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

Wikileaks - HRC and crew - confession of deliberate perjury to Congress with accessories of crimes

page: 2
46
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
All we really have left are the FOIA lawsuits. Won't get them on criminal but financial restitution for violating the law which is actually quite brutal financially if they start losing these lawsuits. It's already painful for Hillary right now, having to pay the legal fees of all her staff at the SD and foundation. I imagine it's getting in the double digit millions. This has been going on over for years.

Then having to pay the legal fees of Judicial Watch or anyone else if they lose to them. Again, years of legal costs they are going to have to pony up. The Clintons are only worth $110 million (so they say), not a lot of money cover than many lawsuits and the foundation is somewhat drying up. Not nearly bringing in the loot like it was when she was head of the SD and people want it shutdown or restricted in D.C.

Pleading the 5th or immunity does not help them either. These emails, like this, proves they knew about the server all along. They had no intention of honoring the FOIA and would not have turned over one email if not for these lawsuits.

If anyone is voting for her and thinks the FOIA is a joke wait until she is elected. The joke will be on you with no ability to look over her shoulder.




edit on 17-10-2016 by LifeMode because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kargun
Can you please state the Email number from Wiki leaks so I can read the original and link through twitter.

Thanks.



RE: Latest Website Factsheet

From:creynolds@hillaryclinton.com To: hsamuelson@cdmillsgroup.com, nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com, pir@hrcoffice.com Date: 2015-08-09 23:08 Subject: RE: Latest Website Factsheet

I don't know the number but if you put in the search field on wikileaks "re latest website factsheet" and go off the date and time I provided that it was sent you should find it.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I read the email in the OP.

I see that they are discussing "phraseology" in the first item:

1. As to the server, I think we decided to say something like "the server that was used during her tenure as Secretary of State."

This looks like, to me, a behind the scenes discussion of what language to use when speaking to investigators, so that everyone is on the same page and isn't saying things that would be misconstrued or otherwise twisted or create a conflict between "well, so and so said THIS, but you said THAT." That is my take on this line item. It also relates to the second item in terms of the general time period. This server was used prior to her being Secretary of State.

The second item is a bit more problematic but it's the same general deal. In addition to discussing language, they are discussing the "start date" of the emails for the investigation. March 18, 2009 is approximately 2 months after her swearing in on January 21, 2009. I would think the emails requested in the investigation would stretch back to the date of her "first day."

It is not clear, however, that she had determined to specifically use the personal server for all the emails of SOS at that time, to my knowledge? So there may have been a few "work related" emails on her server before March 18, 2009.

For example, Powell hadn't emailed her regarding his use of a private email until January 23, 2009. It would seem then that there was a period of "flux" where things were not yet determined. Link - Powell's tips to Clinton for private email


2. I would prefer not to use the "March 18, 2009" date because we know there were other emails using her clintonemail.com address prior to that date. Could we make this more vague, like "early in her tenure as SOS"? Or would this change provide a "gotcha" target -- if so, not worth it, since this is the date of the earliest email in her PST [private folder in Microsoft Outlook] of her emails, as I understand it.

Okay - it would appear that this is the start-date they provided for investigators because it was the date of the first "official use" of the server after everything had been set up -- that is what it looks like, though I admit to trying to read between lines here. Clearly, it is the date they already provided as the start of the emails, however, it appears, so the question then becomes, what happened to the emails prior to March 18, 2009. Were those turned in, or not? Were those among the ones sent to be deleted? I'm guessing one of the emails left out is the one I referenced above, from Colin Powell, which only came out after HIS emails were hacked.

To make a case out of this might be possible, but it would not be a strong one, in my opinion, due to the complexity of the case and the amount of emails, and the legal hair-splitting that can happen regarding interpretations of requests for information. This would be normal.

I'm guessing that no matter who is in the Presidency, these comments by Podesta will be used against her, and possibly all involved, as the remaining Republicans attempt to take back the house and the Senate in the mid-terms because that is what this is, in my opinion, a political witch hunt that was spun off from the Benghazi investigation because, frankly, they had nothing there that would stick - they wanted to keep Clinton as embroiled as possible to diminish her as a Presidential candidate. Link - U.S. News & World Report - There is no scandal, only a partisan witch hunt LINK - Vox - Proof Clinton Email Scandal Is Just More Benghazi Witchh Hunt

What I don't know is if any emails prior to March 18, 2009 were turned in or not. This could point to an attempt to skirt "the letter of the law" or it could point to the "'wagon circling" that I would think naturally happens during an intense investigation. My understanding is you only give "the prosecution" (or those seeking to find wrong-doing) what you absolutely have to, from a lawyer's point of view, to both comply and protect your "client," in this case, Clinton.


WHY ONLY CLINTON? (Gee. I wonder...)
I would also like to point out that Clinton is the ONLY Secretary of State to be so investigated, though it turns out that neither Colin Powell or C. Rice signed the legally binding document regarding having turned over all their records to the government. Neither of them have been investigated. Why? Why the double standard? Think about that.

(same link)

However, Cummings came down on Republicans accusing lawmakers of holding Clinton to a double standard during the investigation into her private email server.

“If Republicans were truly concerned with transparency, strengthening FOIA, and preserving federal records, they would be attempting to recover Secretary Powell’s emails from AOL, but they have taken no steps to do so despite the fact that this period—including the run-up to the Iraq War—was critical to our nation’s history,” he said.



Here is a great summary of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, including the investigation : Link - wikipedia

Link - Clinton email controversy - wikipedia



edit on 17-10-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

You see it as "phraseology" and start dates - I see it as admission of guilt.

I think I am on record here saying that the whole lot of them (save a few) are corrupt and need to be taken out.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

Define "taken out" please?



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

You must not have read my whole post - it is long so I understand. I said the information in the second line item could prove problematic and would probably be used against them, if possible.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

Define "taken out" please?


Lol... just my "phraseology" for saying throw them all in jail and start over.

Of course it is problematic to them because it is admission of guilt but NOTHING will be used against them because once again I reiterate that the whole lot of them are corrupt and Hillary knows where all the bodies are buried. You can't be in politics for over 30 years and not know.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

if you have windows sniping tool, snip it and then enlarge it.



posted on Oct, 17 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
It is another nail in the coffin but I am left wondering how many bloody nails it will take.

As it stands the coffin could be lifted by a crane with a electromagnet.

They are discussing lying to Congress I think.

Lol.

P


I don't think a coffin works for this sort of thing. It requires a stake through the heart and a funeral pyre.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

I believe 0hour1 on Twitter just found the "missing" thumb drive from a Wikileaks doc. Don't have the time to make a new thread right now; so if anyone else wants to start it......great. Lawyer admits to having it.

Wikileak search: (podesta-emails #15419)
Re: Get on phone 1115 am?
From Cheryl Mills
To Jennifer Palmieri
07/24/2015 13:11

edit on 18/10/2016 by QuantumNTelsa because: Added number for email







 
46
<< 1   >>

log in

join