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.

 

Air tight defense for Trump

page: 6
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Well, he's going to need air tight defense thats for sure.

On the whole I feel like this will be a situation similar to bills impeachment.
It's not the things he did in a legal sense, it's that he lied about it. Goodbye




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

New York Prosecutors Can Go After Trump Now, Even If Mueller Won’t


Justice Department guidelines prohibit indicting a sitting president, though he could be prosecuted after leaving office. No such restriction applies to New York and other state prosecutors, however, who are limited only by their willingness to act in the public interest.


Not sure if this has been brought up in the thread yet (my bad) but, not looking good for our king
edit on 8/22/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo




Does this directly bring in Donald Trump? I doubt it.


You doubt it? When the evidence you mention has trumps voice talking about paying her off?
Well that certainly is optimistic.


From a purely legal standpoint you’re not going to bring charges against a sitting president.

That is not going to happen, is what I meant.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Virtually all politicians have had campaign finance violations, Obama sure did. Usually they pay a fine and get on with it. Why is it that every single thing that virtually everyone else in Washington does/has done suddenly becomes a big deal when it involves President Trump?

A precedent has already been set countless times. Campaign finance violations are the "jay walking" (quoting Alan Dershowitz) of political crimes and quite common. And previously, paying fines have sufficed.

I am sick and tired of the never ending Mueller investigation and sick and tired of hearing MSNBC and Trump haters screaming, "THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE BIG ONE ELIZABETH" (hahah, Sanford and Son reference). Anyone with a job and a life and a modicum of common sense sees this for what it is; a partisan hit job based on butt hurt lefties not getting their way and getting Hillary elected.

Please God make it go away. I'd rather like to appreciate a decent economy and relatively peaceful world right now.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462

I am sick and tired of the never ending Mueller investigation and sick and tired of hearing MSNBC and Trump haters screaming, "THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE BIG ONE ELIZABETH" (hahah, Sanford and Son reference).

Exactly



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The word "contribution" with regards to FEC law means that the flow of money is from the citizen to the politician. Flow of money from the politician to the citizen is not a "contribution" under legal definition. Direction of the flow of money! Pay attention to legal terminology and the meaning of words.
edit on 22-8-2018 by tkwasny because: Addition



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

It doesn't matter-no modern president is helping the middle class. Trump is not MAGA for us.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42
Except it's nothing like Bill since Trump has not lied under oath. Try again.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: kurthall


kurthall said: "LMAO, No collusion?? trump tweeted (and lied) about that over and over. Now he has had 3 stories on the trump tower meeting. Was it not about Russian adoption? Nope, last week he TWEETED, it was to get DIRT ON HILLARY. trumps Camp, met with RUSSIANS to get dirt on Hillary. THAT IS COLLUSION. "


ok you done? let me walk you back thru the door to *************REALITY***********

www.rt.com... read this.
your ignorance of Law is astounding. Collusion isnt a Crime written into the Law as there is no Legistlation against it.
might as well say Because HILLARY accepts donations from Multipla Countries for her family and the CF that she is guilty of colluding along with every president we ever had!!

Read the above statement again to understand why the Don's Boys are always laughing at you all. you cant just make something a crime just because the media is continuuing their mass Deflection Campaign from their failure to provide accurate headlines which cost the DNC the Election.

From the mouths of the Red Bears themselves..... the meeting with a private russian lawyer had nothing to do with Any Issues regarding Government Matters or digging up dirt or electoral interference.
Russia has never used a Lawyer to commit Official or clandestine operations especially a private one within the United States. why would they send someone as trackable as one of their own Citizens through public and legal travel channels with his REAL passport and all the things a Law Abiding Citizen would do to "Collude" in such "Front Door Approach" fashion unless his Business was PERFECTLY LEGAL?

Ive studied alot of old and newer Manuals and Documents describing the capability for subterfuge of any Nation provided it has the right Organizational Setup and 500 dollars!!!! Thats not to mention the Degree in History and specialization of Historical methods of Espionage and Covert Execution of Operations. just so you understand the gravity of my next words.

anyone with a little knowledge and practice could get any electronic or hard copied information into the Penthouse of Trump Tower with only the funds needed for Busfare and you would never of even saw him come or go!!.

such limited thinking and understanding in your heads.

If Russia had wanted to contact trump outside official channels putin could of called Trump Tower.
or if they wanted to be extra sneaky they could have their contacts here hire a P.I. or third party agency through a dummy corporation to deliver the Information.
it is more likely a private matter of discussing international red tape on investments overseas or other such private business or civil matter.

