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: 2
75
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So Trump is in trouble because he had his lawyer pay off a porn star so she wouldn't talk and harm his chances of being elected.


Who said Trump was in trouble? I didn't even here CNN claiming his in "trouble".

Its just that his dirty laundry has been hang out to dry for everyone to see... But his the POTUS, so his got nothing to worry about... Since theirs no precedent in charging a sitting POTUS with a crime.

Though, if he wasn't the president, then I'm sure he'd be sitting right next to Cohen right now... pleading guilty.



what? pretty much every cable network is accusing of Trump of violating campaign finance laws....so yeah, they are saying he is in trouble.


They want to sway public opinion but they know he is not in trouble. Midterms are coming up. They're just trying to create division among Republican voters.




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

The Congressional fund is used to settle sexual harrassment and other lawsuits. Not to keep people quiet.



So they don't talk afterwards because they just make a pinky swear? No NDA's, no contractual agreements?

Isn't settling sexual harassment claims all about keeping the other person quiet?


It is difficult to find info on, but it appears that NDA arent mandatory with payouts.


Q: I read that the OOC would require me to sign a
nondisclosure agreement in order to settle my
harassment claim. Is this true?
A: No. Whether and how to settle a claim are matters
for the parties to decide. The OOC does not have any
standardized language that parties are required to include
in their settlement agreements, and it does not require
parties to include nondisclosure provisions in those
agreements. The contents of settlement agreements—
including any provisions governing disclosure—are
solely determined by the parties and their
representatives. The only statutory requirement for
settlement agreements in the CAA is that they be in
writing. Under current law, the OOC is not authorized to
release information about individual awards and
settlements.


www.compliance.gov...

Reading between the lines though, when they say an NDA is up to the parties to work out, I bet that means that is often the case.

"Sign this nda, take your 50 grand, and we are done. If you dont sign the nda, then we will take it to court"


It may not be mandatory, but no way are they paying people off and letting them trash them afterward. there has to be some sort of agreement between the parties involved......which would be totally ok with me, if the jokes didnt pay them off with our money and used their own
edit on pm88201818America/Chicago22p08pm by annoyedpharmacist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

The Congressional fund is used to settle sexual harrassment and other lawsuits. Not to keep people quiet. So it's quite different from campaign contributions. Neither Daniels or McDougal were suing Trump.


The Office of Compliance’s Awards and Settlement Fund has paid out $359,450 since fiscal 2013 to address six claims made against House-member led offices, $84,000 of which was for a sexual harassment claim, according to data released Friday by the House Administration Committee.

The OOC did not name any parties in the settlements, but Politico reported the $84,000 sexual harassment settlement was for a claim against Texas GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold.
www.rollcall.com...

But it should be more transparent.


Nope, not acceptable. I am not paying taxes so senators can settle lawsuits for their own inappropriate behavior. They can do that on their own dime like everyone who is not an elected representative, just like Trump did.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Excellent point DBC.

But let's really think about this, if we really want to be honest in ourselves.
If Trump, cares so little about his family that he is sleeping with porn stars then how much do you really believe that he cares about the citizens?
Just a question I think we all should ask ourselves.

As far as legal or illegal, I don't think it will make any difference, I think Trump will beat it. He has already beaten the hell out of the RNC, DNC, Media, Congress, The House, USSC, DOJ, FBI, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and the anti-Trumpers. He is doing exactly what he was meant to do, exposing not just himself, but the corruption of our Government.


Then we have the democrat and republican citizens fighting each other so we don't concentrate on where the corruption actually is.


Ethically it seems we have very little leadership in Government.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

you should be ashamed of yourself



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




It's about keeping the other party quiet.

Like this?
www.rollcall.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So Trump is in trouble because he had his lawyer pay off a porn star so she wouldn't talk and harm his chances of being elected.


Who said Trump was in trouble? I didn't even here CNN claiming his in "trouble".

Its just that his dirty laundry has been hang out to dry for everyone to see... But his the POTUS, so his got nothing to worry about... Since theirs no precedent in charging a sitting POTUS with a crime.

Though, if he wasn't the president, then I'm sure he'd be sitting right next to Cohen right now... pleading guilty.



Actually, the precedent was set with Clinton vs Jones.

Keep up.


That was a private civil law suit, yeah?

I'm no expert, but that seems a little different to facing charges, which face the potential of prison time.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1
I am confused as well.. But mostly about WTF does it have to do with russia and collusion.


not to go OT, but how we got here, when that is what was supposed to be investigated, tells us all we need to know about the motivations of the SC, and it isnt Russian collusion......it is impeachment by any means necessary imo



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Trump isn't in any trouble.

a reply to: Lumenari


When a certain person that was an Arkansas governor decided to run for President, he had a problem. Rape allegations, sexual misconduct allegations, etc. So he paid the accusers $50,000 each in return for them signing a NDA.

