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.

 

Do you think Hillary Clinton could be indicted before the election and still become POTUS?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
If she gets indicted, look for the democrat party to replace her with someone else, possibly Biden.
edit on 5/20/2016 by PsychoEmperor because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 20 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
If it was going to be possible to indict her for anything, it would have been done years ago.

This is all just endless smoke and mirrors.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Of course! You underestimate the general knowledge of the average Democrat voter.

The majority will either:
A) Have no idea she was indicted
B) Heard Hillary say it's a vast right wing conspiracy witch hunt and believe her



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
If it was going to be possible to indict her for anything, it would have been done years ago.

This is all just endless smoke and mirrors.


Why do people believe this? If she was already indicted, Obama's justice department would choose not to follow through and even if they did, Obama would just pardon her. It makes perfect sense to wait till after the election...



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Right because only republicans have tv's and computers and radios.
That's really funny.
I bet you even believe it too.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Obama made it perfectly clear that he would not interfere with this matter. Who's not watching the news to keep up with current events? Or not so current as he said that on tv last month.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: eluryh22

WTF how is it all business? Explain that? I'm at work and get a call on my desk phone from my spouse. Does the boss have any right to know what we talked about? No not at all. The boss can say no personal phone calls but they can't demand to know what my conversation was about. Same here. Remember this was her private email and server. It didn't become state property when she used it for work. If that was the case alert the FBI because it would mean she had these emails under govt control the whole time after all. If the server became state property as is being suggested that is.

And yes I do think she's trustworthy. I also think she will be a great president.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Is your desk phone at work located in the State Department?
Are you handling classified information at work?



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
In a Political system were a Kenyan/Canadian has/can become POTUS.... NO



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Let me take care of the easier one first. An employer has every right to record any and all calls coming to or originating THEIR phones. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether or not they are required to let a new employee know this at the time they start work.

It's not the physical server that is the issue. Rather, it is the intellectual property that is ON the server. Let me try to explain it this way...

Lets say that I am working on a project and using both my work e-mail account and a separate gmail account. Should there be an issue where a law enforcement agency gets involved and by looking through the e-mails of various employees they see that I have been sending e-mails from two separate accounts, they will have full access to BOTH accounts. At that point it is NOT up to ME to decide what is relevant to their investigation.

If they left it up to the person they are investigating to determine what is relevant, that person could simply decide not to turn over any correspondence that shows intentional wrong-doing.

If you don't want to accept that, I can only say that I hope you never have to find that out the hard way.

Edit to add: As with a desk phone, an employer has the right to see what is being done on their computers. People should consider that prior to do personal things at work using work issued equipment.


edit on 20-5-2016 by eluryh22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

That was my point. Sorry you missed it.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Her personal correspondence didn't become state property is all I'm saying. No more than my personal conversation would.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gothmog

That was my point. Sorry you missed it.

I didnt. Everyone should be terrified til they sweat bullets of that happening



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Her personal correspondence didn't become state property is all I'm saying. No more than my personal conversation would.

No one thinks it would be.
But there should have been government oversight when she started deleting emails.

Come seize my work emails.
You will find that all of it is work related.
Seize my personal emails.... nothing about work there.
There us something to think about too. I have an email account on the company server at work.
I have a separate account that is personal.
Imagine that, I keep it separated.... and I am not even a State Department employee, much less the Secretary of State.
Hell, I am not even a government employee.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join