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.

 

The Sheer Scope of Hillary Clintons Wrongs is Staggering, Folks!

page: 3
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Not trying to deny anything, but before you demonize the Right, you better take a hard look at the Left. They are the ones who've been caught rigging the election to put their person in place and that person has been caught doing some pretty underhanded things. Take the blinders off.




posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



So now I get it couldn't figure out why someone would actually vote to put a criminal in office.


You'd have to ask someone that is actually going to vote for her. I'm not.



But it's a matter of denial and blaming some right wing conspiracy.


There is proof of a right wing conspiracy. Benghazi hearings.



She should have been prosecuted for her email fiasco as proven by the guy that took one picture inside a sub that he sent to no one.


The two cases are not comparable.



It's the Clinton presidency all over again scandal after scandal kept popping up with how they conduct business and the lies. Just look up the phrase pulling a clinton they are known for lying.


Yet, they can never find anything to lock em up.



And yes I'm still pissed they put this lying witch in office over Bernie. Oh wait we learned she rigged that to but that's OK it's part of the vast right wing conspiracy right??


No. That's dirty, private party politics.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mobiusmale



1) The probe into her (obvious) lies made under oath to Congress is underway.


And that will produce nothing. Perjury is very hard to prove and in this case it will be damn near impossible.



2) There are many more email and document leaks to come...likely involving hundreds, if not thousands, of new data points.


The FBI has already seen them all. So other than for media and propaganda purposes, they are irrelevant.



3) The investigation of the corruption triad, involving the Clinton Foundation Donations / Clinton Speaking Fees / State Department access/favours has only just begun.


This aspect I do find interesting. Let's hope so.

As far as your other post in regards to 18 U.S.C. § 793 (f), you're wrong. Intent is necessary. We've been over that so many times it's absurd that we have to continue to drag it out.


1) Proving perjury is not too difficult when you have Hillary on video lying to Congress.
2) No, there were a large number of "email fragments" that the FBI was not able to reconstruct, due the manner in which they were deleted from Clinton's hard drives and other storage devices (as stated by Comey). But, for every Sender, there is a Receiver...and other means to capture unsecure transmissions in real time...so lots more potentially to come.
3) I, Comey's old boss (Rudy Guliani), and many other actual legal experts (and other people who can read) would disagree with your contention that "intent is necessary" under this law...whether or not you think it is absurd.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: aethertek




I hope with the crushing of Drumpf(trumps real surname) & his acolytes in November America can finally put this segment of it's population back where they belong.


And you claim Conservatives are bigots.
Exactly where do we belong? Are we "less than" Hillary supporters? Or are we free Americans? Free to choose who we like and free to voice that opinion?? You sound like a very dangerous person, ready to put anyone who disagrees, "in their place", which is basically how Liberals work. You don't like what they say? Why, you belong in jail or there outta be a law that says you can't disagree.
You "tolerant Liberals" are starting to show your true colors.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale



1) Proving perjury is not too difficult when you have Hillary on video lying to Congress.


Does that video show her intentionally lying in order to deceive, or does it show that she said what she honestly thought to be true, but happened to be wrong? Remember, she didn't go through the emails. Her lawyers did.

Right there creates plausible deniability.



2) No, there were a large number of "email fragments" that the FBI was not able to reconstruct, due the manner in which they were deleted from Clinton's hard drives and other storage devices (as stated by Comey). But, for every Sender, there is a Receiver...and other means to capture unsecure transmissions in real time...so lots more potentially to come.


Do you really think there will be any information there that will sink Hillary? Or is that your hope?



3) I, Comey's old boss (Rudy Guliani), and many other actual legal experts (and other people who can read) would disagree with your contention that "intent is necessary" under this law...whether or not you think it is absurd.


The SCOTUS ruled on this in the 40's. Intent is needed. Only one other time has someone been prosecuted under that statute since it was passed in to law.

Do you know why? Intent is needed.

Did you watch Comey's testimony? He talks about all the other legal "experts" saying they could charge her under that statute and laughs in their face. It's only been done once.

Stop listening to legal "experts" that put their politics before the law.
edit on 24-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: aethertek

WTF dude,no wrong doing,at the least she should be charged with treason,no wonder worlds messed up,too many like you who say"Obama or Hillary can't do wrong,it's the elite making up storys,we are doomed



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I want to point out a personal observation. I can understand those that are supporting the democrat ticket but Not Hillary. I have heard many who say they just don't agree with the GOP platform. I wonder if those who are legitimately supporting Hillary too, doing it because they are trying to make themselves feel better, truly believe none of it matters, or both?

True: I have a personal bias on the parties too. I see the Dems as handing out fish to those in need, thus creating collective dependencies. The Repubs, seem to believe in more individual responsibility. Aka: if a man learns how to fish, he will be able to feed himself. So naturally, one can see from my wording above that I believe in order to enjoy real freedom and liberty, one must retain their independence.

