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.

 

Former U.S. attorney: Clinton could face criminal indictment

page: 4
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over lying about a BJ.


is that what it takes for you to sleep at nights? you have to lie to yourself?
That's sad.

Clinton was impeached by his peers because he lied under oath. He swore on a Bible, then lied his ass off and was caught.

Or do you justify that as the republicans just being mean?
edit on 7-1-2016 by network dude because: Liberals make me smile.




posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

bye bye Huma.

Someone's gotta take the fall.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

I understand that and that is correct, from what we know. But I wanted to make sure others knew that she did have a separate account with the SD.

The use of her personal email did not break any State Department regulations and all official government correspondence was captured.


I have to disagree, in terms of double standards. If anyone else without the name Clinton at the end had a personal server and email address dealing directly with national security, this case would be a no brainer. She knows or at least should know how classified information works anyways. I would assume any emails sent to the Secretary of State would at least be considered "For Official Use Only". Her trying to play this as nothing to worry about shows her complete negligence/caring to abide by the law.

Now if she gets off legally, then so be it. I guess that just shows money can buy you anything, but what really bothers me is she is the leading Presidential candidate right now. That should scare the living crap out of everyone.
edit on 7-1-2016 by amicktd because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-1-2016 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I think the opinion of a former attorney general isn't something I would rely on as official. Looks like echo chamber nonsense.

"Yep, Hillary's going to jail! See? We got a guy who used to work for the government to agree with us."

Forgive me if I'll wait until something official is declared before getting my hopes up. You are only setting yourself up to have your hopes dashed here.
edit on 7-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



Clinton was impeached by his peers because he lied under oath.


That's what I said. He was impeached for lying about sexual relations.



Or do you justify that as the republicans just being mean?


No, just hypocritical. No Republican has ever lied, huh?



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The whole issue is her use of a "private" email server.

Her excuse is that she didn't want to use two devices, which is total BS.

Again, I introduce you to the SME PED

gdmissionsystems.com...


The Sectéra® Edge™ smartphone combines secure wireless voice and data with the functionality of a wireless phone and PDA all in one easy-to-use hand-held device. The Sectéra Edge is certified to protect wireless voice communications classified Top Secret and below as well as access e-mail and websites classified Secret and below.


Although now discontinued, they were available while she was SOS.

All the AD's of the FBI used them, including Mueller.

I know this because I personally gave one to the AD of my division and trained him on how to use it. I also had one as well as my supervisor.

She is full of BS. There was absolutely no reason for her to have a personal email server other than she wanted to control what she was held accountable for.

I still wonder why the media has never questioned why she wasn't using a SME-PED when other government agencies were using them.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

If this is true won't she get nailed about all this during the general election ?

The GOP is going to make sure the whole country knows.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

At this point it doesn't matter if she is guilty or not-all that matters for now is if there is enough evidence and what charges she may face.

If she is found wanting then strike when the iron is hot; we all know how deceitful politicians can be and how evidence and witnesses can disappear in the blink of an eye. If there is any suspicion then her correspondences would have to be seized pronto before she pulls an electronic Fawn Hill.

edit on 7-1-2016 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-1-2016 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: network dude

If this is true won't she get nailed about all this during the general election ?

The GOP is going to make sure the whole country knows.


The whole country already knows. By the time the run-up to the general election comes around, most people will be tired of hearing it.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

I understand that and that is correct, from what we know. But I wanted to make sure others knew that she did have a separate account with the SD.

The use of her personal email did not break any State Department regulations and all official government correspondence was captured.



How would you know that what you're saying is correct. You seem to have a dog in this fight. But, unless you're in a position where you know this as fact, you've just received the same information from the media as the rest of us. You just seem to have accepted it as fact. That's your choice, but it doesn't mean you're right.


(post by dagann removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It's not about lying. It is about lying under oath. One is something they all do; the second is a crime.

