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: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

He was granted immunity to speak freely without incriminating himself. That does not indicate anything other than that simple fact.

Unless you know what info he had to spill to the FBI.

Do you have that info?



You go right on believing that Pagliano was only given immunity for any reason other than testifying against his boss Hillary... you go right on believing that.

Some people believe in unicorns and tooth fairies..... what ever floats your proverbial pro Hillary boat.




posted on May, 7 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

It's not a belief. I need facts to come to any conclusion.

It is you that believes Pagliano was given immunity for the reasons you desire.

You better pray a bit harder for it to come true, because you invested a lot in a situation you know very little about.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Pagliano was merely a sysadmin and in no way was he qualified for what he was hired to do:


Three cybersecurity experts said they found Lazar's explanation for accessing the Clinton server plausible but had questions.

Cybersecurity expert Morgan Wright explained how the FBI could marry up available evidence, including forensics or the configuration of the server and its folders, to assess his claims. "So we're going to map these things together, and if those things match up together, they're going to say ‘yes, this was compromised,’ then it means it was open to other people to compromise as well," he said.

Since Fox News reported on Guccifer’s claims Wednesday, anonymous sources have reported that a review of the Clinton hard drives does not appear to indicate a breach. However, Wright and other experts warned that Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano was the server's administrator and not principally a cybersecurity specialist – and may not have installed an adequate detection system for a Cabinet secretary’s email.

“If you have a bank and you have one video camera when you need 20, then you missed it,” Wright said. “If they weren't capturing all the activity, their security logs may say they didn’t see anything."


Romanian hacker who claims he breached Clinton server says he spoke with FBI at length

Now, let's look at this:

They offer Pagliano immunity in early March, and begin grilling Clinton lackies:


The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.


Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server

Public Service Reminder: immunity is not granted in civil cases...

The FBI then talks to Guccifer before he leaves Romania in early April, and during the flight here; seems to me this might indicate they were anxious to get him on the record in case something should happen to him after he was brought over here in much closer proximity to any 'assets' that might be deployed against him.

The FBI, who's purpose and function are, as described by them:


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

The FBI does not concern itself with civil cases nor does it conduct 'security reviews,' they are a counter-espionage and criminal investigative organization and they are looking at several aspects of former Secretary Clinton's actions, operations, and associates.

Downplay that all you want, but it raises serious questions about her and anyone who supports her.

 


all above emphases mine
edit on 7-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: fixed tags, added disclaimer of emphases



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Downplay that all you want, but it raises serious questions about her


Of course it raises questions, but it is not indicative of her guilt or potential charges being brought against her.



anyone who supports her.


Sure. Whatever. That's just a childish pot shot.

What's even more telling is how people are willing to already consider her guilty without allowing her a day in court. I guess due process and innocent until proven guilty is only applicable if we agree with someone's political ideology.

It's amazing how people disregard our constitutional rights.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I think we will see a lot of top slot politicians fall off
the slope this election...when the roof gets hot those
dignified costumes become laborious.


edit on 7-5-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

Poor choice is not in this case criminal.


Some actions are criminal by their nature.
Not all criminal actions are prosecuted.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This is a great thread to expose the blind faith some people have in the Clinton Cartel.




posted on May, 7 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

It's not a belief. I need facts to come to any conclusion.

It is you that believes Pagliano was given immunity for the reasons you desire.

You better pray a bit harder for it to come true, because you invested a lot in a situation you know very little about.


Except it certainly appears the only "facts" you believe in are those that have been fabricated to support your pro liberal views. And this is glaringly obvious.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

It's not a belief. I need facts to come to any conclusion.

It is you that believes Pagliano was given immunity for the reasons you desire.

You better pray a bit harder for it to come true, because you invested a lot in a situation you know very little about.


Except it certainly appears the only "facts" you believe in are those that have been fabricated to support your pro liberal views. And this is glaringly obvious.


I am not a liberal, first and foremost. Second, what facts have I used in this debate can you prove to be fabricated?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You claim to not be a Liberal. And I believe you have also claimed to not be a Clinton supporter, yet here you are. In another Clinton thread. Supporting her.

If you held Trump to the same standards as Clinton, you might just see how wrong you've been.

Am I right when I say you're not a Clinton supporter or is that not true, and you do in fact support Clinton?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

It's not a belief. I need facts to come to any conclusion.

