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: 14
75
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'll explain it to you, Trump is taking a pre emptive strike.




posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


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".

It appears that there is indeed evidence on Cohen. I am a bit surprised, to be honest, that he flipped this fast... and that he chose Lanny Davis of all people to represent him. There's something very fishy going on IMO, and it certainly doesn't smell like fresh kosher tuna.


This is just the legal version of fantasy football.

Good. I was just concerned if you understood that or not.


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.

That is what concerns me most. Politics is a dirty business, and when it seeps into law, it makes the law dirty as well. I personally don't care to live under a legal system that has become highly politically charged, regardless of who is sitting in the White House.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You are exactly correct and the fact remains that Trump using NDA's and burying stories is something he has done for years to protect his image and business. If there is one person who has a watertight defence against this particular accusation, it's Trump.

As I mentioned before, it's not a surprise to me that Mueller and team decided to surface this in a plea deal, where they don't have to argue their charge in a court of law. they can just put the accusation out for the media to feed on.

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



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: [post=23704512] I personally don't care to live under a legal system that has become highly politically charged, regardless of who is sitting in the White House.

TheRedneck


Then you must live in a constant state of near horror as Trump consistently confuses the Justice Department for the Mafia and attacks the concept of equal justice daily while demanding loyalty and looking for special treatment.

Alas in his last interview he literally said "The ONLY" reason he chose Jeff Sessions as AG was because he "was Loyal" and said that "flipping" aka a witness testifying to a crime "should be illegal".

that is just the latest in our President's assault on the legal system.


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



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Grambler

You are exactly correct and the fact remains that Trump using NDA's and burying stories is something he has done for years to protect his image and business.


When, before the election, has trump used NDA's to silence unflattering stories?

One example will suffice.

As best I can tell the only time he began to pay for NDA's was election season?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Having an AG who is loyal to the President seems like a pretty logical and reasonable criterion. Granted it should not be the only consideration.

In terms of flipping, it is rather unjust... you end up with people getting immunity and deals, whilst another person gets shafted... when they all committed or were involved in the same crimes. Take Gates and Manafort. One gets a sweet deal and the other faces up to 200 yrs (or something ridiculous like that). That's an unequal implementation of the law.
I think it's a pretty decent, and insightful, point to say the practice should be illegal - it's got to the point where this type of legal imbalance is used simply to help prosecutors careers. That is not justice.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Grambler

You are exactly correct and the fact remains that Trump using NDA's and burying stories is something he has done for years to protect his image and business.


When, before the election, has trump used NDA's to silence unflattering stories?

One example will suffice.

As best I can tell the only time he began to pay for NDA's was election season?




Trump’s confidentiality agreements stipulate that disputes may be handled by the American Arbitration Association with the result that it keeps legal matters out of court, and information would be out of public view. That decision is the sole discretion of Trump and others protected by the agreement.

But public court documents show he’s been aggressive in targeting some of those who divulged information about him or his businesses.

In 2013, Trump’s Miss Universe pageant sought and won a $5 million judgment against a former contestant, accusing her of disparaging the event by claiming it was rigged. The judgment hung on the fine print of the contestant contract, which barred participants from doing or saying anything that would bring “public disrepute, ridicule, contempt or scandal or might otherwise reflect unfavorably” on Trump or a list of businesses associated with the pageant.

In 1996, Trump sued New York businesswoman Barbara Corcoran for comments she made to New York magazine that Trump said violated a confidentiality agreement. A New York appellate court later ruled against Trump in the case.

In 1992, Trump famously sued ex-wife Ivana for $25 million, claiming she violated the nondisclosure portion of the couple’s divorce decree. The lawsuit stemmed in part from a romance novel authored by Ivana Trump called “For Love Alone,” which Donald Trump claimed was based on the couple’s marriage. Ivana Trump countersued over other parts of the divorce agreement, and in 1993, the two settled their differences.


apnews.com...

www.npr.org...

