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.

 

The point of cohens plea deal

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later.

The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests. Clinton’s team requested for the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena came. They also argued that all the emails that would be relevant to the subpoena had already been turned over to the State Department.


What crime was committed? Besides the one you wish for?



However, they have denied that they deleted the emails after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi on March 4, 2015. But an August 2016 FBI report on its investigation shows that Trump’s claim has some merit. Let’s take a look at the timeline of relevant events, according to the FBI report. (The most pertinent information is on pages 15-19 of this document.) Feb. 1, 2013: Clinton serves her last day as secretary of state. July 23, 2014: The State Department reaches an agreement with the Benghazi committee about producing records for its investigation into the 2012 attack on a U.S. embassy in the Libyan city. Oct. 28, 2014: The State Department sends an official letter to Clinton’s staff requesting "emails related to their government work." Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, and aide Cheryl Mills oversaw the review of Clinton’s email archives to produce work-related documents to the department. Dec. 5, 2014: Clinton’s team provides 55,000 pages of emails, or about 30,000 individual emails, to the State Department. Mills tells an employee at Platte River Networks, which managed the server, that Clinton does not need to retain any emails older than 60 days. March 2, 2015: The New York Times breaks the story that Clinton used a personal email account while secretary of state. March 4, 2015: The Benghazi committee issues a subpoena requiring Clinton to turn over all emails from her private server related to the incident in Libya. Between March 25-31, 2015: The Platte River Networks employee has what he calls an "oh s---" moment, realizing he did not delete Clinton’s email archive, per Mills’ December 2014 request. The employee deletes the email archive using a software called BleachBit. March 27, 2015: Clinton’s lawyers send a letter to the Benghazi committee saying that the State Department already has the relevant emails, as they were included in the Dec. 5, 2014, turnover. Trump’s timeline is correct. The congressional subpoena came on March 4, 2015, and an employee deleted the emails sometime after March 25, 2015, three weeks later.


is deleting evidence under Subpoena not a crime?

eta:
and these apparently are part of the one's she deleted, that were personal, and not needed for this investigation.
new clinton classified emails found from deleted data.

Enough games. this isn't up for debate, it's just you who seems you would rather not admit this happened. What vested interest do you have in repressing the facts?
edit on 22-8-2018 by network dude because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

Clinton’s staff received a subpoena for Benghazi-related emails March 4. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton’s emails three weeks later.

The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests. Clinton’s team requested for the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena came. They also argued that all the emails that would be relevant to the subpoena had already been turned over to the State Department.


What crime was committed? Besides the one you wish for?


Your own article answers your question.

evidence was subpoenaed, they deleted it afterwards.

Imagine this.

The fbi subpoenas my cell phone while investigating me for a crime.

Three weeks later, I destroy that cell phone.

'But I tell the fbi, its cool, i had planned on getting a new cell phone for 2 months now. And besides, take my word for it, you already had all of the relevant info from my phone.

I would be in jail in a minute.

Yet here, no charge from the fbi? I wonder why that is?

If you cant see how that is the fbi blatantly letting hillary off for breaking the law, then I am afraid you are not being objective.

I guarntee if trump deletes subpoanaed emails, you would be one of the first screaming that this was a crime, and wouldnt buy excuses that its cool cause he planned on doing it months earlier.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




is deleting evidence under Subpoena not a crime?


intent is everything - proving intention is key

Did she do this? Did she instruct someone to do it?

What crime has she committed?

Why hasn't she been charged with a crime? Deep State?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
Of course its a crime, and all of these hillary and intel agency defenders know it.

Imagine if this was trump that deleted these subpoenaed emails.

Do you honestly think people like that poster would say

"Oh its cool, we trust trump that he was going to delete them months earliuer, and there was nothing relevant there anyways"

Its beyond laughable that they even try to argue this,and yet here they are.

This is cut and dry; hillarys team broke the law, the fbi didnt charge her for it.

But none odf them seem to care about the double standard.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests.


According to the FBI, Hillary doesn't do anything intentionally, including lying, but most people aren't that ignorant.

The fact that Hillary stored any of her email communications in an unauthorized location (in her home on her own server), was breaking the law. Look it up.
edit on 22-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The russia collusion claim was a sham designed from the beginning by the FBI and later the mueller team to spy on trump connected people to get any dirt they could on trump, or if not him, people connected to him.


