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.

 

Comey being grilled live now

page: 8
31
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
The fix was in...

Every honest person knows it.




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Discotech


What a slippery worm he is


well he is a lawyer,as hillary is. most lawyers are slippery little worms.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Steak

I happen to think this may be referring to Obama's pseudonym. He lied to the American people when he said he found out about it when the news reports came out.

I think that's the person they're really protecting. They have to cover Hillary's ass otherwise Obama gets implicated and the fecal matter matches coordinates with the oscillator and it's all just downhill from there.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.


I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.


Well, we have intent now.


What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?



Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.


Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.


No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".

So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.


MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.


I just did prove it.



No you did not. You did not prove Cheryl Mills told Combetta to delete emails. He said "might have been". That is not a definitive statement.


It might have been Mills. However, he said it definitely was one of her lawyers. So what does it matter which lawyer it was? Someone from the Clinton staff told Combetta to do this. This is intent. Was it Mills, Huma, Hillary herself? Who cares? They know that one of them intended this, so why has no one been charged?


How can you charge someone if you don't know which person did it?



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Apparently you don't know what the definition of the word "serious" is. Oh well. Whatever. Still don't care about your meme, and NOR do I care about what your cronies in Congress did to the Republican Comey. He's your guy too. Again y'all are eating your own. It's sad and hilarious at the same time.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krazysh0t

She didn't lie. She said she would accept the FBI's decision. It was no secret by then that they hadn't found anything and they were not going forward with an indictment. Like I said, legal chatter in DC was that they could not find any intent to share classified materials with people she shouldn't have.
So Lynch didn't lie. She just let the FBI make the announcement.

I know. I was just humoring his rhetoric to show how he was disproving his position.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.


I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.


Well, we have intent now.


What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?



Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.


Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.


No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".

So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.


MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.


I just did prove it.



No you did not. You did not prove Cheryl Mills told Combetta to delete emails. He said "might have been". That is not a definitive statement.


It might have been Mills. However, he said it definitely was one of her lawyers. So what does it matter which lawyer it was? Someone from the Clinton staff told Combetta to do this. This is intent. Was it Mills, Huma, Hillary herself? Who cares? They know that one of them intended this, so why has no one been charged?


How can you charge someone if you don't know which person did it?



How do we know this is planet earth? Maybe this is all a simulation and we should ignore laws, crimes etc.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.


I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.


Well, we have intent now.


What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?



Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.


Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.


No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".

So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.


MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.


I just did prove it.



No you did not. You did not prove Cheryl Mills told Combetta to delete emails. He said "might have been". That is not a definitive statement.


It might have been Mills. However, he said it definitely was one of her lawyers. So what does it matter which lawyer it was? Someone from the Clinton staff told Combetta to do this. This is intent. Was it Mills, Huma, Hillary herself? Who cares? They know that one of them intended this, so why has no one been charged?


How can you charge someone if you don't know which person did it?



Simple.

You gave Combetta immunity on the condition that he tell you hold told him to do this. They now have proof one of the lawyers told combetta to do this. This means that either Combetta comes clean about who it was, or he has violated his immunity, and you arrest him.

and eta:

Can you imagine law enforcement closing a case in any other scenario where they knew that one of two people broke the law?

Whats that, one of these two people robbed a bank? Well there is two possibilities, so thats it, close the case.

It just doesn't make sense.


edit on 29-9-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Steak

So that was intent to share classified information? She said she was removing personal emails?



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



This means that either Combetta comes clean about who it was, or he has violated his immunity, and you arrest him.


That is different than the statement I was replying to. That is much more reasonable than simply saying someone is guilty, but we don't know who, charges need to be filed anyway.



Can you imagine law enforcement closing a case in any other scenario where they knew that one of two people broke the law? Whats that, one of these two people robbed a bank? Well there is two possibilities, so thats it, close the case. It just doesn't make sense.


It doesn't when you frame the scenario in that way. No matter the number of possibilities, you still have to have proof to charge someone.
edit on 29-9-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




She said she was removing personal emails


Exactly its not like She and her family isn't known for Lying?

For Gods sake give H a break, the lady is a True American that has experienced the Fear of being under sniper fire. Plus She said She did not Have relations with that Server.

You have got to have some of the highest recruiting scores for the Trump campaign solely based on your arguments. Everytime I hear a Hillary supporter play dumb or overlook the BS she and her family has been involved with, it only makes me take that additional awful step towards voting Trump.

Hillary and her Supporter have done the impossible and Made trump look like the worthy candidate for POTUS in this election.


edit on 17930America/ChicagoThu, 29 Sep 2016 08:17:33 -0500000000p3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Here is a good clip about the timeline:



Best quote from the above excerpt, "he's trying to cover up the coverup."

 


Just for our meme-impaired friends:


The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank.
...
Giustra’s Swiss HSBC account, created in 2002, contained up to $10m in the 2006-2007 period.

Clinton foundation received up to $81m from clients of controversial HSBC bank


Executives with Europe's biggest bank, HSBC, were subjected to a humiliating onslaught from US senators on Tuesday over revelations that staff at its global subsidiaries laundered billions of dollars for drug cartels, terrorists and pariah states.
...
Other subsidiaries moved money from Iran, Syria and other countries on US sanctions lists, and helped a Saudi bank linked to al-Qaida to shift money to the US.


