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: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage




As of now, both Cohen and Pecker have testified that the payments were directly “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election.

source please




posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
nothing illegal about having to settle with people or buying exclusive stories


Again, there are two people involved stating that these payments were made directly “for the purpose of influencing” a federal election (the qualifier your own source mentions).



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

sure they were
you keep telling yourself that



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Michael Cohen was, literally, just sent to prison and ordered to pay over a million dollars in fines because he broke this law (and a few others) and you want more proof?

I'm not sure what else would convince you that a felony was committed.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: links234

What I don't get is, if this is all so illegal, why are we all just sitting around while our government uses our tax money to do the very same thing? I mean at least Trump used his own money. If we're going to be up in arms about this let's be consistent and more than anything let's be most upset where it's a bigger problem. I agree it's bad and wrong, but, is even more wrong when you rob the American people to do it instead.
edit on 12/14/2018 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
sure they were
you keep telling yourself that


I don't have to tell myself that. it's all over the place.

American Media Inc (AMI) told prosecutors it worked “in concert” with Trump’s campaign when it bought Karen McDougal’s story of a sexual affair with Trump, which it suppressed “to prevent it from influencing the election”.

As for Cohen, feel free to peruse pertinent excerpts from the sentencing memos regarding what he plead guilty to.


"Cohen's crimes are particularly serious because they were committed on the eve of a Presidential election, and they were intended to affect that election."

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



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: links234




Michael Cohen was, literally, just sent to prison

was he now?
I read he doesn't actually go to prison until march.

Cohen did commit crimes
Tax evasion and fraud
he did plead guilty to breaking a campaign finance law

just because he plead guilty to a charge designed to smear the potus does not mean a law was actually broken
interesting the same prosecutors will not be charging the national enquirer for its "violation"
also interesting the fec has not issued any violations to cohen or pecker



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage
Several of us have posted numerous cites from legal experts in this field who say the SDNY charge was BS. Dual-use expenses are not a campaign contribution, and the law explicitly allows the media to do things like "catch and kill."



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

You should look into the media exemption in the fec statutes
the media is legally allowed to buy exclusive stories
has the fec issued violations about this? as they are, you know, the actual federal body responsible for such?

immunity from ny without an fec violation only shows the partisanship of the prosecutors involved
the same could get felony pleas to violations of the clean air act and without info from the epa such would also be meaningless



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

That will likely be the defense argument against the co-conspirators' testimonies and evidence that will be provided. It will be up to Congress or a judge to decide which side prevails.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage

and without the opinion of the fec it all means squat
www.fec.gov...
interesting they have no violation on something a state got a plea to?
that is how that normally works right?

lol



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: redmage

You should look into the media exemption in the fec statutes
the media is legally allowed to buy exclusive stories
has the fec issued violations about this? as they are, you know, the actual federal body responsible for such?

immunity from ny without an fec violation only shows the partisanship of the prosecutors involved
the same could get felony pleas to violations of the clean air act and without info from the epa such would also be meaningless



The question that will eventually be answered is if... the media is legally allowed to buy exclusive stories “for the purpose of influencing a federal election".

Since there is a clear legal conflict between the two notions it will be up to Congress, the FEC, or a judge to decide which side prevails in this situation.

The real question is; with so much constant fretting over the "liberal media"... do republicans really want to support (and fight to set the precedent) that it IS ok for media to buy and bury exclusive stories “for the purpose of influencing a federal election"?

My guess is that short-sighted partisan fervor will have republicans fighting against their own best interests.
edit on 12/14/18 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: redmage




Since there is a clear legal conflict between the two notions it will be up to Congress, the FEC, or a judge to decide which side prevails in this situation.

is it now?
you do understand there is already fec statutes that deal with this?

you want the government to control the free press because you didnt like how the election turned out?
how will the government decide which stories to print and which to not print?




The real question is; with so much constant fretting over the "liberal media"... do republicans really want to support (and set the precedent) that it IS ok for media to buy and bury exclusive stories “for the purpose of influencing a federal election"?

this already exists with the fec media exemption

you really havent researched this at all have you?
you get all your opinions from msnbc?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Here's the thing--just because certain people in his campaign may have caused the "Enquirer" (et al.) to not publish damning stories because of the election does not mean that Trump is directly responsible for that nor criminally liable for it.

I get that you're salivating over the prospect of Trump no longer being president, and you think that he's the equivalent of an abandoned puppy, but the funny thing about subjective hopes and interpretations is that they often lack a basis in facts and reality.

I'm no big Trump guy, and I fully agree that if Trump is ultimately responsible for illegal actions that he should be dealt with by the justice system, but at this point, I'm still not seeing anything that proves a direct order from Trump to conduct activity that was known to be illegal to him at the time. I keep saying this, but I'll repeat it again: Most criminal statutes require that the illegal activity was known to be illegal at the time.

Keep in mind that Trump didn't even sign the NDA that Stormy Daniels and the two lawyers did--that's a big plus on Trump's side of things as it pertains to a valid defense.

"Trump is done" is a claim by both the judicially ignorant and ideologically driven. It was the same thing with Hilary, where everyone is/was chanting "lock her up!" Just because there is obvious or implied illegal activity does not mean that these people will ever see an indictment or courtroom.

This is a wait-and-see game, and we're far from the finish line. I will concede that it's not looking good for Trump, but things certainly aren't damning yet, either.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

They admitted it in a document stating they would not charge Pecker if he cooperates. Can't recall what the document is called at this time.
In that document they say they discussed it with one other member of the campaign in a meeting they had to discuss the payments.
Turns out that one other was none other than donald j trump.
Just another story you guys are ignoring this morning.
He can claim he knows nothing about any of this but its just one more lie. He can feign ignorance saying I dont think a payment was ever made.... Bullschitt.



edit on 12142018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Now you're just being willfully ignorant.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Wow.... I really do not believe you are simply saying this isnt real.
Is that how you deal with problems in your life?
Ignore it it will go away?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Funny how the perp and the lawyers and the judge all think it is isnt it?

Ignoring reality is a sign of insanity.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Ha ha but not to influence an election..... You keep forgetting that part.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Judge Nappy also claimed that Hillary was given her security briefing by 2 FBI agents.



Tells me all I need to know about the napster.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join