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.

 

Help me to understand. . . . .

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

None of that describes money laundering. Legitimate private funds were used.




Just prior to this in the sentencing documents prosecutors state all of this was done with the coordination of Trump but I like the tape better. You know the one where they openly talk about creating a shell company to pay Stormy Daniels.


From your source:

"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David," Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker.

When financing comes up again later in the conversation, Trump interrupts Cohen asking, "What financing?" according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, "We'll have to pay," Trump is heard saying "pay with cash" but the audio is muddled and it's unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, "no, no" but it is not clear what is said next.


Keep in mind that this is a client talking to his lawyer. Having faith in his counsel that what is being attempted is by law, as one would expect. If Cohen broke the law, it's on him.




posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal


No you’re wrong. The issue of him paying these women money from his campaign and then laundering the money through a series of shell companies and bank accounts is a criminal investigation by the Southern District of New York. This investigation is SEPARATE from the Mueller investigation.

You do realize his campaign was financed with personal funds?

I still want to see the outrage for extortion. That's what the payout was. Stormy Daniels demanded money or she was going to reveal details of an extra-marital affair which, incidentally, has yet to be proven. To prevent damage to his name and brand, Trump was forced to pay her extortion money in exchange for her agreement to a Non-Disclosure Agreement, wherein she agreed in writing to not disclose any information about any potential affairs.

Stormy Daniels broke that agreement in addition. She essentially stole $130,000 from Trump via fraud. Where is your outrage about that? Extortion and theft via fraud are both serious crimes, each far more serious than adultery.

As for money laundering, what was he supposed to do? Write in on his tax form, "paid to some woman so she wouldn't tell false stories about an affair with me"? He repaid money to his attorney who brokered the agreement as legal fees. That is common practice. Only in the deranged political climate we have today would anyone suggest that a businessman being extorted and using common business practices is somehow a hardened criminal for paying an 'innocent' extortionist and thief. Only in the mind of people so deep in absolute hatred would Trump's actions be considered anything other than legal, or Daniels' actions anything other than illegal and heinous.

There is no "whataboutism" going on. You can drop that nonsense. What is being discussed is legal precedent and equality under the law. If one person is to be held as guilty under a particular set of circumstances, another person under similar circumstances must be held as guilty as well. If one person is held to be innocent under a particular set of circumstances, another person under similar circumstances must be held as innocent as well. Anything else is despotism. Anyone who wishes to live under that kind of rule should move to Iran or Saudi Arabia... it will be more to their liking.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: BlackJackal

That’s funny considering that Republicans lost the popular vote in the midterms by the largest margin in history. It’s going to be tough to get re elected President when many of the districts he won in 2016 went overwhelmingly Democratic in 2018.


Hopefully he doesn't win and the left can come down from their 4 years of freaking out...

The left might be willing to do ANYTHING to take him down, but I'm not, just to keep him in office for 8 years as you all self implode...oh BTW it doesn't matter who is President for me...I do fine...you might not... good luck.


It’s funny, everyone says the left is just trying to take poor old Donny boy down. If he does go down there is no one to blame but himself.

The Mueller investigation was spawned because of Trumps actions. The FBI was investigating the involvement of Russia into our election in 2016 and at that time they were not even looking at Trump. However, then Trump fires Comey and the very next day when asked why he did it, his response was:


I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.


That and other bits of information reported at that time caused enough concern for the Deputy Attorney General ( who was appointed by Trump ) to begin a special investigation. Why? Well because our President sure was giving the appearance that he didn’t want anyone investigating Russia. If this was Obama instead of Trump, I’m sure you would want him investigated, right? I would.

If there wasn’t anything connecting Trump to Russia then he should have nothing to fear from this investigation. But, instead of acting like an innocent man and just doing his job, Trump has ranted about the Mueller investigation literally hundreds of times. He even calls it a “witch hunt” which happens to be exactly what Richard Nixon called the Watergate investigation......



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




The issue of him paying these women money from his campaign and then laundering the money through a series of shell companies and bank accounts is a criminal investigation by the Southern District of New York. This investigation is SEPARATE from the Mueller investigation.


Thank you. It was getting close to the end of the last page and I didn't want to be the one to explain this . Again....



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

i gave up attempting to work out the " logic " governing merkin politics along time ago



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlackJackal

None of that describes money laundering. Legitimate private funds were used.




