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

Collusion to withhold emails by HRC Staff 3-4-15...the same day as subpoena..Wikileak 7

page: 2
70
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.



but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.


That and the whole team knew about it the whole time.

When was it that O said he had no idea she had a server? The date that is?




posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Public face:


But yeah...I'm sure they handed them all in.


Private face:


1) I can see why you might not want to *say* who the turnover was >>> to, but it seems to me omitting this may be misinterpreted and certainly >>> will trigger another round of questioning. This may defeat the whole point >>> of the exercise. The statement could be read to imply we turned over the >>> thumb drive and server to the State Department—which we didn’t (“There >>> they go again—misleading, devious, non-transparent, tricky etc.”). I would >>> recommend saying “to the Department of Justice.”


/podesta-emails/emailid/7628



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Absolutely none of this will matter to Hillary supporters.

They have had their fingers in their ears while wearing blind folds for over a year now.

Such a shame.



It may not matter to the Hillary supporters, because it could come down to the watch dog group, The House Oversight Committee may now have what they need to press the DOJ/FBI to reexamine the whole situation.. If its too damning, they will need to address it and then their credibility comes into check, again..

Every week more and more is being leaked, HRC and her team knows they cant answer to every leak, so now they blame Russia and question the validity of whats being leaked, claiming they're doctoring emails.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.



but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.




And how do you know that the Executive Privilege issue wasn't resolved through back channels and that she wasn't supposed to include those? I'm just curious. Do we know? Really?

How is it an "unsecured channel" and "plotting" with POTUS, by the way?? You are somehow assuming that this was classified information from the POTUS? Why? Maybe he was speaking about the upcoming campaign and wishing her luck, maybe he was talking about how and when he would support her bid for election, etc. - Even that could be removed under EP.






posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The media is looking equally as bad as anyone else and maybe more so
sure is a lot of behind the scenes scripting going on .



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.



but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.




And how do you know that the Executive Privilege issue wasn't resolved through back channels and that she wasn't supposed to include those? I'm just curious. Do we know? Really?

How is it an "unsecured channel" and "plotting" with POTUS, by the way?? You are somehow assuming that this was classified information from the POTUS? Why? Maybe he was speaking about the upcoming campaign and wishing her luck, maybe he was talking about how and when he would support her bid for election, etc. - Even that could be removed under EP.





I don't think these guys really understand the concept of context.

At this point, it's become quite embarrassing that you have to explain such simple things to people.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
but those gmail accounts tho!

its just so crazy how disorganized and unprofessional our overlords are.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.



but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.




And how do you know that the Executive Privilege issue wasn't resolved through back channels and that she wasn't supposed to include those? I'm just curious. Do we know? Really?

How is it an "unsecured channel" and "plotting" with POTUS, by the way?? You are somehow assuming that this was classified information from the POTUS? Why? Maybe he was speaking about the upcoming campaign and wishing her luck, maybe he was talking about how and when he would support her bid for election, etc. - Even that could be removed under EP.






all emails does not mean minus the ones you dont know about.
can you say perjury?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.



but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.


Is there an actual response from the POTUS anywhere in that wikileaks dump?

Or anything stating what the POTUS asked for and why?

Any proof that the POTUS actually sent replies directly to her unauthorized mailbox (auto forwarding is a thing, you know)?
edit on 14-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.



but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.


Is there an actual response from the POTUS anywhere in that wikileaks dump?

Or anything stating what the POTUS asked for and why?

Any proof that the POTUS actually sent replies directly to her unauthorized mailbox (auto forwarding is a thing, you know)?


Pretty sure an auto reply wouldn't be an issue....

Anywho...his "O" email address was already outed a while back....this is just showing they were talking about if they should release or not...likely because he said he never knew she had a server.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.



but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.


Is there an actual response from the POTUS anywhere in that wikileaks dump?

Or anything stating what the POTUS asked for and why?

