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.

 

Looks like its time for Hillary Clinton to be Charged welcome Jeff Sessions

page: 4
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Lock that itch up! And I do not mean at Martha Stewarts house with a ankle bracelet.




posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Not to mention that her emails ended up on a laptop Wiener (who didn't have a clearance) had access to...

Which is sort of the whole reason for the laws regarding classified information, isn't it?

If the emails were found there, who's to say they didn't end up somewhere else entirely as well?

Oh and all of her campaign staff's shenanigans with the DNC which forced Bernie out of the race.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
TO set and maintain justful precedents, people need to be made example of so that others dont follow in their evil footsteps (not so readily, openly, brazenly anyways).


Precedents have already been made and we have laws/rights in place to protect American citizens from being made examples of without just cause.


Private servers in a basement with classified material on it, and lied about it with the express purpose of circumventing FOIA.

Is JUST CAUSE.



There is no proof she purposely lied and there is no proof of her intent to circumvent FOIA requests.

Without that proof, what case do they have?


Hahah you're in denial. You clearly did not watch the FBI Director's Congressional Hearing.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Not a fan of the witch, but i doubt shes going to see a jail cell.


Im hoping for House Arrest.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
TO set and maintain justful precedents, people need to be made example of so that others dont follow in their evil footsteps (not so readily, openly, brazenly anyways).


Precedents have already been made and we have laws/rights in place to protect American citizens from being made examples of without just cause.


Private servers in a basement with classified material on it, and lied about it with the express purpose of circumventing FOIA.

Is JUST CAUSE.



There is no proof she purposely lied and there is no proof of her intent to circumvent FOIA requests.

Without that proof, what case do they have?


Hahah you're in denial. You clearly did not watch the FBI Director's Congressional Hearing.


I did, in fact. They cannot prove intent and specifically said so.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Not a fan of the witch, but i doubt shes going to see a jail cell.


Im hoping for House Arrest.


Hillary on house arrest would be like a vacation for most of us. She needs the inside of a cell. if anythin, only to send a message



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
TO set and maintain justful precedents, people need to be made example of so that others don't follow in their evil footsteps (not so readily, openly, brazenly anyways).

Ideal but unrealistic. . Lots of former executives should be tarred and feathered, but they weren't either.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert




Agreed. We now know how the DoJ approaches these sorts of cases. Intent is required.
The law mentions nothing of intent when dealing with classified info. There is a much different doj now.
How did that intent argument work for the kid with the pics of his submarine?


Intent is required and has been for some time.


For what it is worth, Comey's letter and the investigation only centered around whether she had mishandled classified emails with the intent of them being seen by unclassified eyes. The FBI did not posit whether she had setup a private server with the intent of violating federal law on the usage of such secure systems.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert




Agreed. We now know how the DoJ approaches these sorts of cases. Intent is required.
The law mentions nothing of intent when dealing with classified info. There is a much different doj now.
How did that intent argument work for the kid with the pics of his submarine?


Intent is required and has been for some time.


For what it is worth, Comey's letter and the investigation only centered around whether she had mishandled classified emails with the intent of them being seen by unclassified eyes. The FBI did not posit whether she had setup a private server with the intent of violating federal law on the usage of such secure systems.


Because there was no evidence to suggest it. If there was, it would have been a different ball game.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Then why does she still have an active clearance? I know that all SoS's keep their clearances for life..... but gross negligence is more than enough reason to yank it.


Do she still have a clearance, beyond what she had to receive campaign security briefings?? I'd like to see some info on that.



Suspending her clearance should have been the very first step in the process.


It's my understanding she lost that clearance after she left the SD.


All SoS's keep their clearances for life, presumably so they can discuss classified matters that occurred on their watch with other SoS's if need be.
edit on R052017-02-09T16:05:12-06:00k052Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Here's the thing. To prosecute her for the server or the classified docs would be unprecedented. So sure, go ahead, as long as you call in everyone else that's ever done that and prosecute them too, and spend millions on seeing if Colin Powell, for example, did anything he shouldn't with classified docs, etc.

This will bite a bunch of people in the rear, so I don't think it will go forward. It was a witch-hunt fantasy of the right.

At least that's my hope. Don't you think if she should have been indicted, that Comey would have done it??