Just prior to this in the sentencing documents prosecutors state all of this was done with the coordination of Trump but I like the tape better. You know the one where they openly talk about creating a shell company to pay Stormy Daniels.


From your source:

"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David," Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head David Pecker.

When financing comes up again later in the conversation, Trump interrupts Cohen asking, "What financing?" according to the recording. When Cohen tells Trump, "We'll have to pay," Trump is heard saying "pay with cash" but the audio is muddled and it's unclear whether he suggests paying with cash or not paying. Cohen says, "no, no" but it is not clear what is said next.


Keep in mind that this is a client talking to his lawyer. Having faith in his counsel that what is being attempted is by law, as one would expect. If Cohen broke the law, it's on him.


Sorry, no.

For one his campaign was not entirely self funded

LINK

Secondly, by attempting to compare Trump's campaign violations to Obama's is a longshot:


But Mr. Trump’s plea of ignorance has flaws, said Richard L. Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine. While the Obama and McCain campaigns were fined for failing to swiftly report certain expenditures, he said, they had filed corrected reports about the mistakes to federal elections officials and then paid the fines, rather than trying to hide the payments for more than a year.


LINK

Also, here is another article explaining why the "simple private transaction" defense won't hold up.

LINK

Seriously though, do you think federal prosecutors make a habit of charging people with crimes that don't exist? Then have grand juries and judges go along with it?

Trump may be able to argue in court that he is innocent and he may be able to get a jury to agree that he is innocent. But, you can't seriously argue on one had that Trump is a brilliant business man and then on the other that he doesn't understand why his lawyer would be setting up a business to pay off Stormey. I'm sorry but that doesn't even pass the smell test. Do you think a jury would believe for one minute that Trump didn't understand that setting up a shell company for a payment is illegal?



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




Sorry, no.


Sorry, yes. The burden of proof isn't on Trump, it's on the prosecution. At this point in time, there is zero tangible evidence to back that up.




Seriously though, do you think federal prosecutors make a habit of charging people with crimes that don't exist? Then have grand juries and judges go along with it?

They charge people with crimes that violate statutes. With the goal being to meet the elements of that violation.

I've asked before and I'll ask again. Ever sat on a grand jury?




But, you can't seriously argue on one had that Trump is a brilliant business man and then on the other that he doesn't understand why his lawyer would be setting up a business to pay off Stormey.

I'm doing exactly that. This is his first foray into politics. Certainly you would understand the value of a lawyer or even a whole team of them to guide you through the process.




I'm sorry but that doesn't even pass the smell test. Do you think a jury would believe for one minute that Trump didn't understand that setting up a shell company for a payment is illegal?


I would rather use the argument that it was used for anonymity. Much more evidence to back that up.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: BlackJackal


No you’re wrong. The issue of him paying these women money from his campaign and then laundering the money through a series of shell companies and bank accounts is a criminal investigation by the Southern District of New York. This investigation is SEPARATE from the Mueller investigation.

You do realize his campaign was financed with personal funds?

I still want to see the outrage for extortion. That's what the payout was. Stormy Daniels demanded money or she was going to reveal details of an extra-marital affair which, incidentally, has yet to be proven. To prevent damage to his name and brand, Trump was forced to pay her extortion money in exchange for her agreement to a Non-Disclosure Agreement, wherein she agreed in writing to not disclose any information about any potential affairs.

Stormy Daniels broke that agreement in addition. She essentially stole $130,000 from Trump via fraud. Where is your outrage about that? Extortion and theft via fraud are both serious crimes, each far more serious than adultery.

As for money laundering, what was he supposed to do? Write in on his tax form, "paid to some woman so she wouldn't tell false stories about an affair with me"? He repaid money to his attorney who brokered the agreement as legal fees. That is common practice. Only in the deranged political climate we have today would anyone suggest that a businessman being extorted and using common business practices is somehow a hardened criminal for paying an 'innocent' extortionist and thief. Only in the mind of people so deep in absolute hatred would Trump's actions be considered anything other than legal, or Daniels' actions anything other than illegal and heinous.

There is no "whataboutism" going on. You can drop that nonsense. What is being discussed is legal precedent and equality under the law. If one person is to be held as guilty under a particular set of circumstances, another person under similar circumstances must be held as guilty as well. If one person is held to be innocent under a particular set of circumstances, another person under similar circumstances must be held as innocent as well. Anything else is despotism. Anyone who wishes to live under that kind of rule should move to Iran or Saudi Arabia... it will be more to their liking.

