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.

 

"If This Does Not Disqualify Hillary For The Presidency, It's Hard To Know What Will"

page: 2
71
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I see a future TV show .....

"Clinton Family Values"





posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
The title of the article is theirs.... for at this stage regardless of the corruption and illegal acts she has been accused of committing the justice department will not prosecute her and probably slap down any other agency who tries ... Even if she was found guilty of half the time honored laws she has evidently broken Obama would pardon her simply because she is a democrat and the chosen one of the war mongering elitist IMO.

Nothing new really just more damning information about Clinton's corruption while Secretary of State.. It really was a pay as you play set up with the Clinton foundation receiving money for state department favors.. All the MSM misdirection while maybe pointing at wrong doing has really been a diversion from the actual shenanigans that were being carried out when she had the power of the state department at her back.

The Democratic nominee obviously didn’t set up her server with the express purpose of exposing national secrets—that was incidental. She set up the server to keep secret the details of the Clintons’ private life—a life built around an elaborate and sweeping money-raising and self-promoting entity known as the Clinton Foundation.



Mrs. Clinton’s problem—as we now know from this week’s release of emails from Huma Abedin’s private Clinton-server account—was that there was no divide between public and private. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and her family foundation were one seamless entity—employing the same people, comparing schedules, mixing foundation donors with State supplicants. This is why she maintained a secret server, and why she deleted 15,000 emails that should have been turned over to the government.


[snip]


Mostly, we learned this week that Mrs. Clinton’s foundation issue goes far beyond the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. This is straight-up pay to play. When Mr. Band sends an email demanding a Hillary meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain and notes that he’s a “good friend of ours,” what Mr. Band means is that the crown prince had contributed millions to a Clinton Global Initiative scholarship program, and therefore has bought face time. It doesn’t get more clear-cut, folks.

Actually out of the 154 people who had face time with the USA's Secretary of state more than half were you guessed it "Clinton foundation donors !"
www.zerohedge.com...



Have you noticed that we have a window into the deepest democrat secrets (their emails) and what do we have???


Not much.


There is literally so little they can't even claim any actual wrong doing. They have their private emails and still can only claim allegedly.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

The evidence is in her behavior, and reactions to these severe accusations as well as the documented circumstantial evidence. Instead of owning her mistakes she deflects, distracts, and then tries to blame those around her, typical behavior of a criminal when caught. Why do you think all these people donated to the Clinton foundation, and just happened to associate with Hillary as secretary? They did not donate out of good will, they donated knowing they would get more back through taxpayers money.

She suspiciously destroyed the evidence you speak of. If a robber were breaking in your house, would you think he was only washing your windows?



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Hillary will never be criminally prosecuted for two reasons:

1. She did not act alone. Too many other people would be taken down with her, so it's in too many people's best interests to protect her in order to protect themselves.

2. If any charges were brought before the election/inauguration, Obama would give her a blanket pardon.

This kind of unchecked lawlessness was inevitable from the moment the power of the Citizens Grand Jury was taken from the people.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

That's where it gets tricky. Obama can't pardon her until she is convicted. Once elected, she can't pardon herself. It will be up to Kaine to pardon her a la Ford.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Sublimecraft



If WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange lives long enough to carry out his threat to release more dirt on Clinton maybe it will be the final nail in the coffin of corruption for the Clintons. I still have my doubts though ... Welcome to the US of A Banana republic.
stream.org...



I've heard this sentiment about Assange echoed many times. It seems obvious to me that it doesn't matter so much if Assange gets murdered because anyone in their right mind would have a whole support team behind them if they held such valuable information.

If Assange dies, not only will the information still surface, but he'll be martyred and even more attention will be drawn to the Clintons & co.
He just happens to be the mouthpiece.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
How come she needs to be reminded who 'her good friends' are?

If she's on a first name basis with the Prince of Bahrain (or whomever), Huma shouldn't need to be pointing this out.

Unless of course, 'good friend of ours' is code for 'big ass donor needs a favor now'.

And Hillary broke the laws about immediately returning all her communications to the government as soon as she left office. That alone disqualifies her for a promotion, and would have gotten her frogwalked out of Foggy Bottom at the time, if the rules were 'return them before you vacate your office, instead of immediately afterwards' as they should have been.

How many of us would have gotten a promotion for being 'extremely careless' with our employer's secrets and communications?

And then there's Trump, who is just insane, not schemingly so...



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
There were others that are not included on the list because they are actual employees of foreign governments or heads of state.... and they ponied up another 174 million dollars, if my memory serves me correctly. I will go look for a link.


Yep. Here is that link...

