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.

 

FBI Director will be holding a Press Conference at 11AM EST today

page: 19
74
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: avgguy

Wow that is so not what he said.
I'm finding the spin incredible here.
Can none of you admit you were wrong. Well besides one upstanding member.


Why should people admit wrong? Come said she lied and broke the law. He just doesn't have enough evidence to recommend an indictment.

Will YOU admit your wrong about her never sending classified emails, unmarked or otherwise?



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Yeah he didn't say that either.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: queenofswords

Well It's not what was said, so perhaps you should listen to it again.


It IS what was said. He gave a long laundry list of "sins" Hillary committed then said he would not recommend prosecution. I wasn't quoting verbatim. Get it? It is what I (subjective) "heard" (note the quotation marks around the word 'heard'.)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

no it is NOT what was said, you either do not understand english, or you are willfully misleading in your interpretation of what you WISH was said.

eta below post is the transcript, reread it and find the part where he said she is guilty as sin.
Off you go dear.
edit on 5-7-2016 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
TEXT of Comey Statement Cont.:



It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.


www.fbi.gov... personal-e-mail-system



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Did you notice the part where Comey said that information does not have to be marked classified to be considered classified, and that the nature of the material makes it classified, and that someone in her position should have known that?

That counters your claims that you have been pushing for months about retroactive classification.

Oh - and how many emails were already marked classified when sent? Did you notice that too?
edit on 7/5/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: starfoxxx

They were scheduled to appear together right after the Orlando shootings but that event delayed it. He didn't wait. He endorsed her right after the California primary.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Weird that FBI.gov pulled the transcript of Comey's conference.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I submit that for some of our friends here, their desire to see Clinton destroyed is blinding their ability to see the simple truth.

Director Comey has been very clear and very thorough in the explanation of exactly what the FBI found.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

This is the most important part.


All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information


Intent was key and has been crucial to the cases that were taken to court in previous instances.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Is this proof of Mandela effect ? Where people think the likes of Hilary are accountable to the same laws as us mere peons, in my reality people like Hilary are above our laws and are never punished for breaking the laws they make only for us, not for them.

"Do as I say, not as I do"

It would be wise to pay attention in the coming years to the career and life of Comey as I imagine after this he will have a very prosperous life



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I submit that for some of our friends here, their desire to see Clinton destroyed is blinding their ability to see the simple truth.

Director Comey has been very clear and very thorough in the explanation of exactly what the FBI found.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: queenofswords

Well It's not what was said, so perhaps you should listen to it again.


It IS what was said. He gave a long laundry list of "sins" Hillary committed then said he would not recommend prosecution. I wasn't quoting verbatim. Get it? It is what I (subjective) "heard" (note the quotation marks around the word 'heard'.)




“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges."


www.politico.com...

Clinton broke the LAW,but only a little bit, and since it was only a little bit, no reasonable prosecutor would dare bring up charges.

After all it was only a 'little bit'.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

No there was no evidence to indict. Not there wasn't enough. There was none. There was no criminal intent.
No reasonable prosecutor would try to make the case.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information


They have evidence that she broke the law. So, what the heck?



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Weird that FBI.gov pulled the transcript of Comey's conference.


That is weird..could they have just moved it?



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Discotech
Is this proof of Mandela effect ? Where people think the likes of Hilary are accountable to the same laws as us mere peons, in my reality people like Hilary are above our laws and are never punished for breaking the laws they make only for us, not for them.

"Do as I say, not as I do"

It would be wise to pay attention in the coming years to the career and life of Comey as I imagine after this he will have a very prosperous life


I was actually going to make a joke about the "Mandela Effect" earlier, and decided it was in poor taste.

Sadly, it wasn't.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

80% of cases like this are never prosecuted. Certain circumstances have to exist, one being intent.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect.


Lynch might still do it.




top topics



 
74
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join