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

Let’s revisit the genesis of the Anthony Weiner investigation - Things may not be what they seem.

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think that the FBI has been trying to get clearance from the DOJ for weeks to reopen the investigation, but Lynch was stopping them, as she still is trying to stop him.

If Clinton is not elected, Lynch loses her promised seat on the Supreme Court.

Comey finally gave up and went over her head straight to Congress, because he knew that she would never move forward.


I've seen nothing to suggest anyone at DOJ is trying "to stop" the "new version" of the investigation. I have seen material suggesting that Justice was implementing it's own internal rules regarding public announcements that affect major elections.

You have zero evidence that Lynch has been offered a "seat" on the Supreme Court. Indeed, that's ridiculous ... she doesn't have that kind of background.




posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

To me, the only thing interesting aspect about Trump would have been his claim that he's not a politician.

He disproved that before he won the primaries.

/shrug

I would love to see a citizen statesman/stateswoman/statesperson rise up, in fact, a whole cadre of them ... but I haven't seen it yet.


And that's really what I meant by 'populist.'

I loved Bill Clinton for being a populist and a straight shooter, too.

Trump is no Bill when it comes to be a statesman though.


As a point of personal discussion between you and I that we've threaded through several discussions, the day it was proven that Bill Clinton lied about the "didn't have sexual relations with that woman" thing actually started a lot of my ... awareness that things aren't at all what we're shown.

I still enjoy Clinton's speaking ability and thought-processes. It's such a shame we're all so partisan; I used to enjoy (The Apprentice era's) Trump "character" as well.

I hate to think we are electing a rabid version of a TV character to the Presidency. Still, Reagan.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




I have seen material suggesting that Justice was implementing it's own internal rules regarding public announcements that affect major elections.



If this is true, it should give us all pause.

In this particular case, what if the information the FBI has found is absolutely critical to this election. In other words, what if we are about to elect a traitor, someone who has sold U.S. sensitive or classified information for personal enrichment, or someone who is colluding with others to harm American interests. What if this person should not receive one single second more of classified briefings.



edit on 30-10-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-10-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

(Since you asked me, be ready for my opinion that you may or may not agree with- this is not a factual response.)

Those are good "what ifs" only if Clinton is guilty as I'm sure you and others believe. I don't happen to believe that in regard to the material that was on the server, or was sent through any version of the server.

The rules regarding releasing info that could affect elections were set up a few years ago by Eric Holder, and reflect what I understand to be be a long-standing "unwritten" rule in the various Federal departments.

IF material of the nature you're describing existed, I don't think anyone at Justice (including AG Lynch) would have had the temerity to stand in the way in any shape, form or fashion.

As it is, there seems to be a good chance that this "bombshell" that many of the anti-Hillary folks are so excited about is merely another trove of Huma emails, many of which, apparently, have already been reviewed.

So, to answer your question, too many people would have known about the proof of treasonous/traitorous activity for repression to even be a serious thought.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




So, to answer your question, too many people would have known about the proof of treasonous/traitorous activity for repression to even be a serious thought.



Unless they were part of it, or the person they ultimately answer to is part of it; if not part of it, perhaps effecting a cover-up.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Gryphon66




So, to answer your question, too many people would have known about the proof of treasonous/traitorous activity for repression to even be a serious thought.



Unless they were part of it, or the person they ultimately answer to is part of it; if not part of it, perhaps effecting a cover-up.


How many individuals would have to be "part of it" in that scenario?

It boggles the mind. Also, evidently based on what has been released, this has been an on-going matter within the FBI even after July when Comey declared that the investigation was "over."

Good article if you haven't read it yet: FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe - WSJ

Surprisingly non-partisan read for the most part, kinda refreshing.

So to answer your question, too many people involved in too many different areas of responsibility to all coordinate a "cover-up" in my estimation.
edit on 30-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I disagree. It would only take the cabinet heads, maybe their deputies, and one Big Kahuna.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Gryphon66

I disagree. It would only take the cabinet heads, maybe their deputies, and one Big Kahuna.



So ... in this age of immediate internet communication, tweets, cameraphones, screenshots and an unending cavalcade of websites that would love to cover any "leaks" ... you think that Obama, Lynch, Kerry, etc. could squelch "treasonous and traitorous" clear evidence against Clinton ... at the risk of obstructing justice ... that the FBI, NYPD and anyone in between has probably had "access" to as well?

