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.

 

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Scheduled To Meet With FBI On Saturday

page: 13
65
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Look what ever you want to call it it's a list a timeline a diary it's irrelevant.
Unless it comes right from the FBI nothing anyone thinks means a blasted thing.
You are not going to convince me to agree with you. That is never going to happen. But ill defend where and when I can . I'm not trying to convince anyone here either.




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm not sure why you thought that was in any way intended for you.
I do visit other web sites, you know.
But strange how you took that.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm calling you out for being wrong and finding the fact that you cannot admit that to be quite humorous.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.

Like when I was wrong about being wrong that Cheryl Mills was not employed in the capacity of attorney in her position As Lead Counselor for the State Department.

Which was yet another instance of you being wrong.

 


In case you're still trying to parse the above, I was right about Cheryl Mills not being employed at the State Department in her capacity as an attorney.
edit on 2-7-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: helping out folks who might have difficulty understanding complex ideas



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

3.5hrs on a sunny Saturday afternoon isnt exactly the interrogation you were laying out is it?
Why not longer?
And after getting settled in, coffee or water , introductions to lawyers etc then a question, and a stop and a discussion.
my son was questioned by lawyers as a witness to an accident once and I was with him and lawyers can't ask a straight question or agree on how to ask it. So they probably only covered a few points. Who is this what did they do .
Couldn't have been too grueling. Then ok see ya.
Or do you imagine it was more like look lady we got the goods on ya. Surrender now and well avoid as much embarrassment as possible.
say that in your head in a froggy harsh voice for best effect.
edit on 722016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)

edit on 722016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

No I can't say I have. I've never been questioned by any law enforcement in my entire life well except for a request for license and registration. I had one speeding ticket and one parking ticket.
She did eleven hours in front of congress so I think she's got the stamina.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



And exactly what past cases of a Secretary of State having over 2200 classified emails on an unclassified server in her house are you using as a past guideline??


That is not the point being debated. You invoked Section F and I have provided content that specifically shows that intent is key. There's even an opinion from the SC on the matter.

Do you wish to address that, or are you obfuscating to misdirect from the truth?



Oh you aren't... you are just making crap up as you go along.


I didn't make anything up. It is all sourced for your reading pleasure.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Because I know you think that. You've implied it before. It's not like we're just meeting today blue.
So I just want to reiterate that I'm not any ctr brigade.
I'm a card carrying democrat who supports Hillary Clinton for president.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) 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 (2) 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— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


I can read... there is no need for willful intent..... how can you have willful intent and gross negligence? Willful intent means you intended to do it... gross negligence means exactly what it means.

Keep blowing smoke... won't keep your girlfriend from being recommended for indictment.
edit on R072016-07-02T16:07:37-05:00k077Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
So the FBI only spoke to her for three and a half hours. That's not the grueling interrogation some said would happen.
What can we make of that?


And who's to say she didn't plead the Fifth for 3 1/2 hours and didn't answer any of their questions?



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



I can read... there is no need for willful intent..... how can you have willful intent and gross negligence? Willful intent means you intended to do it... gross negligence means exactly what it means


Did you read what I posted? I shall post it again so that you can take a look:


we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.


Requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. What is the definition of bad faith?

Intent to deceive.

That's not my opinion. That's from the Supreme Court.

supreme.justia.com...

Also, from a Law Prof:


As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal: “Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”


Intent.

You are wrong, plain and simple. The SC and 20 years of precedence proves that.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You are getting very desperate,,, I love it... got sweat trickling down the back of your neck?

How many anti Hillary lawyers do you need me to quote to counter your pro Hillary lawyers? 1,2,3,4, 5??

At this point what does it matter? Hillary will be recommended for indictment and you and certain others are going to look very very silly when this is over.

Tick tock goes the FBI investigation clock!!

I love it... what a wonderful day today is!!!! Woot!!!!



edit on R232016-07-02T16:23:38-05:00k237Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R332016-07-02T16:33:00-05:00k337Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

She never asked the SD for permission or advice about her private system.

That was proven in the IG report.

Willful intent.



And she lied when she said several times the server was "OK".




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Alan Dershowitz: Clinton 'in the Clear' With Private Email Use



Famed Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Thursday that the Justice Department's disclosure that Hillary Clinton broke no laws in using a private email account proved that "legally, she was always in the clear."

"The law requires that you have to know that what you're doing is illegal, there has to have been classification notifications," he said. "She was right when she said that there was nothing illegal about what she did at the time she did it and nothing that she had on her email was marked classified.





Wrong. First paragraph of the NDA. Marked or Unmarked, DOES NOT MATTER. She signed it. When asked about it she stated she does not recall signing it. Again, DOES NOT MATTER. It does not matter because there is also a witness who co-signs it. Not even sure why nobody called her out on it on day one. FBI can prove they were stripping pertinent info and pasting it. Some of it is word for word from secret information. Also impossible for her to see this information without someone stripping it and sending it to her. That is the only way she could have received the information.
"That doesn't mean it was good judgment," Dershowitz cautioned. "She's now acknowledged that she wished she hadn't done it. But the case is over as a legal case for all intents and purposes.




