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

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: amazing


I like to look at it like this.... Hillary and her campaign will tell you this investigation is nothing new, just the same witch hunt BS by the republican party to try and make her look bad.

They like to refer to it as republicans throwing everything at the "wall" hoping that something will stick.

The FBI is about to shoot that wall with a cruise missile.

I wish it were true, but I'm inclined to think it is republicans hoping something sticks.

I keep thinking of the Benghazi hearings, in which Hillary made the committee look bad. She won those, when we were led to believe that they were going to tear her apart. To the average voter and to myself, she came out stronger than before she went in.

a reply to: RickinVa

C'mon man. Please provide a source that makes that claim that does not refer back to Fox or the Washington Times. Also, the designation it received does not necessarily mean it contained satellite imagery.

If you cannot back-up your claims then why are you making them?

To add after your edit:

If you think that for one second the US Government is going to openly confirm anything concerning top secret or even secret satellite information, then you must have more than just one loose screw. You are asking for proof that can not be provided to your satisfaction other than someone posting classified information. Not going to happen.

I agree, but then that means that you have no proof or reliable source to make your claims either. Do you believe the Washington Times?

This Hillary email thing reminds me of the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry.

Some 20 years ago, when I first started researching political conspiracies, there was a site called Bush Bones.

Nothing from of any of the above has been proven factual.

a reply to: introvert

EDIT: Nevermind. I do not want to contribute to the ongoing efforts by some individuals to sidetrack discussions and would rather to simply stay on point.

Like I said before, time will tell....

I have decided to just wait until the FBI reveals their findings. Maybe less than 30 days... probably no more than 60.

This doesn't mean anyone wins this thread or the ongoing current discussions about the email server, it just means there is no point in playing "watch the dog chase it tail" game.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

What does my belief in the Washing Times or any other news service for that matter have to do with debating you? Every news source is unreliable according to you. You like to play word games.

So once again we are back to the point where you make specific claims and cannot back them up with any sort of real evidence. At what point do you stop making things-up or relying on misinformation from propaganda sites? I am very skeptical of most media outlets, but apparently you believe just about anything they tell you.

a reply to: jimmyx

The Huffington Post and CNN have also parroted the same accusations. Perhaps not as much as the right-wing sources, but the articles are quite prolific across the entire political spectrum and printed in a number of different outlets.

My point was that the sources of most of these articles are "undisclosed." In the end that means they are no more, and no less, reliable than DeGenova. So trying to attack this one person, ultra-biased as he may be, as being the only source of these accusations is not accurate.

In the end the only definitive source of information will be when the FBI and/or DOJ release the results of their investigation. Right now they are officially quite tight-lipped about their activities.

Only time will tell what the truth of the situation is.

-dex

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

What does my belief in the Washing Times or any other news service for that matter have to do with debating you? Every news source is unreliable according to you. You like to play word games.

So once again we are back to the point where you make specific claims and cannot back them up with any sort of real evidence. At what point do you stop making things-up or relying on misinformation from propaganda sites? I am very skeptical of most media outlets, but apparently you believe just about anything they tell you.

Why do you insist on taking things to a personal level?

Why are you assuming that I believe just about anything I am told? Do you know me?

Why are you accusing me of making things up?


Just stay on topic and keep the personal crap off the thread.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: jimmyx

The Huffington Post and CNN have also parroted the same accusations. Perhaps not as much as the right-wing sources, but the articles are quite prolific across the entire political spectrum and printed in a number of different outlets.

My point was that the sources of most of these articles are "undisclosed." In the end that means they are no more, and no less, reliable than DeGenova. So trying to attack this one person, ultra-biased as he may be, as being the only source of these accusations is not accurate.

In the end the only definitive source of information will be when the FBI and/or DOJ release the results of their investigation. Right now they are officially quite tight-lipped about their activities.

Only time will tell what the truth of the situation is.

