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.

 

Hillary and Trump Deemed Guilty - But Not Guilty Enough To Warrant Prosecution.

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   
April 20, 2019

A.) In July of 2016, FBI Director James Comey issued a verbal and written report, stating Secretary of State/Presidential Candidate HILLARY CLINTON committed crimes, but they weren't bad enough to warrant prosecution.

Source from 2016: www.cnbc.com...

B.) This week, Special Counsel Bob Mueller issued a report saying that President Donald Trump likely committed Obstruction of Justice crimes, but none of them were bad enough to warrant prosecution.

Source: www.vox.com...


Aren't those 2 DOJ decisions, basically an APPLES-to-APPLES comparison?

Real world analogy (IMO): Both Clinton and Trump were going over the speed limit, but in each case, the sheriff decided not to issue a ticket, because they weren't exceeding the speed limit by much.

Neither Clinton or Trump are "exonerated" though, because their infractions were real, and still generated a "Warning" citation from the Sheriff.

In your opinion ATS Members, does the above interpretation sound ACCURATE to you?

-CareWeMust

edit on 4/20/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



+27 more 
posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 01:05 AM
link   
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.

Clinton's crimes actually happened.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

And Bob Mueller said Trump's crimes happened. In both cases, the prosecutor decided they were not very bad crimes, however.
edit on 4/20/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)


+11 more 
posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

People died because of Clinton. That would be more like a hit and run. Not just a speed limit problem.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Accurate and reasonable.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: carewemust

People died because of Clinton. That would be more like a hit and run. Not just a speed limit problem.


It's very possible. But nothing about "deaths" was mentioned by James Comey at his July 5, 2016 press briefing:


Comey began his address by explaining what investigators found. He said that the probe showed that 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to include classified information at the time they were received. Within those emails, eight chains contained information that was "top secret" at the time they were sent, 36 had "secret" information and eight more had "confidential" information, the FBI director said.

Addressing emails which were either not provided to the FBI or were deleted before making it to investigators, Comey said there was no evidence of a cover-up.

Comey also said the FBI assessed that there was no direct evidence that Clinton's personal email domain was hacked. It is possible, however, that hostile actors gained access to her personal email account, he added.

He characterized the investigation findings as showing that Clinton and her team were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information", but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.
www.cnbc.com...


+7 more 
posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 01:41 AM
link   
What laws did Trump break? Please cite where Mueller states the actual statutes Trump violated.

I believe Comey did mention exact laws that were broken by Clinton.

These are not the same thing. Trump was not found to have committed any crimes. Clinton was but Comey declined to prosecute her anyway.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.

Clinton's crimes actually happened.


Not according to the investigations.

That is what insufficient evidence to prosecute means.

The presumption is innocent until PROVEN guilty, and that hasn't been proven.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Therefore, innocent.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: carewemust

Accurate and reasonable.


What matters now is if a LEGAL AUTHORITY decides to conduct a reinvestigation to determine if either Hillary or President Trump actually went far enough over the speed limit to warrant prosecution.

Congress doesn't count, because they are NOT a Legal Authority. Can't indict.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
What laws did Trump break? Please cite where Mueller states the actual statutes Trump violated.




Washington • The report from special counsel Robert Mueller III lays out in alarming detail abundant evidence against President Donald Trump, finding 10 “episodes” of potential obstruction of justice but ultimately concluding it was not Mueller’s role to determine whether the commander in chief broke the law.
Source: www.sltrib.com...

But like I said earlier, it's up to the DOJ to determine if Mueller's findings are worth seeking prosecution.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: chr0naut

Therefore, innocent.


UNTIL proven guilty. It does not exonerate from all charges, and not for all time.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: chr0naut

Therefore, innocent.


UNTIL proven guilty. It does not exonerate from all charges, and not for all time.


I'm beginning to think "exonerate" should not be associated with a legal determination. It's more akin to the phrase, "cleared of wrong-doing". That can refer to any number of life's circumstances.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I asked what actual crimes he committed. Not what can potentially be deemed as a crime.

He didn't actually commit a crime. Those 10 alleged instances are pretty thin which is precisely why charges were not brough against Trump.

No crimes committed.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

He did. He said "NO". Why are you pretending there is something there that isn't?



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Totally agree.


You know what would be insane?

If in the end the left agree to forgive trump if the right forgives hillary and they both get a way with everything!



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: carewemust

Totally agree.


You know what would be insane?

If in the end the left agree to forgive trump if the right forgives hillary and they both get a way with everything!


with Hillary, that already happened, and has been happening.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I just don't k ow what has become of this site or people for that matter. This thread is so jam packed with erroneous statements, lies, very inaccurate history and things that anyone should be ashamed for living through and feeling justified to go commit to writing on a permanently documented forum. There is fact, and there is inaccuracy. There is nothing vague about what occurred in each person's case no matter how much you want to do an independent interpretation of the language used...

It really comes down to being a matter of dignity, self-respect vs. narcissistic and stubborn. maturity or insanity. Is this site truly a step above the rest or will it end up being no different than the guywho posts multiple times a say about how he is Christ how he doesn't want to be Christ but is. And that he, who wants nothing to do with being a living God but still posts hundreds of times a day once you add all the sites up, realized he was christ for some reason because he cracked 666 being the only one who connected it with the chicago lottery which was 666 on his election day, ignoring that just about every news outlet in the US pointed that out the night he as elected or the following morning. You can tell him this al yu want it's like you don't exist and he cant hear you if you say evyone saw the lotto thng or how even if he did crack the 666 thing, the bible says nothing about the guy who spots the real 666 IS the secret reincarnation of God.

Because again, this never even was amyrhing where it could go either way. it only ever was factual events on each side and merely peple who dint want to accept it s hoped fo the inaccuracies tshow on the opposing side. And when that doesn't work to go to pretending langiage hints to something more or even SPECIFICALLY DOCUMENTS the ite of ity historicallu!? Don't be pathetic, I wont mention which way I see it but I guarantee you anyone who is actually responsib enough to conider only the mation amd timelines a not hype or telepjone games knows that this is not a gray thing.

One susure as hell was proved rseonsible and waspunished. the other was proved to have done nothing.
edit on 4/20/2019 by AlexandrosTheGreat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Trumps crime was beating Hilliary.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: watchitburn
No,
You can't obstruct justice on a crime that didn't exist.

Clinton's crimes actually happened.


Not according to the investigations.

That is what insufficient evidence to prosecute means.

The presumption is innocent until PROVEN guilty, and that hasn't been proven.


There's lots of evidence of Clinton's crimes.

There is no evidence of the crimes Trump was accused of.




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join