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.

 

The point of cohens plea deal

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


And back to your original premise, if this was all an international "deep state" conspiracy against Trump to "spy on trump connected people to get any dirt they could on trump, or if not him, people connected to him." — why was it so ineffective?

What dirt did they get? How was it used? Why would they surveil Carter Page a month after he left the campaign to get dirt on Trump? If they were as desperate, hate filled and "likely criminal" as you believe, why did they stop far short of accomplishing any reasonable goal?

Why didn't the "deep state" conspirators do *anything* prior to the election to keep Trump from winning?

Why not leak the existence of the investigation? Why not leak the Papadopolous story? Details of the Trump Tower meeting? None of this really makes any sense. And usually the response to this plot holes is "well, they didn't think Trump was going to win!"

Which would mean what? Some large but unknown number of conspirators from multiple agencies and outside the government, planned and executed a grand conspiracy, starting before the Summer of 2016, just in case Trump won?



Alsdo been answered many times.

First and foremost, they assumed hillary was going to win.

Its the same reason comey released the reopening of the hillary investigation. He told us why.

He thought she was going to win, and he wanted to help her not seem illegitimate when she was in office.

Think about it. Had the fisa warrant on carter page info been released, and hillary won, trump supporters would have cried foul. And so to this day the FBI would be trying to dig up anything they could on page to make this seem legit. If they couldnt find anything, then trump supporters would have had a very valid point;

You spied on someone that was in trumps team,. released info to the public he may be a russian conspirator, and then had to say whoops our bad, sorry if that influenced people.

Same with papadopolous.

It was sort a break in case of emergency measure. Due to the medias own hubris and the crappy polling, everyone, including hillary and her team thought she had it in the bag.

And the glass was broken on the insurance policy as soon as she lost.

Secondly, the spying allowed the fbi and through them Obama and hillarys team to know exactly what the trump team was saying.

Why was watregate such a big deal? Nixons peop[le risked everything just to find out what their opponents were stargizing. well here all the benefit, none of the risk. And instead of a couple of incompetent burglars, you have the weight of the fbi on you side.

Third, the spying also had the benefit of picking up some blatantly illegal stuff. Had they got documents or phone calls of trump doing something blatantly illegal, they would have certainly released it before the election.

But they didnt.

So hillary and obama got to keep tabs on their opponent, and they felt no need to open up the can of worms that their was an investigation because they though hillary was a shoe in.

As soon as they lost, their insurance po,icy kicked in.

It took them a while, but its finally bearing fruit, as they were able to maneuver russian collusion into decades old financial crimes and finally raid trumps lawyer and get him to flip to hopefully get trump on some sort of finance violation.




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler



I am more concerned with a corrupt intel agency than any crime hillary or trump have committed.


God works in mysterious ways?

Yeah - it's like that. See why these conversations are so interesting --and so pointless?

The only way Intelligence agencies can be honest is if they put away our enemies


I have no idea what you are saying?

Have total faith in the intel agencies and they will do the right thing?

remember the iraq war?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler




Chuck schumer already gave you the answer; if you criuticize the intel agencies, they have many ways to get back at you



Hmmm. Nine ways to Sunday if I recall correctly. Lol
Maybe he shouldn't have been so shltty to them huh?


so it's cool that they are bypassing the existing laws to get things done, since Trump was mean to them. Yep, you get it.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Oh, stop with the big man fronting

I didn't bail - I said all I had to say. You just want me to agree with you


You aren't willing to admit that the only explanation you have for why Hillary isn't in jail is because that's what the deep state wants

You haven't offered up a better explanation

If you have one - I'm listening



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler




Chuck schumer already gave you the answer; if you criuticize the intel agencies, they have many ways to get back at you



Hmmm. Nine ways to Sunday if I recall correctly. Lol
Maybe he shouldn't have been so shltty to them huh?


And there you go, the truth comes out.

Trump should have taken orders from the unelected intel community.

Otherwise, he deserves what he gets.

Thanks for outing yourself!



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Good for me! At least what I put together makes sense.

very LITTLE of what you do here makes sense
But tell yourself what ever you need to conjurer



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That's not what I'm saying. I can see why you're confused

When we don't get the outcome we desire or that we're expecting - sometimes we come up with reasons



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




Jesus, it's really hard to believe people with integrity think like this.


