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.

 

Laws and law breakers.

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Deep state = Insane. If you believe that I have some property for sale that you might be interested in. Trumps hand picked C.I.A. director and National Security adviser said and I quote " no deep state" he also said " I’ll say this, the employees that worked for me at the CIA nearly uniformly were aimed at achieving the president’s objectives and America’s objectives.”




posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Accused is not guilty...not until a court finds you guilty are you a criminal...at least here in the US...agreed?


Right, that's what Due Process is all about. Let the process play itself out. No one is "guilty" until a court says so. (Unless you're poor and can't make bail.)



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

What you offer is a bit loaded.

How would we know if he has broken any laws or not? We would only know if he is guilty if he has been tried and convicted.

Your challenge is just as illogical as those that say Trump has broken laws, without seeing the proof.


Ah, so you see the problem with making the idiotic statement that Trump is a criminal, and have nothing to back that up. How nice.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I think you are right here.

From what i have gathered i would say that the potus has the legal authority to fire any officer in the gov..

The only position that could legally be created to be a special council would have to have a specific scope that highlights an actual crime.

There is no special council that can be constitutionally legal and have an open ended counter intelligence program and not be voted on by the gov. and signed by the potus.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude



So when I see people complain about all the laws Trump has broken, then ask them to elaborate and list them, I get......crickets


Well, he's been accused of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and violations of the emolument clause, for starters.


That's what I was thinking.

Plenty of people have elaborated extensively on the laws Trump might have broken.

Whether he is guilty or not is another story, but for the OP to say he gets crickets, seems to be disingenuous.


Sorry, crickets are for when I ask for the list of crimes, not the list of things you want him to be guilty of.

But I will admit to his orange glow. He's straight up guilty as hell on that one.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

What you offer is a bit loaded.

How would we know if he has broken any laws or not? We would only know if he is guilty if he has been tried and convicted.

Your challenge is just as illogical as those that say Trump has broken laws, without seeing the proof.


Ah, so you see the problem with making the idiotic statement that Trump is a criminal, and have nothing to back that up. How nice.


Well, there is his history. Housing discrimination violations, not paying contractors and bilking his Trump University students is "criminal". Money laundering through his Taj Mahal casino is criminal, his organization paid the fine...debt to society paid!



edit on 24-5-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

What you offer is a bit loaded.

How would we know if he has broken any laws or not? We would only know if he is guilty if he has been tried and convicted.

Your challenge is just as illogical as those that say Trump has broken laws, without seeing the proof.


Ah, so you see the problem with making the idiotic statement that Trump is a criminal, and have nothing to back that up. How nice.


Yes, I do see the problem. Trump has not been convicted. So why would we call him a criminal?

Considering that, why would you, in turn, as people to list which laws he is guilty of breaking?

As I said, your OP is loaded and exhibits the same sort of logic, or lack thereof.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Just so you all know, if I saw something like this:
Link to video

Where the head of some major intelligence agency listed the crimes they found, it would be enough to admit that crimes were committed. Would you agree?
edit on 24-5-2018 by network dude because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2018 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I see a lot of what you say from both sides, network dude -- biased reporting, making stuff up and defending one side, only to hear crickets when it's the opposite.

For two decades now we've been reading that Obama broke the law, or GW broke the law, or Rumsfeld did, or Hillary did and should be jailed, or that Trump and his people did... and for those two decades not one of them has been held accountable for a single action, for a single one of those hundreds of broken laws.

So either they are all angels or they are all above the law. Being above the law does not mean no crime was committed, it just means the people have no power in this country.

Here's one example of when I hear crickets a lot... when people post what seems to be compelling evidence against Hillary and ask for her arrest, and over the last month I believe I've posed this question four or five times in those threads:

- Why is she not in jail? Why was that promise not kept? Why is someone who has access to all information, can take any step necessary, avoiding prosecuting Hillary or at least appointing a Counsel, or anything really? And thread after thread all I get is... crickets, from both sides.