Russian intelligence services infiltrated the DCCC and DNC networks, stealing documents and emails. John Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager, was caught up in the phishing campaign of the same and had his emails stolen. All of this was strategically released during the election, in dozens of individual releases spanning months, to maximize efficacy.

While that hacking was ongoing, Paul Manafort joined the Trump campaign (March?) and by mid-May was running the campaign. Paul Manfort's immediate past was no secret even then. It was well known that his principal client was the Kremlin-backed Party of Regions/Viktor Yanukovych for a decade. ending sometime in 2015 (he stayed on with PoR after Yanukovych was ousted).

It's also well established that the Kremlin assisted Yanukovych in his crooked ass elections, quite possibly up to providing dioxin to poison his opponent (lab produced TCDD, one of the chief suspects fled to Russia where he was given citizenship to protect him from extradition).

Manafort's dealings with Deripaska were also in the public record, including importantly that there was a lawsuit against Manafort by Putin's pal Oleg which evidenced him being in the hole to his former benefactor to the tune of almost $20 million. We now know that he was in fact trying to leverage his position to "get whole" with a man who had once paid him $10 million a year to advance "the polices of the Putin government."

What part of that was a "a sham designed from the beginning by the FBI?"

Let's get real here. This is what is consistently ignored by Trump supporters. At the time Trump's opponent's party and campaign manager were being hacked by the Russians, a guy with this particular history, who had fairly recently been part of campaigns which received Kremlin assistance, was running Trump's campaign.

That alone is significant cause for suspicion. At the same time, you've got Trump publicly kissing Putin's ass at every opportunity and asking the Russians to "find Hillary's emails." I mean come on.

That's without getting into all the questionable contacts and without getting into anything Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were up to. Even if you believe that Papadopoulos was somehow setup, which I don't, even if you believe that Don Jr was setup, which I don't (and which as far as I know, doesn't appear to have been a meeting known to the FBI), who in their right mind would not be seriously concerned that there was some sort of coordination going on?

Not investigating would have been negligence.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: network dude




is deleting evidence under Subpoena not a crime?


intent is everything - proving intention is key

Did she do this? Did she instruct someone to do it?

What crime has she committed?

Why hasn't she been charged with a crime? Deep State?





Intent? well, enjoy your conversation. You certainly won this round. But it's OK, I didn't intend to win.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

are you also of the belief that Clinton did nothing wrong due to her lack of intent to do bad things?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I don't need to imagine anything - I posted that timeline for a reason

They aren't letting her off for breaking the law. They don't have the evidence to prove she intended to break the law


I guarntee if trump deletes subpoanaed emails, you would be one of the first screaming that this was a crime, and wouldnt buy excuses that its cool cause he planned on doing it months earlier.


I like things to be by the book - even for Trump. The Rule of Law - it's not something that's only a sometime thing for me when it works in my favor. As a matter of fact, I am not rooting for Trump to be done away with. I am rooting (like holy hell) for our country to come together, figure out what's going on, and to hold the correct people accountable if we can prove crimes were comitted

Trump and some of his affiliates (
!!! ) have used less than secure means dealing with (ahem) classified material

All in due time Gambler. But, whataboutism has nothing to do with anything, and your need to imagine my outrage has nothing to do with my question

The FBI announced just before the election that they were giving the whole email thing another look. Imagine my outrage ( I actually said out loud at my TV to Comey - as I was watching live - Christ, what have you done?)

So, which way was he playing it? For Hillary - or against?

To bring charges, you have to assume they know when they have the goods. Or - you assume everyone is corrupt and go from there. I know where I am - and I understand the crowd I'm addressing


edit on 8/22/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid the subpoena or other requests.


According to the FBI, Hillary doesn't do anything intentionally, but most people aren't that ignorant.

The fact that Hillary stored any of her email communications in an unauthorized location (in her home on her own server), was breaking the law. Look it up.

Infamously, one US Navy sailor was sent to prison just for taking a picture of the inside of the submarine he served on. There was no allegation he was a spy, or intended to do anything bad with the picture. That fact that he had the picture was a crime. But Hillary had multiple documents with much higher classification levels stored illegally, and she's free & clear.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined


That will become clearer.. but all that matters is what Federal Law States. I'm hearing that Cohen's lawyer screwed him. Maybe Cohen is not a very bright lawyer himself... like Avenatti.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Oh but wasnt russia at the same time releasing messages that were pro black lives matter, and lgbt issues? These were issues that would boost dmeocrats, and particularly hurt trump.

