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: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The tax returns could form part of the loan application and to get a full understanding of the agreement all supplementary information may be included. A guess though as I'm not a lawyer.




posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Duderino

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen

Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?


My guess is he'll stay silent.

The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.

At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.


He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?

Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.

He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.

My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.


In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.
edit on 28/8/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Duderino

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen

Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?


My guess is he'll stay silent.

The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.

At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.


He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?

Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.

He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.

My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.


In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.


Is that the case in both civil and criminal cases? Genuine question.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Duderino

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen

Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?


My guess is he'll stay silent.

The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.

At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.


He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?

Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.

He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.

My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.


In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.


UKGuy, in America we have the Constitution that guarantees journalists rights of free speech, press and expression. It means a US court can't just order people around like they maybe can in UK... I don't know UK law and I won't pretend to know it better than a Brit.

And besides, for a court to order anything a lawsuit would first have to be filed, and then we go back to what I originally said - opening up for discovery.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   
We can look at old journalists cases to see they can't be forced to reveal sources.

They couldn't get James Risen to disclose his CIA source through a 7 year court battle.

Even though Obama tried to get warrants on James Rosen (not to be confused with Risen above) to determine source, it was unsuccessful.
edit on 28-8-2019 by CriticalStinker because: changed the second source to something more reputable



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Oh boy I bet Mueller is going to get him good!

edit on 28-8-2019 by SKEPTEK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Duderino

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen

Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?


My guess is he'll stay silent.

The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.

At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.


He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?

Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.

He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.

My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.


In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.


We may be going down a dark path, but we still do some things right here... You're wrong about this, sir.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Duderino

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Duderino

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: xuenchen

Time for Mr O'Donnell to put up or shut up.
Let's get his 'source' from discovery... or will he remain silent to 'protect his source' instead of producing any proof?


My guess is he'll stay silent.

The only way he can get in any kind of trouble is if he knowingly ran a false story.

At a minimum, he'll be forced to reveal his source... or be forced to admit he lied and there wasn't any source.


He will be FORCED to reveal his source? What are we, in Russia?

Since when does our government force journalists to reveal sources and since when is any American ok with this? If he wants to file a lawsuit he can definitely take it that way but then he opens himself up to scrutiny.

He will not do that, he will resort to threats and bullying without actual legal recourse.

My guess since he seems to be hiding a lot.


In the USA a journalist can be put in prison for failing to adhere to a court ruling.
Liberals have to adhere to the rules too, you know. I know that might be a surprise, but it's true.


UKGuy, in America we have the Constitution that guarantees journalists rights of free speech, press and expression. It means a US court can't just order people around like they maybe can in UK... I don't know UK law and I won't pretend to know it better than a Brit.

And besides, for a court to order anything a lawsuit would first have to be filed, and then we go back to what I originally said - opening up for discovery.



2005, Judith Miller, Washington, D.C. — A journalist for the New York Times was jailed for refusing to testify against her sources in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s name by White House officials. She spent 85 days in jail and was released when she agreed to provide limited testimony to a grand jury regarding conversations with vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby without revealing her other sources. The Reporters Committee released a statement in support of Miller, affirming that the “work of journalists must be independent and free from government control if they are to effectively serve as government watchdogs.”



WASHINGTON, June 2 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday rejected an appeal from a New York Times reporter who has refused to identify a confidential source. The reporter, James Risen, faces prison time for his refusal to comply with a subpoena to reveal a source for his 2006 book, State of War. Prosecutors say they need Risen's testimony to prove the source was former CIA official Jeffrey Sterling. In a one-line ruling, the Supreme Court "effectively sided with the government," the New York Times said, in a case that has been the latest in a string of cases journalists say are devastating violations of freedom of the press. The Obama administration has aggressively pursued intelligence leaks, prosecuting eight cases, more than the three administrations before it combined. Still, Attorney General Eric Holder said last week he may not press the trial judge to hold Risen in contempt for refusing to testify, and the administration has supported congressional efforts to install a federal shield law to unify a variety of state statutes.


Here's the full list:
www.rcfp.org...

You'll see from the extensive list that contempt of court is indeed a very real issue for journalists in the USA, as it is in other countries.

edit on 28/8/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
We can look at old journalists cases to see they can't be forced to reveal sources.

They couldn't get James Risen to disclose his CIA source through a 7 year court battle.

Even though Obama tried to get warrants on James Rosen (not to be confused with Risen above) to determine source, it was unsuccessful.


In the Risen case the SC rejected his appeal and left it up to the Govt to decide whether to persue jail time.


Risen was subpoenaed in relation to the case in 2008. He fought the subpoena, and it expired in the summer of 2009. In what The New York Times called "a rare step," the Obama administration renewed the subpoena in 2010. In 2011, Risen wrote a detailed response to the subpoena, describing his reasons for refusing to reveal his sources, the public impact of his work, and his experiences with the Bush administration. In July 2013 US Court of Appeals from the Fourth Circuit ruled that Risen must testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling. The court wrote "so long as the subpoena is issued in good faith and is based on a legitimate need of law enforcement, the government need not make any special showing to obtain evidence of criminal conduct from a reporter in a criminal proceeding." The Supreme Court rejected his appeal during June 2014, leaving Risen facing the possibility of jail depending upon whether the federal prosecutors choose to pursue his testimony. He has stated that he will continue to refuse and is willing to go to jail.


Once again - reporters are not at liberty to refuse a court order and can be put in jail in the USA.
Whether federal prosecutiors decide to persue is a different matter, but legally a reporter has no special rights to ignore court orders (as it should be)


edit on 28/8/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well, you provided a list to back your claim (so I was wrong in saying you were wrong)... But there is a common trend in that list.

