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: 13
75
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
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.



For what it is worth. I am paywall blocked from the WSJ as well. My conclusions that the article didn't say InTouch was sued (and BTW I think they were threatened not sued) was based on second hand reporting, aka other articles referencing what the WSJ reported in your pay-walled citation. Nothing shady or intentional there. I did my best to work around the paywall.




posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

No worries

What happened with me was that I was able to read the article, but when I went back to site it, I was as over my limit of views a month on wsj so I couldn’t paste the relevant section

But yes, you are right, Cohen threatened a lawsuit and in touch pulled the story

Still shows trump was trying to block the story well before he was running for office



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Bottom line that post is a whole lot of speculation on what Trump's motives would have been to authorize the pay-off.

Was it to stem the wave of bad press around sexual harassment and affairs just a few weeks before voting day?
Was it to protect his marriage? Save embarrassment?

I could wax on about what Trump's thinking was as well and it would be just speculation.

In Cohen's Guilty Plea under oath he said it's “for the principal purpose of influencing the election”

"Principle Purpose" is a legal bar in campaign finance law. His words were chosen specifically.

He also said he did it at the direction and in coordination with Trump.

That is all we got for now on WHY the payment was made.

I suspect Cohen would have exhausted legal outs on those charges if they were viable.

Something about the head of the National Enquirer flipping and testifying in front of the grand jury with immunity and/or the tapes or other evidence they seized took that option off the table for Cohen IMO.

If Trump is on tape with Cohen or the Head of the National Enquirer complaining how if this gets out it will ruin his chances in the election, then that will be that in the debate.

Until then we can debate until the cows come home about what was going through Trumps head when he made the call.

Hi Lawyer and his friend that made this payment happen apparently both testified “for the principal purpose of influencing the election” and one asked for immunity and the other plead guilty to it.

I think that is pretty damming.




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



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

But I don’t think it was damning

I will post when I have found it, but I read that the precedent for cases such as this is would the person have paid even if they weren’t running

If a reasonable argument can be made they would, then it is not illegal

As far as Cohens plea, who cares what it says

If Cohen has proof that trump did this solely for the election then that would be a far better argument

But we haven’t seen that yet

Same with pecker from the enquirer

So what, he got immunity

Many people on Hillary’s team got immunity, did that lead to a charge?

Pecker may well say trump instructed him to pay for stories and bury them

But the question still remains, is there proof it was just for the election, or is this something trump would have wanted buried even if there was no election



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

FYI - With Wapo stories, which also have a counting mechanism and pay-wall block. I switch to Chrome/Google Browser, select "Incognito" in upper right hand corner and then go to the link. The increased privacy setting or tracking blocker disables the counter and lets me see the articles.
It doesn't work with the WSJ.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

If Cohen has proof that trump did this solely for the election then that would be a far better argument



The standard is not "Solely for the purpose"
It is "For the Principal Purpose of"

That is how campaign finance law defines contributions, PACs etc.

"Principle Purpose", not "Sole Purpose". It can have "other" purposes.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
If it was the first time he cheated, and it could have affected the outcome of an election, I can understand the line of reasoning.

This is Donald Trump. Before he ran for office he was known to have paid people off for all sorts of reasons. To him, it is the cost of doing business. Even if I, or anyone, thinks it is offensive there is nothing illegal about it.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
It this the worst they have on Trump, some consensual sex??? I am confused in how many pages this thread has gone.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
If it was the first time he cheated, and it could have affected the outcome of an election, I can understand the line of reasoning.

This is Donald Trump. Before he ran for office he was known to have paid people off for all sorts of reasons. To him, it is the cost of doing business. Even if I, or anyone, thinks it is offensive there is nothing illegal about it.



That's not necessarily true. It depends on where the money comes from, for what purpose, the timing, how it was disclosed, if it was required to be disclosed based on it's purpose and source, and on and on.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


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

No, I cannot. You may technically be correct.

However, allow me to point out that the difference is minuscule in practice. How does one prove "principle purpose"? If the purpose is exclusive, it is a simple matter. If the purpose is not exclusive, then one must prove what a person was thinking when the supposed violation occurred. That is substantially more difficult. As long as there are multiple purposes for an expenditure, the principle purpose is that purpose which is first and foremost in the mind of the person under consideration.

In reality, quite a few expenditures are multi-purpose. Why do I own a car? To get to work... to get to the store for supplies... to visit friends and relatives... to make a public statement... which is primary? It depends on which purpose I am thinking about at any one time. That can actually change moment to moment. It is impossible to say I bought the car for any one primary purpose, because I would buy it if any of those purposes did not exist.

In contrast, if I purchase 10 electronic parts for a project, the primary purpose is that specific project. If I only use 8 on it (one always purchases extra), I will use the others liberally if needed on other projects... they become part of my 'stock' to be used thusly. I would still state that I purchased the parts exclusively for the original project, because I would not have purchased them had I not needed them for that project.

So what you are arguing here is semantics. The litmus test I stated, and which you apparently ignored, is "would the expenditure have been made under the same circumstances if the campaign did not exist"? Trump has made similar expenditures to protect his name and reputation in the past. Therefore, a reasonable person would conclude that he would do it again whether or not there was a campaign.

Incidentally, you do realize that any legal decision will be based on the information gathered and produced by attorneys? Not on a forum message board? You seem intent on convincing people here that your position and conclusions are absolutely unflawed, as though they will have any bearing whatsoever on the end results. My purpose is to understand the legalities surrounding the furor. If my conclusions are flawed, they are flawed. But semantics means nothing in that context.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

See Trump does things legally. Politicians like Clinton's or Bush's would have used a bullet or something similar.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: DBCowboy

See Trump does things legally. Politicians like Clinton's or Bush's would have used a bullet or something similar.