So while that was going on, hillary donor and campaign manager tony podesta's

"immediate past was no secret even then. It was well known that his principal client was the Kremlin-backed Party of Regions/Viktor Yanukovych for a decade. ending sometime in 2015 (he stayed on with PoR after Yanukovych was ousted).

It's also well established that the Kremlin assisted Yanukovych in his crooked ass elections, quite possibly up to providing dioxin to poison his opponent (lab produced TCDD, one of the chief suspects fled to Russia where he was given citizenship to protect him from extradition)"

but no need to investigate that, right?

It was also well known that fusion gps founder glenn simpson was in fact working for many of the same russian oligarchs that manafort is accused of working for. And we know simpson was heavily trying to stop trump from getting elected, and take down his presidency afterwards, with the help of a foriegn agent who was getting dirt on trump from kremlin sources, all paid for by hillarys team.

We also know that supposed investigaators such as brice ohr and mark warner were in contact with this foriegn spy and russian oligarch.

But no need to investigate that, right? I would arguie that to notb investigate would be negligence, wouldnt you?

In addition, after spying on carter page, and sending spies to the trump camp, it turns out that there is STILL no evidence of trump russian collusion.

SO the theory was in fact wrong.

We also know that when other campaigns or politicians are though to have been infiltrated by spies, the fbi doesnt send their own spies in, or wiretap people in that team.

A spy was in feinsteins employ for a decade, yet they just went to her and told her and helped her stop future infiltration.

Do you think that by the fbi telling feinstein about this spy instead of sending wiretaps and fbi spies, they were negligent?

Why is the fbi so negligent when it comes to investigating any foriegn collusion except when its trumps team?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


They aren't letting her off for breaking the law. They don't have the evidence to prove she intended to break the law.


That's BS too. All they had to do was read the memo that Hillary sent out to her staff on how to handle their email communications. It was all "do as I say, but not as I do". She was aware of the rules and chose to ignore them.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

I like things to be by the book - even for Trump. The Rule of Law - it's not something that's only a sometime thing for me when it works in my favor.


can you show me where "intent" in listed in regards to breaking the law? You know, by the book and all.

Oh, and can you show how Hillary Clinton was not briefed at any time in her government career about dealing with classified material?

Because she would need to be completely negligent regarding the law, in order to have her classified documents passing through an unsecured server at her home, and not have intent.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


They aren't letting her off for breaking the law. They don't have the evidence to prove she intended to break the law.


That's BS too. All they had to do was read the memo that Hillary sent out to her staff on how to handle their email communications. It was all "do as I say, but not as I do". She was aware of the rules and chose to ignore them.



Arguing these things is pointless as long as Trump/Sessions continue to take the easy way out.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


Arguing these things is pointless as long as Trump/Sessions continue to take the easy way out.


From my understanding, Hillary's email case has been re-opened. We'll see what happens.


edit on 22-8-2018 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You can spin it all you want.

The fbi gave hillarys team a list of subpoenaed emails they wanted. Three weeks later hillarys team deleted those emails. Thats a crime, period.

In addition...

The day before these were deleted, paul combetta, the man who would do the deleting who was hired by hillary, was on reddit under the name stonetear telling people that a "Very VIP" needed names taken off of email chains, and asking for help with it.

Then when he gets no real help, the next day, he just deletes the entire emails. This proves intent.

Hillarys defense is later that all of the deleted email were personal anyways, so it didnt matter.

we now find out that this is a lie, and several of the emails recovered were in fact classified.

Showing she lied about the emails to the fbi, which is a crime, and further shows intent.

Its a crime without the intent, and even, and her team certainly did have ibntent.



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No - I'm not going to bother. You either get this or you don't

About the unsecured server - in her home. Legal or not - I think that's a bigger story than anyone has been willing to touch on

But, we all have our theories :-)



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Then how come no charges Grambler?



posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Lanny davis, who is cohen lawyer, is a longtime clinton lawyer and supporter. His goal in this is not his clients best interest (in my opinion) but taking trump down and helping the clintons and democrats

You're wrong. ( in my opinion). It's against a lawyers code of ethics to not work in your clients best interest. He's working for Cohen.
You sound like trump trying to make any insignificant connection to the Clinton's so important.
He has the whole Mueller team as best friend democrats having sleep overs and barbeques and spending Christmas together drinking eggnog and singing carolers like they are all best buds. Most of them are lifelong republicans and have a working friendship with each other but no more. But trump will convince ya they're all in this together .




top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join