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.

 

How can a person who is under an FBI investigation still feels that person has a right to be POTUS

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2016 @ 01:19 AM
link   
For all reasonable hearsay, the mate of that person was able to keep going as the POTUS, so get my drift guys.




posted on May, 22 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
It is America.

Bribes, corruption, it's all good folks.

Only in America!

P



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty.

In Hillary's case, you're even innocent AFTER you're proven guilty.




posted on May, 22 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
For all reasonable hearsay, the mate of that person was able to keep going as the POTUS, so get my drift guys.


Because, the PATRIOT ACT notwithstanding, there is still, in the U.S., the presumption of innocence UNTIL GUILT IS PROVEN.

An investigation is FAR from the legal standard of proven guilt.

At least it still is in the US that I live in!



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Or a cop that shoots a black person when said black person is a regular hood rat thug.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: misterhistory

Being a "regular hood rat thug" is not, in and of itself, a crime.

It is certainly not even a social status justifying murder.

But bestowing the mantle of authority intrinsic with the position of Law Enforcement Officer does entail a higher level of responsibility for ones actions.

We do expect more from our police.

Because we give them the power of life and death over us in ways we deny ourselves, in the interest of maintaining a viable society,

We MUST hold them to a higher standard.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think the issue the OP is bringing up is, shouldn't people running for the highest office in the land be held to a higher standard. It is unprecedented for someone being investigated by the FBI to be in the running for president.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think the issue the OP is bringing up is, shouldn't people running for the highest office in the land be held to a higher standard. It is unprecedented for someone being investigated by the FBI to be in the running for president.

I'm glad you clarified that, because I didn't understand either the title of the thread or the initial post.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   
It does appear that the Bernie camp is gaining some weight as the legal pressures mount for Hillary. If Hillary does make president then a head of state does have some privileges in terms of the definition of law.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 04:04 AM
link   
It doesnt happen only in America, it happens everywhere, people who are hungry for power and lack integrity arent intimidated by law, actually in some cases, the same kind of people create laws that protects them.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think the issue the OP is bringing up is, shouldn't people running for the highest office in the land be held to a higher standard. It is unprecedented for someone being investigated by the FBI to be in the running for president.


So if a President did not want someone to run for the highest office all he has to do is arrange for the FBI to start a investigation into that person!



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
It is America.

Bribes, corruption, it's all good folks.

Only in America!

P




Kind of like here in Japan in the good ole days.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think the issue the OP is bringing up is, shouldn't people running for the highest office in the land be held to a higher standard. It is unprecedented for someone being investigated by the FBI to be in the running for president.

I'm glad you clarified that, because I didn't understand either the title of the thread or the initial post.




Thanks, sometimes me English no good. Lived out of the States way too long. But thanks.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think the issue the OP is bringing up is, shouldn't people running for the highest office in the land be held to a higher standard. It is unprecedented for someone being investigated by the FBI to be in the running for president.


So if a President did not want someone to run for the highest office all he has to do is arrange for the FBI to start a investigation into that person!



You kind of lost me on what your are trying to say there.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think the issue the OP is bringing up is, shouldn't people running for the highest office in the land be held to a higher standard. It is unprecedented for someone being investigated by the FBI to be in the running for president.


So if a President did not want someone to run for the highest office all he has to do is arrange for the FBI to start a investigation into that person!


I just posted a similar point in a different thread.

I can't stand Hillary myself, but IMO NOBODY should be in favor of ANYONE being precluded from running for office due to investigation by an LEO agency.

That kind of power is just begging to be abused.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   
How? Maybe for the same reason a person can continue to say SHE is "under FBI investigation". She's not, and she hasn't been. The FBI received a referral for an inquiry into her email server. It is a NON-CRIMINAL inquiry. There will be no charges, no jail. Pfft.

The referral pertains to her account, and does NOT allege that she herself mishandled that account, or engaged in criminal activity.

See for yourself:

www.politifact.com...



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think I miss represented what I was trying to convey. Regular hood rat thugs that get killed by police while being exactly a dangerous thug at an officer.

Are you saying holding police to a higher standard includes no longer being innocent until proven otherwise? Of course police shouldn't act just because they know the person to be a hood rat, though way too many seem to see us all as street thugs lately and act on that.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
How? Maybe for the same reason a person can continue to say SHE is "under FBI investigation". She's not, and she hasn't been. The FBI received a referral for an inquiry into her email server. It is a NON-CRIMINAL inquiry. There will be no charges, no jail. Pfft.

The referral pertains to her account, and does NOT allege that she herself mishandled that account, or engaged in criminal activity.

See for yourself:

www.politifact.com...




Your article is 4 months old. The FBI has already cleared this up. Hilary is indeed under investigation.
Fox




Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere “security inquiry.”

But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what "security inquiry" means -- adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

The FBI director reiterated that he’s “not familiar with the term security inquiry” when told that is the phrase Clinton has used.

As for the timeline for the investigation, Comey, during a briefing with reporters, said he prefers doing the investigation “well” over promptly and said he’s not “tethered” to a schedule.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale

originally posted by: filched
a reply to: Bhadhidar

I think the issue the OP is bringing up is, shouldn't people running for the highest office in the land be held to a higher standard. It is unprecedented for someone being investigated by the FBI to be in the running for president.

I'm glad you clarified that, because I didn't understand either the title of the thread or the initial post.


Sarcasm aside, I don't think you did understand, or at least you did not make an adequate response to the OP. Because you mentioned the presumption of innocence until proven guilty which is a total platitude. Everyone understands this and the OP didn't create this thread for you tell him what he already knows. He meant that people running for president should be held to a HIGHER standard, which you did not address at all.

I agree that people under investigation by the FBI should have the foresight and integrity not to run for president.

Legally, a person can do a lot of dumb things simply because they can but that doesn't mean they should.
edit on 22-5-2016 by filched because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Well, because until she is convicted, she is considered to be innocent.

I am sure anyone who has ever had a brush with the law could appreciate that.

And then there are the rest of you who ask these dumb ass questions like the title of this thread....



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join