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.

 

Sessions directs prosecutors to 'evaluate certain issues' involving Uranium One and Clinton...

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
My favorite was when Luis Gutierrez said today they should stop looking at Clinton because she's not President. I think that statement pretty much disqualifies him from serving on the Judiciary committee. Anyone that thinks a person's position or lack thereof should be a factor in considerations to start a criminal investigation has no business on such a committee.

The allegations against Clinton were never based on the election, like so many Clinton fans claimed at the time. Now they're panicking, "Wait, she didn't win? I thought you were just trying to hurt her campaign?" Nope, some of us just care about the law being enforced across the board.




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Gee officer, I robbed that bank and took the money yesterday. Since I am no longer in the bank holding it up and stealing their money I am no longer a bank robber. You guys should focus on crimes in progress and not worry about past crimes.

The left drives me insane with their excuses and double standards and acceptance of a 2 tier legal system.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785


Luis Gutierrez comes from a part of Chicago where "community organizers" are gang-leaders.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
And tells them "LOOKS LIKE" is not a reason for a special counsel. LOL



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

How about evidence of a crime? Is that a factor at all?



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is that how you see this?



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
And tells them "LOOKS LIKE" is not a reason for a special counsel. LOL


That's because the regular DOJ prosecutors are working overtime.





"sealed" with a kiss



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
It's time for some arrests.

Both sides of the aisle seem guilty.

It seems however, some people are above the law.

That really bothers me.

It's not what the Republic was supposed to be.

Are we the people who gave up American ideals ?

If anybody takes money for favors, arrest them.

Sad it even needs to be said.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No that's because everybody knows there's nothing to it. Even the fox network had to finally admit that...



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

No that's because everybody knows there's nothing to it. Even the fox network had to finally admit that...


The strategy

The strategy




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

He said he'd have them consider it. Lol. He also pretty much said ...Don't get your hopes up.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Someone needs to BUY xuechen a fidget spinner.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Considering...
But don't get your hopes up.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Lousy strategy.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: face23785

How about evidence of a crime? Is that a factor at all?


To gather evidence, you have to conduct a legitimate investigation, which means the investigators have to be third party. Unfortunately, that has yet to happen in any of the investigations HRC has been put under. Is it normal for a person to have 4-6 federal investigations performed on them and to come up clean every time?

I mean the Clinton body count is like 30+. They killed people living in the white house, remember the guy who "hung himself" in the white house bathroom? A guy who was going to conveniently testify against the Clinton's?

A really good criminal doesn't leave evidence, does that mean the crime wasn't committed?

Really... It's fairly obvious that she's legitimately guilty of a multitude of organized crime charges -- from money laundering to murder.

How can you defend a person who's had so many federal investigations and "unexplainable" circumstances happen? How can you defend a person who was caught lying under oath numerous times?

That's a crime, yet she was caught red handed on the record and still not prosecuted. It was absolutely illegal for her to have that private email system, and it was absolutely illegal to foster discourse containing classified information on insecure and unreported channels. She was definitely guilty of that, she even attempted to destroy evidence with bleach bit.

These are all facts and evidence, she even admitted to the destruction of evidence via bleach bit -- what are you defending?

The prosecutors are all her friends, so they just keep refusing to prosecute, it's literally that simple.

There is a legitimate reason people call her the "Teflon Pantsuit." For you to understand that nickname, you have to understand organized crime and previous mafia bosses that earned the nickname of "Teflon Dons." Everyone KNEW without question these guys were guilty and only a few of them were ever put away because they did all of their crimes via proxy. Many of the times the actual performer of the crimes were found guilty even though they were doing it as mercs for hire by the Don.

This is exactly what the Clinton crime family has been doing since the 1970's. The vast majority of people who think HRC is a criminal, actually know it and have known it for over 20 years. Has nothing to do with Uranium 1, has to do with the body count they have, it has to do with the pay offs for policy, it has to do with out right corruption and power consolidation. Despite not being president, she's still relevant and has massive influence on her party and with international policy, even if it's only lobbying.
edit on 15-11-2017 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

No before you begin a special counsel investigation you have to show strong probable cause. He pretty much said ut uh you don't have it. We're not talking about just any kind of investigation. These guys think there is going to be a special counsel to investigate c!inton. Law makers are going to have to make that decision and it's not going to a group of republicans with loyalty to trump. It will be prosecutors in the department of justice. Men and women who do a job not based on political affiliations. There's no meat on the uranium one bone and that will get shot down.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Lawmakers have nothing to do with special counsels. that is the sole purview of the DOJ, specifically the AG. A special counsel investigation does not require probable cause. Almost all investigations are based on reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed. Probable cause is whats needed to make an arrest.

Clinton does not need a special counsel since there is already known evidence of her crimes. All that is needed there is for a federal prosecutor to seek indictments against Clinton and go from there.

As for Uranium one actually there is. 2 people were recently found guilty of bribery related to the uranium one scandal. You are also ignoring the fact the DOJ released the informant from his NDA and he should be testifying to Congress at some point. In addition to testimony this person has physical evidence of a pay to play / quid pro quo scheme involving the Clintons and the Clinton foundation.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

WE should defer to you by your proper title; Congresswoman Sillyolme



posted on Nov, 17 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
The lawmakers are the prosecutors of the DOJ. Sessions alone wouldn't make a decision to appoint a special investigator. He would order it. I think he stated he'd present it for consideration or something to that affect.
I have to find his exact wording.

And still sessions said
It would take a factual basis and proper standards AND
"I would say "looks like" is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel"




In other words...don't hold your breath.

Oh and Clinton has already been investigated. In case you hadn't heard.
edit on 11172017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join