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.

 

Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

You're pretending to predict the future and I'm the troll ...

Right.

We will see.


Why am I pretending to predict the future? How so???

The bottom line is this:


Any person having classified information on a unclassified email server has committed a criminal act.

Any person caught storing classified information outside of strict government control has committed a criminal act.



That is not a prediction, that is a plain old fact.


You go ahead and call it a prediction, I will call it following the facts to their logical conclusion, which is that several people including Hillary Clinton are in some very deep doo doo.




posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Dude did you predict the outcome of the FBI investigation or not?

This is not really hard.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

Dude did you predict the outcome of the FBI investigation or not?

This is not really hard.



I think my position is pretty clear. I believe Hillary Clinton and 6-10 others will face recommendations for indictment, in the near future.

Confidence level: high. No doubt at this point really.

That's why she shouldn't be talking to the FBI... it's more long term risk than short term advantage to do the interview.

edit on R162016-04-10T17:16:53-05:00k164Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R182016-04-10T17:18:52-05:00k184Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I'm not interested in your explanations or obfuscation.

Here are the two pertinent facts:

1. The FBI investigation has not been concluded and no indictments nor any other legal action have been recommended.

2. You said this above:


originally posted by: RickinVa
Hillary Clinton and several of her inner circle will be recommended for indictments by the FBI/DOJ for the mishandling of classified information among other charges. Is that plain enough?


Conclusion: You are making a specific statement about what will happen at a future time.

If you don't want to call that a prediction, call it prophecy, divination, fortune-telling, or whatever term you prefer ...

It really doesn't matter.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Hillary Clinton and several of her inner circle will be recommended for indictments by the FBI/DOJ for the mishandling of classified information among other charges. Is that plain enough?



Oopsy I said it again.... got a point to all this other than it has nothing to do with whether she should do the upcoming FBI interview and is nothing more than a simple attempt to shift the topic away from Hillary and make it reflect more on a personal level about me?

Common tactics, old news.


edit on R422016-04-10T18:42:44-05:00k424Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
Hillary Clinton and several of her inner circle will be recommended for indictments by the FBI/DOJ for the mishandling of classified information among other charges. Is that plain enough?



Oopsy I said it again.... got a point to all this other than it has nothing to do with whether she should do the upcoming FBI interview.



Right, and as that hasn't happened yet, it's a prediction/prophecy/divination/fortune-telling ...

Oopsy.

/shrug



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa
Hillary Clinton and several of her inner circle will be recommended for indictments by the FBI/DOJ for the mishandling of classified information among other charges. Is that plain enough?



Oopsy I said it again.... got a point to all this other than it has nothing to do with whether she should do the upcoming FBI interview.




Right, and as that hasn't happened yet, it's a prediction/prophecy/divination/fortune-telling ...

Oopsy.

/shrug



Thank you for your such needed input..... care to state whether you believe she should meet with the FBI and not talk about me or is that all you got?
edit on R462016-04-10T18:46:12-05:00k464Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

Wait, are we going to wait and see or go on your pronouncements?

You seem to be going both ways, kinda like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz ...


I guess I should say this again, then I am done troll baiting today.


Hillary Clinton and several of her inner circle will be recommended for indictments by the FBI/DOJ for the mishandling of classified information among other charges. Is that plain enough?



Who is Hillary's "Inner Circle"? Bill and Chelsea seem to be the only close advisors the poor thing has now.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Of course Mrs. Clinton is going to talk to the FBI if they wish to talk to her ... why wouldn't she?

I'm pretty sure I said this pages ago ... but, just for the record ... here is is again.

After the right-wing (and now, some center and left wing) media outlets are trying so hard to make this a credibility issue for Clinton ... what, she's going to "plead the Fifth."

It's not really even a topic with much weight.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

Thank you for your such needed input..... care to state whether you believe she should meet with the FBI? That is the topic you know.


See above, below, back a few pages in the thread, and anywhere else you want to look other than that imaginary crystal ball you can't seem to take your eyes off of ...




Of course Mrs. Clinton is going to talk to the FBI if they wish to talk to her ... why wouldn't she?



edit on 10-4-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Jeez ...



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa

Thank you for your such needed input..... care to state whether you believe she should meet with the FBI? That is the topic you know.


See above, below, back a few pages in the thread, and anywhere else you want to look other than that imaginary crystal ball you can't seem to take your eyes off of ...




Of course Mrs. Clinton is going to talk to the FBI if they wish to talk to her ... why wouldn't she?




You think she should.

I think she would be stupid to do it. I retired from the FBI and I wouldn't talk to them unless I had too and with several lawyers.

