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.

 

FBI Director: 'We Do Investigations, Not Security Inquiries'

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah



Comey is not a "partisan hack".


Yeah, OK, not a hack. That word was perhaps a bit of hyperbole on my part, and not necessarily deserved. However, it is on record that he donated to the campaigns of both McCain and Romney. He does have a partisan background.

As for praise from Obama, you may remember that the founding Director of the FBI got a lot of praise from the Presidents that he served under as well. That Director, who also apparently had a penchant for dressing up as a woman (not that there is anything wrong with that) also strongly advised a President against warrantless eavesdropping (Nixon really, really, wanted to monitor the mail of his political enemies). The office of the Director of the FBI most certainly does have a history of politicization behind it.

By the way, I never said that Comey wasn't a good director, an unfair director, or anything else related to his competancy.

In fact, I specifically said that he was very careful about NOT saying what the OP implies he said; and that is EXACTLY what I, and any other fair minded observer, would expect from the FBI Director. That is the exact OPPOSITE of the premise of the OP.

I also said that if there was anything interesting that he did say, it was that all options for the timing of the report of the investigation were open; and I said, at least by implication, that he was equivocating about the description of a 'security review'. He knows that part of the investigation would necessitate a security review of the computer system - he is not stupid and he is not uninformed. To deny knowledge of the meaning of the term is ludicrous, even if the FBI uses a different terminology. Why such a transparent 'word play' then if not to make a political point score?

The report might be released before the election or be held over until after the election. Now, since the OP and the other posters here are so adamant about reading into his remarks stupid stuff that he didn't say, I took the license to reading into his remarks stuff that he didn't say either. He didn't say that he would release it or hold it according to his perception of the best political advantage of his party; but he absolutely made it clear that it was in his power to do so.

The entire exercise was political and he was making a political point; a cynic would say that he was making a political threat. THAT is the only thing that is interesting about his statement.




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

That is incorrect.

The FBI does not do security reviews, Mr. Comey is 100% correct.

You are confusing computer crimes with leakage of classified materials.

The owning agency, in this case, the State Department, would be the ones to conduct a security review of Clintons server once it became known that there was classified information somewhere it should not have been.

The IG from the intelligence community referred it to the FBI for a security issue involving TS materials based on a review they conducted of Hillarys emails at the request of the State Department.

The State Department also opened a security review, which they were supposed to, based on the information that classified material was found on the open internet.

The State Department suspended their security review last month because they did not want to interfere with the FBI law enforcement investigation..

That's where we are today.

Current FBI law enforcement investigation. Guess who is being investigated?

Crimes have been committed,,, the FBI just has to finish sorting out who did what and why. My guess is they already know the what and why... they just want rock solid proof of who. That about sums it up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I think this investigation took a turn in reverse so to speak. Since a Federal judge has allowed discovery by Judicial Watch and is requiring Clinton and her staff members to testify under oath... the FBI may or may not let the investigation go forward until those are completed as well.

Anything those people say in civil court can and will be used by the FBI in criminal court... especially if what they say differs from what they told the FBI.

Looking like the end of summer now, unless they speed up the civil depositions, or the FBI decides they already have enough to go forward.

But hey look at the bright side... you no longer have to listen to the Hillerites scream "it's only a security review".. that has been well debunked.
edit on R222016-05-12T09:22:00-05:00k225Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa


I also said that if there was anything interesting that he did say, it was that all options for the timing of the report of the investigation were open; and I said, at least by implication, that he was equivocating about the description of a 'security review'. He knows that part of the investigation would necessitate a security review of the computer system - he is not stupid and he is not uninformed. To deny knowledge of the meaning of the term is ludicrous, even if the FBI uses a different terminology. Why such a transparent 'word play' then if not to make a political point score?


Are you attempting to imply that the investigation is to be characterized as something other than counter-espionage or criminal in nature?

You do realize the purpose and scope of the FBI in it's operations, correct?


