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: 15
70
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

To me IMO, it sounds like they are wanting a perjury charge.




posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
So which is it Comey? Is being in political power mean you're under the law or over it?

Because so far your actions and responses dictate that those in political power in the United States are above the law.

Sad week to be an American...



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
Both parties need to get on the same page on creating a deterrent for officials storing or transmitting classified info on all levels on non government devices. Intent does not matter. Use .gov for work and government devices for work. Use personal email and personal devices for personal use. They are making something very simple extremely complicated.



They ALREADY have.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
You can't fire someone who doesn't have a job!



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

There are 320 million Americans. So it's okay to just kill one or two?



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Stormdancer777

As he said it's still a crime to lie to the FBI.


Ya, I'm sure no one has ever lied to the FBI and got away with a crime. And no one has ever beaten a polygraph machine either.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

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,


Lol, when the dems come on, it's like a commercial.

I go and get a coffee, brush my teeth, pet the dog....

All they do is stroke him.



What's really telling and a bit crazy is the ones who use their allotted time to go on a rant about Donald Trump. I sincerely hope their constituents are blowing up their phones with outrage and indignation. They mock the proceeding as being partisan and then do that? Shameless. It's just a joke.

And no, not voting for Trump.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I was waiting for Bush to be brought up.

ALWAYS count on it.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UnBreakable

We're hearing a bit more about that now. 3 out of 30000 is actually less than the 1/100 of 1% and just paragraphs marked with a c that could be overlooked. No headers. So no e mails marked classified except three little confidential paragraphs in a field of 30000 e mails
I think if the American people are hearing this will see how overblown the whole thing is.
I'm hearing a bunch of angry republicans not accepting the FBI findings and slandering an officer of the law.


It's not the percentage it's the weight of the information in that percentage. It could be one small paragraph on the whereabouts of an undercover agent or, a specific coarse of action like a drone strike with location and time.


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



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Someone kind of already did. Saying that the only reason Clinton was using her phone overseas so much is because she was only abroad to restore the reputation of the U.S., damaged by the previous administration.

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



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That's how to understand both sides of the record . I am not surprised you don't even want to hear the other side.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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?


They use experienced law enforcement pros that pay attention and catch her in any lies she may be trying to push, and they do it right then and there.


If the results of the investigation, or the recommendations thereof are in question, what recourse remains to question the information if no way to review it exists?

It seems as if that is ass covering, right?



It would come down to a he said she said, wouldn't it?

I mean, what can you show the jury in court?

Doesn't make sense.

(trump mentioned again lol)








posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

these investigations are never successful because people never tell the truth, it is really sad how despicably dishonest our dear leaders are, we would we sitting in jail awaiting a hearing, land of the free and all that.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So what are the different degrees in respect to the law we are discussing now? If you can't prove she intended to let classified info get out or that she knew her carelessness would definitely cause her classified info to get out, what do you charge her with according to this particular law?



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: JetBlackStare

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

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,


I don't know how they can sleep at night, do they really think we are that stupid?

Lol, when the dems come on, it's like a commercial.

I go and get a coffee, brush my teeth, pet the dog....

All they do is stroke him.



What's really telling and a bit crazy is the ones who use their allotted time to go on a rant about Donald Trump. I sincerely hope their constituents are blowing up their phones with outrage and indignation. They mock the proceeding as being partisan and then do that? Shameless. It's just a joke.

And no, not voting for Trump.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
They did not criminally investigate.

No wonder Clinton was 'cleared'.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Then what the hell were they doing??????



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Jonjonj

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?


They use experienced law enforcement pros that pay attention and catch her in any lies she may be trying to push, and they do it right then and there.


If the results of the investigation, or the recommendations thereof are in question, what recourse remains to question the information if no way to review it exists?

It seems as if that is ass covering, right?



It would come down to a he said she said, wouldn't it?

I mean, what can you show the jury in court?

Doesn't make sense.

(trump mentioned again lol)







It certainly does make sense, if you believe in conspiracies, that is.






posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

edit on 7/7/2016 by EternalSolace because: Don't know name of senator that questioned. Will remove comment.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Nail in the head question...

What about others in e mail chains who used (c) in their correspondence with HRC, were they aware?

Mr. Director is toasted



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join