HSBC 'sorry' for aiding Mexican drugs lords, rogue states and terrorists

From the Clinton Foundation website:

CF & HSBC


Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.


fbi.gov


In August 2005, Comey left the DOJ and became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland. In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates, based in Westport, Connecticut. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater to become a Senior Research Scholar and a Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School in New York City. He served on the Board of Directors of HSBC Holdings until July 2013.[2]

In September 2013, Comey was appointed Director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.[3]


James Comey - Wikipedia


...Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”
...
Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing.


Time


Lynch has investigated the bank in the past, but there are many questions about her record on taking Wall Street offenders to task. She became the chief attorney for an ongoing probe into HSBC’s money laundering crimes in 2010, during her assignment as the US attorney for the eastern district of New York. At roughly the same time, the US government received a damning trove of evidence from French officials against HSBC regarding tax evasion.
...
Lynch’s investigation did result in a December 2012 deferred prosecution agreement, which is a half-measure in criminal cases, somewhere between a conviction and exoneration. In this agreement, HSBC admitted to massive money laundering violations for narco-traffickers, terrorists and tyrants. This involved more than $200tn in wire transfers. But Lynch did not bring criminal charges against HSBC or any HSBC executives for this admitted money laundering.


Loretta Lynch fumbled on HSBC years ago. Now she can prove no bank is too big to jail

Bonus:


Hogan Lovells US LLP Law and Lobbying Firm
Position (past)


Cheryl Mills - Little Sis


In 1999, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In 2001, Lynch left the office to become a partner at Hogan & Hartson (later Hogan Lovells).


Loretta Lynch - Wikipedia

edit on 29-9-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: stuff



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What justice? Congress is questioning Comey over his decision to not indict someone.


That is their job.

Internal review and Inquiry is part of the judicial amd legislative process. Comey can be acquitted and can resume office if nothing is found. At worst he will be in a low security prison or house arrest like Petraeus or walk off like Hillary..



To me this looks like Congress second guessing a professional law enforcement officer's opinion because they want the opposite to be true


Or, alternately, he really did withhold evidence and stifle inquiry while riding on legally valid procedure. What is your point here; are LEOs somehow magically incapable of perjury or lying?




Though as an aside I was right about saying that a bunch of right leaning Americans would all get hot and bothered over this. Thanks for proving my point.


Your point is a weasel worded compostional fallacy in its anatomy, and derails the discussion.



Is that what we are calling witch hunts these days?


No. That is what YOU call it because it is a thought-terminating cliche meant to dehumanize and silence those who disagree with you.


Maybe one day you'll study our country's judicial system and learn that the public doesn't convict people...


And maybe one day you will present an argument that isnt a thinly veiled barrage of personal insults.

Our government and judicial system is "the public." At least that is how a FEDERAL JUDGE and the law classes i took explained it to me.


Given your confidence I am sure you have the necessary evidence required to exonerate Comey from these accusations. Please present it.


edit on 29-9-2016 by DeathShield because: Formatting errors

edit on 29-9-2016 by DeathShield because: same as before.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DeathShield

Yeah I could MAYBE trust this rhetoric if it was the first time Congress questioned Comey, but it isn't. So I don't believe your words either. Just more defending of guilty until proven innocent rhetoric.
edit on 29-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

Bought?

What if it was mentioned that Comey was a defending attorney for Hillary during the Whitewater scandal? Or that he sat on the Board of Directors of the bank that handles Clinton Foundation funds, a bank that was also suspected to have also laundered South American drug cartel money back in the 80's?

I don't think bought is exactly the word or phrase I am thinking of to be honest. Complicit and Conflict of Interest does come to mind, though.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Sorry, guess I should have read ALL the posts in the thread before replying.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar


I don't think bought is exactly the word or phrase I am thinking of to be honest. Complicit and Conflict of Interest does come to mind, though.


Conspiracy and collusion also ring bells.

a reply to: Ahabstar

It's ok, I did something similar over in the Duetsche Bank thread.

Scary thing is, what if this leads to the Obama Pseudonym (as in, what if Obama is the (Very) VIP person who's email address they wanted to strip out and replace with a aplceholder?) and that's why everyone is dancing around that whole mess?



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeathShield

Yeah I could MAYBE trust this rhetoric if it was the first time Congress questioned Comey, but it isn't.



Sigh...


1. Comey was never on trial from a legal stance, it was Clinton. He was testifying because he was legally obligated to do so as the director of the FBI. He is on trial no more than an internal affairs officer looking into Drug use on a police force. It was insinuated by a senator that "in a senseyou are on trial" but that is not the same as actually putting him on trial.

2. It's not rhetoric. It is factual reality. You can sift through all five hours of his testimony and see how philoaophically inconsistent he is.

Clinton got away with something that has historically landed other people in jail due to James Comey's testimony and role.

Comey flat out said our Secretary of state was negligent and wasn't sophisticated enough to know that the markings represented classified materials...yet he still recommended against pressing charges or alleviating her of duty. This was bipartisanally relayed to the public news media and online records straight from the "Obama government's" official sites.



So I don't believe your words either.


It's a good thing this isn't about my words and whether or not you "believe" them, but instead about James Comey.



Just more defending of....


Address the facts, arguments, and drop the sloganistic colloquialisms, and personal attacks please.


He hasn't been formally charged with anything and you know it.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Multi post. Phone Derped. Mods pls delete.
edit on 29-9-2016 by DeathShield because: Mods, please delete.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Multi post. Phone Derped. Mods pls delete.
edit on 29-9-2016 by DeathShield because: Mods, please delete.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join