Perfectly legal.


Which accusers would those be? I genuinely don't know what you're referring to. However, if the your best defense of Donald Trump is that he acts like a Clinton, then I hope you won't devote too much time to attacking the Clintons.


When Obama broke campaign contribution laws, he was fined. Paid the fine and everything was OK.


They're *exactly* the same thing? Seems you're basically arguing that no violation of campaign finance law should ever be punished with anything but a fine.

Whatever the case, the two instances you're trying to equate by completely and entirely ignoring any details, are not remotely comparable.

1. Obama didn't direct anyone to break campaign finance law. How about Trump? Oh, he did? So not the same then.

2. The violation in the case of the Obama campaign was a failure to file paperwork by a deadline, essentially a clerical oversight. Obama wasn't paying off women with whom he cheated on his wife to keep their mouths shut. That's more of a Clinton and Trump thing, right? So how about in Trump's case? Oh, that's right, he was paying hush money and the campaign finance violation was entirely intentional and premeditated. So again, not the same.

Be careful or you going to slip into Obama Obsessed Personality Syndrome. (OOPS)

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



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things. Precedent has been set with regards to this type of activity and the presidents involved in the recent past. This stands a snowball's chance in hell if the goal is for this to lead to Trump's impeachment.

That's why people want Trump to meet with Mueller, in an attempt to create a crime (of perjury).

Oh, and it also makes it rather apparent that Mueller doesn't have any evidence of Russian collusion because they are desperate to create a crime, as said above.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There shouldn't be a congressional slush fund used to pay off sexual harassment lawsuits. Its existence is intrinsically odious.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

A few things confuse me....

First... The Stormy debacle feels a lot like extortion to me. And this payment was hush money to keep her quiet... Unsure why she is looked at as a "victim" in this case??

Second... People keep stating Trump MADE Cohen pay off Stormy... How does Trump MAKE him?? I mean, Cohen is a adult, he is a lawyer, he understands right from wrong and "legal vs illegal"... If he felt it was illegal, why didnt he just say No? Lawyers are supposed to instruct the client on things you can do and things you can't/shouldn't do... I feel Trump received poor legal advice from a guy he hired.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
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



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well, it's not just for sexual harassments suits and I can see a bit of rationale behind it. But full transparency would be called for with something like this, to the extent the victims desire it.


Oh, regarding NDAs and such:

The compliance office says that "there is no restriction on whom you can tell" about pursuing a harassment claim, but victims are subjected to confidentiality requirements during their mandatory counseling and mediation periods. An aide who might want to speak out about their harassment claim, including talking to their employer, can ask to waive confidentiality during counseling.

www.politico.com...

edit on 8/22/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: jhn7537



Unsure why she is looked at as a "victim" in this case??

She isn't. What makes you think that?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy


Isn't settling sexual harassment claims all about keeping the other person quiet?
No. It's about settling a lawsuit by paying damages. Trump has done that too.



It's about keeping the other party quiet.

You have made an attempt to distance the two, but I see more in common with the two examples than differences.


The way I understood this was that Cohen payed Daniels $130,000 out of his own pocket. This helped Trump's campaign by keeping her quiet. So as a result, this money is being seen as a campaign contribution that Trump failed to report. Now we go to whether Trump knew about this payment or not. Trump claims he didn't know but Cohen might claim he did to get his sentence reduced. And if Trump did know about it, did he reimburse Cohen out of campaign funds?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: toms54




And if Trump did know about it, did he reimburse Cohen out of campaign funds?
If that had happened there would be no problem. However, the "reimbursements" were invoiced as being a retainer, to tune of $35k/month. Doesn't really add up.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: toms54




And if Trump did know about it, did he reimburse Cohen out of campaign funds?
If that had happened there would be no problem. However, the "reimbursements" were invoiced as being a retainer, to tune of $35k/month. Doesn't really add up.


$130k is a lot of months @$35k. About 4 months of income for Cohen. And there is still the question of reporting.

Cohen is not required to talk by the plea agreement. If he keeps his mouth shut, there might be a pardon down the road.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
yep. if the standard is going to be "it helped the campaign", then it is hard to argue sitting Congressmen and women paying off sexual harassment NDA's with OUR MONEY, so they wouldnt be publically embarrassed for relection time would have to fall under the same category......then again, I say an NDA is NOT a campaign contribution, so what do I know


If the standard is "it helped the campaign" then PACs should be illegal and nobody should spend any money ON their campaign. You know, because spending money on ads, promotions, town halls, etc is, by definition "spending money to influence the election".



Exactly. Funny how that works, yes?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MteWamp

Advertisers paying money to shows that have a political leaning would also be seen as campaign contributions.


Where does it stop?



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join