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.

 

FBI Court Filing Reveals Grand Jury Targeted Hillary Clinton

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




So the hands of the grand jury are tied even if they want to bring charges if the prosecutor refuses. We really REALLY need to bring back the independent citizen grand jury!


*IF* the case was brought before the grand jury (prepared by the U.S.A.'s office), it seems unlikely they would sign if the jury returned a true-bill. That doesn't mean that someone above the assistant USA's head didn't veto it.....




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: liveandlearn


Wasn't this based on some of the leaked emails from her server?


There was also such information in the DNC/Hillary campaign leaks by Wikileaks; but this is referring to the investigation into her Blackberry and so-called "bathtub" server while she was Secretary of State.


She was going along with their program.


I have a very hard time believing that for many reasons, mostly because she got shafted bigtime, but also because of the lack of any leaked emails from Hillary herself. They must have at least some, if not most or even all. So why were none released? It was either to protect her or to use them to blackmail her.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.


With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.


Grand juries don't need intent, that is for the prosecutors and petit juries to decide should the case go to trial.


But nevertheless intent would be necessary for a prosecution to be successful.


True but IMO if that was indeed an element they needed to prove, I would surmise they would have evidence of it before bringing it to the grand jury.

In my experiences, the attorneys don't bring a case in front of the grand jury unless they have evidence of the elements. Unless a special jury was convened where they were only fact digging....



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


*IF* the case was brought before the grand jury (prepared by the U.S.A.'s office), it seems unlikely they would sign if the jury returned a true-bill. That doesn't mean that someone above the assistant USA's head didn't veto it.....


When you're right, you're right... anything is possible. We see the judicial system obstructing justice one way or another more and more and it smells like desperation to me.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JinMI


*IF* the case was brought before the grand jury (prepared by the U.S.A.'s office), it seems unlikely they would sign if the jury returned a true-bill. That doesn't mean that someone above the assistant USA's head didn't veto it.....


When you're right, you're right... anything is possible. We see the judicial system obstructing justice one way or another more and more and it smells like desperation to me.


All this happened under the old administration. I'm very curious to know if the new one will do anything about the blatant corruption we all saw.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.


Thank you for saying that. I was pretty sure that was the case and just looked it up... and you're right, intent doesn't have to be proven. We know it happened, and that she should have known better. But I think I remember it being reported that she did not take a mandatory class on handling records and communications.



The only intent that is questionable is the intent of those pushing it..

How can you prosecute hillary for doing exactly what the enitire previous administration did??

Colin Powell , W, Cheney and all their staff and appointees had private servers...


Good luck trying to prosecute one politician for what was par for the course...


The reason hillary wasn't prosecuted is because she didn't do anything illegal..

Not because some of her actions were not dirty, but because those actions have been legal for politicians for generations...

The whole " It's not a corrupt system, it is just hillary who is corrupt" BS is stupid at face value...

Why would she need to break the law when she can legally insider trade and pay for play???



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JinMI


*IF* the case was brought before the grand jury (prepared by the U.S.A.'s office), it seems unlikely they would sign if the jury returned a true-bill. That doesn't mean that someone above the assistant USA's head didn't veto it.....


When you're right, you're right... anything is possible. We see the judicial system obstructing justice one way or another more and more and it smells like desperation to me.


All this happened under the old administration. I'm very curious to know if the new one will do anything about the blatant corruption we all saw.



Maybe he won't appoint nothing but corrupt Exxon Mobil and Goldmansaks lobbiests...

Too late..



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wow, your entire post contradicts itself.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

edit on 27-4-2017 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


All this happened under the old administration. I'm very curious to know if the new one will do anything about the blatant corruption we all saw.


I'm no longer expecting much from the Trump admin. We've heard nothing further in the "wiretapping" case, even after getting names. WTH is going on there? They haven't done anything about the gross violation of rights of the Bundy Bunkerville trial... and I saw lots of pleas for folks to contact Trump and Sessions about it. If they don't know, they should know. I hope they surprise me, but I don't expect them to.

I'm just ranting here from frustration -- this isn't directed at you in any way.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Time will tell. Hillary is not in office and that is all I really cared about. 4-8 years of lame duck is better than same ol even if we are getting more same ol than I anticipated.

