Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Tiggs

National Enquirer Immunity Deal

206 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

The playboy model?  We haven't heard a peep from her at all really.  Stormy Daniels was the one making all of the noise.

I thought that's who he was talking about. But either/or, I'm pretty sure Trump didn't go looking for her, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

That actually makes the case that it was a campaign violation stronger. I mean sure give Trump some sympathy for being blackmailed (if you can muster sympathy for scum who cheat) if you want , does that change the end result as it relates to the law though?

 

No, the law is the law.

Not sure where SC is going with it because it will never end in a successful impeachment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I thought that's who he was talking about. But either/or, I'm pretty sure Trump didn't go looking for her, either.

Nah, the National Enquirer paid off Karen McDougal. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No, the law is the law.

Not sure where SC is going with it because it will never end in a successful impeachment.

True, more than likely he will be just be indicted after he is done being president. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
21 hours ago, Tiggs said:

And that's exactly why it's different.

In this case, the investigators knew what the crime committed was that they were giving immunity for -- because they already had evidence that the crime had been committed.

Here, immunity is offered for that crime because they want testimony to build further evidence against someone higher up the chain of responsibility.

In the Clinton case, they couldn't show that a crime had been committed by the people they offered immunity to.

There, immunity was offered in order to reveal information the investigators wouldn't have been able to otherwise obtain.

Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with what the investigation is able to evidence.
 

You're kidding...right?! Wow, just....wow!! They gave immunity and then got nothing...they gave immunity knowing full well Hillary's associates were not going to testify.....that was the plan. No testimony, no charges. To say they couldn't show a crime had been committed in Hillary's case....without hearing their testimony ....is ridiculous!! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
6 minutes ago, skliss said:

You're kidding...right?! Wow, just....wow!! They gave immunity and then got nothing...they gave immunity knowing full well Hillary's associates were not going to testify.....that was the plan. No testimony, no charges. To say they couldn't show a crime had been committed in Hillary's case....without hearing their testimony ....is ridiculous!! 

HRC is a slippery one, eh? :whistle:     She just keeps coming up with "get out of jail free" cards.  I really think that she had her private server because she KNEW she had immunity no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
1 hour ago, skliss said:

You're kidding...right?! Wow, just....wow!! They gave immunity and then got nothing...they gave immunity knowing full well Hillary's associates were not going to testify.....that was the plan. No testimony, no charges. To say they couldn't show a crime had been committed in Hillary's case....without hearing their testimony ....is ridiculous!! 

No. I'm really not kidding.

Feel free, for example, to tell me how the FBI would have discovered that the backup files were deleted from the server, without an immunity agreement with the tech that did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
18 hours ago, Tiggs said:

No. I'm really not kidding.

Feel free, for example, to tell me how the FBI would have discovered that the backup files were deleted from the server, without an immunity agreement with the tech that did it.

How did they know this tech guy existed in order to give him immunity? How about subpoena his behind and threaten him with jail time if he doesn't testify like theTrump associates? At least 5 Clinton aides were given immunity before the FBI had any idea what they knew, before any interviews. That has hinkey written all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Their lugenpresse at every checkstand in America did not go unnoticed, and they should not get immunity.

Regardless of whether anyone actually purchased their rag, everyone saw their propaganda.

Shame on the Enquirer. A new low...even for them.

Edited by GlitterRose
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter

Here's an interview with Michael Cohen explaining where he went wrong and a few words about his ex-crime boss.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-cohen-talks-george-stephanopoulos-transcript/story?id=59816305

For the record, I don't believe his sincerity about making amends. If he hadn't been caught, he would still be gleefully working for Trump.

Hank 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
1 hour ago, skliss said:

How did they know this tech guy existed in order to give him immunity? 

He’s the tech guy in charge of the Clinton email server at the hosting company.

1 hour ago, skliss said:

How about subpoena his behind and threaten him with jail time if he doesn't testify like theTrump associates?

