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.

 

Hillary FINALLY responds to a hard question.

page: 17
55
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheBulk



Yes, she had an illegal private server hidden in order to be transparent and not conceal anything.


The FBI could not prove that was her intent. Do you have magical powers that tell you what her intent was?



Are you a paid Hillary shill? Honestly?


Can't you do any better than that? If you have to resort to that, it means you have nothing else.


So by having an illegal server she had no intent on hiding anything? Seriously man do you think with your own brain or do you just accept whatever you hear in the Press?




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Face it...what this all comes down to is that you think Hillary should be held to the lowest possible standard and I think she should be held to the highest possible standard given the nature of her position.


I've said nothing of the sort. I think she should be held to the same letter of the law as anyone else would be. It appears that is what has happened.




You act as if the law is always applied evenly.

I think Hillary should be held to the highest standard within the boundaries of the law.

You do not.

False exculpatory statements are used all the time to prove intent. And I am sure that sometimes they aren't.

They weren't even considered by Comey.

You are not wrong and neither am I.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk



So by having an illegal server she had no intent on hiding anything? Seriously man do you think with your own brain or do you just accept whatever you hear in the Press?


Again, prove her intent.

Ad hom attacks only show your weaknesses, not mine.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



You act as if the law is always applied evenly.


I said nothing in reference to that. Again, don't make things up.



I think Hillary should be held to the highest standard within the boundaries of the law.


That doesn't mean anything. What higher standards are you talking about? Should we throw the book at her and send her to jail for something people usually get an internal reprimand or loss of clearance for?



They weren't even considered by Comey.


Where did he say that?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk
Seriously man do you think with your own brain or do you just accept whatever you hear in the Press?


Hate to butt in ... just a quick point of order ...

Where did you get your beliefs about Hillary if not the Press (i.e. blogs, TV, etc.)?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
kaylaluv

Oh..ty for explaining that.. I thought the original statement that Powell was the one who advised her to use an outside email was trying to place blame on someone else..and then the statement that she is responsible for it entirely after Powell publicly stated he did not advice her to use an outside email was back peddling because she had no option but to..

But I am not really keeping current with the daily statements and things..so, you may be right..

Thanks for showing me another side/version..

blend57
edit on 25-8-2016 by blend57 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2016 by blend57 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2016 by blend57 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Where did he say that?


He said the FBI did not investigate the false statements made by Hillary to Congress and that the FBI couldn't investigate them without a referral.

And that is crap because they should have been considered within the email server investigation -- NOT as a separate perjury investigation -- but as evidence of INTENT...

...something only a jury can weigh.

Also, I am interpreting your comments that anyone in Hillary's position would not be indicted. If you don't really mean that, you should clarify that you understand the law is not always applied evenly.

Some people are prosecuted for crimes based, in part, on false exculpatory statements that have proven intent and consciousness of guilt.

Others, like Hillary, are not.


edit on 25-8-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I keep foolishly clicking on these laid baits, foolishly hoping that at least some of our more respected members will actually deal with facts ... rather than regurgitated right-wing propaganda.

I say foolishly twice to reiterate that I know that these threads are nothing more than prime examples of the massive confirmation bias that exists among so many, and yet, I keep hoping for facts over rhetoric ... and I keep being utterly disappointed.

I'm not surprised Clinton is giggling about the email crap ... it is and has been a non-issue, except to those who hate her.

And for those anti-Clinton folks, obviously, the facts make no difference whatsoever.

Sorry, ATS ... Ignorance has won this round; perhaps we will have better luck next time.


CNN is a left-wing propaganda outfit.

In another disappointment from you, you completely ignore the charge that she deflected from the question and if you don't believe me, point out clearly where she acknowledged and apologized for lying last week when she threw Powell under the bus? Cooper asked the question, what part of the answer specifically addresses the question?

Answer that, and that alone, and I might start to take you seriously again.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



He said the FBI did not investigate the false statements made by Hillary to Congress and that the FBI couldn't investigate them without a referral.


That he did say, but that was not in the same conversation or context in regards to false exculpatory statements.



Also, I am interpreting your comments that anyone in Hillary's position would not be indicted. If you don't really mean that, you should clarify that you understand the law is not always applied evenly.


That is what I am saying. Someone that did what Hillary has done would not have been indicted. Such cases are handled internally within the specific department.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

When 80% don't get prosecuted? I don't think so. Fired - maybe. Prosecuted - no.


How many of them were offered the biggest promotion possible?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



He said the FBI did not investigate the false statements made by Hillary to Congress and that the FBI couldn't investigate them without a referral.


That he did say, but that was not in the same conversation or context in regards to false exculpatory statements.



I can't help that entire hearing was a monumental failure. I can only go by what was asked and how Comey responded. I can't reorganize the order information was given.

And no two cases are identical. In this case, Hillary did make false exculpatory statements in front of Congress. And false exculpatory statements have been used as evidence of intent and consciousness of guilt in many other cases.

