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.

 

Justice Dept.: Clinton allowed to delete personal emails

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I was referring to clandestine operations and subversion of foreign governments, that kind of stuff.
you know like having a hand and blowing up Libya for no particular reason(light sweet crude)
+ Lois Lerner didn't have any charges filed against her either.
+ Clinton is guilty of a long list of fashion crimes.
I mean how many pants suits can one woman have




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen



+ Clinton is guilty of a long list of fashion crimes.
I mean how many pants suits can one woman have


So, we have no evidence that she is guilty of anything, she has not been charged with any crime, and so that means we have to resort to becoming fashion police to de-legitimize her?

I'm sorry. I'm a grown man and I do not pay attention to, nor care about, what Clinton's choice of clothing is. Petty, nonsensical bull.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Well I'm sorry too. I am a grown man child and someone let me have internet access.
But logically if the government demands your email servers and you can arbitrarily delete whatever you like with no oversight , that is fertile ground for shenanigans



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
2nd Bull#....
No way in hell is she leading national Democratic polls....

This just proves she is a witch!!!!


Well, the server that calculates the Poll totals is in her basement bathroom, so........



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: dashen



+ Clinton is guilty of a long list of fashion crimes.
I mean how many pants suits can one woman have


So, we have no evidence that she is guilty of anything, she has not been charged with any crime, and so that means we have to resort to becoming fashion police to de-legitimize her?

I'm sorry. I'm a grown man and I do not pay attention to, nor care about, what Clinton's choice of clothing is. Petty, nonsensical bull.


You'r funny! No evidence... because she deleted it all!! They hadn't charged her yet because they were following due process with subpoenas. Multiple people took the 5th amendment, and she deleted evidence the court requested. If you had done that, you would be arrested. You should be outraged at the 1% privilege going on here.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

Sure, but has anything been found yet that she can be prosecuted for? That's the important question that not one of the anti-Hillary people seem willing to address.

They want it to be true. They want her to be found guilty of anything, and have already made up their mind that she is, but no charges yet. No guilty verdict.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: dashen



+ Clinton is guilty of a long list of fashion crimes.
I mean how many pants suits can one woman have


So, we have no evidence that she is guilty of anything, she has not been charged with any crime, and so that means we have to resort to becoming fashion police to de-legitimize her?

I'm sorry. I'm a grown man and I do not pay attention to, nor care about, what Clinton's choice of clothing is. Petty, nonsensical bull.


Yea, it's hard for a non computer person to fully grasp this. She had sole access to the server. She may have even had multiple servers, or replaced the one she had at some point. There is no way to know what she turned over is "everything" and there never will be. So we are left with, "take her word for it" as an only option. Now you seem like the type to do just that, but those of us who aren't full blown left-only types, may not be 100% on board with the Clinton's trustworthiness.

If she had used the mail provided by the government, then she could have bad backups. (like Lois Learner)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I'm all for Clinton being found guilty of something. We need her to be out of the political equation for good. I'm not taking her word for anything at this point.

What I'm addressing is that people are putting the cart before the horse here. They want and wish her to be guilty. So they have already convicted her in their mind. Then we get people posting articles that perpetuate that spin. What good does that do? You have to convict her with evidence and facts.

Continuing to push this nonsense without evidence just makes people look like fanatical loons and haters.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude

fanatical loons and haters.

reporting for duty



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: dashen

Sure, but has anything been found yet that she can be prosecuted for? That's the important question that not one of the anti-Hillary people seem willing to address.

They want it to be true. They want her to be found guilty of anything, and have already made up their mind that she is, but no charges yet. No guilty verdict.


At issue are four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

In short:
◾The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
◾FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."
◾The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."
◾Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

The day after Clinton's news conference, the New York Times reported, quoting a former State Department official, that it "seemed unlikely" that Clinton didn't email at least something classified.

I would say she has violated a few laws with this email scandal. Now if the prosecution doesn't want to do their job and prosecute that doesn't mean she didn't break the law. Just means she has friends in high places protecting her or themselves like others on here have pointed out.
edit on 18-9-2015 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2015 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill



I would say she has violated a few laws with this email scandal. Now if the prosecution doesn't want to do their job and prosecute that doesn't mean she didn't break the law. Just means she has friends in high places protecting her or themselves like others on here have pointed out.


