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 FOIA Documents Reveal FBI LOST Chain of Custody of Hillary’s Server for Five Weeks

page: 9
67
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
New bombshell documents released by the FBI.

Looks like Hillary Clinton's private system server was "lost" for a period of time.



The document doesn't say that.
The server was at the FBI Operational Technology Office the whole time.
The Special Agent who picked it up Couldn't find the "Chain of Custody" document that accompanies it, so he started a new one.
Gateway Pundit is fake news.
This OP is very, very, sad desperate.

You guys can scream about a lost slip of paper that accompanied a hard drive for an investigation that exonerated a woman who is no longer even running for any office...and YET spend your days defending the most corrupt and dishonest man to ever set foot in the Whitehouse.

Between Russian Collusion, Emoluments Clause Violations, Felony Campaign Finance violations and a cabinet stacked with a variety of outright criminals spending money on 50k phone booths and 100k office doors and 100k trips to Europe etc. etc. etc. ANY GIVEN DAY in the Trump administration makes HRCs email server look like j-walking compared to Bank Robbery.

Very, very sad that you guys cling so desperately to things like this.

edit on 7-5-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Your objection has been raised and dealt with in this thread already.

Hilarious though that all of you anti trumpers no so little about the law that you find losing chain of custody of this most important piece of evidence in the case not a big deal.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
The server was at the FBI Operational Technology Office the whole time.

Actually that is incorrect. The way you prove that is with the chain of custody, which they do not have. We have no idea where it was for those 5 months. If you think we do, then please tell me by what methodology we prove the server's location and then prove it.

The real problem is that where the server was is actually meaningless. Whether it was there or not is moot because ANY AND ALL evidence obtained after the Chain of Custody was lost is inadmissable.
edit on 7-5-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hilarious though that all of you anti trumpers no so little about the law


Well, at least we "know" how to spell the word "know"?

The server was never lost.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Then reply to my previous post, interesting how you ignored it.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hilarious though that all of you anti trumpers no so little about the law


Well, at least we "know" how to spell the word "know"?

The server was never lost.


Yep I am a bad typer

Better than being a shill cheering for corruption



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus
The server was at the FBI Operational Technology Office the whole time.


The real problem is that where the server was is actually meaningless. Whether it was there or not is moot because ANY AND ALL evidence obtained after the Chain of Custody was lost is inadmissable.


The Chain of Custody slip is not doubt in some file at the FBI Tech Ops center.
It was never searched for in earnest because it never needed to be "admissible".
No doubt if Clinton was charged they would have tracked down the Chain of Custody slip in preparation for trial.

You guys are wild in the way you get all frothy in the mouth over the littlest things about a CONCLUDED investigation that resulted in NO CHARGES for a woman that is not even running for office.

You should take a look at the person who IS in office.




edit on 7-5-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hilarious though that all of you anti trumpers no so little about the law


Well, at least we "know" how to spell the word "know"?

The server was never lost.


Yep I am a bad typer

Better than being a shill cheering for corruption



No doubt, you are both.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hilarious though that all of you anti trumpers no so little about the law


Well, at least we "know" how to spell the word "know"?

The server was never lost.


Can you (or anyone) legally prove it was there for that entire 5 months? See, that is the whole point to "chain of custody". It provides LEGAL proof of where and who has access to evidence. It is a way of assuring that evidence is not tampered with before being reviewed.

But, I know you are smart, and you already know this, so either you are blinded by your political affiliations or are an outright making false statements here.

SO, which is it?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


actually where it is at is much less important than who had access to it, without a solid chain of paper work involving that every single piece of electronic evidence that could be used from it is now considered suspect.

The chain of evidence requirement is much stricter with electronic evidence rather than just physical evidence.
edit on 7-5-2018 by Irishhaf because: forgot a word



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hilarious though that all of you anti trumpers no so little about the law


Well, at least we "know" how to spell the word "know"?

The server was never lost.


Can you (or anyone) legally prove it was there for that entire 5 months?


WHY?

Is that evidence being challenged in a court case somewhere?

You are asking defense attorney questions for a trial that never happened for an investigation that found nothing criminal and cleared HRC.

If DOJ was going to bring it trial, they would have sent an SA to the FBI Tech Ops center to find the original slip.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Maybe starting with the name UNBI ( United Bureau of Investigations) ?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hilarious though that all of you anti trumpers no so little about the law


Well, at least we "know" how to spell the word "know"?

