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

Obama Criticizes F.B.I. Director: ‘We Don’t Operate on Incomplete Information’

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
And when will one of our so called reporters have the nerve to call Obama out on lying about when he found out about Hillary's private email address?

We now know he emailed her under pseudonyms, and Huma said in the Wikileaks that she had to inform Obama everytime Hillary changed her address.

Why would we listen to Obama on this issue when he has already shown he has lied about it?



Of course he knew about it. He was in on it. He allowed Hillary all the freedom she and Bill wanted to set up their pay-for-play and money-laundering racket through the State Department and Clinton Foundation. That's why he never appointed a permanent Inspector General for the State Dept. during the entire four years she was there. He was complicit.




posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   


Of course he knew about it. He was in on it. He allowed Hillary all the freedom she and Bill wanted to set up their pay-for-play and money-laundering racket through the State Department and Clinton Foundation. That's why he never appointed a permanent Inspector General for the State Dept. during the entire four years she was there. He was complicit.



This is why he is almost rabidly foaming at the mouth to get her elected. His fawning rhetoric about her is over the top. He knows what a racket she and Bill have put into place. Hell! He used a pseudonym to communicate with her on her private Clinton Foundation server, didn't he? I don't doubt that for the last four years, he has been feeding them insider government information. They are working together.




edit on 2-11-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Greggers
He's basically saying that it is not the role of the FBI to stir the country up into wild speculation before they've come to any conclusion.

Here on ATS, we've got a new thread touting some unconfirmed theory every 5 minutes or so.


But But the warrant was justified when a judge signed it !!!!

Probable cause is based on evidence.



And yet clearly not enough evidence to complete their investigation or even to say whether the emails therein were relevant or even if they had already been reviewed.





The probable cause that justified the warrant was from a different investigation.

That's what Comey wrote in the letter to Congress.

That letter was not released to the public by Comey.

Existing warrant(s) were not valid for a re-opening of the original investigation(s).



Congratulations on your ability to type.



posted on Nov, 2 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Greggers
He's basically saying that it is not the role of the FBI to stir the country up into wild speculation before they've come to any conclusion.

Here on ATS, we've got a new thread touting some unconfirmed theory every 5 minutes or so.


And yet it was appropriate for him to wildly speculate there was not law broken just as the investigation began?


Forgetting the little things is what happens around here. Some would call it selective memory, I call it embracing ignorance.




posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
A thought just came to my head. What if someone in the FBI suggested that Ms Clinton be charged with one count where there is enough evidence to back a warrant; while continuing to look for more evidence for other crimes. There does not need to be a littany of criminal charges to disrupt the election, just one count with sufficient evidence would be enough. Maybe this is what President Obama was railing against. Instead of putting off the indictment until you have all of the charges ready; going with one moderate to minor charge that can stick before the election. This would be enough to change peoples preceptions.
edit on 3-11-2016 by feldercarb because: added of



new topics

top topics
 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join