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.

 

What is the legal precedent?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

There is NO legal precedent for having sex with someone, nor paying them off to keep silent.

Having sex with another consenting legal status adult is not a crime. Now, some might suggest having sex for hire IS a crime...okay, but it's not a felony, and I don't care who it is (right or left).

Clinton having Monika perform fellatio on him in the White House seems like it should be a crime, but frankly, I don't think it is. She was of age. Sure, it was embarrassing for the nation, but it wasn't a felony.

I don't care if Trump, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy (several) or any number of another 100 deviants, errr, politicians got their "freak" on....as long as it was with people of legal age and legal status, then...oh well. Next!

Amazing how people will drill into anything. I'm sure the Clinton's and 10 other presidents before them had illegals working for them in some capacity. Whatever. It's a nothing burger. It truly is.

People need to GET OVER the 24x7 hyped up, pumped up, news cycle.

It really doesn't do anyone any good.

Commit a crime, fraud, murder = GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL. Screw some hooker, whatever = FORGETABOUTIT!




posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: chr0naut

Back in 2011 he wasn't the president. You can't impeach a president for lying years before he was president. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.


He lied while he was President.

You should just go ahead and take that bar exam now because clearly you know what you're talking about.

It's not illegal to lie. Even as president, believe it or not.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: network dude
There is absolutely no point in arguing about what trump may or may not have done. He did have sex with a hooker/porn star, and a beautiful model, and apparently, through different means, silenced their stories with money. To my knowledge of facts and testimony, This is an assumed fact, only waiting on a court room to present the evidence. So as far as I am concerned, no argument from me on that. None.

But in cases like this with a generic person, any old politician at all, who payed money to silence something negative to the Campaign got caught and investigated, and subsequently charged, what was the outcome of punishment? There should be some cases we can reference here, but they will only be facts. No room for wiggle. Whatever has been done in the past, should apply as a reasonable punishment, and if any horrible details emerge, factor in accordingly. But this can't be about "I don't like him" with regards to punishment. If you disagree with that, I'd love to hear why.


Wheres your proof that Trump had sex with the pornstar?

Cause she said so?
Because of an NDA?


I have no proof. I just choose to believe this. If it makes you feel better, I don't think there is a crime here, but that isn't up to me. With this thread, I was hoping to find some past case where some punishment was given, so we would know what kind of time/penalty Trump would be facing, if he was found guilty.

So far, it looks like this is new territory.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

It seems his big mistake was not being a legislator, and using congressional slush fund money to pay off his hookers for silence. If he'd done that, there'd be no issue with this.

Absurdity.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: F4guy

Fair enough.

When guilt has been shown, however, the application to convict isn't even the same.



I'm sorry, but I don't have a clue what "application to convict" means.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: F4guy

Fair enough.

When guilt has been shown, however, the application to convict isn't even the same.



I'm sorry, but I don't have a clue what "application to convict" means.


Sorry, "desire to convict".

Apologies. That didn't make much sense.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: network dude

It seems his big mistake was not being a legislator, and using congressional slush fund money to pay off his hookers for silence. If he'd done that, there'd be no issue with this.

Absurdity.


yea, exactly.

Hope all is good, haven't seen you lately.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Works really busy



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

Well, Bill Clinton was impeached, he was held in contempt of court for misleading testimony (like Trump's denials) and his license to practice law was suspended for five years.

Clinton–Lewinsky scandal From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turnabout is fair play.


Well, Clinton used his position of power to entice an emotionally immature Intern into sex in the White House and has been accused by multiple women of rape and sexual misconduct on top of lying under oath.

Trump had consensual sex with a porn star who then extorted money to pay for her silence and then on top of that, broke her agreement.

Apple meet Orange.


That's like saying a rapist should get the same punishment as someone who drives without their seat-belt on.



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

Well, Bill Clinton was impeached, he was held in contempt of court for misleading testimony (like Trump's denials) and his license to practice law was suspended for five years.

Clinton–Lewinsky scandal From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Turnabout is fair play.

Well, Clinton used his position of power to entice an emotionally immature Intern into sex in the White House and has been accused by multiple women of rape and sexual misconduct on top of lying under oath.


Lewinski was 22 years old at the time and consented. Legal age of consent in Washington is 16, so she was probably not that innocent.


Trump had consensual sex with a porn star who then extorted money to pay for her silence and then on top of that, broke her agreement.

Apple meet Orange.



So, they are both 'fruits'.



... and Trump paid more than one woman to keep quiet about his sexual misconduct, too.


That's like saying a rapist should get the same punishment as someone who drives without their seat-belt on.


As far as we know, neither were indited for of rape, or for driving without their seat-belt.

It is more like saying that someone who lies about having illicit sex, should have the same punishment as someone else who lies about having illicit sex.

edit on 18/12/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2018 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Lewinski was 22 years old at the time and consented. Legal age of consent in Washington is 16, so she was probably not that innocent.

Regardless, she was under the supervision of the man who had relations with her.

If any other 49 year old supervisor had similar relations with a 22 year old intern working for him, the outcry for his dismissal would be deafening; the assumption is that such a relationship is likely non-consensual, because of the influence the supervisor would hold over the intern. With Clinton, not so much.


... and Trump paid more than one woman to keep quiet about his sexual misconduct, too.

Paula Jones
Monica Lewinski
Juanita Broaddrick


It is more like saying that someone who lies about having illicit sex, should have the same punishment as someone else who lies about having illicit sex.

Clinton was not impeached for having illicit sex. He was impeached for perjury. There was no punishment whatsoever for any illicit sex, so that means by your own statement, Trump should receive no punishment for having illicit sex.

