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: 3
103
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because our current AG decided not to prosecute. If Obama doesnt grant Clinton a pardon I think she will go to jail when the new administration takes over.


I hope so, because everyone with a clearance knows you don't setup a personal server to conduct official gov business. That's just common knowledge. Especially for someone that's been working in the gov for 30+ years. She knew she was breaking the law.


it wasn't the LAW!!......are you incapable of reading ANYTHING other than right-wing blogs?


Correct. It was not the law.

That is why the RNC and Bush were able to run their own server during his admin. 22 million emails went missing in that case. Why no stink then?




posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Justso

I was unaware the president could go either way. Did you think you were electing an emperor?



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
Sadly, she won't go to jail over this. They really are above the law. Affluenza.
They are too damn rich and powerful to be treated like a commoner.
I would love to be wrong on this, but I just don't think so. There are too many cases where those with the $ get away with whatever they wish. I bet this pisses Martha Stewart off just a bit.


no,...they can't make the case in court in front of a jury...period.....ask any prosecutor, even trent gowdy who would like to see Hillary swing from the gallows, closed the case.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Find those emails, and we can prosecute them too. Unless you're argument is "because something illegal happened before, we should pursue stopping the same illegal activity now." Do you have kids? When one says, "but he did it," do you let it slide?



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
- Hillary Clinton to her underling.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
Sadly, she won't go to jail over this. They really are above the law. Affluenza.
They are too damn rich and powerful to be treated like a commoner.
I would love to be wrong on this, but I just don't think so. There are too many cases where those with the $ get away with whatever they wish. I bet this pisses Martha Stewart off just a bit.


Unless these kinds of cases are made examples of then all the other politicians will know they're above the law and unfettered corruption will slither amok ever increasingly.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I guess I don't understand why emails, sent between 2009 and 2013, were on a laptop that was purchased, at the earliest, in 2015.

Did Huma intentionally copy and store them on it?

ETA: Dell Inspiron 15 7000 (7548)-- Link
edit on 20-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because our current AG decided not to prosecute. If Obama doesnt grant Clinton a pardon I think she will go to jail when the new administration takes over.


I hope so, because everyone with a clearance knows you don't setup a personal server to conduct official gov business. That's just common knowledge. Especially for someone that's been working in the gov for 30+ years. She knew she was breaking the law.


it wasn't the LAW!!......are you incapable of reading ANYTHING other than right-wing blogs?


Correct. It was not the law.

That is why the RNC and Bush were able to run their own server during his admin. 22 million emails went missing in that case. Why no stink then?


it wasn't about democrats



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I guess I don't understand why emails, sent between 2009 and 2013, were on a laptop that was purchased, at the earliest, in 2015.

Did Huma intentionally copy and store them on it?

ETA: Dell Inspiron 15 7000 (7548)-- Link


They may have been transferred from an older system.

But suspicious just the same.




posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If George Webb has got some of what he presents correct it could have opened up a very large can of worms for some very high profile peoples . It could be by avoiding the prosecution the other incriminating Emails wont have to be seen .



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bender151



Find those emails, and we can prosecute them too. Unless you're argument is "because something illegal happened before, we should pursue stopping the same illegal activity now."


That is not my argument. My argument is that this email/server issue has never been a big deal in politics until it came to Hillary. If people are breaking the rules, we have to hold them accountable, but let's at least be consistent.

The way the Right has handled this issue leaves them with a big, steaming mouthful of hypocrisy they have to swallow.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: network dude
Sadly, she won't go to jail over this. They really are above the law. Affluenza.
They are too damn rich and powerful to be treated like a commoner.
I would love to be wrong on this, but I just don't think so. There are too many cases where those with the $ get away with whatever they wish. I bet this pisses Martha Stewart off just a bit.


Unless these kinds of cases are made examples of then all the other politicians will know they're above the law and unfettered corruption will slither amok ever increasingly.


geez, we will know have 5 presidents....trump, 3 kids and a son-in-law in the white house decision making, and ALL OF THEM are free to make as much money as they can off of daddy being in the white house.....now THAT is unfettered corruption



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because our current AG decided not to prosecute. If Obama doesnt grant Clinton a pardon I think she will go to jail when the new administration takes over.


