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: 8
75
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




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)
Were you paid for it? By Trump?




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Isurrender73


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.

Cohen is a known liar, and makes about as credible a witness as a low-res security camera in a darkened alley. His personal claims, especially after a plea deal, have motivation to both be "embellished" and outright false.

Now, I'm not ignoring the point that his claim has the potential to be true, but thus far, it doesn't seem that this will be the case. Evidence is what matters, and hearsay along the lines of, "Well, he told me to do it," doesn't exactly meet the level of evidence necessary for proof.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Reasonable points although debatable.

It really is just fantasy litigating on both sides at this stage.

Those that can be charged have plead guilty, those that can't be charged, won't be.


originally posted by: MotherMayEye


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.



Clarification here...Mueller wouldn't and hasn't pursued charges here. He didn't bring the charges. This was a different Grand Jury that was impaneled by the state of NY to investigate Cohen.



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

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Isurrender73


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.

Cohen is a known liar, and makes about as credible a witness as a low-res security camera in a darkened alley. His personal claims, especially after a plea deal, have motivation to both be "embellished" and outright false.



He has a credibility problem, but he also has tapes.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
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?


I am guessing that someone connected to them contacted someone connected to trump and said they were going to go public with the story



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

If they try to impeach him over this, what it will boil down to to most voters is the same thing the Clinton impeachment boiled down to: They impeached him for having sex. Only in this case, they're impeaching him for having sex before he got anywhere near the Oval Office.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Isurrender73


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.

Cohen is a known liar, and makes about as credible a witness as a low-res security camera in a darkened alley. His personal claims, especially after a plea deal, have motivation to both be "embellished" and outright false.



He has a credibility problem, but he also has tapes.


Look again, if trumps guilty, fine by me, charge him.

And maybe cohen has proof, that could very well be.

But so far, the tape released is weak. and cohens lawyer seems to be implying it may just be his word vs trumps.

Now maybe this enquirer guy with provide evidnce as well.

But as it stands we have no evidence trump broke the law, and a possibility that he may be connected to a....


campaign finance violation.

Thats pretty weak, and not going to amount to much.

I still think cohen had more damning info about some of trump financials, and I think that will be fare more serious.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Phage
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?


I am guessing that someone connected to them contacted someone connected to trump and said they were going to go public with the story
So, they didn't ask for money to keep silent? They were just giving a courtesy heads up?
I'm missing your point.

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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

It occurs to me that Trump has a few things working in his favor that Edwards did not:

1. Voters were already aware that Trump was a cheater because he cheated on Ivanna with Marla..and they supported and voted for him anyway. That undermines the argument he was worried about the voters finding out about Stormy.

2. Trump said he believed he could shoot someone on the street and his supporters would still vote for him. That undermines the argument he was worried about the voters finding out about Stormy.

3. The NDA with Stormy specifically prohibited her from contacting Melania and anyone in his family.

If reasonable doubt is the test, there's more than enough that suggests it's very likely he was concerned with Melania finding out.


And I hope it goes without saying that Trump and Edwards are both dirty dogs.


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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Phage
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?


I am guessing that someone connected to them contacted someone connected to trump and said they were going to go public with the story
So, they didn't ask for money to keep silent? They were just giving a courtesy heads up?
I'm missing your point.


I am saying that if they contacted him or his team (which I have no proof of but think is probably what happened) then they were implying they wanted money.

what do you think happened.

"Hey donald its stormy! I was just calling to say whats up. Hey I am going to sell my story about having sex with you to a bunch of reporters. Ok by!"

And then she was shocked when cohen said, wait wait, we will give you money.

Please.

If they contacted trumps rteam, they knew they were attempting to get money.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Checkbacknov18

That is my keyword to search up your post and similar and respond accordingly come Nov. 7th after reality weighs in on your cult-rhetoric.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Again, not agreeing or disagreeing MOM, but finding the legal debate kind of silly after a while.

This is not a legal debate.

It was a legal issue for Edwards because he was not POTUS.