Which isnt illegal

the fact that so many of you think we live in the 1950s and that they would send a lawyer, from russia, to deliver by word of mouth something that would easily be less conspicious and more convenient then sending a letter of combustible material?
they call it a "Burn after Reading" for this exact purpose.

and you also keep forgetting, Russia may be a Rival Superpower but they are not Enemies with the U.S.A.. point in fact if you look to Syria you will see the Strategic and Tactical good reason in Russia "assisting" the U.S. and Israel, keeping the U.S. from having a strategic advantage over Territories that are Vital in Geolocation towards such ends.

also how is it the entire left is concerned about russia but no one seems worried about those people on your end flying Hammer and Sickle flags? since you cant see their face and Identify them how are you certain thats not a horde of Russian agents busting up your favorite Coffe Bistro?
are you certain there are not Agents serving Russia's Interest on the Democrats Side of the Protest Fence?
Cause I am seeing alot of Russian Flags and Bandanas...
your logic in applicable blame and conjecture continues to Astound me.

So the Collusion is a bust as its not a crime and as of yet there is no evidence of Collusion between trump and Members of the Russian Gov't or any of its channels... now you want Impeachment over unproven claims of Campaign Violations that would only require a small Fine.

We have a Term, for this wild allegations I have just stated.
We have a Term, for wild, paranoid, xenophobic, Anti-"The Guys Who Finished the Nazi's OFF" accusations based off FEAR and IMAGINATIVE Delusion... ............. WE CALL THAT ACONSPIRACY THEORY!maybe you should call your entire MSM Cast and offer them a place amongst us here at ATS? just a suggestion, as this is the perfect place for even the silliest of conspiracies, think it over for me will ya?


"Kurthall said: Anyway, you trump FOLLOWERS are ignorant."


In the Words of John Cleese... "I Disagree"

edit on 22-8-2018 by AutisticEvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Here are a few points to consider.

Trump decides to run for president. He knows that in the past he has had sexual encounters with women who may come out of the woodwork and make up all kinds of juicy BS to try and get their 15 minutes and magazine story deals. Giving him the benefit of the doubt here regarding the relationship he has with his current wife, we have to assume that he was simply trying to avoid the media circus such stories would cause regardless of the truth of them.
So assuming the above,
There is nothing illegal about entering into agreements with these women to pay them to go away. At least on Trumps part. What these women need to understand is that if it is established that the payment was a "contribution" then it has been established that their stories constituted a threat to the campaign. Therefore their request for money, and statements that they would go to the press to reveal those stories ARE EXTORTION.
Entering into a NDA is not illegal. Breaking that NDA is not illegal either, however it does expose you to civil liability.
Regardless of the truth of the matter you agreed not to publically discuss the matter in exchange for a monetary fee. You cant hide behind a lawyer (and I am speaking to you Mrs Porn star) and act like there is something illicit going on that absolves you from the NDA.
Trump has a lawyer to deal with these kinds of personal matters. He instructs that lawyer to address the stories of these women by having them agree to an NDA and payments. THATS NOT ILLEGAL.
The lawyer pays them and Trump pays the lawyer his retainer.
Now the sequence of events is not really important nor is the timing of these events because none of that is illegal and it does not constitute a "campaign funding" violation.
People running for office have lawsuits and settlements that are taken care of all the time in the run up to an election.
Its possible that a situation might arise that could be called an illegal contribution but it would involve some other third party stepping in to cover the settlements and never getting paid back. That could be looked at as an expectation that the third party would be expecting a political action in exchange for the payments. Cohen acting as Trumps lawyer hardly fits that description.
Lying to the press is not a crime, so Trumps statements that he "didn't know about the payments before hand" is not a problem but it may in fact also be the truth. It may have been that Cohen handled the interaction with the two women and may have even paid them before he told Trump about it in the recorded call. He was taking care of it before it got out of hand and then he mentions it to Trump and acts like its something that he needs to do knowing Trump will agree with him and pay the money anyway. That's still not a crime.

The meeting at Trump tower is not a crime.
Meeting with someone from another country that may have information on your opponent is not a crime. No one involved has indicated that the meeting even resulted in any activity. Everyone agrees that the meeting very quickly turned into a meeting about adoptions.
The only "false statements" that have potentially been made have been made to the media. Which is not a crime.
Cohen may have made some false statements to congress and he will have to answer for those but he should have just indicated that he could not discuss specific items as they would violate attorney client privilege.

This continues to be a colossal waste of time and the tax payers money.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dragoon01
Here are a few points to consider.

