It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FBI Raided Manaforts House

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 10:28 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

When all this is done will you be this positive Trump is guilty . If you have no issue with an all out war to take out a elected President , I feel sorry for you . All this is going to do is keep nothing getting done as the norm . I have issues with both parties . To many people have put their live on the line for this Government to operate this way .

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 10:30 PM
a reply to: ElBori

so, you wouldn't mind if someone hacked your bank's database, or maybe your favorite online store and passed out your financial information and your credit ended up being screwed?? as far as you are concerned, the person who hacked did nothing wrong, just the the bank or company that was hacked and the one who used the information they received?? but as far as the actually hacking, well... all's fair?

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 10:51 PM
How long do you think this garbage will take ? Fire everybody and push the reset button . Make a law that Hillary is Vice president . Then when Pence leaves his suicide note she can fix the world .

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 10:57 PM
a reply to: 10uoutlaw

how about we just leave hillary out of this???
just hope and pray that pence has managed to stay out of this mess..
then if they find that trump is dirty, they can impeach him and pence can take over...
I really don't like pence but at this point, I think he would be a massive improvement compared to what we have..

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 12:01 AM
a reply to: introvert
Haven't completed the thread yet so someone may have already posted this link: utm_term=.a9911e5fb90e

This fellow makes some pretty cogent arguments. He does a pretty good job of explaining "thing of value."

Now this whole controversy is of course arising as to Donald Trump Jr.’s willingness to get unspecified information that came from the Russian government, and was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Maybe it should and could be made illegal for a campaign to solicit or accept information that directly or indirectly came from a foreign government — though even that’s not clear to me: If a Canadian government official had informed the Clinton campaign of some possibly illegal conduct in the development of one of Trump’s Canadian properties, I don’t think it could be made a crime for the Clinton campaign to accept that information and ask for more. (It certainly is illegal to deliberately conspire with anyone, foreign or domestic, to hack into someone’s computer; but so far I haven’t heard evidence that Donald Trump Jr. was doing that. UPDATE: Just to clarify, as best I can tell there was no indication from the e-mails that Trump Jr. thought the information was the result of a hack; this happened before the hack of the DNC was revealed, and the Russian government could have many sources of “official documents and information” — for instance, dealings between Clinton and Russian officials — that would come through means other than hacks or other crimes.)

But, again, the First Amendment overbreadth analysis asks whether the statute is substantially overbroad — whether it applies to a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. If it is, then it can’t be applied against a defendant even if the defendant could have been convicted under a narrower statute.

I’m inclined to think that even a narrow statute barring American campaigns from receiving “very high level and sensitive information” from foreign governments would be unconstitutional. If the Hillary Clinton campaign had reason to think that, say, the British government had “very high level and sensitive information” showing serious misbehavior by Trump, I think it would have had every right to get that information and see if it should be put before the American people as evidence that Trump shouldn’t be elected. Limiting candidates’ ability to expose their opponents’ misbehavior would violate the First Amendment, and no interest in “barring foreign interference” could justify such a restriction. Indeed, denying candidates this right to get such information and convey it to voters would itself interfere with “the right of the American people themselves to decide who our elected officials and representatives are.”

But in any event, the statute as written is much broader than the facts of this case, and no limiting construction can limit it just to foreign governments, or just to very high level and sensitive information. If Rick’s theory of the statute is right, then political candidates would find it much harder to investigate what their opponents did in foreign countries, or did to foreigners here in the U.S. And that suggests to me that this theory can’t be right.

I see both sides in this taking flights of fantasy. I don't think anybody in those circles is squeaky clean. I don't think anything will come of this or any investigation into Clinton will go anywhere for the simple reason that they're all in same big club and exposing the whole oozing mess would literally leave all three branches of government rudderless. Some lackeys may be indicted... I base this opinion on what I watched go down in an FBI investigation of the Kentucky Legislature in the early 90s.

When that investigation ended and the FBI agent in charge was holding a presser he was asked if he felt that they had been able to root out all the corruption in the Legislature. With a perfectly straight face he replied, "We've got all the corruption connected to harness racing." He knew full well that if every piece of evidence that had been gathered had been followed up, the entire legislature would have been taken away in handcuffs. Agents who worked on that investigation have said that both the Executive and Legislative branches would have lost a majority of their people. Governments protect themselves first.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 12:09 AM
All over Russian separatist and Ukrainians starting a war when the economy collapsed.Russia and Ukraine fight over that land because of WW2.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:54 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

I was being sarcastic

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:20 AM

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: ChrisM101

Solicitation Requires a REQUEST for something of Value, youre arguement that agreeing to meet for information in this case, does not meet the requirements of a request.

Under Commission regulations it is unlawful to knowingly provide substantial assistance to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. 11 CFR 110.20(h). "Substantial assistance" refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. 67 FR 69945-6 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].

So, when Don Jr. agreed to show up at the meeting so the Russians could give him damaging information on Hillary, he was in fact breaking the law.

As far as solicitation goes, he was offered information that was clearly a breech of federal election law and responded such that it was clear he intended to show up at the meeting so the transaction was completed, in essence confirming that his desire was for them to hand it over. Do I need to dig up the specific language?

Sorry, its not fantasy land, its legal land, and that doesnt hold water.

I'm afraid it does.

