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: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Willtell
What you Trump supporters don’t see is obvious.

Trump is being abandoned. The Fox News interview is indicative that even they are abandoning him
Take Giuliani his lawyer; we forget he is a very, very deep state operator. Remember 911, where he admitted he got the heads up the building was going to fall. He, of course, denied he said it but it’s on tape.


Trump is not long for the presidency. It’s all coming down folks.


Your post should be in there joke forum


Yeah… losing the Congress, many past friends, and associates now going to jail, a new charge almost every day, can't even get replacements for those who have left, so who's laughing


The joke is your disingenuous spin on those matters. Trump’s living rent free in your head.


He'll also be living rent-free when he goes to jail




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Which brings us right back to the first question I asked. What's the felony? Still not seeing it here...


Prosecutors said the purpose of the hush payments was to influence the 2016 election, and treated them as campaign contributions, which are subject to restrictions under the Federal Election Campaign Act. These types of contributions have a limit of $2,700. The payments made were nearly $300,000. This amount of money constitutes a felony. The payments were made at the direction of candidate Trump which makes him an accessory to the felony which is also a felony.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Which brings us right back to the first question I asked. What's the felony? Still not seeing it here...


Prosecutors said the purpose of the hush payments was to influence the 2016 election, and treated them as campaign contributions, which are subject to restrictions under the Federal Election Campaign Act. These types of contributions have a limit of $2,700. The payments made were nearly $300,000. This amount of money constitutes a felony. The payments were made at the direction of candidate Trump which makes him an accessory to the felony which is also a felony.

And you seriously believe that it constitutes a campaign contribution? Out of his own pocket? For something not related to the campaign? Please....



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Which brings us right back to the first question I asked. What's the felony? Still not seeing it here...


Prosecutors said the purpose of the hush payments was to influence the 2016 election, and treated them as campaign contributions, which are subject to restrictions under the Federal Election Campaign Act. These types of contributions have a limit of $2,700. The payments made were nearly $300,000. This amount of money constitutes a felony. The payments were made at the direction of candidate Trump which makes him an accessory to the felony which is also a felony.

What fec statute is that?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Willtell
What you Trump supporters don’t see is obvious.

Trump is being abandoned. The Fox News interview is indicative that even they are abandoning him
Take Giuliani his lawyer; we forget he is a very, very deep state operator. Remember 911, where he admitted he got the heads up the building was going to fall. He, of course, denied he said it but it’s on tape.


Trump is not long for the presidency. It’s all coming down folks.


Your post should be in there joke forum


Yeah… losing the Congress, many past friends, and associates now going to jail, a new charge almost every day, can't even get replacements for those who have left, so who's laughing


The joke is your disingenuous spin on those matters. Trump’s living rent free in your head.


He'll also be living rent-free when he goes to jail


That remark just further demonstrates your total lack of understanding the real world. TDS in full glory.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

The Southern District of New York seem to think so.

The man was running for POTUS and paid money to keep two women quiet because he believed that they would hinder his chances at winning or cost him votes. That sounds very, very campaign related to me.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: sine.nomine

The Southern District of New York seem to think so.

The man was running for POTUS and paid money to keep two women quiet because he believed that they would hinder his chances at winning or cost him votes. That sounds very, very campaign related to me.

What statute was broken?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

The whole premise of this is that he funded his own campaign. Can we all just realize that?

So he didn't take money from corporations. What a terrible guy!!! /Sarc



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

52 USC §30101 (8)(A)(i)

Defines a contribution as (emphasis added)

any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office


According to 52 USC § 30116 (1)(A)

Except as provided in subsection (i) and section 30117 of this title, no person shall make contributions—
to any candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,000


Again, Cohen's payments were in excess of $100,000 and were paid through a shell company that Cohen created for the payment. The payments were eventually repaid by candidate Trump with the understanding of what the payment was for. We know this because we have audio recording of the conversation that Trump and Cohen had. "Our friend David" is referencing David Pecker of AMI media and the 'arrangement' is the other payment in excess of $100,000 which is also an FEC violation.
edit on 13-12-2018 by links234 because: Fixed coding.



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Was cohen employed by trump before the campaign?
Has trump settled with people before the campaign?