On that point, I agree.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Lewinski was 22 years old at the time and consented. Legal age of consent in Washington is 16, so she was probably not that innocent.

Regardless, she was under the supervision of the man who had relations with her.

If any other 49 year old supervisor had similar relations with a 22 year old intern working for him, the outcry for his dismissal would be deafening; the assumption is that such a relationship is likely non-consensual, because of the influence the supervisor would hold over the intern. With Clinton, not so much.


Trump married a model 24 years his junior (Melania) and then had affairs with a porn actress and other women. Much the same as with Clinton, eh?



... and Trump paid more than one woman to keep quiet about his sexual misconduct, too.

Paula Jones
Monica Lewinski
Juanita Broaddrick


See! Super similar.



It is more like saying that someone who lies about having illicit sex, should have the same punishment as someone else who lies about having illicit sex.

Clinton was not impeached for having illicit sex. He was impeached for perjury. There was no punishment whatsoever for any illicit sex, so that means by your own statement, Trump should receive no punishment for having illicit sex.

On that point, I agree.

TheRedneck

Well perjury IS lying under oath.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Trump married a model 24 years his junior (Melania) and then had affairs with a porn actress and other women. Much the same as with Clinton, eh?

Yes, he married a younger model. Shall we hang him now?

I have yet to see proof that he had any illicit affairs. We know only that he paid two women to not go public with claims of illicit affairs after they threatened to do so. We used to call threats like that "extortion." It was illegal.

Clinton admitted to the affair with Lewinski. As to his marriage, I'm not sure I would classify Hillary as human, much less a "woman." Demon, maybe...


Well perjury IS lying under oath.

When has Trump lied under oath?

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Trump married a model 24 years his junior (Melania) and then had affairs with a porn actress and other women. Much the same as with Clinton, eh?

Yes, he married a younger model. Shall we hang him now?

I have yet to see proof that he had any illicit affairs. We know only that he paid two women to not go public with claims of illicit affairs after they threatened to do so. We used to call threats like that "extortion." It was illegal.

Clinton admitted to the affair with Lewinski. As to his marriage, I'm not sure I would classify Hillary as human, much less a "woman." Demon, maybe...


Well perjury IS lying under oath.

When has Trump lied under oath?

TheRedneck


She is a human woman who is currently frail, old and confused.

He is under oath as President, or is that oath meaningless?



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


She is a human woman who is currently frail, old and confused.

If you say so. I'm not convinced.

OK, maybe I'm convinced about the confused part.


He is under oath as President, or is that oath meaningless?

The Presidential Oath of Office:
    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

A court administered oath:
    "Do you, [insert name here], under penalty of perjury, solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

Do you see the difference between those two? Hint: they use different words.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


She is a human woman who is currently frail, old and confused.

If you say so. I'm not convinced.

OK, maybe I'm convinced about the confused part.


He is under oath as President, or is that oath meaningless?

The Presidential Oath of Office:
    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

A court administered oath:
    "Do you, [insert name here], under penalty of perjury, solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

Do you see the difference between those two? Hint: they use different words.

TheRedneck

"Faithfully" - in a loyal way, or a way that can be trusted; in a way that is true or accurate.

If the President lies in things that pertain to the role, he may be executing the office of President, but not "faithfully".



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Lordy, how far do you think you can stretch the truth before it breaks?

What's next, the Oath of Office is reinterpreted to make two scoops of ice cream a criminal offense?



TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Lordy, how far do you think you can stretch the truth before it breaks?

What's next, the Oath of Office is reinterpreted to make two scoops of ice cream a criminal offense?



TheRedneck


Well, for one, I'm not the President, so apparently it's a 'no, no', if I stretch the truth.



For the other, why is that word included in the oath. Is it meaningful and what is it's meaning in the context?

Consider the nonsense of the oath, if you remove the word: "I do solemnly swear to execute the office of President...", well duh!

"Faithfully" executing the role is clearly the key promise of the oath.

edit on 19/12/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Well, for one, I'm not the President, so apparently it's a 'no, no', if I stretch the truth.



OMG! Are you being impeached? Prosecuted? I'm sorry; I didn't know. I hope you have a good lawyer at least. Best of luck in that.

I'd suggest you let the lawyer do the talking though. It seems you have a very poor grasp of the English language if you think "faithful" is the same as "truthful." It's not. That's why it uses different letters (letters are those funny looking things that make up words). "Faithful" is closer to "loyal" or "devoted" than it is to "truthful."

I have been faithful to my wife for 31 years. I have at times lied to her to protect her though.

Good luck with your legal issues.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Well, for one, I'm not the President, so apparently it's a 'no, no', if I stretch the truth.



OMG! Are you being impeached? Prosecuted? I'm sorry; I didn't know. I hope you have a good lawyer at least. Best of luck in that.


Nope, not impeached nor impeared. No stone fruit indictments or litigation whatsoever.




I'd suggest you let the lawyer do the talking though. It seems you have a very poor grasp of the English language if you think "faithful" is the same as "truthful." It's not. That's why it uses different letters (letters are those funny looking things that make up words). "Faithful" is closer to "loyal" or "devoted" than it is to "truthful."


It has both meanings.

In the case of it meaning 'loyalty', if you were to say the oath meant "loyalty to the office of the President", it is very broad and inexact language. What in fact does loyalty to the office actually entail? Being punctual? Keeping the desk tidy?

However, if it means "truthful to the office of the President" it is a quite specific directive.


I have been faithful to my wife for 31 years.


Good for you!


I have at times lied to her to protect her though.


Well perhaps not?


Good luck with your legal issues.

TheRedneck


I have issues, but not legal ones at the moment.








 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join