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.

 

"Muh Campaign Finance"

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf
While we discuss the ins and outs of campaign finance law, two outside whistleblowers today revealed that the Clinton foundation acted as an agent of foreign governments. It’s no surprise that the media, who announced their support of Clinton, have shifted focus to other meaningless piffle.


What? That deserves a thread.




posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

Just a tit bit according to a hunch.




"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."

Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."


www.politifact.com...


Things changed in the spring of 2016, after Fusion GPS got a new client, which we now know to have been the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.

(This fact emerged in October, well after Simpson’s testimony, when lawyers from the Judiciary Committee demanded Fusion GPS’s bank records.)

In “May or June of 2016,” Simpson recalled, he engaged Christopher Steele, an old associate of his, who was the former head of the Russia desk at the British foreign-intelligence agency, MI6.

He and Steele, who was by then running his own intelligence consultancy in the U.K., shared an interest in the Russian kleptocracy and in organized-crime issues, Simpson said

www.newyorker.com...


Then the FBI got involved and actually tried to have Steele continue to pay his Moscow based network of memo senders from Russia. That fell through supposedly.

These "Russian sources" just sent Steele "reports" about rumors they heard in exchange for money. He never even went to Russia!


edit on 12 13 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: Propagandalf
While we discuss the ins and outs of campaign finance law, two outside whistleblowers today revealed that the Clinton foundation acted as an agent of foreign governments. It’s no surprise that the media, who announced their support of Clinton, have shifted focus to other meaningless piffle.


What? That deserves a thread.


Yeah, there seems to be a lot of information about this coming out recently. I read this excerpt from an article last week, about Glenn Simpson (as in, fusion GPS Glenn Simpson):


Simpson had spent a good chunk of his career as a journalist investigating the Clintons. In 1996, Simpson broke big stories about the flood of foreign money from China, Indonesia, and elsewhere that poured into Democratic Party coffers to boost Bill Clinton's re-election campaign. In his first front-page piece on the subject, Simpson and co-author Jill Abramson wrote that the Asian cash flow highlights "a subject that doesn't get much discussion: How foreign influence seeps into the American political system".

More recently, Fusion GPS had tracked wealthy foreign donors who had pumped money into the Clinton Foundation in what looked to Simpson to be an effort to influence and win favours from Clinton's State Department. "I had no interest in working for Hillary f---ing Clinton," Simpson privately told friends. "I covered these people, Hillary and Bill Clinton, for years. They were an old-fashioned political machine."


From here: www.afr.com...

Interesting that Simpson has this detailed research yet continues to focus on Trump?



posted on Dec, 13 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

Go to 1:30:00 to listen to the whistler blowers. This was today. Pay-to-play, using foundation as piggy bank. It’s damning if true.


edit on 13-12-2018 by Propagandalf because: (no reason given)



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

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


originally posted by: BlackJackal

Seriously though, you guys are taking the side of a documented liar over that of prosecutors in the SDNY that are not only republican but interviewed and appointed by Donald Trump himself.


Sources please.


Trump interviewed Geoffrey Berman LINK

Appointment LINK



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




Actually, it is called a Non Disclosure Agreement, not "Hush Money."

They are one and the same thing.



Something a lot of people sign... I am under 3 right now.

Interesting , do tell.



I typed that as slowly as I could and I couldn't make the words any smaller.

And no typo's

Well done.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex


They are one and the same thing.

No, they are not!

NDAs can be used to prevent people from disclosing all kinds of information... many companies use them to ensure that employees and contractors don't give away their trade secrets to competitors. Inventions are never shown unless that showing is accompanied by an NDA. You have zero idea what you are talking about.

How many NDAs have you been a party to?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Rewey





Interesting that Simpson has this detailed research yet continues to focus on Trump?



I think Simpson likes to hold information to have a better hand when he needs it. Or the threat he received from the Clintons was enough to scare him into silence and to work for his masters.



posted on Dec, 15 2018 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




No, they are not!

In this case yes they are , Trump paid the money to cover up his dirty little secret.



posted on Dec, 15 2018 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Rewey





Interesting that Simpson has this detailed research yet continues to focus on Trump?



I think Simpson likes to hold information to have a better hand when he needs it. Or the threat he received from the Clintons was enough to scare him into silence and to work for his masters.


Actually, now that I think about it... Glenn Simpson had done years of research and reporting into the Clintons and their dirt - foreign money supporting Bill and pay for play for Hillary. But months before an election, the Clintons start paying him large sums of money to look into Trump instead.

How is that any different to Trump paying AMI to buy the rights to stories and bury them? If the Clintons are paying Simpson and Fusion GPS millions, of course he's going to bury his knowledge of their dirty laundry, otherwise his income dries up.



posted on Dec, 15 2018 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

How many NDAs have you been party to?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 03:02 AM
link   
It's funny to see the leftist marching orders. They're so devoid of any sense, which is what makes them funny. Don't get me wrong, it's normal to seek out the best argument you can find to support your belief system, but it gets laughable when it becomes so backwards that it relies solely on innuendo like suddenly cohen is a hotshot lawyer and there's no possible reason for anyone to plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit!

Sometimes I wish there was a reputable pollster out there so I could get a real feel for how much of our population actually buys into this garbage. If the non-reputable pollsters are right this nation is doomed. If not, it'd make for a great case study on how many people can be influenced into having wildly contradicting opinions by the media.



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Here's all that matters, the campaign finance law is written just like the perjury law. What that means is you have to prove intent as well as knowledge. To be not guilty of this violation the expenditure only has to have had the "possibility" of being a personal expense which may have occurred outside of the election. It can be brought on by the election but that doesn't mean it isn't a personal expense. Trump had previously talked to the enquirer about paying off and covering these stories up long before he ran for president. Therefore it is a personal expense even though it happened during the election.

Sorry, it's really cut and dry. This is not a campaign finance violation.



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

It's true. It's damning. Will anything happen?



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The payment was made during the 2016 presidential campaign to avoid an embarrassing story being told about the infidelity of the candidate , Cohen made the payment and was reimbursed by Trump to hide the fact it was Trump had made the payment probably because they knew it was a violation and had to cover the source.

It's pretty obvious to me the payment was made to help Trump's campaign so it was campaign finance.



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Again you're ignoring the law. Not surprising really. According to your interpretation Google/ABC/WaPo/CNN et al violated the same statute at the behest of the clinton campaign. Also every pantsuit hillary bought was also a violation.

You're wrong, they're not campaign finance related. Two former FEC chairmen have came out and said as much. Hans Spakovsky and Brad Smith.

Here's a quote from smith on the standard:


“Even if it was intended to have some influence on the campaign, that’s not the standard. The standard is: ‘Does the obligation exist because you’re running for office?’”


The fact that trump has shut these women up before with the help of the enquirer makes that standard impossible to meet in this case.

Just to hammer the point home, here's how the law works:



"Mr. Trump’s alleged decade-old affairs occurred long before he became a candidate for president and were not caused by his run for president. Renting campaign office space, printing bumper stickers and yard signs, hiring campaign staff, paying for polling, and buying broadcast ads are all obligations that exist for the purpose of influencing an election. Paying hush money to silence allegations of decade-old affairs is not."


Game over, you lose.

BONUS:
John edwards trial also set a precedent here (and he used campaign money, not his own).
edit on 16-12-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




You're wrong, they're not campaign finance related.

The law will be the judge of that , we are just farting in the wind.



posted on Dec, 16 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Yes it will. Some of us are repeating that law.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join