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.

 

New Evidence: FBI Agent Dismissed from Mueller Probe Let Clinton Off & Opened Russia Probe!

page: 8
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Guys and gals Introvert is trolling don't swallow the bait.




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Guys and gals Introvert is trolling don't swallow the bait.


has to be. no one can be this obtuse I hope.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place


If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?


Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.



Can you prove proof she knew classified info was on the server?



Now you admit, she should have been charged.


Admit what? You say things like that when you try to shut down a debate.



Hillary signed a legal document stating she had been briefed.

That means, by her signature, that she knew what she was doing was wrong.

Plain and simple.


Ok. Let me ask again, did she know classified material was on the server and it was her intent to provide the server for such purposes?

You say it's plain and simple, but as we learned from how the email issue played-out, you were completely wrong.


No what we learned from how it played out was that many people felt that comey

1. Has no right to be the one deciding on what a prosecutor would feel, seeing as he was merely an investigator.

2. Many people were baffled by the amount of immunity deals handed out that led to nothing.

3. Many people felt that comey laid out enough to recommend prosecution.

We know with 100 percent certainty that the destroying of subpeonead.evidence occured and is a serious crime, and yet no one was charged.

We know the circumstances i, which Hillary,was interviewed were extremely strange.

And now we know that the interviewer was biased toward Hillary.

All of your twisting will not change that.


So you still have no evidence to support your claims.

Ok.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Notice how comey specifically separates intent from gross negligence.


Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way


Why would he do that if intent was necessary for gross negligence.

And expanding on what jaded quoted.


For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.


Notice he not only says any reasonable person would have known the material shouldn't have been discussed there, but he also clearly says some were flat out labeled classified.

Meaning yes, Hillary knew she was storing classified material in this way.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Now, I suppose one could argue that Comey is only speaking generally here when he refers to, "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position," and he wasn't referring to Hillary specifically. But the problem with that is you are then saying that the law would only apply to any reasonable person and not Hillary Clinton.


No. It would apply to Hillary as well.

Comey also said those matters are handled within the departments and not in court, unless a serious violation took place.



"Comey also said those matters are handled within the departments and not in court, unless a serious violation took place."

You obliviously do not think what she did was a serious violation.

Even the IG who started this mess said if he did what she did, he would be in Leavenworth.

That's a pretty damning statement coming from an IG.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Guys and gals Introvert is trolling don't swallow the bait.


has to be. no one can be this obtuse I hope.


Na. These points have been arguing many times before and the people you think I am trolling still cannot prove their claims.

The problem is they lack the ability to understand the differences that get a slap on the wrist, like what Hillary would have gotten if she were at the SD when these violations came to light, or someone like Patraues who knowingly and purposefully removed classified material, took it home and shared it with another person.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Perfectenemy

what's even more comical is he will tell you je doesnt or hasnt supported ole grandma pantsuit



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: RadioRobert



Can you prove she knew classified info was on the server


Yes. She sent and received material as Sec.State which a reasonable person would have cause to believe was classified. Especially the ones that still had headers on them.
.
Is this really your question?

That... and remember the emails where she told one of her people at the State Department to remove classification headers in order to send a document by nonsecure means?


Yep.




"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said in a July 5 statement.


There's that pesky reasonable person application again...

The "I'm just an idiot and had no idea what (C) meant" is the reason statutes are written the way they are.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Guys and gals Introvert is trolling don't swallow the bait.


has to be. no one can be this obtuse I hope.


Na. These points have been arguing many times before and the people you think I am trolling still cannot prove their claims.

The problem is they lack the ability to understand the differences that get a slap on the wrist, like what Hillary would have gotten if she were at the SD when these violations came to light, or someone like Patraues who knowingly and purposefully removed classified material, took it home and shared it with another person.


No offense, but I have no idea how you can sit there with a straight face and say the way she handled classified material would only warrant a "slap on the wrist"



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Sheer stupidity falls under the statute for gross negligence.

There no requirement for intent to be in violation of the law as it was written.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



By the same token, Hillary knowingly held classified material in places that are not designated as the proper place


If you could prove that, it would change everything.

