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.

 

Under fire after secret meeting, Lynch to step back from Clinton probe

page: 11
60
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you saying she's innocent then?


again I never said she was guilty. I said this is a list of laws she violated. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You and some others got hooked in the false narrative that she was found guilty all on your own by failing to read posts in their entirety and understanding them.

Why cant you guys understand that?




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Not to mention the fact Bill and the Clinton foundation are also under criminal investigation for corruption / fraud.


Would you like to provide evidence of that, or, like everything else here, should we take your word on it?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

EXACTLY!!

Never mind that minor little detail either!! [/extreme sarcasm]






posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
3 phrases....
1...the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame
2...yellow cake uranium
3...mushroom cloud, weapons of mass destruction.

and not one special prosecutor


I wonder why the Democrats, who controlled both houses, failed to do that. Considering Hillary supported the war in Iraq might be one reason. Second is she would not want an investigation into her should she ever decide to run for public office, like President.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you saying she's innocent then?


again I never said she was guilty. I said this is a list of laws she violated. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You and some others got hooked in the false narrative that she was found guilty all on your own by failing to read posts in their entirety and understanding them.

Why cant you guys understand that?


I have had great respect for your opinion regarding law enforcement standards and policies in the past, and still do, in many circumstances.

However, this is what I see you doing here. You give reference to statutes that you say Clinton has broken. Long lists of statutes that she "may" have broken.

Where is your evidence aside from YOUR STATEMENT that she has done so?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, I know. I figured the legal arguments would be similar enough to be applicable though as the appeal was based upon the "intent" argument.

I do also know about the "or" at the end of each clause. Could both sections apply to Hillary due to the fact that she knew she was communicating such information in a non-secure manner and she should have had “...reason to believe [that the information in question] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?” (bolded, bracketed comment prior added by me for clarification)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Yeah...so let's blame Bush, right??? (THUD!)

Talk about a deflection!!

BTW...I totally agree there should have been an investigation there as well, but that does absolutely ZERO to change the facts here!



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: introvert

Apparently anyone who doesn't think hillary will get indicted lacks understanding. That's what they're all saying.


If she doesn't get indicted, it won't be because she is innocent. Everybody but those that are drunk on the Clinton Brand of Kool-aid knows that.


Tsk tsk: Argumentum ad populum

No, everyone doesn't "know that" and it is absurd to assert that anyone who doesn't agree with you when they can back up their position with facts is "delusional."



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Report: FBI expands investigation of Clinton

The FBI has expanded its investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as secretary of State to determine whether her Clinton Foundation work violated public corruption laws, according to Fox News.

The report is based on accounts by three unnamed sources.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one of the sources told Fox.


click link for article...


* - Hillary is not worried about Clinton Foundation, FBI investigation



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: jimmyx

Yeah...so let's blame Bush, right??? (THUD!)

Talk about a deflection!!

BTW...I totally agree there should have been an investigation there as well, but that does absolutely ZERO to change the facts here!



If GW Bush broke the law, why not blame him?

If Dick Cheney broke the law, why not blame him?

Colin Powell? Condoleezza Rice?

You folks are asserting that your only intention are to pursue a law-breakers.

Why are you only after one?
edit on 1-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Again your wrong. Because you are wrong, and your source is wrong, your attempting to change the argument using the generic definition of gross negligence.


That was not a general definition. That was the legal definition.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



In case you missed it we are dealing with section F and not section A.


Yes, because your entire argument hinges on one term in section F. You get to use gross negligence as a crutch, but intent is specified elsewhere.



Now point out where it says what you claimed in section F.


Explain why only section F applies.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You are willfully pretending he did something he did not. You cannot be trusted.
So everything you post will now be ignored.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


conscious choice to communicate covered information


Exactly.

Knowingly and willfully.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

From your source:



"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one of the sources told Fox


Does that say there is an investigation OF the Clinton Foundation?

Does that say there is an investigation OF Bill Clinton?

And, why are the only sources "unnamed"? (A lesser point.)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

No it's not, because although it wasn't encouraged it was not against the law.

Somebody didn't read the state IG report.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
And now Lynch says she "wouldn't do it again" regarding meeting with Clinton, that it was 'bad optics'.

REALLY??? That's it??? Now it's all just supposed to go away as a simple oversight???? NO F'in WAY!!

The Attorney General of the United States of America meets with the husband of one of the highest profile political candidates possible who is involved in what has every potential to be a CRIMINAL investigation, thereby creating a massive conflict of interest and has to recuse herself as a result....and it's a simple 'mistake'??????

UNBELIEVABLE!!



edit...anyone who buys into this incomprehensible CHARADE needs to have their head examined!!!



And Lynch and the guy interviewing her today , laughed and laughed.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Mirthful Me

If she recused herself it means she took herself out of the loop where a determination to indict is made. She is no longer a part of that process.


Loretta Lynch’s Non-Recusal Recusal

It almost seem as some here enjoy being played like a violin...

Independent special prosecutor or resignation, that's the only way Lynch's fat fingers aren't all over this case.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Where is your evidence aside from YOUR STATEMENT that she has done so?


All the evidence in the Public realm. The testimony of her aids. Hillary's statements since this mess first started. Hillary's statements under oath / penalty of perjury, like her claiming she turned over ALL emails when we know for a fact she didnt by virtue of her aids turning over emails to clinton that clinton failed to turn over. The missing donor meetings from her government schedule while secstate. The deletion of emails when the FBI announced its investigation. Clinton claiming she was under a security review by the FBI while the FBI said she is under criminal investigation, Hillary telling a staff member to strip security headers (classified identifiers) and to fax the item non secure. Her comments / emails about not wanting anything personal accessible, violation of the FOIA statutes, violation of federal records laws by deleting the emails etc.. I can keep going...



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Uhm.. Clinton Foundation Donors... Giving money to the Clinton foundation in exchange for actions from Hillary. Its an investigation into the foundation.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Because, again, each section stands on its own.

And yes you and your "expert" are wrong. Only negligence is needed.




top topics



 
60
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join