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

To The Contrary FBI Never Destroyed Laptops Of Clinton Aides

page: 2
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant
Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.


Lots of people pleaded the 5th, in an open forum. We have no idea what happened behind the scenes.

They get immunity from prosecution, but they testify to something that might or might not be a crime in open court, they lose their job or possible future job prospects. That wouldn;t be a very good deal.



The number of times I heard witnesses invoked it was staggering. I find it odd they plead the 5th when given immunity.

Why broker a deal for immunity if your not going to answer anything. I'm sure the FBI was happy about that.


If they broke the deal, I imagine they would be charged. They have not been. As I said...behind the scenes.




I'm not saying they broke it, I am thinking the FBI got conned.

Witnesses brokered immunity for testimony...the FBI is feeling good......interviews start with pencils at the ready.......questions 1-120 end with......






...FBI gets pissed


You try to con the FBI, see how far you get.
edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant
Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.


Lots of people pleaded the 5th, in an open forum. We have no idea what happened behind the scenes.

They get immunity from prosecution, but they testify to something that might or might not be a crime in open court, they lose their job or possible future job prospects. That wouldn;t be a very good deal.



The number of times I heard witnesses invoked it was staggering. I find it odd they plead the 5th when given immunity.

Why broker a deal for immunity if your not going to answer anything. I'm sure the FBI was happy about that.


If they broke the deal, I imagine they would be charged. They have not been. As I said...behind the scenes.




I'm not saying they broke it, I am thinking the FBI got conned.

Witnesses brokered immunity for testimony...the FBI is feeling good......interviews start with pencils at the ready.......questions 1-120 end with......






...FBI gets pissed


You try to con the FBI, see how far you get.


I'll plead the FIF



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: reldra


Ummm...No condescension intended...Not one teensy bit...

Merely the compassion warranted me by my progressive...tolerant...ideology...

Why...it was the very definition of tolerance...that bade me...reach out in such a noninsular manner...
To extend my hand in your moment of need...

And...thank you very much...for the opportunity...




YouSir


You are hysterical. You might have a job in stand up comedy. I usually say 'don;t give up your day job'. but in this case, I am seriously saying you have a shot.
edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant
Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.


Lots of people pleaded the 5th, in an open forum. We have no idea what happened behind the scenes.

They get immunity from prosecution, but they testify to something that might or might not be a crime in open court, they lose their job or possible future job prospects. That wouldn;t be a very good deal.



The number of times I heard witnesses invoked it was staggering. I find it odd they plead the 5th when given immunity.

Why broker a deal for immunity if your not going to answer anything. I'm sure the FBI was happy about that.


If they broke the deal, I imagine they would be charged. They have not been. As I said...behind the scenes.




I'm not saying they broke it, I am thinking the FBI got conned.

Witnesses brokered immunity for testimony...the FBI is feeling good......interviews start with pencils at the ready.......questions 1-120 end with......






...FBI gets pissed


You try to con the FBI, see how far you get.


I'll plead the FIF


Lol, I don;t know what that pic is from, but it does look funny, I give you that.

Don't say I never gave you anything

edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: In4ormant
Hmmm.

While I agree the deal should have been kept I am willing to wager that once everybody started pleading the fifth to every damn question they had a change of heart.


Lots of people pleaded the 5th, in an open forum. We have no idea what happened behind the scenes.

They get immunity from prosecution, but they testify to something that might or might not be a crime in open court, they lose their job or possible future job prospects. That wouldn;t be a very good deal.



The number of times I heard witnesses invoked it was staggering. I find it odd they plead the 5th when given immunity.

Why broker a deal for immunity if your not going to answer anything. I'm sure the FBI was happy about that.


If they broke the deal, I imagine they would be charged. They have not been. As I said...behind the scenes.




I'm not saying they broke it, I am thinking the FBI got conned.

Witnesses brokered immunity for testimony...the FBI is feeling good......interviews start with pencils at the ready.......questions 1-120 end with......






...FBI gets pissed


You try to con the FBI, see how far you get.


I'll plead the FIF


Lol, I don;t know what that pic is from, but it does look funny, I give you that.

Don;t say I never gave you anything


Here ya go. It's how I imagine it going down at Langley.





posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Not really -

Sept 6 2016 - House oversite Committee - notice to Platte River ***PDF LINK***

* - US House Government Oversite

Also immunity and what protections it affords depends on the type of immunity granted.
* - Transactional immunity
* - Derivative Use Immunity
* - Informal immunity
* - formal immunity
* - Witness immunity

Source for immunities - U.S. Attorneys » Resources » U.S. Attorneys' Manual » Criminal Resource Manual » CRM 500-999 - * Section 719 and792 specifically
edit on 29-10-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

And what be said if he waited until after the election? Damned if he does damned if he doesn't. He gave his word to Congress and the American people to be transparent. That means we know what is going on as it is going on not after the fact. Again I will take the opportunity to commend Mr. Comey!!



