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: dashen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.
But yeah...I'm sure they handed them all in.
1) I can see why you might not want to *say* who the turnover was >>> to, but it seems to me omitting this may be misinterpreted and certainly >>> will trigger another round of questioning. This may defeat the whole point >>> of the exercise. The statement could be read to imply we turned over the >>> thumb drive and server to the State Department—which we didn’t (“There >>> they go again—misleading, devious, non-transparent, tricky etc.”). I would >>> recommend saying “to the Department of Justice.”
originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Absolutely none of this will matter to Hillary supporters.
They have had their fingers in their ears while wearing blind folds for over a year now.
Such a shame.
originally posted by: dashen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
originally posted by: dashen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.
And how do you know that the Executive Privilege issue wasn't resolved through back channels and that she wasn't supposed to include those? I'm just curious. Do we know? Really?
How is it an "unsecured channel" and "plotting" with POTUS, by the way?? You are somehow assuming that this was classified information from the POTUS? Why? Maybe he was speaking about the upcoming campaign and wishing her luck, maybe he was talking about how and when he would support her bid for election, etc. - Even that could be removed under EP.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
originally posted by: dashen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.
And how do you know that the Executive Privilege issue wasn't resolved through back channels and that she wasn't supposed to include those? I'm just curious. Do we know? Really?
How is it an "unsecured channel" and "plotting" with POTUS, by the way?? You are somehow assuming that this was classified information from the POTUS? Why? Maybe he was speaking about the upcoming campaign and wishing her luck, maybe he was talking about how and when he would support her bid for election, etc. - Even that could be removed under EP.
originally posted by: dashen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.
originally posted by: Greggers
originally posted by: dashen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.
Is there an actual response from the POTUS anywhere in that wikileaks dump?
Or anything stating what the POTUS asked for and why?
Any proof that the POTUS actually sent replies directly to her unauthorized mailbox (auto forwarding is a thing, you know)?
originally posted by: Greggers
originally posted by: dashen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.
Is there an actual response from the POTUS anywhere in that wikileaks dump?
Or anything stating what the POTUS asked for and why?
Any proof that the POTUS actually sent replies directly to her unauthorized mailbox (auto forwarding is a thing, you know)?
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: Greggers
originally posted by: dashen
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
but hillary testified under oath that she handed over ALL WORK RELATED EMAILS.
this is the first official admission of the potus using unsecure channel for plotting(communicating) with hill_dogg.
Is there an actual response from the POTUS anywhere in that wikileaks dump?
Or anything stating what the POTUS asked for and why?
Any proof that the POTUS actually sent replies directly to her unauthorized mailbox (auto forwarding is a thing, you know)?
Pretty sure an auto reply wouldn't be an issue....
Anywho...his "O" email address was already outed a while back....this is just showing they were talking about if they should release or not...likely because he said he never knew she had a server.
originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Cheryl Mills is a lawyer.
This is a valid legal question for a lawyer. The emails were subpoenaed, and they want to know if they should include emails to/from the President, because those might be considered privileged.
Asking a lawyer a legal question is not illegal, shady, suspicious, or wrong in any sense of the word.
There out to be more emails in a string immediate to that one that further paint the picture.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good Lord.
He is asking a question about whether or not to include POTUS emails, not "colluding" - he is making a legal point regarding executive privilege. Your title is misleading, methinks.
So yes, emails were subpoenaed, and they were discussing it. OMG!! CALL THE FBI!!!!!!
This is nothing more than a long, protracted, tortuous witch-hunt, where people who already have determined guilt are grabbing at straws and claiming them to be gold. Sick of it already.
If there is something illegal, in a real sense, then let's see it!! Let's air it out and deal with it! This? Not so much.
The FBI said in its notes from an Abedin interview that the address on a Clinton email chain “is believed to be a pseudonym used by the President."
Abedin said she didn’t recognize the name and “expressed her amazement” that Obama used a pseudonym.
The FBI said she exclaimed: “How is this not classified?”
Abedin also told the FBI that Clinton’s team had to inform the White House that she was changing her email address so that the president could receive messages from her.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Look, we gotta call balls and strikes the way we see them, alright? We all felt strongly enough about what we believe to be a clear and present danger, that we felt compelled to say what we said...
JAKE TAPPER: You just called Donald Trump a clear and present danger.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, if he governs in any way close to the language that he has used in the campaign, I fear for our future.
National security may be invoked to justify measures limiting certain rights only when they are taken to protect the existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence against force or threat of force.
National security cannot be invoked as a reason for imposing limitations to prevent merely local or relatively isolated threats to law and order.
National security cannot be used as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exists adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse.
According to this definition, restrictions on the basis of national security are only justifiable if they address a threat to the “existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence,” as distinct from localised violence and ordinary criminal activities.
originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
There out to be more emails in a string immediate to that one that further paint the picture.
And yet there isn't.
Have you stopped to ask yourself why?