I hope so, because everyone with a clearance knows you don't setup a personal server to conduct official gov business. That's just common knowledge. Especially for someone that's been working in the gov for 30+ years. She knew she was breaking the law.


it wasn't the LAW!!......are you incapable of reading ANYTHING other than right-wing blogs?


Correct. It was not the law.

That is why the RNC and Bush were able to run their own server during his admin. 22 million emails went missing in that case. Why no stink then?


But the RNC wasn't the U.S. State Department at the time was it.




posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I hope that I am wrong,but after seeing Wiener is apparently a pedo,and there are other high ranking democrats apparently involved in a pedo ring-along with the whole Obama apparently is into the bathhouse thing-am I wrong to be thinking that Obama might be into little boys and that there may be video/photographic evidence in the "insurance files"?

I feel the same as you about this being somehow centered on Obama as the reason for the cover up.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Did you type that with a straight face?

I'm honestly curious.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because our current AG decided not to prosecute. If Obama doesnt grant Clinton a pardon I think she will go to jail when the new administration takes over.


I hope so, because everyone with a clearance knows you don't setup a personal server to conduct official gov business. That's just common knowledge. Especially for someone that's been working in the gov for 30+ years. She knew she was breaking the law.


it wasn't the LAW!!......are you incapable of reading ANYTHING other than right-wing blogs?


Correct. It was not the law.

That is why the RNC and Bush were able to run their own server during his admin. 22 million emails went missing in that case. Why no stink then?


But the RNC wasn't the U.S. State Department at the time was it.





No, but Bush was the President of the US.


During the 2007 Congressional investigation of the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, it was discovered that administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[1] for various official communications. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The use of this email domain became public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[2] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[3]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[4]). Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.[5] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[6][7] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[8] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: angryproctologist
a reply to: introvert

Did you type that with a straight face?

I'm honestly curious.


No. I am not talented enough to type with my own face.

I have to use my fingers.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Any excuse to bust out with the italicized Latin I see!

In this case however, ignorance of the law is not the issue. The principal hurdle is mens rea ("guilty mind") aka criminal intent.

18 USC 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-


Essentially they'd have to prove that she knowingly transmitted classified material to people who lacked the proper clearance to view it or they'd have prove tp gross negligence. Gross negligence would mean a conscious, voluntary and wreckless disregard. In this context, it would mean that Clinton would have had to do these things with either the knowledge that the information would fall into the wrong hands or with a belief that it likely could and simply did not gaf.

Proving what people know and believe is at best hard and at worst impossible and so proving criminal intent is inherently difficult.

Of course that all assumes that the incoming administration even wanted to pursue an indictment and clearly, they do not. Believing that Trump was really going to go after his old pal Bill's wife was ridiculous. Time for all those "woke" Trump supporters who thought "Hillary for Prison" was an actual thing to wake the f up?
edit on 2016-12-20 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: amicktd

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Because our current AG decided not to prosecute. If Obama doesnt grant Clinton a pardon I think she will go to jail when the new administration takes over.


I hope so, because everyone with a clearance knows you don't setup a personal server to conduct official gov business. That's just common knowledge. Especially for someone that's been working in the gov for 30+ years. She knew she was breaking the law.


it wasn't the LAW!!......are you incapable of reading ANYTHING other than right-wing blogs?


The server...nope, not a law. Similar to how WH daily briefs aren't law, disclosure of taxes aren't law and separation of interests aren't law, but that doesn't keep people from whining about them.

Any who, this topic isn't about her server, it is about the information she transmitted through unsecured channels and her server happened to be ONE of those channels....she is guilty of transmitting Top Secret information in this manner according to a warrant by the FBI. There is no way around that fact.

She is being slapped on the wrist and all of it brushed away at this point which is insane.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You know my stance on both candidates, I do not like either one.

From my position of political ambivalence I can say I think she should have incurred some form of legal remonstration. While intent is hard to prove in this case I think her intent was to circumvent the standard protocol on the handling of classified information.



new topics

top topics



 
103
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join