Rand Paul On Board to Indict Hillary Clinton, "followed by a prison sentence"

Rand Paul is the guy that should be president. He was the best of all the dem/rep candidates imo, not that I agree with him on everything. Alas, most american voters have been too conditioned by pop culture to consider anyone but a mobster, a commie and beef supreme.

I'm convinced this is just a conspiracy on ATS for posters to get more stars and flags. They seem to take it turn making threads from anti-Hillary YouTube videos just so they can all come in and say "any day now" while starring each others one-line responses.

This video has the same impact at it would if Count Chocula was calling for Hillary to be in prison.

a reply to: SudoNim



Tell us how you really feel? That would be great.

Hi Aazadan,

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Adonsa

Calling someone a low information voter after this post is truly irony.

Yes, agreed. It's gotta be doubtful that low-information voters have even heard of this website. Those [low-information voters] who have even heard of the internet probably get no further than CNN.com (the Clinton News Network).

"Informed" voters, who will vote for Hillary, likely share Hillary's destructive Marxist, Saul Alinsky, ideologies.

a reply to: Adonsa

Accusing Hillary of being a Marxist is quite ill-informed. Not defending her, but it's flat out untrue.

Marxists don't generally favour a corporatocratic oligarchy like Hillary does. I imagine most are quite disgusted at the idea of such a thing.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: Adonsa

Accusing Hillary of being a Marxist is quite ill-informed. Not defending her, but it's flat out untrue.

Marxists don't generally favour a corporatocratic oligarchy like Hillary does. I imagine most are quite disgusted at the idea of such a thing.

Actually, maybe not... Hillary wrote her 1969 Political Science Thesis ("There is Only the Fight") with references to an earlier version of Alinsky's, "Reveille for Radicals", training manual published in 1946.

Lest you claim that means nothing, I'll remind you Hillary and Alinsky were said to have a nearly father/daughter relationship and even exchanged personal letters.

Some thoughts from her mentor...

From Page 10 of "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky:
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." -- All emphasis by CornShucker

Possibly the confusion comes because of something I've written about before. The mistake usually made is thinking that those intending to bring about that political paradise have NO intention of living like all the "worker ants". Notice that he makes no mention of a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat once it is successfully in place. You can choose to believe the meaning of the phrase as being a "ruled by all" social order, but show me ANY country that has slipped into communism that wasn't structured with a very small ruling class that oversaw a much, much larger and miserable class of the ruled.

I realize I'm talking about a matter of semantics, but I take them at their word when Marxists say they are striving to create a dictatorship. "Of the proletariat" can just as easily be phrased "Over the proletariat" and have them both mean EXACTLY the same thing viewed in context.

a reply to: SudoNim

This posts wins the "crazy award". Instead of acknowledging that your opinion isn't as popular as you think it is, invent some absurd idea that all these people who disagree with you are bots or paid shills. You guys are truly amazing with your rhetoric. I bet you think I'm a shill, too.

originally posted by: Dukesy
a reply to: DAVID64
My take on this: Hillary will keep running her campaign and get the nomination for president. Then - and only then - SHE GETS INDICTED - Ovomit declares a national emergency and declares himself president once again thru executive order. This is why I think Ovomits administration will not do anything to her just yet. He could steal another 4 years.

What say you?

Even if she were to be indicted, don't forget that her husband is the only president to be pardoned. Our current resident of the WH has a pen and a phone and could pardon her, if he chooses.

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: Dukesy
a reply to: DAVID64
My take on this: Hillary will keep running her campaign and get the nomination for president. Then - and only then - SHE GETS INDICTED - Ovomit declares a national emergency and declares himself president once again thru executive order. This is why I think Ovomits administration will not do anything to her just yet. He could steal another 4 years.

What say you?

Even if she were to be indicted, don't forget that her husband is the only president to be pardoned. Our current resident of the WH has a pen and a phone and could pardon her, if he chooses.

What? The only President to be pardoned? What history are you reading? For one. Bill Clinton was never pardoned, for anything. For two, the only President to be pardoned was Nixon and HE was a Republican.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CornShucker

originally posted by: Dukesy
a reply to: DAVID64
My take on this: Hillary will keep running her campaign and get the nomination for president. Then - and only then - SHE GETS INDICTED - Ovomit declares a national emergency and declares himself president once again thru executive order. This is why I think Ovomits administration will not do anything to her just yet. He could steal another 4 years.

What say you?

Even if she were to be indicted, don't forget that her husband is the only president to be pardoned. Our current resident of the WH has a pen and a phone and could pardon her, if he chooses.

What? The only President to be pardoned? What history are you reading? For one. Bill Clinton was never pardoned, for anything. For two, the only President to be pardoned was Nixon and HE was a Republican.

Hi Krazysh0t,

Point taken, I forgot about Nixon.

