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.

 

Justice Department reopens Hillary Clinton email investigation

page: 2
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Sillyolme

Oh please, anything about Hillary Trump supporters drool OVER, as if it changes anything regarding Trump.

There have been arrests made, indictment, and trumps team CLEARLY feel it is necessary to lie to the FBI. You don't lie to the FBI, unless you have something to hide. Common sense.

You bring Hillary's email up? What about Jr's?




This thread is about Hillarys emails, stop deflecting, you’re done son.
edit on 4-1-2018 by Arnie123 because: Somebody has to tell it...



+3 more 
posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: kurthall

What about Huma's emails? Oh right you all ignored that thread and it got buried. Deny ignorance my ass.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

😂😂😂

If you Google “FBI corruption history” you get inundated with the .Gov website links to combatting corruption, rather than a list of their own shenanigans in the past.

And of course a couple of links to the Bulger fiasco.

Nothing strange about that.




On topic;
As much as Hillary should be doing a bid, if there was any chance of that happening Obama would have pardoned her.
This is bread and circus crap. IMO.


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The Washington Post is on board.


Before Trump’s election, we didn’t know about FBI deputy counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok or his role in changing Comey’s Clinton testimony from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”; we didn’t know that he was not apolitical and that he would reveal his anti-Trump bias in texts to others; we didn’t know, as recent reports now confirm, that the FBI believed there was evidence that laws were broken when Clinton and her aides improperly transmitted classified information; and we didn’t know that Comey had drafted an exoneration of Clinton before she was even interviewed by the FBI. And, oh, by the way, when Clinton was eventually interviewed, her statements were not recorded and she was not under oath. Hmm.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Nuff said.


edit on 4-1-2018 by eisegesis because: silly people



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Rumor has it that HRC got an immunity deal before Obama left office.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

The other one that immediately comes to mind is the agent that got indicted out in Oregon. I think he caught a few counts of lying to investigators about whether he shot at Finnicum or not.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of the agents are good people and they do their jobs. But for somebody to advance the notion that they are all, to a man, somehow all that is pure and holy about justice? Nah, that's not gonna fly.

As to your last: as much as I'd love to see her catch a charge for doing what other, less powerful folks have wound up in prison for....I can't see it happening.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Nothing will come of it, Hillary will be just scoulded for her stupidity and she will cry that because she is a woman they should give her a break. I actually think that Hillary is bad, I think she strongly influenced failed policy back when Bill was in the whitehouse. Bill seems alright, just ask his female aides, they seemed to love him.

They will never throw a past president's first lady in prison, it just won't happen. She would have been there already if she would have been any normal government worker.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

The post is only so so.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Yeah and???
It's still going to be exactly the same. These people were doing their jobs they weren't trading states secrets for black money. Get a clue for crying out loud. You make them out to be the friggin James gang or something. It's really too funny.
edit on 142018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
Lets hope this story turns out to be true.


Let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true. The DoJ reopens the investigation and they happen to come to the same conclusion, which considering the evidence we do know of and past precedence it is quite possible, how will people react to that?

Will the Right Wing let it die, or will this become something that is used to bash the Left over the head for years, even though it had no bite whatsoever?



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Remember everyone, this should not be called an Investigation, it's just a Matter. Or at least that is what Lynch scared Comey into calling it.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

No they're not. You can call an apple an orange all day long but it won't change it into an orange. Sorry. That's trumps words coming out of your mouth. Familiar with the term puppet.


no puppet...



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah I demand and you guys fail to deliver. Some things never change lol.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Hillary is that you...do you come here for ideas on what might be loose threads and to anonymously defend yourself...I can't readily believe you're this delusional about something that has so much evidence in favor of being true.

Oh well...enjoy the show! You can deny on her behalf all you wish it won't change a thing and we all get to be entertained kinda like watching a train wreck in slow motion...its horrible but you can't help but watch.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah I demand and you guys fail to deliver. Some things never change lol.


If only we could present you the evidence in brail for the willfully blind!



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD



I can't readily believe you're this delusional about something that has so much evidence in favor of being true.


What exactly has so much evidence of being true?

What is the consequences of those actions?

If that evidence is available, why do they need to investigation it again?



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

No I hate snow. Thats why I moved here. This is a nightmare for this city.
Any new investigation is going to turn out exactly the same. Clinton didn't set up the server to commit crimes or hide anything. They did it for convenience. But when a new investigation reveals that you all will just call for another. Eleven #ing hearings on Benghazi...eleven.. Are we looking to beat that number on email investigations?



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


You can call an apple an orange all day long but it won't change it into an orange.


Yeah, I know.
Luckily for me I’m not doing that, instead I’m proclaiming the FBI to be corrupt.
Which is not remotely the same thing.


That's trumps words coming out of your mouth.


I’ve been calling the FBI corrupt long before POTUS was giving you those vivid nightmares you are having.


Familiar with the term puppet.


Absolutely.

Also familiar with Ad Hom. And hypocrite. And irony.
As well as the phrase “take a long hard look in the mirror”.


Bella Ciao!!!



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


She was cleared to receive anything Clinton chose to send her lap top.


Do you have a link showing who cleared her for this?


Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.
...
These officials all stated that they were not asked to approve or otherwise review the use of Secretary Clinton’s server and that they had no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff.
...
The pertinent testimony from the former Chief of Staff, who declined OIG’s request for an interview, reads as follows:
Q
Was anyone consulted about Secretary Clinton exclusively using a personal email address for her work?
A
I don't recall that. If it did happen, I wasn't part of that process. But I don’t believe there was a consultation around it, or at least there's not one that I’m aware of, maybe I should better answer that way based on my knowledge.
Q
So no private counsel?
A
Not that I'm aware of.
Q
Okay. The general counsel for the State Department?
A
Not that I'm aware of.
Q
Okay. Anybody from the National Archives?
A
Not that I'm aware of. But I can only speak to my knowledge, obviously.
Q
Sure. And anyone from the White House?
A
Not that I'm aware of.
(all emphases mine)

ESP-16-03 Office of Evaluations and Special Projects May 2016
Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of
Email Records Management and
Cybersecurity Requirements
(direct .pdf link)


Unless you can provide proof that specific permission was granted to have this information on nonsecured systems, you are lying.


+5 more 
posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah I demand and you guys fail to deliver. Some things never change lol.


Hardly.

You can't demand evidence, ignore the evidence, and then claim it was never delivered.

Time and time again you've demanded evidence of HRC's propensity for lying and when provided with direct, literal quotes of her doing so you blithely ignore them, then show up in a new thread demanding the evidence again.

That's not a failure of delivery, it's a failure of reception.

Lulz







 
64
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join