An additional 170 + million from Officials who gave to The Foundation


It’s implausible that a majority of the 154 citizens — people who’d kicked in at least $156 million to her charity — would also happen to catch Clinton’s ear as she toiled away at State. It’s also worth remembering this list doesn’t even include officials from the 16 governments — many of them autocrats — who threw the foundation another $170 million. nypost.com...



edit on 29-8-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: hellobruce

So, basically you're saying you don't mind someone this underhanded and manipulative being President? Someone who takes every advantage of their position and power to enrich themselves, at the detriment and risk of the people she's suppose to be protecting? Someone who has shown countless times, she will lie, twist and deflect to hide her schemes? There may be a thin line between legal, ethical and moral, but Clinton passes that line long ago.
She is a pathological liar, who has misled and deceived the American people for decades.


you have made assumptions not based on actual evidence....therefore your questions are moot since they remain speculative
edit on 29-8-2016 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
so....a 2-term ex-president and his wife set up a charitable foundation, and wealthy people donated to these various charities located around the world, and these charities help poor people.....how is this a criminal enterprise?.....
edit on 29-8-2016 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

QUICK!
tell them YOU aren't VOTING for her or they'll REND you.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Could you elaborate on the "GRAND JURY" thing?


+2 more 
posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

...you GOTTA be kidding me.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Like the old Indian saying goes, keep your ear to the rail.
Its already in the pipe.



edit on 29-8-2016 by flatbush71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships
Thanks, BTS.
I looked but didn't find it.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Boadicea

That's where it gets tricky. Obama can't pardon her until she is convicted. Once elected, she can't pardon herself. It will be up to Kaine to pardon her a la Ford.


Hmmmmm... I've never heard that.

Ford pardoned Nixon immediately after taking office, though he had not been charged with any criminal offenses. I'm not even sure if the Senate had brought formal impeachment charges yet, or if they were still working on it.

I did some searching, and according to Daily Kos (March 2016):


The Justice Department requires that anyone requesting a pardon wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.


Guess what a President Trump would have the legal authority to do?

If that's changed though, I'd be interested in reading more about it... I don't need links necessarily, but maybe just point me in the right direction?



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
It really was a pay as you play set up with the Clinton foundation receiving money for state department favors.


People are either forgetting or they aren't aware that the SCOTUS' Citizens United ruling distinguishes between "hard money" (a quid-pro-quo bribe) and "soft money" (donors buying access and influence due to contributions). SCOTUS ruled that the latter is free speech and NOT illegal.

Now, I don't believe that EITHER should be allowed in our government/politics, but this is the current law.



Don't like soft money in politics influencing access and influence? Don't like Wall Street paying $500,000 per speech to someone in line to run for president? Then support campaign finance reform, fight to tighten up campaign finance loopholes, and vote for politicians who pledge to overturn Citizens United.
...
It is the height of hypocrisy for Republicans to complain about soft-money influence in politics, when Trump openly brags about having using soft money donations to influence New York and New Jersey politicians from the 80's on in his real estate business. That's part of his shtick. And now Republicans express themselves shocked, SHOCKED, to find that soft money donations influenced state department access in the Clinton years.


Source

Comical!



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Boadicea

Could you elaborate on the "GRAND JURY" thing?


I'm speaking off the top of my head here... but basically, in the post-Revolution days, the Citizens Grand Jury could convene at will, with both investigatory and charging powers, and citizens could bring any matter they deemed appropriate to the Citizens Grand Jury. Thus giving the people the right and the authority and the power to hold government officials accountable for their actions.

Here is just a little from Wikipedia:


In the early decades of the United States grand juries played a major role in public matters. During that period counties followed the traditional practice of requiring all decisions be made by at least twelve of the grand jurors, (e.g., for a twenty-three-person grand jury, twelve people would constitute a bare majority). Any citizen could bring a matter before a grand jury directly, from a public work that needed repair, to the delinquent conduct of a public official, to a complaint of a crime, and grand juries could conduct their own investigations. In that era most criminal prosecutions were conducted by private parties, either a law enforcement officer, a lawyer hired by a crime victim or his family, or even by laymen. A layman could bring a bill of indictment to the grand jury; if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant. The grand jury would then appoint the complaining party to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case.


This might have more information (but I just skimmed it):

IF IT'S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT'S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY


Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact "runaways," according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Your welcome. My poor brain, all of these dirty Clinton
things stuck in there.




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: 727Sky
regardless of the corruption and illegal acts she has been accused of committing the justice department will not prosecute her


They need this thing called "EVIDENCE" to bring a case for prosecution.... despite what you want!


Even if she was found guilty of half the time honored laws she has evidently broken


Care to show us this "EVIDENCE" you apparently have?



Any person with a #ing brain stem can see the corruption at play here. . . .




top topics



 
71
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join