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: FBI Has Not Interviewed Me Yet

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CharlesT

Again, no official source.


three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record


Try again.
I mean.. From what I read she endorsed illegal action. I don't understand how you can keep trying to defend someone who has clearly violated the law. A law, I might add, link directly to the security of our country and where us Muricans live. What I'm talking about isn't anti Clinton. What I'm talking about is anti telling lies, then saying you didn't do anything wrong...




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You call this an official source?
mediamatters.org...

No!



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

I don't support Hillary and wish she would be charged with a real crime. But until then it's much more gratifying to watch people such as yourself flounder around trying to prove what you claim with crappy sources and propaganda sites.

I don't deal in blind belief and that is exactly what you are doing. You believe that she is guilty and no evidence to the contrary will convince you. That's dangerous and illogical.

Funny thing is that we cannot debate this till hell freezes over because you already caved. Perhaps you should do more research before you become arrogant enough to think you can convince me or anyone else of your religious-like beliefs of Hillary.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: introvert

You call this an official source?
mediamatters.org...

No!


Follow the links, man. It sources to an official statement.

oig.state.gov...


(post by CharlesT removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Look at the date dude. That report is 6 months old. Got that? It's 6 months old!



edit on 17-1-2016 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2016 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: introvert

Look at the date dude. That report is 6 months old. Got that? It's 6 months old!


Indeed. That is how long this investigation has been going on.

But you knew that, right?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Lord help me! I remember the old saying, IGNORANCE IS FRUSTRATING.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: introvert

Lord help me! I remember the old saying, IGNORANCE IS FRUSTRATING.


I apologize if I have missed something. That official statement was the referral that started this current investigation and it clearly states this was not a criminal referral.

Therefore, my original assertion is correct. This is not a criminal investigation and only one in to security procedure.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
NM.

Off topic.
edit on 17-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   

ATTENTION!



Please stick to addressing the topic.

NOT each other. Discussing each other is considered off topic and not allowed here at ATS.

Go after the ball, not the player.

Anymore discussion of each other instead of the topic will result in post removals and post bans handed out.

Do not reply to this post



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Follow the links, man. It sources to an official statement.

oig.state.gov...


from that "statement"...

Looks like somebody stripped the classified indicator !!!!!!



The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of
40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these em ails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.


IGs don't make determinations if something is criminal.

The FBI does.




edit on Jan-17-2016 by xuenchen because: thumbed



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to
the appropriate IC security officials.


You are correct, but the IG's do make referrals for the FBI to start a criminal investigation and they did not make any such referral. Apparently they did not find anything that warranted an investigation in to criminality.

In fact, only one IG made a referral to investigation the security aspect.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Well let's hope the FBI will not arrest the servers or the emails !!!




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
LOL
She ain't lying, the FBI interviewed her lawyers...
She plead the 5th.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join