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.

 

Investigations: Hillary vs Trump

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The left? Who cares about the left?

Surely there is plenty of evidence of a very serious crime. It's all over the real news, isn't it?

Is the DOJ in the Clintons' pocket too?

edit on 10/20/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

The left? Who cares about the left?

Surely there is plenty of evidence of a very serious crime. Is the DOJ in the Clintons' pocket too?



Well he may be legally recused since this has to do with russia, I am not sure.

But yeah, the doj has sucked.

All it has done is fight weed, which is a joke.

No argument from me there.

What does that have to do with investigating this potential meddling by russia?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Well he may be legally recused since this has to do with russia, I am not sure.
He recused himself from anything having to do with the Trump campaign because he was part of it.


What does that have to do with investigating this potential meddling by russia?
Don't ask me. You're the one who's put them together in the same thread.

edit on 10/20/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am not so sure. I am sure people will argue any investigating Russia he would be accused for.

As far as your last statement, what do you mean?

The op is about how people use one criteria for an investigation into trump, and say it doesn't apply to Hillary.

Where is the doj mentioned?



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Where is the doj mentioned?




There is clearly no harm here! No need for an investigation, and no need for anyone involved with this to recuse themselves from any russia investigation.


It seemed to me that, since Sessions has recused himself from an investigation concerning the Trump campaign, you were referring to the DOJ. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I think not. What other body do you think should conduct the investigation?



edit on 10/20/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Where is the doj mentioned?




There is clearly no harm here! No need for an investigation, and no need for anyone involved with this to recuse themselves from any russia investigation.


It seemed to me that, since Sessions has recused himself from an investigation concerning the Trump campaign, you were referring to the DOJ. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I think not. What other body do you think should conduct the investigation?




I don't care which body.

Why not an independant investigator, the doj, congress, the senate, or any combination of that.

Unlike others, I would like to actually see the truth, and eliminate political corruption no matter where it is coming from.

And what you quoted me there, I meant that if sessions had to refuse himself from the investigation, why shouldn't Mueller who was involved with the uranium one investigation.
edit on 20-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I wonder why the administration is protecting the Clintons.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

I wonder why the administration is protecting the Clintons.


Maybe they are both guilty.

Or maybe neither are.

Who knows.

All I know is I would like to see all of the corruption weeded out.




top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join