You should read the FEC interpretation of "normal business".

Those transactions had nothing to do with the campaign.
Also who determines if campaign finance laws are broken?
A ny prosecutor or the fec?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Not likely to get past presidential veto or 2/3 of Senate yes I saw school house rock I an a bill.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Those transactions had nothing to do with the campaign.


According to two individuals who were actually involved (Cohen and Pecker)... your assumption here is incorrect.

It's pretty clear that you were not present during the planning and negotiations of these payments.
edit on 12/14/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Those transactions had nothing to do with the campaign.


According to two individuals who were actually involved (Cohen and Pecker)... your assumption here is incorrect.

It's pretty clear that you were not present during the planning and negotiations of these payments.

Ahlha ok who is here!
I didn't have to be to have read the fec interpretation of normal business.
You should as well.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

When people who were actually involved testify that these payments were not "normal business", and instead that they were made to directly influence the campaign... your personal interpretation falls flat on its face, but keep on striving for that law degree.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: shooterbrody

When people who were actually involved testify that these payments were not "normal business", and instead that they were made to directly influence the campaign... your personal interpretation falls flat on its face, but keep on striving for that law degree.





It doesn't matter if the payments were made to influence the campaign. If there is a dual reason, then the payments are fine. That is the law.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: shooterbrody

When people who were actually involved testify that these payments were not "normal business", and instead that they were made to directly influence the campaign... your personal interpretation falls flat on its face, but keep on striving for that law degree.




Source that please
I find it hard to believe trump or the paper hadn't done this before?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage




keep on striving for that law degree.

how about the opinion of someone who has
www.foxnews.com...



I’m one of those former commissioners and I’m also a former Justice Department attorney. Based on my experience serving in government and now as a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, it appears to me that Cohen was innocent of the campaign finance law violations.




The law Cohen pleaded guilty to violating bans campaign contributions by banks, corporations and labor unions. It also limits the amount that an individual can contribute to a candidate. During the 2016 election cycle, that limit was $2,700. Civil violations of the law are enforced by the FEC. Criminal violations of the law are enforced by the Justice Department. A civil violation becomes a criminal violation when someone intentionally and knowingly violates the law. Here’s how the Federal Election Campaign Act works: For the rules, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to an expenditure, it has to be made “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election. But such a broad definition could cover anything on which a candidate spends money.




The key question in determining whether Cohen broke the campaign finance law is: Were the payments to Daniels and McDougal personal expenses or campaign-related expenses?




Many legal experts don’t believe such payments are campaign-related. Wealthy celebrities are faced with these types of embarrassing claims all the time, and often pay nuisance settlements (even if they are not running for office) to avoid bad publicity. The Justice Department only prosecuted someone for a campaign finance law violation like the one Cohen pleaded guilty to on one occasion and the department lost its case – despite having stronger evidence.




In addition, another expert on the campaign finance law and a former FEC attorney, Craig Engle, pointed out to me that the payment the National Enquirer made to buy the rights to McDougal’s story also cannot possibly constitute a prohibited corporate campaign finance violation. The Federal Election Campaign Act contains a broad media exemption that applies to “any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication” unless it is owned by a candidate. Since there is nothing illegal about the National Enquirer buying the story rights, Cohen’s urging the publication to do so can’t be illegal.


from someone who has the requirements you were seeking



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
I find it hard to believe trump or the paper hadn't done this before?


So you believe that Trump and Pecker have make illegal in-kind campaign contributions before these? Because that's what Pecker and Cohen have testified that these payments were... payments to directly influence the campaign.

Quite the damning opinion you have of Trump and Pecker if you think they have a history of such illegal activity.

edit on 12/14/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
how about the opinion of someone who has


Well, if Trump can keep his mouth shut and stop continually changing his story, then that might be the argument that his defense attempts to pursue. In that case it would be up to Congress or a judge to weigh the evidence vs. the strength of said argument.

As of now, both Cohen and Pecker have testified that the payments were directly “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election which your own source states fits the rules for, contribution limits, and reporting requirements of law to apply to these expenditures.
edit on 12/14/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

you should look up normal business on the fec website
nothing illegal about having to settle with people or buying exclusive stories




top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join