It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

CNN and MSNBC confirm Hillary Clinton will not face any charges in email inquiry

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:02 PM
What she did was stupid, unethical, and against department policy.

It was probably NOT illegal.

Lots of people forward their work emails to home computers. The fact that she did this with emails from a Government department shows a serious lapse in judgement, but no one can prove that she did anything nefarious or illegal with that information.

It's the digital equivalent of taking information home with you at the end of the day - something Government ministers do the world over.

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:51 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Good thread and thanks for everything, X.
But when I get an unnamed source from a network (already
in the tank for Hil) spew there won't be an indictment-- it
sends me a message of hope.

Looks like they won't even have to resort to a smokescreen
to clear this little mess up with hundreds of Title 42 booboos.
Pay-to-see, nickel flicks gone completely to Hell. And nobody
is getting it yet, especially at the DNC Kool-Aid distributorship.

I'm sure of only one thing-- if she skates and gets the nomination
you will see within on year of inauguration Day a war with
either Russia, China, or both. Look at her voting record and
handlers... it might not even be worth it by now to stock up.

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:55 PM

originally posted by: Trip88
They won't indict her. They need her to bring their agenda into fruition. If they did, obama would just serve a third term anyway. Same difference.

If Hil gets in it'll be Obama's second term on steroids and
really good hallucinogens. That's why the media just
cranked open the blue bottle. What a Lovely Day...

posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 01:00 PM
a reply to: babybunnies

Was there negligence, was there harm to the United States, then that is definitely illegal. No matter how you try and spin it.

If you can answer yes to those first two questions in any case, then you have an argument to prosecute.

edit on 5-7-2016 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 01:10 PM
a reply to: babybunnies

There is a HUGE difference between normal "work" emails, and classified government information that affects national security.

When people are given a security clearance, they must sign documents pledging to keep this information safe and secure.

posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 01:58 PM
"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation
that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which
Heaven itself has ordained" George Washington.....
I am not the only one who believes America has come under judgment....

posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 06:15 PM

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: xuenchen

Words fail me . . .

Aaaarrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh . . .

What galactic level hideousness.

Words don't fail me.

I been biting my tongue all day because most are TC violations.

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:40 AM

[EDIT] Then again, I do not buy this CNN & Co storyline at all. FBI has thrown 100+ officers into this 1.5 year investigation. It is not really a conceivable option at this point to just offer a hand-shake and wish good luck for elections.

And yet, that is basically exactly what happened.

I mean, I expected her to never see a courtroom on it, but this? Just ridiculous.

Clearly, this shows just how corrupt she is. First the meeting between Bill and the AG, and now this ruling? Coincidence? Not even her supporters are dumb enough to buy that...right?

Patraeus did the same thing, but to a much lesser degree, yet he was sentenced for it.

but no one can prove that she did anything nefarious or illegal with that information.

Just leaking it is illegal and grounds (under the agreement she signed) for immediate dismissal from government office. It would be for anyone else in the government. That's kind of the point of all of this.
edit on 6-7-2016 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:51 PM
So they just reopened the case, she actually is NOT off the hook.
I can't imagine having a president that felt she was so above the law. There is NO ONE reading this that would have gotten away with something equivalent. If you throw in there your spouse sitting down for a nice long chit chat on a private plane with the judge in your trial....again, not knowing/understanding the laws?? She either is lying or feels the laws don't pertain to her. WE DONT NEED THAT HEADING THIS COUNTRY IN EITHER CASE.

Burn baby
edit on 7-7-2016 by Hr2burn because: Link

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 09:45 PM
I love this....

Combo punch

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in