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: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Didn't you know? This is how these things work.

Just like Ol' Billy boy. An investigation into the Whitewater real estate deals magically became an impeachment over the Lewinsky affair. Women are the downfall of adulterous politicians who are compulsive liars.

edit on 12/13/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

The intellectually honest still hold Napolitano's legal discussions to a high regard, but like every judge and every attorney, they're not always correct.

But what Napolitano did was use deductive reasoning in his points, and that should be readily apparent to anyone paying attention to what he said: He is saying that, because the prosecutors took this information before a judge, that indicates via judicial processes that there is abundant evidence to bolster their claims. Furthermore, he also notes that because they did this, there is basically a running clock now where they need to decide whether or not a grand jury is appropriate, or if they are not going to pursue it any further at this time.

We are basically waiting on two things:
    1. More information as to the discovered evidence, and

    2. A decision on the prosecutors as to what they are going to do.

Other than that, Napolitano didn't really say anything--he's hinging his entire assumption based on the deductions someone "in the know" of the processes can make because of the actions of the prosecutors thus far.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
He says in the video that there's no evidence and nothing can be done. It's not only hearsay, but the disclosure could be argued as breaking the law on Cohen's part. This is a stretch.

Except it's not against the law to break an NDA...or attorney-client privilege, for that matter...when federal charges are on the line.

Or, when the act of the NDA was in and of itself illegal.

That's where there's a frustrating grey area--I still haven't seen the law specified that was broken, although I've admittedly not spent much energy on it at this point.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Will this change anyone's mind?


www.rawstory.com...

or

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Will this change anyone's mind?


www.rawstory.com...

or

www.foxnews.com...


Don't get too ahead of yourself.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Maria Butina, accused in the United States of spying for Russia, had wider high-level contacts in Washington than previously known, taking part in 2015 meetings between a visiting Russian official and two senior U.S. officials.

The meetings, disclosed by several people familiar with the sessions and a report prepared by a Washington think tank that arranged them, involved Stanley Fischer, then Federal Reserve vice chairman, and Nathan Sheets, then Treasury undersecretary for international affairs.


Exclusive: Alleged Russian agent Butina met with U.S. Treasury, Fed officials

It appears she was meeting with high-level officials in Obama's administration.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: shooterbrody

Didn't you know? This is how these things work.

Just like Ol' Billy boy. An investigation into the Whitewater real estate deals magically became an impeachment over the Lewinsky affair. Women are the downfall of adulterous politicians who are compulsive liars.


hmm
did ole billy boy have the fbi coming after him?
www.foxnews.com...



Asked to describe how two FBI agents ended up at the White House to interview Flynn in January 2017, Comey, speaking to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace during a forum discussion Sunday, said flatly: “I sent them.”




He called it “something I probably wouldn't have done or maybe gotten away with in a more … organized administration.”

equal treatment under the law
right...



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
When can we prosecute all those using tax dollars as hush money?


That would eliminate the need for term limits, wouldn't it?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Wow, that RawStory article is full of assumptions and fallacious deductions concerning her guilty plea. Here are a couple of good ones in one paragraph:

Mueller is going to connect Donald Trump and his campaign directly to the government of Vladimir Putin. This week, with the guilty plea of his agent Maria Butina, Putin appears ready to help him.

There is no way to know any of this...this is an opinion piece (of deductive hopefulness on behalf of a known leftist organization).

At least the FoxNews story just states the pertinent facts and isn't the equivalent of an Op-ed.

This WaPo article has a few more details:

As part of her plea, Butina admitted seeking to establish and use “unofficial lines of communication with Americans having influence over U.S. politics” for the benefit of the Russian government, through a person fitting the description of sanctioned Russian central banker Alexander Torshin, prosecutor Erik Kenerson said.

Court documents indicate that Butina worked closely in her efforts to advance Russia’s interests with a Republican Party consultant with whom she had a romantic relationship after they met while he visited Moscow in 2013.

The operative, previously named as Paul Erickson, is a longtime GOP political advisor from South Dakota who managed the 1992 presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan.

After looking into it a bit further, it seems that she was basically a lobbyist and was acting as an unregistered foreign agent (which they are not charging her for under the plea agreement) trying to influence policy--I see nothing where there is evidence tying her to election fraud or tampering or anything of that nature, and certainly nothing tying Trump himself to her and her actions taken with Erickson.

But, like with all of these, we have to wait and see what happens. More may come out between Trump and Erickson, or this may be another close-but-no-cigar scenario of trying to directly tie Trump to Russian election interference.

