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.

 

FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges but was talked out of it

page: 3
27
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

The IG report said a lot of schitte that was not correct... Whats your point?


roflol

The IG report was all based on real proof 😎

I notice you're stumbling and trembling lately 😎

Scared of something ?

Scared of something wicked and horrific ?

"I can feel it. It's over there in the room somewhere"




posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Y'all may as well just paste a new title to every other existing political thread... They are identical in every way. I swear each day I expect something different and it never is.... Its exactly the same people posting exactly the same crap day after day after day.
Boring....

Clinton not being charged for her server was the last thing that sillyolme was "correct" about.
That was what, 3 years ago?

I think we need to look back into this "matter" because I dont think you were correct about this one either. Based on your recent post history I think we should look into everything that you guarantee not to be true.

Lol



posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I don’t post every day. I very rarely comment. This situation, the subject of this OP, seems crazy to me. You, on the other hand, comment quite a bit. So what, in your mind, did the IG report get wrong, and from what authority do you make this assertion?

I read the report. It took a long time. To me it seemed well written, and its tone was impartial. It pointed out findings that were troublesome, such as some individuals in the DOJ, specifically connected to the FBI, expressing political bias using official channels. It allowed for the possibility that the individuals in question did not abuse their position, but merely communicated personal attitudes via the channels they were accustomed to, that is to say their mistake was not using their personal SMS and instead using government property. This I see as forgivable. The report seemed to indicate that the individuals in question actually regarded the Trump-Russia collusion question to be a non-issue, i.e. “there’s no ‘there’ there.” This didn’t change their personal feelings and hoped the “insurance policy” would gum up the works enough to stymie Trumps policy decisions.

This is where I think you are. I’ve read a lot of your comments, and for me it’s fine that you feel this way. What I don’t like is when you comment specifically to derail, with accusatory statements and broad generalizations. This is exactly the sort of thing that you rail against sometimes. Here we have a former top FBI lawyer saying he was waved off prosecuting an individual because...reasons? Why isn’t that interesting to you? Doesn’t that trip your wtf sensor, as it parallels the removal of the phrase “gross negligence” from the Hillary email server investigation?

I know, I know, The buttery males trope. It gets tiring. But the common retort is “she had how many investigations which found nothing” and here we have a top legal expert wanting to prosecute, having a case, and being told to back off. Doesn’t that, if true, negate the “how many” defense? That, plus the tarmac meeting, you get these pieces of a puzzle that looks like corruption. Don’t you think that sort of corruption deserves attention? That some people are above the law?

I hope you read this.

Look. I like you. You’re obviously whipcrack smart, and a successful businesswoman. You must know that palm greasing happens in business, which is low level corruption. Do you think about what happens when that practice enters the federal level, and becomes legalized through “charitable donations” to “humanitarian organizations” that operate with 80% operating costs? Don’t you wonder why since her defeat in ‘16 that donations to the CF have crashed? These are the things that I think about.

Here’s my bottom line: if Clinton gets a pass on mishandling classified information because she lacked intent, then Trump should get a pass on hiring people with shady pasts but impressive track records (probably because they were shady) but in the meantime, Trump has a country to run, and nobody is well-served by disrupting the running of the country based upon partisan ideals. There’s another election next year. If you hate it, fix it then.

Best Regards
Z



posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   


The FBI is HIDING a spreadsheet chart of Hillary's potential Crimes!

Source: twitter.com...



posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust


The FBI is HIDING a spreadsheet chart of Hillary's potential Crimes!

Source: twitter.com...


It's all there nice and neat like too 😎



posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 10:08 PM
link   
We have an epic battle of wits unfolding folk's!! the educated vs the staggered house mom of 3 son's who wish they weren't born into to this chaos of density. At halftime it's xuenchen 5 - 0 over the absolutely impossible common sense of Sillyome. Stay tuned folks, I do dare to say that one of these two combatants will never open their mind and die an ignorant death.
God Bless both opponent's!!

Sponsored by Jack in the Box and British Knights



posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   
The Clinton/zer0Bama support inside the DOJ was all about the "prizes" inside the box....


Harry Caray on CrackerJacks

This audio found in the trash of Harry Caray recalling a not so enjoyable moment where he did not get a crackerJack Prize.






posted on Feb, 22 2019 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Bleaching emails is one thing. Hillary Clinton should be investigated for Nazi connections. She is a doppelganger for Eva Braun. It's almost the same person with plastic surgery.




new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join