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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Reddit post apparently related to Clintons email coverup

page: 20
154
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


Ok, it could have been anyone of the people you mention. Then why weren't they arrested if Combetta disclosed this to the FBI? I don't care if he claimed the they was just the people at his firm, he is implying here someone instructed him to break the law.


They were climbing the chain and reached a dead end. ANOTHER member of that IT firm also received immunity. It's possibly they went to his boss who directed him and offered immunity to see if he took orders from HRCs staff and found a dead end and it was just that guys bad idea..but he had been given immunity.



So there are two possibilities. He told the FBI this, but the FBI chose not to press charges on whoever Combetta said the "they" was despite the fact "they" didn't have immunity.



Other possibilities include they followed it up the chain. they granted another person immunity at the firm (perhaps the guy that told Combetta to do this)?...and the chain stopped there.






And why are you even posting possible explanations for what might have happened, when your final stance will always be "Well if anything was done wrong, the FBI and DOJ would have done more" OK we get it, thats your stance.





Trying to interject objective thinking into yet another rush of emotional-political wannabe true threads...

Someplace where a contrary view should be valued..


But if it upsets you to be challenged and would rather enjoy a thread where everyone agrees and no one challenges the evidence, circumstance or facts..then have it.

everyone can simply say stuff and feel good, affirm their world view and reconcile why their predictions did not come true later..


Do you understand what is happening on this thread?


Unfortunately yes...I am being personally attacked for providing a logical view you disagree with and evidence and logic to support that contrary view and correcting false claims.




It seems as if you are suggesting that you believe stonetear in his second post, that after he was told what he was doing w=could be illegal by another reddit user, he claimed he was just looking for a placeholder. Maybe that is not what you believe and you are just saying this could be a potential story he gives.



There is the truth...and what can be proven and what can be prosecuted.


What we "believe" is not relevant to the outcome.


Speculation is great...but following it up with the "smoking gun" and the "now she is going to jail" stuff is nonsense in light of the evidence. Whether he was doing something innocuous or something illegal and dishonest..his ass is covered.




What would be your explanation. If he was just looking for a placeholder, why would he then use bleach bit?



The FBI has questioned him on this prior to their conclusion. I don't have that answer...but given that it has been covered by the FBI and charges were not filed...it's not relevant to outcome.


And more importantly, do you think it is important to get to the bottom of these questions?


Absolutely...

Does that involve challenging theory, claims and evidence?

Or does getting to the bottom involve a bunch of people agreeing and not challenging the claims and evidence stack to see if it survives logic and scrutiny?

Hell...this thread was off and running for pages and no one bothered to mention that in his second reddit post he claimed he was doing it to protect a private email address and replace it with a placeholder???

I don't see the intellectual value in that kind of analysis...

And I don't see as it getting to "the bottom" of anything when people just want to be told what they want to hear.
edit on 21-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


2. Combetta did not tell the FBI he was told to break the law. Now if the FBI finds out that he was in fact told to do so, his immunity would be scrapped, and he should be arrested for tampering with (and deleting) evidence.


If the Stonetear on reddit is Combetta, it seems to show that he is saying "they" wanted him to do this. This would be enough for the FBI to bring him in to requestion him on why he told the FBI he acted alone, but says others wanted him to do this on reddit.



Absolutely incorrect.

If Combetta claims he was under "Duress" immunity would still hold up, and the people that caused the duress would go to jail, and/or be in a world of legal crap.



can prove in a court of law that he is a victim of coercion and signed a contract as he was being threatened indirectly or directly, this is referred to as a case of duress. For duress to be proved, the victim has to tell the court exact circumstances that were created to make him act in a way that he or she would otherwise not act in normal circumstances.



www.differencebetween.com...

edit on 21-9-2016 by Realtruth because: added content



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: xtradimensions

I'd say his deletions are evidence of consciousness of guilt for Combetta, in that, he knew he had taken 'an action in furtherance of a conspiracy,' by even posting the question on Reddit for advice. That posting, alone, makes him a co-conspirator, according to criminal conspiracy statutes.

Now, what/who was behind the request to strip out Hillary's email address is a broader matter that Combetta's action, in deleting those posts, reflects on, as well.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj




So there really is only one logical conclusion: the FBI has had this information, and they have chosen not to use it. At whose behest, Lynch's?



She IS his boss.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

"Hell...this thread was off and running for pages and no one bothered to mention that in his second reddit post he claimed he was doing it to protect a private email address and replace it with a placeholder???"

Hell... me too.... and it is....... what happens if you replace HRH@Clintonemail.com with Bugs@Bunny.com?


You avoid any FOIA searches based on your known email of HRH@Clintonemail.com.


