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.

 

That russian oligarch that allegedly gave money to trumps lawyer gave money to the Clintons

page: 4
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
In case you missed it:

Novartis has confirmed that it paid as much as $1.2 million dollars to Cohen... for one meeting.

Nova rtis paid Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen more than $1 million for advice on president's approach to Obamacare – work he was unable to do


Novartis said it signed a one-year contract with Cohen's shell company, Essential Consultants, for $100,000 per month in February 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. Novartis said it believed Cohen "could advise the company as to how the Trump administration might approach certain U.S. health-care policy matters, including the Affordable Care Act."


$100k a month for Cohen to do what?


But just a month after signing the deal, Novartis executives had their first meeting with Cohen, and afterward "determined that Michael Cohen and Essentials Consultants would be unable to provide the services that Novartis had anticipated."


It says "after one month" here but according to Tom Winter (NBC) on Twitter, it was one meeting they had.


But Novartis kept on paying Cohen, despite that fact. "As the contract, unfortunately, could only be terminated for cause, payments continued to be made until the contract expired by its own terms in February 2018," Novartis said. That means that Cohen was paid up to $1.2 million for his work. Novartis did not immediately disclose the total amount paid.


So they're saying that they kept paying him for "work" he couldn't do because they were under year-long contract they couldn't break for cause (really?), so that's would be $1.2 million.

Oh man, sure looks like Cohen should just change his name to Michael Clinton. He's just like one of those Clintons. I haven't seen anything this Clintonesque in some time. He's more Clinton than Bill Clinton. He's so Clinton that he probably has a closet full of pantsuits. Cohen Clinton. Clinton Cohen. Clinton Clinton Clinton. Cohen. If the Clintons had known how much money there was to be made in peddling influence over Trump, they'd probably have made nice with him so they could cash in just like Cohen. That Trump, he hires only the finest Clintons... I mean Cohens... I mean people. Sorry, they're just so similar it's easy to confuse Clinton and Cohen.

Drain the swamp! Lock him up! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!


I think the main thing to consider is Clinton went to Oxford. Cohen basically the University of Phoenix.

The trail of blood was a little easier to follow in Cohen's case.




posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: luthier

so you weren't the one who posted this:



Didn't her husband get impeached by the House over a bj? From a special council?


then this:



Sure. They appointed a man to investigate real estate and they caught him in a purgerry trap about something unrelated. Sound familiar?



If it was you, then one of us is indeed and idiot and I'm not sure that it's me. I informed you that Clinton wasn't impeached over the hummer, it was for lying under oath about the hummer, he had a choice to just tell the truth, he opted not to. Then you said he was caught in a "purgerry trap", which is again false. He had the opportunity to speak the truth, and opted for a lie.

I do agree that Ken Star went well out of his scope to pin this on Billy and while I think Trump has better taste in who he porks, Monica did have some full lips and likely did a really nice JOB with Billy.

But at some point, you have to realize that you aren't fooling anyone, and accepting your mistake is a much better way to do business. If you choose to continue your charade of self importance, go nuts.


Lol,

Your second to last statement (paragraph) just allowed me to destroy you....the purpose of my argument if you weren't so caught up in winning over actually trying to figure out your opponent was the investigation had nothing to do with his "prosecution"

But perhaps you comprehension isn't great.

But your fallacy of definition was a nice try. Maybe next time you could also go after grammar..
edit on 9-5-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

can you clarify that this in in fact a crime? If it is, super, warm up the chair and fry him. But it kind of sounds like normal Washington DC bureaucratic garbage. Slimy, and unethical. But illegal?



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Lab4Us



I might encourage you to strive for more in life than stars and flags? I mean, really, does your existence depend on whether your posts get flags? Or stars? Are they like participation trophies to prove you tried? I really don’t get it.


Those are the indicators of what is or is not popular on these boards are they not? Me pointing out how these sorts of threads get more of those two things does not mean I masturbate to the thought of getting them myself. I have much more important things than imaginary stars and flags but since I participate in this community I am allowed to recognize their influence on it.
edit on 5/9/2018 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: luthier

so you weren't the one who posted this:



Didn't her husband get impeached by the House over a bj? From a special council?


then this:



Sure. They appointed a man to investigate real estate and they caught him in a purgerry trap about something unrelated. Sound familiar?



If it was you, then one of us is indeed and idiot and I'm not sure that it's me. I informed you that Clinton wasn't impeached over the hummer, it was for lying under oath about the hummer, he had a choice to just tell the truth, he opted not to. Then you said he was caught in a "purgerry trap", which is again false. He had the opportunity to speak the truth, and opted for a lie.

I do agree that Ken Star went well out of his scope to pin this on Billy and while I think Trump has better taste in who he porks, Monica did have some full lips and likely did a really nice JOB with Billy.

But at some point, you have to realize that you aren't fooling anyone, and accepting your mistake is a much better way to do business. If you choose to continue your charade of self importance, go nuts.


Lol,

Your secomd to last statement just allowed me to destroy you....the purpose of my argument if you weren't so caught up in winning over actually trying to figure out your opponent was the investigation had nothing to do with his "prosecution"

But perhaps you comprehension isn't great.