LOL. I see this is not theoretical for you ... you believe this is what is happening.

You're right; we do disagree.
edit on 30-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

edit on 30-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: BlueAjah




And, the article says that she was taking screen shots of the chat. That is SOP for evidence collection. What child thinks of doing that?


it is highly unusual to take screens unless you already have a plan...

There might be something to this.


She was taking screenshots and saving them..but also claimed to be concerned that her parents might find out she was communicating with him. That makes zero sense to me.

She had a second camera ready to take photos of her messaging him on Confide...before his name automatically deleted!


Yes, now that's one smart move. I have no doubt that 15 year olds are extremely smart, but this shows a level of sophistication and worldly knowledge that has to be at least unusual for that age and beyond raw intelligence. That's a lot of esoteric pieces to pull together that show advanced technical knowledge. Now add the fact that she (1) actively pursued him. She initiated contact, and (2) repeatedly lied to him about deleting their stuff while instead actively making a complete recording, and (3) giving him numerous openings in her texts that invited his responses according to his character--that she knew.

It's not 100% impossible that "she acted alone,' just improbable. Would Trump do it? Frankly, I doubt it. Would the Clintons or Huma do it? I would think they would want to keep him contained. Would agents of the FBI do it, especially disgruntled agents who felt abandoned by Comey? They had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. FBI is my primary suspect.
edit on 10/30/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
FBI is my primary suspect.


Based on what we know, that seems very reasonable.

To what end? Access to Weiner's laptop/devices?

Seems like they would have had an easier trail to that ... (not disagreeing with your summation).



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords



The rules regarding releasing info that could affect elections were set up a few years ago by Eric Holder, and reflect what I understand to be be a long-standing "unwritten" rule in the various Federal departments.







Eric Holder? Could it be perchance be that after seeing how well having an investigation brought up in the 11th hour can extremely hurt a candidate? 1992 Aka the Iran/Contra investigation that allowed Bill Clinton to be elected based on him claiming the government and Bush politics were corrupt? Egad! Karma is a bitch, isn't it?

Why didn't the democratic administration cry about this loophole in '92? I believe they all were cheering!



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Yes, now that's one smart move. I have no doubt that 15 year olds are extremely smart, but this shows a level of sophistication and worldly knowledge that has to be at least unusual for that age and beyond raw intelligence. That's a lot of esoteric pieces to pull together that show advanced technical knowledge. Now add the fact that she (1) actively pursued him. She initiated contact, and (2) repeatedly lied to him about deleting their stuff while instead actively making a complete recording, and (3) giving him numerous openings in her texts that invited his responses according to his character--that she knew.


I dance on this uncomfortable line where I don't know if I am being clear enough and expecting others to put together something that's not obvious, and sounding long-winded, condescending, and patronizing.

YES...I do put all that together and think it has a curious whiff to it. I am glad you caught the same clues.


originally posted by: schuyler
It's not 100% impossible that "she acted alone,' just improbable. Would Trump do it? Frankly, I doubt it. Would the Clintons or Huma do it? I would think they would want to keep him contained. Would agents of the FBI do it, especially disgruntled agents who felt abandoned by Comey? They had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. FBI is my primary suspect.


You're right, it's not impossible...I thought that when the story broke, even though I thought everything you laid out was suspicious.

But in hindsight of the announcement on Friday...I am now at 'improbable,' too.

However, I also think everyone directly affected are possibly in on it.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: schuyler
FBI is my primary suspect.


Based on what we know, that seems very reasonable. To what end? Access to Weiner's laptop/devices? Seems like they would have had an easier trail to that ... (not disagreeing with your summation).


I'm thinking they needed probable cause to get to the Wiener's (Huma and Anthony) "devices." So they cooked up this scheme to make Wiener vulnerable because they figured (correctly) that he would take the bait. THAT gave them the excuse and opportunity to seize the laptop and scour it. Their aim and real target was to peruse it for more Hillary emails. Wiener's indiscretions were secondary. Besides, they knew Wiener's stuff would be there because the girl (cough) had kept a record of everything. Yeah, I know this is conjecture. Just trying to put pieces together.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: schuyler
FBI is my primary suspect.


