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: 3
75
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I don't think the media realize how much they are now dependent on the never ending drama they have created. If he were to exit the stage, what the heck would they do with themselves? It almost appears they know he isn't going anywhere and treat this like a never ending soap opera.

I wonder why.




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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?



Don't worry. I can vague that right up for you!

It all depends on the exact meaning of "influencing an election".



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   

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.



And the Congress Kritters use taxpayer money to …. settle their lawsuits....so that they don't look like the scoundrels they really are....
Mark Levin was on fire today about it. Love his show....



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
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.


well, hope you are not a big fan of JFK and think he's a prince, cause he was doing it in the White House.....

"Happy Biiiiirrrrthdaaaaay, Mister President..."



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   


audio tape



United states press secretary and a free press reporter(aka enemy of the people)






"Can you say that the president has never lied to the American people?" Cecilia Vega of ABC News asked. "Because so many people look back at that tape of him on Air Force One saying he knew nothing about these payments, when in fact he knew everything about these payments. So has he lied?"
"Look, again, I think that's a ridiculous accusation," Sanders said. "The president, in this matter, has done nothing wrong and there are no charges against him



it's not the stormy Daniels that's questionable, the McDougal was with campaign finance funds



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

MORE TRANSPARENT ? You have got to be kidding. It shouldn't even be....PERIOD. Sexually harrass someone then you should be going to jail not planning your reelection and any monies paid should come from your own wallet and not tax payer. And nothing like this should be secret other than the victims.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Phage

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


Finally something we agreed upon.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It doesn't stop. That's the whole rodeo, buckaroo. It keeps going and the graft and corruption keep digging, digging, because guess what? There are no consequences. Not really. Worst case is a modern-day inquisition except nobody gets burned at the stake EVER. Nope. Worst case is retirement from public view with a backhand retirement package.

Let me distill down your original question as presented in your OP: Everything you read or hear on TV is a spin designed to piss you off and make you watch more so advertising dollars and paid political slants can worm their way into your awareness. That's it. That's the whole thing. News is dead and has been for more than two decades. Spin wins. Make up your own news based upon what you read. It will almost always be more truthful.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: argentus

I'm still asking questions though.

We all are, isn't that why we're here?

We question the narrative. We're skeptics.

We're the modern-day Galileo. We stand in the face of conformity and say, "Nope, the sun does not revolve around the earth."


I think there's still hope if we're asking questions and not just supporting whatever drivel dished out to us on the nightly news.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:27 AM
link   

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.

And that is illegal.


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?




Actually... not quite right... and a bit of "apples vs oranges" in your example as well.

1. It is NOT illegal to pay someone off for their silence... UNLESS you use campaign funds to do so.

It's worth pointing out, BOTH of these "payoffs" were clearly framed as consensual sex.

2. The Congressional payoffs for silence, were for silence of folks WHOSE HARASSMENT/ASSAULT WAS NOT CONSENSUAL.

...and yeah... it IS outrageous.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: drewlander

Not Republican Voters, but swing Voters. Republicans long ago circled the wagons around the Trump attacks. They are more motivated than ever to blanket vote a Republican ticket. They are trying to erode the swing votes for Republicans in the mid-terms...but it isn't going to work. The Democratic Party has squandered their public image by attacking Trump and have turned off swing voters that are running away from the Democratic platform in droves!



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: dasman888

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.

And that is illegal.


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?




Actually... not quite right... and a bit of "apples vs oranges" in your example as well.

1. It is NOT illegal to pay someone off for their silence... UNLESS you use campaign funds to do so.

It's worth pointing out, BOTH of these "payoffs" were clearly framed as consensual sex.

2. The Congressional payoffs for silence, were for silence of folks WHOSE HARASSMENT/ASSAULT WAS NOT CONSENSUAL.

...and yeah... it IS outrageous.


Star for your intelligent post!
edit on 23-8-2018 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dasman888

Actually... not quite right... and a bit of "apples vs oranges" in your example as well.

You are correct, the two are not equivalent.



1. It is NOT illegal to pay someone off for their silence... UNLESS you use campaign funds to do so.
Why would it be illegal to do so? Clearly making such accusations public would damage the campaign, so paying for an NDA would clearly benefit the campaign. A perfectly legitimate expenditure.


2. The Congressional payoffs for silence, were for silence of folks WHOSE HARASSMENT/ASSAULT WAS NOT CONSENSUAL.
As opposed to consensual harassment/assault? The "payoffs" were made to settle lawsuits, not to silence the victims. For example:
www.rollcall.com...


edit on 8/23/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Phage

you should be ashamed of yourself

I know, right. Phage used to be the smartest person on here. Wtf?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Nothing confusing here at all, unless you believe the "free (from reality) press." Let's take a look at things in that light:

For decades, we have become accustomed to the media letting us know, well ahead of the election in most cases, who is liable to win an election. But this time, Trump gets elected, despite having "no chance at all" according to the media.

Neither the DNC or GOP liked Trump, although the voters apparently did.

