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: 9
104
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


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.


The DoJ may have failed the American people, but they helped those to whom they are beholden.

Remember, Obama had emails on Hillary's server under a pseudonym. He knew that she was operating on a non-.gov email address the entire time; he just said he found out on the news with everyone else. The gullible and those whom think the state can do no wrong ate it up like it was cake.

 


In other words, Hillary's non-secure server was a state-sanction op and no matter what evidence was ever presented, she was never going to be charged. That's why all the immunity deals were crafted in the first place; to inveigle culpability.
edit on 21-12-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: more




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Someone a few pages back posted about his experience in the Air Force dealing with classified. This is the most damning thing to me is that there are literally millions of us who served, received training on classified material, and know for a FACT that she is guilty. It's not a matter of opinion or partisan spin, or taking some pundit's word for it. We know what she did was illegal and if any of us had done it would be in Leavenworth.

For those of you sitting here trying to make excuses for her, you are simply out of your element and scrambling and it's pathetic. You wanna talk intent? The intent is proven by something she touted as one reason we should've elected her: experience. She was in the white house for 8 years as First Lady, then she was a Senator for 8 years, during which time she would have HAD to receive classified training because we know she received classified briefings. As Secretary of State, she would again have received training, and we know she did because she signed for it.

This is evidence of intent. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone who held those positions to not know what she did was illegal. It's impossible. Period. I don't care what you think, this is what I know. If it did go to trial the prosecution could produce thousands of witnesses who could attest that there's no reasonable way you could argue a person in those positions would not know how to properly handle classified material. Proving intent doesn't require a mind scan or a confession, it simply involves a preponderance of evidence and that could easily be provided by bringing in a ton of people who can and would testify that no one in their right mind could excuse what she did as "I didn't know I couldn't do that". Let's keep the discussion in reality folks.

Also, regarding the whole "well maybe the material wasn't THAT sensitive" angle. We know that this wasn't a case of her just having sent a few emails through this server. She did ALL of her electronic business through the server. Again, it's simply NOT POSSIBLE for the Secretary of State to do his/her job for 4 years without dealing with extremely sensitive and damaging material over email. And since we know she used this server exclusively, we KNOW that very serious and dangerous material went through this server. Once again that's not a matter of opinion, it's an obvious conclusion that is born out by the facts. It's not even a matter of assumptions or speculation, just the details she has already admitted to are enough to convict her. She and the people refusing to prosecute her are relying on the fact that most of the public just don't know much about this area and they can spin it, but they can't spin it to the millions of us who have served and know this was illegal without having to rely on our favorite news network/site to form our conclusions.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:14 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


According to Dell new product Press Release dated on June 2, 2015....I would say that he would have had to purchase his laptop after that date. What do you think?

6-02-2015 Dell official press release



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Someone a few pages back posted about his experience in the Air Force dealing with classified. This is the most damning thing to me is that there are literally millions of us who served, received training on classified material, and know for a FACT that she is guilty. It's not a matter of opinion or partisan spin, or taking some pundit's word for it. We know what she did was illegal and if any of us had done it would be in Leavenworth.

For those of you sitting here trying to make excuses for her, you are simply out of your element and scrambling and it's pathetic. You wanna talk intent? The intent is proven by something she touted as one reason we should've elected her: experience. She was in the white house for 8 years as First Lady, then she was a Senator for 8 years, during which time she would have HAD to receive classified training because we know she received classified briefings. As Secretary of State, she would again have received training, and we know she did because she signed for it.

This is evidence of intent. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone who held those positions to not know what she did was illegal. It's impossible. Period. I don't care what you think, this is what I know. If it did go to trial the prosecution could produce thousands of witnesses who could attest that there's no reasonable way you could argue a person in those positions would not know how to properly handle classified material. Proving intent doesn't require a mind scan or a confession, it simply involves a preponderance of evidence and that could easily be provided by bringing in a ton of people who can and would testify that no one in their right mind could excuse what she did as "I didn't know I couldn't do that". Let's keep the discussion in reality folks.

Also, regarding the whole "well maybe the material wasn't THAT sensitive" angle. We know that this wasn't a case of her just having sent a few emails through this server. She did ALL of her electronic business through the server. Again, it's simply NOT POSSIBLE for the Secretary of State to do his/her job for 4 years without dealing with extremely sensitive and damaging material over email. And since we know she used this server exclusively, we KNOW that very serious and dangerous material went through this server. Once again that's not a matter of opinion, it's an obvious conclusion that is born out by the facts. It's not even a matter of assumptions or speculation, just the details she has already admitted to are enough to convict her. She and the people refusing to prosecute her are relying on the fact that most of the public just don't know much about this area and they can spin it, but they can't spin it to the millions of us who have served and know this was illegal without having to rely on our favorite news network/site to form our conclusions.


This brings up something I had a question on as well. I remember reading that she never even used the state.gov address at all. Is this true? Is there any credible source for this?

