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.

 

Judge Napolitano: Prosecutors have evidence the president committed a felony

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Ironically Obama magically walks out of office with ten times the wealth he walks in with and no one blinks an eye.


Yea we got no time for this sheesh...

We all worried about who Trump banged 10 years ago!


Obamas' on track to be a billion dollar brand.

Clinton's will pale at a cool half billion for their climax is my guess.

But they're "politicians for the people".

Anyone who frequents the site by now probably knows I'm rather independent...

But that reeks, too much money for career politicians... While the Clinton's didn't become a dynasty like we all thought, my guess is Michelle will have a go at things in 2024.




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou
We all worried about who Trump banged 10 years ago!


Speak for yourself.

You may only be worried about who Trump banged 10 years ago, but others are far more concerned with the illegal activities he's allegedly participated in during the election to obtain the U.S. Presidency.

Personally, my concern is that I don't believe companies (real, or shell) should be able to make unlimited and unacknowledged direct (or "in-kind") campaign donations to political candidates.

I don't care if you like Trump or not. Acceptance of such hidden campaign donations/contributions is not a precedent that will pan out well for any average American citizen.
edit on 12/13/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Thats nice but O'Bummer is the one that changed the finance rules.




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

ha ha has nothing to do with this or what the moron did. Too bad you can't deflect huh?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
a reply to: redmage

Thats nice but O'Bummer is the one that changed the finance rules.



It happened during his administration, but it was a Supreme Court decision.

Granted he took full advantage of it.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

I seem to remember members going gaga over his opinions during the Clinton Email Investigation.
How the mighty have fallen.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: highvein

ha ha you wish this was the same thing.
All you trumpers do...



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Its not even a law its just a policy. There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting indicting a sitting president.
The thought is that they shouldn't be burdened while running the country but during the Clinton investigation it was determined that that was not a good enough reason. That was in regards to the Paula Jones civil case and whether it should wait until he was out of office.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: highvein

ha ha you wish this was the same thing.
All you trumpers do...


As opposed to the inverse?

Different flavors of the same dish from where I'm sitting.

Both Trumpers and never Trumpers are selective of facts, context, and expectations surrounding who is their guy or who isn't.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Smoking will kill you.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

We dont #in care about them.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
Thats nice but O'Bummer is the one that changed the finance rules.


As was pointed out, it was the Supreme Court, not Obummer that changed the rules.

Furthermore, the rules were not changed in a way that allows unaccounted campaign contributions. All donations and contributions need to be accounted for.
edit on 12/13/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Except when you set up a shell company to do all the dirty deeds and then pay a magazine mogul to hide all your secrets for you.
The man is a dirtbag and this is going to ruin him. The state of NY has vowed to go after him.
He is getting exactly what he deserves.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage


Furthermore, the rules were not changed in a way that allows unaccounted campaign contributions. All donations need to be accounted for.


That's semi true.

Now in many cases we don't know who the money came from once it's muddied by the pacs... The who is the most important part.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: six67seven

How do you go from a finance crime to no collusion? Thats some magical thinking.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Sorry france lol that was cute... for future reference...beau·coup.
Americans aren't as bilingual as our european brothers.
edit on 12132018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage


There is no law stating that a sitting President cannot be indicted.






Things could get a lot more interesting. And tense.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: whywhynot

I seem to remember members going gaga over his opinions during the Clinton Email Investigation.
How the mighty have fallen.


Well now you do know what they say about opinions don’t you?

Nap is a never Trumper, what was happening a couple of decades ago is irrelevant.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
That's semi true.

Now in many cases we don't know who the money came from once it's muddied by the pacs... The who is the most important part.


No, it's true.

PACs are considered separate entities from someone's actual campaign and I was speaking specifically in regards to campaign donations/contributions.

That said, PACs absolutely muddy the political waters, and we'd likely be far better off eliminating such organizations.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I doubt Michelle would ever consider it. Politics is not her thing.







 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join