Show me where this information had any hint of value? was it ever used?

How could I show it was ever used if we don't even know for sure if anything was actually exchanged? What I do know is that, at the very least, the information counts as opposition research, even if one ignores all possible legal issues. And opposition research has a non-zero monetary value.

Just because they weren't paid employees, and also Not volunteers, does not mean that they did any work for any one or the campaign.

They were foreign nationals offering something of value, in violation of U.S. election law. They did not qualify for the "volunteer" exception because they were not volunteers. That is the beginning an end of that point.

But what we did have was FUSION GPS working with a ex MI6 agent to provide fake details of Trump Pissing on a hotel bed in Russia That Obama slept in, and supposedly enjoying two prostitutes... All fake of course.

Please don't mistake me for someone who cares whether they throw Hillary in jail for life. Because I don't. But Fusion GPS was a company based in Washington D.C. who had not disclosed their connections to Russia. Not quite the same thing.

Did you even Read the FEC law you posted? Or?

It says provide assistance to foreign nationals for compensation, donations, etc.

That is the exact opposite of what happened.

They accepted information of no proven value and did not involve a transaction.

The law is literal, and this one would not pass.

Everything in the physical universe has a non-zero value. It has to have a value that can be documented. just like a coupon has printed on it ACV (actual cash value) 1/20th of one cent. No documentation of Why this information had a value or what it was, NO VALUE. For all we know she could have whispered " DJ I think youre cute" end of meeting.

Fusion GPS did use a foreign agent, of Great Britain, as a foreign intermediary, as well as the russian lawyer, Fusion GPS is paid by the DNCPAID.

The person who setup the meeting Rob Goldstone, a music publicist and personal friend of Trump Jr.

Goldstone has been active with the Miss Universe pageant once owned by Trump and works as a manager for Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop star.

Members of the President’s legal team have identified Goldstone the acquaintance “who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS," according to a report by Circa News.

That affirmed statement by Circa News was backed up by another statement from a spokesman for Trump's legal team to The Independent.

“Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier,” Mark Corallo said.

To refresh your memory about who Fusion GPS are the company was established by former Wall Street Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch.

It's the same mysterious shady group that was employed by Democratic Party operatives and Republican operatives to conduct opposition research on Trump using former MI6 officer Christopher Steele.

edit on 10-8-2017 by ChrisM101 because: txt

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:23 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Isn't the enquirer trumps mouthpiece?
He's separating himself.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:29 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Doesn't he realize they can cover more than one story at a time.
IDK maybe because he can only follow one story at a time. Lol

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:32 AM
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes he has.
Funny since younger women are trumps candy of choice too.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:36 AM
a reply to: namehere

Illegal? For a federal judge to issue a search warrant after being presented with probable cause?
No. It's not illegal and this ain't Venezuela. Jesus Christ.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:42 AM
a reply to: soberbacchus

I sure hope we don't ever see the FBI raiding the Whitehouse.
That would be a disgrace beyond the pale.
Trump don't you make them.
Give them everything they want. Give them the damn plate Comey ate off of if they want it. (Who wants two hundred year old dishes anyway) but don't you dare make them come for anything.

Team trump turned over over twenty thousand pages of documentation.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:50 AM
a reply to: diggindirt

Excellent point. The first amendment is solidly on Trump's side. Information is a form of free speech, and if you try to ban information from foreign sources, you run into the first amendment.

If it turned out that the Steele Dossier wasn't fake*** , would anyone here argue that the Clinton campaign had no right to use it because it came from a foreign source? I doubt it.

*** It is; its own author has admitted it's just a collection of unsubstantiated rumors he collected off the internet.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:55 AM
a reply to: dawnstar

If it gets labeled fake news count on it being 100% true.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 07:57 AM

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Sillyolme
if you haven't listened to that hearing, it's worth listening to, just for the glimpse he gives on the corruption at the highest levels of the russian gov't.

Do you know a link?

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 08:05 AM
a reply to: Damiel

Cuz the system won't let me give you more than one star I'm breaking out in protest.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 08:06 AM
a reply to: Sillyolme

Manaforts is not under investigation he is under an inquiry, ohh wait lynch is no longer there .

sadly its people like yourself that have such a bias and hypocrisy towards politics that have ruined this country.

wake the f up , both sides are crooks including the clintons. this raid is no more embarrassing or as digraceful than a married president getting sucked by an intern and putting cigars where they dont belong.

nor a potus candidate not remembering anything and conveniently deleting evidence or lying about being under sniper fire.

while i dont trust or like trump atleast i see many of the the trump supporters acknowledging that both parties are a disgrace, unlike yourself who only blames the other side and overlooks her own disgraceful party tactics.

get your head out of the dark place and realize that your party is equally part of the problem and hold them accountable.

sending Manaforts to jail is not disgraceful , rigging the election and working with the msm to cheat your candidate into the forefront is. equally disgraceful is catching dws in the act of cheating and forcefully having her resign to only then hiring her to be part of your team.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 08:10 AM
a reply to: links234

If nothing else he's consistent with his approach to controversy.
Ignore it and talk about something else.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 08:20 AM
a reply to: soberbacchus

They are saying they did it that way because they felt Manifort would not be forthcoming with documentation. Something in his testimony raised someone's hackles. It made them think he'd try to destroy or hide records.

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in