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.

 

BREAKING: Obama DOJ Denied FBI Request For Full Investigation Into Clinton Foundation

page: 4
91
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Dance puppets, dance!




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
That's the big problem with having federal / government investigative services, they will always be subverted to protect the power base rather than investigate and prosecute ALL criminals at all levels.

By failing to investigate people in power, they lose all legitimacy and credibility.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I bet the head of the FBI
ot his job from the Clinton.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

Congratulations on getting 51 stars with third hand "news" (read "propaganda"). Your source is a blog whose source is the Washington Examiner (a far-right rag) whose source as it were is ultimately CNN which is ironic because I was just posting in a thread where Trump followers are calling CNN "Clinton News Network" and accusing them of fabricating stories about Trump.

LOL.

Throw it all against the wall and see what sticks? I'd say you know better but this is afterall your bread and butter! Here's your source in the OP:


Apparently, FBI officials found enough evidence to warrant a direct request to the Obama DOJ asking that a full investigation be initiated into the Clinton Foundation. That request has been denied.


According to just-published reports (HERE), the FBI did in fact make a recent and direct request that the Department of Justice’s public integrity unit open a full investigation into allegations of collusion and/or influence peddling by Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. That investigation would undoubtedly then involve the Obama White House and quite possibly include a grand jury.


Well that certainly sounds SERIOUS! "Apparently" (how all good news pieces start because... ambiguity) the FBI made a "direct request" to the "Obama DOJ" (every word, completely loaded with spin) to open a "full investigation." The words "full investigation" are even underlined.

You have to wonder then. Are there "indirect requests" for "half-assed investigations" made of the DOJ by the FBI?

So let's see if the source backs that up? Here's the source that was linked from the "DC Wispers" blog (I guess "DC We Just Make Stuff Up So People Can Pretend It's News in Internet Forums" was too long of a name?) and it's also the second link in the OP:

Washington Examiner

Justice Department officials decided against an investigation into the Clinton Foundation after the FBI requested the agency open a case into allegations of corruption stemming from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. But the Justice Department's public integrity unit declined to pursue the probe given what it characterized as insufficient evidence, according to a CNN report Wednesday.


So the language is a little softened — now it's just a "request" to open "a case" or "probe" but the claims are essentially the same with a bit less overt bias. So does the linked CNN "report" substantiate these statements?

CNN - original source


Early this year as the investigation into Clinton's private email server was in full swing, several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, according to a law enforcement official. At the time, DOJ declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn't sufficient evidence to open a case.


So we have an unnamed law enforcement source telling CNN that the FBI "approached" the Justice Department and lo and behold, the DOJ declined to open an investigation because...

They'd already looked into allegations about a year prior and didn't find anything that warranted launching an investigation?

and that is why you use a source whose source's source has the actual source — for maximum opportunity to mislead!

I'm probably going to come off as a prick but seriously...was that a joke? Sarcasm? The OP quote you provided reads the same as the linked text with the exceptions of a few adjectives and synonyms. If your intent was to actually show an exaggeration by the OP, you missed your mark by miles.

I read the OP quote and was waiting for the dramatic difference and there was nothing.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yep and he was also on celebrity apprentice...lol

Jaden



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Honestly, how do you uproot this blatant corruption without taking a violent/revolt approach? I really dont know how its done peacefully.. I really dont think theyll ever allow a fair election process, which means change will never happen unless its taken back...

Our checks and balances are failing when they all cover for each other....
edit on 11-8-2016 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: jhn7537
Honestly, how do you uproot this blatant corruption without taking a violent/revolt approach? I really dont know how its done peacefully.. I really dont think theyll ever allow a fair election process, which means change will never happen unless its taken back...

Our checks and balances are failing when they all cover for each other....


What if the majority don't want you to "take it back" ?

What your basically saying is if the country votes someone in that you don't like you want to take it off them violently?
edit on 11-8-2016 by SudoNim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, another parrot!

'agrh breaking news, breaking news! argh Clinton is bad arrgh.'

You are starting to sound like a needle stuck in the groove- as am I.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Shame any attempt to give a citizens arrest to these blatant criminals would result in on-site execution.

This isn't a government anymore, it's a mafia.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I was under the impression that the Clinton Foundation was under FBI investigation for RICO Act violations. (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynicalMark
I was under the impression that the Clinton Foundation was under FBI investigation for RICO Act violations. (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)


Separate investigation.




