It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


It's official: The FBI is covering up Clinton's crimes

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 12:20 PM

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: SlapMonkey

They are going to store it in an evidence locker (well, vault, in this case) and preserve the evidence's integrity in case a trial happens (under this administration or the next).

According to this letter from Congress to the FBI, they have already agreed to destroy the laptops:

Judiciary Committee

There will be no trial, Hillary Clinton will not face any consequences, the decision has already been made as to who our next president will be and there is nothing We, the People can do about it.

The Department of Justice has been compromised as has the FBI at the upper echelons. There are, I am sure, many hard working, honest agents who can do nothing but sit and watch as their agency is used to cover one of the largest crimes our nation has witnessed since the execution of JFK.

Justice Scalia's death was part of this though many cannot see that.

Think about who Hillary will be placing in the now vacant Supreme Court seat and who will likely be stepping down or passing on during her presidency and that she will be filling those spots as well.

Welcome to your new banana republic.

My sentiments exactly. Well put.

Any reasonable person that has listened to all the congressional hearings, read and researched the players and their connections to each other and various companies and institutions, and paid attention to standard operating procedures that were thrown out the window, KNOWS something too big to expose was covered up.

This is not the first time James Comey opted to not prosecute because of the "too big to fail" excuse. Look it up. When he was Deputy Attorney at the justice department, they decided against prosecuting the Big 4 auditing firms because:

About two weeks after meeting with Comey, the KPMG legal team met in New York with Kelley and his aides and got the good news: Comey and Gonzales decided against an indictment of the firm, the papers show.

Kelley would instead pursue a deferred prosecution agreement, meaning charges would be filed only if the firm failed to stay out of trouble for a specified period of time.

The two sides immediately began hammering out the details of the deal that would be announced at a Gonzales news conference on Aug. 29, 2005, at the Justice Department’s Washington headquarters.

The resolution, Gonzales said, “reflects the reality that the conviction of an organization can affect innocent workers and others associated with the organization, and can even have an impact on the national economy.”

I have a pro-tip for Mr. Comey as he takes the job leading white- and blue-collar crime fighters at the FBI: Don’t waste any time on the Big Four public accounting firms. Your fears have been realized. The largest global public accounting firms are now, as a result of your decision, considered “too few to fail” by the Justice Department and SEC. The auditors have been very busy since 2005 missing new crimes at HSBC, Standard Chartered, JPMorgan, Barclays, MF Global, Deutsche Bank (KPMG), UBS, Colonial Bank, Taylor Bean & Whitaker…

.......or the Clinton Foundation?....or the "Clinton Machine"?

Follow Comey's career trail? Where has he been? Where is he going? What has he done? What has he NOT done?

I tend to think that this FBI made a decision that whatever they covered up, they felt it was too big to expose.

A precedent was set back then and continues to today. We should all mourn for Lady Justice. She has lost her mantle that we are all equal under the law. Evidently with this bunch, we are not.

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 12:26 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Don't they usually destroy them for Security reasons anyway? They do it with phones.

Trouble is, this happened while the "former" State Department people were no longer government employees.

Besides that, those computers were government property and the FBI had no right to destroy them. #2, they destroyed evidence during an investigation - a big no-no! This is the final straw on Comey's thin backbone and Comey can't blame the DOJ or anyone else. This rests solely on him.

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 12:47 PM

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: carewemust
FBI is protecting President Obama, ultimately. He's the one that's "too big to fail". (President, African American, Legacy.. etc.)

Well unless they want to pull the country apart and have it in civil unrest.

Maybe this entire thing is being staged, it sure has divided the nation so far.

It hasn't divided the nation at all..

The people shouting "lock her up" are the exact same people that were shouting "lock her up" a year ago. Same people that thought Obama was born in Kenya..

Nothing new..

It's not a question of backbone anymore, its about being convinced that we have no say.

edit on 4 by AshFan because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:16 PM
a reply to: RickinVa

Signal Corp...nice, I was stationed in 121st Sig Bn under the 1st ID in Germany about 15 years ago, although I was a 71D and "loaned" to the JAGCorp as a paralegal.

Anyhoo, I understand that there are forms and whatever that comes along with it--that's not the angle from which I was approaching it (although it's a good question to those forms exist?). I'm looking at it more from the legal standpoint and the drives being possible evidence. If they are possible evidence, then they absolutely should NOT be destroyed, no matter if the proper forms were filled out or not.

That's all that I was getting at--once it is officially determined that there is no more investigation going on and that charges absolutely will not be filed or no further inquiries and investigations pursued, only then should the hard drives be destroyed (assuming that they even needed to be in the first place).

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 01:19 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The only thing that I really disagree with in your post is that the letter does not, in any way, show an agreement to destroy the hard drives--on the contrary, it shows the questioning as to WHY they were destroyed. The answer should be interesting, assuming that we get on the 10th. I'm guess someone else will plead the fifth in this investigation.

