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.

 

Help me understand the Russian Collusion angle.

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Dudemo5
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.

www.fec.gov...


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

guess you know more than the FEC about this?


In order to be considered a "volunteer," it must be unpaid. That INCLUDES getting paid by the Russians or anyone else for the time you're said to be "volunteering."




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.
since your theory revolves around the meeting taking place with a Russian Agent working with the Russian government (which has not been proven yet), why not look into the other aspect that the Russian who met with Trump Jr. was also, at least close to the DNC, and may well have been paid by them to attend this meeting in hopes of linking it to Trump/Russia narrative. (Both are equally as possible)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Dudemo5
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.

www.fec.gov...


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

guess you know more than the FEC about this?


In order to be considered a "volunteer," it must be unpaid. That INCLUDES getting paid by the Russians or anyone else for the time you're said to be "volunteering."


how much was she paid and by whom?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Dudemo5
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.
since your theory revolves around the meeting taking place with a Russian Agent working with the Russian government (which has not been proven yet), why not look into the other aspect that the Russian who met with Trump Jr. was also, at least close to the DNC, and may well have been paid by them to attend this meeting in hopes of linking it to Trump/Russia narrative. (Both are equally as possible)


If that's true, it's shady as hell. Lock them all up. I'm not a partisan hack. I hate all politicians equally -- well, no, that's not true. I dislike Trump a bit more than most. But I certainly wouldn't go the mat to keep Shillary out of jail.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grambler




So why did the FBI not want access to the evidence themselves?


A question they will never answer. I suspect this whole conspiracy hinges on it.




“CrowdStrike is pretty good. There’s no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate,” the intelligence official said, adding they were confident Russia was behind the widespread hacks


I guess when you do this as your business people are going to assume you know what you're doing. Crowd Strike has clients from all over the world. They probably know a thing or two or three about computer forensics.

I bet if the FBI did examine the servers and came to the same conclusion you guys would say they are lying anyway.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Dudemo5
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.

www.fec.gov...


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

guess you know more than the FEC about this?


In order to be considered a "volunteer," it must be unpaid. That INCLUDES getting paid by the Russians or anyone else for the time you're said to be "volunteering."


how much was she paid and by whom?


I don't have dollar amounts. But her involvement in the Magnitsky Act was definitely the result of a paid gig working for a Russian client. So unless you're suggesting this lawyer is now working off the clock, she was being paid by somebody. That doesn't make the meeting "shady" in and of itself, but it does mean she doesn't qualify as a volunteer under U.S. Law.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Just the top three that control the other fourteen did but what does that friggin matter? If only one said it. It's still true.

This flag you're waving is a bit tattered my dear. It doesn't matter if it was seventeen or twenty nine or one. The fact remains they did it.

Time to move on.
Or don't, but you'll continually be wrong. Or laboring a moot point. Neither is optimal.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61

I don't really have an opinion on that. It seems the FBI has used them before.


Somehow I think that if the FBI announced today that they had reliable third-party information that cleared Trump of any collusion, you'd have a pretty strong opinion about it.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Apparently in a political campaign you are legally obligated to help cover up crimes of your opponent.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Just the top three that control the other fourteen did but what does that friggin matter? If only one said it. It's still true.

This flag you're waving is a bit tattered my dear. It doesn't matter if it was seventeen or twenty nine or one. The fact remains they did it.

Time to move on.
Or don't, but you'll continually be wrong. Or laboring a moot point. Neither is optimal.


Er no, if an agency says something it is not automatically true - as we know for certain from history.
If and when they provide evidence then we can say it is true.
Until then it is speculation based on the words of known liars and manipulators.

I'll wait for evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, thanks.
edit on 7/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

It seemed like you were suggesting she was paid by the Russian Government. She's a lawyer, so yea, they get paid no matter who dies, or who goes to jail. it's who pays them that determines their allegiance.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Why on earth would we have an FBI if we can choose when to use it?

If it was a state sponsored attack, you could know 3 things about computers and know nothing of state of the art, millitary, or intelligence capabilities.

The fact that they hid the server instead of saying "here look at this", says it all.

Even if they chose to have a private firm look it over, they obstructed justice by not giving it to the FBI first. We dont know if they have a mole, are compromised or are idiots.

Thats why we have an FBI. So they can do their job.


edit on 8 7 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

And if they had you'd claim that they were biased in favor of Clinton.
No way for the DNC to be right here.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61

I don't really have an opinion on that. It seems the FBI has used them before.


Somehow I think that if the FBI announced today that they had reliable third-party information that cleared Trump of any collusion, you'd have a pretty strong opinion about it.


I'd have a lot of questions about it, but I would not dismiss the possibility out of hand.

My primary question would be around how this "third party" was able to provide proof that explained all the evidence collected to this point while simultaneously absolving Trump. It's hard to even fathom how a single witness could accomplish that. But I would certainly be willing to hear the argument, which even if it remained partly classified, I imagine the FBI would provide information on, when cleared to do so.

edit on 7-8-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61

I don't really have an opinion on that. It seems the FBI has used them before.


Somehow I think that if the FBI announced today that they had reliable third-party information that cleared Trump of any collusion, you'd have a pretty strong opinion about it.


BINGO!!!

And they all now this deep down too. Again, not one person has given any reason at all why the FBI wouldn't look at the server themselves.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Dudemo5
As I've pointed out multiple times, the "volunteer exception" to the Campaign Finance law DOES NOT APPLY if the Russian members of that meeting are being paid by the Russian government.

The campaign finance rules apply.

www.fec.gov...


Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.

guess you know more than the FEC about this?


In order to be considered a "volunteer," it must be unpaid. That INCLUDES getting paid by the Russians or anyone else for the time you're said to be "volunteering."


Volunteer or not it doesn't matter - there is no precedent for what you are saying.
You sound like Chris Cuomo saying that we're not allowed to view wikileaks and only they can tell us what they said.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Dudemo5

It seemed like you were suggesting she was paid by the Russian Government. She's a lawyer, so yea, they get paid no matter who dies, or who goes to jail. it's who pays them that determines their allegiance.


That's a fair point. But yeah, my main point was that she cannot be both a volunteer and a paid participant at the same time, under U.S. election law, so the "volunteer exception" to that campaign finance law does not apply.

I still don't claim to know how it would shake out in court, but if the charge didn't stick, the volunteer clause would not be "WHY" it wouldn't stick.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61

I don't really have an opinion on that. It seems the FBI has used them before.


Somehow I think that if the FBI announced today that they had reliable third-party information that cleared Trump of any collusion, you'd have a pretty strong opinion about it.


Don't be so sure. I despise Trump to be sure however I often think he is too stupid to have pulled any of this off. Manafort and the rest are a different story though.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: underpass61

I don't really have an opinion on that. It seems the FBI has used them before.


Somehow I think that if the FBI announced today that they had reliable third-party information that cleared Trump of any collusion, you'd have a pretty strong opinion about it.


Especially if that 3rd Party was hired by Trump!
It's hilarious that a company hired by the DNC to support the DNC's claim would be seen as credible enough to not warrant the FBI doing their own investigation, but this is the type of silliness we're having to listen to.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

And if they had you'd claim that they were biased in favor of Clinton.
No way for the DNC to be right here.


I disagree with you. I would have still wanted to see proof, but I would not have automaticaly said they were wrong.

But why focus on these hypotheticals about what others would do.

You should be concerned with you.

You are a-ok with the FBI not looking at this server. That is ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join