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.

 

Reddit post apparently related to Clintons email coverup

page: 41
154
<< 38  39  40   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
ETA: There is nothing in the FBI records released BEFORE the Reddit story broke...

But, lo-and-behold...here is the explanation in the documents the FBI released a few days afterward:

Page 15 of Part 3.



I already said I thought the timing of that release was suspicious, earlier in the thread. So, I can't help feel skeptical about finding this in Part 3.
edit on 29-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is being questioned on twitter. One question I see coming up is that there is no mention at all about a post to reddit asking how to do this followed by the supposition that this would violate Combetta's immunity agreement.

Plus there is a good bit of chatter about Obama's pseudonym being the VVIP email address they wanted to strip out.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is being questioned on twitter. One question I see coming up is that there is no mention at all about a post to reddit asking how to do this followed by the supposition that this would violate Combetta's immunity agreement.

Plus there is a good bit of chatter about Obama's pseudonym being the VVIP email address they wanted to strip out.


If the FBI planted this explanation in response to the discovery of the Reddit post, then there will be no way of proving it without whistleblowers.

Again, Comey did not want to state facts on the record, yesterday. If what is in the new release was genuine, why not come full out confident in the truth. I don't think he wanted to lie to the point he could be held accountable...in case of whistleblowers.

Just my gut, I don't trust Comey, he doesn't trust me. And that's just fine.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Why did Combetta delete the post?

Deleting the post gave the appearance of covering up something incriminating. It's material evidence in an ongoing legal matter before Congress. Illegal?

I would think so.

If the FBI knew about the attempt to alter an email address and made no issue of it AND since Combetta has immunity...why on earth did he delete it?

It was incriminating. That's what his deletion indicates.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye





Ok..D'UH!

If protecting Hillary's NEW email address (hrod17) from being made public is the reason Combetta sought the advice, why didn't he temporarily just change her email address back to 'hdr22', output the archive file, then just change it back hrod17...and be done with it?

THAT would be the obvious and simple solution IF protecting Hillary's new email address from being made public was actually the goal.

***

That was the excuse...when you change email addresses the new one is inserted at the top of the email chain.

From the FBI Interview:


...I explained when a user changes his or her email address, Outlook updates the old email address with the new email address. MILLS was concerned CLINTON's then current email address would be disclosed publicly and would be different from the one CLINTON was using at the time the emails were actually sent.


So just change the email address back to hdr22 and output. Obviously, that would solve the entire problem without tampering with the archive files.

I have a hard time believing that wouldn't occur to Combetta given the problem he was facing was the precise solution he needed.
edit on 29-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Why did Combetta delete the post?

Deleting the post gave the appearance of covering up something incriminating. It's material evidence in an ongoing legal matter before Congress. Illegal?

I would think so.

If the FBI knew about the attempt to alter an email address and made no issue of it AND since Combetta has immunity...why on earth did he delete it?

It was incriminating. That's what his deletion indicates.


What if Combetta didn't actually do the deleting of the Reddit posts?
What if it was the FBI?

What is the timeline order regarding:
1.) Interview transcript release?
2.) Katica's discovery and announcement?
3.) Actual real-time deletion of Reddit posts?



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Why did Combetta delete the post?

Deleting the post gave the appearance of covering up something incriminating. It's material evidence in an ongoing legal matter before Congress. Illegal?

I would think so.

If the FBI knew about the attempt to alter an email address and made no issue of it AND since Combetta has immunity...why on earth did he delete it?

It was incriminating. That's what his deletion indicates.


What if Combetta didn't actually do the deleting of the Reddit posts?
What if it was the FBI?

What is the timeline order regarding:
1.) Interview transcript release?
2.) Katica's discovery and announcement?
3.) Actual real-time deletion of Reddit posts?



1.) Katica's discovery and announcement
2.) Actual real-time deletion of Reddit posts
3.) Interview transcript release

The interview transcript came AFTER Katica's discovery.

I think Combetta deleted because, IIRC, he deleted elsewhere online where he used the moniker 'Stonetear.' Please, someone correct me if I am wrong on that.
edit on 29-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Combetta's immunity is null and void. Once you lie to an FBI agent, anything you might have been immune to is now back on the table with which ti pummel you.

He was granted immunity in December of 2015, was then interviewed in February 2016, in which interview he said he did not know of the protective order and subpoena of records relating to the emails. Then later in May of 2016 he admitted he had known about the protective orders on the documents which he attempted to alter and then eventually Bleachbitted.



Go to the 2:43 mark in the above video. This is where Comey gets nailed and has to backpedal saying he was "confused and misremembering." If Combetta's immunity is null and Void, then he can be prosecuted.

Cheryl Mills immunity was limited to whatever was on the laptop. Meaning she could still be nailed for anything that did not reside on the laptop, say like telling someone to strip out an email address and replace it with a placeholder within documents under congressional subpoena.

We need to press this issue and see that it is not forgotten.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

How can Comey say he doesn't think what's in the FBI's own records is correct and get away with that?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Ok. I've sat on this all day.

I know some will scoff at this, BUT why didn't the committee seem to know about the interview where the find/replace stuff was clearly covered in the recent FBI document dump?

The committee brought up the Combetta immunity date and "oh sh*t* testimony in the interview. I am ok smart, but I am not paid to do research for Congress people.

Am I supposed to believe that no one on that committee had an aide look through the FBI dump before the hearing?

The explanation was right there on Page 15 of Part 3. Why didn't they ask Comey about that and/or quote that part?

I think THEY did not want Comey to have to lie and explain it in context of confirming the FBI's records.

Just my bi-partisan cynical .02¢.


edit on 30-9-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Some committee members are actually doing their jobs. Notice how they bring in the documents and ask questions and quote right out of the doc. That shows you the people whom are genuinely concerned and prepared and those who are not. The FBI director has nothing in front of him and all he can say is, Umm I am not sure if that is correct. I'll have to check on that. I don't know. I don't recall. I don't remember. He has a guy behind him writing it down so they can remember what chairman members are asking. There is a saying when all else fails just act dumb. That's what I gather from that FBI director.

The FBI is clearly incompetent and borderline criminal. What good are they if they give immunity to all the people involved? They say they don't want the little fish they want the big fish and then fail to do so. Gee... maybe that has something to do with the little fish you gave immunity to that is actively destroying the evidence you need to indict Hillary! Then they have the gall to turn around say how good they are. We can't indict cause we have no evidence they say. I am in awe of their stupidity.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Here's an article relevant to the Paul Combetta deal... seems like any chance via the DOJ, to find the truth is getting slim considering the content of a scathing letter sent to the DOJ...


Chairmen Question DOJ on Agreement to Limit Investigation of Secretary Clinton’s Private Server

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requesting information on the unusual restrictions placed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in its criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton’s private email server.

The restrictions were discovered in the course of the Committees’ review of the immunity agreements for former Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.

Key excerpts from the letter:

“We write to express our concerns about the process by which Congress was allowed to view the Wilkinson letters, that the letters inappropriately restrict the scope of the FBI’s investigation, and that the FBI inexplicably agreed to destroy the laptops knowing that the contents were the subject of Congressional subpoenas and preservation letters.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JacKatMtn

what a letter, demanding answers to the questions by oct 19th.. a Wednesday.

Time is fast running out.. 3 weeks until the election at that point!







 
154
<< 38  39  40   >>

log in

join