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 Mueller report for all of us to see

page: 16
53
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Box of Rain




Like I said, if they were potential actionable items against President Trump, Mueller would have not wrapped up the investigation into the President.


I don't know that. Some of them are about Russian sanctions and some of them are about the Ukraine and the change in the party's platform on Russia and the Ukraine.



My bottom line is that even though I think President Trump is a bad president (I'm a centrist/moderate who skews to the left on social matters), I don't see impeachment as being the way to get him put of office. That is, I haven't seen anything he's done that rises to the level of impeachment.

He should definitely be censured, which I also think should have been the first course of action with Bill Clinton rather than impeachment.

If the progressives want President Trump gone, I think they need to wait for the next election cycle rather than trying to pry him from office by using methods that cause constitutional crises.


edit on 2019/4/19 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Here it is.

www.justice.gov...

I will be reading this all day



Thanks so very much for posting this un-edited version of the Mueller report!!! I've been wanting to read it ever since I heard that it was going to be released to the public.

(BTW, I hope that Trump doesn't get another four years in office next year! The first term has been bad enough, IMO).



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
when told about the investigation trump's first words were "i'm #ucked".

lol


Keep reading hun, don't leave out the context. He went on to say (paraphrasing) "I'm told when you have a special council involved, these things can take years and you get nothing done."

You are fake news.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries and were supposed to be securely destroyed to NIST standards.

They were destroyed, as per regulation, previous to the existence of the FBI investigation. There was nothing criminal or underhanded in their destruction.

Disposing of Devices Safely - US CERT, DHS



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
It is sad to watch our country behave this way....Then they will pat themselves on their backs for making billions off President Trump and go just when you think the democrats won’t start a war, nope you are wrong...They will get war machine going....They pretend like the American people cannot see what their doing..Not voting anymore..



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved. The FBI were given the intact e-mail server quite early on in the investigation.

Bleach bit also did not remove the source emails which remained in the Microsoft Exchange .EDB database. Bleach bit was only able to erase the exported .PST files, not the messages in the database.

The FBI were able to recover the relevant e-mails. That is how they were able to publish the details of the unredacted e-mails that should not have been sent from an insecure server.


My understanding is that many of the emails belachbitted were never recovered.


Bleach bit is like CCleaner. It can delete and securely overwrite deleted files. It is unable to edit and remove information from a Microsoft Exchange .EDB database.

Bleach bit would be effective if the email database was dismounted from the server and then deleted, and then Bleach Bit used to clear the deleted file system objects. This would not edit the database, but would delete it in its entirety.

The .PST files are extracts from the mail database and were SUPPOSED to be securely deleted because they posed a security risk from hackers who had network access to the server.

The .EDB file (or files) are locked by the Microsoft Exchange Data Store service and are secure from most hacking attacks, as it usually requires physical access to the server and dismount of the mail store to access the 'hidden' content of the file/s. Usually, .EDB files are huge (hundreds of Gigabytes up to multi Terabyte size). To simply copy the file/s (which must be offline to do so) usually takes hours, if not days, on very fast hardware, and would be extremely obvious if a hacker was doing it. For this reason, the Exchange mail server processes themselves are not expected to be a target for hackers as it is far easier to attack the e-mail clients or gather up .PST archives.

As it was, the operational mail server was surrendered to the FBI for analysis early on in the investigation. It would have the entire history of e-mails (even nominally 'deleted' ones which are not actually deleted, just marked as so), going back to the implementation of the server. There are various data recovery softwares (such as those by Stellar Phoenix) which can read the entire .EDB database file and that, by default, are set to ignore the 'deleted' e-mails flag.


regardless, we know for a fact that the Mueller investigation was not obstructed.


There is no such conclusion in the report.

Contrary to that, there are several documented instances in the report that suggest attempts at obstruction of justice by Trump.


the argument is Trump may have attemted to obstruct, and it not being successfukl is irrlevant.


That is right, the crime is in the intention to pervert the course of justice.


So in that vein, even if the FBI recovered the emails, the destruction of them by bleach bit will still be attempted obstruction.

