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: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler
The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.
I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.
Well, we have intent now.
What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?
Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved
Keep up introvert, Keep up.
Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.
No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".
So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.
MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.
I just did prove it.
No you did not. You did not prove Cheryl Mills told Combetta to delete emails. He said "might have been". That is not a definitive statement.
It might have been Mills. However, he said it definitely was one of her lawyers. So what does it matter which lawyer it was? Someone from the Clinton staff told Combetta to do this. This is intent. Was it Mills, Huma, Hillary herself? Who cares? They know that one of them intended this, so why has no one been charged?
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krazysh0t
She didn't lie. She said she would accept the FBI's decision. It was no secret by then that they hadn't found anything and they were not going forward with an indictment. Like I said, legal chatter in DC was that they could not find any intent to share classified materials with people she shouldn't have.
So Lynch didn't lie. She just let the FBI make the announcement.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler
The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.
I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.
Well, we have intent now.
What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?
Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved
Keep up introvert, Keep up.
Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.
No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".
So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.
MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.
I just did prove it.
No you did not. You did not prove Cheryl Mills told Combetta to delete emails. He said "might have been". That is not a definitive statement.
It might have been Mills. However, he said it definitely was one of her lawyers. So what does it matter which lawyer it was? Someone from the Clinton staff told Combetta to do this. This is intent. Was it Mills, Huma, Hillary herself? Who cares? They know that one of them intended this, so why has no one been charged?
How can you charge someone if you don't know which person did it?
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Steak
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler
The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.
I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.
Well, we have intent now.
What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?
Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved
Keep up introvert, Keep up.
Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.
No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".
So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.
MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.
I just did prove it.
No you did not. You did not prove Cheryl Mills told Combetta to delete emails. He said "might have been". That is not a definitive statement.
It might have been Mills. However, he said it definitely was one of her lawyers. So what does it matter which lawyer it was? Someone from the Clinton staff told Combetta to do this. This is intent. Was it Mills, Huma, Hillary herself? Who cares? They know that one of them intended this, so why has no one been charged?
How can you charge someone if you don't know which person did it?
This means that either Combetta comes clean about who it was, or he has violated his immunity, and you arrest him.
Can you imagine law enforcement closing a case in any other scenario where they knew that one of two people broke the law? Whats that, one of these two people robbed a bank? Well there is two possibilities, so thats it, close the case. It just doesn't make sense.
She said she was removing personal emails
The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank.
...
Giustra’s Swiss HSBC account, created in 2002, contained up to $10m in the 2006-2007 period.
Executives with Europe's biggest bank, HSBC, were subjected to a humiliating onslaught from US senators on Tuesday over revelations that staff at its global subsidiaries laundered billions of dollars for drug cartels, terrorists and pariah states.
...
Other subsidiaries moved money from Iran, Syria and other countries on US sanctions lists, and helped a Saudi bank linked to al-Qaida to shift money to the US.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In August 2005, Comey left the DOJ and became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland. In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates, based in Westport, Connecticut. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater to become a Senior Research Scholar and a Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School in New York City. He served on the Board of Directors of HSBC Holdings until July 2013.[2]
In September 2013, Comey was appointed Director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.[3]
...Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”
...
Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing.
Lynch has investigated the bank in the past, but there are many questions about her record on taking Wall Street offenders to task. She became the chief attorney for an ongoing probe into HSBC’s money laundering crimes in 2010, during her assignment as the US attorney for the eastern district of New York. At roughly the same time, the US government received a damning trove of evidence from French officials against HSBC regarding tax evasion.
...
Lynch’s investigation did result in a December 2012 deferred prosecution agreement, which is a half-measure in criminal cases, somewhere between a conviction and exoneration. In this agreement, HSBC admitted to massive money laundering violations for narco-traffickers, terrorists and tyrants. This involved more than $200tn in wire transfers. But Lynch did not bring criminal charges against HSBC or any HSBC executives for this admitted money laundering.
Hogan Lovells US LLP Law and Lobbying Firm
Position (past)
In 1999, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. In 2001, Lynch left the office to become a partner at Hogan & Hartson (later Hogan Lovells).
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
What justice? Congress is questioning Comey over his decision to not indict someone.
To me this looks like Congress second guessing a professional law enforcement officer's opinion because they want the opposite to be true
Though as an aside I was right about saying that a bunch of right leaning Americans would all get hot and bothered over this. Thanks for proving my point.
Is that what we are calling witch hunts these days?
Maybe one day you'll study our country's judicial system and learn that the public doesn't convict people...
I don't think bought is exactly the word or phrase I am thinking of to be honest. Complicit and Conflict of Interest does come to mind, though.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DeathShield
Yeah I could MAYBE trust this rhetoric if it was the first time Congress questioned Comey, but it isn't.
So I don't believe your words either.
Just more defending of....