In this case, the FBI didn't recommend a jury ever hear about them to weigh their importance.



edit on 25-8-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Hillary did make false exculpatory statements in front of Congress.


I disagree. Any decent lawyer could easily make the case that she answered to the best of her ability considering what she knew. She did not go through those emails. Her lawyers did.

She has a big space for plausible deniability.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Hillary did make false exculpatory statements in front of Congress.


I disagree. Any decent lawyer could easily make the case that she answered to the best of her ability considering what she knew. She did not go through those emails. Her lawyers did.

She has a big space for plausible deniability.


They are false. It's up to a jury to decide if they prove intent or mean nothing -- not you, not me, not the FBI, not the DOJ.

Lucky Hillary though...it's evidence a jury will never weigh.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Sometimes what I'm thinking doesn't make the keyboard. Usually, that's a good thing, but not always.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Hillary did make false exculpatory statements in front of Congress.


I disagree. Any decent lawyer could easily make the case that she answered to the best of her ability considering what she knew. She did not go through those emails. Her lawyers did.

She has a big space for plausible deniability.


They are false. It's up to a jury to decide if they prove intent or mean nothing -- not you, not me, not the FBI, not the DOJ.

Lucky Hillary though...it's evidence a jury will never weigh.


I've been doing a bit of reading and I've only seen one source that says false exculpatory statements rely solely on a jury's decision.

Can you provide a source that states that in all cases, false exculpatory statements can only be determined by a jury?

As much as I try, I cannot find anything other than the opinion of the the person involved in the particular case you stated, that states what you assert.

What you posted appears to be limited to that particular case alone.


edit on 25-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It's the controlling federal case law. You will find it cited in many other cases.

Just Google: UNITED STATES v. ZANG AND false exculpatory statements

ETA: Wait...are you suggesting it's possibly up to the public to weigh evidence in a criminal case, not a jury? Of course it's up to a jury to to determine whether or not false exculpatory statements admitted as evidence are meaningful or not.

...if they hear the evidence, that is. In this case, whether Hillary made false statements to Congress, or not, wasn't even investigated and, therefore, not considered -- which is the entire point.
edit on 25-8-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Take a look at this:


The Government sought, and the trial court gave over objection, an instruction regarding false exculpatory statements, and such is now assigned as reversible error. We have held that false exculpatory statements are admissible to prove consciousness of guilt and unlawful intent. United States v. Tager, 481 F.2d 97 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 914, 94 S.Ct. 1410, 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974). The fact that Ingram "wasn't sure" when he left Fort Carson doesn't neutralize his further statement that to the best of his knowledge he had not left Fort Carson, located some eighty miles south of Denver, until the early evening of December 29, 1976, several hours after the robbery took place. Such was clearly intended to be exculpatory and thereby rendered admissible the Government's evidence that in fact Ingram left Fort Carson some six days before the robbery, not four hours after the robbery. The instruction given to the jury was in the language of E. Devitt & C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 15.12 (3d ed. 1977). Actually, the instruction is relatively innocuous and leaves exclusively to the jury the question as to whether false exculpatory statements, if made, indicate consciousness of guilt, or nothing at all.



www.leagle.com...



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheBulk
Seriously man do you think with your own brain or do you just accept whatever you hear in the Press?


Hate to butt in ... just a quick point of order ...

Where did you get your beliefs about Hillary if not the Press (i.e. blogs, TV, etc.)?


I don't have 'beliefs' about BIll and Hillary Clinton and the Bush family. I have KNOWLEDGE. FACTS. And it's called a book. You should read one. There are tons of them from all the prosecutors, investigators, cops and agents who recorded evidence of the many crimes of the Bush and Clintons, but were ignored by the mainstream media. So they did the only thing left--they wrote books. And though all of them have been threatened and had their families threatened, and some of them have been murdered...not ONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN SUED.

And if you lie in a book, you WILL get sued. So that's why I have KNOWLEDGE, and not 'beliefs'.

SMH...

Edited to add, and though I haven't read many of them, there are also the many women who have been raped and sexually attacked by Billy Boy, and then threatened by Hillary, some PERSONALLY, to keep quiet about it. I am always gobsmacked at the fake liberals who promote a rapist and a rape enabler, even forgetting all the crimes they've perped over the last 2+ decades...
edit on 25-8-2016 by nomoredemsorreps because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Do you have a specific point? Obviously, a jury needs to be instructed fairly and fully according to the facts of the case they are hearing.

What you have quoted is irrelevant to the admissibility of false exculpatory statements as evidence of intent and consciousness of guilt.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Do you think she was sitting on a stool while giving this interview?

Whoever edited this video cut off an even more important question at the end. The Silver Fox asked her why she hasn't done a press conference in 260 days and as she was playing word dance dance revolution he cut it off.

It was funny that the start of her answer was "I share a lot with the press."




top topics



 
55
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join