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.

 

Is violating campaign finance laws reason for impeachment

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There is no obstruction of justice and no FEC violations.
If there were, they should not be ignored.
What SHOULD be ignored is daily propaganda and accusations driven by bitterness at losing an election.




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

There's a thousand pieces of evidence all told for all eight counts.
This includes emails, recorded conversations, texts, financial records and obviously lots more.
Mr Cohen was very good at maintaining information that would cover his ass. He held on to sixteen old cellular phones. How far back must they go?
I have not seen it but the news networks were waiting for the published list of evidence late last night. I have not looked for it yet and in early news I have not heard them mention it. Maybe there's a delay in releasing that.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




If there were, they should not be ignored.

So you think the Mueller and other investigations are worthwhile. Me too.

edit on 8/22/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah I'm pretty sure paying these women off to keep quiet is bribery.
Cohen implicated trump (unnamed) in open court. That's a very very serious move and a big deal.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Your nasty language in describing these women is telling of your worry they may be an important factor.
Neither is a whore. Both are employees in the sex entertainment industry. Try having some respect. You do not personally know these women and I bet you've enjoyed the fruits of their labor in your own life.
Does that make you a John or just a dude with a playboy magazine or an X rated video?
There's no need to be ugly. That kind of dirt splashes all around when you start throwing it.
edit on 8222018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The money was paid to influence the outcome of an election.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

For lying under oath about diddling then.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Funny how all the components of criminal activity just keep falling into place.

Yesterday was trumps worst day as president and that's saying something since this train has been off the rails since leaving the station.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The conspiracy against the United States was in paying the money. Not where the money came from. They conspired to influence the outcome of a United States election.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The investigation into Clinton was for real estate deals he made while still living in Arkansas.
Years before he was president. They couldn't get them on the real estate stuff so they went on a witch hunt lol.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

The conspiracy against the United States was in paying the money. Not where the money came from. They conspired to influence the outcome of a United States election.


I see you have no clue what you are talking about - too much liberal media.

1) a candidate can contribute ANY amount of money to his own campaign
2) a candidate can use his or her money for private purposes whenever they want, with no reporting requirement, regardless of whether or not it might influence an election or is linked to an election

Simple facts.

You're soon going to have to face up to the fact that your latest little impeachment fantasy is as hopeless as all the other ones.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Considering how common the violations are, prosecutors don't see it as a big deal at all. Obama paid just a little fine for his campaign Finance violations.

Hillary wasn't even called out on her payments to Fusion GPS to affect the 2016 election.
edit on 8/23/2018 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Obama paid just a little fine for his campaign Finance violations.
$375k is little? But yes, the Obama campaign was fined for reporting violations. Not conspiracy to engage in violations.



Hillary wasn't even called out on her payments to Fusion GPS to affect the 2016 election.
Why would she be? The Clinton campaign (and the DNC) lawfully reported the payments which were made.

The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since November 2015 — though it's impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS.

source

Had Trump done the same, we wouldn't be talking about this.
edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Again, Obamas team just didnt forget to file.

They committed three crimes.

First they took more money from individual donors that they were allowed.

That is not clerical error; they knew they couldnt take that much money but did anyway.

They got caught and were charged, However, they were let of light by being told they could give the money back and just get charged with a reporting error.

So secondly they were charged with the "clerical error" when it was more than that.

Then the got charged again, because they did not give the money back on time.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The FEC regulations state that you must disclose the purpose of payments.
The Clinton campaign hid the opposition research by paying Perkins Cole for "legal services". It was a willful effort to mislead what the funds were actually for. They could have engaged FusionGPS directly but wanted to hide it.

This is actually closer to a crime than paying women hush money - the latter being allowed as a private payment and not subject to campaign finance.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Phage

The FEC regulations state that you must disclose the purpose of payments.
The Clinton campaign hid the opposition research by paying Perkins Cole for "legal services". It was a willful effort to mislead what the funds were actually for. They could have engaged FusionGPS directly but wanted to hide it.

This is actually closer to a crime than paying women hush money - the latter being allowed as a private payment and not subject to campaign finance.



Further proven by the cact that hillary and the dnc lied about paying for the dossier for over a year.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Grambler

impeachment is political not criminal,
congress can impeach for whatever they vote to be "high crimes and misdomeaners"



Oh yes I know

That’s why I was wondering what people thought because it’s subjective

Is there anyone who feels violating campaign finance laws does rise to the level of impeachment?



The bar for impeachment was already set extremely low. Bill was impeached for lying about a BJ.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Grambler

impeachment is political not criminal,
congress can impeach for whatever they vote to be "high crimes and misdomeaners"



Oh yes I know

That’s why I was wondering what people thought because it’s subjective

Is there anyone who feels violating campaign finance laws does rise to the level of impeachment?



The bar for impeachment was already set extremely low. Bill was impeached for lying about a BJ.


No, he wasn't.
He was impeached for lying under oath - the subject didn't matter.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join