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.

 

How are Hillary Clinton AND Huma Abedin not going to prison...Warrant Release revelation...

page: 11
103
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: CryHavoc

What you seem to be missing is this, "...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody..."

Gross negligence does not require intent. If it did, no one could ever be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter. This is where your argument falls apart.

But none of this matters since the DoJ was never going to prosecute no matter what evidence was presented.

And this doesn't even touch the election-related shenanigans she and her crew got up to. Just ask Bernie about those.

But all of this is moot.

Huma knew these emails were classified when she stored them on her laptop to which Weiner had access.

End of story.


And likely stored them on there after the knowledge of a subpoena, and at the least it was after they knew they were coming under scrutiny. They handed emails over in 2014, the ones that were not deleted that is. The PC used to store these files was from 2015. They obviously knew they were doing something wrong here. Timeline is WAY out of whack.




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: CryHavoc

What you seem to be missing is this, "...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody..."

Gross negligence does not require intent. If it did, no one could ever be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter. This is where your argument falls apart.

But none of this matters since the DoJ was never going to prosecute no matter what evidence was presented.

And this doesn't even touch the election-related shenanigans she and her crew got up to. Just ask Bernie about those.

But all of this is moot.

Huma knew these emails were classified when she stored them on her laptop to which Weiner had access.

End of story.


And likely stored them on there after the knowledge of a subpoena, and at the least it was after they knew they were coming under scrutiny. They handed emails over in 2014, the ones that were not deleted that is. The PC used to store these files was from 2015. They obviously knew they were doing something wrong here. Timeline is WAY out of whack.


That happens when someone tries to perpetrate a fraud / coverup and fails like the Clinton / cronies did.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: CryHavoc

What you seem to be missing is this, "...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody..."

Gross negligence does not require intent. If it did, no one could ever be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter. This is where your argument falls apart.

But none of this matters since the DoJ was never going to prosecute no matter what evidence was presented.

And this doesn't even touch the election-related shenanigans she and her crew got up to. Just ask Bernie about those.

But all of this is moot.

Huma knew these emails were classified when she stored them on her laptop to which Weiner had access.

End of story.


And likely stored them on there after the knowledge of a subpoena, and at the least it was after they knew they were coming under scrutiny. They handed emails over in 2014, the ones that were not deleted that is. The PC used to store these files was from 2015. They obviously knew they were doing something wrong here. Timeline is WAY out of whack.


That happens when someone tries to perpetrate a fraud / coverup and fails like the Clinton / cronies did.


Another thing that really irks me is all of this talk about the hacking her server and whatnot....well, had she followed protocol as set by the US Government, it wouldn't have happened. She really has nobody but herself to blame for her emails being hacked and released. Similar to how she has nobody to blame but herself and her campaign staff for failing to campaign correctly to win the electoral vote, knowing that the EC is what gives you the office.

It's the same argument over and over, nobody on the left wants to be held accountable for any of their screw ups....they just want to blame.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

There are no good reasons for her to have set up the private email/server considering all the issues that transpired.

1. The State Dept could not respond to FOIA requests since they had no record of any HRC communications.
2. HRC dragged her feet once asked to supply emails to the Benghazi Committee.
3. The server was then wiped clean.
4. 33,000 emails still have not been recovered from her time as SoS.
5. She lied multiple times about content, turning over emails, and devices used.

Any rational person can look at everything that transpired as see that she was hiding something.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bmullini
a reply to: face23785

There are no good reasons for her to have set up the private email/server considering all the issues that transpired.

1. The State Dept could not respond to FOIA requests since they had no record of any HRC communications.
2. HRC dragged her feet once asked to supply emails to the Benghazi Committee.
3. The server was then wiped clean.
4. 33,000 emails still have not been recovered from her time as SoS.
5. She lied multiple times about content, turning over emails, and devices used.

Any rational person can look at everything that transpired as see that she was hiding something.



Likely wouldn't be hard to get them as her IT team set Google as the server backup in November 2012. They should have every single email she had...and likely still do.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
What you seem to be missing is this, "...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody..."


Here, let me help:


Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.


Nothing that I'm aware of in any of those e-mails between Clinton and Abedin are foresee-ably known to cause grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

Unless you've got information that the rest of the country isn't aware of, it's not Gross Negligence.

Like I said, she's a Civilian. She got fired. She'll probably get nothing more than a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine.
edit on 23-12-2016 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: CryHavoc

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
What you seem to be missing is this, "...through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody..."


Here, let me help:


Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.


Nothing that I'm aware of in any of those e-mails between Clinton and Abedin are foresee-ably known to cause grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

Unless you've got information that the rest of the country isn't aware of, it's not Gross Negligence.


No worries...I have another thread that addresses exactly this from the presidential order in 2009 by BO to change the OCA order. It very clearly defines the reasons why HRC should be facing sanctions at this point.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure you're beating a dead horse.
edit on 23-12-2016 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

She even basically admitted, before Congress, that she used unsecured means for classified data, and it's known that devices were destroyed, a maid had access, and she wiped the server. When you have someone in the White House who is utterly lawless, however, it's no surprise that she was given a free pass. That should change, this year, and we shall see! ALl considered, someone better not back down from that promise!




top topics



 
103
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join