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.

 

Attorny General Loretta Lynch non-committal on Clinton email prosecution

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Coming out of Politico it seems like the AG is dodging questions about the investigation.


Attorney General Loretta Lynch declined Wednesday to discuss how she would make a decision about whether to prosecute Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over classified information found on her private email server.
However, Lynch did say the investigation and the Justice Department's review of the matter would follow the usual process and procedure for such matters.

"This will be conducted as every other case and we will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as to how to best handle it," Lynch said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday morning.
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) told Lynch that some of his constituents wanted him to raise the issue with her because they were concerned that the probe might be tainted by politics.
"If the FBI makes the case that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information and put America's security at risk, will you prosecute the case? Do you know of any efforts underway to undermine the FBI investigation," Carter asked.


At this point, nobody on the left or right can call this a political witch hunt, considering the information provided. Laws were broken, data was at risk of exposure.

It will be interesting to see what the FBI has to say in their next release, although I highly doubt anything will occur until the Convention or at least Super Tuesday.

I also am flabbergasted by the lack of coverage and questions being fielded to her about this. I know the GOP nominee will run millions in ads targeted at this just issue when the general starts.

I also think it's highly probably that there is a lot of outside pressure on the AG to sweep this under the rug as fast, and quietly as possible.

Thoughts?

~Tenth
edit on 2/24/2016 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
it seems like the AG is dodging questions about the investigation.

Thoughts?

I think it's clear that politicians are above the law ... at least until they fall from grace.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
She shouldn't even be allowed to be running, it just adds to the joke of a system we have.

If she were a man she'd be hanging from the gallows.

Gurrrl powah!


edit: not to mention I love how she dodged Bernie request to release transcripts for speeches given to wallstreet.... Classy, for a snake.
edit on 24-2-2016 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

Technically, there is no Constitutional requirement that someone running for President can't be under investigation for criminal activity. So barring her from running because she is under investigation would be unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Yesterday, future President Trump said he definitely will prosecute Hillary for email scandal.
That will be the end of her career and might involve prison time and fines.

The "establishment" sure is on the ropes now...



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wot?

Really?

Thank ghod you shared the secret.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
If Clinton had an R by her name Lynch would be going full bore on her.

That is a FACT.

They have been moving heaven and earth to make sure Clinton becomes next potus.

Nothing is going to rain on that parade.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Won't argue that.

I think Lynch just hadn't received her talking points from the white house yet so she just said the safe thing, which was nothing. I find it hard to believe that she's not intimately involved with one of the most high profile cases of her career.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Lynch is bound by confidentiality.

She really can't comment about ongoing investigations.

But I bet she would love to twist the facts.



The political ramifications with the Hillary bagmail is enormous.

Remember the FBI has 4 State Department servers in custody along with Hillary's private server and her thumbdrive.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

She is. As high profile as Clinton is.

I just remember back to the days of how they were suppose to drain the swamp of Washington DC.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
We all know the routine as to how these things go. They will talk about it for years, until its of no interest to anyone and then quietly lay it aside.

As much as I hate it, I've come to accept there are two sets of rules and IMO party has nothing to do with it. They ALL have each others backs and off camera, they are part of the same whole. The investigation is just a dog and pony show.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Lysergic

Technically, there is no Constitutional requirement that someone running for President can't be under investigation for criminal activity. So barring her from running because she is under investigation would be unconstitutional.


No, but if she is indicted, it will be likely she convicted. And with a conviction of mishandling information, she would be disqualified.

Besides that, would you even want someone who is facing up to a decade behind bars leading the country?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
If Clinton had an R by her name Lynch would be going full bore on her.


Yeah, if Sarah Palin (or any very conservative woman who stood publicly in opposition to the progressive agenda) had a security clearance that had given her access to top secret info and then it was revealed she'd stored that info in a personal, nonsecure server, something tells me the honorable Mrs. Lynch wouldn't still be sitting on her hands.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

Let me start by saying I don't think this 'scandal' disqualifies Clinton from running. I've got legitimate policy questions about her that keep me from supporting her.

Having said that, I think it's important to remember that these emails were classified after they were discovered. Meaning, they were unclassified when they were sent and, after investigating, were found that they should be classified.

It's getting kind of ridiculous. Am I the only one that doesn't support Hillary seeing that? There something like 10,000+ emails on the server and 5 of them were found to contain what is now Top Secret information but wasn't Top Secret information at the time.

I don't like Clinton. I don't like her at all. This whole email thing feels like a concerted effort by the GOP to cast doubt on her integrity (which is easy to do just by looking at all her speaking fees) in hopes of winning the White House. I see the news and all I can think is that either the GOP are political masterminds, the likes of which have never been seen before or are getting ready to shoot themselves in both feet.

Just think of it this way; Hillary has been the presumptive 2016 Dem nominee since August 2008. This has let the GOP to lay the groundwork for an all-out assault on her from that point forward. Continually raising questions about her and her ethics, leaving questions in voters minds. All of this was done under the assumption that the GOP establishment would have a nominee this November. Now we're getting closer and closer to a Trump nomination (a candidate who is more disliked than Hillary), a candidate that the establishment can't control going up against a candidate (Sanders) that is viewed more favorably at large.

The GOP is betting a lot on this election. They're betting the White House, the Senate and the SCOTUS. If they win they'll control the direction of the country for decades to come, if they lose, they'll lose hard.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

No arguments here. All I said was that you cannot disqualify her from running just because she is under investigation.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: M4nWithNoN4me

Having said that, I think it's important to remember that these emails were classified after they were discovered. Meaning, they were unclassified when they were sent and, after investigating, were found that they should be classified.



That is Hillary's storyline but may not be true. Purportedly, there is evidence that she told her staff to scrub the classification and resend the emails. Some of the classifications were such that they were not add-ons after the fact; those that deal with compartmented info are not retro-classified.
Remember that ANY classified documents may not be sent on non-secure systems; they do not have to be TS.
I think old Hil wanted what she wanted and assumed she could get away with anything because of who she was. I believe that she didn't want to carry two Blackberries and that is why she used the Best Buy bathroom server for everything instead of the secure State server for classified material. The GOP wants to drag this out as long as possible and will try to force the issue, if possible after she is nominated, to disrupt the Dems and likely win POTUS.

ETA: I think the Dems have to dump her simply because of this uncertainty. They may even try to draft Biden if they decide Bernie is too far left.




edit on 2/24/2016 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

This is a good article to catch up on the whole thing.

Clinton herself had the authority to classify and declassify material at will. Only State Department material though. The investigation has raised some red flags in terms of how State Department employees have treated communications (assuming that anything classified would be found during an FOIA request). There's a lot more to it and I highly suggest reading the article.

Either way, I don't think it disqualifies her. It sounds like she, and the whole department, were operating as usual. I mean, the two preceding Secretaries of State operated the same way. I think there's bigger and better things to worry about than these emails.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
So what SHE DOES is nominate HER HUSBAND for VICE president.
You see, IT'S ALL about the cash flow.
edit on 24-2-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join