Any proof that the POTUS actually sent replies directly to her unauthorized mailbox (auto forwarding is a thing, you know)?


from their discussion it appears they were expecting for the potus to coverup his role in this fiasco before they even asked him

. what do you imagine? fowarding buzzfeed quizzes? recipies for quiche?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.



but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.


Is there an actual response from the POTUS anywhere in that wikileaks dump?

Or anything stating what the POTUS asked for and why?

Any proof that the POTUS actually sent replies directly to her unauthorized mailbox (auto forwarding is a thing, you know)?


Pretty sure an auto reply wouldn't be an issue....

Anywho...his "O" email address was already outed a while back....this is just showing they were talking about if they should release or not...likely because he said he never knew she had a server.


Not auto-reply.

Auto-forwarding.

It's not uncommon for people to set up a filter so that certain emails are automatically forwarded from one inbox to another. If Hillary set up a rule for Obama's incoming emails, he would have emails on her server without even knowing it. Of course, they would have to divulge this to him so he could decide whether he needed to invoke his executive privilege to protect whatever had been forwarded.
edit on 14-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Cheryl Mills is a lawyer.

This is a valid legal question for a lawyer. The emails were subpoenaed, and they want to know if they should include emails to/from the President, because those might be considered privileged.

Asking a lawyer a legal question is not illegal, shady, suspicious, or wrong in any sense of the word.


Them thinking they should know what to / not give the FBI, wowie.

When subpena'd shouldn't they be obligation to just hand everything over? They didn't think the FBI could sort out having analysts with the proper clearance to do the job?

Looks more like they were trying to cop out of providing as much as they could.

There out to be more emails in a string immediate to that one that further paint the picture.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss




There out to be more emails in a string immediate to that one that further paint the picture.


And yet there isn't.

Have you stopped to ask yourself why?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Good Lord.

He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.

So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!



This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.

If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.


The proper manner of doing it would have been to turn over everything but the POTUS related emails and let the authority know that there were POTUS involved emails. Then let POTUS exert Executive Privilege...... IF he desired to.

But they didn't do that... did they?
No, they hid them.

Why?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

The FBI said in its notes from an Abedin interview that the address on a Clinton email chain “is believed to be a pseudonym used by the President."

Abedin said she didn’t recognize the name and “expressed her amazement” that Obama used a pseudonym.

The FBI said she exclaimed: “How is this not classified?”


thread

Here the FBI is aware of Obama's pseudonym, but Huma did not recognize it as such and when she did realize to whom was being referred, she asked “How is this not classified?”

How many people viewed the emails in question and did not have proper clearance?

And when Hillary changed her email address, they had to specifically notify the white house so that messages from that new address would not be filtered out:


Abedin also told the FBI that Clinton’s team had to inform the White House that she was changing her email address so that the president could receive messages from her.


The Hill

Someone responsible for white house communications knew that there were emails being sent to and from the president on a non-government system.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Does it bother you that Trump is considered a "Clear and Present Danger" by Michael Hayden (yeah, he's NSA and not my favorite guy, but he's also extremely clear on what a threat to America is, as he defended against terrorist threats for years and years...)

Real Clear Politics - Michael Hayden: Trump is a Clear and Present Danger - I Fear for Our Future


MICHAEL HAYDEN: Look, we gotta call balls and strikes the way we see them, alright? We all felt strongly enough about what we believe to be a clear and present danger, that we felt compelled to say what we said...

JAKE TAPPER: You just called Donald Trump a clear and present danger.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, if he governs in any way close to the language that he has used in the campaign, I fear for our future.


Or that Michael Morell, an ex-CIA Chief calls Trump "a threat to national security?"

LINK



Here is an interesting bit of information for folks to consider...it relates to National Security vs. Freedom of Speech / Press LINK



National security may be invoked to justify measures limiting certain rights only when they are taken to protect the existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence against force or threat of force.

National security cannot be invoked as a reason for imposing limitations to prevent merely local or relatively isolated threats to law and order.

National security cannot be used as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exists adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse.