TheRedneck


Again, no it was not entirely self financed.

LINK

Ok, so your argument is that Stormey Daniels extorted Donald Trump? That she broke a legally binding NDA? Well, answer this question, what is the value of an NDA that is only signed by one party? If you don't know I can tell you pretty easily, its not worth any more than the paper it's written on.[2] You see, Donald Trump didn't want to sign the NDA presumably because he wanted to maintain deniability.

Well, I'm sorry to put a bullet through the head of your argument but did you know that Trump says he was completely unaware of this NDA? Yep, he didn't know about it at all.


The statement, filed in Central California federal court, says that Trump has "never taken the position that he was a party" to the NDA with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. All of the parties agree that Trump never signed the settlement agreement, according to the filing, which Daniels is seeking to invalidate.


So, now you can see clearly that there is no way Trump was extorted because he himself claimed he had no idea that the NDA ever existed. This even though there is a tape where he and Cohen talk about procuring the funds for Stormey Daniels.

I don't care what his reasons for committing money laundering are, and the prosecutors probably don't either. No matter what his reasoning it is still illegal. So, are you saying that you believe that Donald Trump is above the law? Do you believe that it's ok for Donald Trump to break the law without repercussions? Because that really seems to be your argument here.

Sorry, but DBCowboy was clearly attempting to use Whataboutism to shift the discussion away from Trump's current issues with money laundering to an old story about a hush money fund. The hush money fund was entirely illegal and I agree more should have come out of it than it did, but it has literally nothing to do with this subject.

Can you not see that you are twisting yourself in knots just to try and defend Trump? His campaign was literally full of criminals but yet, the argument is that Trump is pure as the driven snow? Trump lies his ass off every single day and yet you still believe him? I would love to know what it is about Trump that makes you defend him regardless of the mounting evidence that he is not only a #ty human being but also a criminal.


[1] Is Donald Trump self-funding his campaign? Sort of
[2] Stormy Daniels Files Suit, Claims NDA Invalid Because Trump Didn't Sign At The XXX
[3] Trump won't enforce Stormy Daniels nondisclosure agreement



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlackJackal




Sorry, yes. The burden of proof isn't on Trump, it's on the prosecution. At this point in time, there is zero tangible evidence to back that up.


So let me get this straight. You claim that his campaign was self funded and therefore that means there was no crime. I show you that was incorrect and now you come back with there is zero tangible evidence to back that up? What do you call that link that I gave you? You know, this one right here that shows his campaign was not entirely self-financed.

Is Donald Trump self-funding his campaign? Sort of

Or this one:

Every Position Donald Trump Has Taken On How He Is Funding His Campaign

Or this one:

ACTIONS, NOT WORDS, TELL TRUMP’S POLITICAL MONEY STORY

There are tons more, but surely that should be enough to convince you that his campaign was not entirely self funded. So that means Trump's assertion that "it was a simple private transaction" is wrong.

As far as the prosecutions duty to prove the charges go, they told the judge they have the evidence to back it up. As you know, prosecutors don't release all of their evidence to the public during an investigation. So, that might be the reason why you or I haven't seen the evidence.

Arguing that since you haven't seen the evidence means that no crime occurred is extremely naive wouldn't you think? Are the prosecutors obligated to give you their evidence? Or is that something they should keep secret until trial?



I'm doing exactly that. This is his first foray into politics. Certainly you would understand the value of a lawyer or even a whole team of them to guide you through the process.


Well, you are missing the boat then. This has very little to do with politics and a lot to do with understanding how a business works. Trump and pretty much everyone else understands that the creation of a shell company for the purposes of paying hush money to someone is for one reason and one reason only, to hide that payment. Please explain to me your logic that says this hush money payment had anything to do with politics with the exception of trying to keep the story that Trump boned a porn star private? Bear in mind that Trump himself is on record saying he knows nothing at all about this NDA even though he is on tape with Cohen talking about making the payment.


The statement, filed in Central California federal court, says that Trump has "never taken the position that he was a party" to the NDA with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. All of the parties agree that Trump never signed the settlement agreement, according to the filing, which Daniels is seeking to invalidate.


Trump won't enforce Stormy Daniels nondisclosure agreement

Lies, lies, lies everywhere but yet you still believe Trump to be honorable and innocent. Why is that? How do you reconcile the facts that Trump is surrounded by criminals and that he lies about everything? Why do you believe him when he tells you that he is innocent?



