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: 9
75
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

This particular NDA specifies damages of $1 million per "count." It's arguable that sort of egregious penalty would call the validity into question.




posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Uh oh...NOT TAPES!!!

I'm being stupid about it because tapes mean nothing until we know what's on them. Rachel Maddow claimed to have a bombshell exclusive of Trump tax returns, and how'd that work out?

The tapes may end up being circumstantial evidence that is not enough to do anything with. People facing jail time tend to sing about a lot of things that end up being nothing.

We shall wait and see, though. Even if the tapes have Trump saying, "Pay off Stormy so that it doesn't get out before the election," the way that it happened, I still have yet to have anyone show me how it is illegal. I'm not dismissing the possibility, but there's nothing been shown to me yet that satisfies actual scrutiny.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   

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?

You clearly have zero idea what youre talking about and are over your head, so maybe just sit this one out.
I cant tell if you're being disingenuous, or if youre really too dense to understand the difference between settling a lawsuit, and paying someone hush money. It really isn't very hard to grasp.
edit on 23-8-2018 by Maroboduus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:22 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".


This is legitimately one of the dumbest and most uninformed comments I've ever seen on here. Advertising and campaigning are just a wee bit different than paying somebody off in order to keep incriminating evidence from the public, no? Not even remotely similar or comparable, and suggesting as much is embarrassing.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

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.


That was lying under oath by POTUS Clinton, in case you didn't know. He ended up being Impeached over his testimony in that Jones Lawsuit.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maroboduus

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?

You clearly have zero idea what youre talking about and are over your head, so maybe just sit this one out.
I cant tell if you're being disingenuous, or if youre really too dense to understand the difference between settling a lawsuit, and paying someone hush money. It really isn't very hard to grasp.


Typically when parties agree to settle out of court, part of the settlement agreement is to have it sealed and prohibit the parties from discussing the matter entirely.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:25 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.


^^^^^^^10000 stars for this one Ante!^^^^^^^



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maroboduus

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".


This is legitimately one of the dumbest and most uninformed comments I've ever seen on here. Advertising and campaigning are just a wee bit different than paying somebody off in order to keep incriminating evidence from the public, no? Not even remotely similar or comparable, and suggesting as much is embarrassing.


Then you are just not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I guess.

If the standard is "helped the campaign" then any monies spent on improving the candidate's chances are all the same thing.

Consensual sex isn't a crime, so there was nothing "incriminating" to hide.

But it's OK if you don't get it.

All kinds of people in the world and the scale goes from intelligent to not so much.


edit on 23-8-2018 by Lumenari because: took "stupid" out because it seemed a little harsh. Fitting, but harsh.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.


I don't know why Cohen pleaded guilty. Obviously, he didn't have to. And I don't know why the head of the National Enquirer got immunity either.

I do think it's more than a coincidence that the Enquirer also broke the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story given its relevance to current events.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.



You have been batting 1000 and pitching a no hitter lately DB. I seem to agree with all your posts. Those prove you are neutral and trying to see it for what it is. Our Politically controllers of the Left are guilty of crimes against all of us and need to live in the Gray Bar Motel, out at sea for life, or face treason's final punishment. Whichever a court of law sees evidence instead of plea deals. This is too big for the major players to get plea deals.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I have never heard of a law suit against a public figure that ended in a settlement that did not involve an NDA. Even corporations, in order to offer an out of court settlement, will insist on no admission of wrongdoing and an NDA, and typically the amount of the settlement is also kept secret. The whole idea of a settlement is to keep it out of court, and not have to admit doing something wrong. Of course most people equate the willingness to settle as a tacit confession but it really isn't. Law suits can be long and expensive and settling is often the bet and cheapest escape. Now, settling using taxpayer money is a whole different ballgame. A game that should never have been played in the first place.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Your post was like taking the scenic route to the very definition of Liberal hypocrisy, which is the largest part that is wrong with our entire Democracy today. The Liberal Media makes it much, much worse.
edit on 23-8-2018 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:57 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.


Too bad settlements were tantamount to guilty as sin when Bill O'reilly was the subject.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They are often viewed that way. No matter who the plaintiff is.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

They are often viewed that way. No matter who the plaintiff is.



Sure, unless you're a prominent Democrat.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454


Sure, unless you're a prominent Democrat.


Oh, I see. It's a partisan issue.

Republicans don't think a prominent Democrat is guilty if they settle a lawsuit out of court. I did not know that.

Does the same thing apply regarding Democrats if a prominent Republican settles a lawsuit out of court?

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



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454


Sure, unless you're a prominent Democrat.


Oh, I see. You think that Republicans don't think a prominent Democrat is guilty if they settle a lawsuit. I did not know that.



Hey, nice strawman you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it...

Too late for that edit phage
edit on 23-8-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nah. The edit says the same thing. But more eloquently.



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

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?


Crap I think Phage still is. The bisection of the discussion now is brilliant even if far from reality . It helps people on the fence to get a clue when circular arguments are that unit has.

That units arguments lately come back to us as "the leftist are correct". Many I suspect are like me and disagree with that theory firmly because it is a "logic fail" of epic proportions.
edit on 23-8-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Nah. The edit says the same thing. But more eloquently.


Nah the edit tries to make it look less like a strawman.




top topics



 
75
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join