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.

 

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton

page: 16
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: BlackJackal

Your link is broken


Strange it works for me but I am mobile at the moment. Google the title “Trump raised prosecuting Clinton with top White House, Justice officials” the article is on cnn.com




posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




At this point maybe you should provide me with your sources stating he only asked if it was ok to open these investigations.


Lets just use your source for expedience:

President Donald Trump on multiple occasions raised with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Matt Whitaker, who was then-chief of staff to Jeff Sessions, whether the Justice Department was progressing in investigating Hillary Clinton, according to a source familiar with the matter. The President also wanted his previous White House counsel, Don McGahn, to ask the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton on numerous occasions, but McGahn rebuffed doing that, the source said.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: BlackJackal

Yeah every single post I make is backed up by multiple sources, please explain how that is spin?


Garbage in, garbage out, dude. It's like a law of nature.



So basically what you are saying is that if the journalism disagrees with your worldview it is garbage? Because that sure seems to be what you are alluding to.

I said I back up my posts with sources and you say”Garbage in, Garbage out”. So that must mean my sources are garbage in your eyes. I have only used highly credible organizations for my sources so it can’t be the credibility of the papers you are calling garbage it must be the content. Gotcha, you are admitting that you are a sycophant. I’m glad you finally admitted it.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Another fail! NYTs and CNN! Unconfirmed sources and opinion pieces as usual.

It’s just he said she said, nothing more.

But I can prove my point easily, if Trump did order these Justice Department investigations then were was all of the VERY PUBLIC lawsuits, Constitutional crisis, calls for Impeachment on those grounds or something more that the constant chatter of the MSM? Where? Cause you know it would not had been kept quite.

Me providing a source? Naw man, it never happened and you can’t prove a negative. Besides it’s your claim, you prove it without wild leaps of claims from mysterious sources and unreliable news outlets.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Yeah buddy, yeah. I can’t believe I didn’t see those words when I originally posted it. Gosh is my face red.

If Trump was simply asking if it was ok to start these investigations and then he was told no that’s a bad idea, you could get impeached. Why would he continue to ask not only McGahn but also members of the Justice Department directly to prosecute Clinton and Comey? It’s not like the answer to the question is going to change. It is still against the law today just like it was yesterday.

Sorry bud, yet again you and logic are having problems hooking up.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Your buddy Will finally must have gotten it, sleep on it, I’m sure you will get it too.
edit on 20-11-2018 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




Sorry bud, yet again you and logic are having problems hooking up.


You sure about that?

Here, let me break it apart for you because despite all of your bloviating, you have no f'ing clue what you are talking about, even when why trying to source.


President Donald Trump on multiple occasions raised with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Matt Whitaker, who was then-chief of staff to Jeff Sessions, whether the Justice Department was progressing in investigating Hillary Clinton, according to a source familiar with the matter.

This is asking IF the Justice Department is making any progress with the already ongoing Clinton investigation.




The President also wanted his previous White House counsel, Don McGahn, to ask the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton on numerous occasions, but McGahn rebuffed doing that, the source said.

This is the quote that spun this whole thready through the loony bin.

You've been duped by CNN.

Blame me, blame everyone else, blame R's, blame D's, whatever justifies your position. The fact is you got duped by CNN.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   
What is a system crashing situation for $500 Alex?

Give you a hint, it starts with wikileaks



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
a reply to: BlackJackal

Another fail! NYTs and CNN! Unconfirmed sources and opinion pieces as usual.

It’s just he said she said, nothing more.

But I can prove my point easily, if Trump did order these Justice Department investigations then were was all of the VERY PUBLIC lawsuits, Constitutional crisis, calls for Impeachment on those grounds or something more that the constant chatter of the MSM? Where? Cause you know it would not had been kept quite.

Me providing a source? Naw man, it never happened and you can’t prove a negative. Besides it’s your claim, you prove it without wild leaps of claims from mysterious sources and unreliable news outlets.


There it is, move the goalpost, call the reporting into question. I have already explained in detail why anonymous sources are common in journalism and thoroughly vetted before their information is printed. I will say it again, there was quite a good bit of anonymous sources printed during Watergate. At that time Nixon and his supporters did the exact same thing. They claimed you can’t trust those anonymous sources and the media was just out to get him. But guess what? When it was over, all that reporting turned out to be true and Nixon went down. Do you think it will happen again?

I asking you to provide a source for your claim that all he did was ask if this was ok. You made that claim, back it up.