-dex

maybe 25 plus years of the right wanting to imprison the Clinton's for multitudes of perceived crimes, has jaded my response down to a yawn....I'm more pissed off with billy for signing into law NAFTA and GATT, than some young thing "star-f'ing" a president.

a reply to: RickinVa

Funny. Did you not say this to me earlier:

then you must have more than just one loose screw.

I'm not going to play this little game with you of going back and forth with petty pot shots.

You made specific claims with an authoritative tone and yet you have not been able to provide proof. You believe it to be true. I don't do belief.

Can you prove what you claim, or are you at least going to be intellectually honest and admit that you desire it to be true based on the claims of questionable media outlets?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Funny. Did you not say this to me earlier:

then you must have more than just one loose screw.

I'm not going to play this little game with you of going back and forth with petty pot shots.

You made specific claims with an authoritative tone and yet you have not been able to provide proof. You believe it to be true. I don't do belief.

Can you prove what you claim, or are you at least going to be intellectually honest and admit that you desire it to be true based on the claims of questionable media outlets?

Please for the love of God...post clearly what you deem to be proof and stop the BS. I am not the only person that you keeping insisting on providing proof that only meets your standards, just go back and read through a few Hillary threads... it is all right there. So it is not about me and you... it is about the constant attempts to derail threads by making vague references to "proof" as it fits whatever definition of "proof" that you go by.

1. Please clearly state what news sources (if any) you feel are only acceptable to you so we can all use just those from now on, because only you are able to determine what is a reliable source and what is not. This should constitute "proof" by whatever your standards are.

2. Please state your stance on the news reporting when sources are "anonymous, off the record, unnamed, etc." It seems to be readily apparent that you will dismiss anything that has been put forth by unnamed sources.

Then we can talk, but apparently only by the standards you set forth. Set the standards, the ball is now in your court. Is there one single instance of where a source that is unnamed will not be arbitrarily dismissed? Inquiring minds want to know.

For some reason I thought ATS was a conspiracy website where people came to discuss theories about events, both past and present... but I must be wrong because now you say there are specific guidelines we must adhere to when discussing anything about Hillary Clinton.

You demand that every topic about Hillary be either black or white, while ignoring the 50 shades of grey in between those two states. (Pun intended).

You know what? I remember a little story about this thing called Watergate... and an unnamed source that provided information that was crucial to Watergate... a source referred to as "Deep Throat"... if I am forced to go by your standards of proof in order to discuss a topic, then that little thing called Watergate would have most likely turned out different.

I know how that story ended.

Now once again I have had to reply to you and once again you have managed to sidetrack a topic onto a path that you desire for it to take. I will not discuss anymore threads or topics with you, because it is absolutely pointless to do so.

Just stop the crap already. Most of us can see it for what it is.

Peace.

a reply to: RickinVa

All I'm asking for is evidence to support your claims, but at the same time I know that there is no evidence to divulge. The FBI has been very tight-lipped on this, with little bits of information coming out here and there, but most info on the web regarding this issue is speculation.

That is why I don't understand how people can make definitive statements, like her emails containing satellite imagery.

Anyway, good luck.

a reply to: RickinVa

is nearing the end of its investigation... all we have to do is wait.

Geeze, where have I heard that before?

"Any Day Now" is the mantra of the anti-everything crowd that has to live in constant outrage in order to get through their day.

you militant liberals amuse me. This was a news article. Nobody on ATS wrote it. I just posted it. Sure I hope something comes of it, just like you desperately cling to the false hope that somehow Hillary wont be imprisoned. Maybe she will pay the right people and not be punished for her obvious crimes. It's not like that is a new thing with the Clintons. If something does happen, you can blame it on Bush.

But while we all wait, we can enjoy knowing that all the tears in the world will not erase the facts. Hillary had classified e-mails on an unsecured server. That is a crime. Anyone other than a Clinton would already be in prison if they did the same.