Extremely convenient that it took place in July 2014.

Doesn't change the fact that all the emails sent aren't affected and still floating out there and would be subject to FOIA, but it definitely makes it harder to fulfill any FOIA requests in a timely manner. That is obstruction.





edit on R462016-09-21T11:46:43-05:00k469Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Did they ever find out who that other mysterious user was on clintonmail.com? The last initial was a 'u', I believe.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Not that I have heard... I remember at one point they claimed the dog had an email account. lol



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Jonjonj




So there really is only one logical conclusion: the FBI has had this information, and they have chosen not to use it. At whose behest, Lynch's?



She IS his boss.



Correct. And when you see just how entrenched this DoJ, FBI and Clinton handholding goes, is it any wonder why the FBI might have sat on this?

Not to me it isn't.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
They were climbing the chain and reached a dead end. ANOTHER member of that IT firm also received immunity. It's possibly they went to his boss who directed him and offered immunity to see if he took orders from HRCs staff and found a dead end and it was just that guys bad idea..but he had been given immunity.



And that's why this Reddit post is so damning and requires some serious investigation.

If the Reddit post checks out as Combetta's, now we have him saying 'they' wanted to strip out a VIP's email address. 'They' implying more than one other person.

And we see he was informed that for discovery purposes, it would be illegal. So he knew it was illegal.

Then we have him disassociating with the fact that he was, in fact, dealing with an email archive that was due to be produced to Congress, and he suggested it was for the purpose of protecting the VIP's email address from becoming public.

But, all the while saying that, he knew that the email archive was being prepared for a discovery request from Congress.

And he still prodded on looking for advice...knowing what he was doing was illegal.

Why on earth would he continue with something he demonstrably knew was illegal? Because he's just really, really so devoted to Hillary he would knowlingly risk going to prison for tampering with evidence and obstructing justice?

No, no, no. Combetta needs to be questioned because he took that huge risk for a good reason. The most obvious reason is that he had a lot of pressure on him to tamper with the evidence. It is not even reasonable to assume he knowingly took such a risk simply because he really felt strongly about protecting the privacy of an email address used by Hillary Clinton that was already public for more than a year.


edit on 21-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Indigo5
They were climbing the chain and reached a dead end. ANOTHER member of that IT firm also received immunity. It's possibly they went to his boss who directed him and offered immunity to see if he took orders from HRCs staff and found a dead end and it was just that guys bad idea..but he had been given immunity.



And that's why this Reddit post is so damning and requires some serious investigation.

If the Reddit post checks out as Combetta's, now we have him saying 'they' wanted to strip out a VIP's email address. 'They' implying more than one other person.

And we see he was informed that for discovery purposes, it would be illegal. So he knew it was illegal.

Then we have him disassociating with the fact that he was, in fact, dealing with an email archive that was due to be produced to Congress, and he suggested it was for the purpose of protecting the VIP's email address from becoming public.

But, all the while saying that, he knew that the email archive was being prepared for a discovery request for Congress.

And he still prodded on looking for advice...knowing what he was doing was illegal.

Why on earth would he continue with something he demonstrably knew was illegal? Because he's just really, really so devoted to Hillary he would knowlingly risk going to prison for tampering with evidence and obstructing justice?

No, no, no. Combetta needs to be questioned because he took that huge risk for a good reason. The most obvious reason is that he had a lot of pressure on him to tamper with the evidence. It is not even reasonable to assume he knowingly took such a risk simply because he really felt strongly about protecting the privacy of an email address used by Hillary Clinton that was already public for more than a year.


Don't disagree with most of it...

But you need to acknowledge that he was granted immunity after this happened and then went on under the umbrella of immunity to have multiple interviews with the FBI.

Don't you think someone at the FBI thought to ask him if he had tried to tamper with the emails in any way? If he was told to tamper with the emails in any way? For the love of god...of course they drilled on this...And he had no reason not to be forthcoming with answers as his immunity status relied on it and he was immune from being prosecuted. I don't see a scenario where the reddit postings are revelation to the FBI. Those postings are likely the precise reason he asked for immunity....So he could answer whether he tried or succeeded in altering the emails and if so at whose direction. Those were likely questions he was asked and answered in the first five minutes of the multiple interviews. If he was intending to lie or hold back with the FBI, he wouldn't have requested immunity and he would not risk prison time when he had a blanket pass as long as he was truthful.

We will see if this shakes out differently...but that is what logic dictates here.


edit on 21-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5


They were climbing the chain and reached a dead end. ANOTHER member of that IT firm also received immunity. It's possibly they went to his boss who directed him and offered immunity to see if he took orders from HRCs staff and found a dead end and it was just that guys bad idea..but he had been given immunity.