So, they subpoena him to appear in front of a grand jury, and he claims the 5th again, like he did in his FBI interview. Now what?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 12/12/2018 at 2:27 PM, Gromdor said:

And apparently used campaign funds to do it,

THIS is the key element.  Also, they're going to need to do more than accuse, they have to have real proof for a conviction - AFTER he's out of office.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 12/12/2018 at 8:25 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Did Hilary Clinton pay money for the Steele Dossier in order to "influence the election"?

Don't fall for the propaganda. It's perfectly legal. A candidate is supposed to do whatever they can to influence voters into their camp. Of course, in Trump's case, spin masters have done a great job in making people think that "influencing the election" is illegal.

Creating the dossier as political fodder is one thing.  The friggin' government that's in power using it to spy on and then attempt to crucify the incoming president is a whole new dimension of wrong.  It strikes at the very heart of our system and if someone isn't held accountable, all trust in future governments will be gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 12/14/2018 at 1:39 AM, Tatetopa said:

Trump and his sexploits are a personal matter, between him and his family and his doctor..  The deal is,  t the prosecution is saying the national enquirer owner, Mr. Pecker got in way to deep and got caught coordinating payments with the Trump election committee.   That then becomes a crime IF it is true. Depends on who is willing to testify to what.  Until and If he gets this behind him, he as effectively become a lame duck leader.

He isn't a lame duck until he fails to win reelection.  If the crazies have their way, he'll ride the Impeachment train to another 4 years.  He seems reluctant to allow all the info on the FISA warrants to be publicized.  If he's holding that for the reelection, he'd better reconsider.  He may have seen it and understands that once it's out there, SOMETHING will have to be done.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 minute ago, and then said:

Creating the dossier as political fodder is one thing.  The friggin' government that's in power using it to spy on and then attempt to crucify the incoming president is a whole new dimension of wrong.  It strikes at the very heart of our system and if someone isn't held accountable, all trust in future governments will be gone.

I'm not expecting "accountability" in the matter, myself. They say they are looking into the matter as part of the "Russian hacking" investigation but I don't have any faith in the guy who is charge of it. The short of it is, yeah, we're already there. Deep state control, and I have zero trust in it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 12/14/2018 at 2:22 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

No, the law is the law.

Not sure where SC is going with it because it will never end in a successful impeachment.

If it is proven that he used campaign funds to pay off the two, then yeah, he committed a crime and he can be prosecuted - after he leaves office.  Since he will not be tried and the evidence shown in a real court before 2020, he can still run and if he wins, they have to wait until 2024.  I agree that Impeachment will be as big a waste of time, money and energy as the Impeachment of Clinton.  The Dems would need about 20 Republican Senators to commit political suicide to get him convicted and removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
1 minute ago, and then said:

If it is proven that he used campaign funds to pay off the two, then yeah, he committed a crime and he can be prosecuted - after he leaves office.  

Believe he can be prosecuted regardless of where the money came from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
59 minutes ago, and then said:

THIS is the key element.  Also, they're going to need to do more than accuse, they have to have real proof for a conviction - AFTER he's out of office.  

At this point there are so many separate criminal investigations into him, that I am doubtful he will come out of it unscathed.

1) The Russia Collusion/Obstruction of Justice Investigation

2) The Trump Foundation Investigation

3) The Trump Inauguration Investigation

4) The Trump Campaign Finance/Stormy Daniels/National Enquirer Investigation

5) Trump Washington Hotel/Emoluments Clause Investigation

6) And whatever else pops up if the Dems actually dig into his back taxes (Heck, I probably missed a few other investigations as well.  These were just off the top of my head.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
57 minutes ago, and then said:

He isn't a lame duck until he fails to win reelection.  If the crazies have their way, he'll ride the Impeachment train to another 4 years.  He seems reluctant to allow all the info on the FISA warrants to be publicized.  If he's holding that for the reelection, he'd better reconsider.  He may have seen it and understands that once it's out there, SOMETHING will have to be done.  

