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: 21
147
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5



He received IMMUNITY from the FBI regarding what he did and did not do with her email and email server..and was interviewed multiple times by them.

His immunity was limited and it was granted before he tampered with the emails. That is the meaning of his 'Oh #' moment.
He very well may have violated that agreement with the tampering.


From everything I could google he was granted immunity early this year...the Reddit exchange was a couple years ago.

They were still in the process of subpoenaing emails when he was on Reddit..The FBI investigation wasn't even rolling with interviews then.

I am 99% percent sure you are 100% wrong.

I am not 100% wrong about him being granted limited immunity.
If he did naughty things that were not disclosed when he made the immunity deal... he is not immune from prosecution for those things.


What makes you think the immunity was "limited" and not "blanket"?

It would be nice if you outright admitted you made the last post up about him being granted immunity before he made the reddit post? I might take you more seriously and find you more credible and be interested in trading posts if you acknowledged you were wrong with your claim?

It's possible he disclosed this already to the FBI under immunity..
"Did you alter the emails in any way possible"...No
"Did you attempt to alter the emails in any way possible"...yes..I was trying to swap her email address with a place-holder to protect the address but was unsuccessfully..

It goes on and on...but there is no route where this has legal teeth..

What makes you think that they would take the unusual step of granting full immunity to him?

I acknowledge that I was wrong about when Combetta was granted immunity. I was confusing players in this tangled web that Hillary has woven.
My apologies for being human.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

I guess, except this lowly IT guy would then have to explain who he was referring to when he talked about "They".

In no possible way could him clearly and obviously taking the fall reflect well on the FBI, the DoJ or the Clinton campaign.
It would just look exactly like what it is, a cover up.

No winners there.




posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

What makes you think the immunity was "limited" and not "blanket"?



Because it was a "big fish" investigation. They weren't interested in a drag-net and that was not their mandate. They needed to know everything he knew and an IT guy is not what they wanted in return for a year long investigation etc. etc.






I acknowledge that I was wrong about when Combetta was granted immunity. I was confusing players in this tangled web that Hillary has woven.
My apologies for being human.


Half-ass apology, but thanks anyways. I don't mind people getting facts wrong..but "being human" means admitting the same IMO.
edit on 21-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

It seems that way. But I'm not getting my hopes up till all the proof comes out and other court dates are being setup.

I do kind of wonder how far they'll all fall if it does come to pass. It'll be a rather large power void.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You know the fact that this Reddit post singles out the VIP's email address is actually very incriminating to Hilary, herself.

Whether the post was about keeping her email address (which was already public) private, or stripping it out entirely and replacing it with a scapegoat email address, the request would surely have originated WITH Hillary.

Why would others want to tamper with her email address or make it private without her knowledge or consent and in violation of the law?


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



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Gotta get to work..so I will be brief..

"they" is a good question..

I think logic and circumstance strongly points to the FBI already having asked that question under a blanket of immunity and gotten an answer and followed that lead to a conclusion.

If not...then there is more to be revealed.

The Congressional Committee is not the FBI...them asking him to testify is separate...they should be asking the FBI for his interview notes...why aren't they?. The fact that the Committee asked the FBI to investigate Clinton for perjury and the FBI said no, there was not a case to be made there...highlights the difference in investigative standards between a politically motivated committee and the FBI.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The other issue is if the Clinton's hired a lawyer for this guy he is already in deep crap.

He needs to get his own, and make sure to claim "duress", that will give him a get out of jail card, or at least a reduced sentence.

This is the proverbial Trojan Horse, people are going to start making deals and spilling their guts.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: Indigo5

I could have sworn that I have seen that email without redaction, but having seen so much stuff the past few days, I could be mistaken... just to clear the record




I don't know about non-redacted, but I found them and posted about them here, several months back. The article linked is from October 2015.

The post I linked shows that Platte River was directed to reduce the backups, the information in this thread shows who and when in regards to specific information within those backups.