Why do you think the cop in the Sandra Bland case was indicted and why was Scooter Libby indicted? Both for perjury, lying under oath. Our justice system only works if you can rely on the integrity of those who testify. If they can lie and get away with it, then no murderer ever goes to jail.

Therefore, it is a crime to lie under oath when giving testimony.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dagann
a reply to: network dude

You claim you're OP is not a partisan attack then you follow with "i hope you rot in hell. bitch!" In other words it "IS" a partisan attack. It is just another garden variety attack based on the notion that to be effective, regardless of the lack of truth or worthy consideration, one only needs to keep the accusing diatribe loud and constant and that will prove to be overwhelming in changing public opinion. It is the main tactic of the GOP as we've seen the past few years. Just on the top of my head many examples come to mind. The swift boat issue of John Kerry, The excuse to impeach Clinton for the blow-job, the "birther" issue and now the attack on Bengazi.

Now i'm sure you will perceive my reply as the other garden variety response among "liberals," yet it is not. I have no love of Hitlery. The woman is obnoxious as far as i am concerned. My response is questioning your motives. The way i see it, you are either a shill of the GOP and acting out according to script, or, you are motivated by some of level of disgust, right or wrong, based on some unknown hatred of Hitlery. Maybe it's a combination of the two.

Regardless, it's apparent ATS allows political trolls to operate within our environment.


Since you have been here since 2012, I'll not alert you on the dumbass "shill" comment this time. But here on ATS, we are a bit more intelligent with our discussion, and we accept that others may not think the exact same way, thus the reason for logical discussion.

Now I am a conservative, and there will be plenty of times where I discuss things based on that mindset, but this is just a general hate for Hillary as it really pissed me off that she let 4 Americans die without even trying to help them. Jail would be the best and nicest thing I hope for her.

now please, in the future, don't call others shill, or other idiotic weak ass names. Man up and discuss the topic.
edit on 7-1-2016 by network dude because: Liberals make me smile.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



but this is just a general hate for Hillary as it really pissed me off that she let 4 Americans die without even trying to help them.


You do know that the State Department and the White House did not watch the attacks occur in real-time and were not in a position to act in a fast enough fashion to help those Americans, right? That propaganda-driven lie was proven during the hearings. If it was actually true, Clinton would be facing charges for it.



But here on ATS, we are a bit more intelligent with our discussion


That's a matter of opinion.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   


Former U.S. attorney: Clinton could face criminal indictment


The sooner, the better!



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Honest question, shouldn't Hillary have been the most qualified individual in government to discern what material should be classified and what should not? It is difficult for me to understand why she wasn't handling the material more carefully when she is one of the few people trusted to classify information in the first place. In my opinion she was incapable of making judgments consistent with the office she held or something more sinister, neither is a particularly good look IMO.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


This man is a former US attorney, correct? I wonder what information he is privy to that leads him to say this.


None whatsoever. He has been on the wrong side of the intelligence community ever since he defended the reporters who outed Valerie Plame. Under Reagan, he was trusted to investigate white collar crime. He now specializes in defending white collar criminals. He is basically just a RNC propagandist:

mediamatters.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
What I think people fail to understand about Mrs. Clinton is her hubby was a nasty player in the political world and used his information stream to insure that his ass and his wife's ass would forever be safe from any real prosecution. They can strong arm anyone into anything through any mean necessary by the dirt they have on powerful people. Don't be surprised if these charges just suddenly disappear right before the primary elections come around. This will serve as a boost to Hilary's election process and the smear campaign she will run on her opponents will be deeply disturbing. Her ability to win this will not be anything short of voting for the person who seems like to be "not the worse human" i the world. Which, in reality, she is.


(post by JuJuBee removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Secretary Clinton broke no laws?!
General Petraeus lost his career and pension, paid a $100,000 fine and was sentenced to two years probation. All because he had ONE classified file in his desk at home. One file. Secretary Clinton had, at last count, over 1000 classified files on her unsecured server at her home. How is it General Petraeus broke the law and Secretary Clinton has not???



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join