Meh.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Then why does she still have an active clearance? I know that all SoS's keep their clearances for life..... but gross negligence is more than enough reason to yank it.


Do she still have a clearance, beyond what she had to receive campaign security briefings?? I'd like to see some info on that.



Suspending her clearance should have been the very first step in the process.


It's my understanding she lost that clearance after she left the SD.


All SoS's keep their clearances for life, presumably so they can discuss classified matters that occurred on their watch with other SoS's if need be.


Didn't know that. I'd be fine with her potentially having her clearance revoked, but criminal charges are a different matter.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I hope you really do not expect this to happen. they will not bring charges against Mrs. Clinton, and if they do, unless there is absolutly a smoking gun in her hand with a video of her pulling the trigger then it is over for the Trump administration



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Stevemagegod



Those are chargeable offenses.


He also said that the FBI and the DoJ has maintained the practice and precedent of needing intent to file charges. Did you also miss the part where he said this would have been handled within the SD?


Did you miss the part where Obama was Comeys Boss and Hillary was his chosen successor?


That's conspiratorial nonsense.

You can at least try harder than that.


Okay then why did Comey send that letter two weeks before the Election date? If you're going to Fire the FBI Director it would take weeks. And If Comey did not fear for his Career he wouldn't have made that big announcement. Hoping that this would affect Swing State Voters towards Trump so then he can present the real evidence to Trump as President. Presenting the evidence to Obama would be a Conflict of interest. Obama would order it covered up/destroyed. And Trump as President decided to keep Comey on the Job. So you do the Math. Democrats believe Comeys Letter got Trump elected. I believe Comey withheld the real evidence so he could present it to a President without the Conflict of Interest.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Then why does she still have an active clearance? I know that all SoS's keep their clearances for life..... but gross negligence is more than enough reason to yank it.


Do she still have a clearance, beyond what she had to receive campaign security briefings?? I'd like to see some info on that.



Suspending her clearance should have been the very first step in the process.


It's my understanding she lost that clearance after she left the SD.


All SoS's keep their clearances for life, presumably so they can discuss classified matters that occurred on their watch with other SoS's if need be.


Didn't know that. I'd be fine with her potentially having her clearance revoked, but criminal charges are a different matter.


Why? She broke the law. I saw you said earlier something about proving intent, well intent isn't worded in that law. When you get the clearance, the rules of such are explained and a different level of responsibility.
edit on 9-2-2017 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert




Agreed. We now know how the DoJ approaches these sorts of cases. Intent is required.
The law mentions nothing of intent when dealing with classified info. There is a much different doj now.
How did that intent argument work for the kid with the pics of his submarine?


Intent is required and has been for some time.


For what it is worth, Comey's letter and the investigation only centered around whether she had mishandled classified emails with the intent of them being seen by unclassified eyes. The FBI did not posit whether she had setup a private server with the intent of violating federal law on the usage of such secure systems.


Because there was no evidence to suggest it. If there was, it would have been a different ball game.


Willful disregard of federal law is essentially the same as intentional violation of federal law. As I said, the FBI made no recommendations on the server itself... but the simple fact that she had one and sent and received classified emails on it violated federal law. The real test of intent here is "would a reasonable person have foreseen the potential for the private server to pose a security risk?" If the answer to that question is "yes" (and I believe the fact that the Department of State doesn't have a "let us help you setup your home email server" brochure in their welcome packet makes that a "yes"), then it passes the test of intent... whether she directly intended to violate the law or not.

A person can be convicted of negligent crime without ever intending to violate a law in any way... that's what the reasonable person test is there for.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

How can there be no intent if you purposely destroy all of the evidence?



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

And to expand on that, if a layman destroyed evidence with knowledge of an investigation, they'd immediately be in trouble.



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
When all of his cabinet is in place, expect the nice guy gloves to come off.


You mean they are actually going to enforce the laws on the books ? Wow who would have thought the government would step up and do its' job with border protection and criminality !

Maybe those who voted for Trump were hoping so... At least I know several who thought this new government and POTUS would actually do what they said they would do.. At this rate, in six months (or sooner) Trump will be able to take a well deserved golfing vacation as those he put up for appointments will be taking care of governmental business..



posted on Feb, 9 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join