You should never, ever, no matter who you are, talk to authority figures until you have legal counsel. There is a reason you are told "you have the right to remain silent".... always use that when dealing with the law. Always.

I wouldn't do it even with Hillarys lawyers with me.... too much risk for too little gain.

We disagree in our view points... have a nice day!

Some people look at Hillary and see a woman destined to be the next POTUS.

I see a criminal who has violated many laws concerning the handling of classified material. I guess I am just weird like that.
edit on R432016-04-10T19:43:37-05:00k434Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

One difference (among many) is that you're not running for President of the United States.

Yes, we disagree with each other. So? That means we can't represent the facts here in this forum?

What laws do you think she's broken that make her so vulnerable? Every legal scholar I've read says there's no case here, because there was no intent to mishandle government secrets and no evidence that any have been compromised.

You retired from FBI? Interesting. What area/division?



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

One difference (among many) is that you're not running for President of the United States.

Yes, we disagree with each other. So? That means we can't represent the facts here in this forum?

What laws do you think she's broken that make her so vulnerable? Every legal scholar I've read says there's no case here, because there was no intent to mishandle government secrets and no evidence that any have been compromised.

You retired from FBI? Interesting. What area/division?


Lets just say I retired from the FBI and leave it at that. What area/division does not matter to this thread.

If you would care to use the search function, you can find threads covering the various laws she has broken regarding classified information.

You have answered your opinion on whether she should talk to the FBI and you are not going to change it, so there is no further benefit, it just derails the thread into personal areas as opposed to the forum topic.


If you would like to start a new thread to discuss my prior career, knock your self out. You can already find out what I did by utilizing the same exact search function if you care to choose. This thread is whether she should interview with the FBI.

You will also find I have 25+ years TS/SCI handling extremely sensitive materials... courier status and all.

I know what I am talking about when I say she is in some very deep doo doo and should not volunteer to talk to the FBI.

EDIT: I base my opinion on 95% experience working in the intelligence community and 5% on the FBI, for what ever that is worth..... the laws concerning classified information are clear cut. She signed a legally binding document agreeing to face judicial punishment if she broke that agreement. I lost track of how many times she violated that exact same statement (her SF 312).
edit on R402016-04-10T20:40:41-05:00k404Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R412016-04-10T20:41:57-05:00k414Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

No, what area you might have been in really doesn't matter. Nor does the possibility that you actually did retire from the FBI.

I really don't need your advice to "use the search function." I see my instincts about you were right on track.

"Start a thread about your previous career"? LOL. No I'll pass, there's enough dreck around here as it is.

So, take your appeals to your own imagined authority and enjoy them as you wish. You've only proven yourself able to repeat the same position over and over, you offer NOTHING as evidence other than your own imagination (whatever the facts are about your past career).

Earlier, I felt like I may have been a little tough on you and wanted to give you a chance to tell your side of things, in the spirit of general discussion. You instead make the snide "look it up" response and smugly suggest that you have all the answers ... you just can't share them or prove them or etc. You don't even seem to understand the meaning of the word "predict."

There's a dozen posters with imaginary credentials on every site, forum, blog, comment section and Facebook page, and all of them are worth about $0.10.



posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

you offer NOTHING as evidence


22 Top Secret emails found to be on Hillarys unclassified server.

104 emails she authored herself that had to be later classified by the State department.

80+ Secret level emails found on Hillarys unclassified server

2000+ classified emails found on Hillarys unclassified server.





Dammit I have no proof..... okie dokie

Whatever man, there is more than enough evidence already known for multiple felony counts.... the only thing that matters right now is who gets charged with what.


I really don't give two rats patooties whether you believe my credentials or not. The Government will send me my retirement check every month.

You know zero about the proper storage and handling of classified materials... that much is blatantly obvious.

You can not have classified material kept in a private residence outside of strict government control.

You already know Hillary had various amounts of classified material on her server.

What part of that equation do you not understand? If you want to go the retroactively classified route, that's fine but that will have to sorted out after an indictment is handed down.... either way,,, she gets indicted.


edit on R452016-04-10T22:45:57-05:00k454Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Just so we are clear, I don't make any of this up. If I say it it's because I read it. You look for it.

Did you see the statement from the President?
www.washingtontimes.com...

Could this be the beginning of the end?
Has the FBI aleady spoken to him?
Of course that's not fair. I'm reading into it.
Still it's positive news for us Hillary supporters. To use your term. I think of garters whenever you do.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Entropy implies that once they were movable. LOL. These aren't just sticks in the mud. They're sticks in concrete.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I've said it before. With this crowd the Clinton's are never innocent. They are just getting away with stuff.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

That is what I call a prediction. It's not fact.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

And there ladies and gentlemen are the real magic words. I believe....



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join