Yes, I agree, I used the term improperly.  He is distracted.  His staff is distracted.  If he spends a great deal of time responding to the 5-6 fronts that are challenging him, then his administration loses momentum on policy efforts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

At this point there are so many separate criminal investigations into him, that I am doubtful he will come out of it unscathed.

1) The Russia Collusion/Obstruction of Justice Investigation

2) The Trump Foundation Investigation

3) The Trump Inauguration Investigation

4) The Trump Campaign Finance/Stormy Daniels/National Enquirer Investigation

5) Trump Washington Hotel/Emoluments Clause Investigation

6) And whatever else pops up if the Dems actually dig into his back taxes (Heck, I probably missed a few other investigations as well.  These were just off the top of my head.)

What all that shows me is that we have a corrupt government that is protecting its power by destroying an "outsider".  2 years, zero indictments or proof that he conspired with anyone to steal an election.  If you applaud their treatment of this man then get ready for a lot of strife ahead.  Cheering for a government to take down a duly elected president will lead to them taking that control to the next level and friend, the next level is going to get violent.  It won't be nationwide or state against state but it will be bloody and disruptive.  Ultimately our country survives if we compromise.  One group isn't going to put a boot on the neck of others for long.  

"itis their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Thomas Jefferson, 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Just now, Tatetopa said:

Yes, I agree, I used the term improperly.  He is distracted.  His staff is distracted.  If he spends a great deal of time responding to the 5-6 fronts that are challenging him, then his administration loses momentum on policy efforts.

Absolutely correct and that's been the game plan of the establishment since he won.  I've lost faith in the government to the extent that I believe it cannot be cleaned up without violent revolution.  That isn't going to happen until they overstep in a major way that impacts a large % of citizens.  Extreme taxes or an attempt to confiscate or excessively control gun ownership would do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
Just now, and then said:

What all that shows me is that we have a corrupt government that is protecting its power by destroying an "outsider".  2 years, zero indictments or proof that he conspired with anyone to steal an election.  If you applaud their treatment of this man then get ready for a lot of strife ahead.  Cheering for a government to take down a duly elected president will lead to them taking that control to the next level and friend, the next level is going to get violent.  It won't be nationwide or state against state but it will be bloody and disruptive.  Ultimately our country survives if we compromise.  One group isn't going to put a boot on the neck of others for long.  

"itis their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Thomas Jefferson, 

I would be more inclined to believe that if Trump himself didn't constantly lie about the details.  The Stormy Daniels thing went from never happened to Cohen paid her off himself to it wasn't campaign fraud because I used private money.  The other money investigations pretty much speak for themselves unless the deep state is faking invoices, receipts, and money transfers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
42 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

Believe he can be prosecuted regardless of where the money came from.

He can be indicted, sure.  A personal business arrangement between two parties isn't a crime unless it is done in the commission of a crime.  Settling "out of court" is done every day.  What crime did he commit if he used his own funds to pay them?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
2 minutes ago, and then said:

He can be indicted, sure.  A personal business arrangement between two parties isn't a crime unless it is done in the commission of a crime.  Settling "out of court" is done every day.  What crime did he commit if he used his own funds to pay them?

Campaign finance fraud because he apparently didn't directly use his own money. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

I would be more inclined to believe that if Trump himself didn't constantly lie about the details.  The Stormy Daniels thing went from never happened to Cohen paid her off himself to it wasn't campaign fraud because I used private money.  The other money investigations pretty much speak for themselves unless the deep state is faking invoices, receipts, and money transfers.

That's cool.  Mind you remember that all this is destabilizing our SYSTEM.  It isn't going to just be about Trump, he'll be gone in a few years, regardless.  What we are seeing is an open, all-out assault on our system of government.  The corruption has always been a problem but now they feel so secure in their power that they are moving out in the open and the media is working with them to get rid of all opposition.  It's going to be an interesting decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.