But your fallacy of definition was a nice try. Maybe next time you could also go after grammar..


WTF are you even saying? You "destroyed" me. This is the level I expect form Silly, now I suppose you are either down to, or up to that level, depending on where you started from. Have a super day sport.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
If people researched every politician they would find foreign monetary influences and monetary "exchanges" from state level to local level politicians, from leftists to rightists, even your favourites



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
You provided my argumental in your own words.

Just FYI. In debate you want to try and understand your opponents argument not try and catch them on technicalities. Now this is a very informal setting so I would think you would understand allowing someone to clarify a two sentence post would be the correct way to have a conversation.

In your case defending turf is the purpose of your argument which can include intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously I didnt think he was literally impeached over a blow job. Since you didn't care what I meant you tried and tried to use technicality to win. Which is pretty dishonest.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I am not crying about anything. Attempting to educate you about the differences of an INDEPENDENT COUNSEL which are no longer authorized, and a Special Counsel. You used the term SC in regard to Ken Starr's investigation which is incorrect.

As far as the Trump affair, the only issue I have with the investigation is that so far none of the indictments are a result of any wrong doing for any criminal behaviour for involvement while in office. The Russian indictments in my opinion are for show and will be dropped eventually because there is no real evidence against, not that I believe they didn't commit election interference, just that it is really expected and has been ongoing forever and without any real results despite Hillary's claims.

The Manafort indictments are from alleged crimes the FBI investigated already and apparently declined prosecution back in 2006 but now because they want to pressure him to talk or to create something against Trump they are advancing charges.

Grand Juries are a weak link in our justice system and are greatly abused by essentially inept investigations, those with no alleged criminal acts or evidence to fish for criminal activities. Basically lazy prosecutors use them instead of doing good old fashion detective work.

If wrong doing occurred in association of Trump or by Trump himself the BY all means, lock him up, but to ruin people financially with legal bills and to charge someone due to faulty memories, as someone like Flynn, is an abuse of our system. Investigate, but do it the right way and not like fish with dynamite until something floats to the surface.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Kinda sad to see otherwise intelligent people acting like third graders... nuh uh... I know you are but what am I ... or you're such a dumb dumb.

Left makes a bunch of attack threads... right responds a certain way... right points out Clinton is guilty of everything trump is accused of, que immediate deflection, and personal attacks... same thing they accuse the right of doing in defense of trump.

Supposedly grown Arse adults acting like children, its not just this board either its across the country and over in europe as well.

Sad... we are so screwed.

edit on 9-5-2018 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

Sure and my point is where are all of you when lawmakers allow this?

Personally I think congress is at fault for passing the laws which continue legal precedence to erode things like the 4th.

Both sides do it. Heck the man threatening to impeach sessions has one of the worst voting records on privacy issues in Congress.

Donald Trump picked the people currently running the departments. Yet he isn't held accoutable for that. It's the Democrats fault His deputy AG Started the special council. It's the Democrats fault Sessions had to recuse himself because he was a witness. On and on.

This stuff will continue if Congress isn't held accountable, if the president isn't held accountable for his staff etc...



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Perhaps your attention span is really small,


Oh, we're going to be personally insulting now?


Trump supporters here have voiced the opinion that if He is guilty of something, string his ass up.


Totally believable given the way you collectively lose your # over things like Michael Cohen being under FBI investigation despite not actually knowing why he's under investigation. Most Trump supporters on ATS don't want to see Manafort go down for crimes he's clearly committed. It's empty platitude. It's something you say because you don't expect that you'll ever have to go through with it.

"If he's guilty of something, I want him to hang! Also, DON'TYOUDAREINVESTIGATEDEARLEADERHE'SAGOLDENGODYOUDEEPSTATEGLOBALISTCOMMIELIBTARDSCUMMUELLERISANAZITHEFBIISTHEGESTAPOSTRZOKINSURANCEPOLICYWHATABOUTCLI NTON!"


The last thing any of us want is to look all wishy washy and stupid


Ehhhh.. little late. Little. Bit. Too. Late.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I was certainly shameful at points but looking closely tried to keep it literal...I should have kept it cool after being insulted over and over but I do think statements like purposely going out of your way to misunderstand someone's argument and allow them no room for explanation does create an inferior debate partner and looks idiotic...but I probably didn't need to use those words.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Oh man, sure looks like Cohen should just change his name to Michael Clinton. He's just like one of those Clintons. I haven't seen anything this Clintonesque in some time. He's more Clinton than Bill Clinton. He's so Clinton that he probably has a closet full of pantsuits. Cohen Clinton. Clinton Cohen. Clinton Clinton Clinton. Cohen. If the Clintons had known how much money there was to be made in peddling influence over Trump, they'd probably have made nice with him so they could cash in just like Cohen. That Trump, he hires only the finest Clintons... I mean Cohens... I mean people. Sorry, they're just so similar it's easy to confuse Clinton and Cohen. Drain the swamp! Lock him up! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!


