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

James O'Keefe Deadmans Switch On: Hillary Will Be Implicated Monday Part III Project Veritas

page: 12
109
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Interesting points, and comments Schuyler,
I think the issue would be all but dead
if it were not for them reviving it as a strategy
to bash Trump.




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Phage

Yes, she can. She can't pardon the impeachment, but before the impeachment process ever begins she can pardon the charges they would bring up. If that happens there is nothing to impeach.

Nixon is a perfect example. He resigned and was pardoned which killed the impeachment process.



Not by himself lol..by the next president. I would be surprised if you can pardon yourself..



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I'm sorry but at this point if Hillary hasn't been implicated on anything then there is nothing else they can release that will implicate her. I've come to point where I have accepted Hillary as our next President. I wish her the best of luck and my God be with everyone. I do not wish her bad as I want what is best for our country. I am not optimistic that she can do that but what other choice do I have.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yes, a president can pardon themselves.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Not against impeachment.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Let's start this circle again...

Yes, a president can preemptively pardon charges that could be brought against them for impeachment, hence preventing an impeachment from ever taking place.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
Please present precedent to support your contention.

Unless an impeachment is initiated there are no "charges."



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I can't help but feel you are being lazy...

www.nytimes.com...

www.google.com...

What do you not understand about a preemptive pardon?

And yes, if Hilary knows she is guilty of something she would know what the potential charges would be, if she didn't you can bet she'd have a crack legal team tell her what they could potentially be.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




What do you not understand about a preemptive pardon?

What do you not understand about a pardon against impeachment being invalid?


The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


Nixon resigned before impeachment proceedings were invoked. Therefore Ford could pardon him.

Clinton, after being inaugurated, could not exempt herself from impeachment. Nor could she pardon herself before inauguration. If she resigned, after inauguration and before impeachment, Kaine could pardon her. Yes.


edit on 10/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The Impeachment process had already started when Nixon resigned.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I strongly recommend you read the enclosed piece before further advancing your assertion that a US president possesses the power to pardon himself (or herself). View it for its instructive qualities, and you will be well on the way to a better understanding of the limitation of the president's pardoning power.

Puh, puh, puh.

The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: SudoNim

How is it beyond proven, where's the proof?


Two of Hillary's operatives were selling the story in 08.
They shopped the story with news outlets, one who went
on record and wrote about it.


Two supporters of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign reportedly shared the claim that then-rival Barack Obama was not born in the United States and thus was not eligible to be president.

One was a volunteer in Iowa, who was fired, Clinton’s former campaign manager said Friday. The other was Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, according to a former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief.


www.mcclatchydc.com...


So why did you say Hillary Clinton started it?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: SudoNim

Matt drudge was one of the first people to break the image and the birther issue and he has always maintained/claimed, from the time he put it up, that he was forwarded all the info from the Clinton camp. The Clinton camp has never denied his claim.

Hilary's campaign manager already admitted someone from their camp started circulating the story and that they were fired when Hilary found out.


So there is no proof or evidence that Hillary started the birther story?

Yet burntheships says there is "beyond proof"?

Do all Trump supporters make things up and try to get away with it?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher




You really support these illegal actions!?

You are judge and jury?
Conviction based on a dubious video?


At least I'm well informed enough to know that it is illegal to collude with SuperPacs & election campaigns cannot pay people to incite violence! Did you not watch the videos!? Clearly illegal actions.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: thepixelpusher




You really support these illegal actions!?

You are judge and jury?
Conviction based on a dubious video?


At least I'm well informed enough to know that it is illegal to collude with SuperPacs & election campaigns cannot pay people to incite violence! Did you not watch the videos!? Clearly illegal actions.


It matters not, Hillary is above the law. That is what happens when a small group of people size power in a democracy.
edit on 24/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth
With outside influence by the Rothschilds I might add. The US is being taken over with the help of outside financial influence and Hillary is their front.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
The US was taken over decades ago.

President Reagan was when the big money people realised they could just place anybody they wanted in the Presidency who would just do what he was told. So they picked a C-list actor and made him President.

To pretend this takeover is anything new is to forget history, no?

There is no 'American Democracy'. You guys seriously need to get a lot more interested in electoral reform. It should really be the One Big Issue dominating American political discourse.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
This was all I ever needed to hear about the situation:

"Mr. O'Keefe, will you release the unedited version of this material?"

"No, that would tell a completely different story than the one I want to tell."

The sad thing here and now is that many of you who KNOW BETTER are slurping up slop that would make the MSM blush merely because it satisfies your pet political beliefs.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Has Part III been released?

STM



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TramperoJuan

You realize your link disagrees with you right? It says the court has never ruled on it and that it has almost been excercised a few times. The author then goes on to make his case If it ended up before the Supreme Court, should they ever be forced to rule on it. Did you even read your link?



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join