If it is true, wouldn't that fact imply intent as well, and by default wouldn't she be sending classified information on unsecured devices because she did send classified information as evidenced by some of the emails that are not available to the public, including the ones with the Obama pseudonym...



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

originally posted by: CynConcepts

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


According to Dell new product Press Release dated on June 2, 2015....I would say that he would have had to purchase his laptop after that date. What do you think?

6-02-2015 Dell official press release


Unless anyone can produce an earlier version then I would say "nail in the coffin" here. That is almost exactly 3 MONTHS after the subpoena for the emails and there is no way they could claim not knowing this was an unsecured device at that point....she received the subpoena in March.

This would be transferring of classified info to yet another unsecured device after the subpoena and well known this was an illegal act.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Something I think people are missing out on in this argument.... the actual law that HRC is being scrutinized for has nothing to do with "intent" of what she was doing with the classified info rather than her "handling" of it. There are very specific rules to having access to classified information and "handling" is a very prevalent one. For example, the SAP files that she had stored on that server are stored in remote access facilities, meaning you have to go to one of these facilities, have top secret access to the server, copy files to another device, and place them in the HRC server.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: bmullini
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Something I think people are missing out on in this argument.... the actual law that HRC is being scrutinized for has nothing to do with "intent" of what she was doing with the classified info rather than her "handling" of it. There are very specific rules to having access to classified information and "handling" is a very prevalent one. For example, the SAP files that she had stored on that server are stored in remote access facilities, meaning you have to go to one of these facilities, have top secret access to the server, copy files to another device, and place them in the HRC server.


I had read about the SAP files a while back but did not know about the transfer of them in that manner. Is there anywhere you can source that I can read about that?



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: CynConcepts

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


According to Dell new product Press Release dated on June 2, 2015....I would say that he would have had to purchase his laptop after that date. What do you think?

6-02-2015 Dell official press release


Unless anyone can produce an earlier version then I would say "nail in the coffin" here. That is almost exactly 3 MONTHS after the subpoena for the emails and there is no way they could claim not knowing this was an unsecured device at that point....she received the subpoena in March.

This would be transferring of classified info to yet another unsecured device after the subpoena and well known this was an illegal act.


Hmmm...continued back in time on their press releases, after you pointed out the dates and did find another.



The Inspiron 15 7000 Series will be available beginning Jan. 6 on Dell.com in the United States starting at $1,099.99


Dell Press Release 1-06-2014

I am not that computer savvy, but perhaps someone else can narrow down what exact model these releases are referring to and which one Weiner actually had. At this point, it is a toss up on whether they had it before the subpoena or not.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So I ask again....this is ALL known and is IN this warrant yet HRC, Huma and team are somehow remaining above the law on this? What reality are we living in?


Just what law would they be charged with breaking?



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

This brings up something I had a question on as well. I remember reading that she never even used the state.gov address at all. Is this true? Is there any credible source for this?

If it is true, wouldn't that fact imply intent as well, and by default wouldn't she be sending classified information on unsecured devices because she did send classified information as evidenced by some of the emails that are not available to the public, including the ones with the Obama pseudonym...


Yes, this Politico article states she never used a .gov email address. Are the HRC sycophants gonna try claiming Politico is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy now?

The article does try to spin it that what she did wasn't technically against State Department rules at the time. One, that's not true, because there was actually a memo sent out to the entire State Department to not do this. Not to mention, this isn't a matter of breaking State's rules, this is a matter of breaking the law. If my employer has no company rule against murder that doesn't give me free reign to go around killing people. The law trumps State's policy, and she broke the law.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bmullini
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Something I think people are missing out on in this argument.... the actual law that HRC is being scrutinized for has nothing to do with "intent" of what she was doing with the classified info rather than her "handling" of it. There are very specific rules to having access to classified information and "handling" is a very prevalent one. For example, the SAP files that she had stored on that server are stored in remote access facilities, meaning you have to go to one of these facilities, have top secret access to the server, copy files to another device, and place them in the HRC server.


This also kind of makes me wonder if the wikileaks emailid 3571 was the beginning of her team trying to find a way around accessing SIPRnet and sending info out.

Here is a clip of it:



From: Sullivan, Jacobi Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:17 AM To: Subject: Re: Insulza Trust me, I share your exasperation. But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can't even access it. Original Message From: H To: Sullivan, Jacob Sent: Wed Feb 10 10:50:17 2010 Subject: Re: Insulza It's a public statement! Just email it.


So it seems this was a common problem with information until they resolved a way to do it....this appears to be when the wheels may have started turning for the idea. I wonder if any of the Top Secret emails can be traced to date sent and see if they correspond to being sent after this date?



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc


originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

Here you go... Just to give an idea of the trouble Clinton has gotten herself into, and for Clinton supporters to adequately understand just how serious this is, here is a detailed list of the possible crimes with links so people can read it for themselves.

