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: 9
63
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
If Strzok hasn't been flipped already..he soon will be.



He needs to be charged with obstruction, not demoted.








posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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.


Oh so just disregard what comey said when it doesn't fit your narrative. Gotcha.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



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.


Do you have proof it came from Hillary and she knowingly passed those emails around?



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


What narrative?

I'm arguing about definitions and specific points. You are the one arguing because of the person involved is someone you don't like.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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.


You mean lynch who met with Bill in secret in the tarmac agreed hillary and refused to recuse herself made the ultimate call, and she chose not to prosecute?


Hahahaha!



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

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.


Still salty, Rick?

I understand. You were wrong and saved up all that popcorn for nothing.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Oh so just disregard what comey said when it doesn't fit your narrative. Gotcha.


No. I simply cannot claim to know exactly what he meant when he said it.

Do you disregard what Sessions said on this issue because it does not fit your agenda?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Just out of curiousity but is it even legal for a FBI agent to change director Comeys letter? That sounds way out of line.


Comey needs to be charged with obstruction also, maybe sedition too.

Disbarred and put in jail.

Friggin Russians got to the FBI and the dems. Collusion!!





posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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.


You mean lynch who met with Bill in secret in the tarmac agreed hillary and refused to recuse herself made the ultimate call, and she chose not to prosecute?


Hahahaha!


So what's your excuse for the Trump DoJ?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Legally speaking, negligence does not require intent. It is a standard indicating that one, although not intending to cause some particular harm, was so careless that one should have know it was likely or could possibly occur.
edit on 4-12-2017 by timequake because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-12-2017 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



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.


Do you have proof it came from Hillary and she knowingly passed those emails around?



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


What narrative?

I'm arguing about definitions and specific points. You are the one arguing because of the person involved is someone you don't like.


Ok so what if it wasn't hillary.

Then whoever it was should be charged.

The same way that whoever destroyed subpoenaed evidence should be charged.

But no one was.

Just to wrap this up,

We now know the guy that interviewed hillary, and that changed the term gross negligence was biased toward Hillary.

We have evidence of at least two crimes even if they weren't neccessarily committed directly by hillary (though I feel at least one was)

Mishandling classified info and destroying subpeonead evidence.

And yet no one was charged.

So yes, this does bring into question rather the bias influenced the investigation.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

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.


Still salty, Rick?

I understand. You were wrong and saved up all that popcorn for nothing.


Whatever dude...carry on with your nonsense.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Oh so just disregard what comey said when it doesn't fit your narrative. Gotcha.


No. I simply cannot claim to know exactly what he meant when he said it.

Do you disregard what Sessions said on this issue because it does not fit your agenda?


No I will listen to anything he said. Was sessions in charge of this investigation? Huh, I missed that.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: introvert

Legally speaking, negligence does not require intent. It is a standard indicating that one, although not intending to cause some particular harm, was so careless that one should have know it was likely or could possibly occur.


What about gross negligence?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Still no proof of your claims.

Ok.


edit on 4-12-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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.


You mean lynch who met with Bill in secret in the tarmac agreed hillary and refused to recuse herself made the ultimate call, and she chose not to prosecute?


Hahahaha!


So what's your excuse for the Trump DoJ?


They suck?

I don't know. Who cares?

I am sure if sessions or anyone else reopens the investigation into hillary, many on the left will cry it just political and they should let it go.

Lynch was in charge of the investigation That happened.

She had a conflict of interest.

Funny, I don't recall you being upset that she had the final say.

Almost like you weren't really interested in a serious investigation.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Grambler

Nailed my thoughts entirely.

Despite any/all biases the fact that this one individual is at the center of so much hackery goes against all known fundamentals of an investigation.

I didn't think I could have any more disgust for our government agencies.


This was from another thread but I think it fits here.

Look at how divided the country is right now.

Mueller and the fbi had to know that they needed to be as impartial and on the up and up as possible for the public to have faith in what ever decisions they came to in their investigations into trump and russia.

Instead we have meetings on tarmacs,

refusals to recuse,

the same agent being in charge of almost ever crucial point in both investogations, and him having an affair and discussing his dislike of trump and liking of hillary,

unprecedented immunity deals that produced no further prosecutions,

comey acting as a prosecutor instead of investigator,

comey announcing some investigations and not others,

unprecedented leaks against trump,

comey leaking to ensure a special prosecutor into trump,

Stonewalling congressional Questions on the investigations,

And many other things.

There is no faith in these agencies at this point.

And so, whatever conclusions they reach, no one will be swayed by it.

It is time to clean house at these Intel agencies.

They have grown too political and out of control


Yes.

They are not a government unto themselves no matter how they think they are above the law.

Congress has ultimate authority over the DOJ.

Arrest them all, screw the left. I'd show them a witch hunt they won't believe.

Undermine the rule of law and our democracy? Say your prayers, mofo!




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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.


You mean lynch who met with Bill in secret in the tarmac agreed hillary and refused to recuse herself made the ultimate call, and she chose not to prosecute?


Hahahaha!


So what's your excuse for the Trump DoJ?


Clearly they were misled. The pissed off HIC and Nunes proved that already. They got stonewalled for months and thus didn't have all the facts. They will now launch another probe with probably Peter Strzok in the hot seat. Strzok could implicate other high ranking people and i'll laugh my ass off because no matter what they do it always backfires like the Flynn calls who were approved by the Obam admin. Goddamn these people are retarded at chess. Maybe they should play checkers instead.

edit on 4-12-2017 by Perfectenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Still no proof of your claims.

Ok.



I am starting to wonder if you know how a discussion works.

Wjem someone shows proof, and you just say there is no proof, that is not a sufficient answer.

Are you claiming subpoenaed evidence wasn't destroyed?

Then you are grossly misinformed, or a liar.

Which is it?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
An interesting FBI Vault doc....Strzok was looking for a very particular email it would seem...



Likely the email where Clinton requested that docs be sent "nonpaper" and stripped of markings....kinda shows intent methinks....

Her email said:


“They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax,” Sullivan says. “They’re working on it.”

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton responds.


edit on 12/4/17 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



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.


Do you have proof it came from Hillary and she knowingly passed those emails around?
.


She didn't need to pass them around or write them. It's completely irrelevant. First, a reasonable person would have been aware that an unsecured server was not the place for discussions which might contain it (as Comedy admits), and second, when she saw it and didn't immediately report it, it became it's own violation.

They didn't release who disseminated all the classified emails, but there is the pesky request from HRC to remove headers (for the purpose of, with the intent to) disseminate them nonsecure.


We know no formal report of the multiple violations took place because that would have been her best, easiest, most sound legal defense when it came up. "I reported it immediately when I saw it". Boom, she skates. Instead we got blanket denials anything classified was there. Then it was "not classified at the time". Then it was "not marked classified". Then it was "C for alphabetical order? I didn't pay much attention to levels of classification"




top topics



 
63
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join