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.

 

Is This Loretta Lynch's Secret Alias?

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What exactly do you mean by official email? Even private e-mail addresses fell under the FOIA request - ACJL made sure to clarify this in their wording - though obviously those you could actually hide. My point is that the DOJ is obligated to disclose the emails no matter what the address is. It's not like using an alias magically takes away responsibility. And they don't just type in 'Loretta Lynch' when they search for emails, they still know it's her account. A rose by any other name, etc. It's no excuse. Of course the people answering a request could always commit a crime and hide stuff, but this business about aliases is a horrible red herring. Like I said, Lynch is identified in the e-mails. Not much of a secret alias, is it?

Unless you're saying Lynch hacked the DOJ IT-system and set up some sort of ghost-email? But they still use her real name in the text body? Must be hecka weird to be the IT guy at DOJ.




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What exactly do you mean by official email? Even private e-mail addresses fell under the FOIA request

I mean was she trying to hide, or not. I don't care if she changed emails or aliases for logical reasons.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

OK. Well, she isn't hidden in the emails, and there's nothing to hide in the content, so I don't see the point in this. Some of the other e-mails are interesting but this is a non-issue.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

OK. Well, she isn't hidden in the emails, and there's nothing to hide in the content, so I don't see the point in this. Some of the other e-mails are interesting but this is a non-issue.

Just because the attempt failed doesn't mean she didn't try. Obama claimed he had no idea about Clinton's server ... yet he was caught emailing it.

Being caught doesn't mean you weren't trying to hide. At this point it's not enough to say there was anything going on though .. other than what the emails show.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But there isn't any evidence of even an attempt to do anything, and she hasn't been caught trying to do anything. This is just muddying the waters. We keep having these "leaks" that turn out to be nothing, people get excited and think they're chipping away at the deep state, sharing their links and memes on social media, but it amounts to nothing. It's like thinking you can take out a tank by shooting a million peas at it, when what you need is one big round to pierce the armor. You can't replace quality with quantity, especially not in the a court of law. But if you want you spread confusion on the internet, in that case quantity is king.

If Lynch had claimed she didn't know anything about the Carlisle account, then there would have been reason to ask questions at least.




top topics
 
32
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join