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.

 

LIVE: FBI Director testifies before House Oversight Committee at 10am est. Live feed

page: 12
70
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
wow, she was NOT under oath and it was not recorded.

WT absolute F?


What?! When the FBI interviewed her?




posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
They have no choice but to subpoena Hillary.

Watch for it.




posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
MR. Mica is putting him in the HOT SEAT......... lol...... asking for the right documents/transcripts



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy
I think they just admitted this was a JOKE



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
The FBI didn't say she didn't break any laws or is innocent.

They basically said a prosecutor wouldn't have a chance in hell getting a indictment, let alone a conviction.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Listening to him simply underscores to me that Washington D.C. didn't want to pull this thread for fear of what the unraveling might expose, I think career politicians and bureaucrats alike were fearful of having any precedence set that could then, in turn, be used on themselves. This is the establishment protecting itself.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
It seems as though some of these speakers are only smoozing for their constituents to appear as looking out for their party interests.


Many of these people have no business being on this committee. Some have prevented actual oversight with their five minutes of partisan blather.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not until after the convention.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
OH, so he didn't even talk to all the FBI investigators that questioned her?

And she wasn't under oath?

This is sickening



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

THEN she would be under oath. But it will not happen. The GOP doesn't want Trump anymore than the Dems but that's exactly what they will get if they do call her.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Plotus
It seems as though some of these speakers are only smoozing for their constituents to appear as looking out for their party interests.


Many of these people have no business being on this committee. Some have prevented actual oversight with their five minutes of partisan blather.


It terrible watching this happen,



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
OH, so he didn't even talk to all the FBI investigators that questioned her?

And she wasn't under oath?

This is sickening


You don't have to be under oath while being interviewed by law enforcement, for you comments to be used against you in court.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Plotus
It seems as though some of these speakers are only smoozing for their constituents to appear as looking out for their party interests.


Many of these people have no business being on this committee. Some have prevented actual oversight with their five minutes of partisan blather.


It terrible watching this happen,



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Right it should only be the ones who think she committed a crime. None of this exculpatory testimony from Clinton sympathizers.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not until after the convention.


Not necessarily. It's up to Obama.




Traditionally, the White House waits until Republicans and Democrats have formally nominated their candidates at their party conventions, Priess said, but not always. Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter had no experience with foreign intelligence, so he asked President Gerald Ford for his briefings before he was nominated — and got them.

"Ultimately, it's the president's call," Priess said, about who is briefed and when.

AND

As for resuming her access to classified material in the candidate briefings she and Trump will receive, the details aren't yet clear.


^This was from May: Link



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Really is amazing how many people have been TESTIFYING for both Comey and Clinton.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: xuenchen

Full disclosure? He's made excuse after excuse for Clinton. This is more than about full disclosure. I don't buy that for a bit. He's towing the Clinton line.


Its embarrassing, isn't it? I don't think he's given a straight answer to a tough question yet. Watching is, its pretty clear to me why this country is in the sad shape that its in.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert
Intent is the standard used when deciding to escalate a case.

Is that what he just said?


Did she intentionally use an unsecured server?



Sounds like Comey just said he could not prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.


Yet he also said that there would be repercussions from disciplinary actions to terminations and denial of security clearence if anyone else had commited the negligence that Clinton has shown. So where is the punishment for clinton?


Yes, such things are usually handled internally. Clinton is no longer a government employee, so they can't reprimand her.

But there is not enough to make a criminal case out of it.


She is still receiving security briefings daily as a POTUS candidate.




They don't get them until they are the real nominee for their party.

So not yet.

As per Paul Ryan relating that on the news.




posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

You never heard of unintentional killings? I just read a local news story about a man who accidentally shot his 14-year-old son at the shooting range when he reached to get a hot shell casing out of his shirt with his hand holding his gun and his finger on the trigger. The gun went off, the bullet ricocheted and hit the boy in his jugular vein, killing him. It was clear with witness testimony that he had no intent to kill his son. He was not charged with murder, though no one can argue that he was careless with his gun. Extreme carelessness with a weapon? Yep. Murder? No.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
OH, so he didn't even talk to all the FBI investigators that questioned her?

And she wasn't under oath?

This is sickening


You don't have to be under oath while being interviewed by law enforcement, for you comments to be used against you in court.


Something I don't understand about that. If the interview was not recorded, how can anything she said be questioned anyway?



new topics




 
70
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join