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.

 

Proof that there is a DOJ investigation into the murder of Seth Rich?

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Some user on VOAT has a screenshot FOIA request submitted for information pertaining to the murder of SR:

imgur.com...




Notice the status rebuttals from agencies below in photo - specifically the Executive Office of United States Attorneys invocation of FOIA exceptions. Last line sticks out - There is an open criminal investigation (by the DOJ, this means its been taken out of the hands of MPD originally assigned to investigate) and ongoing Grand Jury proceedings. Also of note - the exceptions invoked to withhold info from FOIA request that are of note are as follows. Exemption 7 Exemption 7 of the FOIA, as amended, protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings (This is basically a legal admission that there is an enforcement proceeding taking place by the DOJ behind the scenes). (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis (Someone is singing or has additional information they are providing to push this investigation forward).


"Last line sticks out - There is an open criminal investigation (by the DOJ, this means its been taken out of the hands of MPD originally assigned to investigate) and ongoing Grand Jury proceedings."

I will include the link to VOAT if ATS allows, not sure how they feel about that.

This could have been made up, so to me the real proof is still to be had - however if this is a real document, you Dems better buy a new "belief in pure garbage" insurance policy because this could be very very bad for your mental health.

Hi Debbie! Murder anyone today for HRC?


edit on 14-12-2018 by Fools because: ...

edit on 14-12-2018 by Fools because: .




posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

I've lost my faith in the system...

To me "investigation" in this context actually means "cover up".



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools

Is it Trump's DOJ or hussein's DOJ ?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Fools

I've lost my faith in the system...

To me "investigation" in this context actually means "cover up".


as sad as it is, I think you are very, very close to the truth. And those who are cheering now, will eventually realize how stupid they were today.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

I hate to be "that guy", but when you put the word "proof" in the thread title, and then you backtrack on how "truthful" you find the information, it looks kind of weird. Plus, "Proof" is rarely seen here.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Proof is rarely accepted even when provided.

I say you were not born. I say you were hatched from an egg. Now prove me wrong!
  • You have a birth certificate? No good... who was that doctor who signed it? Did he really exist? Maybe that birth certificate was made up in a graphics program.
  • Oh, these are your parents, and they say you were born? I don't think so... there's not enough family resemblance, and even if there were, that's not proof they're your parents.
  • Eyewitnesses? Who are these people? What connections might they have that makes them want to lie for you?
  • Oh, you found the doctor? How do we know he's even a doctor? Those medical degrees could have been forged!
You see the issue? Even something as obvious as to whether or not a person was born can be challenged, and in today's topsy-turvy world even the most ludicrous rebuttals are considered realistic.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

THat is why there is a question mark at the end.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, that is why you should never ever talk to anyone in an investigative position without a lawyer. Even if you have to wait for them to appoint one.

Besides that being smart, its damn sexy.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: Fools

I've lost my faith in the system...

To me "investigation" in this context actually means "cover up".


I think everyone is getting really tired of it. I myself have decided I will leave a week of vacation free this year just in case I need to grab a pitchfork and join in some "celebrations".



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools

We will see....... Anyone can print up something like that.

Maybe the mainstream press will do the same FOIA and report that?


Crickets ......







 
13

log in

join