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlackJackal




The issue of him paying these women money from his campaign and then laundering the money through a series of shell companies and bank accounts is a criminal investigation by the Southern District of New York. This investigation is SEPARATE from the Mueller investigation.


Thank you. It was getting close to the end of the last page and I didn't want to be the one to explain this . Again....


It's getting ridiculous. The defenses presented here are taken directly from Trump's twitter. Very little if any research has been done beyond regurgitating Trump's defense of a "simple personal transaction". That's obvious by the number of fallacies I have pointed out in the brief time I have been in this thread.

Even though Trump is a pathological liar, people on this site still blindly trust him when he says he is innocent.

I keep hoping that I can find a mental disorder that explains why so many people can justify trusting such a dishonest person. However, even though authoritarian personality disorder and social dominance disorder can explain why some people are ok with Trump's tactics, I haven't found anything that explains why someone would knowingly trust a liar.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

You are deluded or on drugs... First of all, Cohen taped the conversations with Trump, and NOT ONE OF THEM shows any sort of campaign finance violation...

Second of all, Comey today just confessed once again that the dossier wasn't verified, even though it was stamped as being verified and was used to get the FISA warrants... Not to mention the fact that Comey claimed "not to remember, or not to know" 245 questions, as he is obviously evading responding to the questions because HE KNOWS HE/McCabe, ETC BROKE THE LAW...
edit on 11-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




So let me get this straight. You claim that his campaign was self funded and therefore that means there was no crime.


No. I did not claim that. What I claimed is that the allocation of campaign funds to pay Cohen came from campaign funds needed to be proven. If you wish to have a discussion, read what I'm saying.




As far as the prosecutions duty to prove the charges go, they told the judge they have the evidence to back it up. As you know, prosecutors don't release all of their evidence to the public during an investigation. So, that might be the reason why you or I haven't seen the evidence.


Completely plausible. Also just as plausible is they have easily defensible evidence.




Please explain to me your logic that says this hush money payment had anything to do with politics with the exception of trying to keep the story that Trump boned a porn star private? Bear in mind that Trump himself is on record saying he knows nothing at all about this NDA even though he is on tape with Cohen talking about making the payment.

Pride? Respect for his wife (admittedly laughable, although there are folks that think this way)? Oh, how about privacy? As far as the NDA, the two can be mutually exclusive.





Lies, lies, lies everywhere but yet you still believe Trump to be honorable and innocent. Why is that?


Trump has been a name since I was in gradeschool and never has it been honorable or innocent. I didn't vote for a family member. I didn't vote for clergy. I didn't vote for someone to date my daughter. I voted for a president. One who has the fortitude to jump in the political cesspit and be somewhat transparent with his intentions.




Why do you believe him when he tells you that he is innocent?


I don't. I follow the laws and evidence provided. Something that most care little of.

Why do you have a problem with him failing or succeeding on his own merits?



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

ROFLMAO you're talking about research? You haven't done jack s#it in the form of "research" in any of your threads... All you keep posting are lies and you claim your lies are true...



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

What's ridiculous is that you can not differentiate between your personal bias and how laws are applied and how the courts work.




I haven't found anything that explains why someone would knowingly trust a liar.


By that logic, your threads shouldn't be acknowledged?



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

No, not release all of the info. Prosecute every single person who used the slush fund. Justice for all. Or we can go by the laws on the books and none of this is illegal (although using tax payer money to hide things from the voters is pretty unethical, at least).



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




I haven't found anything that explains why someone would knowingly trust a liar.

By that logic, your threads shouldn't be acknowledged?

That's what we call check mate.
edit on 11-12-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




What I claimed is that the allocation of campaign funds to pay Cohen came from campaign funds needed to be proven.


Not only that, it needs to be proven that those exact amounts were allocated from the campaign to cohen explicitly for the NDA payments.

But then we run into an issue that leads back to Hillary. She listed "legal expenses" for the hundreds of thousands she paid for the Steele Dossier. So on one hand the left gets to use lawyers to mask what they're buying (foreign "intel" in the case of hillary) but it's a big f-ing deal for Trump to use "legal expenses" to buy an NDA, which is an actual legal agreement and therefore a real legal expense???????