Maybe I am without integrity? Maybe you see what you want to see

Maybe you don't understand what you're reading



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler




Chuck schumer already gave you the answer; if you criuticize the intel agencies, they have many ways to get back at you



Hmmm. Nine ways to Sunday if I recall correctly. Lol
Maybe he shouldn't have been so shltty to them huh?


Be careful, Silly.

That statement, while there may be some truth to it, can easily be taken out-of-context by members on this site that are known for doing so.

Edit: Never mind...too late.




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



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

That's not what I'm saying. I can see why you're confused

When we don't get the outcome we desire or that we're expecting - sometimes we come up with reasons


First let me say I appreciate the conversation.

But man I am confused, are you yoda or something?

Yes, we all seek explanations for outcomes we want and dont want.

That is irrelevant.

It is clear in the area we are discussing, thatb hillarys team broke the law by deleting subpoenaed evidence.

The question is why wasnt she charged?

There seems to be only two explanations, both troubling;

the fbi is incompetent or corrupt.

I have given my reasons why i think its the latter



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne


a reply to: Grambler

The special counsel is buying its witnesses, bullying them into plea deals with threats of lengthy imprisonment, just to get to Trump.


I seriously question that. If that's so, then why didn't Manafort go for a sweet plea deal? And frankly, Cohen's deal ain't all that sweet.

In any event, since the country has elected a crooked snake as "president", maybe this is one case where the end will justify the means.


And there it is, just for anyone who still holds out some lunatic notion that this is all about justice. Thanks for finally being honest, now, if some others would just be honest, at least to themselves.


It absolutely is about justice. This man has surrounded himself with criminals. Do you ever ask yourself why?
Although I made that comment, and personally that's how I feel, there won't be any tricks or slight of hand to put an end to his reign. It will be on the up and up. In fact, perusing his tax returns would probably be enough.

As an American citizen, do you feel like you don't need to know what happened in Helsinki? Do you think the deals he struck with Putin are none of your business? Because it is most certainly your business, and it's my business.
His keeping the information hidden is an abuse of power.

He's unfit for the office. He lies to the American public every single day, or has his staff so it. Lying is not illegal. However when you are supposed to be the 'president', lying to the American people is an abuse of power.

And how dare anybody talk about political motivations, when his removing security clearances from former intelligence officials was nothing but. Are you not ashamed of this bullying move? It's immaturity, and attempt to silence others?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: network dude

Oh, stop with the big man fronting

I didn't bail - I said all I had to say. You just want me to agree with you


You aren't willing to admit that the only explanation you have for why Hillary isn't in jail is because that's what the deep state wants

You haven't offered up a better explanation

If you have one - I'm listening


quote me where I said anything like that. All I have done it show you, quite a few times what laws the United Stated has that Hillary Clinton Broke. That is what you asked for. You even did it twice. Now that I have stated the facts that are indisputable, you seem to not be interested in those facts anymore. I get it. I don't like to have my ass handed to me like that either.

But when you double down and make comments on how important the letter of the law is to you, then make the lunatic statements like you did about intent, it shows at best a gargantuan lack of understanding.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler




Chuck schumer already gave you the answer; if you criuticize the intel agencies, they have many ways to get back at you



Hmmm. Nine ways to Sunday if I recall correctly. Lol
Maybe he shouldn't have been so shltty to them huh?


Be careful, Silly.

That statement, while there may be some truth to it, can easily be taken out-of-context by members on this site that are known for doing so.

Edit: Never mind...too late.





So you assume you know her context to know I took it out of that?

What we all know is that you have made it quite clear that trumps russian connections are reason for an investigation, but hillarys russian connections are not.

And also that you would not have been for the investigations into the Intel community that charged mcCabe with crimes.

So we know where you are coming from and how you interpret "context"



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Ok you have the right to say he was unfit for office.

The who running was fit for office.

Not hillary, she wasd surrounded with criminals as well, such as the podesta group.

In fact, almost every politician in washington is surrounded by criminal lobbyists, lawyers, and wealthy people seeking to buy influence, both foriegn and domestic.

But despite this, the two people that although very crappy people that have come around with a serious chance to win that were percieved outsiders to the establishment, bernie and trump, were the only two that got this sort of special treatment to bring them down.

