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: 17
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

No she didnt. But thats not going to ever stop some folks from believing it.
You guys act like she was selling states secrets to our sworn enemies. You demonize everything she ever did or said.
Yet can continually turn a blind eye to the trainwreck trying to make this a totalitarian regime that serves only him.
I just cant... I just cant see why?




posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Let the Purging Begin. Sometimes your Highness, that's what it takes to get rid of filth infiltration.

I'd say it's going well.
Q



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


Intent is not a requirement for violating national security. People have gone to jail for a lot less when it comes to securing government information. Comey decided it didn't meet the standard to prosecute however that's not his job or wasn't anyway. Now would she have gone to jail probably not, more than likely would have got something like David Petraeus. Whos girlfriend got access to classified information. She likely would have got 2 years probation and a fine the reason she didn't is that she was the Democratic candidate.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You're just being willfully ignorant.

They found the top secret documents in her emails which were on her server. They just didn't charge her because they are corrupt.

If you had done what she did, you would have been prosecuted and you would be in prison for the rest of your life.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Sillyolme

You're just being willfully ignorant.

They found the top secret documents in her emails which were on her server. They just didn't charge her because they are corrupt.

If you had done what she did, you would have been prosecuted and you would be in prison for the rest of your life.


Can you please provide a source for any of that? One that does not set off my tin foil hat detector, obviously.
I'm beginning to despair of this site. The double standards are astonishing and the level of delusion (whilst ignoring far more worrying information about the dumpster fire that has been the Trump 'administration') and hatred for Hillary Clinton is breathtaking.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

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.


The obstruction of justice thing is still being investigated same with Russia but I’m sure you knew that which is why you said those things didn’t pan out, right?



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Have you looked at the stock market lately


Yes. What is about to go down now should have happened at least 10 years ago. The problem goes back to the 1930's at least. Go on dafty, show us how smart and unbiased you are, blame that on Presedent Trump.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Wow, you surprised me. I didn’t think you had it in you but apparently there is a spark in there.

I was completely unaware of the probe into the Clinton Foundation. I was wrong when I said there are no investigations into Clinton. Good job you proved me wrong.

So your argument is that instead of what the article said he did, he was actually just asking about the Clinton investigation you linked. Surely if that is the case the Trump admin will trot out that as an excuse today. When they do please provide that proof. Until then, the best I can give you is plausible theory.

Also, that may account for why he spoke to the Justice Department but not Don McGahn multiple times. What is your reasoning behind the article stating he asked Don McGahn to ask the DOJ multiple times to start an investigation.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: watchitburn

DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT CANT TELL THE DOJ TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVALS

NO ONE DOES THAT, Nixon tried it and we know what happened to him

He can suggest that but even that would be looked at as a potential major issue.

They do that in Banana republics. That's what Trump has descended to


Well I called this

On many threads people that dislike trumo have said “if Hillary or these others committed crimes why didn’t trump use his authority to have his agency’s charge them”

I said had he done that, people would scream he was an authoritarian

And rightb on cue we see that is the case



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:30 AM
link   
dbl Post
edit on 21-11-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


An amusing observation.

For the past 2 years, anyone to the right of Lenin had to actually state that if Trump was guilty of anything, then he should be punished.

But Hillary?


Not a damned peep. Crickets. It just shows the utter ignorance and political bias that the leftists embrace.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: watchitburn

DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT CANT TELL THE DOJ TO INVESTIGATE HIS POLITICAL RIVALS

NO ONE DOES THAT, Nixon tried it and we know what happened to him

He can suggest that but even that would be looked at as a potential major issue.

They do that in Banana republics. That's what Trump has descended to


Well I called this

On many threads people that dislike trumo have said “if Hillary or these others committed crimes why didn’t trump use his authority to have his agency’s charge them”

I said had he done that, people would scream he was an authoritarian

And rightb on cue we see that is the case


If he had evidence that is one thing, but calling for an investigation of anyone without evidence is illegal.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

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.


Goal post moving? No just calling out crap sources. Really? You are just deflecting with BS.

Here let me give you an example of good reporting. Fox News reports that Ivanka Trump May have used her personal email for government business and Trey Goudy asks the White House for the emails. If you notice the article is backed up with a link to a copy of the letter. What the article does not do is say “according to knowledgeable sources “ or “ sources close to the President “. It showed the Fing letter.

I don’t care what news organizations report I don’t buy into less than solid reporting. If you want to be used by such shoddy reporting then that is your choice.

Link

Still waiting for you to provide a real piece of evidence that Trump issued such an order to the DOJ. Such an important order would certainly be in writing, where is it? That’s what I thought.
edit on 21-11-2018 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You have done more to convince ATS readers to support Trump than Trump himself has. Keep up the good work!




posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Just like with Nixon, we must wait for the Special Prosecutor to release that information. If that is your threshold for what you consider to be solid news be prepared to be called out in the future if you use anything less as your source. It’s going to make it increasingly difficult to defend Trump because over 75% of all reporting utilizes either the word of someone or an anonymous source.

By your definition of solid reporting you are going to have little to choose from to back you up.

Plus, if you go back and examine older news stories that utilized anonymous sources you will find that time generally proves what those sources said as true. So, I have no trouble with anonymous sourcing.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: whywhynot

Just like with Nixon, we must wait for the Special Prosecutor to release that information. If that is your threshold for what you consider to be solid news be prepared to be called out in the future if you use anything less as your source. It’s going to make it increasingly difficult to defend Trump because over 75% of all reporting utilizes either the word of someone or an anonymous source.

By your definition of solid reporting you are going to have little to choose from to back you up.

Plus, if you go back and examine older news stories that utilized anonymous sources you will find that time generally proves what those sources said as true. So, I have no trouble with anonymous sourcing.


Then you need to turn in your Deny Ignorance helmet.



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

saw this "news" while walking around the house. My first thought was "BREAKING: Trump reportedly thought about having 2 Big Mac's for lunch"

How is it newsworthy that he "reportedly thought about" something? Its like making news where none exists. Almost like they are just trying to fill up air time.....



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

BlackJackel says:



Plus, if you go back and examine older news stories that utilized anonymous sources you will find that time generally proves what those sources said as true. So, I have no trouble with anonymous sourcing.


Really? You fabulous news source CNN IS ONLY completely truthful 16% of the time according to this:

www.politifact.com...

The NYTs has issued massive lists of retractions. And then there are the lies that they don’t retract.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...
So your defense that you just have to trust them is deeply flawed. You’d be wrong, as you are on this OP, half the time.

DENY IGNORANCE
edit on 21-11-2018 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2018 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2018 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Willtell

saw this "news" while walking around the house. My first thought was "BREAKING: Trump reportedly thought about having 2 Big Mac's for lunch"

How is it newsworthy that he "reportedly thought about" something? Its like making news where none exists. Almost like they are just trying to fill up air time.....


Lol, but was it reported by someone close to the President?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join