I simply cannot believe that he cannot find anything wrong in her work to keep that promise... there must be more to it.

So, to wrap up, does Obama, or GW or Hillary not having been charged ever mean that they are innocent?
edit on 24-5-2018 by Kharron because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



Sorry, crickets are for when I ask for the list of crimes


There have been plenty of his potential crimes listed for quite a long time now.

I think you are making-up that "crickets" nonsense.



not the list of things you want him to be guilty of.


I've never said I wanted him to be guilty of anything. In fact, I've said the opposite.

Again, you are making things up.



But I will admit to his orange glow. He's straight up guilty as hell on that one.


Which laws apply to that aspect?

I've asked many people to list the laws that his skin color breaks and all I ever get is crickets.

See...anyone can do what you did. Just make # up and post it.

Easy.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I invite you to find me something like this
www.youtube.com...

This is the video where Comey lists the crimes Clinton was found to have done, but not "intended" to have done.

I get that you really, really need to feel like you won, so find me that, and poof, you win. Otherwise, you may want to find another place to try winning.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron
I see a lot of what you say from both sides, network dude -- biased reporting, making stuff up and defending one side, only to hear crickets when it's the opposite.

For two decades now we've been reading that Obama broke the law, or GW broke the law, or Rumsfeld did, or Hillary did and should be jailed, or that Trump and his people did... and for those two decades not one of them has been held accountable for a single action, for a single one of those hundreds of broken laws.

So either they are all angels or they are all above the law. Being above the law does not mean no crime was committed, it just means the people have no power in this country.

Here's one example of when I hear crickets a lot... when people post what seems to be compelling evidence against Hillary and ask for her arrest, and over the last month I believe I've posed this question four or five times in those threads:

- Why is she not in jail? Why was that promise not kept? Why is someone who has access to all information, can take any step necessary, avoiding prosecuting Hillary or at least appointing a Counsel, or anything really? And thread after thread all I get is... crickets, from both sides.

I simply cannot believe that he cannot find anything wrong in her work to keep that promise... there must be more to it.

So, to wrap up, does Obama, or GW or Hillary not having been charged ever mean that they are innocent?


I Agree that calling someone a criminal with no crimes to be accountable for is wrong. That's kind of why I wrote this thread. So can I count on your to help me out here and admit the same?



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



I invite you to find me something like this
www.youtube.com...

This is the video where Comey lists the crimes Clinton was found to have done, but not "intended" to have done.


How can I find you something that does not exist or has not taken place?

Your approach is highly illogical.



I get that you really, really need to feel like you won, so find me that, and poof, you win. Otherwise, you may want to find another place to try winning.


What the hell are you talking about?

I'm not trying to "win". There is nothing to win.

You simply posted an OP and when it is pointed out that you are asking for something that cannot be given, you pull stupid stuff like this.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Kharron
I see a lot of what you say from both sides, network dude -- biased reporting, making stuff up and defending one side, only to hear crickets when it's the opposite.

For two decades now we've been reading that Obama broke the law, or GW broke the law, or Rumsfeld did, or Hillary did and should be jailed, or that Trump and his people did... and for those two decades not one of them has been held accountable for a single action, for a single one of those hundreds of broken laws.

So either they are all angels or they are all above the law. Being above the law does not mean no crime was committed, it just means the people have no power in this country.

Here's one example of when I hear crickets a lot... when people post what seems to be compelling evidence against Hillary and ask for her arrest, and over the last month I believe I've posed this question four or five times in those threads:

- Why is she not in jail? Why was that promise not kept? Why is someone who has access to all information, can take any step necessary, avoiding prosecuting Hillary or at least appointing a Counsel, or anything really? And thread after thread all I get is... crickets, from both sides.

I simply cannot believe that he cannot find anything wrong in her work to keep that promise... there must be more to it.

So, to wrap up, does Obama, or GW or Hillary not having been charged ever mean that they are innocent?