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

Hillary Clinton and her aides are all under criminal investigation and are being placed under a fairly high-powered microscope.

The whole 'security review' song that's been sung is nothing more than whistling past the graveyard, but that song will soon come to an end.

And then what?



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

And then what?

This comes to mind.... sorry couldn't resist:




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Great Googly Moogly it got very quite around here..

The minions must be awaiting new explanation tactics from the queen bee how how to address the "security review" excuse now that it got blown out of the water.

Fun times ahead indeed!!

It makes no sense for people to continue to try and somehow separate Hillary Clinton and her email server as two separate entities.... they are investigating her server..not her!!!

Getting caught with 2200+ classified emails on your unclassified home server is no different from being caught with 2200+ classified emails in the trunk of your car...if you think for one minute the FBI is going to investigate your car for mishandling of classified information and throw it in jail, you got another thing coming because that isn't the way things work in the real world at all.


edit on R562016-05-12T15:56:23-05:00k565Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

It boggles the mind that anyone would think that nothing ever came over that server that was highly sensitive or classified considering the fact that it was the only server she used. You can't tell me that the Secretary of State of the United States of America never received a classified communication during her entire tenure.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Believe it or not, if you go to Hillarys website, under the email explanation...

It says that in 4 years, Hillary only exchanged 1 email with a foreign official....looks like she had plenty of time for yoga lessons.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

And she will look them in the eye and say with a straight face, "prove it", knowing full well that she has already eaten the trail of cookie crumbs. Without those crumbs of evidence, it doesn't matter how farfetched and impossible something is....legally it won't stick. Remember, she's a lawyer and a crooked politician. She knows how to scrub the evidence and when to scrub it. She's smart. Comey's going to have to be smarter.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa

Remember, she's a lawyer and a crooked politician. She knows how to scrub the evidence and when to scrub it. She's smart. Comey's going to have to be smarter.


Scrub the evidence? "Like with a rag or something?".



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
All of her emails will certainly be in the possession of the NSA.

They have no reason to love her.

I'm sure they were just thrilled to see their intel in Mr.Blumenthals hands.


edit on 12-5-2016 by draoicht because: spelling



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Mere words. She and her kind have always been above the law, and I suspect that the only reason they are holding out is to get our hopes up and then crush American's again. (they LOVE doing this). She says that they do security inquiries, and that means that she views them as nothing more than low level security guards. We will see won't we. I tell you right now...they won't do a damn thing to her...this is all just more distraction, as they politically weasel behind the scenes, to shred our Constitution and Bill of Rights some more.



posted on May, 12 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Federal bureau of INVESTIGATIONS. Not so hard, right? Even my 1 month old daughter understands that.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Hillary did the 21st Century version of what Nixon did. She deleted recordings of government business. She needs to be held accountable. I hope she is indicted. You know Dear Leader will pardon her but still, she is damaged goods.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

I think there is something else in his statement that is not getting as much attention but could be more meaningful.

Comey said that he wants quality over quickness with the investigation and that he is not "tethered" to any timeline.

This seriously worries me because we could be looking at a cover up of dynamic proportions to the likes not seen in decades (at least that we know of). Does anyone in the U.S. federal government want to see the leading candidate for POTUS indicted weeks before an election or perhaps after the election? I worry that the results of the investigation are being drawn out until it's too late and things will be swept under the rug so to speak. I hope this is not the case but it would not surprise me in the least.

#killery
edit on 13-5-2016 by beyondtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Yeah just ask General Petraeus about how that works.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: burntheships

Yup.

And the Terrorism investigations are all criminal investigations I think.




Correct me if I'm wrong but the FBI ONLY performs Federal criminal investigations.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: beyondtruth
a reply to: queenofswords

I think there is something else in his statement that is not getting as much attention but could be more meaningful.

Comey said that he wants quality over quickness with the investigation and that he is not "tethered" to any timeline.