Trump decides to run for president. He knows that in the past he has had sexual encounters with women who may come out of the woodwork and make up all kinds of juicy BS to try and get their 15 minutes and magazine story deals. Giving him the benefit of the doubt here regarding the relationship he has with his current wife, we have to assume that he was simply trying to avoid the media circus such stories would cause regardless of the truth of them.
So assuming the above,
There is nothing illegal about entering into agreements with these women to pay them to go away. At least on Trumps part. What these women need to understand is that if it is established that the payment was a "contribution" then it has been established that their stories constituted a threat to the campaign. Therefore their request for money, and statements that they would go to the press to reveal those stories ARE EXTORTION.
Entering into a NDA is not illegal. Breaking that NDA is not illegal either, however it does expose you to civil liability.
Regardless of the truth of the matter you agreed not to publically discuss the matter in exchange for a monetary fee. You cant hide behind a lawyer (and I am speaking to you Mrs Porn star) and act like there is something illicit going on that absolves you from the NDA.
Trump has a lawyer to deal with these kinds of personal matters. He instructs that lawyer to address the stories of these women by having them agree to an NDA and payments. THATS NOT ILLEGAL.
The lawyer pays them and Trump pays the lawyer his retainer.
Now the sequence of events is not really important nor is the timing of these events because none of that is illegal and it does not constitute a "campaign funding" violation.
People running for office have lawsuits and settlements that are taken care of all the time in the run up to an election.
Its possible that a situation might arise that could be called an illegal contribution but it would involve some other third party stepping in to cover the settlements and never getting paid back. That could be looked at as an expectation that the third party would be expecting a political action in exchange for the payments. Cohen acting as Trumps lawyer hardly fits that description.
Lying to the press is not a crime, so Trumps statements that he "didn't know about the payments before hand" is not a problem but it may in fact also be the truth. It may have been that Cohen handled the interaction with the two women and may have even paid them before he told Trump about it in the recorded call. He was taking care of it before it got out of hand and then he mentions it to Trump and acts like its something that he needs to do knowing Trump will agree with him and pay the money anyway. That's still not a crime.

The meeting at Trump tower is not a crime.
Meeting with someone from another country that may have information on your opponent is not a crime. No one involved has indicated that the meeting even resulted in any activity. Everyone agrees that the meeting very quickly turned into a meeting about adoptions.
The only "false statements" that have potentially been made have been made to the media. Which is not a crime.
Cohen may have made some false statements to congress and he will have to answer for those but he should have just indicated that he could not discuss specific items as they would violate attorney client privilege.

This continues to be a colossal waste of time and the tax payers money.


Damn man! With that wealth of legal knowledge, why didn't Manafort and/or Cohen hire YOU to represent them???? They'd almost certainly be free had they called the Dragoon!



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable

I doubt it his twitter habit takes up most of his time. No time for ATS



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

No there wasn't a tape saying that. Trump said pay cash ... Cohen said no no no.


There was nothing illegal with Trump saying to pay cash. Cash would not come from his campaign and it is not illegal to pay someone to keep quiet about something. It is not illegal to pay ransom or to settle a dispute with money as a payment.

It sounds like Cohen actually went ahead and paid it out of a fund he was not supposed to pay it out of. Evidently Trump did reimburse that fund later on.

There was nothing illegal about ol Bill Clinton going out with Monika either, but he did lie about the sexual relation issue and was impeached by the house and it was overturned by the Senate. I do not support either one of these cheating ventures, I am just commenting on their legality.


edit on 22-8-2018 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

It damn well shoule be illegal to pay someone to keep quiet about something. The only reason to do so would be to cover up wrong doings.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: rickymouse

It damn well shoule be illegal to pay someone to keep quiet about something. The only reason to do so would be to cover up wrong doings.


The elite and rich do it all the time. So do political figures. Now why would they allow laws to be passed that would negatively effect them. Remember, laws are designed to govern the common people, not the top one percent. When convicted of major felonies because they screwed up badly, they go to different Federal Prisons too. I guess they have much better living conditions in them than the ones the vast majority of people go to.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

Give a stable genius with the best people some time. Maybe he'll get sick of winning



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:12 AM
link   
. The op has asked why not just destroy all requested evidence. Here is the answer that I can come with.

The question is who is willing to spend 20 years in prison, and have felony on their records for the rest of their life, losing many rights in the process?

The evidence that is there, is documented, and locked up. If any were to look at such, would have to go through the legal process, including signing for such. And then that person would have to be willing to take the full blame and spend years in prison. And that is the federal level, not to mention the state level, that this may affect as well.

So that would be the question, who is willing to risk losing their freedom and ending up losing some rights, and a good paying job to do such?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
. The op has asked why not just destroy all requested evidence. Here is the answer that I can come with.

The question is who is willing to spend 20 years in prison, and have felony on their records for the rest of their life, losing many rights in the process?

The evidence that is there, is documented, and locked up. If any were to look at such, would have to go through the legal process, including signing for such. And then that person would have to be willing to take the full blame and spend years in prison. And that is the federal level, not to mention the state level, that this may affect as well.

So that would be the question, who is willing to risk losing their freedom and ending up losing some rights, and a good paying job to do such?


Paul combetta destroyed subpoenaed evidence for hillary.

He received no punishment whatsoever.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Didn’t Obama get fined 300k for campaign violations?

Another big nothing burger in the “deepstates Law-fare” operation soft coup attempt

Where is the counter investigation?

Where is the special prosecutor for Hillary and the Dem and fbi and doj



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Forensic data recovery. That's why.




top topics



 
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join