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: 5
104
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StrizzMatik

I mean when Comey said that there isn't enough evidence to indict Hillary and it would be a waste of time and money to try.

And my point is that despite all the obvious, proven evidence that she did break the law, you accepted this without a question. Have you ever heard of bribery and corruption? Is that relegated to only one party, or just about anybody with a lot of money and power and a lot to lose? Check out WikiLeaks. It's right in her own emails. Or are you going to discredit them as a source?




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
I see you are ignoring this line:

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: StrizzMatik

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StrizzMatik

I mean when Comey said that there isn't enough evidence to indict Hillary and it would be a waste of time and money to try.

And my point is that despite all the obvious, proven evidence that she did break the law, you accepted this without a question. Have you ever heard of bribery and corruption? Is that relegated to only one party, or just about anybody with a lot of money and power and a lot to lose? Check out WikiLeaks. It's right in her own emails. Or are you going to discredit them as a source?

Whatever you say, Mr. Internet Lawyer.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: HogspitFred
a reply to: StrizzMatik
You almost had it...did fine till you got to the punchline. I realize the Repugnicans have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding when it comes to their job; do you really think if there was something there Gowdy/Chaffetz/et al wouldn't have found it by now? C'mon most of those idiots are LAWYERS! Inept, but still...

Fact is, it's more fun and easier to play video games, otherwise known as holding witch hunts the media eats up like handfuls of skittles, than doing the jobs they were sent to Washington to do...make laws, and govern! That's the first part of the word ya know? "GOVERN-ment". I'm all for laws being enforced, but at some point you have to give up on whether the jaywalker was inside or just outside the "walk" lane at the intersection. Crimes are committed every day - Trump is a classic example - that go unprosecuted because they have money. Trump has admitted he runs small businesses into the ground by outlasting them in court, over the "quality" or finished product of their work (that piece of crap was supposed to be 24K gold plated, it was only 18K!) Boo-fing Hoo... Really think laws are subjective, not objective...legal is in the eye of Liberty - who has a blindfold on...

Gee, I guess you have a point there huh? Why wouldn't Chaffetz, Gowdy, etc. be able to move forward with an investigation within a Justice Department that was quite obviously politicized against them? I'm quite aware there's crime on both sides, the difference is we have hard irrefutable proof of Clinton's crimes whereas Trump's are basically speculation with no proof. Until you show me the emails where he proves his own guilt and complicity in lawbreaking like Clinton did, you're just taking potshots.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Problem is - - - the anti-Hillary's don't want the truth. They want a bon fire.


Just a giant, never ending witch hunt.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: StrizzMatik

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StrizzMatik

I mean when Comey said that there isn't enough evidence to indict Hillary and it would be a waste of time and money to try.

And my point is that despite all the obvious, proven evidence that she did break the law, you accepted this without a question. Have you ever heard of bribery and corruption? Is that relegated to only one party, or just about anybody with a lot of money and power and a lot to lose? Check out WikiLeaks. It's right in her own emails. Or are you going to discredit them as a source?

Whatever you say, Mr. Internet Lawyer.

Truth is a bitch that takes no sides.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

Problem is - - - the anti-Hillary's don't want the truth. They want a bon fire.


Just a giant, never ending witch hunt.


It is.

The fact they feared Hillary so much - - is telling.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Maybe she'll be tied to Justice Scalia's murder. Speculation of that was discussed earlier in the week and the Trump team's keen eyes/ears picked up on it.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: StrizzMatik

Truth like the fact that you have no formal legal knowledge and your entire opinion is based on right wing propaganda?
edit on 1-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Proving her guilty of perjury will be one of the easiest convictions on the list of her felonies..



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Trump has told virtually everyone the exact same thing

"You go be yourself, don't worry about me."

But, when they do, as Yates found out, they get fired if he doesn't like it.

Trump isn't trying to force people to follow his lead, only to sift through the potential candidates to find those in sync with him.

