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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"So you refuse to back-up your claim."

What claim? That classified information can not be on any unclassified server whether it be commercial, private or government because it is illegal... that claim?

I never said she would be indicted...I said recommended for indictment,,, that is all I want to see... what happens after that is anybodies guess.

Wonder what day Hillary will go for her nice little chat with the FBI?
edit on R422016-05-06T11:42:21-05:00k425Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Jesus, Rick. You can't even follow your own conversation.

I'm done.

See ya around.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

There won't be an indictment. Everyone knows this. Some apparently just have a hard time accepting it.


Even IF Hillary somehow does not get indicted, there will certainly be indictments of others connected to the whole affair that were Hillary associates (government employees at the time or non-government employees).

That alone will be enough to make the campaign issues difficult to justify.




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

In recent weeks, multiple aides have been interviewed -- some more than once, the officials said.


www.cnn.com...


Well that has to suck...anybody who has been under an FBI investigation can tell you the interviews are not exactly known to be fun experiences...imagine having to go back more than once....gotta make you wonder what changed that they felt compelled to ask you to return.

I bet it ain't good news.
edit on R022016-05-06T12:02:34-05:00k025Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

She herself even admitted her choice was a bad one.

Some people are sympathizers, some are not.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Jesus, Rick. You can't even follow your own conversation.

I'm done.

See ya around.


Oh you mean the one where you were trying to rationalize Hillary breaking the law by having classified material on her personal unclassified server by trying to compare that to Bush's 22 million missing emails on the RNC commercial email server because that set some sort of imaginary precedence when having classified emails on an unclassified email server? That one?

I chose to ignore it. It's a totally stupid idea and has no merit in this discussion what so ever.

Said it before, will say it again... I am only in it for the classified email crap. She has violated the legally binding contract she signed with the federal government and now it is time to pay the piper.
edit on R342016-05-06T13:34:03-05:00k345Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

She's not under investigation so .....



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Sorry but those laws on classified information weigh heavily in the intent dept. If it's not willingly or willfully done there is no crime.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Granite

Good god there's not going to be a trial.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Everything you said. :up
Apparently speculation means damn sure now.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Who was prosecuted because that's a good jumping off point.
Petraeus...wrote down the classified stuff then willingly and with intent gave it to his girlfriend.

A very different thing. But some people can't tell apples from oranges.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security



4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952, and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.


www.fas.org...

She signed it Feb 2009,,,, sucks to be her
edit on R102016-05-06T17:10:57-05:00k105Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R112016-05-06T17:11:50-05:00k115Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

She's not under investigation so .....


You can verify that from a genuine official source right?

Since they can't arrest and put a computer on trial, who would be the "target(s)" of the FBI investigation?




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Once again. It's not a criminal investigation. Never was.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

So far investigators haven't found evidence that Clinton willfully violated the law as reported by CNN.
There now it's correct. When I want an editor i'll get my own.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Forget it.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Really? It still looks to you like it's going to court? Because it looks to me like they're not finding any reason to open a criminal case against her. And it looks to me like the server wasn't compromised. Looks to me like they don't think she's a criminal or that she willfully put our country at risk.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

Once again. It's not a criminal investigation. Never was.


Open mouth, here's a foot for ya:


One of the 39 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits brought in connection with Mrs. Clinton's email scandal was filed recently by Jason Leopold, a reporter for Vice News. He seeks copies of the emails Clinton tried unsuccessfully to wipe clean from her server, as well as copies of communications between the DOJ and Mrs. Clinton.

The DOJ moved to dismiss his lawsuit, and in support of its motion, it filed a secret affidavit with the court, signed by an FBI agent familiar with the bureau's investigation of Mrs. Clinton. In its brief filed the day before Mr. Clinton made his silly speeding prosecution analogy, the DOJ — which also once worked for him — characterized the secret affidavit as a summary of the investigation of Mrs. Clinton. The DOJ argued that compliance with Leopold's FOIA request would jeopardize that investigation by exposing parts of it prematurely.

In the same brief, the DOJ referred to the investigation of Mrs. Clinton as a law enforcement proceeding.


Please try and keep up.
edit on 6-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: link

edit on 6-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No one is being prosecuted or fined or anything else. They investigated the server. Apparently it was a safe system. They spoke with the tech who set it up and her assistant. Hillary has said the FBI has not asked to speak with her though that probably will still happen if just for closure.
Supposedly they don't feel the Mrs Clinton willfully put any information at risk. Obviously they have some degree of confidence in her character.
So if the info was safe and she's not nefariously selling states secrets to Boris and Natasha out of her powderoom in Chapaqua that's it. It's over.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Imagine ....
Imagine there's no heaven.....
I wonder if you can.
I like John Lennons imagination better.







 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join