This seriously worries me because we could be looking at a cover up of dynamic proportions to the likes not seen in decades (at least that we know of). Does anyone in the U.S. federal government want to see the leading candidate for POTUS indicted weeks before an election or perhaps after the election? I worry that the results of the investigation are being drawn out until it's too late and things will be swept under the rug so to speak. I hope this is not the case but it would not surprise me in the least.

#killery


That's kind of how I see it, too. He basically just told me it's far from over.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

ACtually, wrong...It is obvious you know little to NOTHING about security violations and how the criminality of such works.

You do not have to be shown to have intentionally done anything. You don't have to be shown to have knowingly minimized the security of the systems. Something as simple as putting an unclassified computer TOO near a classified computer can be a prosecutable offense and you DON'T have to know that it's a security violation to be prosecuted for it.

When you're given a clearance, you are read in and told what you are responsible for. You are expected to learn what are violations and what aren't and abide by them. You can't have an unclassified system with 15 feet of a top secret/si system or within 5 feet of a secret system for instance.

If you transmit information that is reasonable to believe is classified without markings, it IS a prosecutable violation.

If you knowingly remove classified markings to put classified information on an unclassified system, it is BAD... I mean espionage punishable by DEATH bad depending on the level of classification and the circumstances.

Classified information has to have the classification markings at the header and footer of each page. The way SCI information works is that programs have code words assigned to them and it is rumored that there are levels of classification so high that the DCI has pages that only have one line of text per page because of all the code words as headers and footers. The deepest I've personally seen was 15 levels (code words).

That would look something like this..

Top Secret/SI/Walrus/hedgehog/gopher/siphun/spigot/tool/sledgehammer/etc....

Insert lines of classified data here....
More lines......
More lines......

Top Secret/SI/Walrus/hedgehog/gopher/siphun/spigot/tool/sledgehammer/etc....

If any of those code words are not there, it's a security violation. If any of the text is transposed without it being vetted for a lower classification, it is a security violation.

An example of properly vetting classified information would be say...
Top Secret/SI/Walrus/hedgehog/gopher/siphun/spigot/tool/sledgehammer/etc....

The subject amhed rumadhi was seen exiting the store by AGENT Jacob XXXXXXXX (the x's being a REAL name) and entering a car with license plate XXXXX (real license plate number).
The car was then followed via satellite by tasking satellite starlabs XXX12345XXXX at an angle of 136 degrees from 50 miles. The car was seen traveling along route Y and arriving at destination X

Top Secret/SI/Walrus/hedgehog/gopher/siphun/spigot/tool/sledgehammer/etc....

and changing it to this...

SECRET/NOFORN//
The subject Ahmed Ramhadi was seen exiting the store and entering a car with license plate XXXXX (real license plate number).
The car was then followed via satellite going to location X.
SECRET/NOFORN//

and further vetting it to this...

CONFIDENTIAL//
The subject was seen exiting the store and entering a car.
The car was then known to have gone to location X.

CONFIDENTIAL//

Now say someone doesn't know that it's supersecretsquirell level that satellite XXXX12345XXXX is capable of being tasked to following a car from 50 miles away and they leave that in and send it out as SECRET/NOFORN//. They don't have to be aware that it is classified at that level to be guilty of a security violation. That's why it's vitally important to ensure you know how to vet material for classification level. You have to know what makes it have that level of classification in order to properly vet it. Or you can GO TO PRISON...

Whether Clinton is guilty of a crime isn't even really up for debate, she is guilty of security violations, the minimum of which is punishable with UP to 5 years in prison or a 10K dollar fine.

She might not be prosecuted, or may plea down for a lighter or suspended sentence or if they find evidence she did something on purpose so she wouldn't have to use a govt system or worse, they might prosecute her and she MAY go to prison for a while.

Jaden
edit on 13-5-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Well, say she gets indicted.. what punishment may she be looking at?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join