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: 8
103
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
The next question I have is when was the laptop purchased in comparison to when the investigation began?

Was the laptop purchased after the investigation began?

How is Huma not being held responsible for placing classified material on an unclassified laptop which was accessible by someone without a clearance of any kind?

Something is not adding up.


I think this point is being lost on many. The time line doesn't add up at all. And that it was sitting in Weiners place with this info on it...WTF? Even with the specific statement in the warrant about this specific device not being authorized to house this information...

So the emails were sent between 2009 and 2013 with some emails deemed classified prior to sending. This laptop shows up in 2015 with all of these emails on it....again with the knowledge they are classified and that this device is not authorized for such use....similar to the Clinton server...nuts.




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


What I am saying is that we don't know the context in which the emails in question were classified. Some emails, such as the Blumenthal emails, were classified after the fact, contained info that would have been classified if it were in the hands of government at that time, but actually originated outside of government for private usage.



Classified "after the fact" because the classifying authorities didn't know the emails existed until "after the fact".





In the case of the Blumenthal emails, they should have never been classified, by the governments own criteria.


Well show us the ones YOU think are not classified.




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Not to mention the fact that if the laptop was purchased late enough in 2015, these emails may have already been under subpoena.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


What I am saying is that we don't know the context in which the emails in question were classified. Some emails, such as the Blumenthal emails, were classified after the fact, contained info that would have been classified if it were in the hands of government at that time, but actually originated outside of government for private usage.



Classified "after the fact" because the classifying authorities didn't know the emails existed until "after the fact".





In the case of the Blumenthal emails, they should have never been classified, by the governments own criteria.



On one hand you are saying that if someone didn't mark the emails as classified -- even though they contained information that is classified according to the government's own criteria -- then the information wasn't actually classified.

On the other hand you are saying, that even when an OCA marks something classified, the information may not actually be classified because it doesn't meet the government's own criteria.

So, is information classified because an OCA marks it as classified or is it classified because it meets certain criteria?



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I have tried to find an exact release date and have come up empty.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

They're not in jail because they've got friends (or dirt on people) in high places.

Simple as that.


You, sir, are absolutely correct.

Same reason nobody from the boystown/licoln credit scandal got locked up....it reached the top



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

They're not in jail because they didn't commit a crime.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: scauma
a reply to: Vasa Croe

They're not in jail because they didn't commit a crime.


Pure, unadulterated, total crap.

Comey spelled out all of the violations in the law repeatedly. As does the warrant which has been posted here for all to see.

Do you enjoy sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "fa la la la"?

You're entitled to your own opinion but to your own facts.

Spend 2 minutes doing a little research right here. The facts have been presented repeatedly.

Or go get some coloring books and play-doh and attend the nearest snowflake cry-in.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

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.


And to claim she didn't know any better is just her spitting in our face. I'd like to spit some Beach Nut in that broads eye and shoot her with my ol' 45.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
So tired of the crap the left puts out defending Hillarys use of a private server in her house....


Colin Powell
Condoleeza Rice
George Bush

These are thrown out again and again and again to justify Hillarys server....but it doesn't cut the mustard for one damn reason: accountability

IF the FBI were doing an investigation on of the above individuals in the same scenario of classified emails on an unclassified server, and that individual refused, stalled, deleted, wiped, whatever the information that was being requested, it could be obtained via a secondary source, such as the email provider, ie; AOL, Yahoo, Google, the RNC.


There was no secondary source to get at what Hillary had......she had total 100% control of what, when, and how any information was released.

That is the damn difference and it is a huge one.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
- Hillary Clinton to her underling.


Hey Jimmyx , introvert, does this show intent?



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SRPrime



You do realize that this is a completely different issue and not at all comparable?


It is comparable. WH officials used a private server to communicate official business, which is against the law.



GWB might have had some communications, but HRC was storing and sending classified information illegally


Might have? Do you know for sure what he was sending, or his staff?



and possibly auctioning some of that information out to foreign powers and enemies of the state through the Clinton Foundation, and directly funding Isis with donations from these foreign powers.


Sure. Find that evidence and come tell me about it.



I'm not saying GW was right for using his own server, but he wasn't storing top secret information there, he was discussing who to fire. It also doesn't mean he didn't use it for other reasons, but he didn't get caught, so what could be, would be, might be, isn't, where as in HRC's case, it's case closed -- she did it.


Ok. That goes back to my comment about hypocrisy.


So you disagree with Jimyx when he said it isn't against the law?



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
- Hillary Clinton to her underling.


Yeah...this really just shores it all up. She knew exactly what she was doing the entire time. It is like catching a pathological liar on video doing whatever act and they continue to deny it even though you clearly see their face on the screen.

Her defense of this email statement was a joke as well....what a smug turd of a person.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I blame the DOJ and not the FBI. The DOJ is the one who determines if a prosecution is going forward.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I think a few hundred Americans should rally together and show up at the Clintons residence and Citizen arrest her and anyone associated with this email scandal.....

I would love to see her protection protect her from law obeying citizens practicing their powers or arrest.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

I would say if the feds are unwilling to do there jobs then the states should start checking to see if any of her actions violated state laws.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GuidedKill

I would say if the feds are unwilling to do there jobs then the states should start checking to see if any of her actions violated state laws.


Another very good angle.....There is more than one way to skin a Clinton.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
So tired of the crap the left puts out defending Hillarys use of a private server in her house....


I'm notd defending it--it's terrible policy. But the requirements for criminal acts must be specific.

If you put classified materials in a file cabinet with an easily picked lock [that's the current situation], that is a different thing than giving classified materials to somebody who is not authorized to receive them and a reasonable person believes that recipient will read it.




IF the FBI were doing an investigation on of the above individuals in the same scenario of classified emails on an unclassified server, and that individual refused, stalled, deleted, wiped, whatever the information that was being requested, it could be obtained via a secondary source, such as the email provider, ie; AOL, Yahoo, Google, the RNC.


There was no secondary source to get at what Hillary had......she had total 100% control of what, when, and how any information was released.


You might not like it, but using your own server would be seen as mitigating----that in that case there would be fewer people and organizations who could access the messages. On the other hand the skill of cyber defense is poor in this case.

Now I personally believe that there should be a law, not just a department policy that can be bypassed by the powerful, that certain government business must be discussed exclusively on government run email servers. But there probably wasn't such a law.

HRC wanted to avoid scrutiny and that is the real core of the problem, not share classified materials with unauthorized people.

edit on 21-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I blame the DOJ and not the FBI. The DOJ is the one who determines if a prosecution is going forward.


Yes....the DOJ failed miserably on this one....again leading me to believe more so that they are just covering it for her because she has something on them. It truly is a house of cards, actually maybe more like Jenga....they are able to take a few blocks out here and there every now and then, but eventually one block will cause them all to fall.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GuidedKill

I would say if the feds are unwilling to do there jobs then the states should start checking to see if any of her actions violated state laws.


That would certainly be an interesting route. The left couldn't really argue it either, after the obvious stunt pulled with Jill Stein on the recount garbage.




top topics



 
103
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join