As soon as Trump was elected, the media told us how likely it was that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election. Collusion is not illegal.

The FBI starts an investigation into the Trump campaign, not into Trump himself, to see if there was Russian collusion. To do this, the FBI gets a FISA warrant to surveil Trump Towers, based at least in large part on a dossier the Clinton campaign got from the Russians through several legal layers and using Christopher Steele as an informant. Christopher Steele was dismissed previously from his role as an informant for the FBI, but he used Bruce Ohr's wife Nellie, who worked for the firm that hired him directly, Fusion GPS, to funnel the dossier to the FBI through alternate channels. The media kept mentioning the investigation as being into Trump, not just his campaign.

James Comey, FBI Director, told Trump on multiple occasions that he himself was not under investigation, but refused to make any attempt to set the record straight publicly on that.

Both Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, and Rod Rosenstein, Assitant Attorney General, wrote letters suggesting that the President fire James Comey for multiple reasons.

Trump fired Comey, who the DNC had hated for his actions toward the Clinton campaign, and was immediately accused of obstruction of justice by the media and the DNC.

The media called for, and got, a special prosecutor to investigate Trump's actions, including collusion with Russia and the firing of James Comey, who happens to be a close friend of the new special counsel, Robert Mueller.

Comey testified that he had leaked confidential information to the media through a friend, which is illegal, for the express purpose of having a special counsel appointed to investigate Trump, who, again, happens to be a longtime friend of his. The media claimed this was proper.

Reports surface that the lead investigator into both the Clinton campaign investigation from earlier, wherein she was acquitted by Comey (highly unusual) despite Comey stating her violations of the law, and the Trump investigation prior to Mueller, Peter Strzok, had made several texts to an FBI attorney, Lisa Page, showing extreme prejudice against Trump and insinuating the FBI had ways to stop the election should it result in Trump being elected. The media dismissed the texts as unimportant.

The media ran with a story about a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who was suing Michael Cohen, Trump's long time lawyer, over an NDA she voluntarily signed in exchange for $130,000 with Cohen executing it on Trump's behalf as his lawyer.

Stormy Daniels' lawyer was a man already under investigation by various bar associations for improper conduct, hereinafter referred to as the "Creepy Porn Attorney" (CPA). The media did not report on these investigations.

The media questions Trump about the payoff from Cohen to Daniels. Trump tells them he doesn't know and to talk to Cohen. The media then calls Trump a liar.

Daniels never once states any affair was non-consentual. The media portrays her as a woman abused.

Daniels claims victimhood because the NDA she violated has a punishment clause. The media shows her as a victim of Trump.

Mueller gave a tip to the NYSD, who then raided Cohen's office, home, and hotel room in the wee hours of the morning, seizing records that would surely have fallen into the category of "attorney-client privilege." The media told us this was perfectly legal and fine.

Mueller indicted Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, on several money laundering charges dating back a decade, well before any involvement with Trump, despite there being no record of this being within his jurisdiction because the charges were originally investigated at the time by the FBI. When the judge questioned the venue, Mueller and Rosenstein admitted that the scope of Mueller's investigation had been secretly expanded by a verbal order between them. The media said this was no problem.

The US Congress starts investigations into the DoJ's actions during the Clinton and Trump investigations. The media deems these a "witch hunt."

The FBI refuses to turn over subpoenaed records to the Congress, in direct violation of the Constitution. The media says nothing.

The Deputy Director of the FBI, Andy McCabe, is fired over an Investigator General's report that he essentially lied in the performance of his duties. The media claims the action is Trump trying to stop the Mueller investigation.

Strzok testifies before Congress about the texts. He refuses to answer questions and refuses to acknowledge his bias. The media claim his actions showed Congress' incompetance.

Strzok is fired. The media weep for him and advertise his new GoFundMe page. A few DNC Congress members offer him a job, poor thing.

Manafort is found guilty of financial crimes from a decade ago. Cohen makes a plea deal, agreeing to give information on Trump that directly refutes everything else he has said. The media claims this is the end of Trump.

No evidence exits to even suggest that the payoff of Daniels used campaign money; it apparently used private funds repaid to Cohen over a period of a few months. The media claims the payoff is illegal due to campaign finance laws.

Mueller still has not issued a single indictment or leveled a single charge against Trump. The media claims it is just a matter of time.

Throughout all of this the media has told us that Trump is a racist, ignoring the historically low unemployment numbers for blacks and hispanics, a sexist, despite Trump having a history of hiring women in vital, high-level positions well before that was the norm, and a criminal, despite no charges or indictments.

Now...

If no one has caught the pattern yet, almost everything we are hearing from the media, from the government, and from quite a few people online in various places, has been a lie. If not wholly manufactured, it is spun so severely as to amaze the most limber mental gymnasts. So the only confusion on these issues is that created by actually believing what these people are saying. If one looks at the actual facts of what has occurred in the last two years, it becomes plainly obvious what the differences are between Trump and the earlier figures:

The bureaucracy hates Donald Trump. The bureaucracy does not hate them.

