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.

 

Clinton Campaign Chair Podesta Tipped Off on “Gross Negligence” Phrase BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED

page: 1
46
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+28 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
** Title was changed to fit **

BOOM! Hillary Campaign Chair Podesta Was Tipped Off on “Gross Negligence” Phrase BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED from Comey Statement!


Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, John Podesta, received an email from an advisor on March 9, 2016, which brought up the phrase “gross negligence” in regards to the FBI’s email investigation on Hillary Clinton. The email was sent to John Podesta on March 9th — via Wikileaks:



This was before the FBI agent in charge of the probe removed the phrase from her exoneration statement, according to WikiLeaks.


Click link for full article..

WikiLeaks: John Podesta Was Briefed On "Gross Negligence" Before FBI Removed Phrase From Clinton Exoneration

Podesta Emails #45924 (WikiLeaks)

In a March 2016 email from former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy to Clinton campaign chairman Podesta's Gmail account, Flournoy included links to two articles concerning the FBI email investigation; one from the Washington Post which minimized Clinton's actions, and a legal analysis from retired D.C. attorney Paul Mirengoff in which he suggests Clinton was "grossly negligent or worse" and may be in serious hot water. (h/t Mike)


.......


To summarize, former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Tina Flournoy sent John Podesta an email to his Gmail account on March 9, 2016 - with a Washington Post article containing a link to an opinion by a retired D.C. attorney who thinks Clinton committed Gross Negligence. Former FBI Director James Comey's original draft from May 2, contained the phrase, and at some point over the next eight weeks, Peter Strzok - the man who headed up the investigation, removed it - materially changing the legal significance of Clinton's actions, effectively "decriminalizing" her behavior when Comey gave his speech on July 5, 2016.




So once again we have verified proof the FBI colluded with the Clinton campaign to conceal Hillary Clinton's criminal acts. No wonder the left is going overboard on the Russia dossier and mental health narrative. We also have another case of conspiracy to break the law with the Podestaa's / Clintons / FBI.


ETA -

originally posted by: loveguy
Here's something to include yeah?

And yet, something felt odd about this.

Kadzik... Kadzik... where have we heard that name?

Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, "Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary's Benghazi Hearing" in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony?

It was Peter Kadzik.

www.zerohedge.com...



ETA - The article contains links to Wikileaks and Twitter that links to the relevant info.
edit on 10-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



+8 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Here's something to include yeah?

And yet, something felt odd about this.

Kadzik... Kadzik... where have we heard that name?

Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, "Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary's Benghazi Hearing" in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony?

It was Peter Kadzik.

www.zerohedge.com...
edit on (1/10/1818 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I must not be seeing it, but it looks to me like she's explaining the statute from a legal perspective rather than telling him that the Bureau is going to claim "gross negligence."

ETA - before anybody wets themselves over that comment, if I've missed it then by all means, point it out. I'm just not seeing that this is her tipping Podesta off. Also, what I found more interesting was her email to Podesta that "all the foreign money is in." That, imho, is extremely interesting.
edit on 10-1-2018 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Ummm...that's alright...I've determined to NEVER...EVER AGAIN...obey any laws...

I'm sure you can appreciate that sentiment in it's fullest...

Should the swamp of corruption truly be drained during my lifetime...then I'll reconsider that decision that was forced upon me by an overwhelming presentiment of innocence despite guilt...that the ruling class enjoys...



YouSir


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You have to review the wikileaks link as well as the twitter link which provides all the links and additional emails she sent to Podesta. Including an email that says if this is not handled properly it will blow up.

https://__._/podesta-emails/emailid/41433

twitter.com... campaign-chair-podesta-briefed-gross-negligence-phrase-removed-comey-statement%2F



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I hate to break it to you... no, actually I don't because it's on you to understand what you're presenting.

This is an email of an article from Washington Post.

Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server

For those who hit a pay wall, archive.is cache of the article.

Jesus. The Gateway Pundit is fake news garbage.

ETA:

And if you're wondering, the quoted text in the WaPo article excerpt is from the statute, 18 USC 793:


(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, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


T0p s3kr3t d33p St4t3 nf0z - DON'T SHARE BRO
edit on 2018-1-10 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.


