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.

 

Breaking: NEW Hillary Clinton Benghazi, Libya, Emails Discovered!

page: 5
66
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:24 AM
link   
The Benghazi truthers are behaving exactly as the terrorists hoped they would.

Congrats!




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5
No.
I was voicing my opinion that she is not blameless.



And who here has claimed she is??


Your response to people pointing out inaccuracy and outright BS around the issue was..

"Yes. Saint Hillary is blameless. As pure as the driven snow. "

THAT tactic is BS. Choose between Hillary being Blameless vs. A maniac responsible for orchestrating the murder of American Diplomats and covering it up?

It is a poor defense of lies.



That if the way she has mishandled her official business is what people want to support... well good for them.



Just out of curiosity...Who in DC has not "mishandled" their "official business" by the standard you are employing?


Again...Conservatives do nothing more than discredit themselves when they employ the same "born in Kenya" tactics to these issues...and Ironically there is real issue here to be had...but Hillary doesn't have to address it head on, cuz conservatives discredit themselves with this nonsense. She just has to sit back and watch Conservatives jump the shark and look dishonest...and this OP and the headlines it was derived from are just another step in that direction.

I think conservatives continually underestimate the intelligence and patience of the general populace. The votes they need to win, the REAL independents...not the disillusioned GOP right wing, TPers etc....the real "middle" are thinkers and credibility matters. The GOP is discrediting itself on an issue that has merit.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



And who here has claimed she is??

I explained it in the 'witch hunt' post at the bottom of the previous page.




Just out of curiosity...Who in DC has not "mishandled" their "official business" by the standard you are employing?

They all do it, so why single her out for doing it a lot, eh?

Maybe we should check with General Petraeus about what happens to SOME people when they mishandle govt affairs.


edit on b000000302015-09-28T09:36:18-05:0009America/ChicagoMon, 28 Sep 2015 09:36:18 -0500900000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Since you've made the Petraeus-Clinton comparison
...If anyone wants to claim a witch hunt towards Hillary Clinton...they absolutely must make the same claim about General Petraeus (warlock hunt?).
This article from the New York Post, yesterday, compares both cases and finds that Hillary is every bit as guilty as Petraeus (if not more so)...according to the facts involved and violated statute criteria (18 USC S1924).



Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law




On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute:

(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and,

(2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States,

(3) knowingly removes such documents or materials

(4) without authority and

(5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”



The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?

Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.

She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself.

As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.

Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).

Two examples demonstrate this point.
When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.

Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.

Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”

While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.

There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.

Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.

The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.

It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.

Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.

Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.


nypost.com...
edit on 28-9-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

That logic fails in that no one has demonstrated that Hillary stored materials or emails on her server that were classified (by state...since they are responsible for their own classification of material) at the time they were communicated.

If the hunt turns up material that was classified at the time they were communicated, the question is then asked...who did the sending and who did the receiving.

Lastly that law pertains to "removing material" ... email subject content is not "removal"

Petraeus literally, physically, handed over classified material to a woman he was having an affair with..

...The above has to do with "thinking", not "feeling"...that said, I expect the continued emotional flaming for someone daring to engage thought and analysis rather than hyperbolic emotion.




edit on 28-9-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Since I've referenced Hillary's Meet The Press interview here, I thought I'd share this.
THIS is priceless:


Hillary Supporters All Have Suspiciously Identical Feelings About Meet the Press Interview





In a massive coincidence, every single Hillary Clinton staffer and surrogate who watched the Democratic presidential candidate’s Meet the Press interview had the exact same thoughts, sometimes using identical language.

Karen Finney ✔@finneyk
Questions on @HillaryClinton's emails on this morning's #MTP? Asked and answered. Time to move on.
11:16 AM - 27 Sep 2015

Brad Woodhouse @woodhouseb
Questions on @HillaryClinton's emails on this morning's #MTP? Asked and answered. Time to move on.
11:35 AM - 27 Sep 2015

Jennifer Granholm ✔@JenGranholm
Cannot wait to see @HillaryClinton on @meetthepress this a.m.! Sounds like she answered every email question ever. Now, time to move on!
10:18 AM - 27 Sep 2015

Hilary Rosen ✔@hilaryr
Questions on @HillaryClinton's emails on yesterday's #MTP? Asked and answered. Time to move on.Please.
6:56 AM - 28 Sep 2015


Buffy Wicks @BuffyWicks
.@HillaryClinton responds to questions about emails on #MTP. Good answers, time to move on to substance please.
11:20 AM - 27 Sep 2015


Now at first, it may appear that these responses were all coordinated in some fashion. However, it would be against the law for campaign officials to coordinate with a pro-Clinton Super PAC director like Brad Woodhouse. So clearly it’s a coincidence that his tweet was identical to Clinton staffer Karen Finney’s.


www.mediaite.com...

LOL...Nothing against the law going on here! Just coincidence...yup!



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT



"Time to move on"



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Curious?

Now if the congressional investigation panel never had access to Clintons server how can they say without equivocation there was 'no' wrong doing.

And Why did they blame Benghazi over a video ?

Because Clinton, and her boss were up to it there.

I think what has been going on has been about CLinton covering her duplicity, and well as the presidents.


According to the LA Times back in the 2000's, the White House had two computer networks. One was for official government business and all communications were archived for the public record. The other network was for political party business. They weren't allowed to use government computers for political party purposes. It would seem that emails from this network were archived somewhere after all.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
This is why NO government employee should ever have their GOVERNMENT EMAILS, (CLAIMING THEY ARE PRIVATE) on a PRIVATE SERVER:


In 2012, congressional investigators asked the State Department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The department eventually responded, furnishing House committees with thousands of documents. But it turns out that that was not everything. The State Department had not searched the email account of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton because she had maintained a private account, which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on Tuesday.