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: jhn7537
Honestly, how do you uproot this blatant corruption without taking a violent/revolt approach? I really dont know how its done peacefully.. I really dont think theyll ever allow a fair election process, which means change will never happen unless its taken back...

Our checks and balances are failing when they all cover for each other....


What if the majority don't want you to "take it back" ?

What your basically saying is if the country votes someone in that you don't like you want to take it off them violently?


First of all, a majority never votes. It's usually around 30% of available voters (dead ones, too). So why should your argument hold up?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

Yep, things are so out in the public and so obviously corrupt that the establishment is like, "What are you going to do about it? Nothing you can do."

Well, I am not holding my breath for the people to do something about it. I could be wrong. It seems people are getting right fed up. It seems like the establishment wants the people to do something because as most know they have been getting ready for a revolution. It would give them exactly what they want. The excuse to instill martial law, take what rights you have left, and disarm the civilian population.


i don't think so. first, read some - related to different topic, yet very much spot on - post from outside source.

img.4plebs.org...

now think. fema, all that crap. are they preparing for something? of course. one may argue that they have to be prepared for whatever, my take is they expect a disaster - but that's not the point. the point is, they want a disaster, because that's the only thing capable of giving them total control without having to deal with tons of angry citizens.

scared citizens - good.
angry citizens - not so much.

people have tons of power, they just don't realize it. together, they would wipe out that corrupt government in no time. that's why the government works so hard to divide them all. false flag here, false flag there, black, white, gay, transgender, you know how it works.

but no. the revolution is the last thing they want. small incidents, playing in their favor - sure. all-out revolution - hell no. people would go all medieval on government's ass and it would be all over before half of the government officials would even know what hit them.

so, as for the topic at hand, they're not poking people. they're just feeling rather safe, certain that people won't do anything about it not because they can't, but because they're too lazy to give a damn. sheeple may hear some news, complain here and there, even hold some protest, but that's all that sheeple will do.

and that won't work. nothing, short of a bullet in some heads, will.
edit on 11/8/2016 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: jhn7537
Honestly, how do you uproot this blatant corruption without taking a violent/revolt approach? I really dont know how its done peacefully.. I really dont think theyll ever allow a fair election process, which means change will never happen unless its taken back...

Our checks and balances are failing when they all cover for each other....


What if the majority don't want you to "take it back" ?

What your basically saying is if the country votes someone in that you don't like you want to take it off them violently?

Actually...no. He is not saying that. The country is defined in our Constitution along with a long history of morals, values and laws. While we may adjust many of these over time to accommodate the changing values of the citizens (us), the core values and rules define the foundation of the country. If anyone attempts to circumvent that, including the Constitution and in the process are breaking the oath or oath of office, they become the enemy and need to be taken down. In short...no person or political party can become a dictator over the USA.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Since when are interrogatives regarded as declarations of intent?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: jhn7537
Honestly, how do you uproot this blatant corruption without taking a violent/revolt approach? I really dont know how its done peacefully.. I really dont think theyll ever allow a fair election process, which means change will never happen unless its taken back...

Our checks and balances are failing when they all cover for each other....


What if the majority don't want you to "take it back" ?

What your basically saying is if the country votes someone in that you don't like you want to take it off them violently?


It would depend on if they know what they are voting for.

With today's agenda-driven dinosaur media and propaganda social media that is not a certainty.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Nobody gives a #. She's too big to fail. If she goes down than many people go down who have more power in their left nut than I do with my words.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: SudoNim

Since when are interrogatives regarded as declarations of intent?


Have you not been watching the news?? Whenever someone wants to squash your opinion or feels insulted and needs a safe space. Can't say what you mean or in thr case of Hillary mean what you say.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Most of them have said that they DON'T understand my words.
Funny how no one who ISN'T A PROG has EVER told me that.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: dragonridr

Most of them have said that they DON'T understand my words.
Funny how no one who ISN'T A PROG has EVER told me that.


Funny thing is I told some friends that voted for Hillary instaed of Bernie she will lose. Look what's happening more and more skeletons are falong out her closet. Now you have people coming forward saying Bill raped them wait until those make campaign commercials. She obviously excepted money for state dept access. And the Email thing isn't over either she can be prosecutes for lying under oath. This woman is so crooked she makes a hook look straight.

I warned everyone who supported her to vote Bernie but and I quote he doesn't have a chance. Turned out they were right the DNC fixed the race. We have never had a party in history who got caught cheating and people had to resign.



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join