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.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody
Lets pretend no law was broken.
Would you really be comfortable with the idea of the POTUS having won because of Russian interference?
Now laws may very well have been broken, but just take the issue of law out of it, its still very disturbing. What bothers me more than anything right now is how Trump supporters such as yourself seem to be ignoring this possibility, you are blinded by politics.
There is no evidence that Trump won because of Russian interference.
Moreover - foreigners also helped the Clinton campaign... in fact received money to help her.
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody
Lets pretend no law was broken.
Would you really be comfortable with the idea of the POTUS having won because of Russian interference?
Now laws may very well have been broken, but just take the issue of law out of it, its still very disturbing. What bothers me more than anything right now is how Trump supporters such as yourself seem to be ignoring this possibility, you are blinded by politics.
Barack Obama has warned that the UK would be at the “back of the queue” in any trade deal with the US if the country chose to leave the EU, as he made an emotional plea to Britons to vote for staying in.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: shooterbrody
Most likely this federal election law:
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
§ 30121.
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)
a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)
an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)
a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)
an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)
Legal Information Institute
This is all about the receipt of foreign donations.
Try again.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: butcherguy
No. If Hillary were involved in any pay to play shenanigans through the Clinton foundation, that in and of itself would be illegal... she was supposed to be fully detached from the foundation as SoS. IIRC.
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody
Lets pretend no law was broken.
Would you really be comfortable with the idea of the POTUS having won because of Russian interference?
Now laws may very well have been broken, but just take the issue of law out of it, its still very disturbing. What bothers me more than anything right now is how Trump supporters such as yourself seem to be ignoring this possibility, you are blinded by politics.
There is no evidence that Trump won because of Russian interference.
Moreover - foreigners also helped the Clinton campaign... in fact received money to help her.
Ok....
Its not so much about if Trump won because of Russian interference its more that if he won with it, if it was even part of the campaign then it contributed to his win
This whole thing could become very dangerous.
I find it strange how so many toe the "no Russian collusion" dogma on ATS yet at the same time believe 9/11 was a false flag. I say that because this could be potentially the next 9/11 in terms of its scale as a conspiracy yet on the worlds largest internet forum a lot of members are ignoring it or trying to paint it as something else.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy
Doesn't matter. They thought she did.
They knew Russia was interfering with the election. Russia told them they were working to get his daddy elected.
He agreed to the meeting thinking that it was going to be Tit for that. That was what he was looking for.
Mens rea...intent. LOL
originally posted by: Kali74
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: shooterbrody
Most likely this federal election law:
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
§ 30121.
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)
a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)
an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)
a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)
an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)
Legal Information Institute
This is all about the receipt of foreign donations.
Try again.
I suggest you read it again.
Now NO law was broken? Make up your mind.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy
Doesn't matter. They thought she did.
They knew Russia was interfering with the election. Russia told them they were working to get his daddy elected.
He agreed to the meeting thinking that it was going to be Tit for that. That was what he was looking for.
Mens rea...intent. LOL
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth
No brainwashing needed on this side when it's all laid out.
Whole lot of brainwashing on your side to believe this oh it was a nothing burger. Because it's not nothing.
And it's in the news day after day after day and America is so friggin over the constant lies and stupid tweets and the inexperience and the whole damn dog and pony show.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: butcherguy
No. If Hillary were involved in any pay to play shenanigans through the Clinton foundation, that in and of itself would be illegal... she was supposed to be fully detached from the foundation as SoS. IIRC.