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.

 

Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe

page: 27
39
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Way to avoid my valid point. And to brush up on your case law perhaps you can point me to the case where someone was arrested and charged for simply meeting with someone?

By the way...that Russian attorney...had her visa unblocked by the Obama administration after it was initially denied. Why would the Obama administration do this? Hmmmm....I wonder why.

If you want to use your "guilt by 6 degrees of separation" argument then it goes both ways.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: soberbacchus

Way to avoid my valid point.


What you said was not a Point nor Valid.




If you want to use your "guilt by 6 degrees of separation" argument then it goes both ways.


Trump Jr. is Donald Trump's son..Paul Manafort was his Campaign Chief, Michael Flynn his Chief national Security Advisor, Jared Kushner, his son in law, Jeff Sessions, his Attorney General..

I don't think you understand the words "valid" or "point" or the phrase "6 degrees of separation"..



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Whatever you need to tell yourself at night to make you sleep better mate. The application of my words is accurate and your continued avoidance of my point is noted.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Xcathdra

What if Trump is asked to go before the Grand Jury under oath and is asked if Comey's testimony was truthful, what if he says "I did not ask everyone to leave the room"....

Then Sessions gets called up and asked the same question and he said "yeah sure Trump told us all to leave"

Then Trump is open to a perjury case.

I honestly don't think we are getting too far way form that kind of situation playing out.


Lol. You guys do dream up these scenarios. I have to hand it you, the imagination is exceptional - we've seen it with the Russia collusion stories and now you are taking the fantasy further. Before long there be dragons in your story.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus



Trump Jr. is Donald Trump's son..Paul Manafort was his Campaign Chief, Michael Flynn his Chief national Security Advisor, Jared Kushner, his son in law, Jeff Sessions, his Attorney General..


Exactly.

All of whom were acting under direct orders of Donald J. Trump.

Of course it is possible to believe that the Donald is not in as much control over his employees as his TV show would have you believe. In any other campaign every last one of them would have heard the "YOU'RE FIRED" message months ago.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13




... And to brush up on your case law perhaps you can point me to the case where someone was arrested and charged for simply meeting with someone?


There are too many to list. Look up the history of companies colluding on price fixing schemes and illegal cartels. There are lots of instances of politicians caught up in that as well. Look up the history of political bribery.

That there haven't been any Presidential Campaigns get caught is down to the simple fact that most campaigns are professionally run; most are aware of the campaign election laws that prohibit solicitation of donations from foreign nationals or for foreign nationals to donate. Heck, I couldn't even get one of Obama's Birth Certificate mugs in 2012 because even though I'm an American Citizen I live in Australia and they wouldn't put themselves in the position of being criticized over taking my money.

§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
...
(g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.


Opposition research is most definitely an 'other thing of value' to a campaign and is prohibited by this law.

Trump Jr. has admitted (or claimed) that he took the meeting for the express reason that the come-on suggested that they had opposition research on offer. He didn't 'just take a meeting', he positively engaged in a conspiracy to break the law cited above. That there was no such opposition research forthcoming is immaterial; it is illegal to solicit such information from a foreign agent. Trump Jr. broke the law by his own admission; whether he (or anyone else) is prosecuted is a political question, not a legal one.

But the problem goes even deeper, in my opinion. The back-handed 'yeah but' we hear is that the Russians wanted to talk about US - Russian Adoption policy, and that sounds pretty benign doesn't it? Have you asked what that was about? Why would the Russians want to get the Trump campaign's take on international adoptions? Is the US blocking Americans from adopting Russian babies? What is that about?

The answer lies in the Russian's desperation to get the Magnitsky Act repealed. The main intention of the law was to punish Russian officials who were thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky by prohibiting their entrance to the United States and their use of its banking system. Although not named on the list of officials banned by the law, it is accepted that the individual that is caused the most trouble by this law is Vladimir Putin, because the banned folks are his proxies for him to move his bazillions around.

The Russians retaliated for the Magnitsky Act by banning Americans from adopting Russian children. So you see what it is that the Russians were REALLY talking about when they were talking about adoptions.



By the way...that Russian attorney...had her visa unblocked by the Obama administration after it was initially denied. Why would the Obama administration do this? Hmmmm....I wonder why.


That is incorrect. The Obama administration did not 'unblock' her visa because she never had a visa to block. I do not know why it was denied, but she was never the less granted a 'parole' to enter the US in order to help with a money laundering case. I dunno what 'immigration parole' means in this situation, but it is probably much more restrictive than any visa classification, probably in for a specific purpose and out immediately, no touristing, and do not pass go etc. How she thinks she could help the case is beyond me because it appears she doesn't speak English at all.