So yes, this is an adbsurd double standard.


The secure destruction of deleted files is/was a government mandated security practice.

edit on 19/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

The SOP was to destroy old ones once the data was transferred to the new ones. However, the FBI still could not obtain all her devices, especially when some would "dissapear".

From your source:

The FBI stated in its report that one of the "investigative limitations" was its "inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems."

This "prevented the FBI from "conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means."


So your claim that it was due to SOP is false. But, I do not expect you to admit that, since your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

The SOP was to destroy old ones once the data was transferred to the new ones. However, the FBI still could not obtain all her devices, especially when some would "dissapear".

From your source:

The FBI stated in its report that one of the "investigative limitations" was its "inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems."

This "prevented the FBI from "conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means."


So your claim that it was due to SOP is false. But, I do not expect you to admit that, since your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.


If you were admin and wiped the 'phone, reset it to factory, physically smashed the hardware and put the bits in the trash, how could you surrender the 'phone to the FBI?

Entirely SOP.

Why the hell didn't the FBI prosecute if someone had been deliberately withheld or destroyed data? Even if they were protecting Hillary, they'd still prosecute the people who actually performed the alleged criminal acts.

But they didn't prosecute, because no-one was found to have done anything criminal. You can't charge them with doing their job following established government mandated procedures.

Why believe Trump's spin when you know he frequently spouts the most obvious and outrageous lies. Look instead to what actually happened and the numbers of people involved who Trump says are all lying and out to get him.

Trump had people making claims against him in court well before he became a Presidential candidate. So far, he has lost 38 of those court cases although that does not make him an actual felon.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain





My bottom line is that even though I think President Trump is a bad president (I'm a centrist/moderate who skews to the left on social matters), I don't see impeachment as being the way to get him put of office. That is, I haven't seen anything he's done that rises to the level of impeachment.


I can appreciate that. I think Trump is a bad president, and that he's set a dangerous precedent that needs to be addressed regardless of party. I agree with Lyndsay Graham here.





edit on 19-4-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



can appreciate that. I think Trump is a bad president, and that he's set a dangerous precedent that needs to be addressed regardless of party. I agree with Lyndsay Graham here.
.

What has he done that others before him have not done? What’s this new precedent?



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

The SOP was to destroy old ones once the data was transferred to the new ones. However, the FBI still could not obtain all her devices, especially when some would "dissapear".

From your source:

The FBI stated in its report that one of the "investigative limitations" was its "inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems."

This "prevented the FBI from "conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means."


So your claim that it was due to SOP is false. But, I do not expect you to admit that, since your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.


If you were admin and wiped the 'phone, reset it to factory, physically smashed the hardware and put the bits in the trash, how could you surrender the 'phone to the FBI?

Entirely SOP.

Why the hell didn't the FBI prosecute if someone had been deliberately withheld or destroyed data? Even if they were protecting Hillary, they'd still prosecute the people who actually performed the alleged criminal acts.

But they didn't prosecute, because no-one was found to have done anything criminal. You can't charge them with doing their job following established government mandated procedures.

Why believe Trump's spin when you know he frequently spouts the most obvious and outrageous lies. Look instead to what actually happened and the numbers of people involved who Trump says are all lying and out to get him.

Trump had people making claims against him in court well before he became a Presidential candidate. So far, he has lost 38 of those court cases although that does not make him an actual felon.


I guess you missed reading this bit....about then frequently losing them?

Abedin and Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown when she transitioned to a new device.


Kinda hard for the FBI to investigate when they are "lost" frequently, and SOP is destroying them....not suspicious at all right? Especially when they could have classified and/or sensitive data on them. Had they been under the control of the standard DC IT dept, there is a chain of custody that must be followed to prevent then from "frequently" becoming missing.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Something else that's just nuts .........