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

LOL, Chapelle is funny. Now I cant say you never gave me anything.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: brutus61
a reply to: reldra

And what be said if he waited until after the election? Damned if he does damned if he doesn't. He gave his word to Congress and the American people to be transparent. That means we know what is going on as it is going on not after the fact. Again I will take the opportunity to commend Mr. Comey!!


Yes, try to turn him into a whistleblower. That's the ticket! LOL Something is off with this guy. Seriously. Amd I include when he had a press conference to say the investigation was over.
edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Maybe he neded time to secure a guarantee that he would be alive the next morning if he did his job properly against orders from the DOJ



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: reldra

Not really -

Sept 6 2016 - House oversite Committee - notice to Platte River ***PDF LINK***

* - US House Government Oversite

Also immunity and what protections it affords depends on the type of immunity granted.
* - Transactional immunity
* - Derivative Use Immunity
* - Informal immunity
* - formal immunity
* - Witness immunity

Source for immunities


And do you know what they were offered? You think they were offered full immunity and then could say nothing to them in private ansd then just plead the 5th in an open forum. Hmmmm. I doubt it.
edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: brutus61


a reply to: reldra

Maybe he neded time to secure a guarantee that he would be alive the next morning if he did his job properly against orders from the DOJ


Well, sure that would match all the conspiracy theories, so it must be true.

He is some kind of a whistleblower and in fear of his life. Head of the FBI? Of course. Sounds like a movie with Tom Cruise, though I would prefer Matt Damon.
edit on 29-10-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: reldra

Not really -

Sept 6 2016 - House oversite Committee - notice to Platte River ***PDF LINK***

* - US House Government Oversite

Also immunity and what protections it affords depends on the type of immunity granted.
* - Transactional immunity
* - Derivative Use Immunity
* - Informal immunity
* - formal immunity
* - Witness immunity

Source for immunities


And do you know what they were offered? You think they were offered full immunity and then could say nothing to them in private ansd then just plead the 5th in an open forum. Hmmmm. I doubt it.


You have to admit, just based on the surface, the FBI brokered a bad deal. If they were given immunity and allowed to plead the 5th to everything, it didn't leave much meat on the bone for the FBI.

I'm still curious as to what the FBI did get out of the deal.
edit on 29-10-2016 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

No I think they were given a promise not to prosecute for what was found on their systems. As I stated type of immunity becomes irrelevant if the person lies / conceals / omits / misleads / refuses to cooperate / etc violates the terms set forth for their cooperation.

Judging by the number of times they took the 5th I would say it was limited use / transactional.


Title 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement.



People overlook the fact this all started with Benghazi hearings.
Full Panic: Hillary Violated Subpoena, Preservation Order


The House Benghazi Committee did deliver a subpoena and preservation order to Hillary Clinton, her staff, and most importantly, Platte River Networks, the company managing her private server.

These subpoenas and preservation orders were served on or around March 4th.



But beyond lying, Hillary Clinton and her team defied a lawful Congressional subpoena and preservation order. They had a legal obligation to preserve all evidence in their possession and they were cognizant of this responsibility.


edit on 29-10-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
There are too many unnamed sources feeding info to the media, right now.

Odd that just two days ago, no unnamed sources were leaking anything, at all, about this new development to the press.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Yes, yes he is, and poignant too



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: gmoneystunt

If it was part of a signed deal and never happened, that would be wrong. No one would ever choose to testify in order to receive immunity ever again. Yikes.


Immunity deals are made so that you will not be prosecuted. I've never heard of an immunity deal (before this one) that included destroying evidence. Why would anyone even need that? They are immune from prosecution BECAUSE they gave up the evidence. Destroying the evidence is nonsensical. I think your conclusion that no one would ever again testify is completely bogus. Of course people would. If they do, they get to stay out of jail. That's a pretty good incentive. What is "wrong" is agreeing to such a lop-sided deal in the first place.
edit on 10/29/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: gmoneystunt

If it was part of a signed deal and never happened, that would be wrong. No one would ever choose to testify in order to receive immunity ever again.
Yikes.


Do you agree with them receiving immunity but yet not holding up their end of the deal and not testifying?


They received immuity in return for something. It is not given for nothing.

Whatever the deal was, they did it. Or else they would be being charged for something.

This is like not seeing half of the puzzle, but they did something.


I'm sure if the FBI wanted to, they could easily prove that the person with the immunity agreement lied, or withheld some information, which would then terminate any transactional immunity agreeement



new topics




 
16
<< 1   >>

log in

join