If all of this together wasn't enough for a reasonable prosecutor, maybe we need to find an unreasonable one.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

You know the fact that this Reddit post singles out the VIP's email address is actually very incriminating to Hilary, herself.



It's interesting...but not proof...there is a distance to be covered there and might have already been covered in the FBI investigation.



Whether the post was about keeping her email address (which was already public) private, or stripping it out entirely and replacing it with a scapegoat email address, the request would surely have originated WITH Hillary.



No way to infer that. Between her and the IT guy was all her staff and all of the IT firm he worked for.



Why would others want to tamper with her email address or make it private without her knowledge or consent and in violation of the law?



Unanswered questions...likely her email address but possibly another VIP on the emails...Bills?...Colin Powells?..

It could have been staff taking initiative...

Fair questions...a logical place to start is with the FBI who grilled Combatta in multiple interviews.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

Well Clinton was paying some of the expenses Pictures of invoices at link


If the Clintons were paying for Mr. Combetta’s time and travel, and especially if they were paying for any legal assistance he received through his employer, Denver-based Platte River Networks, it raises the question of how independent Mr. Combetta’s cooperation with the FBI was. Alternately, it could show he remained tethered, and therefore loyal to some degree, to Hillary Clinton and her team



Edit Clinton said she never received invoice but we know they like to lie..
edit on 21-9-2016 by misfit312 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Grambler

Gotta get to work..so I will be brief..

"they" is a good question..

I think logic and circumstance strongly points to the FBI already having asked that question under a blanket of immunity and gotten an answer and followed that lead to a conclusion.

If not...then there is more to be revealed.

The Congressional Committee is not the FBI...them asking him to testify is separate...they should be asking the FBI for his interview notes...why aren't they?. The fact that the Committee asked the FBI to investigate Clinton for perjury and the FBI said no, there was not a case to be made there...highlights the difference in investigative standards between a politically motivated committee and the FBI.



First let me say I really appreciate your input into this thread. It is nice to have ideas challenged.

I have to say, I think we are reeling you in!

The Committe has been fighting tooth and nail to get all of the document from the FBI unredacted!!!!!

Here is a video from just the other day where Chafttez is so frustrated with the FBI not handing over of documents that he actually issues a member of the FBI a subpoena on the spot!



Now the question becomes, if the House did request those documents, why is the FBI doing there best to not let Congress see them?

Doesn't this seem fishy to you?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

It's interesting...but not proof...there is a distance to be covered there and might have already been covered in the FBI investigation.

Unanswered questions...likely her email address but possibly another VIP on the emails...Bills?...Colin Powells?..

It could have been staff taking initiative...


Initiative to knowingly violate the law and tamper with evidence, just because? Combetta didn't know he was going to be granted immunity, at that point. For all he knew, he could go to prison for just asking the question on Reddit.

The distance is not so great if the fact is, it was Hillary's email address they wanted to strip out.

If it was anyone else's, it's still a federal crime. And then the question becomes who that was and why was that order given.

It is simply not reasonable to believe that Platte River took it upon themselves to strip out Colin Powell's or Bill Clinton's email addresses without being asked by their client to do so. And that implicates 'the Client' in a conspiracy to tamper with evidence and obstruct justice.
edit on 21-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Chaffetz has subpoenaed all of the 302's from the FBI, including Combetta's, after that FBI agent told him he could go through FOIA if he wanted. Congress does not have to go through FOIA to get information like this. The FBI seems to be hindering Congressional investigation and/or delaying it till....when? After Nov. 8th? After Jan. 20th?
edit on 21-9-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: misfit312

Here is an invoice showing


originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: burntheships

Yes indeed, I found the same thing. Lookie here at the invoice:



Why in the hell would they charge $19283.10 for "PR for Clinton email inquiries," and $25733.50 for "Legal activity re: Hillary Clinton..."

related:


Despite Boian’s statement that Platte River set up a 30-day revolving retention policy for Clinton’s emails, Johnson’s letter noted that Platte River employees were directed to reduce the amount of email data being stored with each backup. Late this summer, Johnson wrote, a Platte River employee took note of this change and inquired whether the company could search its archives for an email from Clinton Executive Service Corp. directing such a reduction in October or November 2014 and then again around February, advising Platte River to save only emails sent during the most recent 30 days.

