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.

 

I am so very confused

page: 12
75
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:30 AM
link   
TIL that having people murdered to insure silence is much more effective than giving them money and trusting them to stick to the deal. Imagine if journalists investigating Trump started disappearing, the establishment would have a field day, well it "coincidentally" seems to happen to every investigative journalist that goes after the Clintons and not a single prosecutable crime can ever seem to be found. Disgusting.




posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: 99problems

And yet. Bill Clinton was impeached and Hillary lost the election.


edit on 8/24/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Pleading guilty to what?
Do you get indicted in America if your lawyer commits tax fraud????? How odd.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Phage

SO whats your explanation for why 5 years before he ran for president he was suing to keep the stormy daniels story from coming out?

It takes a very dedicated trump hater to twist their mind into thinking that a billionaire businessman married with kids would have no reason at all to want a woman from publicly saying she slept with him.

His divorce records coming out, first you dont know when he was going to say delay until.

You assume it means after the election, which maybe it could.

Second, that is independent of the stormy case.

His wife probably knew the details of his divorce, so he would have no need to protect her from hearing it.

Nonetheless, we have proof of trumpo trying to silence stormies story coming out in 2011, it proves he would seek to silence these stories without ruinning for office.


Liberals jumped the gun before they understood the laws... they were too lazy as always to go beyond the CNN headline.
Now they have embarrassed themselves after realising the law regarding campaign finance allows personal and private payments outside campaign funds if the payment is not solely for the campaign, they are doubling down with the ludicrous argument they it WAS solely for the campaign, despite Trump using payments and NDAs for years before he ever ran for office.
They know their argument is ridiculous but they need to push it to pretend to themselves they are not gullible idiots.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
The issue is that he illegally falsified his campaign reports to exclude these payments.


Just plain wrong. Not even close to the truth.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Isurrender73




Ignorance of this particular law makes it civil and not criminal.
No. These are violations of federal campaign spending laws. Federal felonies.



Ignorance can be voluntary or involuntary. It is voluntary when a person might by taking reasonable pains could have acquired the necessary knowledge. For example every man can acquire knowledge of the laws which have been promulgated. Therefore neglect to become acquainted with them is voluntary ignorance.
definitions.uslegal.com...

As a rotund German prison guard often said, "I know nothing."


You DO know something it just doesn't relate in any way to DJT being a criminal. I am beginning to think you are a highly paid troll.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Isurrender73


Cohen has said otherwise. And the prosecutors have a great deal of material. One might think that there is material which would support the statement Cohen made under oath.

Cohen is a known liar, and makes about as credible a witness as a low-res security camera in a darkened alley. His personal claims, especially after a plea deal, have motivation to both be "embellished" and outright false.



He has a credibility problem, but he also has tapes.


And the experts in Law I have heard speak say listening to those tapes helps DJT and exposes the person recording it as a lawyer about to lose his license to practice.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: DBCowboy

Kekeke, this is sure to keep everyone at each other's throats as the global multi continent war for the world continues to rage. Who else can do this but the exceptional USA??

Nobody discusses the full 30% or so of Syria that is unofficially a NATO Ally now hosting multinational forces over about a dozen bases of various configurations. We ignore the "accidentally" fired a missile at Russia, annihilated up to or over a hundred Russians in February attempting to lead an assault across the Euphrates to reclaim oil fields.

Collusion is no longer holding it's weight. My thinking is though, if the Dems are going to keep playing dirty, it's time to just start assassinating certain folks and rule it suicide or an accident.


I think those coincidental deaths in the Clinton fold are sure looking like we have that program now.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman


I think you mean former FEC chairman, don't you? Is this what you're talking about?
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Because that interview wasn't last night. It was in April.
Levin

April was quite a while before we've learned what we know now.


Ok I am wrong he is former. You are right for once. How rare since you shifted away from Astrophysics information.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Justoneman

If Cohen wasn't guilty of a crime, why did he plead guilty? He's a lawyer, he should know the difference. In addition, the intent was clearly to influence the campaign.


Oh his personal lies to banks is part of it. It is just an avenue to squeeze out something, anything, that can implicate POTUS 45.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah. I hear the same thing from flat Earthers quite often.

My response; "It's your claim."


Nice try no one important will ever/has ever believed the flat earth BS and you know it. Only a handful of fools do that.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:38 AM
link   
The current number of sealed indictments in America are unbelievable and shocking. If the mass arrests coupled with the 100's of billions seized in Saudi Arabia last year are any indication of what might be coming then we might soon see the largest mass arrests of people in all of the united states history. I suspect that there are a lot of people who are getting really worried, acting very irrationally and inducing their subordinates towards a fever pitch of rage, acrimony and quite possibly even the preparations for an all out civil war. All of the theater we are seeing could represent vain and desperate attempts to thwart the inevitable hammer that could soon be dropped...



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

Regarding the differences between obama and trump case

First, we only have class hens word trump instructed him at this point

Second, we have no clue right now if that even is against the law. Cohen pleading my guilty doesn’t mean it was a crime

Third, Obama’s team was found guilty already

Fourth, it wasn’t as simple as a clerical error

They did not disclose the money, then also did not return the money in time

Perhaps had lawyers offices been raided, it would have been found to be intentional

Fifth, but you are right. Trump is accused of directing the law to be broken, and I saw no such indication from obama

So you are right to point out there are differences

But the utter outrage and calls for impeachment of trump for a very similar crime as obama when the same outraged people barely said a peep about obama shows this is more about politics than concern for the law


We don't even need to reference the actual fine Obamas campaign received.
According to Reverend Wright, Obama tried to buy his silence before the election in 08, through one of his friends

www.google.co.uk...