Have an example of Clinton or Bush using a bullet or "something similar"?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I stand back in disbelief...

Watching all this Drama on the sidelines from my position across the pond I can't help but think... Arguing about the legality of paying off a porn star/playboy model for having relations while in wedlock and not one of you thinks that isn't a problem when it comes to being the POTUS.

He had Sex with Women and Paid for it(and that's just the ones he couldn't keep quiet)... in a nutshell?

And yet Bill Clinton had sex and didn't pay for it and he gets Impeached, is it me or has America gone way downhill when the moral fibre of their supposed irreproachable (unblackmailable) high moral fibre PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES or in this case no moral fibre is concerned?

He was married and committed adultery, this got a president impeached in your recent past and yet here you are arguing about the legality of paying off (NDA) and not the fact he has shown a quite fundamental flaw in his nature and not actual Presidential Material... instead you have a Dirty Old BusinessMan as POTUS.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DreamerOracle
I stand back in disbelief...

Watching all this Drama on the sidelines from my position across the pond I can't help but think... Arguing about the legality of paying off a porn star/playboy model for having relations while in wedlock and not one of you thinks that isn't a problem when it comes to being the POTUS.

He had Sex with Women and Paid for it(and that's just the ones he couldn't keep quiet)... in a nutshell?

And yet Bill Clinton had sex and didn't pay for it and he gets Impeached, is it me or has America gone way downhill when the moral fibre of their supposed irreproachable (unblackmailable) high moral fibre PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES or in this case no moral fibre is concerned?

He was married and committed adultery, this got a president impeached in your recent past and yet here you are arguing about the legality of paying off (NDA) and not the fact he has shown a quite fundamental flaw in his nature and not actual Presidential Material... instead you have a Dirty Old BusinessMan as POTUS.


Please try and educate yourself.
Bill Clinton was not impeached for having sex and committing adultery.
He was impeached for lying about it under oath to a federal judge. In other words it was for perjury. This is well known to all but the ignorant.
Clinton also paid 850000 dollars to a women he had sex with to keep her quiet, but he wasn't impeached for that either.
If Trump goes under oath and lies he WILL be impeached.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

If Trump goes under oath and lies he WILL be impeached.


Ridiculous.
Of course he wouldn't be impeached.
"Truth isn't truth!"
edit on 24-8-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus


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

No, I cannot. You may technically be correct.

However, allow me to point out that the difference is minuscule in practice. How does one prove "principle purpose"? If the purpose is exclusive, it is a simple matter. If the purpose is not exclusive, then one must prove what a person was thinking when the supposed violation occurred.


Correct. Which begs the question of why Michael Cohen pled guilty to an illegal campaign contribution which "the principle purpose was to influence an election".

IMO they have strong evidence that speaks directly to the purpose of the payment as it relates to the election.

It is either tape recordings or what Trumps Former friend at the National enquirer testified to under the immunity deal or a combination of both.

Otherwise Cohen could have simply knocked this charge off the 8 counts and pled guilty to one of the lessor tax evasion charges with an amended return etc.

They had him dead to rights on this charge.



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

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Incidentally, you do realize that any legal decision will be based on the information gathered and produced by attorneys?


?????

Incidentally, you do realize that any legal decision reached here or in Courts about Trumps guilt or innocence in this matter means squat?

This is just the legal version of fantasy football.

President Trump will not be indicted however strong or weak the legal case is in regard to this.

Those that can be charged in this have already pled guilty or been granted immunity.

Anything to do with Trump can only be a political consequence not legal.

This whole debate is just a legally technical or ethical one, but has no legal consequence to Trump.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

The litmus test I stated, and which you apparently ignored, is "would the expenditure have been made under the same circumstances if the campaign did not exist"? Trump has made similar expenditures to protect his name and reputation in the past. Therefore, a reasonable person would conclude that he would do it again whether or not there was a campaign.



If we were to accept Rednecks litmus test as a legal standard in this case then no doubt a Prosecutor would point out that Trump's personal attorney had refused to Stormy Daniels until one day after the Access Hollywood tape broke.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: DreamerOracle
I stand back in disbelief...

Watching all this Drama on the sidelines from my position across the pond I can't help but think... Arguing about the legality of paying off a porn star/playboy model for having relations while in wedlock and not one of you thinks that isn't a problem when it comes to being the POTUS.

He had Sex with Women and Paid for it(and that's just the ones he couldn't keep quiet)... in a nutshell?

And yet Bill Clinton had sex and didn't pay for it and he gets Impeached, is it me or has America gone way downhill when the moral fibre of their supposed irreproachable (unblackmailable) high moral fibre PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES or in this case no moral fibre is concerned?

He was married and committed adultery, this got a president impeached in your recent past and yet here you are arguing about the legality of paying off (NDA) and not the fact he has shown a quite fundamental flaw in his nature and not actual Presidential Material... instead you have a Dirty Old BusinessMan as POTUS.

There is a difference...
If he did sleep with her it was in the past (before becoming President).
Clinton did it while President in the White House.
Yuge difference.
Quad



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I think this discussion on trump possible violation is important to have.

But given the mass attention its getting, why the near silence on the IG report showing that it is very possible that then FBI intentionally tried to bury the emails on weiners laptop to help hillary win the election?

Here is a thread on the incredible evidence that has come out on just how corrupt the FBI was in fixing the innvestigation into her to help her in the election.

www.realclearinvestigations.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Aks yourself what is more torubling; a magazine and lawyer trying to hide sex stories to help one candidate, or the nations largest law enforcement agency hiding not only stories, but possible evidence of criminal wrong doing to help the other candidate.



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join