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.

 

Federal Prosecutors in Virginia Assisting in Clinton email Probe

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Fair enough, I am dissecting your argument to foster debate about the topic, yet you continue with ad hominems and personal statements about posters, ignoring people who are pointing out flaws and hypocrisies in your reasoning.

By the way - the unnamed sources in the liberal media sources that you posted (some of which were just summarizations of the same WaPo article) are "U.S. Officials familiar with the matter". That could be anyone, not necessarily the DoS, and not necessarily someone from the FBI who is actually pursuing the investigation.

Either you are unable to see the fallacy in your logic, or you are ignoring it.

Thanks for referring to me passive-aggressively as dear, but such niceties aren't necessary, ma'am.




posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


What you attached means nothing in this case.


Let's take another look, shall we?


The public declaration of David M. Hardy (“Hardy Decl.”), see ECF No. 9-1, which was filed concurrently with Defendant’s Motion, provided detailed information sufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) conducted a reasonable search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and properly withheld responsive information pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(A). See Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 10-24. The Hardy Declaration also explained, however, that the FBI could not provide more information on the public record without adversely affecting the ongoing investigation that is the subject of Plaintiff’s FOIA request.


Direct .pdf link to source

What I cited were excerpts from a legal filing by the Department of Justice in opposition to an FOIA request (of the FBI) under Exemption 7 (A).

Here is the DOJ's own guide on interpreting the use of this exemption:


Exemption 7 of the FOIA, as amended, protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."

...

As such, it was consistently construed to exempt all material contained in an investigatory file, regardless of the status of the underlying investigation or the nature of the documents requested. (3) In 1974, Congress rejected the application of a "blanket" exemption for investigatory files and narrowed the scope of Exemption 7 by requiring that withholding be justified by one of six specified types of harm. (4) Under this revised Exemption 7 structure, an analysis of whether a record was protected by this exemption involved two steps: First, the record had to qualify as an "investigatory record compiled for law enforcement purposes"; second, its disclosure had to be found to threaten one of the enumerated harms of Exemption 7's six subparts.


DOJ website

Pertinent portions emphasized by me. If you would like further clarification, here is another resource:


Under this exemption, an agency must demonstrate that the records “relate to any ongoing investigation or . . . would jeopardize any future law enforcement proceedings.”26 The government must make a greater showing of interference than a conclusory statement that “the withheld information was clearly related to (an ongoing investigation).”27 If possible, you should provide evidence that an agency’s investigation is not — or has ceased — “gather[ing] evidence for a possible future . . . case” that “would be jeopardized by the premature release of that evidence.”


Were the Records "Compiled for Law Enforcement Purposes"?

The FBI says if itself:


The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, and you can find the major ones below, grouped within our national security and criminal priorities. Also visit our Intelligence program site, which underpins and informs all our investigative programs.


fbi.gov

I'm not sure why you're having trouble seeing how this applies to the case being discussed or what it means for the nature of the FBI investigation.

But then again, Hillary is often confused; perhaps her supporters are as well?

no anonymous sources were cited in this post, all excerpts are from official legal filings, government websites or recognized impartial organizations.
edit on 10-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Tired of my b.s.? What b.s.? It's true.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Bet ya can't quote the sources inside the articles.




posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

There are no flaws in my reasoning. My reasoning skills are exceptional. I've been saying from the first that she's not going to be charged and I'm being proven correct. Don't get mad at me. I'm just the messenger.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Bet I can.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

She is not going to be indicted. But I bet when she's exonerated some others come on here claiming some conspiracy set her free. There are already threads claiming the FBI took bribes to turn the other cheek. I've been around long enough to know how that game is played.
I've been beaten up and called names and had my own character and femininity called into question for two months already because I'm a lone wolf in support of Hillary on this site. I've developed thicker skin but I've also learned a thing or two about how you guys treat people and now you're getting it back. Don't like it. Too bad. I've had too many people dump on me for my choices to bother about hurting someone's feelings.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Hold the phone right there.

NOT ONCE have I attacked your character or femininity. I have pointed out holes in your argument, nothing personal there. Also, my feelings aren't hurt.

I have stated in other threads that my guess is that she will admit a mistake / poor choice in her own server (which she has), then some of her close aides will fall on their swords if indictments do come down.

Our debate on this won't go anywhere so I'll leave it be. Now - if she is not indicted / is the democratic nominee, then I'll see you on the forum debating something else like the 2nd Amendment


I've mentioned it before to you, but I have no ill will towards you personally.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor




NOT ONCE have I attacked your character or femininity. I have pointed out holes in your argument, nothing personal there. Also, my feelings aren't hurt.



Silly is playing the "woman card". Bet she got one direct from Hillary herself. They can't help it....it's a lib program and so ingrained you just have to acknowledge it's there and ignore it.




posted on May, 10 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme I've been saying from the first that she's not going to be charged and I'm being proven correct.


And, you know this because?
Your working on the case?

Or, your in high school writing a fiction novel?

You know nothing from the inside, that is for sure.
edit on 10-5-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Looks like Mills got a little antsy during her interview and had to walk out for an unscheduled break.

www.chicagotribune.com...


Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter. Mills and her lawyer left the room -- though both returned a short time later - and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.



I may need more popcorn!!


The frogs can feel the water in the pot starting to heat to a slow boil.... they do not like it, it would seem.


Soon.... Hillary goes in....


edit on R162016-05-10T18:16:40-05:00k165Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R292016-05-10T18:29:47-05:00k295Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R322016-05-10T18:32:30-05:00k325Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I am holding out with hope that soon and very soon....




posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
SPAM REMOVED BY ADMIN
edit on Jun 17th 2016 by Djarums because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join