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 02:47 PM
I believe their was also an agreement with the FBI to not look at any data on the Computers older than concern date.

Everything points to corruption on both sides. The surprise for me comes from the apparent lack of any FBI whistle blower.

If for some reason Trump should win the presidency, then I would expect a major house cleaning of the FBI leadership.

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 03:07 PM
At this point I don't think we need to find anything damning in the evidence. Destroying the evidence is damning enough.

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 03:27 PM
I've been saying all along that Hillary is above the law and untouchable. This is proof.

If Trump plays his cards right, he can capitalize off this big time.

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 03:30 PM
Also, to further add to what I said above, people can discuss Trump's taxes all they want, however, on the other hand, we have a woman (Hillary) who goes by a different set of laws than everyone else it seems. She doesn't follow the same set of rules as the average American. So take your damn pick. A tax evader? Or someone that the law cannot touch, no matter what?

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 05:50 PM

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Also, to further add to what I said above, people can discuss Trump's taxes all they want, however, on the other hand, we have a woman (Hillary) who goes by a different set of laws than everyone else it seems. She doesn't follow the same set of rules as the average American. So take your damn pick. A tax evader? Or someone that the law cannot touch, no matter what?

Face it - Trump is being trumped - The king of business manipulation is facing the queen of corruption

EXPOSED: The Corrupt Clinton Foundation You’ve Never Heard Of

Three months after leaving the White House in 2001, former President Bill Clinton arrived in India to cheering throngs to help those who had just lost a million homes in the aftermath of a massive earthquake that killed 20,000 and injured 166,000. In classic Clinton style, he solemnly promised that his new nonprofit — called the American India Foundation (AIF) — would rebuild 100 villages. Rajat Gupta, his millionaire co-chairman, pledged $1 billion for the victims. It never happened. Years later, AIF’s annual reports were reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation and show only seven villages were partially rebuilt by Clinton’s group, and a mere $2.7 million of $53 million raised over a decade went to the earthquake victims. The rest went for completely unrelated projects, including “accelerating social change,” fighting AIDS, “sustainable development,” and working for “digital equalizers.”

The Clinton’s “appetite for self-serving philanthropy and false altruism appears to know no bounds,” Blackburn said. She added that AIF’s actions should be referred to the Federal Trade Commission because “we must be consistent in how we deal with sham charities.” Read more:

“It comes as no surprise that the Clintons and Clinton Foundation are once again doing business with convicted felons and con men,” said Blackburn. Read more:

See whole article here:

posted on Oct, 4 2016 @ 06:03 PM
I thought the purpose of immunity was to PROVIDE INFORMATION for a successful prosecution? Or is it a Mandela Effect moment?

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:28 AM
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It is the aides crimes not Clinton's crimes they are covering up. Vote Hillary Clinton!

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 07:17 AM
Not surprised Comey while ethics enforcenent director of a military industrial firm contributed to the foundation if he allowed unfettered investigation of the foundation he'd have to recuse himself from it and resign why? Obvious the investigation will set eyes on the firm he worked for
He'd have no choice but to deploy a vectoring redirect. Such a joke allowing the witnesses immunity to sit in with Hillary's interview citing that they were legal representatives of HRC the doj's decision to give immunity (we all know it was NOT Comey's decision) Lynch strategically gave Cheryl Mills immunity for two reasons 1) had she not she'd be a part of the investigation thus as legal counsel would not be allowed privalige GONE and not be in that interview with Hillary note Hillary and Lynch are smart because they knew if there was going to be any lying going on it would be her and Cheryl and others Hillary's legal team would have entered into an area of no return and thus those immunity agreements kinda covers the legal team how convienient is that? UNLESS obstruction and collision is established which tosses the immunity OUT and here is number 2) Ms.Lynch who was appointed by Bill Clinton into the the Federal Justice ranks guess who recommended Lynch To Bill Clinton's team? None other than lobbying law firm colleague Cheryl Mills! So we have
An glaring appearance of obstruction of Justice at minimum conflict of interest to the point Attorney General Lynch should have recused herself from the entire case the only way to clear this matter up is either 1) Independent Special Prosecutor or 2) A Federal Grand Jury by the way > under the Federal Rico Law Hillary Clinton qualifies because she has more than a hundred people working for her and she has set up a global enterprise ALONG with Cheryl Mills being "Consiglieri Counsel"and often chairwoman of the Board > The Foundation under the Rico Law the bar is some what low to meet for probable cause because the dynamics of the law state even the appearance of an on-going enterprise there doesn't have to be "proof" that's where the grand jury comes in

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 11:06 AM

In a word or two, what a read

Guilty as Sin: Uncovering New Evidence of Corruption and How Hillary Clinton and the Democrats Derailed the FBI Investigation Hardcover – October 4, 2016

When FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not be recommending an indictment against Hillary Clinton, many people were shocked, but Ed Klein wasn’t one of them. He knew that Hillary Clinton had built an unbreakable chain of corruption that would do whatever it took to avoid an indictment. Klein’s new book, Guilty as Sin: Uncovering New Evidence of Corruption and How Hillary Clinton and the Democrats Derailed the FBI Investigation exposes just how far the Clinton machine would go to protect Hillary.

