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: 12
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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...


And there you go "the evidence is there." What would have happened to you if you said that in court?

And now you give another pointless laundry list that is basically equal to "anything Hillary Clinton has ever done."

Come on. You understand the rules of evidence better than this.




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


He did and I linked back to the thread where he claimed he didnt work fr a campaign and now he says he did.

Pay attention and follow along.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.


Says you.

Do your "unnamed" sources say or claim that? The FBI is not known for being metaphorical.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

If I were investigating the crime my testimony would be what I came across from my investigation. In order to get it to court the case in whole is submitted to the PA with jurisdiction and they decide if a person is charge or not.

In the case of court testimony it would be detailed laying out my investigation and how I came across the information.

The list is accurate and the info provided on reaching the conclusion is valid.

How would you review her comments / actions if you were investigating.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Because, again, each section stands on its own.

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


Please provide the proof she violated that section.

First you have to prove she:


through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or


Key word there is "removed" or "delivered".

Then prove this:


having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Say the sources I linked you to. If you are going to willfully ignore the article and the Clinton Foundation being involved thats your issue not mine.

Telll me if the Clinton foundation is not under investigation, as you apparently think, the why is the term clinton foundation donors used?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


He did and I linked back to the thread where he claimed he didnt work fr a campaign and now he says he did.

Pay attention and follow along.


I did not say I worked for the campaign and you have yet to provide that quote.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Its already been listed several times now in this thread and other threads you have derailed in this manner. Go back and read them.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Its already been listed several times now in this thread and other threads you have derailed in this manner. Go back and read them.


You claimed I admitted for working for his campaign in THIS THREAD. This is what I said:


I worked an event for Bernie on the night of the caucus.


Yes, I worked at an event that was held by Bernie's campaign. I did not say I worked for bernie's campaign.

The event was for Bernie.

Now it appears you are lying. This issue has never been brought up in any other thread than the original thread and this one.

Now we know who's a liar. Bad form.




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UnBreakable

Sorry I can't do a thing about your comprehension levels.
Ill say it slow.
The...news...said...she...has...not...recused...herself...


Ok. So because you can't show the difference between 'recusal' and 'stepping aside' you decide to turn the tables and make fun of me. A usual liberal tactic when their own ignorance is pointed out.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Your obfuscation wont work. Try again.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
......... you decide to turn the tables and make fun of me. A usual liberal tactic when their own ignorance is pointed out.


QFT



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Your obfuscation wont work. Try again.


Caught with your pants down, huh. You can't prove what you claim.

Then perhaps you should not make such claims.

Edit:

You still need to prove how Hillary violated section E.
edit on 1-7-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Say the sources I linked you to. If you are going to willfully ignore the article and the Clinton Foundation being involved thats your issue not mine.

Telll me if the Clinton foundation is not under investigation, as you apparently think, the why is the term clinton foundation donors used?


Your source is what I based my comment on. I quoted your source. Your source doesn't say what you claim it does.

I'm starting to see that I have been mistaken in my previous estimations of your objectivity.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UnBreakable

Sorry I can't do a thing about your comprehension levels.
Ill say it slow.
The...news...said...she...has...not...recused...herself...


Ok. So because you can't show the difference between 'recusal' and 'stepping aside' you decide to turn the tables and make fun of me. A usual liberal tactic when their own ignorance is pointed out.


Just a general point of order ... are you certain that "turning the tables and ridiculing another poster" is a liberal tactic?

You do that pretty often yourself and although you are not the topic here, quick question ... does that make you a liberal? or a hypocrite?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Your the one making the claims and trying to walk back / change what you said in other threads. I merely pointed them out since you apparently forgot what you told us in other threads. Im not the one caught, you are. All anyone has to do is read the threads dealing with Clinton and they can see for themselves the tactics you use and how you give misleading statements. Worked for Bernie but not his campaign even though you said you didnt work for either candidate.

You said your job required you to be at the Iowa site but refused to explain why. You refused to say who you worked for then you tell us you were working a sanders event but not sanders.

Your lack of knowledge n the law tells me you arent a part of any law enforcement agency working the events.

That leaves the DNC as your employer or a high donor, and I dont believe you are a high donor.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: UnBreakable
......... you decide to turn the tables and make fun of me. A usual liberal tactic when their own ignorance is pointed out.


QFT




Leftists frequently step out of the “realm of civility,” relying on personal attacks in an attempt to discredit their opponent and leave them in a vulnerable state. Shapiro said liberals must be directed back toward civil discourse.

www.thecollegefix.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

As a matter of fact both article deal with the Clinton Foundation being under FBI investigation.

Ignorance is a choice.

The foundation is under investigation as a means for people to donate money in exchange for support from hillary. The sale of the urnaium mines in the US to a Canadian, who in turn sold them to Russia, who then donated to the Clinton foundation is one example.

Intentionally trying to suggest its not the foundation is a problem in that you do not understand criminal investigations.

For a history lesson research the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. The Clinton Foundation is a newer and larger version of that criminal behavior.

Hacked DNC File: Fears over Hidden Clinton Foundation Donations from Former Russian Uranium Exec


To date, Hillary Clinton has not received a single question from a national journalist about her decision to transfer 20% of all U.S. uranium to Putin’s Russia as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to her family foundation.

edit on 1-7-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

In fact, it doesn't. I QUOTED the relevant part of the article to you! Your article (based on "unnamed" sources) states that the "intersection" between donations to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's emails, and possible purchase influence are being investigated. That is not a statement that the Foundation or Bill CLinton is under investigation.

You're the one denying simple facts. Those are simple facts.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

As a matter of fact both article deal with the Clinton Foundation being under FBI investigation.

Ignorance is a choice.

The foundation is under investigation as a means for people to donate money in exchange for support from hillary. The sale of the urnaium mines in the US to a Canadian, who in turn sold them to Russia, who then donated to the Clinton foundation is one example.

Intentionally trying to suggest its not the foundation is a problem in that you do not understand criminal investigations.

For a history lesson research the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. The Clinton Foundation is a newer and larger version of that criminal behavior.

Hacked DNC File: Fears over Hidden Clinton Foundation Donations from Former Russian Uranium Exec


You're quoting Breitbart as a serious source?

We're done. I withdraw all questions. You're just another partisan hack. (PS, it's "you're")



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join