AG Barr gave an opportunity for higher ranking Congress people to see some of the redacted material, but guess what ?😆


Democrats Decline to View Less Redacted Mueller Report

The top Democrats include:

Pelosi
Schumer
Nadler
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee


Rather than accept Barr’s proposal to view the Mueller report, they insisted that they have access to redacted material and “access to grand jury material.”
😧



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

The SOP was to destroy old ones once the data was transferred to the new ones. However, the FBI still could not obtain all her devices, especially when some would "dissapear".

From your source:

The FBI stated in its report that one of the "investigative limitations" was its "inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems."

This "prevented the FBI from "conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means."


So your claim that it was due to SOP is false. But, I do not expect you to admit that, since your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.


If you were admin and wiped the 'phone, reset it to factory, physically smashed the hardware and put the bits in the trash, how could you surrender the 'phone to the FBI?

Entirely SOP.

Why the hell didn't the FBI prosecute if someone had been deliberately withheld or destroyed data? Even if they were protecting Hillary, they'd still prosecute the people who actually performed the alleged criminal acts.

But they didn't prosecute, because no-one was found to have done anything criminal. You can't charge them with doing their job following established government mandated procedures.

Why believe Trump's spin when you know he frequently spouts the most obvious and outrageous lies. Look instead to what actually happened and the numbers of people involved who Trump says are all lying and out to get him.

Trump had people making claims against him in court well before he became a Presidential candidate. So far, he has lost 38 of those court cases although that does not make him an actual felon.


I guess you missed reading this bit....about then frequently losing them?

Abedin and Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown when she transitioned to a new device.


Kinda hard for the FBI to investigate when they are "lost" frequently, and SOP is destroying them....not suspicious at all right? Especially when they could have classified and/or sensitive data on them. Had they been under the control of the standard DC IT dept, there is a chain of custody that must be followed to prevent then from "frequently" becoming missing.


When you put stuff into the trash, you loose track of its whereabouts.

The FBI's wording says that their whereabouts were unknown. You are making the assumption that this means they were "lost" or misplaced, when no such thing was said.

They weren't "lost" they were broken and function-less crap with no recoverable data that were thrown away.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

The SOP was to destroy old ones once the data was transferred to the new ones. However, the FBI still could not obtain all her devices, especially when some would "dissapear".

From your source:

The FBI stated in its report that one of the "investigative limitations" was its "inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems."

This "prevented the FBI from "conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means."


So your claim that it was due to SOP is false. But, I do not expect you to admit that, since your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.


If you were admin and wiped the 'phone, reset it to factory, physically smashed the hardware and put the bits in the trash, how could you surrender the 'phone to the FBI?

Entirely SOP.

Why the hell didn't the FBI prosecute if someone had been deliberately withheld or destroyed data? Even if they were protecting Hillary, they'd still prosecute the people who actually performed the alleged criminal acts.

But they didn't prosecute, because no-one was found to have done anything criminal. You can't charge them with doing their job following established government mandated procedures.

Why believe Trump's spin when you know he frequently spouts the most obvious and outrageous lies. Look instead to what actually happened and the numbers of people involved who Trump says are all lying and out to get him.

Trump had people making claims against him in court well before he became a Presidential candidate. So far, he has lost 38 of those court cases although that does not make him an actual felon.


I guess you missed reading this bit....about then frequently losing them?

Abedin and Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown when she transitioned to a new device.


Kinda hard for the FBI to investigate when they are "lost" frequently, and SOP is destroying them....not suspicious at all right? Especially when they could have classified and/or sensitive data on them. Had they been under the control of the standard DC IT dept, there is a chain of custody that must be followed to prevent then from "frequently" becoming missing.


When you put stuff into the trash, you loose track of its whereabouts.

The FBI's wording says that their whereabouts were unknown. You are making the assumption that this means they were "lost" or misplaced, when no such thing was said.

They weren't "lost" they were broken and function-less crap with no recoverable data that were thrown away.

That quote is from YOUR OWN SOURCE page.... hahahaha.... Are you saying your source is not accurate?

Precious....




posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

The SOP was to destroy old ones once the data was transferred to the new ones. However, the FBI still could not obtain all her devices, especially when some would "dissapear".

