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.

 

Classified went sent..Hillarys email drama

page: 19
41
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Consensus now is that they are having a tough time pinning anything down and that is what this is taking so long.


You said the above but then link to an article where a single person (Mark Pollitt) gives his opinion that they are having a tough time pinning things down? How is that a consensus?

He also said the following:
"If this thing was dead on arrival, nobody would be willing to keep this thing going,"

Sounds to me like he's saying if they had nothing on her and her cronies, this investigation would have died long ago.

ETA: Playing Devil's Advocate, what if he means this is difficult to pin down because once they started digging, the scandal and corruption ran way deeper than they had expected? To denounce this as a possibility, I think, would be intellectually dishonest in context of the quote. Of course, this is only my opinion.


edit on 5/20/2016 by atomish because: Typos

edit on 5/20/2016 by atomish because: Clarified "he" as Mark Pollitt

edit on 5/20/2016 by atomish because: Added ETA with my opinion

edit on 5/20/2016 by atomish because: Sigh stupid autocorrect typos... on phone, sorry for all the edits!




posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

I still saw it. You're not calling me a liar are you? I'm not lying.

I just went through my history to see if it was something I read and that is where I saw it. Between CNN, MSNBC, news on the web and all of the articles I read linked here or researched on my own these bits are getting mixed up as to source.
Anyway I read it.
Last part of this article. Like second from last line but the article is interesting and balanced too.

www.politifact.com...


I saw that brief too... we all did...........he answered 1 question about Hillary.... and that was to say that there never has been a security review by the FBI....that is not what they do.

He did not imply, hint at, suggest in any form that the FBI has found "little to nothing"

Your basing your statement based on someone else opinion, not your own.

I can link you 2 for 1 easy peasy on quoting professional officials who say Hillary is going to be recommended for indictment.

Means nothing except you got caught trying to make a false statement.

"Combine that with last weeks brief saying they don't have anything on her and it makes your little play more fantastical by the hour."

The FBI director said nothing of the sort.

I interpret that as combining one mans opinion with the statements of the FBI director saying they both said the same thing.... they didn't.

If my interpretation is wrong, I apologize in advance...end of my discussion on that....I don't care enough to even bother to respond past this point. Have a nice pre indictment recommendation day.

You know that whole BS retroactively classified excuse has been totally 100% debunked...not looking good for Hillary 2016.

Whatever.... no point in arguing about that.....I keep hearing this tick tock tick tock
edit on R292016-05-20T14:29:53-05:00k295Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

They said it came from an official U.S. source. Most likely the state dept. Don't shoot the messenger
edit on 5202016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Why would that be telling? What would it reveal? I'm sure that info will be reported just like Huma and Cheryl and Bryans interviews were.


Oh I wanted to run something by you. I have read that if you are a target of an investigation by the Justice Dept. and you ask if you are a target they have to tell you or usually will tell you. Is that correct?
edit on 5202016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: atomish

That's in combination with the CNN article and report. Which said an official United States source briefed CNN and stated that they don't have anything I'm taking it to mean they can't pin anything on her. I didn't say the article exonerated Hillary. As you pointed out it postulates both sides.
Look I'm willing to wait and if they indict her I'll come back and applaud all the sleuths here. I promise.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: atomish

That's in combination with the CNN article and report. Which said an official United States source briefed CNN and stated that they don't have anything I'm taking it to mean they can't pin anything on her. I didn't say the article exonerated Hillary. As you pointed out it postulates both sides.
Look I'm willing to wait and if they indict her I'll come back and applaud all the sleuths here. I promise.




Understood, I appreciate the clarification and the surprisingly civil response. I admit, I may have prejudged you more harshly in my mind than you deserve. For that, I apologize.

We certainly differ on what we believe is going on behind the scenes but I admire your willingness to come back and admit if you've been wrong. I hope all of us have the courage to do the same.


It is very easy to get all tangled up in these conversations and emotions can run high. Sometimes we forget that the person we debate with on the other side of the screen is a real person.

We can disagree and we can admit when we are wrong but ultimately we should remember that despite our differing beliefs as to what the best path may be, in the end I think most of us essentially want the same thing; the betterment of ours and other species and the universe we call home.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I have no idea



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I don't need a sleuth.
Hillary sent and received top secret emails without markings by email through her personal server.
The evidence has been released already.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: atomish

all good.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I was including you as a sleuth.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

I was including you as a sleuth.

