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.

 

Looks like its time for Hillary Clinton to be Charged welcome Jeff Sessions

page: 3
83
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Natas0114

I think it will happen because you know it ,we know it and talk about it ,and they know it and are squirming and screaming about it . it ,is not going to go away until it happens ... Next order of business ...? any one ?...




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


Its the Attorney General's job to uphold the Law. The AG could still follow through with Trumps promise to appoint a Special Prosecutor to look into Hillary's case. Because it's his Job not Trumps.


After the absolute snip of the last two weeks.

I think Trump does need to take the gloves off.

Prosecute Clinton, and in a single action change the narrative.

Then people can go protest CLinton being locked up.


I agree with this.

We can keep on dreaming, though.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Nice try. I'm talking about career criminal politicians finally getting their due (see my first post). And Hillary's topic goes way beyond this mere server deal. But try to keep those goalposts nice and narrow as utterly possible, and in that same process outright defend career criminal politician gangsterism.

If we can't even get a conviction on something like this, then WTF, how would we ever see their real crimes put up in the spotlight. These days of the politicians careers being too big to bust need to end. And we gotta start somewhere. And The investigations into the Clinton's need to go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay deeper than these emails.
edit on 9-2-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Not a fan of the witch, but i doubt shes going to see a jail cell.
edit on 9-2-2017 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

I don't claim to be a lawyer, but what she did was illegal, luckily Comey interpreted there needed to be intent (no wording like this in the law at hand) to prove guilt.

These are our employees, we deserve to be able to pull emails as a corporation can with theirs to know their company is run as it should. These are agreements everyone consents to.

For the record I'm also livid with Bush deleting his White House server.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I'd say everything as it is, is the best she can hope for. The power structure of the Trump administration will decide ultimately. There are SO many players involved the ramifications are grim. Lots of politicians that should be in prison for outright corruption. Let's drag out the "Rico Act" again and go after them.

They deserve no less.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

I agree with you that the wording and intent of the OP is dishonest ... or misinformed.

But it is not completely incorrect. At this point, his confirmations are lagging previous administrations.


But one thing is clear: this year's Cabinet confirmation process is one of the slowest in history. As of Wednesday, Trump was still waiting on confirmation for 10 of his 15 Cabinet nominees. By this time in 2001, then-President George W. Bush had his entire Cabinet confirmed. Then-President Barack Obama was just three short of a full Cabinet on Feb. 8, 2009.

www.foxnews.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

If that's the procedure, who could have punished Bush for deleting the White House server before he left? Could have been a lot of info we could have gotten with FOIA.


I'm unsure of the complete process.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




I don't claim to be a lawyer, but what she did was illegal, luckily Comey interpreted there needed to be intent (no wording like this in the law at hand) to prove guilt.


One need not be a lawyer to know that courts of law decide guilt or innocent and intent.

LEOS don't.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert




Agreed. We now know how the DoJ approaches these sorts of cases. Intent is required.
The law mentions nothing of intent when dealing with classified info. There is a much different doj now.
How did that intent argument work for the kid with the pics of his submarine?


Intent is required and has been for some time.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Then why does she still have an active clearance?

I know that all SoS's keep their clearances for life..... but gross negligence is more than enough reason to yank it.


When they suspend her clearance, then I might believe they would move forward.


Suspending her clearance should have been the very first step in the process.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: RomeByFire

I don't claim to be a lawyer, but what she did was illegal, luckily Comey interpreted there needed to be intent (no wording like this in the law at hand) to prove guilt.

These are our employees, we deserve to be able to pull emails as a corporation can with theirs to know their company is run as it should. These are agreements everyone consents to.

For the record I'm also livid with Bush deleting his White House server.


There was no intent for that sailor that photographed the interior of that submarine's engineering panel, but yet he still got thrown underneath the bus.

Perhaps if his name was Clinton he would have been OK.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
O0o0o0o0o0o Fox News?

Hmm. I wonder if that falls under the catergory of "fake news," in lieu of how folks constantly demonized the "mainstream media."

As for this part, this is an outright lie:

"Since the Democrats are being such *ss holes about confirming Trump's Cabinet Picks the slowest since George Washington's time I would do it just to piss off the Democrats."

False.

But in the land of "alternative facts,"...



Where CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, ABC all reign supreme.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss



Nice try. I'm talking about career criminal politicians finally getting their due (see my first post)


Yes, I know. False equivalence.

You went from Hillary's email issue to CIA drug and jihad.



And Hillary's topic goes way beyond this mere server deal. But try to keep those goalposts nice and narrow as utterly possible, and in that same process outright defend career criminal politician gangsterism.


I did not move any goalposts, nor did I defend "career criminal politician gangsterism".



If we can't even get a conviction on something like this, then WTF, how would we ever see their real crimes put up in the spotlight.


So you admit this isn't a real crime, yet still want a conviction?



These days of the politicians careers being too big to bust need to end. And we gotta start somewhere. And The investigations into the Clinton's need to go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay deeper than these emails.


Ya, a political witch hunt based on conspiracy. I get it.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
She deleted evidence knowing she had done something wrong. How's that not intent?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Stevemagegod



Those are chargeable offenses.


He also said that the FBI and the DoJ has maintained the practice and precedent of needing intent to file charges. Did you also miss the part where he said this would have been handled within the SD?


Did you miss the part where Obama was Comeys Boss and Hillary was his chosen successor?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
She deleted evidence knowing she had done something wrong. How's that not intent?


Exactly Comey wasn't even trying to hide in his speech thats the funniest part.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Then why does she still have an active clearance? I know that all SoS's keep their clearances for life..... but gross negligence is more than enough reason to yank it.


Do she still have a clearance, beyond what she had to receive campaign security briefings?? I'd like to see some info on that.



Suspending her clearance should have been the very first step in the process.


It's my understanding she lost that clearance after she left the SD.
edit on 9-2-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Stevemagegod



Those are chargeable offenses.


He also said that the FBI and the DoJ has maintained the practice and precedent of needing intent to file charges. Did you also miss the part where he said this would have been handled within the SD?


Did you miss the part where Obama was Comeys Boss and Hillary was his chosen successor?


That's conspiratorial nonsense.

You can at least try harder than that.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join