Those reductions would have occurred after the State Department requested that Clinton turn over her emails.

...

“If we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups,” the employee wrote, “and that we can go public with our statement saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30 days, it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better,” according to the email cited by Johnson.



The above bolded and underlined statement is another way of saying that they were instructed to delete data (emails) from the back up.

McClatchy


Note the date of "Legal activity re: Hillary Clinton..."

 


additional reply to: misfit312

This is indeed the actual invoice to which your excerpt is referring. It was sent to the Clinton accounting firm.
edit on 21-9-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I am tired of hearing that Combetta was granted immunity because the FBI investigation was about getting to the "big fish."

No big fish was indicted and, in fact, Combetta's immunity simply allowed him to take the fall for criminal wrongdoing so the "big fish" could skate free.

The FBI appears so very dirty now.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

More importantly, what power do Congress have to enforce the subpoena?
If the full set of files are not delivered without redactions, what can they do?



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I am tired of hearing that Combetta was granted immunity because the FBI investigation was about getting to the "big fish."

No big fish was indicted and, in fact, Combetta's immunity simply allowed him to take the fall for criminal wrongdoing so the "big fish" could skate free.

The FBI appears so very dirty now.



That's exactly how it seems and is why I believe the immunity deals were always part of the damage limitation in this case.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Now the question becomes, if the House did request those documents, why is the FBI doing there best to not let Congress see them?

Doesn't this seem fishy to you?


Quick note on this. I heard an interview with several legal analysts and former FBI guys when the FBI handed over the Clinton interview notes..

They were saying that the FBI turning over investigation notes (interview notes) for a case that is not moving forward is unusual and sets a dangerous precedent.

The idea that an investigation does not lead to an indictment, but the investigation and various interview notes are made public means that witnesses would be less willing to cooperate and speak freely in the future.

It was a very unusual exception for the FBI to make investigation notes public in a case that is not being prosecuted or going to trial.

You can think it is political, but I think it is policy. Them handing over the interview notes on Clinton was highly unusual and likely due to the unusual circumstances, but many inside the DOJ disagreed with Comey on the move.

The "they" bit might warrant them handing over further notes, but the committee has to be specific in the request...not give us everything you have.

Another note: It is no secret in DC that Comey does not like Clinton, nor does a lot of the higher-ups in FBI. If he could hang anything around her neck, he would do it, but he is very much a by-the-book, law, order and rules guy. Give him a solid case and he would prosecute her. That is why I find the whole conspiracy around Comey or the FBI covering for Clinton silly.
edit on 21-9-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That Oversight committee has every right to ask for all the 302's pertaining to this case, regardless of what the FBI's precedence is.

That committee is doing work for The People through OUR House. It is their job to do exactly what they are doing and they should not have to go through a FOIA process to get it done.

This reeks!!



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Fortune is spinning the, "we can't say it's him," song:


To be clear, the evidence that Combetta is “stonetear” is circumstantial, and it’s not clear if there is anything illegal about the Reddit request. But the optics sure don’t look good, and strongly suggest that Combetta turned to social media for advice about how to tamper with government records that should been preserved.


Hillary Clinton's IT Guy Made This Common Mistake

Not only that' they're also not-so-subtly trying to make what he did seem like an "oopsie," with the title and make note of the type of mistake they are saying he committed:


If you want to do shady stuff on the Internet, cover your tracks. Otherwise, you’ll end up like Paul Combetta, whose careless mistake just added new fuel to the never-ending controversy over Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.


Let's see if anyone else picks up on it.



new topics

top topics



 
147
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join