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: 6
102
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

Split some more hairs dude. You can't refute anything I'm saying because you know it's true, so you're just doubling down on gaslighting, ad hominem and willful denial. How about you go Google what the punishment is for disseminating classified information and let me know how you do with that? I'm trying to help you out here because it seems like common sense and logic isn't your strong suit.




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: StrizzMatik

Nice fallacy buzzword checklist you got running there. I wonder if you know what any of them mean. Especially since you engaged in an ad hominem of your own in that post making you a hypocrite.

As for refuting you. Why? You don't care about my opinion anways and nothing I will say or show you will change your mind. Your mind is already made up (because of that right wing propaganda) and your mind couldn't be anymore closed here.

I mean if Comey's own words not to indict isn't good enough for you, then you don't care about truth. Only getting your agenda.

PS: I don't vet other people's claims. It's a pet peeve of mine. So I won't be doing your Google work for you.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StrizzMatik

Nice fallacy buzzword checklist you got running there. I wonder if you know what any of them mean. Especially since you engaged in an ad hominem of your own in that post making you a hypocrite.

As for refuting you. Why? You don't care about my opinion anways and nothing I will say or show you will change your mind. Your mind is already made up (because of that right wing propaganda) and your mind couldn't be anymore closed here.

I mean if Comey's own words not to indict isn't good enough for you, then you don't care about truth. Only getting your agenda.

PS: I don't vet other people's claims. It's a pet peeve of mine. So I won't be doing your Google work for you.


Right wing propaganda caused Hillary to break the law multiple times. It's all the GOP's fault.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

She wasn't "cleared", they wanted all of the proof, not bits and pieces. Transparency is the answer, and lack of is why they never went ahead with the charges at that moment. But the investigation is underway.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Underfire2

You don't want to charge someone with only half of the charges they have found her connected to, you want to bury her with the big picture.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Nice strawman you are trying to erect there by taking my words out of context.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee




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


This was not about fearing Hillary. This was about everybody but political biased cheerleaders being tired of corrupted worthless politician such as Hillary getting special treatment and being above the law.

The fact that her Husband secretly met with the Attorney General on the tarmac days before the decision by the FBI to not prosecute her, was not only enough to have Hillary drop out of the race for ethical concerns but enough to warrant another Probe by a non pocketed Clinton Administration. Lets not even discuss how the FBI couldn't get access to her deleted emails despite our gov't being able to capture ALL emails sent via the internet as they have direct access to the infrastructure as they did with German high officials.

Your bias and willingness to defend her Should be embarrassing at minimum , because voters as yourself is the reason why this country has allowed our gov't to be completely taken over by corporate interests.

That meeting should not be justified or overlooked.You should hold her accountable for such blatant disregards for ethics and possible (likely) racketeering with her own criminal ongoing investigation.

There is no justification for what the Clintons did especially with the timing of his wife ongoing criminal investigation.

The whole Clinton débacle stinks of corruption from the very top people that were in charge of doing the investigation.

Man up or Women up and hold you own party and candidate accountable or continue being part of the problem in American Politics.


edit on 10228America/ChicagoWed, 01 Feb 2017 12:10:57 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: damwel

You mean something like knowingly mishandling classified information?

Like lying to Congress?

Like selling influence to foreign governments?

Like conspiracy to commit election fraud?

Like providing material support to terrorists?

All of which there is actual evidence of?


Don't forget the subpoenad hard drives that of which she selectively deleted e-mails of after the subpoena. destroying evidence is a serious crime.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The website referenced in the OP is the very definition of fake news.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hillary's criminal conduct is not even remotely defendable.

Go ask anyone with TS clearance. If they were in the same situation, there would be no hope of avoiding serious jail time or worse. It's such basic common knowledge in the security field.

Comey acted on his own for whatever reason. It certainly wasn't for lack of sufficient edivence though.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: hellobruce

Benghazi

Exactly what crime that is a jailable offence did she commit with that?


18 USC 1621
18 USC 1001 for her testimony,
The entire thing about the Youtube video were laughable bull#, seriously.

there's also a likely culpable negligence charge for calling off the cavalry and letting them die, although that one will require shaking a lot of trees, still, she's responsible.


emailgate

Exactly what crime that is a jailable offence did she commit with that?


18 usc 794. She says she was never read onto anything, utter bollocks. You get 794 any time you first receive TS info.


funding Islamic terrorism

Exactly what crime that is a jailable offence did she commit with that, and where is the evidence??


