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: 117
284
<< 114  115  116    118  119  120 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Soooo ... anyone find any source yet that proves that these emails under current discussion have anything to do with Hillary Clinton?

That is, after all, the nominal subject here.

Distractions aside.

So, anyone?


Like I said, Comey has made it clear they could be pertinent. To actually see whether it furthers the criminal case against Hillary Clinton, we'll need to wait till he and his team review the emails.


You won't have to wait long. My guess is Mon-Wed of next week. Care to make a guess yourself?




posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol, you have not added to my already extensive vocabulary one iota. But if that's what you want to try and salvage out of the train wreck of your posts in this thread feel free to hold on to that.

Any comment on the remainder of my post?

I did edit it as I had not taken the nested quotes in to account when I first posted, so you might almost be forgiven for the attempt to gloss over the content.


Did I say I had?

You seem to like paraphrase rather than quotes, and inference rather than facts.

General observation.

Honestly, I don't read your posts anymore. They're usually full of nonsense.

If you don't like my posts, may I suggest the same solution?



I would not dream of not reading your posts. They are often very good, but occasionally you throw in some comedy gold like this thread (which I can only assume you do on purpose!). I am not missing out on that.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:50 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: 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.


Oh...and in case you are still in denial, here is the actual filed case from Judicial Watch that names HRC.

Case


In denial of what, that you and others are absolutely DESPERATE to change the subject?

Was the Judicial Watch suit criminal? Was the FBI investigating it for them?

The answers are no.

Next desperate distraction please?

PS: Link doesn't work.


Yes...that is the case that is directly related to the FBI investigation and why all of this is happening.

Yes it was criminal as said by the judge.

case

That link works.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol, you have not added to my already extensive vocabulary one iota. But if that's what you want to try and salvage out of the train wreck of your posts in this thread feel free to hold on to that.

Any comment on the remainder of my post?

I did edit it as I had not taken the nested quotes in to account when I first posted, so you might almost be forgiven for the attempt to gloss over the content.


Did I say I had?

You seem to like paraphrase rather than quotes, and inference rather than facts.

General observation.

Honestly, I don't read your posts anymore. They're usually full of nonsense.

If you don't like my posts, may I suggest the same solution?



I would not dream of not reading your posts. They are often very good, but occasionally you throw in some comedy gold like this thread (which I can only assume you do on purpose!). I am not missing out on that.


LOL ... well, perhaps the Mods will allow me a personal comment which I will use to say thank you for the back-handed compliment. Sometimes, when you're not being obtuse and argumentative, you make a good point or two yourself.

Let me know if you find any evidence regarding the relevance of these emails to Hillary Clinton, eh?




posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

ROFLMAO


I don't read your posts anymore.


And yet you made the claim of being responsible for me:


learning a new word.


If you don't read my posts, how did you know to whom I was referring?

Here it is again for you not to read:

"In regards to what was found:


In previous congressional testimony, l referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.


politico.com

To which previous testimony is he referring?

The testimony that starts out thus:


Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.


FBI.gov

What is being investigated?


Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system


You mean it's not the email server?

It's someone's use of the email server?

Who's use?


Secretary Clinton’s


The thing explains itself."

Go ahead and break out your dictionary of alternate meanings to try and say that Comey did not mean what he said but rather meant something else entirely.

Did you miss the elementary school level lessons on diagramming sentences or had that already been phased out by the time you got to school?



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Soooo ... anyone find any source yet that proves that these emails under current discussion have anything to do with Hillary Clinton?

That is, after all, the nominal subject here.

Distractions aside.

So, anyone?


Like I said, Comey has made it clear they could be pertinent. To actually see whether it furthers the criminal case against Hillary Clinton, we'll need to wait till he and his team review the emails.


You won't have to wait long. My guess is Mon-Wed of next week. Care to make a guess yourself?



Depends on how many emails... reports are 'thousands' but not confirmed. If it is thousands then it will not be resolved before the election.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hmmm ... well, that's an opinion.

Not bourne out by the facts, but an opinion nonetheless.

What is Director Comey's opinion of why they are investigating the email server/use of an email server/etc.?



The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.


Statement of the FBI Director, July 5, 2016

Different from your opinion, eh?



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Gryphon,

I think I understand what you're trying to point out here and I DON"T think its merely a matter of semantics or merely picking at nits. The investigation is into Clinton's server, not necessarily into Clinton herself. So, In brief, it's possible that something was done illegally on the server by someone other than Hillary and without Hillary's specific knowledge of that illegal action.

So, the evidence uncovered in the Wiener investigation that has triggered a re-opening of the Clinton server investigation may end up being nothing, evidence of specific illegal and or wrong doing by Clinton OR evidence of someone other than Hillary acting in a an illegal or wrong way without her knowledge.

All of which I acknowledge is possible.