The server was never lost.


Can you (or anyone) legally prove it was there for that entire 5 months?


WHY?

Is that evidence being challenged in a court case somewhere?

You are asking defense attorney questions for a trial that never happened for an investigation that found nothing criminal and cleared HRC.

If DOJ was going to bring it trial, they would have sent an SA to the FBI Tech Ops center to find the original slip.


You said it yourself (see bold above). If there were to be a trial, and this presented as evidence, then the chain of custody of what could be a key piece of evidence has now been tainted. This opens a legal loophole for the defendant (as you also stated I was sounding like).

Just because there has not been a trial yet, does not mean the evidence has been released. It is being sotred at the FBI in the event it is needed in an trial as evidence. Otherwise, it would have been released to the owners by now, wouldn't it? Right?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Are we really still having this discussion?


The point: Digital evidence is evidence. It can have real impact on legal proceedings. So just as with physical evidence, it’s essential that law enforcement maintain a clear, documented chain of custody, just as it would for any other physical evidence. From the moment evidence is obtained, a trail must document how it has been handled, by whom, and for what purpose.

...

Without the right protections, digital files can be easily deleted, edited, even fabricated. So documenting a digital chain of custody is all the more important. A compromised chain can undo a legal proceeding and lay waste to years of investigation. And all a defense attorney has to do is successfully raise concerns about potential tainting of evidence – that alone is enough, let alone demonstrating actual taint.

Likewise, growing public skepticism about law enforcement raises the stakes for agencies to ensure that their handling of evidence is beyond reproach. “Chain of custody is the backbone, the foundation of everything that we do when handling evidence of any type,” said Dustin Sachs, a managing consultant in the legal technology solutions practice at Navigant Consulting.

...

For the FBI, the chain of evidence begins with hardware – the physical hard drive, phone camera or other device that may house evidentiary data. That hardware is tagged and locked up, and must be logged in and logged out by anyone who wants access to it.
All emphases mine

Chain of Custody: How to Ensure Digital Evidence Stands Up In Court

No, there has not been a trial.

How could there have been considering the one being investigated got, "an HQ special?"

Let's say that new blood comes in and finds that there is indeed enough evidence to support prosecution. What happens to any evidence that is sourced from that server? The defense will challenge the chain of custody and likely have any and all evidence derived from the serve suppressed.

Funny how that works...



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Hmmm. . . .

Sounds like an "Insurance Policy" to me.


Now where have I heard that term before?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hilarious though that all of you anti trumpers no so little about the law


Well, at least we "know" how to spell the word "know"?

The server was never lost.


Can you (or anyone) legally prove it was there for that entire 5 months?


WHY?

Is that evidence being challenged in a court case somewhere?

You are asking defense attorney questions for a trial that never happened for an investigation that found nothing criminal and cleared HRC.

If DOJ was going to bring it trial, they would have sent an SA to the FBI Tech Ops center to find the original slip.


Just because there has not been a trial yet, does not mean the evidence has been released.


The DOJ concluded it's investigation over a year ago. They issued a full conclusion of no criminal wrongdoing.
REALITY...it's good for the brain.



It is being sotred at the FBI in the event it is needed in an trial as evidence. Otherwise, it would have been released to the owners by now, wouldn't it? Right?



Explain precisely why you believe the FBI still has the server?
Credible sources with appropriate dates please.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

What they said was she did in fact do it, but because they thought she did not really mean it they would not prosecute. The investigation conclusion was in fact she did it though, that the wrongdoing did occur.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: soberbacchus

What they said was she did in fact do it, but because they thought she did not really mean it they would not prosecute. The investigation conclusion was in fact she did it though, that the wrongdoing did occur.


Wow.

Move on.

Sad, desperate, OBSSESED.

Investigation over, no charges.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Remember too, Comey testified that Hillary had 4 servers.

And multiple devices.

Wait for those FOIAs to hit.

((((( 😀 )))))



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: soberbacchus

What they said was she did in fact do it, but because they thought she did not really mean it they would not prosecute. The investigation conclusion was in fact she did it though, that the wrongdoing did occur.


Wow.

Move on.

Sad, desperate, OBSSESED.

Investigation over, no charges.

Great response to me proving your post wrong.




top topics



 
67
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join