If I wasn't living in this a$$backwards world I wouldn't believe people are actually making these absurd arguments. but here we are with black jackal and his kin.
edit on 11-12-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal


Again, no it was not entirely self financed.

According to your own link, Trump put more money in his campaign that any other candidate, many times more. His personal monies accounted for 66.% of his campaign. Small donors accounted for another 25.3%, despite him never doing any fund raisers. Large donors came out to only 8.4%. I call that self-financing.

Here's the graph.


Ok, so your argument is that Stormey Daniels extorted Donald Trump? That she broke a legally binding NDA? Well, answer this question, what is the value of an NDA that is only signed by one party?

Hoss, I don't need you to read some link to me. NDAs are my bread and butter! I've likely executed more NDAs in the past year than you have in your lifetime. And every damn one of them better be good without my signature, because the lawyer that drew up the template didn't even put a place for my signature. Why? Because the NDA is not binding on me! It is binding on the person I show my information to.

Some are binding on me... and those only have my signature, because someone else is showing me their information. Those are not binding on the other party... I just let them use my template.

Trump is not bound by the NDA. Daniels already received her compensation, so there is nothing to bind him to. Daniels is bound by the NDA, so her signature is required.

What scares me is that some people actually believe the crap you are spewing on this... and that makes me want to never trust anyone where an NDA is needed again.


So, now you can see clearly that there is no way Trump was extorted because he himself claimed he had no idea that the NDA ever existed. This even though there is a tape where he and Cohen talk about procuring the funds for Stormey Daniels.

Actually, he said he didn't know anything about it, with it referring to the allegations about the NDA. Sorry, you don't get by with putting words in others' mouths (although you do seem to like to do so).

As to whether it was extortion, I'd like to know how you define extortion. I define it as the attempt to blackmail someone in order to get money or other valuable favor from them. So let's see...
  • did Stormy Daniels claim she had an affair with Donald Trump? Yes.
  • Could this allegation have been harmful to Trump? Yes.
  • Did the NDA cover this allegation of an affair? Yes.
  • Did Daniels sign the NDA? Yes.
  • Did the NDA forbid Daniels from disclosing information about a supposed affair? Yes.
  • Did Daniels receive $130,000 for signing the NDA? Yes, by her own admission.
  • Did Trump seek out Daniels and ask her to take his $130,000? No.
That is extortion, no matter how you cut it.

Now...
  • Did Daniels sign the NDA? Yes.
  • Did Daniels receive $130,000 for signing the NDA? Yes, by her own admission.
  • Did Daniels follow the contract she signed? No.
That, sir, is theft by fraudulent means.


I don't care what his reasons for committing money laundering are, and the prosecutors probably don't either. No matter what his reasoning it is still illegal.

What is illegal? I have yet to see a description from you as to what this supposedly illegal money laundering scheme was. Did he make multiple transfers with incorrect accounting entries? Did he spread the money among many other categories? What exactly did he do?


Sorry, but DBCowboy was clearly attempting to use Whataboutism to shift the discussion away from Trump's current issues with money laundering to an old story about a hush money fund. The hush money fund was entirely illegal and I agree more should have come out of it than it did, but it has literally nothing to do with this subject.

I suggest you look up the legal term 'precedent,' because you are saying such a thing does not exist. You are also saying that the law should not be applied equally to everyone, only to those you personally dislike. I consider that subversive and despicable, and as having everything to do with this subject.


Can you not see that you are twisting yourself in knots just to try and defend Trump?

No, I see you twisting law to the extent that you ignore contractual obligations of parties you want to 'win,' ignore proof, even confessions, of serious crimes by those you want to 'win,' ignore precedent and contractual law, all just to somehow show that Donald Trump has broken a law you do not even comprehend.

I have twisted nothing. You on the other hand, have twisted every statement I have seen you make in regard to this subject.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



I have twisted nothing. You on the other hand, have twisted every statement I have seen you make in regard to this subject.


To be fair, when you've worked yourself into a pretzel, the truth looks dizzyingly complex. It's very hard to untangle the web you've created in your mind so that it matches up with reality. That's what jackal needs to do if he wants to assess reality.



posted on Dec, 11 2018 @ 04:44 AM
link   
This is a clear example of the Democrats and deep state having too much power.

It should be inexcusable to the American people.

The democratic party should be broken up and fully investigated.

Too many Democrats at the FBI, IRS, Facebook. Google and in the media are using their power to push their political agendas







 
36
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join