One needs to vote their individual conscious, make sure it is your conscious voting not the collective proproganda. We all ask what is in it for me? Weigh our personal pros and cons. I respect that humbling honesty with oneself. I know it seems selfish, but that is what it is. One vote, one voice. I want the freedom and independence to expand my horizon. Americans are very charitable when called upon to volunteer support for a cause, no one should be forced. Others may feel different than I. For whatever reason, be honest with yourself first and share that honesty with others. Otherwise, no one can truly understand or empathasize with your reasoning.

Sorry about my personal rant.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mobiusmale



1) Proving perjury is not too difficult when you have Hillary on video lying to Congress.


Does that video show her intentionally lying in order to deceive, or does it show that she said what she honestly thought to be true, but happened to be wrong? Remember, she didn't go through the emails. Her lawyers did.

Right there creates plausible deniability.



2) No, there were a large number of "email fragments" that the FBI was not able to reconstruct, due the manner in which they were deleted from Clinton's hard drives and other storage devices (as stated by Comey). But, for every Sender, there is a Receiver...and other means to capture unsecure transmissions in real time...so lots more potentially to come.


Do you really think there will be any information there that will sink Hillary? Or is that your hope?



3) I, Comey's old boss (Rudy Guliani), and many other actual legal experts (and other people who can read) would disagree with your contention that "intent is necessary" under this law...whether or not you think it is absurd.


The SCOTUS ruled on this in the 40's. Intent is needed. Only one other time has someone been prosecuted under that statute since it was passed in to law.

Do you know why? Intent is needed.

Did you watch Comey's testimony? He talks about all the other legal "experts" saying they could charge her under that statute and laughs in their face. It's only been done once.

Stop listening to legal "experts" that put their politics before the law.


Odd they went after Petraeus and he was guilty of mishandling classified materials. There was no intent other than banging his biographer. Intent wasn't a requirement for conviction. And do to thr charge can no longer ever handle classified documents. Your silly if you believe you can't be tried for incompetance with classified material.
edit on 8/24/16 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64




Exactly where do we belong?


Considering the mostly ignorant bassackward beliefs that you people espouse, out of the national discourse would be a good place to start.

K~



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mobiusmale



1) Proving perjury is not too difficult when you have Hillary on video lying to Congress.


Does that video show her intentionally lying in order to deceive, or does it show that she said what she honestly thought to be true, but happened to be wrong? Remember, she didn't go through the emails. Her lawyers did.

Right there creates plausible deniability.



2) No, there were a large number of "email fragments" that the FBI was not able to reconstruct, due the manner in which they were deleted from Clinton's hard drives and other storage devices (as stated by Comey). But, for every Sender, there is a Receiver...and other means to capture unsecure transmissions in real time...so lots more potentially to come.


Do you really think there will be any information there that will sink Hillary? Or is that your hope?



3) I, Comey's old boss (Rudy Guliani), and many other actual legal experts (and other people who can read) would disagree with your contention that "intent is necessary" under this law...whether or not you think it is absurd.


The SCOTUS ruled on this in the 40's. Intent is needed. Only one other time has someone been prosecuted under that statute since it was passed in to law.

Do you know why? Intent is needed.

Did you watch Comey's testimony? He talks about all the other legal "experts" saying they could charge her under that statute and laughs in their face. It's only been done once.

Stop listening to legal "experts" that put their politics before the law.


Odd they went after Petraeus and he was guilty of mishandling classified materials. There was no intent other than banging his biographer. Intent wasn't a requirement for conviction. And do to thr charge can no longer ever handle classified documents. Your silly if you believe you can't be tried for incompetance with classified material.


Did you listen to Comey's testimony? He made it very clear how Petraeus' case was very different. He hid the material under the insulation in his attic, lied to the FBI about it and made it very clear in his communications that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

They had intent and intentional misconduct. Even then, he was only charged with a misdemeanor.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I agree that Comey stated the only action that would have happened is restriction of security clearance and since Clinton did not currently have access, there is nothing they could do officially. That may be the real reason why Comey described his investigation in such great detail. If Clinton is elected as President, their hands will still be tied. The President has to have access to this information. I imagine he is personally frustrated with so many in America not recognizing his statement for what it was! He couldn't legally restrict her access, but the people of America could!



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: mobiusmale



1) Proving perjury is not too difficult when you have Hillary on video lying to Congress.


Does that video show her intentionally lying in order to deceive, or does it show that she said what she honestly thought to be true, but happened to be wrong? Remember, she didn't go through the emails. Her lawyers did.

Right there creates plausible deniability.



2) No, there were a large number of "email fragments" that the FBI was not able to reconstruct, due the manner in which they were deleted from Clinton's hard drives and other storage devices (as stated by Comey). But, for every Sender, there is a Receiver...and other means to capture unsecure transmissions in real time...so lots more potentially to come.


Do you really think there will be any information there that will sink Hillary? Or is that your hope?



3) I, Comey's old boss (Rudy Guliani), and many other actual legal experts (and other people who can read) would disagree with your contention that "intent is necessary" under this law...whether or not you think it is absurd.


The SCOTUS ruled on this in the 40's. Intent is needed. Only one other time has someone been prosecuted under that statute since it was passed in to law.

Do you know why? Intent is needed.