According to this definition, restrictions on the basis of national security are only justifiable if they address a threat to the “existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence,” as distinct from localised violence and ordinary criminal activities.



So please follow these ideas and see how this could impact "freedom of the press" as well as the editorial boards of major newspapers themselves by an historical and unprecedented margin ALL denouncing Trump and either endorsing Hillary or simply endorsing no-one while denouncing Trump.

1) High level ex-NSA and CIA are identifying Trump as a "clear and present danger" and "a threat to National Security" - see links above - that should tell you something important about how Trump is regarded and how he will be handled.

2) Trump has been briefed regarding Russia hacking the US/DNC. He has since then, irresponsibly, claimed "we don't know who did it" and that "they" (DNC/Hillary) are simply out to smear him with that claim. At this point, there is 90%+ certainty (they kill terrorist targets with only 75% certainty) that known Russian agents are behind the DNC hacking. (The Plot to Hack America - great book!)

3) Trump is claiming the system is "rigged" against him because he is losing, he is whipping up his supporters to follow HIM and not Hillary, should she be elected, he has threatened to use "legal" methods against his political opposition, he has advocated opening up "libel" laws to GO AFTER JOURNALISTS for saying mean things about him (i.e. to limit free press), he is claiming to be the ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE AMERICA (while throwing a bone to the 'real Americans' that follow him saying they can make a difference by electing him) and setting himself up as the leader of a "movement" and claiming our electoral process cannot be trusted, etc. etc. etc.

4) There is a growing consensus that Trump may be a "useful idiot" for the Russians just like the Ukrainian dictator that Manafort helped get into power - he has made several pro-Putin, pro-Russian oligarchy "policy" statements that are concerning to US interests. These are in-depth articles about it - and there are many many more out there!

Link - How Vladimir Putin is Using Donald Trump... (Newsweek)

Link - Trump is Already Helping Putin Consolidate Control of Ukraine (Politico)

The Controversy Over Donald Trump's Ties to Russia Explained (Vox)


So, given that Trump is being seen by US Intelligence as a "useful idiot" for Russia and is considered dangerous to our democracy, and given that the press, who have investigated this and have found many reasons to agree with this assessment, and given that he is now shoring up his base and speaking of the "Movement" that he has created while calling the election "rigged" and everything that goes against him as "rigged", how he is threatening the Press with lawsuits (NY Times, opening "libel" laws so he can sue them), etc., it totally makes sense that the Press has turned against him.

If "behind the scenes scripting" is going on, then perhaps it is because of all of the above reasons...

I think Trump wants to break America if he can't have it for himself, to fracture it and create his own Party, to sow dissent and delegitimize Clinton if she wins, as it looks more and more likely she will. I think there are those who see this at the highest levels of our National Security apparatus and who are trying to both keep him from winning, and to keep him from destroying our democracy.

That is my take on it...

- AB
edit on 14-10-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss




There out to be more emails in a string immediate to that one that further paint the picture.


And yet there isn't.

Have you stopped to ask yourself why?


Pretty simple...multiple emails chains in the 7 leaks so far have continuance in the following dumps for each...likely there will be a continuance of this one in the next dump or one after.

I am starting to understand the dumps as they are slowly putting the storied together with the releases instead of dumping all at once and jumbling.

You should go through them...might find some interesting stuff.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So far, the followup emails have shown that the previous leaked emails were a tease, with the followup making the issue a completely benign issue.

This is why you aren't seeing any of this reported outside of far right wing websites.

If you know this isn't the whole story, why make a post about it and get so giddy over it? What if the followup email back from Mills says, "No, hand over everything"?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It wasn't a secret*. People knew she was using a private email, though I doubt they all knew it was a private server, but still, I don't think it was a big deal until the R's decided to make it a big deal.

Did you catch that Colin Powell simply refused to comply with requests to turn over his own private emails? He was then hacked?

Interesting times...

- AB

*ETA - the email address Hillary used...it was not the "protected govt server" email that she ALSO used.
edit on 14-10-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
70
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join