18 USC 2339B.




on and on and on


Pretty much every one of these has a real live felony attached if you can get enough proof, and some of them don't take much. If Trump wants to press it, she will be breaking big rocks into little ones before the year is up.


Obstruction of justice.

I'll bet the IRS will be looking into the Clinton Foundation cash cow that ponied up several millions for Chelsea's wedding. How did they write that off the books as charity?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StrizzMatik

Nice fallacy buzzword checklist you got running there. I wonder if you know what any of them mean. Especially since you engaged in an ad hominem of your own in that post making you a hypocrite.

As for refuting you. Why? You don't care about my opinion anways and nothing I will say or show you will change your mind. Your mind is already made up (because of that right wing propaganda) and your mind couldn't be anymore closed here.

I mean if Comey's own words not to indict isn't good enough for you, then you don't care about truth. Only getting your agenda.

PS: I don't vet other people's claims. It's a pet peeve of mine. So I won't be doing your Google work for you.

I directly attacked your argument several times and you have nothing for me other than BS, so now I'm questioning your intelligence and honesty whereas all you do is bleat "right wing propaganda" as if that covers all the bases lol. Your labels have no power here buddy, you're just intellectually lazy and out of your depth. You can choose to trust your gubbermint and live in some fantasy world where collusion and bribery doesn't exist even when it's right in front of your face, but anybody who actually knows some history would never agree with your assessment.

Do you care to recall which of those agencies directly lied to the American people to get us into virtually every war we've been in? I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with FBI and CIA. The same FBI that arms and trains terrorists themselves just to intervene and catch them before the act to pad their budgets and perpetuate their jobs. The same FBI that shamelessly politicized themselves and went after political opponents during the Obama Administration. The same FBI caught running guns to Mexican cartels during Operation Fast and Furious. The same FBI who's director was in contempt of Congress. Yeah, THAT FBI.

And is that the same CIA that lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11 and the war in Iraq? The same CIA that has personally intervened in dozens of foreign, democratically-elected governments to capitulate or overthrow them on the behalf of the military industrial complex and multinational corporations? The same CIA who also directly created, armed and funded Al-Qaeda and ISIS? That CIA, right? Is that more right wing propaganda? Even the biggest Chomsky-supporting anarchist liberal wouldn't disagree with what I just said.

The fact that you accept Comey's unwillingness to prosecute at face value, despite mountains of evidence showing that the Clintons intervened to stop it from happening, shows me that you're not interested in the truth... you're just perpetuating the LIE that your likely candidate and party did nothing wrong out of obstinate partisanship. So I guess you can continue ignoring whatever doesn't suit your worldview and keep believing in the good intentions of your spy agencies that routinely commit treason and act against your own interests, I guess...
edit on 1-2-2017 by StrizzMatik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hillary's criminal conduct is not even remotely defendable.

All charges are defendable. That is one of Amendments in the Constitution. Everyone is entitled to a defense. Do you not know how these things work?


Go ask anyone with TS clearance. If they were in the same situation, there would be no hope of avoiding serious jail time or worse. It's such basic common knowledge in the security field.

Comey acted on his own for whatever reason. It certainly wasn't for lack of sufficient edivence though.

I don't need to ask anyone for any opinion. I'm not going to take anyone seriously who so casually dismisses the opinion of the legal expert in charge of the Hillary case just because it is an opinion he doesn't agree with. That is bias. Plain and simple.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: StrizzMatik

Blah blah blah. "I don't trust things that disagree with my biases". That's all I read from your wall of text there. I stopped caring about your opinions when you insulted my intelligence and reasoning ability. It's not worth talking to you seriously anymore. When you call someone stupid because they disagree with you then it is a signal that the conversation is over.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wet Works

This isn't right wing propaganda. They are talking about assassination. That's what wet works IS. The term originated with Spetsbureau 13. The KGB.
edit on 1-2-2017 by ColdChillin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wet Works

This isn't right wing propaganda. They are talking about assassination. That's what wet works IS.

You know this how?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Research Spetsbureau 13.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Nice strawman you are trying to erect there by taking my words out of context.


Not really.. Hillary broke the law multiple times and it is indisputable at this point, except for her faithful delusional defenders who listened to her tell the masses it is all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Except nobody in their right mind can believe it. Left mind is another story obviously.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Or Otdel mokrykh del



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Research Spetsbureau 13.

No. I don't research other people's claims. If you think this is evidence then you post it. Otherwise I just ignore this.
edit on 1-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join