Or there is the possibility that she did not break any laws at all. I believe she very well may have, but I do not want to invest in my opinion because it's meaningless. They have to have evidence of wrongdoing to convict her of anything. Too many people are not waiting to see if that evidence surfaces before they automatically conclude she is guilty.

That goes against the spirit and application of due process.

Also, what Clinton allegedly did is not uncommon. It is rarely prosecuted because it is not considered a criminal act, but a lapse in procedure that is dealt with internally.

Like I said earlier, people want and wish her to be guilty, but they are putting the care before the horse here.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The way the laws I mentioned are written and her keeping a private server makes it nearly impossible she didn't violate at least one of the articles of one of the laws I mentioned. Now I will concede and say you are correct she has not been charged or found guilty. This fact alone does not mean she didn't violate the law. Millions of people every day break laws and don't get caught or do time. Does that mean that their actions were no less illegal just because they didn't get caught or prosecuted?? While I understand your argument it does not negate the fact that a person who is running for President knowingly violated the law. The problem people are having is unlike average Joe citizen Mrs. Clinton will probably never be held responsible for putting our entire nation at risk for her own personal convenience. This is the definition of unfair and unjust...She is a despicable woman period.




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill



The way the laws I mentioned are written and her keeping a private server makes it nearly impossible she didn't violate at least one of the articles of one of the laws I mentioned.


But still possible. To lean one way or the other is complete conjecture until evidence is provided.



Now I will concede and say you are correct she has not been charged or found guilty. This fact alone does not mean she didn't violate the law.


As I said before, this issue is quite common and is rarely prosecuted. For her to be prosecuted in this case would mean that some very damaging evidence, such as emails that do contain information that puts the nation at risk, would have to been recovered. Issues like this are usually taken care of internally because it is common and is not considered a criminal matter, but procedural. That means that regular Joe's have and do get away with it all the time.



She is a despicable woman period.


Do you know her personally? Is she despicable because it's been proven she violated the law, or you think she violated the law? Do you find all people that broke the law, regardless of offense, to be despicable people?

Or is she despicable because you don't like her politics?



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Are you now or have you ever been employed by the Democratic National Committee?
are you in fact one of the aides who deleted the servers?
Its okay I won't tell.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: introvert

Are you now or have you ever been employed by the Democratic National Committee?
are you in fact one of the aides who deleted the servers?
Its okay I won't tell.


Can't address the topic at hand and have to resort to this, huh?

Oh well.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You didn't say no.......

And on the topic at hand she has admitted essentially to breaking the law by deleting information that was subpoenaed, required by law to be archived, and required by law to be specially encrypted(and wasnt).
So. Are you being paid per post or for the hour?



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
Bull#..... The Justice Department is full of it!

Clinton was under a subpoena to turn over her email by the Department of State.... she deleted them when requested.... She is guilty!!!

Public service is to be open and transparent...and that she is not!!!

2nd Bull#....
No way in hell is she leading national Democratic polls....

This just proves she is a witch!!!!


public service is suppose to be open and transparent?.....that's bull....what? do you want the pentagon e-mails open to the public?.....she was the secretary of state, a high enough and sensitive enough position that in some cases, it's none of the publics go**amn business, who, and/or what she is communicating.....I'm going to vote for her just to watch some republicans heads pop open like a water balloon.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: dashen



You didn't say no.......


Why should I have to address such an ignorant question?



essentially


Essentially? Did she or did she not? In the court of law, that is very important.



So. Are you being paid per post or for the hour?


Is anyone that takes a different approach or has a different opinion a paid shill in your eyes? I find it funny that you cannot discuss the issue without resorting to personal attacks.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
So in the end of this all amounted to nothing? Liberals and Democrats have been asking themselves what the heck is going on with the right for a while now and it's clear that they just want to cause trouble.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So you expect a crook to be prosecuted by her crook friends in a crooked court?
To be prosecuted by the same Justice Department that ran fast and furious?
And didn't prosecute Lois Lerner?
And wouldn't prosecute anybody who knew where all the skeletons were buried.
In Clinton's case probably actual skeletons



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join