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: 5
75
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, that Lanny Davis. That's why I am thinking it's a reverse sting op. Too convenient. Even Cohen, who I don't have a lot of faith in, never did really, could see that was a dumb move hiring him. It was like he trapped himself.

TheRedneck


Or it was like he sought to do all he could to appease the intel community and their friends the clintons.




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:44 AM
link   


Can anyone explain this to me?


Cognitive dissonance.

Sure hope Trump Lawyers reads this thread.

edit on 23-8-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 08:54 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?




Trump is in trouble? When did this happen?

I thought it was just the people around him that were getting in trouble.

You must think something is about to come out to implicate the president in a very serious manner.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Fair enough. That could explain it.

In any case, about learning Cohen has some illegal deals in his past, this is my shocked face:


TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:11 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.




NOPE

Trump could have paid 1000 women in 2016 and had them sign NDAs not to discuss it.

PERFECTLY Legal.

As long as it is disclosed as contributions to his campaign for President

NOW...If it was an oversight? Like hey, I forgot to enter that hotel expense? Or I didn't record donor X's contribution?

MISTAKES in campaign finance law are handled as a CIVIL MATTER. Fines and Corrections.

When the violation is "Knowing and Willful"
aka lying and conspiring at the "direction of a Candidate for Federal Office"
Undeclared Corporate donation (Trump org.)?
Intentionally falsifying tax and campaign documents?

THAT is a Federal Criminal Violation.

Trump is an unnamed co-conspirator in a Federal Crime


President Obama's campaign was fined $375,000 by the FEC for missing a reporting deadline on contributions.

No Comparison.



edit on 23-8-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: DBCowboy

For one thing, Congress should not have a hush fund funded by the taxpayer. You get reported for sexual harassment where I work, you're done, fired.



AGREE.

As at least a baby step, it should be required that they list any taxpayer funded settlement payments in their public disclosure on compensation.

Pretty basic. It's our money. We pay them. We are entitled to know how much and what for.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Obamas team committed three crimes.

First they accepted more than the maximum amount from some indiviual donors.

Second they did not file in a timely manner, as you state.

Third, they did not return the money back to the donors in the proper time frame.

But I am sure this was just "clerical errors" in all instances.

And as has been shown on previous pages, all trump would have to do is show that he would pay these women off even if he wasnt running, and he is in the clear.

And seeing as he has paid of people with nda many times before he was running, that shouldnt be hard to prove.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Obamas team committed three crimes.

First they accepted more than the maximum amount from some indiviual donors.

Second they did not file in a timely manner, as you state.

Third, they did not return the money back to the donors in the proper time frame.

But I am sure this was just "clerical errors" in all instances.


Absolutely clerical errors. The exact reason they were cited for all of this is because it was transparent and reported.
VS.
A conspiracy to hide the contributions and filing false documents, campaign and tax forms.




And as has been shown on previous pages, all trump would have to do is show that he would pay these women off even if he wasnt running, and he is in the clear.

And seeing as he has paid of people with nda many times before he was running, that shouldnt be hard to prove.


A) Trump is already legally in the clear? He won't be indicted unless he shoots someone in the oval office and even then it would be a constitutional question before arrest.

This is a political question.

B) Despite his not being in direct legal jeopardy, he absolutely has qualified as an unindicted co-conspirator given what Cohen has claimed under oath.

C) Your arm-chair legal analysis is bunk.

Why did Trump Amend his Campaign Filings 2 years after the payment to include it after he was outed?
THAT ITSELF is an LEGAL ADMISSION BY TRUMP it was a campaign contribution.
It is not even a question


time.com...



edit on 23-8-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Since Trump put in $60 million+ in to his campaign from HIS OWN pocket.

I don't see the problem.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So if Trump says I didn't realize this would be considered a campaign contribution or a violation at the time I instructed Cohen than you would have to admit this is only a civil violation. Which then would be handled exacly like Obama's violation. Your own precedence says ignorance to campaign violations is an acceptable defence against a criminal violation.

Thank you for the clarification.

"You mean with a cloth?"


edit on 23-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: notsure1

The payoffs of course don't but lannydavis has already said that his client(cohen) is willing to provide evidence of conspiracy between trump and Russia in order to receive a lesser sentence.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: soberbacchus

So if Trump says I didn't realize this would be considered a campaign contribution or a violation at the time I instructed Cohen

than you would have to admit this is only a civil violation.

Which then would be handled exacly like Obama's violation.

Your own precedence says ignorance to campaign violations is an acceptable defence against a criminal violation.

Thank you for the clarification.

"You mean with a cloth?"



I broke up your post so I could better understand it.

The issue there is that when it became public that this WAS a campaign violation.

Trump and Cohen continued to LIE about it.



“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement


This lie was told by Trump's Personal Attorney Cohen and Trump himself claiming he did not know about the payments.

So, there is no claim that they were unaware it was illegal. They lied and covered it up even when they understood it was.

Also in Cohen told the judge he arranged both contributions, at Trump's direction, "for the principal purpose of influencing the election."



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because liberals.....



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

A great and superb detail of events that reveals the ugly and total truth of what has and is happening to Trump.

Well written and no clutter. Great job! This should be shared across all social media.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck


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.

..

As soon as Trump was elected, the media told us


...


The media called for,

....

The media ran with a story .

...


The media questions Trump about

...

The media told us


...


The media deems these

...

The media says


...

The media weep

...

The media claims


...

The media claims

...

the media has told us

...


Simple.

TheRedneck


OK, we get it! The Media is responsible for everything Trump and Team does wrong!
Of Course!!

The News is the Enemy of the People!

Let's get to it and lock them up!

Let me google see who is running this show:

Q1 2018 Ratings: Fox News Remains No. 1 on Cable Television
www.adweek.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: thepixelpusher

"Gender-inclusive front hole"?

Someone didn't take anatomy class...

TheRedneck


Soooo...belly button then?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Sure. Obama's team took over a million dollars from multiple people they shouldnt have and that was all clerical errors.

Then they failed to report each time that this had occured and once more, this was all just another series of clerical errors.

Then they did not return thaat money in the timeframe they were supposed to. You guessed it, once more, clerical errors.

Maybe if we had raided their lawyers offices, we would have found much more out.

As to trump, I still think I will take my arm chair lawyering over yours.

It doesnt matter if trump lied about the payments, that does not make him guilty of this crime.

Him amending his fincnial disclosure that he made this payment is not in any way and admission this was solely a campaign expense. In fact, financial disclosure forms include all sorts of things that are not campaign related.

The standard to met is that trump had to use donations EXCLUSIVELY for a campaign.

That means if he can show he would have paid these women off even if he hadnt been running, then it was perfectly legal.

And seeing as how he has used ndsa before, that would be easy for him to prove.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The issue is that he illegally falsified his campaign reports to exclude these payments.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The issue is that he illegally falsified his campaign reports to exclude these payments.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
And now THIS:



David Pecker Granted Immunity in Cohen Case
Publishing executive met with prosecutors to describe involvement of Cohen, Trump in hush-money deals to women ahead of 2016 election


www.wsj.com...

This is Trump's (former) long-time friend at the National Enquirer that would catch and suppress stories for him during the campaign.




top topics



 
75
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join