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.

 

Page's Testimony: FBI Wanted To Charge Hillary With 'Gross Negligence' in 2016 DOJ Told Them No

page: 3
53
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Yea....no

Gross negligence could have only been charged if the information was stolen.

They would have lost the case.

The other parts of the statute could have been used for improper storage but they would have had to prove intent with those.

The gross negligence statute does not have intent written like the rest of the parts of the law.




posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   

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.

So it is the smoking gun.
The DOJ told the fbi to stand down before the investigation was complete?



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Bet it has to do with a certain black Dorito right?



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:08 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   

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.

What will be lost in all this is that if the fbi had just been allowed to do their job Hillary would have dropped out and Bernie would occupy the white house imo.
No way Bernies admin lets the fisa info on trumps campaign get out.
By not investigating her they arranged for their own demise imo.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   

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.


Just call him Osama....



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

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.


Comey's conscience got the best of him in the Fall of 2016. He re-opened Hillary's criminal investigation. Lynch herself immediately took him to the woodshed. Three days later, Comey found Hillary "Innocent" again.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   

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.




(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.


You need to point out where it says it has to be stolen only....it also says lost, abstracted or destroyed....


You know like deleting classified emails on an unclass system instead of turning them over to the government.


through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust,

TS/SCI material anywhere outside a SCIF without a specific waiver from NSA has been removed from its proper place of storage.


EDIT: I like to refer to 793 (f) as the dummy clause....gross negligence is exactly the same as extreme carelessness.... one term falls under a statue that DOES NOT require intent to prosecute even if you claim you didn't know what you were doing was wrong...the other lets you slide.
edit on R452019-03-13T10:45:47-05:00k453Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R462019-03-13T10:46:08-05:00k463Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   
And nobody has met the end of a rope for this yet. Ridiculous.

No one even sitting in prison - FBI's crimes are infinitely worse than the victims of the mueller investigation. They committed treason and must suffer the proscribed penalty.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   


Did any of that happen?




gold



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

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 😎



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   
This is the biggest story I have seen in weeks

Now remember, the Dems said sessions had to revise himself, Whitaker, now Barr

And for what, letters written or having a dinner with hundreds of people with a Russian around

Meanwhile, they had no problem with lynch meeting with the spouse of the very person she was investigating in secret in a tarmac

They said she didn’t need to officially revise herself because she promised to not be involved and listen to what ever the fbi recommended

Whoops! That was a lie

Now we know Lynch’s doj was the primary reason Hillary wasn’t charged

So trumo legally firing the head of the fbi is supposedly obstruction of justice

But Obama doj lying about not getting involved in a case where the head met in secret with the accusers husband, and instructing the fbi to not charge Hillary is not?

More corruption and double standards from the intel community and Obama’s team

Where are the outraged Dems? Oh that’s right, they don’t care about actual corruption



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   

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 😎


Don't confuse silly with facts, reality, etc.



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 12:11 PM
link   
"Stand Down" was common in the last Administration 😎



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   

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.


Not to mention some so classified that they have been totally withheld from the Public until years from now 😎



posted on Mar, 13 2019 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Looking at Mr. Scott:


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


LinkedIn]

And:


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.


Justice Department clarifies Lynch remarks about Clinton email probe: ‘The AG is the ultimate decider’ - Yahoo News

So Page tells us that there will not be a case brought by the DOJ so the FBI better just come out and say that there is nothing to be found.

Looking elsewhere, we can see that there was indeed a filter team in place between the evidence and the investigative team:


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.


'I'm with her': Timeline of texts the OIG said 'cast a cloud' over Clinton case - WJLA

So, the DOJ was working in conjunction with portions of the FBI to make sure that specific bits of evidence were never seen by the investigative team which allowed them to claim that there was nothing upon which charges could be based.

Obama's DOJ was actively protecting Hillary.

 


Edited to add:

a reply to: Sillyolme

a reply to: Sillyolme


What do you have to say now that the provenance of the sourced material has been shown?


edit on 13-3-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: silly question




top topics



 
53
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join