From your source:

The FBI stated in its report that one of the "investigative limitations" was its "inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems."

This "prevented the FBI from "conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means."


So your claim that it was due to SOP is false. But, I do not expect you to admit that, since your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.


If you were admin and wiped the 'phone, reset it to factory, physically smashed the hardware and put the bits in the trash, how could you surrender the 'phone to the FBI?

Entirely SOP.

Why the hell didn't the FBI prosecute if someone had been deliberately withheld or destroyed data? Even if they were protecting Hillary, they'd still prosecute the people who actually performed the alleged criminal acts.

But they didn't prosecute, because no-one was found to have done anything criminal. You can't charge them with doing their job following established government mandated procedures.

Why believe Trump's spin when you know he frequently spouts the most obvious and outrageous lies. Look instead to what actually happened and the numbers of people involved who Trump says are all lying and out to get him.

Trump had people making claims against him in court well before he became a Presidential candidate. So far, he has lost 38 of those court cases although that does not make him an actual felon.


I guess you missed reading this bit....about then frequently losing them?

Abedin and Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown when she transitioned to a new device.


Kinda hard for the FBI to investigate when they are "lost" frequently, and SOP is destroying them....not suspicious at all right? Especially when they could have classified and/or sensitive data on them. Had they been under the control of the standard DC IT dept, there is a chain of custody that must be followed to prevent then from "frequently" becoming missing.


When you put stuff into the trash, you loose track of its whereabouts.

The FBI's wording says that their whereabouts were unknown. You are making the assumption that this means they were "lost" or misplaced, when no such thing was said.

They weren't "lost" they were broken and function-less crap with no recoverable data that were thrown away.

That quote is from YOUR OWN SOURCE page.... hahahaha.... Are you saying your source is not accurate?

Precious....


Really, are you that much in denial?

The FBI quote clearly says " their whereabouts were unknown" which is not the same thing as saying they were 'lost' or 'misplaced'.

Please search for the word "lost" and/or for the word "misplaced" in the linked article. You will see that they don't occur even once in the source article.

I'll re post the link for you: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

It is common sense that discarded and broken things are not kept. I know this is hard for you to understand, but give it a try.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

The SOP was to destroy old ones once the data was transferred to the new ones. However, the FBI still could not obtain all her devices, especially when some would "dissapear".

From your source:

The FBI stated in its report that one of the "investigative limitations" was its "inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems."

This "prevented the FBI from "conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means."


So your claim that it was due to SOP is false. But, I do not expect you to admit that, since your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.


If you were admin and wiped the 'phone, reset it to factory, physically smashed the hardware and put the bits in the trash, how could you surrender the 'phone to the FBI?

Entirely SOP.

Why the hell didn't the FBI prosecute if someone had been deliberately withheld or destroyed data? Even if they were protecting Hillary, they'd still prosecute the people who actually performed the alleged criminal acts.

But they didn't prosecute, because no-one was found to have done anything criminal. You can't charge them with doing their job following established government mandated procedures.

Why believe Trump's spin when you know he frequently spouts the most obvious and outrageous lies. Look instead to what actually happened and the numbers of people involved who Trump says are all lying and out to get him.

Trump had people making claims against him in court well before he became a Presidential candidate. So far, he has lost 38 of those court cases although that does not make him an actual felon.


I guess you missed reading this bit....about then frequently losing them?

Abedin and Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown when she transitioned to a new device.


Kinda hard for the FBI to investigate when they are "lost" frequently, and SOP is destroying them....not suspicious at all right? Especially when they could have classified and/or sensitive data on them. Had they been under the control of the standard DC IT dept, there is a chain of custody that must be followed to prevent then from "frequently" becoming missing.


When you put stuff into the trash, you loose track of its whereabouts.

The FBI's wording says that their whereabouts were unknown. You are making the assumption that this means they were "lost" or misplaced, when no such thing was said.

They weren't "lost" they were broken and function-less crap with no recoverable data that were thrown away.

That quote is from YOUR OWN SOURCE page.... hahahaha.... Are you saying your source is not accurate?

