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.

 

FBI Court Filing Reveals Grand Jury Targeted Hillary Clinton

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
The title pretty much says it all... as in there really isn't much more info about the grand jury than that there was a grand jury which issued subpoenas.

Judicial Watch: FBI Court Filing Reveals Grand Jury Targeted Hillary Clinton

Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents including a declaration from FBI Special Agent E.W. Priestap, the supervisor of the agency’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email activities, stating that the former secretary of state was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.

The declaration was produced in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit seeking to force Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to take steps to “recover emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” and other U.S. Department of State employees (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rex Tillerson (No. 1:15-cv-00785)). The lawsuit was originally filed against then-Secretary of State John Kerry. The Trump State Department filing includes details of the agency’s continuing refusal to refer the Clinton email issue to the Justice Department, as the law requires.

In the filing Priestap declares under penalty of perjury that the FBI “obtained Grand Jury subpoenas related to the Blackberry e-mail accounts, which produced no responsive materials, as the requested data was outside the retention time utilized by those providers.”


The article does not specify if this is a standing grand jury or if it was called specifically for the investigation. It does not state the jurisdiction of the grand jury. It does not state the findings nor a verdict of the grand jury -- or even if the grand jury ever voted on charges.

But one thing caught my eye, which is that this FBI Special Agent Priestap, who was/is in charge of the investigation, is also cited as "the FBI Assistant Director assigned to ‘counterintelligence and counterespionage matters’."

I've been wondering if Hillary and her campaign and her people were surveilled by Obama's White House just like Trump... this would seem to provide Obama et al the same excuse of foreign collusion of some kind... so why not? Could provide some mighty fine blackmail material.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I don't see that it states the Grand Jury was dismissed. Could it still be active ?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

After initially being dismissed by the district court, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit was revived on appeal by a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on December 27, 2016.


It being almost May.

It's a done deal.

Which means it's over.

Clinton skated.

I bet their was grand jury tampering.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Nope, it doesn't say. It might depend on what type of grand jury it was. A standing grand jury is usually convened for a specified time, hearing all cases brought before it. I think one year is standard, and this was 2016, so it's possible. But some grand juries are convened to hear specific cases too, and aren't dismissed until the case is completed. We don't know about that either though.

So many questions left unanswered!!!

I was disappointed that the documents were not posted either. I'm assuming they wouldn't say they have them if they don't; so the fact they didn't post them makes me wonder why not?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Which means it's over.

Clinton skated.

I bet their was grand jury tampering.


Somehow I think you're right... but I don't think it was easy peasy over and done with. At least not for Clinton! She may have skated, but she's paying a price for it. (And I don't just mean losing the election.... but I don't know exactly what)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: whywhynot

Nope, it doesn't say. It might depend on what type of grand jury it was. A standing grand jury is usually convened for a specified time, hearing all cases brought before it. I think one year is standard, and this was 2016, so it's possible. But some grand juries are convened to hear specific cases too, and aren't dismissed until the case is completed. We don't know about that either though.

So many questions left unanswered!!!

I was disappointed that the documents were not posted either. I'm assuming they wouldn't say they have them if they don't; so the fact they didn't post them makes me wonder why not?


The DOJ simply declined to prosecute based on the FBI not finding intent. If intent was established now it could move forward. The current DOJ is looking into the actions of the FBI in that case. Could be a witch hunt by politicians, who knows.

Love to see the old witch locked up but I am not getting my hopes up.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Ha, wouldn't be surprised if the D's used the Grand Jury as a campaign bundling opportunity.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

*IF* a grand jury is investigating, it would not be public information legally. Also, JW's case doesn't mean the US attorneys office can not bring charges, thus needing the grand jury.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.


Exactly, and the new AG does not need to go on the FBI's "recommendation."



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot


Could be a witch hunt by politicians, who knows.


Or it could just be a dog-and-pony-show to make folks think they're actually doing something about it... and using it against Hillary themselves instead.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the Obama folks did their best to cover their tracks before the new admin came in, so they may not have much to go on.

I don't know what to think except that I don't trust any of 'em!



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

A grand jury did investigate.

But they sure don't last for four months going on five.

The wheels of justice move a hell of a lot faster than that.
edit on 27-4-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.


Thank you for saying that. I was pretty sure that was the case and just looked it up... and you're right, intent doesn't have to be proven. We know it happened, and that she should have known better. But I think I remember it being reported that she did not take a mandatory class on handling records and communications.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.


With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: JinMI

A grand jury did investigate.

But they sure don't last for four months going on five.

The wheels of justice move a hell of a lot faster than that.

Basic length for any single grand jury is eighteen months.

Investigations can and do span multiple juries if needed.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.


With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.


Grand juries don't need intent, that is for the prosecutors and petit juries to decide should the case go to trial.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




I've been wondering if Hillary and her campaign and her people were surveilled by Obama's White House just like Trump... this would seem to provide Obama et al the same excuse of foreign collusion of some kind... so why not? Could provide some mighty fine blackmail material.


Wasn't this based on some of the leaked emails from her server? Don't recall who the leak came from but it wasn't from an intelligence agency. She was going along with their program.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

I found this: grand jury length

In federal courts, a US Attorney may impanel a grand jury for 18 months, and can request a 6 month extension above that for a protracted investigation. Typically the grand jury meets three to five days a month.


So this grand jury could very well be convened for up to 24 months. But just 'cause it could be doesn't mean it is/was.


To bring the case to trial, the grand jury must return an indictment that is signed by both the prosecutor and the grand jury foreperson. Either side has veto power over the other. If the grand jury refuses to indict, the prosecutor can't act unilaterally; similarly, the grand jury isn't authorized to do anything without being first asked to do so by the prosecutor.


So the hands of the grand jury are tied even if they want to bring charges if the prosecutor refuses.

We really REALLY need to bring back the independent citizen grand jury!



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks for the research. And I agree, the prosecutor directs the Grand Jury into which ever way he/she wants it to go.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: whywhynot

intent is not a required element. That was a bs excuse they used to get clinton off the hook.


With all due respect, intent is a major element in proving a criminal case. Easily researched on google. Here is one Link

I certainly don't like it but it's what we got.


Grand juries don't need intent, that is for the prosecutors and petit juries to decide should the case go to trial.


But nevertheless intent would be necessary for a prosecution to be successful.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join