It's actually:
Krazysh0t - 1
CornShucker - 1

If you check, you'll see that Bush pardoned Clinton.

Thanks for the reminder, though. Must have been having a "senior" moment. Don't know how I could have forgotten such a controversial pardon.

originally posted by: CornShucker
If you check, you'll see that Bush pardoned Clinton.

Thanks for the reminder, though. Must have been having a "senior" moment. Don't know how I could have forgotten such a controversial pardon.

You're confusing things. All Presidents pardon the previous administration (I'm not 100% if it's administration or President), it's a blanket pardon for anything they may have done. Basically, it's a way for the nation to move on and something of a safeguard to prevent us from dwelling on the past and prosecuting those who are no longer in power. Obama did the same thing for Bush, and whoever follows Obama will likely do the same thing for him, if for no other reason than they'll expect the same from the President after them.

There was no pardon specific to Clinton's impeachment trial though, because impeachment failed, and therefore no one ever moved forward with a criminal prosecution.

Nixon is simply the only instance so far where it has actually mattered.

a reply to: CornShucker

Ok I stand corrected too. I never realized that Bush pardoned Clinton for that nonsense in 1998. I had to go look it up. I just assumed it blew over because it was a big deal made out of nothing.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thats why i hope Trump wins and ends this practice by making sure this Hillary lady gets her circus show and trial in court. A very public trial. Its better than she and Obama gave Qaddafi. He was no saint, but did a helluva lot better for his people than the leaders who had him killed from half a world away.

At least Saddam got his circus, and he was more cruel than the Libyan dictator. If trial and application of law is good enough for overthrown dictators, it is good enough for Hillary Clinton. Pretty much in the same league.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

What does sending Hillary to prison accomplish? She'll be dead of age or illness in 10 years. 2 years in pretrial motions, another 1.5 for the trial, 2 years of appeals, another President in the meantime who can pardon her, and then finally after all of that you can sentence her to life in prison when that life will only last a couple more years?

You'll cause way too much division with that, for way too little payoff. If she wins, she's going to be out of power in 4 years, if she loses she's going to be out of power in 3 months. That's good enough.

Also, all of this assumes Obama doesn't simply pardon her which can easily happen after the election.

It is a very dangerous road to go down wanting to prosecute high level members of previous administrations (I say this as someone who would love to see W in jail for war crimes). Going after Hillary is the wrong hill to die on.

a reply to: Aazadan

Old people are sentence to die in prison EVERY DAY. The point of sending her to prison is to show to us mere non-human cattle peasants that rich criminals are not above the law. Thats what is accomplished by sending her to prison.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Aazadan

Old people are sentence to die in prison EVERY DAY. The point of sending her to prison is to show to us mere non-human cattle peasants that rich criminals are not above the law. Thats what is accomplished by sending her to prison.

At what cost? If this happens to Hillary, we will have open season on politicians, and sooner or later it will turn violent. They're not worth that.

The moment you elect someone to a high level position you are giving them the ability to be above the law, it's part of what you're voting for. Just the same as we voted that for W and people are going to vote to make Trump above the law. This also applies to certain people they appoint.

a reply to: Aazadan

Its time to clean up house. Now or later, its happening. We are supposed to demand an open season on politicians when a clear pattern of deceit and corruption has existed for decades contrary to our original ideals AND the rule of law AND their Oath of Loyalty to the Constitution. Lets clear em all out. The time has come. She can make it easier on herself by just bowing out now before someone rightfully executes an "NDAA 2012 Clause" on her ass.

After all, the administration she was a part of sanctioned the legal authority for the government to assassinate its own citizens, AND repealed propaganda protections so that the establishment can lie through its teeth about who or why a certain American needed to die.

She is an international terrorist, whos decisions and policy have terrorized and destroyed millions of lives across North Africa and the Middle East in collusion with her boss. She is a candidate for a legally sanctioned assassination per the very laws she and her boss allowed to be signed into law.

So knowing all that, it is in fact our government duty to ensure she receives a drone up the rear PER THE VERY LAWS that were passed under her tenure. The government as well, to strike this target from the list of terrorists, before she has the opportunity to commit more acts of terrorism through her pen and her money.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

You go ahead and try to follow through on those threats and see how that works out for you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

oh hi there. Its mister "I want to legalize crack, heroin, meth, PCP, coc aine etc etc " . I won't need to.

She is a terrorist, the law says it is legal for the government to drone strike her. I say they get on with it swiftly.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

oh hi there. Its mister "I want to legalize crack, heroin, meth, PCP, coc aine etc etc " . I won't need to.

Why hello there, Mr. Ad Hominem.

She is a terrorist, the law says it is legal for the government to drone strike her. I say they get on with it swiftly.

So what parts of the Constitution legalized vigilante justice based on kangaroo courts again?