There are these points, too:

There is no suggestion in the [plea agreement] that Butina was employed by the Russian intelligence services...


On Tuesday Russian President Vladi­mir Putin addressed Butina’s case at a meeting of a Kremlin council on human rights in Moscow, saying: “I asked all the heads of our intelligence services what is happening, ‘Who is she?’ No one knows a thing about her.”

Of course, that could all be standard denials from governments, but speculation serves to good purpose here.

This will be interesting to watch, though. Being as privy to the workings of the justice system as I am, I have reason to be concerned about all of the pleas contingent on full cooperation with the government...it's a recipe for manipulation and, honestly, it is legal extortion: Your freedom or information. It's too easy for people to talk about things that really didn't happen as they end up saying in order to stay out of jail, and it happens all of the time.

In any event, my first reaction was, "Wow, she looks a lot like Kato Kaelin."



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
The law stating a sitting President cannot be indicted needs to be changed.
I think it could be during this administration.




It's not a law - it's a DoJ policy.
That said, there is no law that has been broken, no matter how much the people who hate Trump want to make up new laws on the fly to achieve their outcome.


FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign."


Seems like me to be a pretty tough sell to get objective people to believe that Trump has not paid off people and installed NDA's when he wasn't running for President. It's not like he was unknown - he was a billionaire businessman and TV celebrity, known for his, shall we say, dalliances with the ladies.

The only mileage that this has is for propaganda purposes and Democrats, their allies (including the liberal media) are playing it that card to the fullest.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
equal treatment under the law
right...


So you're calling for impeachment hearings for Trump just like Bill Clinton for his affairs?
edit on 12/13/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: shooterbrody
equal treatment under the law
right...


So you're calling for impeachment hearings for Trump just like Clinton?

has trump committed purjury?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
has trump committed purjury?


That might be the funniest thing I've read all week.


For the definitive answer we'll have to wait until Mueller releases his report, but I could make a pretty good guess based on Trump's abysmal record when it comes to honesty...



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage




That might be the funniest thing I've read all week.

what is really funny is you failed to actually answer the question
that is a laugh riot
derp just like bill clinton derp



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

You're asking a question that only the special council knows the answer to, so yes, if you're looking for me to read the minds of the special council then you're in the wrong section of this forum.

The psychic predictions board is over there ->




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage




So you're calling for impeachment hearings for Trump just like Bill Clinton for his affairs?

your question
what were the impeachment hearing for in bill clintons case?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
The law stating a sitting President cannot be indicted needs to be changed.
I think it could be during this administration.




It's not a law - it's a DoJ policy.
That said, there is no law that has been broken, no matter how much the people who hate Trump want to make up new laws on the fly to achieve their outcome.


FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign."


Seems like me to be a pretty tough sell to get objective people to believe that Trump has not paid off people and installed NDA's when he wasn't running for President. It's not like he was unknown - he was a billionaire businessman and TV celebrity, known for his, shall we say, dalliances with the ladies.

The only mileage that this has is for propaganda purposes and Democrats, their allies (including the liberal media) are playing it that card to the fullest.


This is what actual legal experts -- like Bradley Smith (former head of the Federal Election Commission) and Alan Dershowitz have been trying to point out. The law does not say that anything spent during the campaign is a campaign expense. Expenses that you would have incurred anyway are by definition not a campaign expense. Trump has been a rich celebrity for decades, and I'm sure we all expect has arranged these kinds of agreement many times over the years. It was not a campaign expense. The SDNY prosecutors are overreaching.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan




The SDNY prosecutors are overreaching.

it was intentional and a stunt to smear the potus



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

He lied about his affair with Lewinsky. Come on, kiddo, you know this already.

Trump has lied about his affairs as well.

As for perjury... we'll have to see when the special council's report comes out. Lies to the American people are a bit different than lies to congress or the FBI, but Trump can't help himself.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

ah
lies
so you would prosecute all the politicians that lie?
or just those who lie under oath?
has trump lied under oath?
has trump been under oath?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
Trump has been a rich celebrity for decades, and I'm sure we all expect has arranged these kinds of agreement many times over the years. It was not a campaign expense. The SDNY prosecutors are overreaching.


The problem there is that we already have 2 participants (Pecker and Cohen) who admit and have testified that these specific payments were made directly to help the campaign.

Bradley Smith and Alan Dershowitz are either ignoring those facts, or made their statements before Cohen's conviction and Pecker's testimony became public knowledge.







 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join