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.

 

House Launches Probe Into Comey's Handling Of Clinton Email Investigation

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
So what's happening today that needs distracting from? Well trumps lawyer is being interrogated by Bob Mueller today and a white house aide who met with some Russian aide to Putin.
Then the GOP disintegrating before trumps eyes as the worst deflection of personnel a first year president has ever faced occurs.



So you're saying that it's not just coincidence that both the Republican Senate and the House are opening investigations into the old dead horses Uranium One and Hillary's Emails?

Fascinating.




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I've read each of your posts in this thread and they are all filled with attacks/name calling and rudeness. Why don't you respond to the OP with reason, evidence or logic. Would really like to hear a counter argument



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Let me ask a different question: why is any one investigating an investigation.

I have heard multiple times from multiple ATS legal experts that the case against Clinton in the email server matter is "slam dunk."

Forget investigations ... the information is all in the hands of the FBI ... DOJ needs to indict her and let's get the show on the road.

It's a no-brainer, after all. That should make it very suitable for Jeff Sessions to handle, perfectly.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I've not read through your thread yet but I can imagine we'll have a good idea on how this will go depending on whom they recommend heading the investigation.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

According to the scuttlebutt, he's more concerned with horticulture. /shrug



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

According to the scuttlebutt, he's more concerned with horticulture. /shrug



He's still mad that some kewl dude got the girl back in college ...

Seriously though ... isn't the case against Clinton CRYSTAL CLEAR?

Wasn't Comey OBVIOUSLY WRONG?

What is holding up the indictment of Hillary Clinton? Trump threatened her with it ... surely it's time, right?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Given public information that is readily available, do you think there is any cause to look further into the implicit nature in the chain of command from Comey to Lynch and perhaps even Bill Clinton to how that whole think shook out?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

Given public information that is readily available, do you think there is any cause to look further into the implicit nature in the chain of command from Comey to Lynch and perhaps even Bill Clinton to how that whole think shook out?



Nah. That's mostly media narrative.

Seriously though ... the goods on Clinton are in the bank. All they have to do is indict her.

Why don't they?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You'd have to consult with Sessions. However, like I said, I think he's worried about plants.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

You'd have to consult with Sessions. However, like I said, I think he's worried about plants.


LOL ... I understand that you, personally, are probably not privy to the details of the Clinton Email Investigation.

But, unless I am mistaken, haven't you weighed in previously on the clear case against Clinton?

Am I misremembering that?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Clearly. I would love to see her behind bars. After a proper trial, directly after a grand jury indictment.

My biases don't carry any weight as to how the law works. I'd love to be financially comfortable and own a large plot of land, doesn't also mean that I can just take it or will it into fruition.

As to a clear case? I think there is a clear case to indict. If I'm not mistaken on my position on that anyway.

Enough about me.

Do you think there isn't enough, even publicly available, evidence to show cause for indictment?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
It is about time!

Only been a year since the election....

But better late than never!



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So much for my attempt at sarcasm eh? haha


For sure there's something there...you can't be secstate without getting your hands a little dirty, but not nearly as damning as most folks here would have others believe.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

You know as well as I do that the convictions under the legal structure proposed (what was it the Espionage Act?) are minimal.

As much as Comey's commentary and decision have been maligned for political purposes, I still tend to agree that the matter is one of precedent. That's a much stronger force in jurisprudence than most of us realize.

Clinton had servers in her home. She used private email. She received classified information on that email.

As I said long ago, I would guess that the nature of those "classified" emails ran along the lines of "the Sub-Assistant Deputy Ambassador from Ghana will be having tea at Delveccios' on Enterprise St. from 2-3 PM next Tuesday. "

I.e. they were classified at the time they were sent, but were of no moment afterward.

As well, you can be certain that a Clinton defense would note that it is well known that General Powell and Condolezza Rice used independent emails, as well as the 22 million or so that the Bush Administration (including those two) were keeping on a GOP server and "lost."

I agree with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor worth their salt would take such a case. However, there probably are some Republican zealots who would at this point, if only to claim that the system is stacked against them when they inevitably lost.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Gryphon66

So much for my attempt at sarcasm eh? haha


For sure there's something there...you can't be secstate without getting your hands a little dirty, but not nearly as damning as most folks here would have others believe.



Contrary to common delusion around here, I have always said that Clinton is a psychopathic liar, in point of fact, I believe that she's probably a lot more criminal than these silly right-wing tabloid conspiracies make her out to be ...

... and I would still rather have her as President than Trump.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Believe it or not, I basically agree with what you are saying.

However, the sticking point for me, and what you didn't mention, is deleting evidence asked for by the FBI.

To me, this was a step too far.

To blatantly bleach bit subpoenad evidence is unbelievable.

If Mueller would ask for documents from Trump or his team, and someone Trump was paying went online and asked people how to get a very VIP's name of of records, and then bleach bnitted those records the next day, liberals would be screaming bloody murder, and I would be right there with them.

This, in conjunction with the rest, was inexcusable.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




As I said long ago, I would guess that the nature of those "classified" emails ran along the lines of "the Sub-Assistant Deputy Ambassador from Ghana will be having tea at Delveccios' on Enterprise St. from 2-3 PM next Tuesday. " I.e. they were classified at the time they were sent, but were of no moment afterward.


HRC was the SoS. While I can certainly understand bending of laws for a greater good, I don't see this as an apt argument for that stance. My opinion.

She should be held to the highest of standards and the greatest of consequence when it comes to our laws and knowingly breaking them. Again, my opinion.

The defense of 'hey, look, others did it too,' is not a valid defense at all. It's the same as ignorance of the law.

Lastly, I don't think it is at all up to Comey to place himself into the know of what prosecutors should or shouldn't do and yes I remember Lynch saying that she would do whatever Comey recommended. Which is a bonkers idea IMO.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

All that being true (and not uncommonly believed on the Right) ... again I ask, why hasn't there already been an indictment?

Logic suggests there is a reason. My opinion.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I would share your outrage if it were not for the fact that the GWBush White House a) used a private server and b) lost 22 million emails under subpoena from Congress regarding our involvement in two wars killing millions.

That's not "tit-for-tat" ... that's recognition of a matter of SCALE.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Depends of what hat I'm wearing.

If my tinfoil is firmly attached it's because her and her group hold many dominoes that would set off a chain reaction of corruption. Not only here in the states but around the globe.

If I'm being honest with myself and removing as much bias as able, I would say they don't actually have enough admissible evidence and corroborating testimony to actually fit a statute.

Hasn't the game always been, 'it's now what you know, it's what you can prove?"



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join