Based on what we know, that seems very reasonable. To what end? Access to Weiner's laptop/devices? Seems like they would have had an easier trail to that ... (not disagreeing with your summation).


I'm thinking they needed probable cause to get to the Wiener's (Huma and Anthony) "devices." So they cooked up this scheme to make Wiener vulnerable because they figured (correctly) that he would take the bait. THAT gave them the excuse and opportunity to seize the laptop and scour it. Their aim and real target was to peruse it for more Hillary emails. Wiener's indiscretions were secondary. Besides, they knew Wiener's stuff would be there because the girl (cough) had kept a record of everything. Yeah, I know this is conjecture. Just trying to put pieces together.


Nothing wrong at all with conjecture based on solid facts ... and that's what you and MME are about in this thread.

Let's look back in time though. The Feds had access to basically anything they wanted from Huma for months, vis-a-vis subpoena ... right?

I dunno. It's a working theory if there was "something" they couldn't get through other sources.




posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
A setup perhaps..sometimes you just have to give enough rope to do themselves.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: schuyler
FBI is my primary suspect.


Based on what we know, that seems very reasonable. To what end? Access to Weiner's laptop/devices? Seems like they would have had an easier trail to that ... (not disagreeing with your summation).


I'm thinking they needed probable cause to get to the Wiener's (Huma and Anthony) "devices." So they cooked up this scheme to make Wiener vulnerable because they figured (correctly) that he would take the bait. THAT gave them the excuse and opportunity to seize the laptop and scour it. Their aim and real target was to peruse it for more Hillary emails. Wiener's indiscretions were secondary. Besides, they knew Wiener's stuff would be there because the girl (cough) had kept a record of everything. Yeah, I know this is conjecture. Just trying to put pieces together.


Nothing wrong at all with conjecture based on solid facts ... and that's what you and MME are about in this thread.

Let's look back in time though. The Feds had access to basically anything they wanted from Huma for months, vis-a-vis subpoena ... right? I dunno. It's a working theory if there was "something" they couldn't get through other sources.


In theory they did, but it was based on Huma testifying under oath that she did not keep copies. But it turned out she DID keep copies (of something, at least), so she lied in her testimony. Remember that back then it was like pulling teeth to get these people to testify at all, with all sorts of objections by counsel. So the FBI would have had to call her a liar publicly and go raid her house. Stuff would have hit the fan had they done that with accusations of intimidation and the whole nine yards. Now either the FBI knew for a fact Huma had stuff at home, or they suspected it. If they KNEW, then likely they came across the information illegally, so they couldn't admit it. I'm thinking that, myself, but I gotta admit they simply could have been suspicious. Either way, the Wiener set-up scam got them access, and voila! Pay dirt.



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

BTW, I am wondering if anyone is noticing that the type of evidence needed to convict Weiner is not among the screenshots and photos of conversations taken by this girl...unless she didn't share that evidence with the Daily Mail.

So far, the criminal stuff is just part of the girl's claims.

Suffice it to say, I don't think Weiner was set up for a conviction. I think he'll skate. I think all of this was set up to get the device, in question, in the hands of investigators, and allow Weiner to escape criminal charges.

Time will tell though....

ETA: IOW, there's enough evidence to open an investigation. But so far...nothing to support a conviction. Again, time wil tell.
edit on 30-10-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Find that link and you know where to apply pressure.

What you and schuyler have put together is a more fleshed out version of my tinhat musing, but the essentials are the same.

Keep up the great work!



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 08:53 PM
link   
if comey hadn`t already been hauled in to answer questions in a congressional inquiry we wouldn`t have even heard about this latest laptop with 650,000 e-mails on it. The ONLY reason comey came clean about this latest development is because he doesn`t want congress to think he was lying to them when he said that the investigation into the Hillary e-mails was finished, over, done,closed.
I bet comey # himself when he was told about this latest laptop with e-mails on it,he probably got right on the phone to congress, " erm guys, I swear I didn`t lie to you before but we found a laptop with more e-mails"



posted on Oct, 30 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Heavens!

Who put the emails on his laptop to be found?!

Doesn't make sense to go through all that.

OY!






new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join