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: 39
74
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Federal investigators found:
110 emails sent or received on Clinton's server contained classified information. Eight of those were top secret, the highest level of classification.

It's possible that "hostile actors" gained access to Clinton's personal email account. "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," Comey said.

There was "no intentionality" on Clinton's part to violate any laws.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has already said she would abide by the FBI's recommendation and by the advice of career DOJ prosecutors.


A Travesty of JUSTICE.




posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

"Doublespeak?" LOL. I see you're emptying the bag of random argumentative phrases now ...

I've been quoting Director Comey's words TO YOU (and you seem to have trouble understanding them.)

What have I said that contradicts Director Comey's statement that you provide? Quote me.

And if not, drop the blatant obfuscation tactics.


You claim you take the director at his word then come out and say that things get classified that shouldn't be. But the director says they were properly classified. Pretty blatant doublespeak. Nothing obfuscating nor argumentative, just an apt description.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You've mislabled your link. Here I'll help:

A Painful, but Acceptable Outcome to Email Saga for Clinton - NBC News



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


Hours after FBI Director James Comey blasted Hillary Clinton and her aides for their "extremely careless" handling of classified information, the State Department rejected Comey's conclusion that the agency had a "lax culture" surrounding the treatment of sensitive material.


State Dept. refuses to say whether Clinton, aides still have security clearance


I watch Kirby wiggle and squirm on this question. Then, it occurred to me that in order to satisfy the angry public who want some kind of justice, they are going to throw these lesser ones, the lowly aides, under the bus.

For some of us, that will not be enough and we will see through that ploy easily.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

"Doublespeak?" LOL. I see you're emptying the bag of random argumentative phrases now ...

I've been quoting Director Comey's words TO YOU (and you seem to have trouble understanding them.)

What have I said that contradicts Director Comey's statement that you provide? Quote me.

And if not, drop the blatant obfuscation tactics.


You claim you take the director at his word then come out and say that things get classified that shouldn't be. But the director says they were properly classified. Pretty blatant doublespeak. Nothing obfuscating nor argumentative, just an apt description.


You're lying. I didn't say that, Colin Powell did.

I respect what Director Comey said. The FBI found, after combing through more than 30,000 emails, 110 that were "classified" at the time they were RECEIVED or sent. You seem to think that all levels of "classification" are the same.

According to a man who has intimate knowledge from both the military and civilian sides of the matter, they aren't.

(I see you wish to ignore your own errant reading of "exposed" eh? I guess that was a bit embarrassing. S'ok.)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So, you keep repeating that Clinton didn't intend to expose anything to hostile actors, and that there's no evidence that she actually did so?

... which side of this are you trying to argue again???



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

You've mislabled your link. Here I'll help:

A Painful, but Acceptable Outcome to Email Saga for Clinton - NBC News



Well since you like links so much here's one more.

Nothing says COLLUSION like 'being in the right place at the right time'.

When the outcome was ALREADY KNOWN.

twitter.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

You've mislabled your link. Here I'll help:

A Painful, but Acceptable Outcome to Email Saga for Clinton - NBC News



Well since you like links so much here's one more.

Nothing says COLLUSION like 'being in the right place at the right time'.

When the outcome was ALREADY KNOWN.

twitter.com...


I tried to help you by "correcting" your badly labelled link, Neo. Gwarsh, see if I try to help you any more.

So ... you're linking Twitter now? What's next, Instagram?



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

You can make up words with others, but I'm afraid it won't wash with me.

The only time that Director Comey used the word "exposed" in his presentation is here:



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.


He's not even talking about anything to do with Clinton per se, but in "looking back at our investigations" ie. their standard practice.

You really should find out what you're talking about, before you try to talk about it.


You don't understand the meaning of the word exposed vs the word compromised, not my fault.


You stated that Director Comey used the word "exposed" when he didn't.

That's not my fault.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

"Doublespeak?" LOL. I see you're emptying the bag of random argumentative phrases now ...

I've been quoting Director Comey's words TO YOU (and you seem to have trouble understanding them.)

What have I said that contradicts Director Comey's statement that you provide? Quote me.

And if not, drop the blatant obfuscation tactics.


You claim you take the director at his word then come out and say that things get classified that shouldn't be. But the director says they were properly classified. Pretty blatant doublespeak. Nothing obfuscating nor argumentative, just an apt description.


You're lying. I didn't say that, Colin Powell did.

I respect what Director Comey said. The FBI found, after combing through more than 30,000 emails, 110 that were "classified" at the time they were RECEIVED or sent. You seem to think that all levels of "classification" are the same.

According to a man who has intimate knowledge from both the military and civilian sides of the matter, they aren't.

(I see you wish to ignore your own errant reading of "exposed" eh? I guess that was a bit embarrassing. S'ok.)


First off, you don't get to pull a security clearance trump card, I've had a security clearance (TS) for 8 years. And you deferred to colin powell, so on one hand you've sided with the director and on the other you've sided with powell, despite their disagreement on the current issue. So it's doublespeak as plain as can be.

