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.

 

Trump Authorizes Congress To Pursue Criminal Charges Against Hillary

page: 10
104
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

The President has no authority over Congress. Congress does not need the President's consent to do their job. Congress has no authority to bring criminal charges. They can refer information to the FBI / DOJ for review.

Your source appears to be flawed.




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Painterz
A bit of an underestimation many would say. In case you don't recall:
www.wnd.com...
She is also the FIRST First Lady to EVER be under criminal investigation while living IN the White House.
edit on 2-2-2017 by Opportunia because: Additional info



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I hope justice is served...and nothing spared due to 'privilege' or 'status'.

I think they should be more harsh with her to set a tone and example...full extent, no parole if convicted.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce
Huma and Weinerman's devices confiscated - and interestingly enough they relate to Hillary's case somehow.
Maybe this will help shed some light on their reasoning:
www.businessinsider.com...



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The actual issue is they put the word Congress instead of the House which is where the Chairman of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Jason Chaffetz, works. They actually DO have a right and at this point an obligation to persue further investigation.
oversight.house.gov...
edit on 2-2-2017 by Opportunia because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2017 by Opportunia because: Clarification



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

Yeah and ordering pizza too while doing all that..



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Where have you been? The low hanging fruit of destroying federal evidence after a subpoena was issued. That alone is a felony and punishable by incarceration.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
But she's already been investigated and cleared what, 5 times? 6 times?


I think there's a difference between cleared and having friends in higher places that make things go away.

I think the notion that HRC is whiter than white a sad and pathetic one, her and Bill are up to their head in fraud and wrong doing let alone miss leading the Government with constant lies when being cross examined. How many times have they been fined for fraud, 5, 6 , 7 times?

Part of me wonders if a lot of this pro Hilary stuff is based on who ended up in the White House and how much he's hated so lets wish we had Hilary there instead.

Trust me, you would regret every minute of her in that Oval office just as much as you might despise Trump.

Personally I really hope that someone DOES take this to court and stops the meddlers from outside allowing her to get away with stealing evidence, hiding it and then it turns up with only HER finger prints on. I think she called in a LOT of favours during her trials and as we know she was rather good at privately investigating people she classed as enemies and had dirt galore on them.

Hilary innocent.......That's a laugh....And a very poor taste joke considering Americans died because of her and she denies any responsibility and tried to hide it..



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mclaneinc
How many times have they been fined for fraud, 5, 6 , 7 times?


Care to detail the times they were fined for fraud?



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale
Hillary was not mentioned in the video...

Trump apparently said that he supports and agrees with the oversight role that Congress has - and that he should pursue this with vigour. This indicated his support of real transparency in Government (not Obama "transparency"), and the importance of keeping the Executive Branch honest.

Perhaps Chaffetz will continue on the path with email and Clinton Foundation hearings, but this was not mentioned (at least in what has been presented here).

In any event, as I understand things criminal investigations are still the purview of the FBI, and go/no go on criminal charges still rests with the DOJ.

Thanks for the clarity. And the reminders.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
That was when Bill's foundation was making BANK.....now the money has dried up and Mrs.Clinton is yesterdays news. Just remember that Martha Stewart went to jail for lieing under oath. reply to: Painterz



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Painterzshe was never cleared because doj never let her get charged they investigated but lynch would not let charges be filed because she had been paid of by bill . remember there four hour meeting on tarmac in arizona to supposedly talk about grand kids.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Turkenstein
Where have you been? The low hanging fruit of destroying federal evidence after a subpoena was issued. That alone is a felony and punishable by incarceration.


.claps hands.

Finally, someone who understands law. After all of these threads about Hilary's e-mails, this post may be the first one that gets the real problem. Everything else about the e-mails is irrelevant as long as no harm to persons or property happened because of mishandling the e-mails. She's a Civilian.

I'll bet good money, at her age, they'll declare her mentally incompetent.
edit on 2-2-2017 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc
I'll bet good money, at her age, they'll declare her mentally incompetent.


Long ago in India there was a class of people called "untouchables".

Well, Bill and Hillary are untouchables. They are not jailable. They are not ordinary civilians.

You guys should just give up your hopes. That was the past.

There are "new corruptables" in the White House. That's where the focus needs to be.

Let's see if we can all be alert, and prevent the new untouchables from corruption.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Hopefully, but if not. It's still all over for the Democratic Bureaucracy.

If Trump does a good job, which so far he is I would say, and he fulfills his promises to bring back jobs, especially to the "Rustbelt" his re-election will almost be certain.

Of course, we are a long way from that.

They can slow-walk the Trump transition team all they want. They're not going to be able to do it for 4 years. Heck they won't be able to do it for even 4 weeks.

The Globalists have failed in America, and I couldn't be happier.

Watching the snowflakes melt-down is hilarious. They can continue their fake protests it's not going to get them anywhere, except maybe a felony, prison time, probation, or sleeping on a park bench in the near future.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Painterzshe was never cleared because doj never let her get charged they investigated but lynch would not let charges be filed because she had been paid of by bill . remember there four hour meeting on tarmac in arizona to supposedly talk about grand kids.



which by the way , she has no grand kids.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Of sending classified documents over a non secret server



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Well at least we know who the Correct The Record Hillary shills are...



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
John Podesta... hang him and that network out to dry, and if she gets caught up in the dragnet then so be it.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Meanwhile, a Marine officer who has deployed four times faces being discharged from the corps because he used his personal email to send one classified report as an urgent warning when lives were at stake. If that isn't enough to show bias, I don't what is. This whole shared of "intent" is ridiculous. As judges say, no excuse for ignorance of the law. She damn well knew what she was doing and so did her staff. She couldn't "remember" if she took a security course, later proven she signed the document. The fact evidence was destroyed shows intent to hide.



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join