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.

 

Does Mueller Indictment Mean Clinton Campaign Can Be Indicted for Chris Steele?

page: 3
53
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
People sure are blind.



The statement added that the money paid to Orbis was allocated from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented the DNC and Clinton's campaign.


That blind hatred of Trump.

They IGNORE this.

Home grown TRAITORS.


Ya. Something is homegrown, but I think it's the # you're smoking.




posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




The statement added that the money paid to Orbis was allocated from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented the DNC and Clinton's campaign.


People must be smoking something to ignore the money laundering above.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert



The statement added that the money paid to Orbis was allocated from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented the DNC and Clinton's campaign.


What's the difference betwee a bot and a law firm?

Answer:

NONE.


Ok. How does any of that prove the guilt of the DNC?

Again, how can you hold them accountable for a choice they did not make?



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert




The statement added that the money paid to Orbis was allocated from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented the DNC and Clinton's campaign.


People must be smoking something to ignore the money laundering above.


Now it's money laundering?

Well, I think you are just making things up at this point, Neo.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Again, how can you hold them accountable for a choice they did not make?


Because they did make the choice.

They hired Perkins, because they KNEW what they were doing was ILLEGAL.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yeah I made that up!



The statement added that the money paid to Orbis was allocated from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented the DNC and Clinton's campaign.


I wish I'd stop getting trolled.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert




Again, how can you hold them accountable for a choice they did not make?


Because they did make the choice.

They hired Perkins, because they KNEW what they were doing was ILLEGAL.



Making more things up as you go along?

Now you have to prove they knew and intended to do something illegal.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

First, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal: first, he is a foreign citizen; second, he tried to influence an election, which he received payments to do (including from the FBI itself); and third, he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission.


From the op.



Second, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make FusionGPS a criminal co-conspirator: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission.




Third, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make PerkinsCoie a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its receipt of payments from the Clinton campaign as a “legal expense.”


Next time the usual suspect ought to READ.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Yeah I made that up!



The statement added that the money paid to Orbis was allocated from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented the DNC and Clinton's campaign.


I wish I'd stop getting trolled.


Ya, that's not money laundering and still does not prove the DNC should be indicted.

You can wish all you want, but at this point I think you are trolling yourself.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Fourth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make the DNC a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its payments to Steele as laundered legal expenses to a law firm.




Fifth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make the Clinton Campaign a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its funding of payments to Steele laundered through a law firm as a “legal expense.”



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Next time the usual suspect ought to READ.


I did read it. That in no way makes a logical assertion that the DNC ought to be indicted.

Perhaps you should find better sources of info before you insult our intelligence with this stupidity.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert




The statement added that the money paid to Orbis was allocated from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented the DNC and Clinton's campaign.


People must be smoking something to ignore the money laundering above.



Sorry, I think Russia attacking my country and the POTUS ignoring it is WAY bigger than your little money laundering fantasy.

The Russia story is real, and proven. There just is not more denying it. Stop. Its going to get worse for the orange man. Hell I bet there are Russian shills right here on ATS. The indictments says they were all over the net. This is the net.





posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Perhaps you should find better sources of info before you insult our intelligence with this stupidity.


Why yes.

How dare I source a website called lawandcrime.


edit on 17-2-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: kurthall




Sorry, I think Russia attacking my country and the POTUS ignoring it is WAY bigger than your little money laundering fantasy.


Anyone that thinks they own the United States of America is a bigger threat than this Russia fantasy.

Legally elected by majority.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: kurthall
So what part of this did someone miss?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission.

You figure that's the end of the story? How precious!



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert




Perhaps you should find better sources of info before you insult our intelligence with this stupidity.


Why yes.

How dare I source a website called lawandcrime.



Do you actually think just the name of the website gives it some sort of credibility?

So if I create a website called onlythetruth.whatever it has to be only the truth?

I think stupidity was a proper descriptor.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The end of the story will be Team Left getting indicted, and ALL those that have perpetuated this hoax on us.

They colluded with a foreign spy.

They marched that spy out to capital hill to stage a coup to usurp the democratic process.

They are using the FBI as their own personal gestapo.

Only then should it end.



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Yeah I made that up!



The statement added that the money paid to Orbis was allocated from $1.02 million it received in fees and expenses from the Perkins Coie law firm, which represented the DNC and Clinton's campaign.


I wish I'd stop getting trolled.


Ya, that's not money laundering and still does not prove the DNC should be indicted.

You can wish all you want, but at this point I think you are trolling yourself.



Actually moving money through multiple third parties to avoid disclosure of campaign finances pretty much is the definition of laundering. At the very least they violated campaign finance laws. Who do you think should hold the bag? The law firm that (allegedly) didn't disclose to HRC's campaign? HRC's campaign who (allegedly) read about it in the news after denying it for over a year?



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Do you actually think just the name of the website gives it some sort of credibility?


It's been more credible than this hackery.




Again, how can you hold them accountable for a choice they did not make?



posted on Feb, 17 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert



Actually moving money through multiple third parties to avoid disclosure of campaign finances pretty much is the definition of laundering.


Ok. Prove that was their motive in hiring Fusion.



At the very least they violated campaign finance laws.


The DNC did not. It's possible Fusion did violate disclosure laws, but not campaign laws.



Who do you think should hold the bag? The law firm that (allegedly) didn't disclose to HRC's campaign? HRC's campaign who (allegedly) read about it in the news after denying it for over a year?


I think people should get their accusations in order and with proper proof before asking whom we should hold accountable.







 
53
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join