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.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: IAMTAT
This was before the "investigation" was complete?
Orders from Obama DOJ...back when FBI was considering charging HRC.
originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: shooterbrody
That's pretty much it.
Just like when Obama ordered the stand down when they detected Russians trying to meddle in the election.
The House of Cards Is Falling.
originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: UncleTomahawk
"Gross negligence could have only been charged if the information was stolen."
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: shawmanfromny
Just confirming what everyone already knew.
Obama's administration will be remembered as the most corrupt in American history.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: IAMTAT
This was before the "investigation" was complete?
Orders from Obama DOJ...back when FBI was considering charging HRC.
originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: UncleTomahawk
"Gross negligence could have only been charged if the information was stolen."
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
What do you base that on?
The link to the law was posted on the previous page.
If i remember right it is section f that does not include intent and it deals with gross negligence and says that theft has to occur.
Other sections deal with improper storage and such but all those sections have intent written in.
I am interested in what i am missing if you see something i am getting wrong please correct me with something more than a simple you are wrong.
originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: RickinVa
You need to point out where it says it has to be stolen only....it also says lost, abstracted or destroyed....
Did any of that happen?
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shawmanfromny
Where were these supposed transcripts obtained?
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shawmanfromny
Where were these supposed transcripts obtained?
The transcripts were not "obtained" (you know like something CNN would say).
They were "released" by a Congressman on a government website:
Day 1 Transcripts
Day 2 Transcripts
All real and all legal 😎
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: RickinVa
You need to point out where it says it has to be stolen only....it also says lost, abstracted or destroyed....
Did any of that happen?
Sure did....she had TS/SCI emails on an unclassified server. 100% in violation of the law.
Richard Scott
Director of Investigations at HP Inc.
Washington, District Of Columbia
Law Enforcement
Current
HP Inc.
Previous
U.S. Department of Justice, Williams & Connolly LLP, Judge Michael M. Baylson, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Education
Columbia Law School
The Justice Department’s chief spokeswoman confirmed to Yahoo News that at least two political appointees — Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates — will review the recommendations of career prosecutors and agents before any final determination is made.
“They all expect to receive and accept the recommendations,” Melanie Newman, the Justice Department’s chief of public affairs, said when asked about the role of Carlin and Yates, both of whom are appointees of President Obama. “But it is true they will all be in the process.”
Asked if either Carlin or Yates could overrule the recommendations of FBI agents and career prosecutors, Newman replied: “It is unlikely there will be such a circumstance. But, obviously, that possibility exists.” And, she added, “The AG is the ultimate decider.”
...
The investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server has been overseen by Richard Scott, the deputy chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, who ultimately reports to Carlin.
The report also reveals previously undisclosed instant message conversations between two FBI agents involved in the Clinton probe who were dating at the time and have since married. They are identified only as “Agent 1” and “Agent 5.”
Agent 1 was one of four case agents assigned to the Clinton investigation and one of two who participated in Clinton’s FBI interview. Agent 5 was a member of the “filter team” sifting out any material obtained from Clinton’s attorneys that fell under attorney-client, medical, or marital privilege.