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.

 

Trumps Loans had Russian co-signers

page: 15
19
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It might not be fake news. It might not be a false story. We just don't know.




posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This is a forum for digging for information. What do you want?



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It might not be fake news. It might not be a false story. We just don't know.


And monkeys MIGHT fly out of your butt...
We just don't know

We do know it was retracted and unverified



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I betcha O'Donnell had that retraction all written out already when he submitted it with the show's outline to MSNBC Legal. He knew from the get go, that if they had "verified" the info, they wouldn't have been able to do the show. The judge would have gagged them.

But, they did the show.

Whether this information is true, or not. That show was a deliberate calculated risk.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No. The media has no credibility. They want to create a false narrative with the only goal of hurting Trump. They don’t give a damn if it’s true. They want to control the narrative, with total disregard if it’s true or not. And that should be slander.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

LOL

It was deliberate calculated misinformation.

I can say whatever I want about anyone, and it would fall under the same classification. For instance, I could say that you robbed a bank last week.

Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. But once it's said, the people reading that would be swayed to think you did. And THAT'S why he did it. Period.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

How can a judge give the media a gag order?



Gag Orders
www.mtsu.edu...

Judges interpreted Sheppard as an authorization to impose gag orders on trial participants, but some even began to place them on the media. The Court dispelled this latter notion, setting a high bar for such orders in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976). This case arose from the 1975 trial of Erwin Simants, who was charged with murdering six people. The county judge issued a gag order barring the media from reporting on Simants’s confession, statements he made to others, contents of notes he had written on the evening of the murders, as well as other potentially damaging information. The Supreme Court invalidated the judge’s order, ruling that media gag orders must meet a heavy burden and that courts must stringently demonstrate the need for them. Rather than issuing gag orders, courts should consider alternatives, such as change of venue, trial postponement until public attention fades, rigorous voir dire (or jury selection procedures), and jury sequestration.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

Especially when they want the tainted view, and have no desire to check actual facts.

Media is not about truth, it’s about a target audience.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

More here if you care to create an actual truthful argument....



LEAKS AND THE MEDIA
www.freedomforuminstitute.org...


So, what judge would order a gag order? What case can you cite that such a gag order would be constitutional? Or were you just spitballing to create a false narrative?



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The judge overseeing the case.

Congress subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Capitol One for Trump's banking documents. Trump sued to stop them.

The banks appeared in court, before a federal judge, who ordered them to reveal certain information TO THE COURT.

Now, O'Donnell is saying that an insider told him that some of loan documents, that Deutsche Bank has, show Russian Oligarchs as co-signers on Trump's loans. But, the court doesn't even have those documents yet, I don't think, and hasn't made a decision yet on the subpoenas.

So, it's my opinion that, if true, and the court hasn't reviewed these documents for review yet, the court would bar any leaks of the documents to the media, citing an obstruction to justice, and gag the media.



edit on 31-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: FYI www.cbsnews.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You didn’t answer the whole question?

What case can you cite that such a gag order would be constitutional to prevent the media printing a story about Trump?

Again...



Gag Orders
www.mtsu.edu...

LEAKS AND THE MEDIA
www.freedomforuminstitute.org...



Based on past real life examples that stood up in court, what judge is going to order a gag order that you think is lawful?

You wouldn’t know an honest argument even if it poked you in the eye.


Now. Do you have any actual evidence Trump conspired with Deutsche Bank to laundry money? Or you here just to spin innuendo and create false arguments that have no bases in judicial law.
edit on 31-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Made argument more specific.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your actual quote


I betcha O'Donnell had that retraction all written out already when he submitted it with the show's outline to MSNBC Legal. He knew from the get go, that if they had "verified" the info, they wouldn't have been able to do the show. The judge would have gagged them.


Now cite a past court case and decision that shows a judge could lawfully place a gag order on the media in this case. Your above statement is a false argument.
edit on 31-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 31-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Who would have stopped them?
O'Donnell said that "if they had done the vigorous research they should have, they would not have been allowed to run the story.