Bill Clinton was the President, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and candidate for president. Cohen is Trump's lawyer. How are they similar? Oh yeah, they're not.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian




Oh man, sure looks like Cohen should just change his name to Michael Clinton. He's just like one of those Clintons. I haven't seen anything this Clintonesque in some time. He's more Clinton than Bill Clinton. He's so Clinton that he probably has a closet full of pantsuits. Cohen Clinton. Clinton Cohen. Clinton Clinton Clinton. Cohen. If the Clintons had known how much money there was to be made in peddling influence over Trump, they'd probably have made nice with him so they could cash in just like Cohen. That Trump, he hires only the finest Clintons... I mean Cohens... I mean people. Sorry, they're just so similar it's easy to confuse Clinton and Cohen. Drain the swamp! Lock him up! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!


Bill Clinton was the President, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and candidate for president. Cohen is Trump's lawyer. How are they similar? Oh yeah, they're not.


Op title


That russian oligarch that allegedly gave money to trumps lawyer gave money to the Clintons



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: theantediluvian




Oh man, sure looks like Cohen should just change his name to Michael Clinton. He's just like one of those Clintons. I haven't seen anything this Clintonesque in some time. He's more Clinton than Bill Clinton. He's so Clinton that he probably has a closet full of pantsuits. Cohen Clinton. Clinton Cohen. Clinton Clinton Clinton. Cohen. If the Clintons had known how much money there was to be made in peddling influence over Trump, they'd probably have made nice with him so they could cash in just like Cohen. That Trump, he hires only the finest Clintons... I mean Cohens... I mean people. Sorry, they're just so similar it's easy to confuse Clinton and Cohen. Drain the swamp! Lock him up! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!


Bill Clinton was the President, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and candidate for president. Cohen is Trump's lawyer. How are they similar? Oh yeah, they're not.


Op title


That russian oligarch that allegedly gave money to trumps lawyer gave money to the Clintons


That's right. Except in the Cohen case, there is no evidence that a "Russian oligarch" had anything to do with anything.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Funny how you say you didn't actually mean it literally as far as Clinton's impeachment over a blowjob as it is what you said. I am certain when the FBI asked Michael Flynn if he ever had contact with a Russian Ambassador that Flynn answered NO he did not and meant that no he never met with the Ambassador for collusion reasons.

Apparently the agents felt that way too but Comey and Muller charge him with lying. Why is that ? Simply to have him lie like they do and say Trump did something wrong.

As long as Trump has been operating, there is no doubt in my mind he has committed his share of what most of America would consider a crime, in New York there is no way you can build a large project without dealing with the mob, but that has been considered a way of business for New York.

My point is that don't make up BS charge him with something he actually did but that would not fit the narrative they need to fill to make Hillary feel better about herself



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Did I take a wrong turn into a wringling bros circus tent...cause here I sit in this thread in front of a full on 3 ring circus...



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
President Trump's Federal Government will Indict/arrest the porn star attorney for hacking and leaking Cohen's bank records.


The Treasury Department’s inspector general is investigating how Stormy Daniels’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, obtained confidential banking records concerning a company controlled by President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen.
Source w/more at: thehill.com...

This guy needs to be made an example of.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: luthier

Funny how you say you didn't actually mean it literally as far as Clinton's impeachment over a blowjob as it is what you said. I am certain when the FBI asked Michael Flynn if he ever had contact with a Russian Ambassador that Flynn answered NO he did not and meant that no he never met with the Ambassador for collusion reasons.

Apparently the agents felt that way too but Comey and Muller charge him with lying. Why is that ? Simply to have him lie like they do and say Trump did something wrong.

As long as Trump has been operating, there is no doubt in my mind he has committed his share of what most of America would consider a crime, in New York there is no way you can build a large project without dealing with the mob, but that has been considered a way of business for New York.

My point is that don't make up BS charge him with something he actually did but that would not fit the narrative they need to fill to make Hillary feel better about herself


So you think fbi testimony and a two sentence post on ats are remotely similar?

Sorry if you didn't understand that I implying Clinton was also a victim of a runaway investigation...

You do understand that it is common for federal prosecutors to squeeze witness testimony though correct? That this isn't some crazy thing only done for Donald Trump. I mean the drug war really strengthened prosecutorial immunity and this is what prosecutors do in criminal trials against people like gang leaders?



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian


Totally believable given the way you collectively lose your # over things like Michael Cohen being under FBI investigation despite not actually knowing why he's under investigation. Most Trump supporters on ATS don't want to see Manafort go down for crimes he's clearly committed. It's empty platitude. It's something you say because you don't expect that you'll ever have to go through with it.

"If he's guilty of something, I want him to hang! Also, DON'TYOUDAREINVESTIGATEDEARLEADERHE'SAGOLDENGODYOUDEEPSTATEGLOBALISTCOMMIELIBTARDSCUMMUELLERISANAZITHEFBIISTHEGESTAPOSTRZOKINSURANCEPOLICYWHATABOUTCLI NTON!"


The last thing any of us want is to look all wishy washy and stupid


Ehhhh.. little late. Little. Bit. Too. Late.


Sweet! Just show me where I "lost my sh!t" over Cohen, and I will indeed look like the fool here. If not, well, you know.







 
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join