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.

 

Al Jazeera Reporter says FBI will Interview Hillary in days

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I am sick of all of this. Sick of the protection she gets from MSM and the crooks and blind people that support her.

If any judge or jury dares indict her, he/they are toast and know it. And Obama would pardon her before it ever gets out.

It is a sick world we live in.

Oh, to be oblivious again. At least I would sleep better...or not.

i wonder which is better sometime: ignorance or knowledge. I am too old to help with change. At least my children are aware.




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: charolais
I feel like Al Jazeera is one of the last sources that you would ever use for a post.


Perfectly right, Charolais. According to this story www.adweek.com... , Al Jazeera has been ramping down their USA operations and will be entirely gone from this country on April 12, 2016.

If this "scoop" on Hillary turns out to be factual, Al Jazeera will have regained some credibility.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: xuenchen

Call me cynical, when charges are filed ill believe it..


I feel the same.

My only hope is that statistically xuenchen is bound to get one right in regards to her getting arrested after all these updates.

I'm rooting for him



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I agree . I don't understand why either.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I do hope something comes of all of this but being who she is I don't expect much at all.

That said, I imagine the Sanders people aren't concerned with this at all, definitely not Bernie. He's focusing on many other things. If something does come from this, of course they would love it, who wouldn't? Well, besides Clinton supporters.

Damn you Clooney!



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No way the Establishment lets Bernie run against Trump. It is more likely that once Hilary is out they will 'draft' someone because her delegates will be up for grabs. I would still lay money on neither Bernie or Trump winning their respective parties nominations. I know I won't be voting for Hilary, Bernie or Trump come November. I am going 3rd party.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

You thinking?



Recent polls say he's up to 11%.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Exactly, we need to do SOMETHING to fix this mess of unqualified candidates and Establishment whores. Voting for one of them is not the answer because I have been doing the whole 'lesser of two evils' thing for almost 30 years. The candidates just keep getting worse and it is time to change it up.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Metallicus

You thinking?



Recent polls say he's up to 11%.


That's exactly what this mutt's thinking. Kasich was my first choice, but will end up voting Libertarian. I used to think it was the lesser of two evils, but the number doubled this election cycle.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Then Gary is the answer for you! If it's Trump or Clinton run for the hills!!



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Those 5 million who voted for Hillary should lose their voting rights!

Nothing but criminals...ESTABLISHMENT scum.
edit on 31-3-2016 by Granite because: Sp



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
My wife put it in prospective for me last week. Granted she thinks Hillary is concentrated evil. I asked if she was going to vote for Donald Trump? The answer was,"I would vote for Donald Duck if that were the only opposition to Hillary."

Personally I think she will walk on all charges and a few of her people will do a little jail time. Think Jimmy Haslam and the Pilot/ Flying J case. No justice in the US any more.

If you have money or political power nearly any thing is posable.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So who in the FBI investigation told him that they will be bringing criminal charges against her? Who? Got a name?

No didn't think so.


How many times can you read the exact same information and continue to present it as something new week after week after pathetic week. Oh they really got her now....ssdd. Oh we got her with this. Ssdd. This time oh boy she's really in for it. Hillary going down. ssdd.
Ssdd.=same # different day.

We all know they're going to interview her staff. Maybe they will interview her.
The FBI certainly has not said that they are going to file charges against her. They have not now nor have they ever said that.
But here you are every week rehashing the same story from different sources all linking to Fox btw. As if an indictment was eminent.
Why don't you hold off til you actually have something?
Oh I know...where's the fun in that?

edit on 3312016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Or
They conclude their investigation. They find that she has not committed any crimes. They clear her name and the road to the Whitehouse.
Hillary goes into the history books as our first woman president.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Why haven't those highly placed friends protected her so far? If that were true there would never have been an investigation in the first place.
Another common sense fail.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn

I said it before and ill say it again. It doesn't matter that they are found innocent time after time. To a certain crowd the Clinton's are never innocent. They are just getting away with something.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

So who in the FBI investigation told him that they will be bringing criminal charges against her? Who? Got a name?

No didn't think so.



Brilliant observation indeed.




posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I watched that AJAM report & Mr Shuster did say Mrs Clinton and key staffers were to be interviewed, he did NOT say the FBI would be recommending criminal charges. How could he? He doesnt know and until the investigation is concluded HOPEFULLY the FBI doesn't know.

We don't know (in any real or objective sense) that the Justice department or the White House would commit the crime of Obstruction of Justice. That is a belief the OP may have and if so It is does not appear to be based on any heretofore known real world event.

As for "fixing" a prospective Clinton prosecution, there is no evidence that this is even remotely a possibility. FBI Director Comey, after all, was and is known to be fiercely independent and devoted to the rule of law. In fact Comey was so devoted to the rule of law that he thwarted the desires of the Republican administration he served in to see that Justice department was not corrupted. If Mr Obama was inclined to politically interfere with the work of the FBI, it is doubtful he would have selected Director Comey.

Attorney General Lynch's association with a large and prominent law firm that represented the Clintons is not in and of itself a conflict of interest nor the smoke of a conspiracy fire. Large firms tend to employ hundreds of attorneys and numerous do legal work for many "A list" clients. So simply saying that Lynch was an attorney at a large law firm that handled Clinton legal work is saying nothing unless there is an intersection between Lynch and the Clinton account. If Lynch submitted billed hours on legal matters regarding the Clintons she should (and undoubtedly will) reveal this fact and recuse herself. But even that is sort of beside the point.

One of the things the FBI has to determine to establish that a crime has been committed is WHERE the crime occurred. The WHERE provides the jurisdiction. If the the site of the, as yet fictional, crime is determined to be Chappaqua, New York then the criminal referral would not go to the Justice Department in Washington DC. But rather to the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

So why don't we just breathe-in breathe-out, repeat as necessary and take things one step at a time.




posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
*yawn*

And if anything was to come of this, she wouldn't be wasting her time and everyone's money running for office.

Seriously, nothing is going to happen to her.

You can scream, yell, and cover your computer screen in spittle -- but nothing will happen.

It's all wasted effort. Hillary isn't going to be indicted or put in jail or brought up on ANY charges.

I don't get why people still carry on when they know deep down it won't change anything. Does it feel good or something? TO me, it seems like wasted energy at this point.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you !



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join