It was only last month that the House committee appointed to investigate Benghazi was provided with about 300 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails related to the attacks. That was shortly after Mrs. Clinton turned over, at the State Department’s request, some 50,000 pages of
government-related emails that she had kept on her private account. It was one of several instances in which records requests sent to the State Department, which had no access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, came up empty.

www.nytimes.com... s&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article


Can anyone defend this?????? BTW, this article was in March 2015, THREE years after Benghazi. Also btw, the investigators asked for info in 2012. Clinton resigned in Feb 2013, NEVER disclosing she had sent or received emails regarding Benghazi on her PRIVATE SERVER from a PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNT.

Are people so partisanally blind they can't see the WRONG in this?
edit on 28-9-2015 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
My prediction is...

The truth and full scale of her wrongdoing will eventually be reveald...right after she either does not win the democratic nomination OR she withdraws on her own accord (for whatever reason). Subsequent to this there will be a major revelation about Benghazi and/or classified documents on her separate email system. None of this will happen until after she (or her camp) makes a stunning revelation about some preveiously unrevealed serious health issue (such as a stroke or brain issue). The health issue will be characterized as 'life threatening' by the media and this drum will be sounded far and wide. She will then publically apologize to "America" and cite her medical issue as the reason for her numerous lapses in judgement (in essence playing the sympathy card on a grand scale).

Hillary will then disappear into obscurity under the guise of "seeking treatment" for her "life threatening" malady.

You heard it here first, folks!




edit on 10/4/2015 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
October 5, 2016

More evidence that the Obama Administration is willing to ignore enforcing U.S. laws and procedures, if it will damage Hillary Clinton. A U.S. arms dealer who threatened to expose Hillary Clinton's Libya-arms dealings, had all charges against him suddenly dropped today by the Department of noJustice.

Story: www.foxnews.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
October 5, 2016

More evidence that the Obama Administration is willing to ignore enforcing U.S. laws and procedures, if it will damage Hillary Clinton. A U.S. arms dealer who threatened to expose Hillary Clinton's Libya-arms dealings, had all charges against him suddenly dropped today by the Department of noJustice.

Story: www.foxnews.com...


Read that earlier....certainly has to raise some eyebrows, but likely will be under reported and swept away quickly.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
October 5, 2016

More evidence that the Obama Administration is willing to ignore enforcing U.S. laws and procedures, if it will damage Hillary Clinton. A U.S. arms dealer who threatened to expose Hillary Clinton's Libya-arms dealings, had all charges against him suddenly dropped today by the Department of noJustice.

Story: www.foxnews.com...


Didn't anyone know it is the year of immunity?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: IAMTAT

That logic fails in that no one has demonstrated that Hillary stored materials or emails on her server that were classified (by state...since they are responsible for their own classification of material) at the time they were communicated.

If the hunt turns up material that was classified at the time they were communicated, the question is then asked...who did the sending and who did the receiving.

Lastly that law pertains to "removing material" ... email subject content is not "removal"

Petraeus literally, physically, handed over classified material to a woman he was having an affair with..

...The above has to do with "thinking", not "feeling"...that said, I expect the continued emotional flaming for someone daring to engage thought and analysis rather than hyperbolic emotion.





So two choices here:
1: The above posted statute that member IMATAT posted (the current law) defines exactly and to a T that Clinton's actions are proof of intent to violate the law.
2: Go with your version of things just to defend Clinton.

Nope, I have to go with Number 1..
You can have the number 2 for your self.

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



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: IAMTAT

That logic fails in that no one has demonstrated that Hillary stored materials or emails on her server that were classified (by state...since they are responsible for their own classification of material) at the time they were communicated.

If the hunt turns up material that was classified at the time they were communicated, the question is then asked...who did the sending and who did the receiving.

Lastly that law pertains to "removing material" ... email subject content is not "removal"

Petraeus literally, physically, handed over classified material to a woman he was having an affair with..

...The above has to do with "thinking", not "feeling"...that said, I expect the continued emotional flaming for someone daring to engage thought and analysis rather than hyperbolic emotion.





So two choices here:



I don't enjoy binary fallacies...limiting reality to either 0 or 1, or just 2 possibilities..it is not healthy or honest thinking.




1: The above posted statute that member IMATAT posted (the current law) defines exactly and to a T that Clinton's actions are proof of intent to violate the law.
2: Go with your version of things just to defend Clinton.

Nope, I have to go with Number 1..



Have you ever been caught beating your wife?


1: You have never been caught

2: You have been caught beating your wife


If you ever want to debate honestly we can discuss..

edit on 6-10-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



Lastly that law pertains to "removing material" ... email subject content is not "removal"

What if the subject matter is SCIF?
Some of Hillary's emails contained SCIF material.

That stuff isn't supposed to be out there floating around on the Internet.

edit on b000000312016-10-06T10:44:24-05:0010America/ChicagoThu, 06 Oct 2016 10:44:24 -05001000000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Indigo5



Lastly that law pertains to "removing material" ... email subject content is not "removal"

What if the subject matter is SCIF?
Some of Hillary's emails contained SCIF material.



Those are two different things...Subject Matter vs. Material.

Subject matter ex: Assad might have chemical weapons
Material ex: See attached intelligence report from covert source in Syria

The SCIF "content" referred to the existence of the drone program, whose existence is still technically top secret, despite the world knowing about it.




That stuff isn't supposed to be out there floating around on the Internet.


A NY Times article forwarded to Clinton describing the US Drone Program was classified as Top Secret content.

Technically...YEP it is... But context matters.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Forget about Hillary nonsense and Bengazi. The point here is: How long will the govt recognized by NATO/Italy will hold up together in the current conditions?



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join