As far as where the uproar and lawsuits are. Well, Don McGahn has been working with Mueller for a while now. I’m sure once that wraps up there will be a few lawsuits.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

The article doesn’t say what you want it to say. You are attempting to extrapolate what you want it to mean because you aren’t mature enough to admit when you are wrong. Until you can provide evidence that shows what you claim I’m not wasting any more digital ink on you because at this point I’m arguing with a brick wall.

Take a look at the keywords “multiple times” and “numerous occasions”. Does that really fit with your explanation that he simply asked if it was ok?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal




The article doesn’t say what you want it to say.


I literally showed you exactly why it doesn't show what YOU want it to say. The ignorance from you is palpable




You are attempting to extrapolate what you want it to mean because you aren’t mature enough to admit when you are wrong.


Once again, as is your MO, in this thread as in other threads, you are backed into a corner and have to use insults. You've been insulting me since showing up. You are not changing minds and you certainly arne't winning any debates.


Until you can provide evidence that shows what you claim I’m not wasting any more digital ink on you because at this point I’m arguing with a brick wall.


Go on then, cop out and walk away. It's nothing new.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

1.What investigation about Clinton is he inquiring about? There are no active Clinton investigations. The last one ended in 2016.
2.If he really only asked if he was able to legally start an investigation without evidence, why would he ask the same question numerous times when he was already told that to do so would risk impeachment?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: BlackJackal

So what? Was an order given? No?

Enough.


It’s ok, we will see if that defense holds up when Trump is on trial. Because at this point there is no way that it won’t end up there one way or the other.


Like with the Russia thing? How about the obstruction of justice thing that also didnt pan out? Stormy Daniels? The list of stupid # leftists have tried is astounding. It would be entertaining if not for its monumental waste of treasure and time.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

So we're not done?

Ok then.


1.What investigation about Clinton is he inquiring about? There are no active Clinton investigations. The last one ended in 2016.


thehill.com...

Sessions appointed Huber last year to work in tandem with the Justice Department to look into conservative claims of misconduct at the FBI and review several issues surrounding the Clintons. This includes Hillary Clinton’s ties to a Russian nuclear agency and concerns about the Clinton Foundation.





2.If he really only asked if he was able to legally start an investigation without evidence, why would he ask the same question numerous times when he was already told that to do so would risk impeachment?



Different tactics, different evidence, different information? I dunno. You'll have to ask him that.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

If you haven't been awake the last 3 years you would know the scenarios and criminal acts these 2 were exposed to,what kind of fool thinks it is ok to commit crimes?that is what a citizen is supposed to do,not back criminals just because they are Democrat



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2

The Criminals in power are stupid enough to not only commit these crimes, but arrogant enough to believe they'll get away with them, and are. Life now i dare say, could be construed as the much wished for wet dream of Alister Crowley; upside down and backwards.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: watchitburn

What crimes would those be deary? The ones you wish they had committed?


Sigh, do we need to link the video where Comey lays out the crimes they had proof of at the time, yet again, or is it possible that you might remember a little inconvenient history for once? Pretending to be this damn stupid must be hard. You are pretending .....right?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Trump’s brain has been hijacked by the same propoganda and fake news that has infiltrated conservative circles. Some of the misinformation trails back to Russia. He probably believes lies about Comey and Clinton and those lies are motivating him to push for investigations.

Trump is a victim of fake news as well as a perpetrator. He himself doesn’t know the truth about some things.

At any rate, Trump didn’t follow through after the warnings.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
Trump’s brain has been hijacked by the same propoganda and fake news that has infiltrated conservative circles. Some of the misinformation trails back to Russia. He probably believes lies about Comey and Clinton and those lies are motivating him to push for investigations.

Trump is a victim of fake news as well as a perpetrator. He himself doesn’t know the truth about some things.

At any rate, Trump didn’t follow through after the warnings.


So Clinton didn't illegally send, receive and store top secret information on an unsecured server?
Because the FBI would disagree with you.

And that is in fact a crime.

Please enlighten us which documented and acknowledged crimes were lies?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

ummm you cant because he never did that. If he knew of crimes and listed those crimes and then didnt prosecute her there would have been a big uproar. There was one anyway wasnt there? You are part of it. You believe it even though it never happened. Sorry but dude please.... the reality is that they didnt charge her because they would have lost the case. There was NO EVIDENCE of malfeasance, no evidence of intent to commit a crime. Just open your eyes.

And I really hope I dont start getting moderation of all my posts for the past year because I disagreed with a mod. Its happened before.




top topics



 
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join