I Agree that calling someone a criminal with no crimes to be accountable for is wrong. That's kind of why I wrote this thread. So can I count on your to help me out here and admit the same?


Absolutely, I didn't think there was a doubt about me, I'm pretty clear -- I want all these crooks investigated and I'm impatiently waiting to know more. You've never heard me say I want someone arrested or impeached, and I won't until the investigators give us proof it's needed.

So, can we count on you that if investigations into Hillary or Obama or Trump end up calling for removal or imprisonment, you will be equally unbiased and supportive?



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
They cannot list any law, but the presumption of innocence is no less lost on them. All they can do is wait breathlessly for any sign that their fantasy may be true.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
They cannot list any law, but the presumption of innocence is no less lost on them. All they can do is wait breathlessly for any sign that their fantasy may be true.


I don't know which camp you're talking about, help me out please -- the Hillary witch hunt club, the Obama witch hunt club or the Trump witch hunt club?



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Ah, just imagine the time people would have if they realized this was all a song and dance. Would that time be used to further humanity, develop personal hobbies and immerse oneself in reality or would it just be used towards another soap opera? If people dropped out of this illusion of meaningful politics, would they just double down on watching sports?

Maybe it doesn't really matter.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

SIgh, again with the need for explanation on your level. Pretend this is in crayon.

People (Trump haters) have been making statements like "Trump is a criminal" and then when asked to back that up, there is no reply.

Like here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Where someone did try, but failed in epic proportions to comprehend what a "crime" is. (being sued isn't a crime, it's a "lawsuit".)

So in conclusion, I wrote this thread asking for those who make those claims to set me straight. I didn't ask for anything else.

Now, the topic here is what CRIMES has Trump committed. It's not a hard topic to grasp, so please do your best to stick to it.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron




I don't know which camp you're talking about, help me out please -- the Hillary witch hunt club, the Obama witch hunt club or the Trump witch hunt club?


You'd get a better idea if you read the OP.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Kharron
I see a lot of what you say from both sides, network dude -- biased reporting, making stuff up and defending one side, only to hear crickets when it's the opposite.

For two decades now we've been reading that Obama broke the law, or GW broke the law, or Rumsfeld did, or Hillary did and should be jailed, or that Trump and his people did... and for those two decades not one of them has been held accountable for a single action, for a single one of those hundreds of broken laws.

So either they are all angels or they are all above the law. Being above the law does not mean no crime was committed, it just means the people have no power in this country.

Here's one example of when I hear crickets a lot... when people post what seems to be compelling evidence against Hillary and ask for her arrest, and over the last month I believe I've posed this question four or five times in those threads:

- Why is she not in jail? Why was that promise not kept? Why is someone who has access to all information, can take any step necessary, avoiding prosecuting Hillary or at least appointing a Counsel, or anything really? And thread after thread all I get is... crickets, from both sides.

I simply cannot believe that he cannot find anything wrong in her work to keep that promise... there must be more to it.

So, to wrap up, does Obama, or GW or Hillary not having been charged ever mean that they are innocent?


I Agree that calling someone a criminal with no crimes to be accountable for is wrong. That's kind of why I wrote this thread. So can I count on your to help me out here and admit the same?


Absolutely, I didn't think there was a doubt about me, I'm pretty clear -- I want all these crooks investigated and I'm impatiently waiting to know more. You've never heard me say I want someone arrested or impeached, and I won't until the investigators give us proof it's needed.

So, can we count on you that if investigations into Hillary or Obama or Trump end up calling for removal or imprisonment, you will be equally unbiased and supportive?


I'll be completely honest with you here. If Hillary isn't punished for the crimes Comey laid out in his briefing I listed a bit earlier, I will be angry. I was in the military and subject to those same rules, and I'm quite sure had I broken just one of them, I'd have been punished.

But if an investigation (a real one) lets her off, I will have no choice but to accept the results.
Is that fair enough? (honest question)




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join