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

Political threats against Chief Justice Roberts by HRC campaign for ACA vote....

page: 1
30
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
So this is a nice little window into how they deal....they blatantly state that they would threaten Roberts and Kennedy's political careers if the vote in the King v Burwell case does not go their way....and guess who voted their way....Roberts and Kennedy, with Kennedy having been against it before which tells me their political threat got to him.

Gotta love how politics ACTUALLY work versus they want us to THINK is going on....

Here is the email chain from wikileaks Podesta emails....(apologies on the format but it was the best I could do copy/pasting)





Adding Brian Fallon and Christina.

She has already been making this an issue. Not sure how in depth you are suggesting but seems like this should be manageable.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:41 PM, Neera Tanden wrote:

ok. And to clarify, the candidate wouldn't have to do anything. I think we could move the story with just a nod from the campaign on the strategy.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Jake Sullivan wrote:

> I’m into it but defer to Jen on this one.

> > > > *From:* Neera Tanden [mailto:ntanden@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 2, 2015 8:37 PM > *To:* Jake Sullivan > *Cc:* Jennifer Palmieri; John Podesta

> *Subject:* Re: King v Burwell

> > > > oops!

> > I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it's a bit more current

> now.

> > > > It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court,
> but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it's possible
> they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking
> the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will
> remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down
> last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would
> politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a
> close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring
> Roberts off.

> > > > In this case, I'm not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking
> the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in a
> decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative
> political consequences to ruling against the government.

> > Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives
> and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be
> a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government.
> It's not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary
> consequence of a negative decision...the Court itself would become a hugely
> important political issue.


> > > > At CAP Action, we can get that story started. But kinda rests on you guys
> to make it stick.

> > > > What do you think? If you want to proceed, we should move soon.

> > > > Let me know thoughts. And I'm happy to discuss.

> > > > Neera





posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And?

What am I missing here? SCOTUS justices don't face criticism for their rulings from politicians? Yeaaaah. SCOTUS is obviously an election issue so if that was a threat, it seems like a moot point to me.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Wow Vasa!
This is pretty telling and what many suspect happened with that debacle. I am still convinced the Chief Justice was directly threatened and at the eleventh hour to boot. The wikileaks will continue to be discredited and ignored by the media and the beat goes on.
SF



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
THREAT



+8 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe

And?

What am I missing here? SCOTUS justices don't face criticism for their rulings from politicians? Yeaaaah. SCOTUS is obviously an election issue so if that was a threat, it seems like a moot point to me.


Threatening political assassination of the Chief Justice of the United States because he goes against the acting government is no big deal to you? Plotting this political assassination and talking about threatening it is no big deal?


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I think the conversation about using the "political" consequences as leverage being before the ruling has a little context. It may not align with your view but many thought that Roberts did a 180 the morning of the vote and suspected something sinister.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

The term "Blackmail File" comes to mind.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
So, here and now we have clear evidence that Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party expect the Supreme Court to make legal rulings not based on the Law and the Constitution - but based on the political agenda and whims of the Party.

I do not know what is scarier, that Clinton thinks she has the right (and would be willing to) pressure Supreme Court Justices to rule the way she wants them to - or that members of the Bench are susceptible to such pressure.

This is one of the fundamental concepts of free societies...like the United States, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, etc....that an overarching Constitution, which codifies the Rights and Freedoms of the society, is the supreme law of the land. No Law passed by a legislative body, or actions taken by a Government or Government official, can be in contravention of this supreme law.

Any attempt of such contraventions can be taken to the Courts - which are to function as independent from the legislative branches and executive branches of Government - and at the Supreme Court level they are to have the final authority to agree with...or strike down...such actions.

The entire Unites States system of governance is in serious jeopardy if this kind of direct political interference in judicial proceedings is allowed to stand.

Am I shocked at this?

Not in the least, given Clinton's history of thumbing her nose at her legal and constitutional responsibilities.

Want an example of how quickly things can go wrong in a Country, if this kind of political meddling is allowed, with Government branches which are supposed to act independent of poilitcal pressure and influence?

Lets say...

