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

BREAKING: Clinton Email Case Just Reopened!

page: 115
285
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Signals
I just talked to my uncle, rumor has it Anthony Weiner AKA Carlos Danger had about 30,000 HC emails on his lap top in a file named LIFE INSURANCE!!!!!

NYPD has seen some of them, word on the street is they're so classified the FBI can't even read them.

Hillary and Huma For Prison 2016



LOL.

Rumor has it? Adele would be proud.

Word on the street? I'm amazed that you have the cheek to post that, but just out of curiosity ... any source that we can all share?




posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Yuk yuk. You guys really love this ridiculous ploy.

If you don't like what Director Comey said, take it up with him; he was very specific: investigation OF the server.


I think you should just concentrate on what the server has done and work out what should happen to it.

The rest of us will focus on the Hillary Clinton investigation.

Deal?


I think you should take care of your own posts and I'll take care of mine.

Deal?


OK... looks like we'll be reading more about your case against the server.

edit on 30/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you realize what personal means? It means in the FBI's view Hilary is responsible for it. Do you not understand what the investigation was about? You think they were previously deciding whether charges should be brought up against a server?

The investigation has always been about "Hilary's clinton's personal email server".

As I said early, your facade is transparent.


The evidence of any possible wrongdoing was on the server. Jim Comey has stated several times and again in his letter that the investigation was directed at the server, i.e. the contents of the server.

I really couldn't care less that neither you nor apparently several of the posters here can't read English.



Yeah, a server which was created by order of HRC. It's HER server. She owned whatever happened on that server the minute she gave instructions to set it up for her own personal use.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.



Which one?

This one?:


This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.

edit on 30/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.


I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.


How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?


Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.


Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"


Care to source that quote so we can all play?


Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.


You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.


So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.


Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.



Which one?

This one?:


This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.


Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.


I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.


How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?


Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.


Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"


Care to source that quote so we can all play?


Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.


You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.


So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.


Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.


She was the subject of the investigation. Do you really want to pursue a line of thinking that says Comey was/is investigating an inanimate object? Seriously? That would be a new and novel defence of Hillary Clinton, I must admit.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do those sources have names?

If they emails had nothing at all to do with Clinton, why reopen her investigation?


it's clear from today's news that anyone saying that they have nothing to do with Clinton is making it up. Comey does not even know what the emails contain yet.


Someone does; if not, how was the relevance determined?

What basis do they have to ask for a search warrant?

(Do you ever think these comments through?)


Do you think it through? Apparently not.

You were already told they could be pertinent to the Hillary Clinton investigation - by Comey himself.
He does not know the contents of the emails as we know he is awaiting a warrant to review them.
There is no evidence at all to support a claim they have nothing to do with the Clinton investigation - that is something you made up.


Pertinent to the investigation of the server, in Comey's own words. Here, I'll remind you:

First sentence of Comey's letter to Congress -



In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server.


Now, go back to your grammar school training ... what is the subject of the preposition "of" in that sentence?

As to the remainder of your baseless commentary, there's nothing to suggest that the emails have anything to do directly with HILLARY CLINTON.

Do you have a source that says that? If so, share it. If not, stop already with pretending you have knowledge you blatantly don't have.


Hahahaha! So the server is being investigated! I wonder what the sentence is for the server if it gets found guilty? Maybe it gets placed in the IBM graveyard for 5 years as punishment before it gets given a new hard drive (on the condition it votes democrat).

You really couldn't make it up.

Thanks for the laugh.


Now back to the real world...


This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.


Comey has said the new emails could be pertinent to the Hillary Clinton email investigation. (which, by the way, is a criminal investigation)
He is awaiting a warrant to investigate further.
Any definitive statement that the emails have no content relating to the Hillary Clinton investigation is pure speculation at this time.




They do know that Huma forwarded the emails to her yahoo account.

Cathrine Herridge just showed an email header to huma from hillary.

So there is stuff there to investigate when they get the warrant.

I guess they can't do it under the weiner warrant for child porn.






posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.



Which one?

This one?:


This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.


Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )


On planet earth, and the the United States, a server cannot act on it's own. Therefore, the party responsible is the party who ordered and governed the email system. When HRC gave the order to her IT staff, she took ownership of the server. The server is under investigation. Any wrong doing, and HRC will be responsible.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Actually, regarding the very important distinction between "rules and traditions" ... turns out it is a matter of a written directive if not technically a "rule."



As that New Yorker report and a new Washington Post editorial note, the Justice Department doesn't generally comment on ongoing investigations in this manner. Former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. formalized this practice four years ago, writing in a memo that officials “may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”


Washington Post



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.



Which one?

This one?:


This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.


Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )


Ah, so maybe he's just investigating email then. Maybe a dual investigation into hardware and software on behalf of the manufacturers and developers to help the R&D.

edit on 30/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.


I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.


How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?


Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.


Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"


Care to source that quote so we can all play?


Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.


You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.


So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.


Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.


She was the subject of the investigation. Do you really want to pursue a line of thinking that says Comey was/is investigating an inanimate object? Seriously? That would be a new and novel defence of Hillary Clinton, I must admit.


I'll go with Director Comey's statement over your "analysis" any day.




posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.


I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.


How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?


Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.


Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"


Care to source that quote so we can all play?


Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.


You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.


So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.


Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.


She was the subject of the investigation. Do you really want to pursue a line of thinking that says Comey was/is investigating an inanimate object? Seriously? That would be a new and novel defence of Hillary Clinton, I must admit.


I'll go with Director Comey's statement over your "analysis" any day.



Excellent - so we're on the same page. Comey is investigating Hillary Clinton



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.



Which one?

This one?:


This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.


Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )


Ah, so maybe he's just investigating email then. Maybe a dual investigation into hardware and software on behalf of the manufacturers and developers to help the R&D.


Maybe the FBI is investigating what they've declared multiple times in numerous situations: the possible illegal contents of the email server.

This really isn't that fine a point or distinction to make ... it's really fundamental understanding.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.


I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.


How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?


Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.


Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"


Care to source that quote so we can all play?


Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.


You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.


So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.


Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.


She was the subject of the investigation. Do you really want to pursue a line of thinking that says Comey was/is investigating an inanimate object? Seriously? That would be a new and novel defence of Hillary Clinton, I must admit.


I'll go with Director Comey's statement over your "analysis" any day.



Excellent - so we're on the same page. Comey is investigating Hillary Clinton


Now you're lying. Blatantly and ridiculously.

Why? Are you trying to distract from the fact that you're on record here as claiming that there's evidence that these new emails have to do with Hillary Clinton when there is actually none?



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.



Which one?

This one?:


This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.


Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )


Ah, so maybe he's just investigating email then. Maybe a dual investigation into hardware and software on behalf of the manufacturers and developers to help the R&D.


Maybe the FBI is investigating what they've declared multiple times in numerous situations: the possible illegal contents of the email server.

This really isn't that fine a point or distinction to make ... it's really fundamental understanding.


So what sentence should be given to the server if it is found to hold illegal contents?



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.


I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.


How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?


Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.


Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"


Care to source that quote so we can all play?


Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.


You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.


So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.


Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.


Ok...please name those that are under ctiminal investigation per the case and judge. There has to be at least one for there to be an investigation as a server can't be a criminal and neither can emails.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Read Director Comey's letter, first sentence.



Which one?

This one?:


This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation.


Is that the letter he sent to the Congress, or the interenal memo to the FBI.

Does he say "the investigation into Secretary Clinton"? No?

(You did say English was your first language, right? )


Blame the gun, not the shooter, right?

Ah, so maybe he's just investigating email then. Maybe a dual investigation into hardware and software on behalf of the manufacturers and developers to help the R&D.


Maybe the FBI is investigating what they've declared multiple times in numerous situations: the possible illegal contents of the email server.

This really isn't that fine a point or distinction to make ... it's really fundamental understanding.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Tradition and rule are two different things. Isn't that what we were told when it came to the marriage argument? Man/woman marriage was only a tradition after all, not law.


I am amazed at how often you are able to toss gay rights/marriage equality into a discussion as red herring Ketsuko.

Speaking generically, yes, sometimes tradition and rules are two different things.

In this case, however, they are the same. There is ZERO PRECEDENT for making a public announcement of this nature this close to an election that could sway or alter the outcome.


How many previous candidates have been the subject of a criminal investigation?


Hillary Clinton is not now nor has she been the subject of a criminal investigation, as has been proven multiple times and to which I'm not going to speak again because it's redundant and boring. Right-wingers keep repeating this lie.


Actually, the judge himself in the case referred to it as a criminal investigation:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential"


Care to source that quote so we can all play?


Feel free to search it word for word...every single news site has it.


You know this repeated dodge of yours is not the point, when you make a statement of supposed fact, you provide a source. That's just site T&C as well as an intellectually honest practice.

The statement is from June 2016. What's your point? You made it sound as if a judge had ruled on the current matter which isn't factual.


So, in this criminal investigation, please read the link I provided and then come back and let me know who was deposed in regards to the criminal investigation....I'll give you one of them...Hillary Clinton. So yes, Hillary herself is part of a criminal investigation.


Now come the weasel words ... so now Clinton is "part of" a criminal investigation?

Yes, the investigation involved the use of a private server utilized by Hillary Clinton (and others).

Technically, Clinton was involved in the investigation. She was not the object of the investigation as has been made clear ad nauseam.


Ok...please name those that are under ctiminal investigation per the case and judge. There has to be at least one for there to be an investigation as a server can't be a criminal and neither can emails.



Apparently they can.

Perhaps the server will be condemned to scrap. Poor server.



new topics

top topics



 
285
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join