A Clinton adviser confided in Klein, “He didn’t give a damn. He wanted to intimidate Loretta and discredit Comey’s investigation of Hillary’s email, which was giving Hillary’s campaign agita.”

If Bill was so confident going into the meeting, how did Lynch feel? That same adviser reveals in Guilty as Sin, “She was literally trembling, shaking with nervousness. Her husband tried to comfort her; he kept patting her hand and rubbing her back.” Lynch knew what the public would think about this meeting. She knew it would discredit the entire investigation.

Bill Clinton didn’t need to threaten Loretta Lynch to change the course of the FBI investigation. The meeting itself was enough to throw the investigation under the bus. With a secret plane meeting between Clinton and Lynch revealed to the public, there was no way anyone was going to take the Comey investigation seriously any longer.

Hillary Clinton’s chain or corruption expands outside of the State Department she oversaw to her husband’s personal plane and into the Justice Department. All it took was one casual meeting, discussing grandchildren and golf, to derail one of the most publicly anticipated FBI investigations in our country’s history. If Hillary’s chain of corruption can ruin the case James Comey was building against her, what can’t it do? Ed Klein’s new book, Guilty as Sin: Uncovering New Evidence of Corruption and How Hillary Clinton and the Democrats Derailed the FBI Investigation, explores the depths of the Clintons’ corruption and reveals the truth behind it all.

edit on 5-10-2016 by WishIKnew2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2016 by WishIKnew2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 11:29 AM
Has anyone mentioned that part of the deal to get the laptops no emails dated after the investigation began would be examined to see if they were obstructing , lying or colluding to escape prosecution.

Imagine a murder trial where as part of the plea bargain they agree to cremate the body before checking for signs of foul play.

You have got to be kidding me, this is farcical.
Surely they have Comey by the short ones to do this kind of wheeling and dealing in Hillary's favor.
His record was actually quite good but then he joined the board of HSBC where I suspect they not only helped fill Comey's bank account but also to make him part of the money laundering.
What a sick, sick government we have.

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 11:48 AM

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Don't they usually destroy them for Security reasons anyway? They do it with phones.

of course they do, this is just another fear-mongering alt-right people on the right better be careful, your own shadow is out to get you....compliments of the left.

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:47 PM
I think the immunity agreements were being used in this case to protect the criminals from prosecution. To say this differently, it's allot like saying I will give the team of five joule thief's (i.e.,aides) immunity because they can finger the master mind (i.e., Hillary Clinton) who would surely be prosecuted.

This of course assumes the prosecutor (i.e., Comey) is guilty of collusion.

edit on 5-10-2016 by WishIKnew2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 04:02 PM
After watching Congress question Comey. I believe, they realize he was involved in a cover-up. Knowing it and proving is one thing but acting on it, is another.

It seems apparent to me that Congress could ask the NSA for all of the information necessary to indicate the President, DOJ, Director of the FBI, etc. The question is: why have they not done so.

The only answer I have is: Indicting this many government officials this close to election could cause a Constitutional Crisis

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 10:29 PM
a reply to: WishIKnew2

Because nothing the NSA has on them would ever see the inside of a court room since its against the law to collect that info without a warrant / FISA warrant. In order to get the warrant you have to have probable cause.

Absent that it could be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree".

The only way the info could be used would be in an impeachment setting. Congress gets to define what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are. So it could be used to impeach / remove from office where the action would most likely end since the info cant e used in court.

ETA - Just saw Foxnews discussing the computers that were destroyed by the FBI and they noted something I missed. The computers were destroyed in violation of Congressional subpoenas. Congress exercising oversight has their own investigative authority and the FBI doesn't get to decide whats relevant and what is not relevant for a congressional investigation.

So in essence the FBI broke the law by destroying the computers. Part of me thinks it was built into the immunity agreement not to let the oversight committees get the info.
edit on 5-10-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 09:00 AM
How about the probable and likely belief of war crimes for a FISA warrant in order to gain access to NSA data on Obama, Hillary, etc. Remember that server of Hillary's contained allotted information.

Look at this news site "Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels" Then start following the writers links. I have been tracking Benghazi, Syria and Libya for some time. Eric ZUESSE has them both. Plus their are a few WikiLeaks documents that leave no question of the crimes of creating civil wars in two countries without congressional approval. That I believe is treason for each act.

Look at the efforts at cover-up

edit on 6-10-2016 by WishIKnew2 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in