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: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Investigative reporter Xuenchen. There ya go. Have at it.


If you only knew how damaging the can of worms you just opened will be soon !!!





edit on May-09-2016 by xuenchen because: private investigations are fun




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I don't recall ever saying what I did before I retired.
I was a kitchen and bath designer. From construction design t to final product.
I also designed custom mosaic floors for entrance halls and pool surrounds.
Once I did a lobby of a dental center .
Any way. Now I garden.
I spend my days shaping ancient boxwood into topiaries in a 100 year old garden.
So no peers of mine.in DC.
Though I had a client in Alexandria. I did a black and white Greek key design in an old apartment building entry. 7X7. Small job.
Prior to that I did accounting for a freight forwarder out of JFK airport. Worked with customs and everything but that was the closest to govt work for me.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

If these conference rooms aren't SCIFs then it is probably just a cleared contractor employee (most likely a SDVOSB, or AbilityOne, or some other small business - not familiar with DOJs supplement to the FAR), but I have my experiences from DHS and my current agency. Either way they would get paid similarly to the local market for similar services (also adhering to the Service Contract Act, Standard Wage Rates, and the Federal Minimum wage) - and would like all have to at least pass background checks to be on site (many contractors have pre-cleared employees for such things).







edit on 9-5-2016 by SonOfThor because: Edited to remove a slightly snarky comment and keep my post to a factual answer based on experience



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm waiting.
Lay it on me.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm waiting.
Lay it on me.


It's ongoing.

Patience Watson, patience.




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Lol



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Ignore the report that the FBI has found no wrong doing. I'm gonna bet the FBI knows those laws.
No skin off my nose.


Source?

Original, official source, please. No "so and so reports government sources state..."

I will take anything from from original source documents to excerpts from released court filings.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Amazing how someone is willing to use an anonymous source(s) to back up their claim, but yet dismisses any negative news about Hillary by anonymous source(s).

You don't need one single news source.

1. Go to www.whitehouse.gov...

Read that and learn what specific information that the government deems classified from origination. Specifically as it pertains to Hillary Clinton and her daily duties with what was in her work related emails.

2. Go to www.archives.gov...

Read up on exactly what it is and understand that Hillary signed that legally binding document in Feb 2009.


3. Go to foia.state.gov... type in Hillary Clinton in the search terms box, grab a beverage of your choice and start reading through the emails noting which ones are redacted as being classified. Plus you got the top secret ones on top of that too.

It doesn't take a logical non partisan person very long of looking through those emails before you understand more than just a few are deemed classified...it is 2200+ and you simply can not have classified information on your unclassified email server, no matter what you say to defend that.

Yes yes we all know, everything was magically classified only at some period after it had already left the possession of Hillary Clinton...all 2200+ times.... yes sir... that is pretty magical right there.
edit on R122016-05-09T18:12:51-05:00k125Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
abcnews.go.com...


The State Department said today it can’t find any of Bryan Pagliano’s emails from the time he served as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s senior information technology staffer during her tenure there.


Well color me shocked....NOT

I looked him up a month ago on the state site and there was only 1 return and that was because his name was mentioned in another email.


The entire State Department needs to be flushed... some of those people deserve to be fired for their ineptness.


edit on R372016-05-09T18:37:01-05:00k375Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
www.cnn.com...

I already posted my source


Plus this


www.mediaite.com...

Explaining why this is different from some anonymous source linking back to trey gowdy.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

It's over Rick. No evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Wrapping up in a week or two.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That is the source. Sorry again the govt doesn't copy me in personally. CNN seems like a pretty credible source to me.
Sorry you don't think so.


PS I did find another that links back to the Washington post plus gives info on Guccifer.

mediamatters.org...
edit on 5102016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

It's over Rick. No evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Wrapping up in a week or two.


okey dokey pokey... see you on indictment recommendation day.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Need more sources saying the same. There are several in this one

mediamatters.org...

See you.....never



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You don't have anything other than hearsay.

Here, let me help you. This is an officially filed court document from the Department of Justice:


Case 1:15-cv-02117-RDM Document 12 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 12

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
JASON LEOPOLD,

Case No. 15-cv-02117 RDM

...

In fact, the review of in
camera submissions can be particularly appropriate in Exemption 7(A) cases. To
demonstrate that information is properly withheld under that Exemption, the agency must
show that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings.
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Often the agency cannot fully articulate the harm
that could reasonably be expected to result if the information is disclosed without
revealing the very information regarding the investigation that the agency seeks to
protect. See Campbell, 682 F.2d at 265 (in Exemption 7(A) cases, “the interests of the
adversary process may be outweighed by the agency’s legitimate interest in secrecy”)


...

The remainder of the cases relied on by Plaintiff did not involve FOIA requests,
and most were between private parties (and thus could not have implicated classified or
law enforcement sensitive information).
Given the unique nature of FOIA cases and
explicit allowance of in camera submissions in the FOIA itself, Arieff, 712 F.2d at 1469,
Plaintiff’s reliance on non-FOIA cases as a basis for questioning Defendant’s submission
of a classified, in camera declaration is inapposite.
all emphasis mine

source



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

No it's not hearsay. You watch too much tv. Your imagination is running wild. You obviously don't know what hearsay means. Or you apply that term to every news story in media.
What you attached means nothing in this case. How does that apply to Hillary's case when Fox news reports how she's in such big trouble, gonna do the prep walk out of the convention all that over and over but the one story with exculpatory information that needs to be censored?
That this information was from a govt briefing not some reported leak from someone something somewhere close to the investigation(witch hunter republicans like trey Gowdys) it most likely came from the state dept. Since there never was a criminal investigation no information can or should be kept from disclosure.
edit on 5102016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

RickinVA cited primary sources that show the actual definitions of classified info, the actual documents Mrs. Clinton would have to sign, and the ACTUAL emails that were released that have REDACTED INFO.

You posted links to media sites that cite anonymous sources.

You can continue to degrade your argument telling people "they watch too much tv", "your imagination is running wild", but it is not helping your argument at all. I have no ill will towards you, and no personal reason or hope of seeing Hillary indicted (I'm voting libertarian), but your dismissiveness may come back to bite you shortly.

If she is indicted, will you acknowledge you were wrong, or will you claim some kind of conspiracy against her?



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

So what. I showed they're done and she's free to go. Or soon will be anyway.
I could not care less what Rick showed. Ricks been swelling the thread with imagination.
My argument doesn't need help. Sorry you don't like it. I'm not here to please you.
Hillary's going to the white house. Not the big house. That was always just a republican fairy tale.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

The sources was the state dept. Hardly anonymous dear.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SonOfThor

So what. I showed they're done and she's free to go. Or soon will be anyway.
I could not care less what Rick showed. Ricks been swelling the thread with imagination.
My argument doesn't need help. Sorry you don't like it. I'm not here to please you.
Hillary's going to the white house. Not the big house. That was always just a republican fairy tale.



"Ricks been swelling the thread with imagination."

I am sick and tired of your BS, name calling and plain old personal attacks.

I gave you links to the White House, The State Department, and Information Security Oversight Office... none of these are my imagination..

From now on, every personal attack, every one line smart remark, will reported and I encourage others to do the same. There is no place for this kind of crap on ATS.

Have a nice pre-indictment recommendation day!!!
edit on R112016-05-10T10:11:06-05:00k115Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R132016-05-10T10:13:18-05:00k135Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R202016-05-10T10:20:38-05:00k205Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join