Wait, weren't you the person saying you were just pointing out facts, not giving your theories. Can you show me anywhere the FBI claiming anything remotely like this?

The only other person I see that got immunity was Pagliano, do you have links to another? Was Pagliano Combettas boss? I don't see evidence of that. Seeing as how you have no evidence of the FBI claiming this is what happened, are you suggesting Combetta got immunity and said "Pagliano told me to do it" and then they gave Pagliano immunity and he admitted "Yep it was all my idea" This seems more far fetched than what we are suggesting happened.

Also Stonetear said "they" wanted this done, implying more than just one person. So if only one other person was granted immunity, there must be at least a second that ordered it that should be arrested.






Other possibilities include they followed it up the chain. they granted another person immunity at the firm (perhaps the guy that told Combetta to do this)?...and the chain stopped there.


Answered above. If that is what happened, don't you think that Comey should come out and tell the public that? Why not mention this?




Trying to interject objective thinking into yet another rush of emotional-political wannabe true threads...

Someplace where a contrary view should be valued..


But if it upsets you to be challenged and would rather enjoy a thread where everyone agrees and no one challenges the evidence, circumstance or facts..then have it.

everyone can simply say stuff and feel good, affirm their world view and reconcile why their predictions did not come true later..


Your opinions are welcomed and encouraged. What is silly when you just fall back to in the end "If something was there the FBI would have done something." This isn't constructive at all. The rest of what you are saying is very constructive.




Unfortunately yes...I am being personally attacked for providing a logical view you disagree with and evidence and logic to support that contrary view and correcting false claims.


What attacks? Wow you are thin skinned. You are doing things like saying you are just posting facts and quoting the second reddit post. Then you ask where things I am saying are quoted.

I was pointing out people on this thread are trying to piece the story together based on the info we have. You know, like you did at the top of this post. Why is it ok for you to do this but not me?

No one is saying you shouldn't challenge opinions.





There is the truth...and what can be proven and what can be prosecuted.


What we "believe" is not relevant to the outcome.


Speculation is great...but following it up with the "smoking gun" and the "now she is going to jail" stuff is nonsense in light of the evidence. Whether he was doing something innocuous or something illegal and dishonest..his ass is covered.


How do you know he is covered? If he violated the terms of his immunity, he is not. This was covered over and over be me and other posters, either he violated his immunity and can be arrested (or as was pointed out he did so under duress and then the ones threatening him can be charged) or the FBI is covering something up.





The FBI has questioned him on this prior to their conclusion. I don't have that answer...but given that it has been covered by the FBI and charges were not filed...it's not relevant to outcome.


Gotcha! No point questioning anything folks! The FBI looked into it, everything is good. I mean the fact that members of the House sent out a letter wanting to interview Combetta and others as a result of this reddit investigation means nothing. We should all just mind our own business, the FBI knows best and they know nothing happened.




Absolutely...

Does that involve challenging theory, claims and evidence?

Or does getting to the bottom involve a bunch of people agreeing and not challenging the claims and evidence stack to see if it survives logic and scrutiny?


YES!!!!! Thats the irony here! We have the Hillary camp and her buddies in the MSM telling us there is nothing to see here, the FBI took care of it, move along. We are the challenging claims, theories and evidence.

You then are challenging those claims with some of your own. Thats good! But then you fall back to saying "Well if anything was a big deal, the FBI would have done more". Can't you see that is exactly what you are criticizing?



Hell...this thread was off and running for pages and no one bothered to mention that in his second reddit post he claimed he was doing it to protect a private email address and replace it with a placeholder???

I don't see the intellectual value in that kind of analysis...

And I don't see as it getting to "the bottom" of anything when people just want to be told what they want to hear.


Thats not true, his second post was mentioned. The majority of this thread has been focused on the fact that he said "they" wanted this done, implying he was told to do this. That is the new info.

The reason the second reddit posts wasn't focused on is that it doesn't matter if he was just trying to put in a placeholder or not, because we know what he ended up doing, deleting everything with bleach bit! He got away with this because he had immunity, and so it stopped with him.

The question is were others involved. How does the second reddit post have anything to do with answering that question?

People are trying to find the truth here. For example, on this thread it came up that Stonetaer may have posted on another site that his employer had Parkinson's. The people on here looked into it, and determined that this was most likely a hoax. If we were only interested in bashing Hillary, why would we go through to trouble of fact checking these things?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: queenofswords

Not that I have heard... I remember at one point they claimed the dog had an email account. lol


Weren't there only four or five? I seem to remember it was Huma, Cheryl, Hillary, and one other with the initial "u". Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Man I got to applaud you. Everytime I am typing something out, I post it and I see you had the exact same thought as me. Such as they meaning multiple people.

