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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Democrats Freak Out Over Trump Wanting to Prosecute Clinton

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
There's nothing more hypocritical than the Right.

They justifiably are called deplorable, and Clinton is thrashed not on the premise, but 'how many' she's talking about, in otherwords, they AGREE they are deplorable, but are angry about the reach of her statement?



"WELCOME MY DEPLORABLES!"

So much wow. You whiny bastards have compared this statement to the N-word in context of Hillary.




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

He didn't say he was going to lock her up.

What he said was that if he was elected president he would instruct his attorney general (whom many believe will be Christie) to find a special prosecutor to look into her case.

Then later when Hillary responded, she said that it's a good thing that people like Donald Trump aren't in charge of the laws to which Trump interjected - because you would be in jail.


Why a 'special' prosecutor and not any non-judgemental, professional prosecutor? I am missing something here.


A special prosecutor is an independent prosecutor.


Oh, so not liberal at all - rigid?


People were calling Obama to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton foundation, the IRS scandal for instance, for a while now. Obama wouldn't, even after Bill Clinton was found meeting privately with the Attourny General, presenting a great conflict of interest.


What I have found is that the elite in the institution of the law have their own set of problems, let's say persuations.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate


He just became my personal hero.

He wasn't already? It's not as if he hasn't been repeating it at his rallies for months.

edit on 10/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

He didn't say he was going to lock her up.

What he said was that if he was elected president he would instruct his attorney general (whom many believe will be Christie) to find a special prosecutor to look into her case.

Then later when Hillary responded, she said that it's a good thing that people like Donald Trump aren't in charge of the laws to which Trump interjected - because you would be in jail.


Why a 'special' prosecutor and not any non-judgemental, professional prosecutor? I am missing something here.


A special prosecutor is an independent prosecutor.


Oh, so not liberal at all - rigid?


People were calling Obama to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton foundation, the IRS scandal for instance, for a while now. Obama wouldn't, even after Bill Clinton was found meeting privately with the Attourny General, presenting a great conflict of interest.


What I have found is that the elite in the institution of the law have their own set of problems, let's say persuations.


You're probably right, but the point is that there is no threat to democracy here, or even no real problem, or else the democrats would not have called on Obama to do the same to Bush for war crimes back in 2008.

edit on 10-10-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

He didn't say he was going to lock her up.

What he said was that if he was elected president he would instruct his attorney general (whom many believe will be Christie) to find a special prosecutor to look into her case.

Then later when Hillary responded, she said that it's a good thing that people like Donald Trump aren't in charge of the laws to which Trump interjected - because you would be in jail.


Why a 'special' prosecutor and not any non-judgemental, professional prosecutor? I am missing something here.



Because Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case forward. Her email system was not reasonable at all therefore for a special prosecutor would be required. Nobody has ever set up their own personal server for Federal email. This is a very unique case.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

He didn't say he was going to lock her up.

What he said was that if he was elected president he would instruct his attorney general (whom many believe will be Christie) to find a special prosecutor to look into her case.

Then later when Hillary responded, she said that it's a good thing that people like Donald Trump aren't in charge of the laws to which Trump interjected - because you would be in jail.


Why a 'special' prosecutor and not any non-judgemental, professional prosecutor? I am missing something here.


A special prosecutor is an independent prosecutor.


Oh, so not liberal at all - rigid?


People were calling Obama to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton foundation, the IRS scandal for instance, for a while now. Obama wouldn't, even after Bill Clinton was found meeting privately with the Attourny General, presenting a great conflict of interest.


What I have found is that the elite in the institution of the law have their own set of problems, let's say persuations.


You're probably right, but the point is that there is no threat to democracy here, or even no real problem, or else the democrats would not have called on Obama to do the same to Bush for war crimes back in 2008.


The point here, is that Trump is defiling democracy by going after an opponent. Has he so little control over his ego?


+7 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

No, he's going after her because she may have committed crimes, and the current administration refused to appoint a special prosecutor, despite the grave conflicts of interest.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
If Trump gets in the White House and uses his position as president to jail a political opponent, it'll be his first taste of being a dictator. I don't see him going back.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Is this what you want?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

No, he's going after her because she may have committed crimes, and the current administration refused to appoint a special prosecutor, despite the grave conflicts of interest.


Am I wrong, but didn't the current government already conducted an investigation and it was determined that it was a cluster something and she really wasn't intentionally releasing classified information, that any other government official might be doing with their prostitutes?


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

No, he's going after her because she may have committed crimes, and the current administration refused to appoint a special prosecutor, despite the grave conflicts of interest.


Am I wrong, but didn't the current government already conducted an investigation and it was determined that it was a cluster something and she really wasn't intentionally releasing classified information, that any other government official might be doing with their prostitutes?


While at the same time there was visible conflict of interest. The husband of the person under investigation meeting with the Attourny General gives doubt to the entire investigation.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The Navy sailor, Kristian Saucier, who was found guilty of mishandling classifed mateiral on a much smaller scale is set to begin his prison sentence any day now.

Trump is simply stating a fact.

Hillary would be sentenced to jail ifnot for the intensely corrupt Whitehouse/DOJ.

It would be his duty as President to restore justice and checks/balances and hold the traitors accountable.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Should Trump be investigated for sexual assault?


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kaploink
Geez, I wonder if the Republicans would be outraged if Obama said he would instruct his AG to go after Romney or McCain after he was elected due to all the lies. That he would toss both in jail. I have a feeling the talk shows would be in full outrage mode.


Lies aren't mishandling classified information, destruction of evidence, coercion of witnesses, dereliction of duty resulting in 4 deaths, perjury under oath, colluding with enemies of America, exchanging high level political access for financial contributions, or araigning weapon sales to terrorist organizations.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Did Trump interfere with the legal process with his contribution to the Florida AG?
Is a meeting more damning than cash?


edit on 10/10/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: InTheLight

No, he's going after her because she may have committed crimes, and the current administration refused to appoint a special prosecutor, despite the grave conflicts of interest.


Am I wrong, but didn't the current government already conducted an investigation and it was determined that it was a cluster something and she really wasn't intentionally releasing classified information, that any other government official might be doing with their prostitutes?


While at the same time there was visible conflict of interest. The husband of the person under investigation meeting with the Attourny General gives doubt to the entire investigation.


Yes, indeed, her choice of husband who became President...a worthy and honourable achievement, would be a man of disgrace because he is oversexed. There are no words, except, words of understanding men of that make.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Let's continue to behave like uncivilized countries, past and present. Isn't one of the first things they do after gaining office is to have their opponent killed or jailed?

Let's take on all those dysfunctional and cruel behaviors. Trump is leading the way.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
The case should have been put on hold once Loretta met with Bill on the plane. She has no grandkids and does not play golf but talked about those two topics for 40 minutes. Nobody talks about topics they have nothing to add to for 40 minutes. 100% BS. I would bet my life on it, that's how confident I feel about it. She shoud have been removed from the case once that happened.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Did Trump interfere with the legal process with his contribution to the Florida AG?
Is a meeting more damning than cash?



Perhaps.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

The husband of someone under federal investigation meeting to talk with the nation's top law enforcement official is at the very least a conflict of interest.
edit on 10-10-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join