A vast majority of those reporters were detained because they released evidence that could be used in active cases.

One was a reporter involving a CIA officer, relating it to national security, she had to spend quite a bit of time in jail, but I think she could have beat it like Rosen did his.

I don't think anything on that list would give precedence to this matter though.
edit on 28-8-2019 by CriticalStinker because: misspoke



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
a reply to: Robbo2006

One court disagrees with you that's why Trumps lawyers have appealed it.


Can you link the document where he has to produce his tax information to the US population by Law. Thank you in advance,
edit on 28-8-2019 by Robbo2006 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: UKTruth

Well, you provided a list to back your claim (so I was wrong in saying you were wrong)... But there is a common trend in that claim.

A vast majority of those reporters were detained because they released evidence that could be used in active cases.

One was a reporter involving a CIA officer, relating it to national security, she had to spend quite a bit of time in jail, but I think she could have beat it like Rosen did his.

I don't think anything on that list would give precedence to this matter though.


Yes, the Risen case does exactly that. He refused to reveal a source and the Supreme Court ruled against his appeal of a lower court decision that he had to provide the details he was ordered to provide.
The ONLY reason he stayed out of jail is because the Eric Holder decided to call off the dogs. It had nothing to do with any journalistic protections relating to free speech. In fact the SC stated exactly that point - that the fact he was a journalist was not relevant.

edit on 28/8/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Fake news from a panicking Democrat who has much to hide.

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

So Trump is denying the claim and promising/threatening legal action:

According to Harder's demand letter, "The Program and Tweet make the false and defamatory statements that 'Russian oligarchs' co-signed loans provided to Mr. Trump by Deutsche Bank, and described these 'co-signers' as 'Russian billionaires close to Vladimir Putin.'”

Harder is also warning others against republishing the allegedly false statement. (The Hollywood Reporter is doing so because it believes such republication is a matter of utmost public concern and protected by the First Amendment in connection with anticipated litigation.).

Donald Trump Sends Legal Demand Over Comment From MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell

"Utmost" concern, huh? I don't see it. I don't really care about Trump's taxes except to the extent that the personal income tax on earned income should be abolished. No one should be paying government for their labor, including Trump.

The legal issue I see for Trump is that O'Donnell is not making the claim himself, or even claiming it is true, but simply (purportedly) reporting what some anonymous person claimed. So O'Donnell's claim on the surface is factual.

Of course, it woulda been mighty nice if O'Donnell at least attempted to get both sides -- you know, actually ask Trump for comment -- before broadcasting this ugly rumor far and wide. Like real journalists do. But they seem to be a dying breed...

So quite a sticky widget there. But it seems the ball is now in O'Donnell's court.... he needs to put up or shut up.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Fake news from a panicking Democrat who has much to hide.

mobile.twitter.com...





"Now, I want to stress, that's a single source. This has not been confirmed by NBC News, I have not seen any documentation from Deutsche Bank that supports this and verifies this," he said. "This is just a single source who has revealed that to me." "And that's where that stands at this point. It's going to need a lot more verification before that can be a confirmable fact," he concluded.


Furthermmore it appears his source has not seen any documents either


MSNBC booking producer Michael Del Moro tweeted the following morning that not only has O'Donnell never seen the relevant documents, neither has his source.

Michael Del Moro ✔ @MikeDelMoro Deutsche Bank is declining to comment on Lawrence O’Donnell’s reporting that Russian oligarch’s co-signed Trump’s loans. The information came from a single source who has not seen the bank records. NBC has not seen those records and has not yet been able to verify the reporting.


So, O'Donnell went national with a rumour someone else had heard and told him about.
Utterly disgraceful 'journalism'.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Well, it appears this is unraveling... And MSM shows again that it cares more about punditry than journalism. That's what pays the bills I suppose. MSNBC is going to take a hit on this one after there already bad coverage of Russiagate. They doubled down, and it appears it did not pay off.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
It's also interesting that his lawyers are straight onto this piece of "FAKE NEWS" yet not a Tweet from Trump on the subject when he is normally the first one to call out "FAKE NEWS".

Again, this is NOT about his tax returns. It's about the ALLEGED Russian co-signers to Trumps Deutsche Bank loans. Deutsche Bank being involved in both issues is just another curiosity.



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

The legal issue I see for Trump is that O'Donnell is not making the claim himself, or even claiming it is true, but simply (purportedly) reporting what some anonymous person claimed. So O'Donnell's claim on the surface is factual.



O'Donnell might be able to skate on defamation if his source is real. If he just made up the story, then I don't see how you can argue that he didn't libel Trump. The gray area comes in to play if his "source" is some anonymous person on 4chan, or something of that ilk.
edit on 28-8-2019 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

The legal issue I see for Trump is that O'Donnell is not making the claim himself, or even claiming it is true, but simply (purportedly) reporting what some anonymous person claimed. So O'Donnell's claim on the surface is factual.



O'Donnell might be able to skate on defamation if his source is real. If he just made up the story, then I don't see how you can argue that he didn't libel Trump. The gray area comes in to play if his "source" is some anonymous person on 4chan, or something of that ilk.


I suspect the climb down by O'Donnell is enough. He has had to publicly admit he heard a rumour from someone who heard a rumour and went on national TV to present it as big news. Onus is him to now provide proof or he is quite rightly going to be viewed as an even bigger clown than he already is.

edit on 28/8/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I thought the rumor came from Q one of the right wings favorite sources.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join