As for exposed, you need to get into some sort of remedial english class, just because the word is not used in reference to clinton doesn't mean it isn't the proper term. Do you know what exposed means? Would sending emails in hostile and sophisticated adversaries territory expose them? and btw, your quote didn't support your backwards idea of what exposed means. It must be embarrassing to not have a working knowledge of security lingo while dealing in security for as long as you have, or so you claim.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

You can make up words with others, but I'm afraid it won't wash with me.

The only time that Director Comey used the word "exposed" in his presentation is here:



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.


He's not even talking about anything to do with Clinton per se, but in "looking back at our investigations" ie. their standard practice.

You really should find out what you're talking about, before you try to talk about it.


You don't understand the meaning of the word exposed vs the word compromised, not my fault.


You stated that Director Comey used the word "exposed" when he didn't.

That's not my fault.


Nope, I didn't. Quote me on it, I beg you.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
So much for the 'vast right wing conspiracy'.


Sanders supporters melt down over FBI's Clinton decision



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I thought were supposed to be choking-down all that popcorn you've been telling us to grab and celebrate indictment-recommendation day.

Tick tock....was a major flop.




posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
G regg Jarrett: FBI Director calls Clinton ‘careless’. His recommendations make no sense



It makes no legal sense. I suspect attorneys across America are scratching their heads.
...
“Whoever, being entrusted with… any document relating to the national defense… through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 793-f)

James Comey is a former U.S. Attorney. Yet, he exhibited an astonishing ignorance of the law. He laid out a case of gross negligence constituting a crime, defined it with the words “extremely careless” and then promptly proceeded to ignore the law.

The key phrase is “gross negligence”. What does it mean? Every lawyer and judge in America knows its meaning. It is defined in standard jury instructions and just about every legal treatise that exists.

Black’s Law Dictionary is the legal bible upon which attorneys rely. Check it out. You’ll find that gross negligence is described and defined as extreme carelessness. At least, my edition does.
...
Since Comey, by his own words, all but declared that Clinton broke a criminal law, how could he then say he would not recommend criminal prosecution? Again, it makes no sense.
...
I have been a lawyer for 36 years. Never have I witnessed such an illogical rationale and conclusion.

It makes me wonder whether Comey slept through his first year course entitled, “Criminal Law.”



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The only major flop was trusting Comey to do the right thing.
He failed miserably.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
The FBI is taking precedent and case law into account, not just the strict letter of the law.

That is important, as precedent is the foundation that much of our justice system is based on.

Based on the evidence they have, and taking past cases and precedent into consideration -- this is the decision they have come to.

EDIT:
Oh, and I've been saying she won't get indicted since day one. There's no way she'd continue to campaign and spend donor money if she had any kind of sense she would be indicted.

It feels like Christmas morning where one of your brothers or sisters didn't get the GI Joe they wanted and is having a full on melt-down-tantrum. For weeks they've been fantasizing about that GI Joe, and were absolutely sure they'd be getting that GI Joe on Christmas Day. Cue the temper tantrum and melt down when it didn't arrive.
edit on 5-7-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The FBI is taking precedent and case law into account, not just the strict letter of the law.

That is important, as precedent is the foundation that much of our justice system is based on.

Based on the evidence they have, and taking past cases and precedent into consideration -- this is the decision they have come to.


While I get what you're saying, all they're claiming she lacked was intent to harm the US, which is not really precedent. I mean, did patreaus have intent to harm the US?



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah, I've run across a lot of folks on here claiming security clearance and intimate knowledge.

No, I haven't done anything of the sort, and if you really can't parse information better than this, I can't think of one positive thing to say to you.

Director Comey stated that they found 110 emails out of well over 30,000 that actually were "classified" at the time on the Clinton email servers. I have not disputed that fact in any way, shape form or fashion.

I have also repeated Gen. Powell's comment that went DIRECTLY to the issue of "classified" material being in emails that he received as well as Secretary Clinton.

These are two different people saying two different things. I have noted them both.

I need a "remedial" class? LOL. Ah, the ad hom starts. Rage quit coming soon.

You're trying to make a case on what Director Comey said. You stated that he made a distinction that he did not make.

You were mistaken. And now you're sputtering about your unprovable "security clearance" ...

I'd point out that is the ultimate example of "argument from authority" ... but I don't gather that would matter to you.

/shrug
edit on 5-7-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

The only major flop was trusting Comey to do the right thing.
He failed miserably.


No. The only flop here is that the FBI came out today and said exactly what some of us have been saying, backed it up with link after link to the opinions of legal experts and previous rulings, and you guys are now asking how this could have happened.



Perhaps if people were willing to look at facts, while taking the political blinders off, they may have seen what was in front of their face the entire time.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
The FBI is taking precedent and case law into account, not just the strict letter of the law.

That is important, as precedent is the foundation that much of our justice system is based on.

Based on the evidence they have, and taking past cases and precedent into consideration -- this is the decision they have come to.

EDIT:
Oh, and I've been saying she won't get indicted since day one. There's no way she'd continue to campaign and spend donor money if she had any kind of sense she would be indicted.

It feels like Christmas morning where one of your brothers or sisters didn't get the GI Joe they wanted and is having a full on melt-down-tantrum. For weeks they've been fantasizing about that GI Joe, and were absolutely sure they'd be getting that GI Joe on Christmas Day. Cue the temper tantrum and melt down when it didn't arrive.


That is exactly what is happening here.

Perfectly summarized.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join