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: 7
75
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




From what I have seen there is no evidence against Trump in this case either.
Cohen has said otherwise. And the prosecutors have a great deal of material. One might think that there is material which would support the statement Cohen made under oath.




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Isurrender73




From what I have seen there is no evidence against Trump in this case either.
Cohen has said otherwise. And the prosecutors have a great deal of material. One might think that there is material which would support the statement Cohen made under oath.


The statement Cohen made was he knew he was doing this to aid the campaign.

If Trump would have paid the women off, which in my opinion he would have, to protect his marriage and brand he still didn't commit a crime. Even if he admitted it would hurt his campaign, he still would be allowed to pay them off for various other reasons. The precedence for any angle you want to take has already been set.

The timing of the pay off has to do with when the women came forward not Trump's motivation.

You are still making assumptions.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Keep in mind that trump was suing magazines since 2011 to keep the stormy daniels story from becoming public

(behind a pay wall for me but iu think this is it)

www.wsj.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Isurrender73

Keep in mind that trump was suing magazines since 2011 to keep the stormy daniels story from becoming public

(behind a pay wall for me but iu think this is it)

www.wsj.com...

son of a nutcracker.....
so this was a thing before the presidential campaign of 2016???
that trump is made of teflon i swear...



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
"First, in the Edwards prosecution, DOJ presented no evidence that Hunter was planning or threatening to speak to the press about her affair with Edwards."


I don't see how that's meaningful. His argument was that he was worried his wife would find out. If there was evidence that Rielle was threatening to go to the press, it would just bolster that argument.



originally posted by: soberbacchus
Second, all but one of the payments made to Hunter on behalf of Edwards were made before a single primary ballot had been cast, in the calendar year preceding the election year.


I don't see how that's meaningful either. It was campaign donor money that came from Bunny Mellon.

I did not, however, recall the charge he was acquitted of correctly...so point to you there. Regardless though, the DOJ dismissed the charges after the mistrial, leaving it vague as to whether paying off a mistress is illegal. I feel like if Mueller were to pursue charges, like Edwards', it will just appear very partisan/political considering he was FBI Director, back then, and the DOJ elected to not retry Edwards.


originally posted by: soberbacchus
Third, the payments to Hunter on behalf of Edwards were made contemporaneously to the affair and the pregnancy—timing that arguably makes sense if the true purpose was to keep knowledge of the affair from Edwards’ wife.

By contrast, the payments to both McDougal and Clifford were made a decade after the alleged affairs—timing that doesn’t make much sense if the purpose was to keep knowledge of the affairs from Mrs. Trump, but makes a lot of sense (combined with the proximity to the election) if the purpose was to keep the information from voters in order to influence the election.


Again, if Stormy went to the press -- whenever -- Melania would definitely find out, not just the voters. I don't think it undermines that possible defense.


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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
What Trump is accused of doing is *not* illegal, it is perfectly acceptable to pay someone for their silence via an NDA. Even if it is to cover up something personally embarassing

Trump's reputation and business reputation is clearly and legally distinct from the campaign, which despite lies from Cohen and the Gloria Allred-type farce of Lanny Davis is unrelated to the campaign

But like you said, the double standards are GLARING

Trump should've never waited so long to fire Mueller and his team/superiors. I know he likes to fight, but these people have been biased and corrupt from minute-1

The evidence overwhelming shows a conspiracy to harm this President through the legal system, using events that are either 1) intentionally misrepresented or 2) outright fabricated



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

When Trump is still in office, Paul Manafort/General Flynn are pardoned and Gates/Cohen are convicted felons things will be more clear

This has been nothing but a house of cards built on top of a criminal setup. The President's authority to pardon will neuter the federal witch-hunt and prevent zealots from the State of NY from pursuing charges (due to NY state law preventing double prosecutions).

Despite Trump's ability to outright take charge of or terminate the inquiry, he could also simply revoke the security clearances of these traitors and put an end to it that way

He still has a lot of options... and as Waters put it... "WE DO NOT CARE" even if every last thing said about him is true. What he's doing for our great country, our great people and our perfect Constitution is vastly more important than whether he slept with some porn stars, decided to keep extra money vs. turning it over in taxes or said a mean word to somebody.

This makes 0 difference to anyone with even half a brain. Meanwhile, American voters prepare to punish the left during the midterms. Great ready to be the only opposing party failing to retake the house during the midterms in recent history. The blue wave was invented as a Democrat talking point from the get-go to energize their voters, but the red wave is what everyone should be watching.

Just take a look at the 2016 election map...... Can you hear us now?



(but hey, worst case scenario you all succeed in removing Trump...great, now what? You're stuck with a freshly MSM normalized Mike Pence who will ensure this country becomes a religious theocracy...and you all will deserve every last second of it)
edit on 8/23/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Rachel Maddow: Breaking news! Proof of Trump ties in Russia



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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Isurrender73

Keep in mind that trump was suing magazines since 2011 to keep the stormy daniels story from becoming public

(behind a pay wall for me but iu think this is it)

www.wsj.com...

son of a nutcracker.....
so this was a thing before the presidential campaign of 2016???
that trump is made of teflon i swear...