Great job!



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Thanks. My mind kept circling back around to Combetta's 11th hour deletions as a possible admittance of guilt that he hadn't been totally honest with the FBI, and I couldn't move beyond that conclusion to see other options. I realized I was being obtuse, but I was stuck in that mindset. I still feel like I'm overlooking or not comprehending some aspects of this latest development so am following this thread with great interest. a reply to: MotherMayEye


edit on 21/9/2016 by xtradimensions because: Typo



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

Don't disagree with most of it...

But you need to acknowledge that he was granted immunity after this happened and then went on under the umbrella of immunity to have multiple interviews with the FBI.

Don't you think someone at the FBI thought to ask him if he had tried to tamper with the emails in any way? If he was told to tamper with the emails in any way? For the love of god...of course they drilled on this...And he had no reason not to be forthcoming with answers as his immunity status relied on it and he was immune from being prosecuted. I don't see a scenario where the reddit postings are revelation to the FBI. Those postings are likely the precise reason he asked for immunity....So he could answer whether he tried or succeeded in altering the emails and if so at whose direction. Those were likely questions he was asked and answered in the first five minutes of the multiple interviews. If he was intending to lie or hold back with the FBI, he wouldn't have requested immunity and he would not risk prison time when he had a blanket pass as long as he was truthful.

We will see if this shakes out differently...but that is what logic dictates here.



I am with you he was given immunity after this. I also agree they asked him the questions. Heck, I can do better than that, I can prove the discussed it. Combetta admitted he did more than just tamper with emails, he deleted the emails with full knowledge it was illegal. This was shone in the "Oh S##t" document that was disclosed by the FBI.

I will take your analysis a step further. I guarantee when Combetta admitted to the FBI that he deleted these emails, one of the FBI's first questions would have been "Did you act alone, or were you ordered to tamper with these emails?"

If he said others ordered him, why did the FBI not go after those others, and why didn't the FBI let the public know this reasoning?

If he didn't mention others telling him do to that, then why is that what he is claiming in this reddit thread, and then why is he trying to delete evidence of that thread once it became public? If he withheld information, his immunity could be taken away, and the FBI could then reopen the investigation and go after the others that ordered him given this new information.


edit on 21-9-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
If they can keep this guy alive, this will most definitely be the straw that broke the camel's back.

This is a massive tactical error on Clinton's part, and one that cannot be covered.

In a court of law the electronic trail will indisputable.
edit on 21-9-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
The thing that doesn't add up to me is this: If the FBI knew about his posting history (and I simply can't believe they did not) and if they were involved in a cover up, then why would they not have deleted or told him to delete his posting history a long time ago. It doesn't make sense...

Unless...

The FBI left this out there because they are tired of being shackled by Lynch and the DoJ in this case. Comey saying what he said about how Hillary's actions, if committed by somebody else, could easily result in a different outcome still resonates with me as his way of saying "Hey, my hands are tied, what do you want me to do about it?"

Just a thought.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
Don't you think someone at the FBI thought to ask him if he had tried to tamper with the emails in any way? If he was told to tamper with the emails in any way? For the love of god...of course they drilled on this...And he had no reason not to be forthcoming with answers as his immunity status relied on it and he was immune from being prosecuted. Id don't see a scenario where the reddit postings are revelation to the FBI.



Oh, this is a revelation, for the public anyway. Especially if the other person granted immunity was a co-conspirator, as you suggested.

Why? Because the other person granted immunity was Bryan Pagliano:


Bryan Pagliano, a former campaign staff member for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, who was granted immunity in exchange for answering questions about how he set up a server in Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., around the time she became secretary of state in 2009.


This may not be a revelation for the FBI and if it isn't, then this is incriminating evidence the FBI is involved in a conspiracy to a obstruct justice.

If the order came from outside Platte River to tamper with the email archive -- from Brian Pagliano -- why did he inject himself into this discovery request from Congress and ask Combetta to do such a thing?

Certainly, this would be evidence of a cover up stemming from the Client-side. And that cannot be brushed away. Congress asked about evidence of intent. If Brian Pagliano ordered Combetta to alter the email addresses -- not anyone's except Hillary's -- then that is damning, solid evidence of a cover-up, and therefore 'intent.'



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj


Or, as I have said before....some lowly IT guy is going to be thrown under the bus for all of it. They (the FBI) left just enough damning digital evidence to prove it.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Man I got to applaud you. Everytime I am typing something out, I post it and I see you had the exact same thought as me. Such as they meaning multiple people.

Great job!


That just happened only in reverse. We were both typing about Pagliano...I got sidetracked with something, and when I came back to finish posting, you were already on it!
edit on 21-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
154
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join