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.

 

Judicial Watch Asks Justice Inspector General to Investigate Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton Meeting

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
This is a tangential comment. I ran across this article today while looking at other things.

Hacked Emails Reveal NATO General Plotting Against Obama on Russia Policy - The Intercept

Now, the topic has nothing to do with our topic ... but this paragraph does:



Gen. Philip Breedlove, until recently the supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe, plotted in private to overcome President Barack Obama’s reluctance to escalate military tensions with Russia over the war in Ukraine in 2014, according to apparently hacked emails from Breedlove’s Gmail account that were posted on a new website called DC Leaks.


and



But the leaked emails provide an even more dramatic picture of the intense back-channel lobbying for the Obama administration to begin a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.


We've had the info from the State Department reports and the humpteen Congressional Investigations that using private emails is a pervasive problem throughout the government ... but ... A HIGH RANKING NATO GENERAL???

I've read that Ted Cruz has a private email account/server ... and the list goes on.

I guess the question maybe not so much if Hillary Clinton is guilty ... but who in the Government ISN'T guilty???




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Neither of the Clintons should be having "friendly" encounters with the AG while Hillary is under investigation.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I guess the question maybe not so much if Hillary Clinton is guilty ... but who in the Government ISN'T guilty???


Now you are getting closer to the truth grasshopper.

But...

Just because others break the law does not give Hillary a pass to break the laws.

And if they're all guilty of wrong doing perhaps they all need to go?

Or should we just leave them all in there because it would be too much trouble to actually root out all of the corruption because it is so damned prevalent?

It reminds me of the idea I've seen posted that the reason the British police don't pursue all of the pedophilia cases in their government is because it's too widespread and if they started pulling on one thread, eventually the entire system would collapse and so they just leave it alone.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

When I was responsible for the handling of classified material, which wa part of my job in the Navy in a similar fashion...


I wonder what the sentence would have been at my court Marshall?
edit on 7/1/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

/sigh

I'm going to try to take that condescension as a mark of some sort of odd, displaced affection (LOL)


No, that's not the point either.

If this "email sieve" is ubiquitous throughout the government and military ... and it apparently is ... why is Clinton being targeted UNLESS it is political.

Bush had a private email? And 22 million emails were "lost" from the Bush White House? Source



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Gryphon66

When I was responsible for the handling of classified material, which wa part of my job in the Navy in a similar fashion...


I wonder what the sentence would have been at my court Marshall?


I dunno honestly. Generals, Presidents, Secretaries of State have all used unsecure email.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I wonder why they didn't use tele-conferencing ?

The entire Clinton/Government complex is unraveling.

The DNC is scrambling like crazy today.




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Generals?

Hmmm.

I don't know but I know that I would have been in serious trouble had I been sending classified information to someone who wasn't suppose to see that information.

I'm thinking Lebanon



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

/sigh

I'm going to try to take that condescension as a mark of some sort of odd, displaced affection (LOL)


No, that's not the point either.

If this "email sieve" is ubiquitous throughout the government and military ... and it apparently is ... why is Clinton being targeted UNLESS it is political.

Bush had a private email? And 22 million emails were "lost" from the Bush White House? Source


Let's also not forget that Bush used a privately-owned server stored outside of the government's control.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
I wonder why they didn't use tele-conferencing ?

The entire Clinton/Government complex is unraveling.

The DNC is scrambling like crazy today.



Just old friends catching up on the grandkids.

Probably some kind of "hey how are yah "

And the response of "not so good" would mean going to indict or the response of "oh you know the grandkids are doing fine" means not going to indict



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Ha....Thanks for the awesome assist.
You ROCK. I am running short on time today.
So, ya...What Jaded said. There you go.
Thank you!



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: DJW001

Nothing? Even many Dems think this stinks to high heaven. Lay off the kool-aid and have some objectivity.


Do you really want the RNC to pick your pocket so that they can have another show trial that ends in: "There is no evidence of anything illegal or unethical?" (You know, like the Bengazi witch hunt.)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

This ain't that.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: DJW001

This ain't that.


Then what is it?



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: DJW001

This ain't that.


Then what is it?


Interesting; seven people seem to think "this ain't that," yet not one of them can say what it is. If you want to waste money on partisan BS, use your own money, not mine.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

It's an investigation into the Democratic front runner (and presumptive nominee at this point) for the presidential election of 2016.

That investigation is looking in to the mishandling of classified information and corruption related to the Clinton Foundation activities she was involved in while she was Secretary of State. It is much more than just about "not marked classified at the time," or "careless mistakes."

Others have posted that she very well may skate on the aspect of the case which deals with the mishandling of classified information, but there has been very little discussion here, or in the news media, about the corruption related to the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative.

That could very well be the thing that gets them; all of the Clintons & their network, not just Hillary. If that were to happen, it would be the biggest bust in American history as it would likely involve quite a few people and expose a lot of the hidden dealings governments of the world engage in.

I am actually thinking that this aspect of the case might make them 'too big to prosecute' because it does touch on so much of the high-level corruption which has been hinted at and discussed in shady internet forums.

Would the FBI drop this part of the case if they were to determine that by pursuing this avenue, they run the risk of destroying the last bits of credibility that the United States has?

Especially if the activity can be shown to have been known about by Obama all this time?

But what do I know? I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What does that have to do with someone meeting with the Attorney General, who is not involved in the investigation?



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

No, she wasn't but...up until the secret, not so secret, meeting she was going to be very much involved in whether or not to follow up on the recommendation of the FBI in the investigation. And now she can say, no matter the outcome, that it wasn't her choice to make and so no blame can befall her from whichever 'side' is upset with the results.

If the recommendation is to indict, the dems will be howling for blood and it will be made out to look like (more than it already is being portrayed in this way already if you can believe that) a partisan witch hunt.

Queue more wailing and gnashing of teeth.

If it is that no wrongdoing was found, the repubs (and lots of intelligence workers) will be screaming bloody murder. If the recommendation is that nothing wrong happened, or that it was only minor and thus deserving of nothing more than a misdemeanor charge and fine, then we may be in serious jeopardy of loosing veteran intelligence analysts that have vowed to walk (and then leak what they have) if she goes free.

Queue more wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Remember, it's not just the emails. The Clinton Foundation corruption hangs heavy too.

Interesting times indeed.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Political theatre ?

We already know Hillary kept in her home a private email server containing classified information.

General Petraeus was charged for a similar (although far less extensive) case of mishandling classified information.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

When I go back and look at what she actually said, her statements were carefully parsed so that they could be construed to mean she's simply maintaining the status quo. She didn't recuse herself, so she retains the power to decide.




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join