It is you that believes Pagliano was given immunity for the reasons you desire.

You better pray a bit harder for it to come true, because you invested a lot in a situation you know very little about.


Except it certainly appears the only "facts" you believe in are those that have been fabricated to support your pro liberal views. And this is glaringly obvious.


I am not a liberal, first and foremost. Second, what facts have I used in this debate can you prove to be fabricated?


A likely story. If you support Hillary, and you do, then you support her liberal views by proxy.
And your correct about not using any facts, only blanket excuses for all that Hillary has done. Give it a rest.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: rollanotherone



You claim to not be a Liberal. And I believe you have also claimed to not be a Clinton supporter, yet here you are. In another Clinton thread. Supporting her.


That's the problem with most people. They believe supporting logic and facts means you support the person. I can't do anything about people's inability to recognize the difference.



If you held Trump to the same standards as Clinton, you might just see how wrong you've been.


Actually, I've defended Trump a few times as well. I like to be consistent.



Am I right when I say you're not a Clinton supporter or is that not true, and you do in fact support Clinton?


I am not. I will be staying home on election day.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed



A likely story.


You don't believe me. Ok. That's fine. I don't care one bit.



If you support Hillary, and you do, then you support her liberal views by proxy.


I've said many times that I do not.



And your correct about not using any facts, only blanket excuses for all that Hillary has done. Give it a rest.


I've made no excuses for what she has done. I've even said she was wrong on some things.

I'd really like to have a good conversation on these issues but I spend more time defending myself against people who have a hard time with reading comprehension and basic debate skills.

Edit:

By the way, you have still yet to provide those "facts" that I "fabricated". Don't make accusations without being able to back it up.
edit on 7-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert
So, you're not voting, but criticizing anyone that does. Got it.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: introvert
So, you're not voting, but criticizing anyone that does. Got it.


Where did I criticize anyone that votes?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You've been pretty harsh on Trump and his supporters. Have you not?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
a reply to: introvert

You've been pretty harsh on Trump and his supporters. Have you not?


Not everyone is a Trump supporter or voting for Trump. Your posts implies that I criticize anyone that votes.

Your assertion is ridiculous and illogical.
edit on 7-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
The Hillerites are getting very nervous.... more and more details leak out,,,, aides have been on the grill, in some cases, multiple times...the big kahuna is about to go on the grill.


What a great summer this is shaping up to be!!

I wonder who it was that was taking stuff of the top secret network and emailing it to Hillarys unclassified home server?

questions questions questions
edit on R462016-05-07T19:46:12-05:00k465Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
The Hillerites are getting very nervous.... more and more details leak out,,,, aides have been on the grill, in some cases, multiple times...the big kahuna is about to go on the grill.


What a great summer this is shaping up to be!!

I wonder who it was that was taking stuff of the top secret network and emailing it to Hillarys unclassified home server?

questions questions questions


Whatever you have to tell yourself Rick. You have a lot more invested in this than anyone else.

If she is indicted, so be it. Justice should be done.

If she is not, guess who's ass is on the grill?

Fire-up the Q Ricky. Either way, brisket's a burnin'.




posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
The Hillerites are getting very nervous.... more and more details leak out,,,, aides have been on the grill, in some cases, multiple times...the big kahuna is about to go on the grill.


What a great summer this is shaping up to be!!

I wonder who it was that was taking stuff of the top secret network and emailing it to Hillarys unclassified home server?

questions questions questions




Whatever you have to tell yourself Rick. You have a lot more invested in this than anyone else.

If she is indicted, so be it. Justice should be done.

If she is not, guess who's ass is on the grill?

Fire-up the Q Ricky. Either way, brisket's a burnin'.





Only thing on the grill is sauteed Hillary burgers with a yugeeeeeee slice of stinky cheese....

Better get in line now.

And buy popcorn... you will need it in a few weeks.

Whose ass is on the grill besides Hillary? Oh you mean mine? Isn't the first and won't be the last time my butt has been on a grill..you will never ever get ahead in life if you don't take a chance every once in a while... is there some point to this or are these discussion threads all that you have that you value in life to put such an esteemed value on something that literally has no value what so ever...

To each his own...


Tick Tock goes the FBI criminal investigation clock.
edit on R212016-05-07T20:21:15-05:00k215Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R222016-05-07T20:22:52-05:00k225Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R242016-05-07T20:24:47-05:00k245Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join