** As always when reading laws you will find the word "and" and the word "or" used. When the law lists the elements that must be broken to be in violation and uses the term -
* - "and" it means all elements must be broken to be in violation.
* - "or" it means each individual element stands on its own and a violation of an individual section is enough to be in violation of the law. **

The image below is the important part of the NDA she signed.

Click to enlarge -


Signed NDA - Full - **PDF**

The laws in question -

* - 18 USC Chapter 37 - Espionage Act
A - 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—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


B - 18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Gross Negligence - Legal Definition (In general)

An indifference to, and a blatant violation of, a legal duty with respect to the rights of others.

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. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence—a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action—is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence. In addition, a finding of willful and wanton misconduct usually supports a recovery of Punitive Damages, whereas gross negligence does not.



This is not a complete list and is based on publicly available info. I would imagine the f eds list will be a lot longer given they are investigating more than just the E-mail scandal (Clinton foundation law violations).

List of possible Crimes

* - 18 USC § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
* - 18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally (False Statements)
* - 18 USC § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
* - 18 USC § 208 - Acts affecting a personal financial interest
* - 18 USC § 1341 - Frauds and swindles
* - 18 USC § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
* - 18 USC § 1349 - Attempt and conspiracy
* - 18 USC § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees (Obstruction of Justice)
* - 18 USC § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
* - 18 USC § 1621 - Perjury generally
* - 18 USC § 1622 - Subornation of perjury
* - 18 USC § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court
* - 18 USC § 1905 - Disclosure of confidential information generally
* - 18 USC § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
* - 18 USC § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
* - 26 USC § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax
* - 26 USC § 7212 - Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws


Specifically, 18 USC § 793 (f) - 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—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

edit on 21-12-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: added specificity



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts


Dell Inspiron 15 7548 15.6" Notebook - Core i5 5200U 2.2 GHz - 6 GB RAM - 1 TB HDD - without 90 days Premium Phone Support
$667 online
292 product reviews
Save to Shortlist
Browse Laptops »
June 2015 · Dell · Dell Inspiron · Windows OS · 15.6 inch · 1 TB drive · Hard Disk Drive · 6 GB RAM · Touchscreen · 2.2 GHz CPU
« Back to overview
Details
General
Product TypeNotebook
Operating SystemWindows 8.1 64-bit Edition
First Seen On Google ShoppingJune 2015


Google search result



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah...I am trying to find the specific model 7538 release date now.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Oh by the way, let's not forget there's no logical reason for her to have done this unless she was trying to hide something. You can call that an assumption, and it is, but the reason she gave (so she wouldn't need to use multiple devices) we know is bogus because we know she still had to carry multiple devices. So what was her real reason and why would she lie? She wouldn't lie if it was innocuous. Not to mention, per my previous posts, someone with her extensive experience would know that convenience is not a valid reason for circumventing national security laws so that ALSO proves intent.

This is not just a case, it's a slam dunk case.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah...I am trying to find the specific model 7538 release date now.


Earlier in the thread the model was shared, but I don't know if that was correct. 7548? Look at the copied quote above from mothermayeye.

Edit add: Laptop model 7548 review was shared on this site in February 2015. So if that is the correct model #, then it was released earlier.
edit on 12 21 2016 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: CynConcepts


Dell Inspiron 15 7548 15.6" Notebook - Core i5 5200U 2.2 GHz - 6 GB RAM - 1 TB HDD - without 90 days Premium Phone Support
$667 online
292 product reviews
Save to Shortlist
Browse Laptops »
June 2015 · Dell · Dell Inspiron · Windows OS · 15.6 inch · 1 TB drive · Hard Disk Drive · 6 GB RAM · Touchscreen · 2.2 GHz CPU
« Back to overview
Details
General
Product TypeNotebook
Operating SystemWindows 8.1 64-bit Edition
First Seen On Google ShoppingJune 2015


Google search result


Gracias...I see that is the first date it shows on Google shopping...wondering if any were shipped prior to that?



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Check the post above yours,


The earliest review I can find for it is dated Feb 27, 2015. As you probably know, early reviews are done with pre-release models and are usually a couple of months ahead of actual product release to the general public.

In any case, it would certainly seem as though this laptop was purchased well after the subpoena would have been issued for these emails.

 


a reply to: CynConcepts

Too funny, we found the exact same review.

The model number is from the warrant, so we know for certain that this is the model in question.
edit on 21-12-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)


 



Dell Inspiron 7548*
5th Generation Intel® Core™ i7 processor

Unavailable

Screen: 15.6
Capacity: 1000 GB
Memory: 16 GB
Weight: 4.84
Release date: January 2015


Intel.com
edit on 21-12-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: final link from Intel



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Just found the User PDF Manual dated in 2014. Hmmm...looking like it did come out earlier.

Edit add: certainly we have no clue of when they actually purchased it...so...until then...I am just going to step away from this rabbit hole.


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



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Yeah, I saw that too. Note in my double-edited post above, that Intel states it was released in January 2015. Product brochures are often printed well ahead of actual launch dates and would reflect that in the copyright date of the document.



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join