"She was never the target of any investigation. What she did was entirely legal," he added. "Now, the public has the right to judge her on whether what she did was right or wrong as a matter of judgment, whether she'd done enough to apologize.


www.newsmax.com...


Sorry folks Hillary is going to skate on this




"To indict, you have to show that it was marked 'classified,' not that later on it became classified," he told "Newsmax Prime" host John Bachman. "I think everybody agrees that, as far as we know, there have been no emails that have been marked classified."




FBI is going to burn her with a Flame Thrower.


edit on 2-7-2016 by LifeMode because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

So you are not going to actually address the topic that you yourself mentioned?

Ok. I got it now. You can't refute what I have posted, so you do what you always do and resort to irrelevancies and the "tick tock".



How many anti Hillary lawyers do you need me to quote to counter your pro Hillary lawyers? 1,2,3,4, 5??


Quote as many as you like. I quoted the Supreme Court and their opinion does not reflect yours.




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I guess all we can do now is wait..

This should be most interesting.




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Legal expert:


“I want to read to you Section 793 of the Penal Code, Subsection (f), because this is what Hillary Clinton – among other things, but this in particular – is what Hillary Clinton has to worry about.

“Here’s the law: ‘Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note or information relating to the national defense …”

"By the way, this is part of what’s called the Espionage Act.

“Subset one: ‘... 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 ...’

“Got that? I’ll get to the next section later. I’m hearing on TV: ‘It depends on her intent, it depends on her intent.’ No it doesn’t, not with respect to this, Subsection (f).

Or two, “… 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 or abstracted…” and so forth.

“So here’s her problem. Subsection one: “… through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody …’

“The entire server was not supposed to be – it turns out it’s in her barn. She has a barn on her property. So any classified information, including top-secret information, which is the highest of the classified information, Code Black top-secret information.

“I was read into these programs. I was trained. I can’t remember everything, I don’t have them now and by the way, it’s a lifetime requirement that you keep this information secret. It’s not like you leave the administration and you go blabbing about it. No. You can’t. You can never talk about it unless it’s been declassified.

“But let me underscore this again. It really is in plain English. Section 793, you can Google it yourself, of the Penal Code, Subsection (f): 'Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book…' and so forth and so on.

“… 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.”

“And I want to stop there because my point is when you set up an unsecured server in your barn adjacent to your home in Chappaqua, New York, you have intentionally – forget about negligence – you have intentionally bypassed the security process for that server.

“Now, that’s a higher standard. Let’s move it to the lower standard, which is still a crime.

"Let’s say you didn’t think or didn’t know that you were intentionally bypassing the process that is used to secure that server and that information, which seems absurd to me, but let’s play along.

“Okay, if you do it through gross negligence, you permit the same to be removed from its proper place. So I would argue to you, when that server was removed and information was flowing through it, including classified and especially top-secret information, boom. You did it.

“And every time that happened, ladies and gentlemen, that’s considered a count. You don’t aggregate at all. Every time that happened, that’s considered a violation of the statute.

“Now what’s the penalty if you’re found guilty? ‘Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.’ I didn’t check the fine, but I’m sure it’s substantial. Ten or 20 grand a violation.

“Now this is why typically the Justice Department, through the Public Integrity Section or the U.S. attorney’s office, would direct the FBI to get involved because of the potential criminality of what took place regardless of who the person is.”


Levin: ‘Sect. 793 of Penal Code ... Is What Hillary Clinton Has to Worry About’

Hillary's decision to use a personal server was intentional and willful. It was not a coerced action. There is where the gross negligence took place because it bypassed the secure systems the Government has set up for the type of communication for which Hillary was using her private server.

The part where it talks about it being a lifetime requirement to keep these things secret gives Hillary's insistence that all of her emails be released an additional reason to believe she should never have been entrusted with a security clearance in the first place.

All of this is notwithstanding the corruption related to the Clinton Foundation; which was enriched through her work in the State Department.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Why do I have to refute the Pro-Hillary crap that you post?

It is pointless... nobody believes that crap except you and a very few others...


Let us sum this up for you since you are confused:

1. Hillary Clinton broke numerous laws concerning the handling and safeguarding of classified information... this is a FACT.

2. Hillary Clinton is under a criminal FBI investigation... this is a FACT.

3. Hillary Clinton will be recommended for indictment by the FBI...this process is ongoing.

4. Hillary Clinton was "interviewed" by the FBI today at FBI HQ in DC.


Anything else you throw out there is nothing but pro Hillary crap....

Tick tock goes that pesky old FBI criminal investigation clock.


edit on R592016-07-02T16:59:35-05:00k597Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
CNN is reporting that according to their 'sources', following the investigation, and the interview with Sec. Clinton this morning, there will be NO CHARGES levied against her.

Now everybody can make up some other # and continue to waste millions in tax payer dollars searching for frivolous charges.




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Levin is a Right Wing nut.

I posted an opinion from the SC and a law prof.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
CNN is reporting that according to their 'sources', following the investigation, and the interview with Sec. Clinton this morning, there will be NO CHARGES levied against her.

Now everybody can make up some other # and continue to waste millions in tax payer dollars searching for frivolous charges.



Oh WOW !!!

Why hasn't the Hillary Campaign published this news yet ?

They should have been all over it by now.





top topics



 
65
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join