The Mueller report for all of us to see

Satire:

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

Exactly.

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: 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.

Please, spare me. If I am asked what I did with that empty soda can I threw in the trash, I don't say, "well, the whereabouts is unknown", I say, "it's in the trash....go look there".

Talk about stretch, next you'll be redefining the word "is" for us all again. Typical....

BTW: It's "anal retentive" not "anile". Try not to invent words you clearly cannot spell.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Interestingly enough, those FBI files regarding Clinton are still being released.

Last month, I made a thread on part 30 of the release, "FBI Vault releases part 30 of Hillary Clinton Files - Weiner Laptop related," in which is was recently pointed out by ATS member ucanthandlethetruth that there was activity after president Trump's inauguration regarding the Wiener laptop. after a closer look, I noticed that there was actually activity as recent as April 2018 on this information.

Some time this month, part 31 was released. Among other things, like Pagliano's invoices for work he did removing viruses from devices and his lawyers insistence of immunity before he would speak with investigators, was this:



The ICIG found that there was so much classified information in emails already released to FOIA requests that should have been filtered out that they were considering classifying the whole lot of it and dealing with the aftermath of not being able to fulfill a legal FOIA request rather than actually releasing the information that they were legally bound to release.

There was even discussions about having the CIA help with redactions due to the sheer volume of classified information contained in Hillary's emails.

Edited to Add:

Part 31 of 31 FBI Hillary files -(this probably should be a thread of it's own)

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: 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.

Please, spare me. If I am asked what I did with that empty soda can I threw in the trash, I don't say, "well, the whereabouts is unknown", I say, "it's in the trash....go look there".

Talk about stretch, next you'll be redefining the word "is" for us all again. Typical....

BTW: It's "anal retentive" not "anile". Try not to invent words you clearly cannot spell.

Anile - The Free Dictionary

but I'll accept "anal retentive", if you like that more.

originally posted by: Grambler
Here it is.

www.justice.gov...

I will be reading this all day

Thanks, it is useful.