Did you watch Comey's testimony? He talks about all the other legal "experts" saying they could charge her under that statute and laughs in their face. It's only been done once.

Stop listening to legal "experts" that put their politics before the law.


Odd they went after Petraeus and he was guilty of mishandling classified materials. There was no intent other than banging his biographer. Intent wasn't a requirement for conviction. And do to thr charge can no longer ever handle classified documents. Your silly if you believe you can't be tried for incompetance with classified material.


Did you listen to Comey's testimony? He made it very clear how Petraeus' case was very different. He hid the material under the insulation in his attic, lied to the FBI about it and made it very clear in his communications that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

They had intent and intentional misconduct. Even then, he was only charged with a misdemeanor.


Did you?? One you bought a lie hook line and sinker. He didn't hiDE classified material in his attic. He was prosecuted for leaving it out on a desk that his biographer had access to. In other words he didn't lock up classified documents when his mistress came over for sex. Just like Hillary didn't secure her documents on a government server but left it open on an unsecured server. There really is no diffrence other than one was electronic thr other was actual files.

The only question was did his biographer also break national security reading said documents. They apparently decided she didn't sign anything on classified material and couldn't be held responsible.PS try getting your news from real new sources instrad of tweets or instagram



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



One you bought a lie hook line and sinker. He didn't hiDE classified material in his attic. He was prosecuted for leaving it out on a desk that his biographer had access to.


I stand corrected. Comey did say he misspoke. They found the material in his desk.



Just like Hillary didn't secure her documents on a government server but left it open on an unsecured server. There really is no diffrence other than one was electronic thr other was actual files.


Physically being in possession of that material and other statements he had made prove his intent.



PS try getting your news from real new sources instrad of tweets or instagram


No need to be rude. I'm quite well informed on the issue, minus the Comey correction.

I don't even read twitter or instagram, but thanks for assuming.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: MOMof3

I hope with the crushing of Drumpf(trumps real surname) & his acolytes in November America can finally put this segment of it's population back where they belong.





originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: aethertek

And you claim Conservatives are bigots.
Exactly where do we belong? Are we "less than" Hillary supporters? Or are we free Americans? Free to choose who we like and free to voice that opinion?? You sound like a very dangerous person, ready to put anyone who disagrees, "in their place", which is basically how Liberals work. You don't like what they say? Why, you belong in jail or there outta be a law that says you can't disagree.
You "tolerant Liberals" are starting to show your true colors.




originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: DAVID64


Considering the mostly ignorant bassackward beliefs that you people espouse, out of the national discourse would be a good place to start.

K~


If being "bassackwards" means having the common sense and foresight to try and protect your country from what France and Germany have been dealing with, rather than installing a turnstile with a welcome sign, then consider me guilty.
edit on 24-8-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

The left does not write laws trying to put women in jail for not getting an ultrasound. They are all liars but what is put in law effects me.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: DAVID64

The left does not write laws trying to put women in jail for not getting an ultrasound. They are all liars but what is put in law effects me.

HEADS UP!



This thread used to be about Hillary Clinton's transgressions.

It is apparently about abortion laws now.

Carry on.... nothing to see here.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: dragonridr




But it's a matter of denial and blaming some right wing conspiracy.


There is proof of a right wing conspiracy. Benghazi hearings.


Care to provide a source of proof, or is that just your contention?



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nucleardoom

originally posted by: muse7
And yet the FBI completed it's investigation and concluded that she didn't do anything illegal, and all of these "new" emails have provided nothing of substance.

Perhaps there is just smoke but no fire.


No it's more like a 7 alarm towering inferno with a building 7 type collapse come October. Trump will need note cards at the debates to keep track of all the Hillary corruption talking points. It will be easy for Trump to destroy her in the debates but, there won't even be enough time during three debates to cover all the deceit, lies and corruption. It is staggering when you sit back and think of it all.


Yes it is staggering, which is why I'm so disappointed that Hillary Clinton is even close to Donald Trump in the polls. If Hillary wins, I'll feel like Michelle Obama did about America, before her husband was elected President.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: dragonridr




But it's a matter of denial and blaming some right wing conspiracy.


There is proof of a right wing conspiracy. Benghazi hearings.


Care to provide a source of proof, or is that just your contention?


Do I really need to provide a link for the numerous Benghazi hearings? Did the republicans hold that many hearings to find the truth behind the almost 60+ people that died in embassy attacks under Bush?

www.politifact.com...

No they did not. Obviously, that is proof of a conspiracy to conduct a witch hunt.



posted on Aug, 24 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: carewemust

We live in a world of people unable to construct original thought. Just the fact people are slaves to the two party propaganda says it all. The fact people think choosing a master makes them free is nuts.

Take a step back and see the world for what it is, a series of human farms. When you consider the dumbing down of the population its easy to understand why they can't see two feet in front of them.


Right! It seems like the Obama government is using chemtrails, or something, to "dumb down" the American people. We would never even consider voting for someone with this volume of personal and profession problems, until now.

I remember how Presidential candidate Herman Cain was drummed out of the race for doing just a tiny amount of what Hillary Clinton did with her pay-to-play schemes.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join