think about it.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

There are a lot of laws that DJT Jr. could have been in the process of breaking by meeting with a Russian. Note that I didn't say representative, or official, or dignitary. Just any old Russian...

You see, if a detective thinks that I've done anything wrong at all, I'm innocent until he investigates and comes to his conclusions. Which he would have every legal prudence to investigate.

Nobody is saying for sure that Trump or his family or campaign broke any laws.

We're just saying you don't often get smoke without fire. So let's see if anything is burning, cause it's getting a little smokey in the white house.

Now, I did say could have or maybe a lot. That's why it's just an investigation and not a trial.... Yet.....

So this investigation will keep getting covered until it has run its course and the finding are released. Trump, as president, will have to work through that coverage of his ongoing investigation until it is over if he cannot do that well, which he isn't, it raises our pubIic doubt about his ability to lead.

Shall we see what the officials find before deciding we know what happened, please?

Or do you just know for sure what happened, no ifs ands or buts, and nobody will ever change your mind of that? Because if so, you're dillusional.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf



ETA: also what law was violated if they did lie?

In case you didn't know this lying to the FBI is a felony btw that's who did the interview.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it a federal crime for anyone who "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."

All of those involved should have their clearances revoked then placed under arrest.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: StephenLeClaire

You are the first person with a leftist bend (appearance) that kept it to could, or may, and that is perfectly and completely fine by any definition.

Many here, and definitely many in the media have already tried and convicted the trump family (in public)before the first piece of evidence has been shown to the public.

That is what drove me to ask the question, what laws were violated.

I did not vote for the guy, I will not vote for the guy in 3 years and 6 months, but that does not mean I will not defend the guy when absurd notions like Treason are thrown around.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DupontDeux



That would 'just' be lying to get the clearance though. There is no conspiracy aspect, and thus no collusion.

They did not reveal their connections with the Russians that makes it collusion.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

So you do not know the law he might have violated that caused the fbi to investigate him?



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: DupontDeux



That would 'just' be lying to get the clearance though. There is no conspiracy aspect, and thus no collusion.

They did not reveal their connections with the Russians that makes it collusion.


What law does collusion violate?



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

It is a crime for a campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign source. Conspiracy, not collusion, to commit a crime is also a crime.

Treason is just an emotional response.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Honest question then;

If as the trump camp claims nothing was taken by the trump team does it still qualify as a crime? (please note did not intend to violate a law just became a thing with the big wigs in that arena)

on a side note,IF as American citizens they were told these people had proof of wrong doing by Clinton should they not investigate, (note yes you or me would not we would call the police, or the FBI, but lets be honest the they have a lot more resources than we do) and report any evidence?



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Irishhaf



Lets assume (yes I know what that means) for a second that trumps people worked with the Russians to get the wiki leaks that played a large part in Hillary losing out. Looking at the definition of collusion how does that word fit what occurred; how were the people deceived?

So them lying about meeting with Russians during their interview for their security clearances wasn't deceiving people? Sure sounds like it.


If they did actually meet with the Russians about releasing info to WikiLeaks then yes they would be guilty of lying. But that's it. Lying...not collusion.

However, they didn't meet with the Russians about releasing info to WikiLeaks.

More over is it your contention that because truthful information released by WikiLeaks that exposed Podesta and Hillary for the lying, crooked people they are is a bad thing? Since when did becoming a more informed voter become a bad thing?

You're telling me you wouldn't want to know about an October surprise scenario with Trump?



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Yes it does still qualify as a crime. How or if it gets prosecuted is another matter.

No they should not have investigated, we don't do vigilante justice here.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Fine, on to the second part of my original post.

What law, do you know the law so folks can read up on it?



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I don't know if any law was broken if what jr says is the truth, BUT he and the administration lied about even having a meeting which makes me think they are hiding something highly illegal.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Treason? As I said, that's just an emotional response. I don't think any of this qualifies legally as Treason and I don't think anyone intends to set new precedent by trying to charge Treason.


The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.


FEC
edit on 7/18/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Nope, it doesn't. The first amendment trumps FEC rules.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Not all crimes require commission. For many, the INTENT to commit a crime is sufficient.



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

FEC rules aren't like that. In fact, FEC rules are more like traffic violations than actual law breaking.
edit on 18-7-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join