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

BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

page: 59
284
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Annee

You've been in denial for many moons regarding the crime and corruption surrounding the Clintons, brushing it off as business as usual and have been in denial about the FBI's and DOJ's role in the coverup.


Where are your Facts? Proof? Convictions? Anything, but your opinion?

Funny how that works in the UFO threads.

I am not in Denial of anything. And YES, I do consider what goes on in High Level International Politics - - - business as usual. Where's the Denial?

Your problem, as I see it - - - targeting only 2 people.

Personally, I'd say if you know who they are, if you know their faces, if they are the "front men" - - - they're not the real problem.

edit on 28-10-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
I think Comey now knows that Hillary Clinton is not eligible to have access to classified, much less top secret, information. He is giving her a graceful out. I look for her to withdraw soon, or face indictment. Kaine is creepy as hell, but he may have to step up to the plate.

Maybe Joe Biden knows this, too, and that's why he told everybody today that he will not serve as S.O.S., because he knows he may have to be the one to step up to the plate as prez candidate.


I was wondering how that would work.

Found this:


So that leaves the scenario people are talking about at the moment. What if a party’s nominee dies or voluntarily withdraws before the November election?

Three layers have to be unraveled on this question. First, and probably most important, is how a party goes about replacing its nominee. In the Democratic Party, the formal decision-making body is clear. The chair of the Democratic National Committee (currently Donna Brazile) would call a special meeting of the DNC, which is roughly a 447-person body. That body has the power to replace the party nominee, as far as the party is concerned. This is how the Democratic Party replaced Thomas Eagleton with Sargent Shriver as the VP candidate after the 1972 convention.

But how the DNC goes about making the choice — under what rules, through what process — is not spelled out further in the party rules.
...
Second, once the party comes up with a new nominee, the question becomes whether that candidate can now get on the ballot in various states to replace the convention’s nominee. This is an issue of state law, handled differently in different states. In some states, it is formally too late at this point to replace a party nominee for the presidential election. But the courts might well conclude that state laws that allow too short a time for replacement in the case of death or withdrawal, in a presidential election, are themselves unconstitutional.

Third, and finally, we are back to the question of how the electors vote. Suppose the convention’s nominee cannot be replaced on the ballot in time but has died or withdrawn. The party has chosen an alternative, through the process above, but that person can’t get on the ballot. And now voters who support the party — let’s say Democrats — vote for the Democratic candidate on the ballot, even though he or she has withdrawn, to express their support for the Democratic Party.


What happens if a U.S. presidential candidate withdraws (or dies) before the election is over?


edit on 10/28/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/28/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
If Comey announced this to 'get it out of the way' in order to help Clinton...why did he do it during early voting?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Also, Joe Biden knows that Hillary has committed so many wrongs, that her administration would be constantly mired in investigations. He wisely wants nothing to do with her.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Browsing for personal reasons is one thing; an official FBI investigation is quite another. Just like the previous emails in the investigation, interviews will have to be completed, other departments will have to be consulted - this is the government we are talking about here - these things take time. It took a long time to conclude the other investigation; it will take several weeks to fully review these.

I agree on the timing of this. I don't think Comey saw anything special about these emails compared to the rest, hence the "they may not be significant" comment.



No, I was reviewing the emails for anything incriminating. I followed links within, looked up info mentioned for context, etc... Some were clearly nothing. Some took some effort to fully understand.

I don't believe that Comey would have wanted to review these emails formally if there were not some obvious red flags. They wouldn't be "pertinent" to an investigation into whether Hillary mishandled classified information, if there were no red flags.

Do I think that Hillary will face prosecution for them? Nope.

But I do believe that We, the Voters, are supposed to assume there was enough spotted to cause the FBI to send a formal letter to Congress stating the FBI is investing more resources into further investigative steps.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

This is proof of your denial.

You've already been presented with the info/proof you need time and time again, and not only did you not consider it because it's inconvenient, but now you're pretending no one has even presented this stuff before.

And it's all over ATS.

Extreme denial. But you asked.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Dear CTR's,

Please stop responding to threads that center around the FBI reopening my email server 'mistake'.

It was only a mistake and we don't want to bring attention to it. If you respond, more voters will look into this and may get the wrong impression that I did use a private server. Further, they may conclude that the reason I used a private server was for self interest and not government responsibilities.

This is absurd and generally a lie. After all, it was the Russians. Even if I did send and receive classified information through an unsecured private server, it was to protect you and not me.

Besides, what difference does it make now?

President Clinton II



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
"This is it! She's done for!"

For the 10,000th time...



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
The nexus of these emails might not just be Hillary and Huma. It could also be Wiener and Bill...both have their proclivities. I would imagine these two couples have all kinds of dirt on each other.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Annee

This is proof of your denial.

You've already been presented with the info/proof you need time and time again, and not only did you not consider it because it's inconvenient, but now you're pretending no one has even presented this stuff before.

And it's all over ATS.

Extreme denial. But you asked.


You have NOTHING

I've been on ATS since 2007. I was on other sites before that.

And you think you can some how enlighten me? I am not in denial of anything. There's a lot of crap going on. There's also a lot of made up stuff.

Prove something. It's that simple.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman
"This is it! She's done for!"

For the 10,000th time...





posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I just wanted to pop in and bid my farewell to Hillary and her corrupt staff and cronies. You are an embarrassment to our nation and I, and anyone with half a "logical" brain, can't wait to see you in prison.

If you are a Hillary supporter at this point, you are a disgrace as well.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Someone up date me...been at work all day

How will this sink Hillary? What's in these emails?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Established 2016




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Paul Callan calls for Comey's resignation.

www.cnn.com...

Why?

It's Trump's fault, of course.


Donald Trump's oft-repeated claim that the FBI's investigation of "Crooked Hillary" and the presidential election itself were and are "rigged," seems to have thrown FBI Director James Comey into a state of panic. In foolishly making a public announcement that the bureau is reviewing newly discovered emails related to Hillary Clinton's personal server, he has inserted himself yet again into the presidential campaign.



edit on 28-10-2016 by Tempter because: Sp



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Someone up date me...been at work all day

How will this sink Hillary? What's in these emails?


Nobody knows, but enough for Comey to surprise her with restarting the investigation apparently.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Someone up date me...been at work all day

How will this sink Hillary? What's in these emails?

NOTHING.

A bag of hot wind and enough fairy stories to keep the Trump fanboys and fangirls up in arms until Nov 8.

Get your popcorn ready but it will get stale before election date.

Hillary is laughing all the way to The Oval Office...again



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Comey brought attention to the public because the voters deserve it.

www.foxnews.com...


In an internal memo obtained by Fox News, the beleaguered director noted that the FBI typically would not communicate with the public when reopening a case, according to a Department of Justice source. But Comey said he had to in this case because Clinton is seeking the White House in an election on Nov. 8.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
And really - come on! Who shares a phone with their spouse? I mean, especially if you are wealthy, elite power brokers? What was the real purpose of this shared phone? What information needed to be consolidated there?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

It was the "Hill Phone!" Possibly meant to be destroyed.



new topics

top topics



 
284
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join