The FBI couldn't prove it.

Can you?


Yes, she kept the info on a server at her house, and she knew it was there.

That is knowingly holding classified info in places that was not proper.



Can you prove proof she knew classified info was on the server?



Now you admit, she should have been charged.


Admit what? You say things like that when you try to shut down a debate.



Hillary signed a legal document stating she had been briefed.

That means, by her signature, that she knew what she was doing was wrong.

Plain and simple.


Ok. Let me ask again, did she know classified material was on the server and it was her intent to provide the server for such purposes?

You say it's plain and simple, but as we learned from how the email issue played-out, you were completely wrong.


Of course she knew. If she claims she didn't, then she was grossly negligent in the handling of classified information.


You keep bypassing the FACT that she signed a document stating that she was fully aware of the laws and regulations concerning the safekeeping and handling of classified information.


Ok. And what is the punishment for what she did? Even Comey said the vast majority of issues like that are handled internally, not in the courts.


That's not comeys call to make.

He was an investigator that's job was to determine rather or not the law was brolen, not what the punishment should be.

If we are going by what usually happens.

Usually, the fbi doesn't not record or take a transcript of suspects they interview.

Usually, they don't allow another person being investigated to sit in with an interview of the person being investigated.

Usually, immunity deals aren't thrown around like candy and result in no charges.

Usually, when someone destroys subpoenaed evidence they are charged.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Why would he do that if intent was necessary for gross negligence.


I cannot speak to that specific quote, but it is my understanding that gross negligence requires a voluntary disregard, which is intent to disregard, the rules in place, even though the intent is not to cause any "damage" in the process.



Meaning yes, Hillary knew she was storing classified material in this way.


That is not what that says. If he could prove that, she would have been indicted.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
As the world turns, so goes the spin on ATS.

Situation normal.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



You obliviously do not think what she did was a serious violation.


Neither did the FBI.



Even the IG who started this mess said if he did what she did, he would be in Leavenworth. That's a pretty damning statement coming from an IG.


How is that relevant?

Even Sessions said there was no reason to pursue this further.

That's pretty damning, right?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Keep squirming, it hilarious.

The statute says



(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense


Did she know the info being stored met that criteria?

Absolutely.


Still have no proof?

C'mon. Give us that proof.


I have proof in comey own words.

Not only did he say some of the documents were clearly marked classified, but he said any reasonable person would have known it was inapproriate to have the documents there.

You just chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit you narrative.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Is this the guy that Mueller dismissed in July of this year?

If so, did Mueller reveal this now, because the crooked FBI agent was about to be exposed by Judicial Watch or (one of the few) hard-working reporters?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Why would he do that if intent was necessary for gross negligence.


... it is my understanding that gross negligence requires a voluntary disregard, which is intent to disregard, the rules in place, ...


Your understanding is incorrect.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Guys and gals Introvert is trolling don't swallow the bait.


has to be. no one can be this obtuse I hope.


Na. These points have been arguing many times before and the people you think I am trolling still cannot prove their claims.

The problem is they lack the ability to understand the differences that get a slap on the wrist, like what Hillary would have gotten if she were at the SD when these violations came to light, or someone like Patraues who knowingly and purposefully removed classified material, took it home and shared it with another person.


No offense, but I have no idea how you can sit there with a straight face and say the way she handled classified material would only warrant a "slap on the wrist"


Honestly, I don't care either way. I just like debating the finer points.

It's a debate we've been having for some time and many of those I am being accused of trolling were dead wrong.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



You obliviously do not think what she did was a serious violation.


Neither did the FBI.



Even the IG who started this mess said if he did what she did, he would be in Leavenworth. That's a pretty damning statement coming from an IG.


How is that relevant?

Even Sessions said there was no reason to pursue this further.

That's pretty damning, right?


Carry on your nonsense. No point in debating with a brick.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



That's not comeys call to make. He was an investigator that's job was to determine rather or not the law was brolen, not what the punishment should be.


It's his job to make a recommendation. And he did so. The Obama DoJ agreed with their assessment.

Apparently, so does the Trump DoJ.




top topics



 
63
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join