Thing is with the DoJ, is that investigations do take time. Subpoenas, interviews, warrants, transferring of information all take time. If this is a new investigation, then it all needs to be done again.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JinMI


*IF* the case was brought before the grand jury (prepared by the U.S.A.'s office), it seems unlikely they would sign if the jury returned a true-bill. That doesn't mean that someone above the assistant USA's head didn't veto it.....


When you're right, you're right... anything is possible. We see the judicial system obstructing justice one way or another more and more and it smells like desperation to me.


All this happened under the old administration. I'm very curious to know if the new one will do anything about the blatant corruption we all saw.



Maybe he won't appoint nothing but corrupt Exxon Mobil and Goldmansaks lobbiests...

Too late..



Maybe we will all be in FEMA camps.

Maybe we will all be given government subsidies.

Maybe we are just witnesses to the clown show.
edit on 27-4-2017 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The whole " It's not a corrupt system, it is just hillary who is corrupt" BS is stupid at face value...


I never went there. Exactly the opposite. I don't play the tit for tat game. Nor am I stuck in the left/right paradigm. If it's illegal for one it's illegal for all. The bad behavior of one doesn't excuse bad behavior by another. Why the Democratically controlled congress and White House chose not to investigate and/or charge the previous administration is not a question I can answer. If a grand jury and/or prosecutor and/or investigators found no wrongdoing, they can tell us. Or they can hide the truth and make us wonder what they're hiding.

I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... and then let the chips fall where they may.

If that's a problem for you, well, then that's your problem -- not mine.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Hillary is not in office and that is all I really cared about.


Amen to that! Hillary's done. For the voters, more than anything I think it was the "deplorables and irredeemables" comments. Just like the "47%" comment ruined Romney. You can't insult half the public -- especially the voting public -- and expect to win. And not when those you're insulting blame you for their problems (rightly or wrongly).

Although she sure didn't seem to want to win anyway -- especially at the end. Maybe it was her health. Maybe it was a combination of things. But she barely campaigned, and I know she can campaign harder and better than she did! Or, at least at one time she could. Let's see what happens when Chelsea runs for office and Hillary campaigns for her -- we know she will!
edit on 27-4-2017 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
You can infer intent by actions, like destroying evidence.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
You can infer intent by actions, like destroying evidence.


That's true. Especially if she gave her IT firm specific instructions to do just that, and they can get them to testify against Hillary to save themselves:

House Committee Seeks Charges For Hillary Clinton’s IT Firm

Or they follow their usual pattern of prosecuting the little fish while the big fish walks away with nary a slap on the wrist.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wow, your entire post contradicts itself.


No you contradicted yourself and are lying and are racist and and nazi...



see how easy that is when you don't actually provide a counter point as evidence of your claim...



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
You can infer intent by actions, like destroying evidence.





She didn't destroy evidence...

She was allowed to destroy her personal emails and the legal team "accidentally" deleted a few work emails , that were recovered that shouldn't have been deleted right???

None of which were proof of her doing some illegal activity..

So it's not like they recovered work emails that showed her trading POW's for more kids for her super secret pizzagate pedo ring...

So how you get intent from that is questionable at best.. definately isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt.."

Again, please explain to me why if you are legally allowed to insider trade and pay for play.. why exactly would you need to commit crimes to get rich and famous???

You wouldn't....

Our dirtbag politicians are literally legally allowed to steal (P4P, insider trading) why exactly would you go around robbing banks and running interdiminsonal child rapist rings???


You wouldn't, I wouldn't...no one would..

The problems with our political system were well established long before either Clinton was born.




edit on 28-4-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Nothing against the person you were responding to, but I really don't give a rat's patootie for anyone's opinions -- and that's all you're offering and asking for. You can rationalize it and excuse it and paint whatever pretty little picture you want around the perceived circumstances/person, but it's still just opinions and guesses and rationalizing!!!

There was a grand jury... there may still be a grand jury... there are facts... gossip isn't good enough.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Nothing against the person you were responding to, but I really don't give a rat's patootie for anyone's opinions -- and that's all you're offering and asking for. You can rationalize it and excuse it and paint whatever pretty little picture you want around the perceived circumstances/person, but it's still just opinions and guesses and rationalizing!!!

There was a grand jury... there may still be a grand jury... there are facts... gossip isn't good enough.





Lmao... did you really just say you don't care about others opinions... as you give your opinion . On a forum specifically build on people trading their opinions?!?!?


Good luck with that !!

Lol...just lol...




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join