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.

 

Rudy Giuliani Admits Trump Repaid Cohen

page: 15
38
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Erno86

Care to point out what in that long essay of irrelevancy is illegal?

TheRedneck


New York city has had a long history of Russian and Italian mob influence.

Mueller just might have the goods on Michael Cohen, just enough to make him spill the beans about possible illegal Russian influence on Donald J. Trump & Company.




posted on May, 7 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

MIght, and Maybe, could and may.....one year in I expected more.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Giuliani has suggested that Donald J. Trump should not have a question an answer session with special counsel investigator Robert Mueller. If Trump refuses to testify before Mueller, or claims the 5th, if so...what is Trump trying to hide?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: shooterbrody

Giuliani has suggested that Donald J. Trump should not have a question an answer session with special counsel investigator Robert Mueller. If Trump refuses to testify before Mueller, or claims the 5th, if so...what is Trump trying to hide?


With the process crimes flying around why would he speak to them?
Also with the info from the investigators text messages why would he put himself in legal jeopardy to known politically hostile individuals?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

The FBI said as far as they know Flynn never intentionally tried to lie or hide anything .. and then charged him with lying. Maybe he is not willing to participate in a rogue investigation where they charge people for crimes they say they don't think they committed.


Comey reportedly told lawmakers at the time that agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied in that Jan. 24 meeting, and that any inaccuracies in his account were unintentional.

www.foxnews.com...


McCabe, in particular, testified that the two agents who interviewed Flynn “didn’t think he was lying."

thehill.com...

The FBI could not even get it's story straight as to why the witch hunt spoke to Flynn in the first place.


The report claims that these top FBI and Justice Department officials had different answers regarding whether the agents were “investigating misleading statements to the Vice President, which the Vice President echoed publicly about the content of this calls; a possible violation of the Logan Act; or a desire top obtain more information as part of the counterintelligence investigation into General Flynn.”


Would you talk to them when they were looking for any inconsistency to target you even if your inconsistency is due to normal human remembering something wrong? I sure wouldn't.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theantediluvian

You know, in a perfect world, he'd have stepped up and said the following:
"I may have had sex with her, don't really recall... I've bedded a lot of women over the years, big numbers, big numbers, some I remember. The ones who were average or sub par, not so much. So I don't know if I did her or not, not good sex if I did. Michael and I go way back. I trust him, he trusts me, and I've paid him a lot of money, big dollars, over the years to handle some of my business and activity. I write him a check when he sends me a bill, time is money and my time is a lot of money, a lot more than $130,000."
mic drop and walk off. He'd have not lost support and he'd have likely caused a number of (needed) suicides via skull implosions had he done so. He chose a different route, lying to a reporter. As I've already said, I see no reason for any honesty standards to be applied in anyone's dealings with the media because they are, by their very nature, a den of dishonest thieves. It's little different than telling some beggar "sorry, don't have any change" when they hit you up for some money to buy a bottle outside the store... it's lying to someone who you have no reason, no benefit, and no obligation to be honest or truthful with. It's the epitome of a throw away "lie."


You don't have to live in a perfect world to have enough integrity to be honest and I find your comments to be indicative of the mindset many people have. They will lie to themselves to justify their actions and so they have no problems being dishonest with others.

We've seen a lot of that on ATS lately. Dishonest people that have little to no integrity or self-respect.

I don't care what Trump does or did in his person life. That is his business, but do not insult my intelligence by trying to excuse his dishonest nature.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Erno86

Sorry, Mueller is bluffing and was just reprimanded by a judge. So why is it you are willing to give away your Constitutional freedoms to embarrass Trump?




Why a Judge Delivered a Bizarre Tirade Challenging Mueller's Authority to Charge Paul Manafort

"The most likely explanation for Ellis' conduct, then, is that he is applying 'stare Scalia.' The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia famously believed that a president had 'complete control over investigation and prosecution of violations of the law,' leading him to condemn special investigations that excluded the chief executive. Yet Scalia expressed this view in dissent, and it is still not law today."



slate.com...



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86


Mueller just might have...

So you're admitting this is just searching for a crime, then?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86


If Trump refuses to testify before Mueller, or claims the 5th, if so...what is Trump trying to hide?

Convenient... so I am to understand that you think anyone who refuses to answer under the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination should automatically be assumed guilty of something?

Kinda makes that 5th Amendment moot, don'cha think?

Trump does not have to appear before King Mueller. Trump is innocent until proven guilty. As an innocent President, he does not have to comply with some lowly, corrupt prosecutor who has a personal beef with his politics. It's not really fair... because you or I would have to face that kind of an investigation.

If Mueller has charges against Trump, why haven't we seen them? What is Mueller trying to hide? See how that works?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

Slate is fake news and Ellis did not express that at all. Mueller told Ellis he did not need to see the memo proving the scope of the investigation and he should just trust Mueller.