So we have no choice but to wait and see if the FBI chooses to do their sworn duty and charge Hillary.

a reply to: network dude

Hillary had classified e-mails on an unsecured server. That is a crime. Anyone other than a Clinton would already be in prison if they did the same.

Forgive me if I'd rather trust the judgement and knowledge of the law of the investigators and the FBI before that of random people on the internet.

a reply to: RickinVa

Personally, I am willing to settle for evidence rather than proof. To take your Watergate example, the burglary was a fact. The connection to Nixon was based on an unnamed source. That was evidence. When the tapes came to light, that was proof. So far, all of the evidence goes back to a single claim on Fox allegedly made by an unknown source. The statement itself is not consistent; it presumes that the FBI investigation was into illegal activities on the part of Clinton in the first place and has "expanded." The problem is, the investigation was not into Clinton, but the State Department. Investigating Clinton corruption would not be expanding the investigation, it would be an entirely new investigation.

I hope you Clinton haters realize that by attempting to take Hillary down you are increasing the odds that the next President will be an unreformed Socialist. Why else do you think globalresearch.com aka the Kremlin, has been stirring up these rumors?

a reply to: DJW001

"I hope you Clinton haters"


Hillary Clinton doesn't mean crap to me personally... I could really care less...

"I hope you Clinton haters realize that by attempting to take Hillary down you are increasing the odds that the next President will be an unreformed Socialist."

Okay I understand where you are coming from.... you are so scared of Bernie Sanders that you would prefer to have someone who has the ethics of an ant to be president instead... thank you for showing what you are all about.


I hate crooks and dishonest politicians.....


And people who reply to threads who so obviously biased as a pro hillary supporter who will do anything to defend her.


I would really love to say something positive about her, but other than a nice hair do, I can't find anything.

And for the umpteenth time, I am a life long democrat.... right now there isn't a single democrat I would vote for.... or republican for that matter.

You know, there are only a couple of things about Hillary that really bother me:

1. The possible mishandling of classified information. The mishandling of classified information is a crime... even it was accidental.

2. Bryan Pagliano who contracted for the Clinton Foundation to set up her PRIVATE server, and later managed to get hired by the State Department while she was SoS. If he ONCE worked on that server for any reason while a employee of the State Department....then you have a clear cut case of ethic violations and most likely criminal behavior.. its not really hard to figure out. I would bet my front teeth that he continued to support her PRIVATE server while a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE at her request. Did she use her influence to ensure that he was hired by the State Department? There are many questions to be answered.

And although perfectly legal, the fact that he stated he would plead the 5th to any questions by a senate panel reeks of illegal activity,,, there would be no reason to plead the 5th if there wasn't... the 5th is about self incrimination.... you know that word that sounds like crime and criminal for a reason.

a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary Clinton doesn't mean crap to me personally... I could really care less...

You seem so very passionate about not caring. If you don't care, why are you participating in this thread?

And people who reply to threads who so obviously biased as a pro hillary supporter who will do anything to defend her.

They are every bit as bad as the ones who will do anything to blacken her reputation: for example, by claiming that an investigation into State Department procedures is a criminal investigation of Ms. Clinton. Fortunately, there are some people who try to remind everyone that certain beliefs are erroneous, and based on confirmation bias.

a reply to: DJW001


Because you and others force me too. Is that hard to comprehend as well?

I just stated my two concerns above... if you care to discuss those, then do it.... anything else is side tracking.

a reply to: RickinVa

Because you and others force me too. Is that hard to comprehend as well?

How can someone who doesn't care be forced to do anything by people who are pointing out facts? Since you don't care, it should make no difference to you that Conservative media have been lying about the investigation.

a reply to: DJW001


Again Ms. Clinton, read my post above, I have stated my two concerns... care to discuss them or would you prefer to keep talking about me?

Why are you so focused on me and not talking about mishandling of classified information and her use of a private server?

Before you reply her choice of a server wasn't illegal, we know that, it's already been covered time and time again.

The ball is in your court....focus on the ball and not the player.