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.

 

Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

page: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: hoss53

Trump's candidates are winning their primary's


Because they are the only choice. Stupid follows stupid.




posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

A) Jr. ABSOLUTELY was part of the campaign, but even if he wasn’t. Kushner and manafort was as well...

It was literally the top 3 members of the trump campaign who went.

Which means they tom the meeting VERY SERIOUSLY.. they could have sent a couple low level staffers or Micheal Cohen if they didn’t take it very seriously..

More than that.. Giuliani just last week admitted their was a meeting that preceded that one where it is fairly obvious trump was asked if they should take the meeting..

Gotta love those Freudian slips..

B) actually it is only illegal i Ltd you do not report it ahead of time.. campaign finance law allows foreign donations if they are up front and checked out..

Like fusion GPS was reported up front..

Trump did a backroom deal he refused to report and then repeatedly Lied about it..

B)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: hoss53

No they're not.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

LOL, your ignorance of the law is showing.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: hoss53

It is because they actually believe the ridiculous alternative reality trump is pushing...



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Is that supposed to be a counterpoint???

Last time I checked “nah uh” is not a counterpoint..

Maybe I missed the memo..



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Swills

I thought you chaps had moved on from "collusion" as it is not illegal and were now using "conspiracy"?
Trump just said what his son said months ago - and that is news?

You realise there is absolutely nothing illegal with receiving information about an opponent - no matter who is providing it - right? Now if they knew they were receiving illegally obtained information that might be different, but there is no suggestion of that either now or in the emails that were produced.

What you have here is a meeting with a Russian lawyer who said she had dirt on Hillary and a campaign interested in receiving it... i.e. nothing for Trump (or his son) to be even slightly worried about.

Liberals could criminalise waking up in the morning if it suited their cause. Pathetic.



Title 52, Section 30121 of the U.S. Code makes it illegal for a foreign national to make “a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” Furthermore, it’s illegal for Americans “to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation” from a foreign national.

Note the phrase "Other things of value," which would include dirt on your opponent in connection with an election.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

Also please link to trump saying there was a quid pro quo to drop sanctions in return for help winning the election.


My comment was that he admitted to the premise of the meeting.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Alien Abduct

What conspiracy theory? I am going by trump TWEETS! His story has changed, how many times? It's all right there on Twitter!





Changed how?

I guess you missed that he has been saying the same thing for a long time.
Here is a tweet from July 17, 2017


Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!

twitter.com...

News even reported on it back then - over a year ago.
Trump Tweets ‘That’s Politics!’ About Son’s Meeting With Russian Lawyer



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

You realize that
A) Jr wasn't part of the campaign

Yes, he was.


B) your asinine understanding of that law makes all opposition research outside of the US, illegal

That's because my asinine understanding also happens to be the correct understanding. Keep trying.


C) that law applies to the foreign nationals not US citizens

That LAW pertains to how a US citizen is expected by law to run their campaign. It also defines the prohibitive activity by the same US citizens running the campaign.



Here's a nice little article by a law professor who made the same emotional mistake you've made in your interpretation of thing of value, but later reflected on it and realized his obvious mistake.

Keep it pal. I'm not emotional, I don't have to elicit any emotion at all to know you're full of BS



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: sprockets2000

Lol I don’t know how you think a sitting president working with an adversarial government to swing his own election is a nothing burger..



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


That's because my asinine understanding also happens to be the correct understanding. 


Bwahaha please cite the case where your understanding was held as the judgment! I'll wait.


That LAW pertains to how a US citizen is expected by law to run their campaign. It also defines the prohibitive activity by the same US citizens running the campaign


Why are you bolding the word 'law' and the phrase 'by law'? Do you think I don't understand what a law is? Or is it just an obfuscation attempt since I pointed out a bunch of glaring holes in your uninformed opinion?

Let me try this bolding out:
It shall be unlawful for--

(1)  a foreign national,
directly or indirectly, to make...

Notice it doesn't say anything about a campaign accepting donations? But that's neither here nor there, as the other glaring holes are more than suitable to destroy your argument.



Keep it pal. I'm not emotional, I don't have to elicit any emotion at all to know you're full of BS.


Yes, I'm full of BS, that's why I posted links to the legal analysis by a law professor. You caught me. And you don't sound emotional at all. Like, you're totally relaxed.

(Sometimes you should just admit you're speaking out your rear. It's less humiliating.)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Nope it's like arguing with a 4 year old. They aren't going to listen to reason. But here's one hint: Fusion GPS is an American company. Let's see if you can understand how that little detail unravels the entirety of the bull you're spewing.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

No it wasn't. You literally said trumps tweet was evidence of a quid quo pro.

Me: We have no evidence that would suggest such a quid pro quo, nor is it logical to deduce that. If you believe it is, please explain your logical steps. 

You: We have Trump on twitter saying it. I'm pretty certain that qualifies as evidence. 



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

You're burning them bruh, keep it up, destroying the liberal narrative.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: andrewh7

Opposition research is speech not a "thing of value" otherwise any campaign (or extension thereof) speaking to any foreigner about even their own candidate would violate this statute.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Dfairlite

You're burning them bruh, keep it up, destroying the liberal narrative.


Brilliant, keep making this a left versus right thing.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

No it wasn't. You literally said trumps tweet was evidence of a quid quo pro.

Me: We have no evidence that would suggest such a quid pro quo, nor is it logical to deduce that. If you believe it is, please explain your logical steps. 

You: We have Trump on twitter saying it. I'm pretty certain that qualifies as evidence. 


What other reason could there be other than an exchange of items? I mean, he admitted to the meetings premise being for dirt on Hillary. Now, unless you live in some type of utopia, I wouldn't exactly say its a stretch to having a reciprocity....the world *I* live in, there aint no free lunch.



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: andrewh7

Opposition research is speech not a "thing of value" otherwise any campaign (or extension thereof) speaking to any foreigner about even their own candidate would violate this statute.


Jesus Christ...

Opposition research is a thing of significant value. Campaigns pay large sums of $$$$ for it.

Thus if Russia was offering opposition research it would either be A) a covert campaign donation by a foreign hostile government or B) Services in return for a covert quid pro quo with a foreign hostile government.

But more to the point, they weren't offering "opposition research" they were offering a full on massive propaganda and cyber criminal campaign conducted by the RUSSIAN FSB, which we now know involved hundreds of people, Millions of dollars, Money Laundering and identity theft of American Citizens.




edit on 6-8-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

That's quite the claim. Too bad you don't have any evidence for such wild assertions.

Also, the legal term 'things of value' doesn't mean something one 'could' pay for.
edit on 6-8-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join