I think O'Donnell knew that, and that's why they didn't do the research, because it would have led them back to the federal court, that would have slapped them down.

That's why I think O'Donnell probably submitted his retraction at the same time he submitted his show's outline to MSNBC's legal team. They knew that they would be violating the court's protocols to release those papers before the court had a chance to review them, regardless of Trump's legal team. But, they took a calculated risk, to get the word out, anyway.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982




It was deliberate calculated misinformation.


If Trump can do it, so can Lawrence O'Donnell.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neutronflux

Who would have stopped them?
O'Donnell said that "if they had done the vigorous research they should have, they would not have been allowed to run the story.

I think O'Donnell knew that, and that's why they didn't do the research, because it would have led them back to the federal court, that would have slapped them down.

That's why I think O'Donnell probably submitted his retraction at the same time he submitted his show's outline to MSNBC's legal team. They knew that they would be violating the court's protocols to release those papers before the court had a chance to review them, regardless of Trump's legal team. But, they took a calculated risk, to get the word out, anyway.



Lots of BS with NO cited sources or quotes. With no answer to:

Now cite a past court case and decision that shows a judge could lawfully place a gag order on the media in this case. Your above statement is a false argument.


You might find this of interest



In the 1976 case Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Supreme Court created a three-part test to evaluate the constitutionality of a gag order that stopped a newspaper from publishing any confessions an accused murderer made to law enforcement: whether the publicity would harm the defendant’s right to a fair trial, whether the gag order is the least restrictive means possible to ensure that fairness, and whether the gag order will be effective.[6] Requiring a gag order to satisfy each condition, the Court said, would ensure that both the First Amendment and the Sixth Amendment would be respected.[7]

law.yale.edu...


Now. There is no bases to believe reporters would have a lawful gag order placed on them as you insist to push your false argument.
edit on 31-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed quote

edit on 31-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You



O'Donnell said that "if they had done the vigorous research they should have, they would not have been allowed to run the story.



I believe it’s the news agency that would have stopped him, not a gag order.



Lawrence O'Donnell's "fake news" fail: A gift to Trump, and a moment of reckoning for the media

www.salon.com...

This wasn’t a “story.” It was what we used to call a “blind gossip item,” in the days before those were rebranded as “news.” It hadn’t been fact-checked or verified in any way. As O’Donnell has admitted, he didn’t clear his anonymous-source reporting with anyone at NBC News before going live with it, as is standard practice at all reputable news organizations. Oliver Darcy’s follow-up report at CNN Business drily added:




But there were so many red flags around this so-called reporting from the beginning that it’s deeply disheartening anyone took it seriously. O’Donnell admitted that he hadn’t seen any evidence that this was true — and neither had his unnamed source, who was “close to Deutsche Bank” but not close enough, evidently, to have personally laid eyes on the paperwork. In other words, this was no better than a second-hand barroom rumor: O’Donnell knows a guy who knows a guy, who quite possibly knows another guy. Who has a cousin.

www.salon.com...


What’s the count now? You using two false arguments trying to back “fake news”.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 31-8-2019 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Ah, so now you admit is was intentionally fake.

Good. Now we can ignore all the rest of your posts, and the previous ones were utter BS.

As well as disregarding ANY and ALL opinions you have on Trump or his supporters, because obviously you think they're OK. Because if you didn't, and you truly believe Trump does what this guy did, then you'd denounce it no matter where it came from.

But you won't, because you think it serves your views.
edit on 31-8-2019 by poncho1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

The IRS also has them. Obama's IRS. That targeted Republicans.


Which would normally mean the returns would have "leaked" by now if anything substantial was "there"-"there" 😃


Or charges filed if he lied on official government documents. That's a crime.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

I betcha O'Donnell had that retraction all written out already when he submitted it with the show's outline to MSNBC Legal. He knew from the get go, that if they had "verified" the info, they wouldn't have been able to do the show. The judge would have gagged them.

But, they did the show.

Whether this information is true, or not. That show was a deliberate calculated risk.

Nice of you to admit msnbc is officially against the potus and an arm of the dnc and in NO way actual news.



new topics




 
19
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join