Simple.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I don't think many liberals are for that congressional hush fund, either. I know I'm not.

Anyways, Trump is in trouble because of the way Stormy Daniels was paid off. It legitimately broke the law. Not much arguing that.


Trump is angry at Michael Cohen, of course, because Cohen just pleaded guilty to (among other things) making an illegal contribution to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by paying hush money to Stormy Daniels just before the election. Moreover, Cohen told the judge in the case that he did so “in coordination with and at the direction of” Trump.

Cohen’s actions were illegal because individuals may only contribute a limited amount of money or in-kind services to political campaigns. During the 2016 election, the maximum was $5,400. Cohen fraudulently obtained a home equity loan and then wired $130,000 of it to the lawyer representing Daniels on October 27, 2016.


Trump could have been in the clear had he done the following:


Donald Trump (and only Donald Trump) could legally donate an unlimited amount of money to his campaign, because he was the candidate. Therefore, he would have been in the clear if he had made an in-kind donation to his campaign by paying Daniels directly with his own money. He could also have used money raised by his campaign, including his own contributions, to pay Daniels. (Trump’s campaign took in a total of $333 million, with $66 million of that coming from Trump himself.)

In either case, Trump’s campaign would be required to disclose the expenditure. But according to the Federal Election Commission’s rules, campaign contributions and expenditures made after October 27, 2016 did not have to be disclosed until December 8. So if Trump could have put Daniels off just one more day, there would have been no public paper trail until a month after the election. And even then, the disclosed payment might not by itself expose the wrongdoing.


The Intercept

Maybe the law goes over you Republicans heads... it sure seems like you understand it when it is illegal immigrants or Hillary facing prosecution, though...
edit on 23amThu, 23 Aug 2018 03:51:34 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 23amThu, 23 Aug 2018 03:51:52 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Hillarious !




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 04:37 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Rosey !??

How are you petal !?

🌹



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake


I don't think many liberals are for that congressional hush fund, either. I know I'm not.

Then where is the outrage? That slush fund made a big splash for what? 24 hours? Then it was forgotten. A lawyer who has already outed himself as a liar, who has been touted as a liar by the media for months, suddenly changes his tune when looking at heavy prosecution, and it's the story of the century?

Meanwhile, that slush fund is still operating, never missed a beat.


Maybe the law goes over you Republicans heads...

Well, I'm not a Republican, but I don't think you are understanding the legalities here.

Had Cohen been hired at the beginning of or during the campaign, and he had then executed an agreement with Daniels to silence her, and fronted money to Trump to expedite the NDA, then there would be a case.

Had Trump made a statement to Cohen (or anyone else) that his campaign would pay her off, then there might be a case.

But neither of those applies. Trump has had an ongoing business relationship with Cohen for years. As part of that relationship, Cohen would be not only allowed, but expected to expedite legal matters as much as he could. He's paid, like any lawyer, to handle the heavy legal lifting. If the client were required to perform all legal matters in person, there would be no need for lawyers.

The claim made by Daniels is not an uncommon occurrence for someone of Trump's financial means and celebrity. It is typically used as a method of extortion. A pretty girl can show she was alone with her target, and claim sexual relations to put the target into a very bad position: either pay the extortion or I'll wreck your reputation and family life. It does not matter whether the sexual contact occurred. What matters is if the amount of money demanded is sufficiently low for the target to pay to avoid unwanted publicity. $130,000 is certainly in that range for someone of Trump's financial status.

FEC regulations actually explicitly allow loans from banks to a campaign and declare that they are not considered campaign contributions. Now, Cohen is not a bank; I realize that. However, he does, as part of his normal duties, act as a bank for the purpose of short-term limited amount loans. An argument can be made that he acts in the same capacity as a bank under those restrictions, and the transaction is therefore covered under the applicable guidelines. In essence, he loaned Donald Trump, in a personal capacity, $130,000 for a short-term loan to minimize Trump's necessary interaction in the situation concerning Daniels. He apparently did not even charge interest, which is also no violation since his 'interest' would be paid in loyalty of his client to use his services.

In short, there needs to be proof that Cohen was acting as an exception because of the campaign, or that the repayment of Cohen's loan to Trump was repaid out of campaign funds. I don't see either one happening.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, there's this little voice that is telling me that this could be a sting operation, too. Cohen pleads guilty to get a plea deal and get on Mueller's 'team,' then supplies bad information that causes Mueller to try and indict Trump on something where absolute proof to the contrary exists, and Mueller is disgraced and fired. I don't see Trump pardoning Manafort, as so many like to speculate on, mainly because he has no reason to... all of Manafort's charges were from long before Trump dealt with him. He did the crimes; now he does the time (although I hope the sentencing is a little less than the maximum of 80 years... that sounds a bit excessive). But if Cohen assists him in a sting operation to expose Mueller, then I could definitely see a pardon in Cohen's future.

Then again, maybe this is what it looks like... just a scared lawyer turning on his client to save his own hiney. Probably is.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
75
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join