But at the end of the day, even if the evidence is of someone other than Hillary engaged in an illegal or wrong doing on the server, even if Hillary had no knowledge of the specific illegal/wrong action, isn't she still culpable, if not legally than at least morally, since it was done on a server she directed to be set up in a manner that has been categorized by Comey as "careless" and she's acknowledged was a "mistake"?

Again, it's possible the evidence ends being "nothing" but I don't think that's likely, not impossible, but just less likely than that its significant.

Billy



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Dude/Dudette I commented your use of a new word.

Again, may I suggest you ignore me, as I will be ignoring you (again)?



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am sorry, but you have laid out a very good case for why there is something of potential relevance there. As you said yourself, it is not the usual form to open an investigation into a candidate this close to an election. Do you really think this would have been done except under the most serious circumstances?

Now, none of that means Hillary herself will get nailed. I am far too cynical to belief that. I prefer to think that someone will fall on their sword in an attempt to make all this go away and attempt to legitimize her.

But regardless, the email thing has not gone away and the previous handling of the case left a wide open, festering wound that has dogged her to this day. This is take #2 to try to save face.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

No, it's not "picking at nits," indeed, because the material on the server DIDN'T only involve Clinton!!!

I'm so glad to see there are still ATSers who can read and have interest in discussing the facts of a given matter.

Restores a tiny molecule of faith in humanity, LOL.

If I understand the logic behind Comey's initial decision that there was no "intent" to distribute confidential information outside of a framework of those with appropriate credentials, then the content of these emails becomes VERY relevant if it is shown for example, that Huma Abedin shared information, directly or inadvertently, with her husband.

THAT is criminal intent.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am sorry, but you have laid out a very good case for why there is something of potential relevance there. As you said yourself, it is not the usual form to open an investigation into a candidate this close to an election. Do you really think this would have been done except under the most serious circumstances?

Now, none of that means Hillary herself will get nailed. I am far too cynical to belief that. I prefer to think that someone will fall on their sword in an attempt to make all this go away and attempt to legitimize her.

But regardless, the email thing has not gone away and the previous handling of the case left a wide open, festering wound that has dogged her to this day. This is take #2 to try to save face.


I have a feeling the person to fall on their sword is going to be Huma. It's not looking good for her. She has gone into hiding today.
edit on 30/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I hope to goodness sakes that there is something of relevance there. Still assuming good intent on the part of Jim Comey, I HOPE that there is reason to risk his career as he has.

I have no direct evidence of this statement either, but my guess revolves around Huma sharing confidential material with her husband.

We'll see next week I think.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hmmm ... well, that's an opinion.

Not bourne out by the facts, but an opinion nonetheless.

What is Director Comey's opinion of why they are investigating the email server/use of an email server/etc.?



The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.


Statement of the FBI Director, July 5, 2016

Different from your opinion, eh?



My opinion? That is the actual case that all of this started from in which Clinton herself was deposed as part of a criminal investigation.

This is bordering on ridiculous at this point. You can provide nothing to refute everything I have shown that you are incorrect about.

I even linked you directly to the case file...delusional....seriously delusional.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

This is fun.

Unnamed sources from somewhere really official revealed that the server had made several trips to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt over the past year.

Unnamed sources within the FBI, or some other really official place, suspect the server may have been 'radicalized' and that the server may soon be charged with 'Workplace Violence' against The Clinton Foundation, The DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Even so, it still reflects poorly on Hillary because Abedin has been her closest aide for how long now? It also depends on what is in those emails and how deep the rabbit hole goes with her.

Poor judgment.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't think it's falling on her sword when she either directly or inadvertently shared classified material with an individual in NO POSSIBLE FRAME OF REFERENCE was qualified to receive it.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: imwilliam

No, it's not "picking at nits," indeed, because the material on the server DIDN'T only involve Clinton!!!

I'm so glad to see there are still ATSers who can read and have interest in discussing the facts of a given matter.

Restores a tiny molecule of faith in humanity, LOL.

If I understand the logic behind Comey's initial decision that there was no "intent" to distribute confidential information outside of a framework of those with appropriate credentials, then the content of these emails becomes VERY relevant if it is shown for example, that Huma Abedin shared information, directly or inadvertently, with her husband.

THAT is criminal intent.



Just to nit pick

Intent could not be proven. He did not say there was no intent.
As for Huma - if she did share confidential information with an unauthorised person then she will likely go to jail. That is going to hurt Hillary too. It will not play well to her judgement on the people she surrounds herself with.
edit on 30/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
The case can be re-opened if new evidence is discovered.

Which are the new emails.

That's the only connection to a server.






posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Star for you, regardless of nit-picking.

I agree overall with your summation on those points.



new topics

top topics



 
284
<< 114  115  116    118  119  120 >>

log in

join