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.

 

The Trump Campaign Says Exploiting Hacked Emails Is Free Speech

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

With so much other corruption going on in the democrat party, I'd forgotten all about ol Debbie Was-A-Man Schultz, one of THE most corrupt, and lost her job over it after being exposed. What's the bloodshot eyed nag gonna do? Get busted again?




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are only innocent if you are wrongfully accused of a commuting a crime . If something is not illegal, you are not innocent of doing a legal act.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So they're accusing them of 'conspiring' with Russians to spread information that's already available to anyone who wanted to google for it?



That's not exactly what they're saying.


In a motion to dismiss a new lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump’s campaign team of illegally conspiring with Russian agents to disseminate stolen emails during the election, Trump campaign lawyers have tried out a new defense: free speech.


illegally conspiring (conspiring) with Russian agents (with Russians) to disseminate (to spread) stolen emails during the election (emails already available to anyone with an internet connection)

Can you point out what I'm missing? I mean, all I did was take out the lawyer speak and translate it into plain english, I think.

The claim doesn't make too much sense. The data is already out there.... although I guess none of the MSM would want to work with them to make it widely viewed, since they're all working for the FBI who is all-in for clinton...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




To help you, simply remember the last 345434433433 leaks the Democrats have done to use in the public domain.


Can you source those or just pulling numbers out of your ass like drumpf? lol...



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac




Can you point out what I'm missing? I mean, all I did was take out the lawyer speak and translate it into plain english, I think.

The claim doesn't make too much sense. The data is already out there....


I don't think we can assume that is what the lawsuit is asserting. I think this is about dealings before and during the WikiLeaks strategic data dumps, and not necessarily about citations of the material afterwards. If that were so, then all outlets would be indictable.

That said, I still think the lawsuit is premature, at best. We all need to wait for Mueller to finish his investigation. Any lawsuit alleging collusion before Muller is finished is frivolous, in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are only innocent if you are wrongfully accused of a commuting a crime . If something is not illegal, you are not innocent of doing a legal act.





The lawsuit IS alleging illegal activity. They're accusing "President Donald Trump’s campaign team of illegally conspiring with Russian agents to disseminate stolen emails during the election."



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Good thing the left snipped off KAvanaugh.

There's no way in hell the left is ever going to win that lawsuit.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   

In a motion to dismiss a new lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump’s campaign team of illegally conspiring with Russian agents to disseminate stolen emails during the election, Trump campaign lawyers have tried out a new defense: free speech.


Now way in hell will they win it.



Congressional investigators have confirmed that a top FBI official met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign.




That’s the firm used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay research firm Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence operative, to compile a dossier of uncorroborated raw intelligence alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the presidential election.


A big can of whoop arse!



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




There's no way in hell the left is ever going to win that lawsuit.


Yep... Unless they have evidence that we don't. It could even jeopardize a later lawsuit that they may want to bring after Mueller's investigation is finished. If they lose this lawsuit, it may invoke double jeopardy.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Have you read the actual court case ?

💥🥁💥🚿



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   

The lawsuit, filed last month by two donors and one former employee of the Democratic National Committee, alleges that the Trump campaign, along with former Trump adviser Roger Stone, worked with Russia and WikiLeaks to publish hacked DNC emails, thereby violating their privacy.


This snip is priceless!

Their privacy was violated?

The left manufactured 'evidence' to manipulate the FBI to spy on Trump.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I am confused...
Double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


The lawsuit, filed last month by two donors and one former employee of the Democratic National Committee, alleges that the Trump campaign, along with former Trump adviser Roger Stone, worked with Russia and WikiLeaks to publish hacked DNC emails, thereby violating their privacy.


This snip is priceless!

Their privacy was violated?

The left manufactured 'evidence' to manipulate the FBI to spy on Trump.



The first mistake of the 2 donors was donating to Democrats in the first place.

The mistake of the DNC employee was going to work for Democrats.

Reap what they sow.

💥🚿💥



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Their second attempt. The first one was thrown out.



A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that President Donald Trump's campaign and former Trump adviser Roger Stone conspired with Russia and WikiLeaks to publish hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 presidential race.


www.politico.com...

This is only going to get worse if they take the House.

R's are leading all the senate races now.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Of course it's free speech.

How many times have newspapers published data from stolen memos or documents for the public good.

The answer is thousands of times.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

How sick are these people to file this lawsuit in the first place.

1. There is zero proof Roger Stone had anything to do with the theft of the emails. All of this stems from him predicting Wikileaks had some info that would be coming out, because he was told by someone within wikileaks something was going to be coming out. So his crime is foreknowledge of a wikileaks publication.

2. Why are donors of the democratic party mad that emails that mainly reveal the democratic primary was rigged for Hillary angry that info got revealed? Did they already know it was rigged and are mad the peon voters might find out about it? If they supported a fair primary wouldn't they be happy this info got leaked? Doesn't this say more about their corruption than the Trump campaign?

3. This is free speech, and they will not win.

Really I have to conclude this whole lawsuit is just an effort to piss off the people they are suing and force them to pay legal bills to defend themselves.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

you can assume that his campaign isn't alleged to have stolen them, as it does not say that anywhere.

So what are you left with?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sookiechacha

you can assume that his campaign isn't alleged to have stolen them, as it does not say that anywhere.

So what are you left with?


Collusion.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo
Of course it's free speech.

How many times have newspapers published data from stolen memos or documents for the public good.

The answer is thousands of times.


Only if they had nothing to do with the actual stealing or solicited the stealing of the documents. The lawsuit alleges that they had a hand in the stealing or solicited them being stolen.

Lawsuit is likely to be thrown out.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sookiechacha

you can assume that his campaign isn't alleged to have stolen them, as it does not say that anywhere.

So what are you left with?


I don't know of anyone alleging the Trump Campaign stole/hacked the DNC. The case accuses "...President Donald Trump’s campaign team of illegally conspiring with Russian agents to disseminate stolen emails during the election, " and they're naming Roger Stone.

Like I said, to me it's folly to do anything until Mueller is finished.






edit on 10-10-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join