Yes.
But it wasn't until a couple of weeks before the election that the offer of an NDA was made by Cohen.

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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Your point? Coincidence. Trump's reputation is unrelated to the campaign, which is a distinct "person" under the law.

Here's another container of straws for you to grasp

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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Isurrender73

Keep in mind that trump was suing magazines since 2011 to keep the stormy daniels story from becoming public

(behind a pay wall for me but iu think this is it)

www.wsj.com...

son of a nutcracker.....
so this was a thing before the presidential campaign of 2016???
that trump is made of teflon i swear...

Yes.
But it wasn't until a couple of weeks before the election that the offer of an NDA was made.

And that has what to do with the fact that this was an issue for both trump and cohen well before any campaign?
I believe talking heads on both sides when speaking of campaign finance law refer to money being used "for the campaign only". How is this problem and the mitigating of such "campaign only" when it existed in 2011?
This also is evidence of this being "regular business" between trump and cohen in 2011. I do believe "regular business" ,as dirty as it may be for trump, is also exempted in campaign finance laws.
But I could be wrong....



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The lies of the Steele dossier
(a document that not even its author stands behind)

1) Reality: Cohen traveled to xxx location | Steele: Cohen traveled to xxx location for the purpose of xxx crime
2) Reality: Trump traveled on business to Moscow | Steele: Trump traveled on business to Moscow for the purpose of xxx crime
3) Reality: Trump stayed in a hotel on business | Steele: Trump stayed in a hotel on business and made a "pee tape"

It is a house of cards. Any half-wit can take real events and add extra unverifiable nonsense to them.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Phage

Your point? Coincidence. Trump's reputation is unrelated to the campaign, which is a distinct "person" under the law.

Here's another container of straws for you to grasp


As long as those are not plastic straws. Because then an actul law may have been broken.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


October 7, the Hollywood Access tape. Campaign ouch.

Shortly thereafter a series of women speak up. More ouch.

Trump and Cohen find out that Stormy is trying to sell her story. Cohen tries to silence her. Cohen then drafts an NDA.

Cohen has said, under oath, that the purpose of the payment was to prevent another campaign ouch. Cohen has said, under oath, that Trump directed him to do so. It is not unreasonable to think that the prosecutors have evidence to corroborate Cohen's statement.


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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Basically, yes, but there is quite a bit more to it that matter, like standards of evidence, no right to an attorney, etc.

Differences Between A Criminal And A Civil Case



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Isurrender73

Keep in mind that trump was suing magazines since 2011 to keep the stormy daniels story from becoming public

(behind a pay wall for me but iu think this is it)

www.wsj.com...

son of a nutcracker.....
so this was a thing before the presidential campaign of 2016???
that trump is made of teflon i swear...

Yes.
But it wasn't until a couple of weeks before the election that the offer of an NDA was made by Cohen.


Because that when the women approached them and said they would speak up.

They were extorting him.

When stormy tried to speak up in 2011, trump sued to keep her.

When she came again in 2016, he paid her.

Had she came in in 2015, he would have probably paid her.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




They were extorting him.
How so? Did they ask for money before they came forward?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


October 7, the Hollywood Access tape. Campaign ouch.


Not ouch. It was a private conversation recorded by someone who clearly had malicious intents. It made 0% difference. Still makes 0% difference, the President has free speech. Not a crime. I would get over your obsession with the President's free speech.


Shortly thereafter a series of women speak up. More ouch.


Still not ouch. And what women? What were their names? That too was meaningless, since it was the typical liar Gloria Allred/Lanny Davis style of parading a bunch of unnamed accusers making totally unsupported statements. Again, ZERO EVIDENCE was presented indicating their stories were true, therefore they *did not* prove a single claim they had made. Me claiming Hillary Clinton is my stalker holds the *exact* same weight as their politically timed, falsified mass-accusations


Trump and Cohen find out that Stormy is trying to sell her story. Cohen tries to silence her. Cohen then drafts an NDA.


Which is not a crime. It was to protect person #1 (Trump) personal reputation and integrity, not person #2 (his campaign, a legal person under the law)

Just because it incidentally benefits a campaign in some way (potential benefits) does not make it campaign related. Shoot, every time I shared Hillary's leaked emails I was incidentally helping out the campaign and clearly that isn't required under reporting laws (and share I did, thousands of times..I still share them to this date)

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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler




They were extorting him.
How so? Did they ask for money before they came forward?


I have no idea. But I am guessing they implied that if they didnt get money, they would sell their story.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




But I am guessing they implied that if they didnt get money,
You are guessing that they approached the Trump campaign, asking for money to keep silent, before speaking publicly?

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




top topics



 
75
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join