+23 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.


She broke the law.
Podesta broke the law.

Whats difficult to understand? Being a loser does not grant a person immunity from prosecutions.


+10 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yup and as I pointed out the wikileaks link and twitter link in the article provides the info in question.

By the way 18 USC 793 (F) is the statute she violated with her gross negligence. Contrary to Comeys lies intent is not a requirement. However lets not re litigate that argument as this topic is podesta being tipped off to the Clinton coverup.
edit on 10-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.


President Trump can make suggestions, but he's not in charge of deciding who and who not to indict.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I read the twitter and wikipage linked from that twitter, but did not go to all the links that she included in the email. What am I missing? I don't see where she says it needs to be handled properly?

To be completely honest I don't see this as much different than when you, myself, or any of a half dozen other members that work in the justice system go through a statute and break it down for other members, and parse out specific words and phrases in layman's terms.

Believe me...I've said time and time again that I would love nothing more than to finally get something we can hang our hat on when it comes to criminal conduct by HRC....I'm just not seeing this as being some kind of smoking gun.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.


President Trump can make suggestions, but he's not in charge of deciding who and who not to indict.


Fair enough...

What government entity is going to indite her?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

What info? It's an article from the Washington Post. The GP fake news with its bogus title and your misguided OP try to mislead people into thinking that somebody in the FBI tipped off John Podesta to the language in Comey's statement.

None of that is true.

Tina Flournoy is Bill Clinton's chief of staff. She shared an article from Washington Post that quoted the text of the relevant statute.

Then you tried to salvage it somehow by muddying the waters with other unrelated emails that have absolutely nothing to do with the false claims you're trying to peddle in the OP.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.


She broke the law.
Podesta broke the law.

Whats difficult to understand? Being a loser does not grant a person immunity from prosecutions.


Until she is indited and tried by a jury of her peers she skates. same with P. As a cop, you should know this.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

From what I am seeing after rereading it a few times is she sent him the link to the article along with other links. She gave him a heads up on gross negligence and cited several cases, explaining how it would not apply, speaking directly to the intent fallacy.

The email is a bit difficult to sort out since it looks like one complete article piece when it is not. Now, if I missed something let me know.


From the last part of the email.

> The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous ” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections. > > My point here isn’t to praise Clinton’s conduct. She shouldn’t have been using the private server for official business in the first place. It’s certainly possible she was cavalier about discussing classified material on it; that would be disturbing but she wouldn’t be alone, especially given rampant over-classification. > > The handling of the emails is an entirely legitimate subject for FBI investigation. That’s a far cry from an indictable offense.

edit on 10-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.


She broke the law.
Podesta broke the law.

Whats difficult to understand? Being a loser does not grant a person immunity from prosecutions.


Until she is indited and tried by a jury of her peers she skates. same with P. As a cop, you should know this.


Yup - its why I corrected you on your "she lost the election leave her alone" position. Its nice to know though you do understand how the law works. Now we just need to work on understanding that the law applies to Clinton and Cronies along with everyone else.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.


President Trump can make suggestions, but he's not in charge of deciding who and who not to indict.


Fair enough...

What government entity is going to indite her?


A grand jury or a prosecutor signing off on charges.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You're wrong. Go to the Washington Post article (I linked it above). It's a straight copy-n-paste of the Washington Post article. The links you're seeing are all present in the article.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Xcathdra

You're wrong. Go to the Washington Post article (I linked it above). It's a straight copy-n-paste of the Washington Post article. The links you're seeing are all present in the article.


I cant get past the pay wall.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hillary lost ....

I fail to grasp the obsession with her. If Trump hasn't indited her by now; he's not going to.


She broke the law.
Podesta broke the law.

Whats difficult to understand? Being a loser does not grant a person immunity from prosecutions.


Until she is indited and tried by a jury of her peers she skates. same with P. As a cop, you should know this.


Yup - its why I corrected you on your "she lost the election leave her alone" position. Its nice to know though you do understand how the law works. Now we just need to work on understanding that the law applies to Clinton and Cronies along with everyone else.






"she lost the election leave her alone"


I didn't say that. Why are you putting words in my mouth. I said, I don't understand the obsession....
edit on 10-1-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
46
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join