It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Bloodydagger
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Bloodydagger
So you don't think this entire election has turned off any voters? The scandals from both sides. Emails, sex talk tapes and bad mouthing etc? Really? You don't think for one second that people out there don't see this ENTIRE election as a circus show?
Sure. Both sides have pushed people away because of their issues.
But you said this issue was another "here we go again" case in which voter turnout would be suppressed and you claimed to know what people have had enough of.
That is talking out of your ass.
Are you seriously that dumb? I think you are, so don't answer that.
If you think I am dumb, I can just imagine what you think of yourself.
Again, you lack basic every day common sense if you don't think this is a "Here we go again" moment for a lot of voters. ESPECIALLY for fence riding voters. The last damn thing these people want to see, is "Email and Hillary" in the same damn sentence again.
Seriously, splash a little cold water on your faces, take a deep breath and move on.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: JacKatMtn-
Ed Henry on FNC, claims his sources in the FBI say that there are 10's of thousands of emails to go through on the 4 devices of Abedin/Weiner..
We probably won't know anything soon...
There's no way they can know the significance of all those emails yet. Comey had no choice but to inform Congress of them - there was just way too many to keep quiet about it.
Still doesn't mean any of them change the original conclusion of the investigation. The Dems are going to throw a YUUUGE fit though, since there's no way it can be resolved before Nov 8.
Oh wait I can't because you never admitted you were wrong
The only thing I ever got wrong was that Comey would do the right thing and recommend a indictment.
Exactly how many of the wild ass hair brained crap theories you tried to defend her with over the last year turned out to be correct? None.
I hear this strange faint sound....... tick tock tick tock
originally posted by: queenofswords
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: EchoesInTime
Since Loretta Lynch is Comey's boss, can't she stuff the genie back in the bottle?
I think she was in on it. This "new finding" kept the spotlight off her pleading the 5th in the Cash to Iran fiasco. The story, which would have been the #1 story (just like Lois Lerner's was that week) died on the vine in exchange for this juicy possibility that justice might finally be done.
I won't move on.
originally posted by: EchoesInTime
Comey went over Lynch's head to release this knowing that he was putting his career in jeopardy. There must be something worth it to him in these emails if he risked everything.
Comey told Justice officials that he intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered emails. These officials told him the department’s position “that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations. “Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership,” said the official. “It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it.”
originally posted by: avgguy
So the DOJ tried to cover it up, so much for being nonpartisan.
"Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates objected to FBI Director James Comey's decision to notify Congress about his bureau's review of emails related to Hillary Clinton's personal server, law enforcement officials familiar with the discussion said.
Comey decided to disregard their objections and sent the letter Friday anyway, shaking the presidential race 11 days before the election and nearly four months after the FBI chief said he wouldn't recommend criminal charges over the Democratic nominee's use of the server."
originally posted by: Flatcoat
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Throes
Yes, she established the server. She owned governance of her server. She had IT personell establish the server for her use.
She bought and set up the server herself? She owned the server personally?
Are you sure?
Are you saying she had someone else's server in her house?
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: dragonridr
Why does no one seem to understand the phrase "we don't know the significance of these emails yet"? Are you saying he's lying when he says he doesn't know their significance yet? Why would he lie? Why wouldn't he say that they found something significant and need to follow it further? He. doesn't. know. anything. yet.