You miss the point.
The services of a detective are not required.
After Guccifer outed her, she released the evidence.
She admitted guilt when she failed to destroy the hard drive and turned over the emails that she didn't delete.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

I was including you as a sleuth.

You miss the point.
The services of a detective are not required.
After Guccifer outed her, she released the evidence.
She admitted guilt when she failed to destroy the hard drive and turned over the emails that she didn't delete.


I agree 100% at this point.

It is quite obvious that numerous federal laws have been broken by Hillary Clinton... of that, there is no doubt.


The only question that remains at this point is this:


What is the Federal Government going to do about it? They can not sweep it under the rug, way too many high ranking officials know the truth.

They have found themselves in quite a quandary and the whole world is waiting and watching to see what the US Government does as punishment.

That's the only thing that makes me believe that Hillary will be recommended for indictment....


Impossible to cover up, impossible to dismiss without prosecution without a massive revolt within the FBI and the Intelligence Community.

I keep telling people....the FBI is NOT the only people who know exactly what was in those emails....... quite a few people in the IC know all the juicy details as well.
edit on R182016-05-21T11:18:15-05:00k185Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Just another story of interest:

Ex AG Mukasey – Hillary Disqualified From Holding Fed Office


Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton’s private email server illegal, it “disqualifies” her from holding any federal office, such as say, President of the United States”.

“If you do this or that bad thing, you’ve essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world,” said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.

Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.




Word for word from the Cornell Law Library


Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.


source

be disqualified from holding any office under the United States



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Just another story of interest:

Ex AG Mukasey – Hillary Disqualified From Holding Fed Office


Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton’s private email server illegal, it “disqualifies” her from holding any federal office, such as say, President of the United States”.

“If you do this or that bad thing, you’ve essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world,” said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.

Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.




Word for word from the Cornell Law Library


Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.


source

be disqualified from holding any office under the United States





Wow, that's pretty damning in my opinion. Not sure how her or her apologists would wriggle out of that one if that law applies to her position and is as cut and dry as it sounds.

Thanks for bringing this to attention! Got some more reading to do it seems.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

Impossible to cover up, impossible to dismiss without prosecution without a massive revolt within the FBI and the Intelligence Community.



This is where I'm at right now with this. Whatever small doubt there may be, the evidence stacked against Clinton seems nearly insurmountable. What kind of reasoning could they even use for trying to sweep all of this under the rug at this point?

Has anyone in a similar position ever had such weighty evidence in the public eye alone, considering we don't even know what the FBI has found yet, and faced such intense scrutiny and then just walked away because the government failed to proceed against them?

This is a genuine question, curious as to if anyone notices any correlaries between Clinton's case and some others in history.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: atomish

Well, her husband was actually impeached but they decided not to apply punishment.

She might very well be indicted/convicted and not face any penalty.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Hillary has the chance of a lifetime !!!

She can be the first President to NOT hold a security clearance !!!




posted on May, 21 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: atomish

Well, her husband was actually impeached but they decided not to apply punishment.

She might very well be indicted/convicted and not face any penalty.


I was fairly young when all that went down and only recently have begun really digging into the Clinton's history.

But wasn't he essentially impeached for perjuring himself? I feel like I probably have some reading to do because that statement sounds ignorant even to me just reading it back lol...

My point, if I'm anywhere near correct, is that if Bill got impeached (even if the Senate wouldn't convict) for simply PERJURY, it seems unfathomable to me that they could sweep this Hillary mess under the rug! He perhaps deserved what he got but what it seems Hillary may be guilty of is orders of magnitude worse? I admit I am clueless a lot of the time so feel free to correct me.


She may very well not see any consequences but I will be shocked if the FBI comes forward and says they found no wrongdoing.



posted on May, 21 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: atomish

I think Richard Nixon's situation was similar:




posted on May, 22 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: atomish

I think Richard Nixon's situation was similar:





Similar, yes.

But your picture is worth a thousand words, maybe a million if it turns out the email issue is just the surface.

From this vantage point, it seems what Hillary is potentially guilty of is also orders of magnitude worse than what Nixon was guilty of. And he actually had to resign! If she skates, and Nixon didn't, I won't know how to rationalize that away.

This leaves me wondering still, is Hillary's case completely unprecedented at this point?




top topics



 
41
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join