Doesnt that worry you?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne


a reply to: Grambler

The special counsel is buying its witnesses, bullying them into plea deals with threats of lengthy imprisonment, just to get to Trump.


I seriously question that. If that's so, then why didn't Manafort go for a sweet plea deal? And frankly, Cohen's deal ain't all that sweet.

In any event, since the country has elected a crooked snake as "president", maybe this is one case where the end will justify the means.


And there it is, just for anyone who still holds out some lunatic notion that this is all about justice. Thanks for finally being honest, now, if some others would just be honest, at least to themselves.


It absolutely is about justice. This man has surrounded himself with criminals. Do you ever ask yourself why?
Although I made that comment, and personally that's how I feel, there won't be any tricks or slight of hand to put an end to his reign. It will be on the up and up. In fact, perusing his tax returns would probably be enough.

As an American citizen, do you feel like you don't need to know what happened in Helsinki? Do you think the deals he struck with Putin are none of your business? Because it is most certainly your business, and it's my business.
His keeping the information hidden is an abuse of power.

He's unfit for the office. He lies to the American public every single day, or has his staff so it. Lying is not illegal. However when you are supposed to be the 'president', lying to the American people is an abuse of power.

And how dare anybody talk about political motivations, when his removing security clearances from former intelligence officials was nothing but. Are you not ashamed of this bullying move? It's immaturity, and attempt to silence others?


But in all that, you fail in epic proportions to realize one important aspect of this. He was elected by the people of the United States using the system that we put in place to make sure the people get a fair chance of electing one of the two douche bags that the two parties select to be their puppets.

So while I truly understand that you don't like him, he's the president. And if you use bullsh!t ways to remove him, you are showing the world that our system is garbage, our laws are a joke, our election system is worthless, and we have devolved into a society that rewards asshole crybabies. Perhaps this is all coming to a head showing the way the extreme minority gets to dictate policy by mob rule and manipulation of the press. Don't like a statue, fluck it, tear it down. Don't like who was elected? fluck it, make some sh!t up and kick him out.

I can't wait to see how the idiots deal with President Pence.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I appreciate the conversation too Grambler - you and I have been at this before. It's always the discussion that I want

I'm out of here soon, just so you don't think I'm bailing



the fbi is incompetent or corrupt.

This is the explanation that makes sense for you. But Hillary may be innocent of a crime - though she is guilty of negligence. That's what was determined - but it leaves you feeling wronged

Many people here want to believe that the people who question Trumps innocence have it out for him. It's a fair question - don't you think? Do they?

Being guilty of a crime can be by degrees. It may well end up that Trump didn't collude with the Russians to commit a crime against his own country. In order to know this we would have to have evidence that he planned to do exactly that - cheat the American people out of an honest election. He may be innocent of collusion, but guilty of obstruction. Same as what you believe Hillary has done

Can we prove it?

People shouldn't go to jail just because we don't like them. It's not just the letter of the law that's important - it's also about the spirit of the law. What did the accused intend?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Please see my latest reply - to Grambler

Out of here for now Network :-)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

People shouldn't go to jail just because we don't like them. It's not just the letter of the law that's important - it's also about the spirit of the law. What did the accused intend?



Unless it's Donald Trump. Not sure if you remember or not, but Hillary's issues are based on the results of an investigation that showed the crimes she committed, as found by the FBI, Trump is still under investigation based on hearsay and a collection of lies Hillary paid to have printed known as the Trump Dossier. And as of today, Trump is not charged with any crimes, and no evidence exists that he did anything illegal with Russia.

So there is a blinding double standard with regard to your posts. I know it's easy to see from my house, but perhaps not so much from your vantage point. Have a great day and be safe.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Oh but wasnt russia at the same time releasing messages that were pro black lives matter, and lgbt issues? These were issues that would boost dmeocrats, and particularly hurt trump.


The Internet Research Agency's work began back in what? 2014? And as you know, at the same time they were running social media accounts and websites promoting BLM, etc they were simultaneously promoting the "opposite" side. Because the point wasn't to boost anyone, it was to drive division and civil unrest.