Precious....


Really, are you that much in denial?

The FBI quote clearly says " their whereabouts were unknown" which is not the same thing as saying they were 'lost' or 'misplaced'.

Please search for the word "lost" and/or for the word "misplaced" in the linked article. You will see that they don't occur even once in the source article.

I'll re post the link for you: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

It is common sense that discarded and broken things are not kept. I know this is hard for you to understand, but give it a try.



So, "frequently unknown" isn't a synonym for "lost"? Really, when I lose something, it is unknown where it is....I guess you know where your lost items are? Amazing.

Hahahaha..... Please, you embarrass yourself.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: vinifalou

As I hope every person on the right does. This report states he tried to obstruct justice. If this were a report about Hillary you would be SCREAMING. Oh the double standards.


How is it a double standard?

1 investigation was legitimate
1 investigation was a hoax.

1 investigation obstructed justice by destroying evidence with hammers and bleach bit.
1 investigation talked about firing the investigator but never did.

Tell me how these are related?


No hammers were involved.


Then you are forgetting or purposely omitting the Blackberrys and other mobile devices that were destroyed or unrecovered. Lame


These were malfunctioning and discarded Blackberries




Source?


Page 9 of the FBI report which was republished in the previously linked article: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

The SOP was to destroy old ones once the data was transferred to the new ones. However, the FBI still could not obtain all her devices, especially when some would "dissapear".

From your source:

The FBI stated in its report that one of the "investigative limitations" was its "inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems."

This "prevented the FBI from "conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means."


So your claim that it was due to SOP is false. But, I do not expect you to admit that, since your reading comprehension is a bit suspect.


If you were admin and wiped the 'phone, reset it to factory, physically smashed the hardware and put the bits in the trash, how could you surrender the 'phone to the FBI?

Entirely SOP.

Why the hell didn't the FBI prosecute if someone had been deliberately withheld or destroyed data? Even if they were protecting Hillary, they'd still prosecute the people who actually performed the alleged criminal acts.

But they didn't prosecute, because no-one was found to have done anything criminal. You can't charge them with doing their job following established government mandated procedures.

Why believe Trump's spin when you know he frequently spouts the most obvious and outrageous lies. Look instead to what actually happened and the numbers of people involved who Trump says are all lying and out to get him.

Trump had people making claims against him in court well before he became a Presidential candidate. So far, he has lost 38 of those court cases although that does not make him an actual felon.


I guess you missed reading this bit....about then frequently losing them?

Abedin and Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown when she transitioned to a new device.


Kinda hard for the FBI to investigate when they are "lost" frequently, and SOP is destroying them....not suspicious at all right? Especially when they could have classified and/or sensitive data on them. Had they been under the control of the standard DC IT dept, there is a chain of custody that must be followed to prevent then from "frequently" becoming missing.


When you put stuff into the trash, you loose track of its whereabouts.

The FBI's wording says that their whereabouts were unknown. You are making the assumption that this means they were "lost" or misplaced, when no such thing was said.

They weren't "lost" they were broken and function-less crap with no recoverable data that were thrown away.

That quote is from YOUR OWN SOURCE page.... hahahaha.... Are you saying your source is not accurate?

Precious....


Really, are you that much in denial?

The FBI quote clearly says " their whereabouts were unknown" which is not the same thing as saying they were 'lost' or 'misplaced'.

Please search for the word "lost" and/or for the word "misplaced" in the linked article. You will see that they don't occur even once in the source article.

I'll re post the link for you: FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer - CNS News.com

It is common sense that discarded and broken things are not kept. I know this is hard for you to understand, but give it a try.



So, "frequently unknown" isn't a synonym for "lost"? Really, when I lose something, it is unknown where it is....I guess you know where your lost items are? Amazing.

Hahahaha..... Please, you embarrass yourself.


When you intentionally discard something, it's whereabouts become unknown but it has not been lost.

This is clearly obvious to all but the most anile of hoarders, who are always loosing stuff among the piles of filth.



edit on 19/4/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join