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

Trump Moves To File Charges Against Clinton

page: 2
123
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: xuenchen

Lol!

Please take this court! Worst case scenario voter fraud and inciting riots is found. Best case scenario, a judge laughs Trump out of court.


I really need someone to explain this to me. I am serious here.

Worst case scenario voter fraud. That's what that says right??? So you think that's a worst case scenario possibility. Yet, Donald Trump says he will decide on election day if he is going to accept the results and everyone freaks out? Because Donald Trump is crazy to think that there could be voter fraud?

I'm sorry I can't follow



+6 more 
posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It was an attempt to intimidate voters from attending the rallies to hear their candidate speak. That's interfering with the rights of voters.

What kind of a country is this if thugs are allowed to prevent peaceful gatherings to hear a candidate speak?

This was a clear attempt to interfere with the rights of voters and to intimidate them.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
A reminder that this is NOT the Mud Pit...

Please keep the personal attacks, partisan mud slinging and all around trollery out of this thread. Posts that run afoul of this request will be removed as deemed appropriate. You also run the risk of having your posting privileges suspended. So, yeah, don't go there.

Remember that posts removed for political trollery automatically count as TWO warnings.

Consider this fair warning.

As usual, do NOT respond to this post.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
It was an attempt to intimidate voters from attending the rallies to hear their candidate speak. That's interfering with the rights of voters.

That is how you want to see it but the law that you cited is clearly speaking about casting your vote and nothing else, including rallies.
edit on 22-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
I'm sorry I can't follow

Not surprising, since you seem to be asking about different people's opinions.
edit on 22-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Oh well. Trump has gone and done it now. He won't survive very long if he loses.

Might not last too long if he wins either. The last populist President was Kennedy, and look what happened to him.

Though I do hope something comes of this, no doubt any trial will stretch on for months if not years though.

edit on -050009pm10kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You're right. That is my mistake, that opinion was not specifically expressed by the poster that I quoted. I simply find it hard to understand how evidence of voter fraud can exist at the same time as such a strong reaction from the media and democrats in general* that Donald Trump is outrageous for saying the thing could be rigged. It just boggles the mind.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: daskakik

It was an attempt to intimidate voters from attending the rallies to hear their candidate speak. That's interfering with the rights of voters.

What kind of a country is this if thugs are allowed to prevent peaceful gatherings to hear a candidate speak?

This was a clear attempt to interfere with the rights of voters and to intimidate them.



Sounds like civil rights violations.

Where is the GD ACLU?




posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Sources argue Trump could file the lawsuit as early as next week. Hillary Clinton deserves prison, and this is just another glaringly obvious example.

We need better sources because I'm not willing to post what I've found to try and back this up. If it's a false story then I will apologize for jumping the gun.


edit on 22-10-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluerabbit7788
a reply to: xuenchen

dont worry after election trumps gonna be in court plenty after 11 women have now come forward with sexual assault allegations.

he get his day in court just like bill cosby.


Keep fooling yourself.

Anyway, this case definitely has legs. Its the RNC that should be suing but they have no balls.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluerabbit7788
a reply to: xuenchen

dont worry after election trumps gonna be in court plenty after 11 women have now come forward with sexual assault allegations.

he get his day in court just like bill cosby.


Hillary has a couple of dozen FOIA lawsuits against her. The FOIA is for your protection. Again, FOIA is a GOOD thing for YOU. Her and her staff violated the law. Pleading the 5th and immunity does nothing for civil lawsuits. Her and the SD will lose every single one of those cases which is a GOOD THING FOR YOU AND AMERICANS.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow. What a sore loser, right?



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
I simply find it hard to understand how evidence of voter fraud can exist at the same time as such a strong reaction from the media and democrats in general* that Donald Trump is outrageous for saying the thing could be rigged. It just boggles the mind.

Swills' statement is not proof of voter fraud. He is just saying, in my opinion, that that is as far as this could go.

Also Trump hasn't said that it could be rigged, I'm pretty sure he has said that it is rigged.

Swill is just stating the scope of the matter so there is no burden of proof. Trump on the other hand would have to have something to back up his statement and that is probably the reason for the reaction.

Of course, a strong reaction would have been the result no matter what.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   


Soros is counting the votes and the msm is ignoring it all. I hope people wake up!



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I am not trying to say that Swill's statement is proof of voter fraud. I am saying that the videos are proof. I am saying the videos are Trump's proof of voter fraud. Which would make his statement true. It would mean the game is rigged.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
I am not trying to say that Swill's statement is proof of voter fraud. I am saying that the videos are proof. I am saying the videos are Trump's proof of voter fraud. Which would make his statement true. It would mean the game is rigged.

So, what is Swills' statement and why did you juxtapose it to peoples reaction to Trump's?

Swills might not think the videos are proof and people reacting to Trump's statement might not think the videos are proof. I don't find that hard to follow. Seems pretty simple.
edit on 22-10-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I've been wondering where the ADL and SPLC is. I am pretty sure a group that intimidates voters would be considered a hate group.
Trump's hands have gotten more coverage than those videos. How pathetic. shame.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I quoted that poster because they are clearly not a fan of Trump, yet even they can see (worst case scenerio as the poster said) voter fraud.

If even a non-Trump supporter can see the fraud (worst case scenerio even), then why does the strong reaction to Trump's statements exist?

I was pointing out that it is hard for me to follow these two very different ideas at once. That democrats/the media in general are so appalled by the idea Donald Trump would say the election is rigged, while at the same time these videos exist and seem to prove that there was fraud.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ValentineWiggin

I don't know how Swills got "voter fraud" out of that - no voters were prohibited from exercising their franchise at the Trump Rally in Chicago, because no voting occurred there.

All "electoral fraud" and "voter fraud" situations are regarding the actual election process at the polls, or during the registration process, not campaigns for office.

So there is no chance of voter fraud being a charge from this event.

(What happened at the protest, and during organization of part of it, according to a journalist embedded with students)
Politico - Inside the Chicago Trump Rally Protest (UIC Students)

I think seeking charges under the Mob Action law is a bit of a stretch, especially to attempt to charge Clinton, but I will let the lawyers wrangle that one.

- AB
edit on 22-10-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
123
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join