Hey Judge stop asking to see the warrant I used, I had one, trust me. You have no problem with that line of reasoning if you were the defendant right?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Erno86


If Trump refuses to testify before Mueller, or claims the 5th, if so...what is Trump trying to hide?

Convenient... so I am to understand that you think anyone who refuses to answer under the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination should automatically be assumed guilty of something?

Kinda makes that 5th Amendment moot, don'cha think?

Trump does not have to appear before King Mueller. Trump is innocent until proven guilty. As an innocent President, he does not have to comply with some lowly, corrupt prosecutor who has a personal beef with his politics. It's not really fair... because you or I would have to face that kind of an investigation.

If Mueller has charges against Trump, why haven't we seen them? What is Mueller trying to hide? See how that works?

TheRedneck


I'm not assuming that someone is guilty if someone pleads the 5th. But it would raise questions as to why Trump might plead the fifth, when before, he welcomed a Mueller question an answer session.

But that's not what Trump thought during his pre-election campaign rally...



"During a 2016 campaign rally, Trump disparaged staffers of his democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, for taking the 5th Amendment during a Congressional investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as Secretary of State."

"The mob takes the fifth," Trump said, "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"



www.chicagotribune.com...



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




The FBI said as far as they know Flynn never intentionally tried to lie or hide anything
Source?

What I heard is that the interviewing agents didn't think he appeared to be lying. That's not the same thing as saying he never intentionally tried to lie. Or is body language now considered an infallible lie detection system?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Then why allow peon agents to do the interview if you will just poo poo their findings and analysis?
edit on 7/5/2018 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




Then why allow peon agents to do the interview if you will just poo poo their findings and analysis?
To gather information and compare what was said to what was known and what other people have said.

edit on 5/7/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Comey reportedly told lawmakers at the time that agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied in that Jan. 24 meeting, and that any inaccuracies in his account were unintentional.

So is it just these 2 particular agents that you have an issue with, with respect to their analysis? Are all agents 302s subject to this scrutiny with respect to their ability to discern the truth?
By the same token are others who were determined TO be lying allowed to poo poo those 302s?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody




Then why allow peon agents to do the interview if you will just poo poo their findings and analysis?
To gather information and compare what was said to what was known and what other people have said.

So anytime someone says something and misremember or lie they should face this type of scrutiny/prosecution?



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Erno86


I'm not assuming that someone is guilty if someone pleads the 5th. But it would raise questions as to why Trump might plead the fifth, when before, he welcomed a Mueller question an answer session.

Well, at least you admit that anyone else should be welcome to take the 5th, but if Trump takes it, he's hiding something!

Pardon me, but your bias is showing like a flashing neon sign.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Putin has nothing on Trump. Even if Putin had a tape of trump, I don't think Trump would care, or act differently.



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




The FBI said as far as they know Flynn never intentionally tried to lie or hide anything
Source?

What I heard is that the interviewing agents didn't think he appeared to be lying. That's not the same thing as saying he never intentionally tried to lie. Or is body language now considered an infallible lie detection system?


Well, they did close the file.



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nah, fortunately legal vs. moral aren't in the same category.

Fact is, Avenatti (and his fake DVD in a cheap Sentry Safe) is an ambulance chaser who this degenerate porn star hired to harm the object of her obsession.

For instance, shut-up money + NDAs are very common when women lie about sexual relations with powerful/famous men like President Trump. The fact he had a lawyer to handle these types of problems is neither shocking, unexpected nor illegal.

It is perfectly legal to pay somebody money to keep their mouth shut and not tell damaging lies. Clifford extorted ~100,000 from POTUS already to get the NDA. Who knows? Maybe she ran her mouth because she thinks the mere association with Trump will boost a future prostitution gig? (she's been in adult films) Then again, since she clearly violated the NDA, she'll likely need a couple thousand "gigs" to pay off the extreme fines she agreed to pay for violating the NDA she signed.

Apparently you can't smell a rat, so I'll make it easy. This is reminiscent of a Gloria Allred hit job. Think back to the 19 liars she paraded against Trump during the election (who have now all disappeared). She swore up and down she had evidence against POTUS, but where is it? Where did all these women accusers go?

And to be perfectly clear, lying to the media isn't illegal. Given the media's unhealthy preoccupation with harming the President, I don't blame him at all for misinforming them. Perfectly acceptable to keep your enemies confused. And last I checked, the President of the United States of America declared the liberal press "an enemy of the people" : because it is

Keep on dreaming though.... you're good at it.

And as far as the degenerate porn "star" ? Would be nice to see the NDA disclosure penalty bankrupt her and put her out on the street. But hey, she has some 99 cent blank-DVD in a cheap safe right? Isn't that worth it? Oh, and tricking ~20% of the country into believing you had sexual relations with the POTUS.

Perhaps the degenerate porn star can sell her blank DVD, and save up enough money to call somebody who cares.


edit on 5/8/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join