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.

 

The Facts: Loretta Lynch's "Assurances" Hillary Investigation "Won't go too Far"

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

There is no evidence.

Even the hack itself, they refused the FBI and other agencies access. Everything we know about the hack literally comes from the DNC via 3rd parties they hired and themselves.




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Well, since this involves the Russians (Russian intelligence document) and possible collusion (Lynch, Comey, DWS, Benardo and Renteria)...it MUST be taken seriously and investigated.


Not only that, but it should be a focus of the Special Counsel.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Boadicea

I guess the obvious question would be....
If the Russians wanted to make Hillary look bad, why wouldn't they have made this email public? Even if it was fake, wouldn't they have released it?

I mean, if they created it, what did they create for.... if not to release it?


Good questions. It just doesn't add up.

Likewise, if this is a real email, then why didn't it show up in the Wikileaks email dumps with other DNC and Clinton emails? Especially if Russia was really behind those dumps? What reason would they have to withhold that email?


The email could have been after the the major hacks.

Wikileaks have Clinton email from her private server only up to March 2016.
The DNC hack contained emails up to June 2016.

When was the alleged document/email supposed to have been written?

edit on 26/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Boadicea

You forgot to mention she met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.

You forgot to mention she told Comey to not call it an investigation.

You forgot to mention she refused to assign a special prosecutor as she should have.


No, I did not "forget." Do note the very specific and very focused title of my thread: The Facts: Loretta Lynch's "Assurances" Hillary Investigation "Won't go too Far"

If I had wanted to write about Loretta Lynch's involvement in general, and if I had intended to do so, then I would have.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Hmmm... good point -- thank you.

According to the NY Times article:

...the discovery last year of a document written by a Democratic operative...


So sometime in 2016...

According to the WaPo article:

In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary season...

and

...Comey relied on the document in making his July decision...


That would seem to leave a very small window between the last of the DNC emails until whatever day in July Comey made his decision.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: UKTruth

Hmmm... good point -- thank you.

According to the NY Times article:

...the discovery last year of a document written by a Democratic operative...


So sometime in 2016...

According to the WaPo article:

In the midst of the 2016 presidential primary season...

and

...Comey relied on the document in making his July decision...


That would seem to leave a very small window between the last of the DNC emails until whatever day in July Comey made his decision.


That window would be about 6 weeks or so... had a scan through the DNC emails and the last appears to be the end of May.
What is interesting is that Grassley in his letter to Lynch spoke of a letter citing an April New York Times article about a batch of hacked files obtained by the FBI, including one reportedly authored by a Democratic operative who voiced confidence Lynch would keep the Clinton probe from going too far. ....

Could it be that all the hacked files never made it to the public? Something still doesn't add up... if there were other hacked files, they surely would have been made public, then again perhaps there was never a hack of this email and it had been leaked to the NYT from an internal source?

edit on 26/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
From the NYT article that Grassley was referring to :


During Russia’s hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention. The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.


Looks like it might have been earlier than July.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


...about a batch of hacked files obtained by the FBI...


Excellent catch!!!


Could it be that all the hacked files never made it to the public?


Yes, I'd say it's more than possible:

...the State Department announced that 22 of Clinton’s emails contain “top secret” information. That’s a far higher number than had previously been disclosed. The agency’s Freedom of Information Act department is withholding seven email chains in full in order to protect the highly classified information.

State Dept. Withholding 18 Emails Between Hillary, Obama [VIDEO]

And there's this too:

The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.

Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Looks like it might have been earlier than July.


Grrrrr..... so many vague weasel words!!! This is one of the reasons it all seems so contrived to me!!! Maybe there really was such a report about such an email -- or maybe not -- but someone is sure playing it for all its worth.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't have any idea what you mean, those are all facts and are all directly related to the topic.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't have any idea what you mean...


Yeah, ya do. You know exactly what I meant, you just don't agree -- hence your very direct argument against the very point I made that you claimed to not have "any idea" what I meant. Sheesh.


...those are all facts and are all directly related to the topic.


No, the meeting on the tarmac, etc., are not at all relevant nor pertinent to this OP. Because this OP is focused on one specific allegation -- not the entire investigation.

But yes, the meeting on the tarmac, etc., are all relevant and pertinent to the investigation.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: six67seven



Lynch is dirty. She has aligned herself with the Clintons (who are the dirtiest of all). She met Bill on the tarmac (thankfully, it was only to discuss grandkids and whatnot). She told Comey to use 'matter' instead of 'investigation'.


I have no doubt that Lynch is dirty.... but I don't think she was taking her marching orders from Clinton. Rather I think she was doing the bidding of her boss, Obama. I could be wrong of course. But other than party loyalty, I cannot find any connection between Lynch and Clinton. They weren't even serving in the White House at the same time -- Lynch was appointed to her position after Clinton left the State Department.

I just can't see Lynch doing anything for Hillary unless she was instructed to do so by her boss, Obama. And, therefore, anything she did would have been done for Obama's benefit, and Hillary only benefited because it was best for Obama.


Why would she need to be ordered to do anything if her motive was as simpple as just trying to keep her job.

There was still a pretty good chance that she'd stay as AG for awhile under Clinton.
There was ZERO chance of that under Trump.

Again, this is only speculation on motive and not evidence of anything, though.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: essentialtremors


Why would she need to be ordered to do anything if her motive was as simpple as just trying to keep her job.


Another good point! That would be quite the incentive for Hillary (if she had won) to keep Loretta Lynch right there. Who better to have in that position to continue protecting her?

Indeed, Lynch could protect the party, the candidate and herself all at the same time.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.


edit on 26-6-2017 by Boadicea because: clarity



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't have any idea what you mean...


Yeah, ya do. You know exactly what I meant, you just don't agree -- hence your very direct argument against the very point I made that you claimed to not have "any idea" what I meant. Sheesh.


...those are all facts and are all directly related to the topic.


No, the meeting on the tarmac, etc., are not at all relevant nor pertinent to this OP. Because this OP is focused on one specific allegation -- not the entire investigation.

But yes, the meeting on the tarmac, etc., are all relevant and pertinent to the investigation.

Except you're wrong. It's likely they talked about how they were shutting down the investigation so it won't go far.

Refusing to assign a special prosecutor is evidence she was preventing the investigation from ever really starting.

Telling Comey to not call it an investigation goes directly to her having already decided it was going nowhere.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: UKTruth


Looks like it might have been earlier than July.


Grrrrr..... so many vague weasel words!!! This is one of the reasons it all seems so contrived to me!!! Maybe there really was such a report about such an email -- or maybe not -- but someone is sure playing it for all its worth.


Yes there's a lot of references but nothing specific...
One thing we do know though is that Comey said he would answer Grassleys questions in closed hearings, which they had... Would Grassley have put this reference in his letter to Lynch if Comey had told Grassley there was nothing to it?



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


One thing we do know though is that Comey said he would answer Grassleys questions in closed hearings, which they had... Would Grassley have put this reference in his letter to Lynch if Comey had told Grassley there was nothing to it?


Well, a conscientious investigation would leave no stone un-turned, so there's that. And it might depend on Grassley's personal opinion of Comey and whether he trusted Comey's word. And of course we don't know what agenda Grassley might have. But there's no doubt Grassley thought there was something worth investigating further or those letters to the principals would not have been issued and there would be no probe.

I haven't seen anything to rule out the possibility yet that the fundamental claim is true -- that the FBI obtained a Russian report which included a description of this email -- but whether Comey thinks it's legit or not, Comey may be using it to throw Lynch under the bus to protect himself. So who knows what Comey told Grassley? It could be anything.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join