It wasn't much of a problem then



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I will say it again....

How can someone who is defending a Russian Oiligarch who is part of the Mueller investigation who is tied to John Podesta honestly defend Trumps personal lawyer?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

EDIT TO ADD: It doesn't do the thread favors when you insert things as facts that are not true or supported.

If you have link proving Trump was working to silence Daniels before the election season, I am open to being wrong.


I wish that wall st journal article wasnt behind a pay wall for me.

I know it says Cohen threatened to sue in touch in 2011 to keep stormys story from coming out.

I will get access to that article, and prove it,.

And when I do, I would appreciate an apology by you for implying that I misled people with my intitial statement, which was trump tried to stop the stormy story coming out in 2011.



No need on the WSJ article. What you linked to is sufficient to support that an anonymous source says that Cohen threatened to sue InTouch Magazine in 2011 if it published Stormy Daniels interview about Trump.

An anonymous source isn't reliable, but then again, there seems no good reason that InTouch chose not to publish if not threat of being sued.

I will split the difference and apologize for accusing you of interjecting unsupported facts. I was clearly wrong about that. I do not think that hazy reporting based on an anonymous source qualifies as factual though. Possible? Likely?...Maybe. But let's not drop it as fact yet.

I have questions about the InTouch stuff though. All we have is the story of an anonymous source. I want to understand clearly why they didn't publish it at the time.

It also seems contrary to the WSJ reporting where Cohen, representing Trump, was not interested in paying off Stormy Daniels and had told her attorney the same, until the access Hollywood tape broke.

We have contradictory reporting.



edit on 24-8-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Apology accepted.

I wouldnt have even mentioned it, except the wall st journal arctile directly said cohen sued in 2011 to keep the story from coming out, so for you to say I shoulndnt but out false info when the very article you were refeerncing said exactly what I said it did seemed awfuly shady on your part.

But Im over it.

And for the record I do think you do aa great job of raising good points on here and challenging me to think, and I often look forward to your posts, even if i get snippy.

-continued below-



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Cohen probably didnt feel the need to pay stormy or any other women until the access hollywood tape broke.

He probably felt the women would not come forward.

My understanding is these women then claimed they would come forward after the access hollywood tape, and trumps team got word of that.

Now feeling this was a serious possibility, cohen offered to pay.

Now it may seem that this was a decision based solely for winning the election, but that doesnt seem to be the case at all.

First, after the access hollywood tape, it was obvious to trump and his team that the bulk of the media would be looking 24/7 for any stories of trump doing anything sexual. Trump wouldnt want that info released anymore than someone like me or you would want out infidelities thrown on tv for our spouses and children to see.

So hearing that stormy and others were now going to come forward, he wanted to spare himself and his family the humiliation, and offered to pay.

He didnt feel the need to pay before the access hollywood tape, because he hadnt heard of this woman trying to tell the media about the affair since 2011, and has no reason to believe she would speak up, until the access hollywood tape.

Second, there is also a very compelling argument to be had that trump could have been unworried about sex stories of his coming out before the tape because it wouldnt hurt his character.

However, after the access hollywood tape, he was afraid it would make him be seen as sexual predator.

Now you may say yes, and that would have hurt his campaign chances. But the law says you have to prove he wouldnt have paid this hush money EVEN if he wasnt running for office.

I think it is very reasonable to assume a billionaire businessman, that relies heavily on his brand, would seek to hush people up that could make him look like a sexual predator.


Again I say,; maybe more evidence will come to light.

But as it stands with what we have now.

Trying to argue that a billionaire businessman with a wife and kids would have no interest in suppressing stories of him having sex with a porn star is an incredibly weak position.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Yeah. I hear the same thing from flat Earthers quite often.

My response; "It's your claim."

And I hear this all the time from anyone who doesn't like looking for uncomfortable facts.

My response: *shrug*

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: badwhiskey
The current number of sealed indictments in America are unbelievable and shocking. If the mass arrests coupled with the 100's of billions seized in Saudi Arabia last year are any indication of what might be coming then we might soon see the largest mass arrests of people in all of the united states history. I suspect that there are a lot of people who are getting really worried, acting very irrationally and inducing their subordinates towards a fever pitch of rage, acrimony and quite possibly even the preparations for an all out civil war. All of the theater we are seeing could represent vain and desperate attempts to thwart the inevitable hammer that could soon be dropped...



Rofl.
Comedy gold!
Please do write more posts



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage


You seem to base that on a opinion that the contribution need have exclusive use.

Legal precedent says it does need be an exclusive interest to the campaign.

Otherwise, a candidate would be required to disclose any clothing purchased, any hair styling,




Can you show me where in law the standard is "Exclusive Purpose" and not "Principle Purpose"?


Cohen's plea


"in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office ... for the principle purpose of influencing the election."




Counts One through Five of the Information charge the defendant with
..
evasion of personal income tax, for the calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively
..
Count Six of the Information charges the defendant with making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a credit decision
..
Count Seven of the Information charges the defendant with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October 2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 30118(A) & 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. 2(B)
..
Count Eight of the Information charges the defendant with making an excessive campaign contribution, on or about October 27, 2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A), 30116(a)(7) & 30109(d)(l)(A), and USC 2(b)

www.lawfareblog.com...



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join