1) A Secretary of State set up a home-version unsecured server, and handled all email correspondence on it - including the transmission of Classified materials.
2) Let's say she also had a Foundation, which brings in billions of dollars from people, corporations and governments around the world...and she used her office as Secretary of State to offer donors (and people who hire her and her husband to give high-priced speeches) special access and favours.
3) This would be very troublesome, if found out and fully explored, to the sitting President...and to the prospects of that Party getting this Secretary of State nominated and elected in the next cycle.
4) Word starts leaking out...so the Department of Justice and the FBI, at the President's direction "appear" to conduct an investigation - but the direction from the White House is bury the problem before the election
5) So, the FBI director concludes his investigation without a recommendation...and a couple of days later the Attorney General says "case closed".

See how this works? The President, and the Presidential-hopeful, put pressure on the supposedly independent DOJ, which puts pressure on the supposedly independent FBI...which turns a blind eye to rampant crime and corruption.

The similarly supposedly independent, but similarly controlled, MSM plays the mandated tune on the failure to bring charges...and a large percentage of the population are happy to buy the line that "she must be innocent, because she was not charged".

I guess the question for the American public is...if you are willing to stand by and witness the complete corruption of the Congress by special interests and other...if you are also willing to stand by and witness the complete corruption of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Executive Branch...

...are you now also willing to stand by and be witness to the complete corruption of the United States Supreme Court?

If so, then welcome to your new Dictatorship, and your new Dictator. I hope she deigns to allow, at least some percentage, of the people she holds in contempt (the Deplorables, the Catholics, the Evangelicals, etc.) to live and remain free.

Wake up America!
edit on 13-10-2016 by mobiusmale because: typo



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
It's all coming out now.




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I can't imagine the file she will have on her fist impartial SCOTUS nominee?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

you really laid out the reasons for outrage and fear. I have always thought the Supreme's untouchable until '12. Maybe I have been naive and will be schooled and that's cool but all three branches of our government have to act independently for this thing to work regardless of political parties.
edit on 10/13/2016 by howmuch4another because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
the quote Joe Biden when the Obamacare bill was passed, this is a "big phucking deal!"



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

All for nothing I'm afraid.

The Propaganda Media will not cover anti-Hillary news in any meaningful form, so the electorate will remain uninformed, and Hillary's supporters won't care, they follow her with the conviction that a cultist follows a God.

Though the latter is quite a common trait amongst supporters of all high-profile people.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Our system was only ever really as untouchable as good men and women allowed it to remain so because they respected the system and what it stood for. The American left does not respect that system and there is growing evidence that a large portion of the so-called American establishment right doesn't anymore either because they can get rich playing as "opposition" to the left.

So long as we don't wake up and understand what's really going on, they will all continue to get rich off us and play us all right into the ground under their boot heels.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The fact that HRC's own team was colluding to politically assassinate someone for not voting for ACA is very telling. It lends a LOT of credibility to the fact that she plans on continuing with ACA but with her additions that will ruin us. It also shows that they can have power over the highest court in the nation....that is scary.

What is funny is that Bill shot ACA down in one of his last few speeches....so should we blame HRC for the failure?
edit on 10/13/16 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

I think in February of this year, we learned how touchable Supreme Court Justices were.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Totally agree. That is why the Justices being susceptible to outside influence like mobius mentioned is so scary. If they don't hold the line on integrity were doomed. We've become accustomed to the scandalous maneuvering and political bribery that happens special interests and politicians but not so much the highest adjudicators in the land.
Maybe i have just been blind to it though and they are just a cog in a corrupt system. The patriot in me hoped for better.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I regret I missed that thread thanks. I'll comment on Scalia there.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

This stuff is from 2015 but the ACA ruling was June 28, 2012



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

I feel the same way. I think this is all for nothing unless it goes mainstream. Even then, it's probably too late.

At this point in time, I think that the only way the hacks will have any effect on the election, is some sort of grand undeniable gesture. Something like a major hack of people's Facebook accounts, or hacking into some live TV event such as MNF or the next debate.




top topics



 
30
<<   2 >>

log in

join