You also know that at some point in the months right before the election, their activity shifted to decidedly pro-Trump. They organized pro-Trump events (example: "Florida goes Trump" flash mobs). Did they organize pro-Clinton events? No? In fact, they paid a guy named Harry Miller $1,000 to build this cage used in a West Palm Beach Trump rally:



Did they do anything like that in support of Hillary? You're ignoring details and nuance to argue that these things are all equivalent and they're not. Not only were the IRA activities not equal, it's got nothing to do with the hacking by Russian intelligence services.

And importantly, none of this was known back when the FBI's counterintelligence agency was opened. So even if we wrongly stipulate that there was something comparable going on, none of this is actually pertinent to your theory. Think about it. You're arguing that based on the above, there should have been just as much suspicion of Clinton but nobody even knew at the time that it was going on so that doesn't really hold water.


So while that was going on, hillary donor and campaign manager tony podesta's


I assume you meant Hillary's campaign manager's brother, Tony Podesta? Here again, you're talking about things in the vaguest terms possible to give the impression that they're equivalent. Tony Podesta wasn't part of the Clinton campaign, his brother was. But even if Tony Podesta was a part of the campaign, asserting that his pro-Ukrainian lobbying for Manafort in 2012-2014 is equivalent in nature to Manafort's involvement is absurd.


It was also well known that fusion gps founder glenn simpson was in fact working for many of the same russian oligarchs that manafort is accused of working for.


No, we do not know that Glenn Simpson was working for "many of the same Russian oligarchs that Manafort is accused of working for." In fact, as far as I know, they've not worked for the same people ever. Glenn Simpson is a renowned investigative reporter. In the last years of his career, while at WSJ and then later at a think tank, he specialized in reporting on Russian organized crime and government corruption.

Prevezon holdings is 100% owned by Denis Katsyv. He hired BakerHostetler who in turn contracted Fusion GPS in 2014 to do research into Bill Browder.


And we know simpson was heavily trying to stop trump from getting elected, and take down his presidency afterwards, with the help of a foriegn agent who was getting dirt on trump from kremlin sources, all paid for by hillarys team.


Yes, we all know that Fusion GPS was hired in 2016 to dig up dirt on Trump and that Simpson contracted Christopher Steele, former head of the MI6's Russia desk, to dig up what he could from his network of Russian contacts.

What's opinion is the insinuation that the alarm and subsequent actions taken by Steele and to a lesser extent, Simpson, were motivated by a hatred of Trump or money paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign. Never mind the fact that Christopher Steele has a seemingly unimpeachable professional history. Just smear the # out of him with implications that he's some sort of super stooge. Some relatively poorly paid shill for the Clinton campaign.

What about the possibility that what his sources reported back to him were genuinely alarming to him and he was motivated by his conscience?


We also know that supposed investigaators such as brice ohr and mark warner were in contact with this foriegn spy and russian oligarch.


"Foreign spy" lmao. You mean ex-British spy? You mean a guy who had contributed significantly to past investigations involving the FBI? Sounds so much more sinister when you say "foreign spy" though. And what Russian oligarch was Ohr in contact with?

I'm not even going to get into the Mark Warner thing. He was operating with the knowledge of Burr in an effort to get Steele in front of their committee. What does that actually have to do with anything? What about that needs to be investigated?

I've got a bunch of resumes to read so I'm going to sign off for now but I'll be back later.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I dont see how the destruction of subpoenaed evidence is potentially not a crime.

Law enforcement would never be able to charge anyone with destroying subpoenaed if that the case.

Everyone would just say "Oh sorry, i know i was supposed to keep those files and turn them over to you, but I deleted them because i needed more space for video games on my computer. Trust me, I didnt delete them to hide them, just to free up space" Or "I deleted them because I planned on doing so months before"

How would the fbi ever prove there was intent?

Unless they get emails or texts expressedly saying "I am deleting these emails the fbi requested because I want to hide them from the fbi" they would never be able to charge anyone. And good luck finding a text or email that said that, when it too could just be deleted!


Every single person charged by the fbi could deleted all evidence and merely text there friend, "Hey I am deleting these because i planned on doing so months before" and that would be proof enough to not charge them.

And without the fbis ability to get evidence, good luck charging anyone with a crime.

Nixon screwed up. All he had to do was say he deleted those tapes because he planned on deleting them months earlier, and he would be in the clear!

-continued below-



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join