Questions to ask are, did Cohen Plead guilty just because? Did the head of the national Enquirer flip on trump and ask for immunity just because?

Again..those that can be convicted have been.

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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Ok so I have a totally hypothetical question that probably is way off topic about NDA's, but here goes.

I assume the penalty for violating an NDA can be more than just returning the moneys given.

In other words, I give Phage $1000 to not tell people he saw me pick my nose.

If he does anyways, I can sue him I am guessing for the $1000, and further damage, like maybe he cost me a sweet photo shoot I was hired for?

Is that the way it works?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

We need to know who is using that fund.

The fund should be destroyed.

Why isn't trump talking about the hush fund?



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
This is how reckless democrats and republicans greed and money and power has become....Their arrogance with MSM and politics has no limits.Trump will be right back giving money to the democrats and the republicans....Obama and Hillary both did 2 wars with out congressional approval and Hillary lies straight to the American people and nothing happens......It is very dangerous what they have become.....
No one asked Obama why he changed suddenly on His stance from being against homosexual marriage then all a sudden for homosexual marriage....Nothing but a game to these people of staying wealthy forever and making sure everyone in their family who runs for politics stays wealthy.
edit on 23-8-2018 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


what do you think happened.
With Stormy? I think what happened is quite well laid out here:

On October 8, 2016, a previously unaired Access Hollywood television program from 2005 during which Mr. Trump made comments about engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with women was made public.[12] In response, various women came forward to disclose their past sexual encounters with Mr. Trump.[13] Likewise, at around that same period, Ms. Clifford sought to "share details concerning her relationship and encounters with Mr. Trump with various media outlets."[14]
After learning of Ms. Clifford's efforts to publicly disclose her affair with Mr. Trump, Ms. Clifford states that "Mr. Trump, with the assistance of his attorney, Mr. Cohen aggressively sought to silence Ms. Clifford as part of an effort to avoid her telling the truth, thus helping to ensure he won the Presidential Election."[15] Mr. Cohen subsequently drafted the Nondisclosure Agreement, pursuant to which Ms. Clifford would receive $130,000 for her silence.[16]

source


I think that Stormy was approached by Cohen. I think that if she had, as you think, first approached the Trump campaign a deal would have been made then. Or perhaps she would have been reported to the FBI for attempting to extort a presidential candidate.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Honestly that sounds believable.

But who at these media outlets leaked to trumps team she was going to come public.

Its a moot point anyways.

In a starnge way, this almost further enhances the argument that trump would have paid her even if he wasnt running for office.

If he was seeking to avoid further embarassment from the acess hollywood tape, then I assume even if he was just regular old businessman trump who was not running for office, he would have sought to keep her quite and keep her from harming his reputation.

Which makes sense, seeing as how he tried to quash this story in 2011



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Is that the way it works?
Not really. There is no lawsuit necessary to enforce an NDA. That's sort of the point.

But the question is, have the terms of the NDA been breached, and if so, who did it. The NDA calls for arbitration to determine that sort of thing.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Kekeke, this is sure to keep everyone at each other's throats as the global multi continent war for the world continues to rage. Who else can do this but the exceptional USA??

Nobody discusses the full 30% or so of Syria that is unofficially a NATO Ally now hosting multinational forces over about a dozen bases of various configurations. We ignore the "accidentally" fired a missile at Russia, annihilated up to or over a hundred Russians in February attempting to lead an assault across the Euphrates to reclaim oil fields.

Collusion is no longer holding it's weight. My thinking is though, if the Dems are going to keep playing dirty, it's time to just start assassinating certain folks and rule it suicide or an accident.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler


Is that the way it works?
Not really. There is no lawsuit necessary to enforce an NDA. That's sort of the point.

But the question is, have the terms of the NDA been breached, and if so, who did it. The NDA calls for arbitration to determine that sort of thing.



Ok but assuming the NDA was breached, is the penalty just the return of the money, or can their be more punitive measure on top?

Or is it that specified in each indiviual NDA?



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join