Trump's defence against the latest impeachment fantasy is water tight.
Even Cuomo and guest on CNN were underplaying this - having thought more about it, they just don't see a path.

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



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
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.



Nice find thanks SB.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:05 PM
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.


Don't get confused as it might be easy if your listening to the News Media who are bought and paid for by the Cabal.

Bill was impeached for Lying Under Oath in a civil case unrelated to what happened while the POTUS. That one was a sexual assault accusation that went to civil trial because the system hosed Paula Jones. Her evidence was compelling and she won the civil suit.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

But we have congressmen using tax-payer money, (in a Congressional Hush Fund) pay off women so they won't talk and harm their chances of being elected.

And that is legal.

Can anyone explain this to me?






posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




Bill was impeached for Lying Under Oath in a civil case unrelated to what happened while the POTUS.

Incorrect.
There were two grounds for impeachment; perjury before a Grand Jury, and obstruction of justice. Neither was a civil case and both occurred while he was in office.

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



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
When I see this thread on the home page it just shows the title and 3 .... for the story.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




Bill was impeached for Lying Under Oath in a civil case unrelated to what happened while the POTUS.

Incorrect.
There were two grounds for impeachment; perjury before a Grand Jury, and obstruction of justice. Neither was a civil case and both occurred while he was in office.


Do you enjoy being wrong?
I don't like to see you this way, really.


www.history.com...

"After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached, vowed to finish his term."

This was about Paula Jones but Monica was lumped into the deal by virtue of the dress and played a critical role as we see here:

"In December, lawyers for Paula Jones, who was suing the president on sexual harassment charges, subpoenaed Lewinsky. In January 1998, allegedly under the recommendation of the president, Lewinsky filed an affidavit in which she denied ever having had a sexual relationship with him."


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


I am the one off this time,, scratch the gloating....


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



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



And yes I could be wr, wro wrong.... Phage

But maybe here is some more

Less than a month later, on September 9, Kenneth Starr submitted his report and 18 boxes of supporting documents to the House of Representatives. Released to the public two days later, the Starr Report outlined a case for impeaching Clinton on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power, and also provided explicit details of the sexual relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky. On October 8, the House authorized a wide-ranging impeachment inquiry, and on December 11, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. On December 19, the House impeached Clinton.
edit on 24-8-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


Then you must live in a constant state of near horror as Trump consistently confuses the Justice Department for the Mafia and attacks the concept of equal justice daily while demanding loyalty and looking for special treatment.

And you wonder why I made the previous statement about this not being a court of law and only an Internet forum?

Statements like this, purely partisan and intended only to 'root' for the personality one has chosen to be their 'champion' are the very reason. Twisting the facts around to an old, decrepit redneck on an Internet forum has absolutely no bearing on the law. It has absolutely no bearing on the case.

You really need to get a grip on reality if you want to be able to intelligently discuss these things. As it is, your posts are more a source of comic relief than a source of information. This is not about Trump being better than anyone else, or about Hillary, or Obama, or any other name. It is about the obvious discrepancy between how people are treated by the law based on nothing other than political affiliation. Reality says that Trump is the person under attack, not the other way around.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Ahhh I found it Phage here is my proof that I was right and you too are right for the ACTUAL charges of the Impeachment but it WAS for lying under oath in the Jones trial.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

No. You weren't right.



Bill was impeached for Lying Under Oath in a civil case unrelated to what happened while the POTUS.

But don't you wish you fact checked yourself first? Your post would have been more effective.

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



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman





Bill was impeached for Lying Under Oath in a civil case unrelated to what happened while the POTUS.

But don't you wish you fact checked yourself first? Your post would have been more effective.


Duly noted....



But I am still right that it was the Paula Jones case that the perjury before the Grand Jury occurred and you missed that.
edit on 24-8-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

No I didn't. I knew lied to a Grand Jury while he was in office.
And what does "is" mean, anyway?

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



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Maybe we all need to go into one of those New One Billion $ telescope threads and forget about this stuff altogether for a bit.



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join