I expect the Immigration and/or Homeland security had good reason to deny her visa. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Southern New York tried to the humanitarian thing for her client and granted her the entry parole and got burned for his efforts because at the end of the case she billed the USA $50,000 dollars for her expenses (I don't know if the USA paid).

Natalia Veselnitskaya is a major lobbyist against the Magnitsky Act. In the last days of her 'parole' (that had been extended) she met with Trump Jr. to more Magnitsky lobbying and also hosted a showing of a propaganda film about it. Both of these would have been a violation of that 'parole' granted specifically for her to attend the money laundering case.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: soberbacchus

And to brush up on your case law perhaps you can point me to the case where someone was arrested and charged for simply meeting with someone?


That is pretty much the definition of racketeering or espionage.

Meeting with criminal or foreign elements to coordinate illegal activity and lying about it.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Looks like Trump will make fools of them again. Mueller is a well known Clinton fixer. Even if Trump or associates actually did anything. Which they have no proof. It will never hold up.

Brilliant Mueller. going after one of the few who hasn't broken the law. We're suppose to focus on this non event while the Clinton's and DNC criminals try to get away with proven crimes.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: soberbacchus

And to brush up on your case law perhaps you can point me to the case where someone was arrested and charged for simply meeting with someone?


That is pretty much the definition of racketeering or espionage.

Meeting with criminal or foreign elements to coordinate illegal activity and lying about it.



I met with my gardener from Russia. My plumber is also Russian. I even talked to the plumber while he was in Russia! better look out! Mueller might think he has a case!



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Not even close. By the way collusion is not illegal either.

Opposition research is not illegal.

Using your definition a police officer who arrests a person for murder would be considered a co-conspirator because he had to communicate with the suspect and read him his Miranda warning.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: soberbacchus

And to brush up on your case law perhaps you can point me to the case where someone was arrested and charged for simply meeting with someone?


That is pretty much the definition of racketeering or espionage.

Meeting with criminal or foreign elements to coordinate illegal activity and lying about it.


You've piqued my interest, SoberBacchus. You don't have to spill the beans, but just give us a hint as to WHO coordinated illegal activity and lied about it? Hope it wasn't someone you know well.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   
This is why Trump is President. These Bat Sh17 crazy Democrats never follow the laws. They are inept criminals. Now we have a normal President.

The Democrats think by obstructing and colluding against Trump we are going to then vote for them. Not likely. Looks like another 4 years for Trump to me. Especially if the voter fraud is stopped.




posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: soberbacchus

And to brush up on your case law perhaps you can point me to the case where someone was arrested and charged for simply meeting with someone?


That is pretty much the definition of racketeering or espionage.

Meeting with criminal or foreign elements to coordinate illegal activity and lying about it.



I met with my gardener from Russia. My plumber is also Russian. I even talked to the plumber while he was in Russia! better look out! Mueller might think he has a case!


Are your Plumber and Gardener Russian agents? Were you soliciting illegal political donations from them?



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Not even close. By the way collusion is not illegal either.


From Professor Wikipedia

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[



Opposition research is not illegal.


Opposition Research is something of considerable value to political candidates. Campaign Finance law specifically bars candidates from receiving or soliciting anything of value from foreign sources. Period. It is not the Opposition Research that is illegal, it is the attempt to get it from a foreign source.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: soberbacchus

And to brush up on your case law perhaps you can point me to the case where someone was arrested and charged for simply meeting with someone?


That is pretty much the definition of racketeering or espionage.

Meeting with criminal or foreign elements to coordinate illegal activity and lying about it.



I met with my gardener from Russia. My plumber is also Russian. I even talked to the plumber while he was in Russia! better look out! Mueller might think he has a case!


Are your Plumber and Gardener Russian agents? Were you soliciting illegal political donations from them?



You mean like the Clinton's? Taking multi millions from the Russians to sell rights to American Uranium?
Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Not even close. By the way collusion is not illegal either.


From Professor Wikipedia

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[



Opposition research is not illegal.


Opposition Research is something of considerable value to political candidates. Campaign Finance law specifically bars candidates from receiving or soliciting anything of value from foreign sources. Period. It is not the Opposition Research that is illegal, it is the attempt to get it from a foreign source.



And show us proof Trump has done that. Crickets...............................



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

"Collusion is not illegal" is literally a talking point ripped straight from conservative media outlets. In fact, it was predicted that the conservatives were going to start using that exact line before they ever did.

Talk about not being creative and being predictable...



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
ATS - Breaking: Hillary Clinton's Plea Bargain?


All of that will be forgotten when the arrest warrants go out Friday for some of Trump's people. Why do you think this entire N. Korea thing is blowing up?

Why do you think your fellow conservatives are attacking everyone else under the sun instead of supporting their own candidate?



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Then show me the US code statute for collusion.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join