So, be yourself, but beware.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: 727Sky

Maybe she'll be tied to Justice Scalia's murder. Speculation of that was discussed earlier in the week and the Trump team's keen eyes/ears picked up on it.


Translation: Some random yahoo invented a crazy conspiracy theory and posted it on Facebook/Twitter and Trump believes it because it adheres to his idiotic narratives.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StrizzMatik

Truth like the fact that you have no formal legal knowledge and your entire opinion is based on right wing propaganda?

You need literally zero knowledge about law to understand that the dissemination of classified information is a felony crime. And I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't a Democrat or Republican, nor did I vote for Trump, so here's your low-hanging fruit buddy, you earned it. I'm surprised you didn't call me a racist for no reason, progress!
edit on 1-2-2017 by StrizzMatik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Trump has told virtually everyone the exact same thing

"You go be yourself, don't worry about me."

But, when they do, as Yates found out, they get fired if he doesn't like it.

Trump isn't trying to force people to follow his lead, only to sift through the potential candidates to find those in sync with him.

So, be yourself, but beware.




That's because there's a difference between interpreting the law fairly, and using your position as a pulpit to advocate your personal politics, virtue signal, and openly tell your dept to break the law and ignore your boss. From where I come from that gets you fired, and under law she could have gone to jail.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Well, evidently when you confront them in a private jet at the end of a runway and pressure them to not continue with a criminal investigation, you don't have to Hillary them.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You mean the line that refers to the DoJ which was headed up by an individual who had a meeting with the husband of the primary target of the investigation just days prior to the referenced announcement being made?

The very same DoJ which had assigned one Peter Kadzik to the case. The Peter J Kadzik to whom John Podesta referred to as being the person who, "...kept me out of jail?"

And all of this in reference to (classified) information which was found on a laptop belonging to Huma Abedin and was accessible by one Anthony Wiener. The statutes of which having been violated by the fact that the information was in a location which it never should have been in in the first place?

Not to mention Paul (stonetear) Combetta as having been asked to modify information which was under congressional subpoena at the time of which the modifications were requested to have been made by one Cheryl Mills.

But, yeah...no charges are warranted.
edit on 1-2-2017 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: StrizzMatik

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StrizzMatik

Truth like the fact that you have no formal legal knowledge and your entire opinion is based on right wing propaganda?

You need literally zero knowledge about law to understand that the dissemination of classified information is a felony crime. And I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't a Democrat or Republican, nor did I vote for Trump, so here's your low-hanging fruit buddy, you earned it. I'm surprised you didn't call me a racist for no reason, progress!

Oh please. Your entire opinion is based on right wing nonsense. Only the right wing believes she is guilty. So if you are repeating this tripe then you are being influenced by right wing propaganda. It has nothing to do with your party (which I didn't assume) or who you voted for (which I also didn't assume).

Your lack of legal knowledge is also on display by your assertion that you need zero legal knowledge to determine Hillary's guilt.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

Problem is - - - the anti-Hillary's don't want the truth. They want a bon fire.


Just a giant, never ending witch hunt.


It is.

The fact they feared Hillary so much - - is telling.

I think she should be a lot more afraid that Sessions has been confirmed. I wonder why the Democrats were fighting tooth and nail to make sure he didn't get in? Almost like they're afraid of what's going to happen...



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Ah so we get to ignore the parts of Comey's words that you find inconvenient because of your circumstantial evidence there? Nice of you to rearrange the goal posts for me.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: StrizzMatik

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

Problem is - - - the anti-Hillary's don't want the truth. They want a bon fire.


Just a giant, never ending witch hunt.


It is.

The fact they feared Hillary so much - - is telling.

I think she should be a lot more afraid that Sessions has been confirmed. I wonder why the Democrats were fighting tooth and nail to make sure he didn't get in? Almost like they're afraid of what's going to happen...

Because he's a racist that was bared from a federal judgeship for saying racist things...



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join