Clinton: DOJ investigating me would be abuse of power

a reply to: carewemust

Instead we get the dictator moron. What a trade off.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I wasn't though.

La la la...

Super-totes-fun!!!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen
Trump IS going to be indicted and let's not claim a president can't be prosecuted because it simply is not true. So look impeachment day is coming. Tic tick ... Lock him up...

It has been accepted for a long time that no, a sitting president cannot be indicted. Refer to the US Constitution, Article I, Section 3. It is accepted that one could be indicted after the job is over or if removed from office otherwise though.

However, there is one memo from a previous US Solicitor General that has been reported as "suggesting" that a sitting president "may" be able to be indicted. Comically enough, it was in reference to Bill Clinton...

It has never happened before and there is no precedent for it. I imagine it would end up before the Grand Jury to make the decision on if it is even possible and if possible, how. It's surprising that they haven't decided this previously.

Nobody knows if this can happen or not. Regarding the impeachment talk, impeach means to accuse. A president can be impeached without being removed from office. In all of US history an impeachment has never led to removal from office. Two presidents have been impeached then acquitted.

*Mandatory Trump Disclaimer*
I am not a mindless Trump supporter or brainwashed Trump detractor. I am simply discussing facts regarding US law. I am not a Republican or Democrat.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Sillyolme

Oh and NEWS FLASH... Christopher Steele has made a public statement about the dossier It's 70-90% accurate and true.
Hillary isnt going to be investigated. Trump IS going to be indicted and let's not claim a president can't be prosecuted because it simply is not true. So look impeachment day is coming. Tic tick ... Lock him up..

I have a feeling you are going to be needing some serious psychological evaluation when all of this is over.

Why wait?......she needs some right now.

If someone is thought to have committed a criminal act, they are investigated and then, as appropriate, are charged with the crime or not.

What's the problem? Or is this somehow only an abuse of power because it's suddenly becoming a very real possibility for her?

That would then seem to be a request for preferential treatment.

I'm a supporter of neither side with no axe to grind.

a reply to: elementalgrove


What the hell does that matter? who cares? Oh yeah the ones who want to discredit it. It wouldn't matter if Hillary put it on her VISA card.
Who paid for it is a non issue.
It's what's in it that is important and Robert Mueller is very interested in what it says.
Better pull up your PFDs of the dossier guys and have a closer look. Try to get past the sex parts that's not important except that it means the Kremlin has kompromot on trump. It's

originally posted by: Noncents

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen
Trump IS going to be indicted and let's not claim a president can't be prosecuted because it simply is not true. So look impeachment day is coming. Tic tick ... Lock him up...

It has been accepted for a long time that no, a sitting president cannot be indicted. Refer to the US Constitution, Article I, Section 3. It is accepted that one could be indicted after the job is over or if removed from office otherwise though.

However, there is one memo from a previous US Solicitor General that has been reported as "suggesting" that a sitting president "may" be able to be indicted. Comically enough, it was in reference to Bill Clinton...

It has never happened before and there is no precedent for it. I imagine it would end up before the Grand Jury to make the decision on if it is even possible and if possible, how. It's surprising that they haven't decided this previously.

Nobody knows if this can happen or not. Regarding the impeachment talk, impeach means to accuse. A president can be impeached without being removed from office. In all of US history an impeachment has never led to removal from office. Two presidents have been impeached then acquitted.

*Mandatory Trump Disclaimer*
I am not a mindless Trump supporter or brainwashed Trump detractor. I am simply discussing facts regarding US law. I am not a Republican or Democrat.

Please don't confuse her with facts, she gets worse when confronted with real facts.

a reply to: RazorV66

He had an interview. Maxine Waters doesn't matter to me. Don't know why you're trying to make that association.
Try and stay focused ok? The author of the dossier is saying the dossier is 70-90% accurate. That's why trump looks so worried.


PS you know what I think about memes right? Yeah words for people who have NOTHING TO SAY.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The author of the dossier is saying the dossier is 70-90% accurate. That's why trump looks so worried.

Why on earth would anyone be worried about evidence produced by someone so unsure, they only felt comfortable saying 70-90% of it was true and accurate?

In the criminal justice system...that's called 'reasonable doubt.'

***

ETA: I mean was the subject of the dossier really Ronald Frump? Is that part of the 10-30% that is inaccurate and untrue?

a reply to: Sillyolme

PS you know what I think about memes right? Yeah words for people who have NOTHING TO SAY.

Some folks have plenty to say but there is zero content. Well except for comedic relief.

Memes can also do the same.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I thought that paying a foreign entity for information on a political opponent by violating campaign finance laws by disguising the payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the Federal Election Commission was in itself a crime.

a reply to: Sillyolme

"Christopher Steele" is a myth.

The "dossier" is a product of a jilted Hollywood screen writer.

Like using the IRS to go after certain groups.
She is a do as I say and don't look at the crooked stuff I have done .
She kicked this hornets nest that is finding more of her worker bees that would have been ok if she became the queen bee , but she didn't and now hopefully she will get stung too.

originally posted by: Jc333
a reply to: Sillyolme

I thought that paying a foreign entity for information on a political opponent by violating campaign finance laws by disguising the payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the Federal Election Commission was in itself a crime.

It is.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RazorV66

He had an interview. Maxine Waters doesn't matter to me. Don't know why you're trying to make that association.
Try and stay focused ok? The author of the dossier is saying the dossier is 70-90% accurate. That's why trump looks so worried.


PS you know what I think about memes right? Yeah words for people who have NOTHING TO SAY.

And why would he be any different than all the lying Dims that paid him to come up with lies?
He is the author and he is saying only 70-90% is true?
So he is admitting that 10-30% are lies?....the entire thing is bought and paid for lies.
Don't be stupid ok? Learn to read when someone is lying their ass off to keep themselves out of jail.
Just like this clown at Fusion GPS......

According to a source familiar with the matter, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson refused to answer key questions during his seven-hour, closed-door appearance before the House Intelligence Committee. The source said he would not answer questions on his relationship with specific journalists or ties to the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign, which financed the anti-Trump research via the law firm Perkins Coie.

Simpson told investigators he never spoke to the underlying sources of the document, never traveled to Russia and did not verify the dossier beyond comparing the claims to “open source” media reporting

The source said Simpson also told investigators he was “upset” when then FBI Director James Comey re-opened the Hillary Clinton email investigation in late October 2016, and Simpson wanted to push back.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Noncents

Wrong . There are special instances regarding crimes against the country... they impeach and then they wait until he's out of office . That won't take long if he's committed crimes. No one is above the law. The founding fathers didn't want the running of the country to be disrupted but they also didn't want criminals running the country. Criminal prosecution would fall under that but then they included impeachment in case they needed to prosecute a sitting president.
The truth is it's never been tested in a court of law but they came close during watergate.
Guess we will see but I'm not ruling anything out.
But hey if he's innocent haha it doesn't even matter does it?

a reply to: RazorV66

Ha ha we shall see sonny. Ha ha .

They won't investigate her because of her party , but because she broke the law .

Hopefully they will tell her see u next Tuesday.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You weren't what?

a reply to: Sillyolme

No one is above the law.

For the first time ever, I truly mean this: No offense, but why are you even on ATS? You've mocked conspiracy theorists as a whole, you fully believe the MSM and you have no will to actually enlighten yourself or expand your horizons of thought.

I mean, I don't want you to leave, but I have to ask what does ATS have to offer you?