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.

 

U.S. declares 22 Clinton emails 'top secret'

page: 7
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"Again, why did that one email receive that classification?"

WTF Homer....the letter from the IG says and I quote "These emails, attached hereto, ".... you are automatically ASSUMING that it is only one.... I am saying that it is at least one.... that is a huge difference. Last time I checked, "emails" is the plural of email and means more than one email.

If I said it was more than one, then I would be assuming that, there is no proof... all I know is that at least 1 email was classified TK. FACT.


You are going to make me go buy more popcorn... your hilarious.

Divide and conquer, obfuscate, try to get people to focus on 1 email out of 1,300+ . Pretty common tactic on these threads.


edit on R132016-01-30T17:13:44-06:00k131Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R162016-01-30T17:16:26-06:00k161Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R192016-01-30T17:19:13-06:00k191Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R202016-01-30T17:20:59-06:00k201Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R212016-01-30T17:21:40-06:00k211Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
Why can't these goofballs here link to the IG directly?

Ha!

The only place they can find this "document" is on GOP websites.

Face palm!

In response they quote forest bump and think that somehow proves their point.

Just show me the evidence. I'm easily swayed by facts, not BS.


WTF man.... where is that logic coming from?

its on red state....IG letter dated 11 August 2015... it is right wing

its on a senate website...IG letter dated 11 August 2015.....its GOP propaganda

its on the IG"s website...IG letter dated 11 August 2015... all of a sudden that makes it legit?

I don't follow your logic or lack thereof.

You only will believe what ever it is you believe in your own private little world....done talking to you... you make absolutely no sense what so ever other than just rambling on.



Logic?

I asked for a link to the IG. All I get are links to GOP politicians and blogs. How many times must I explain this?


It would help you get to bottom of it if you would just think this through for what it is and not what you are trying to make it fit. We have people here who have politely explained, with reference s how "Hillary is innocent" is wrong and that ship has already sailed. You are making yourself look bad at this point. Like wacky comments from others, say on the far right, you look "out there" bud. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes would say "elementary my dear Watson" to you.



Put up or shut up.

Don't link to climate/science deniers.

I rely on credible sources only.

You fools can't even get past step one: a credible source.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware

I rely on credible sources only.

You fools can't even get past step one: a credible source.


So it looks like the Inspector General, the FBI, The State Dept, the White House are all not credible when they acknowledge the existence of classified material on the Hillary Clinton private email system.

I'll have to re-think everything now.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



WTF Homer....the letter from the IG says and I quote "These emails, attached hereto, ".... you are automatically ASSUMING that it is only one


No. I am following your example you set when you said this:



I only used 1 as a reference number because that is the only known fact


I'm confused as it appears that you are even focusing on this one email in your responses, but then chastise me for playing the game by the same rules.



If I said it was more than one, then I would be assuming that, there is no proof... all I know is that at least 1 email was classified TK. FACT.


True. What we don't know is what the email contained that triggered the classification or whether or not the information was classified before the correspondence occurred. We cannot conclude Hillary broke any laws if we don't know that important information.

To say otherwise is either an assumption or wishful thinking.

You still failed to answer the question: Is it possible?


edit on 30-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware

I rely on credible sources only.

You fools can't even get past step one: a credible source.


So it looks like the Inspector General, the FBI, The State Dept, the White House are all not credible when they acknowledge the existence of classified material on the Hillary Clinton private email system.

I'll have to re-think everything now.




No link to the letter. Just more babbling. Do you fools ever tire of being embarrassed?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SkyNetBeware



Links to the letters all over the place.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware

I rely on credible sources only.

You fools can't even get past step one: a credible source.


So it looks like the Inspector General, the FBI, The State Dept, the White House are all not credible when they acknowledge the existence of classified material on the Hillary Clinton private email system.

I'll have to re-think everything now.




Don't forget the good number of emails between her and Obama considered too sensitive to release...One would think that Obama would be really pissed off with her.

The classification of top secret with 22 emails are at a point they can't even clean them up for release under FOIA, this doesn't sound like politics in making common emails top secret after the fact...lol

BTW doesn't Obama basically control all this? Hasn't he been in power to put the right people in place over the last 8 years to support him and her? If all of this is heading in this direction then it has got to be bad to the point that people on their side are going to protect their jobs as everyone comes under view.


edit on 30-1-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The state department said the classified emails were not classified when they were sent.

They were deemed classified recently.

No one in the public knows what's in those emails. Especially ATS Hillary haters who keep swearing they have an OLDER "IG" letter that somehow spells doom for Hillary, even though the only links they can provide are to gop politicians who deny climate science and who just voted to declare that climate change is not man caused though most scientists say otherwise.

www.vox.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: SkyNetBeware



Links to the letters all over the place.



Links to science deniers are not credible.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: SkyNetBeware



Links to the letters all over the place.



In none of those letters does it say that Clinton violated any law. Many of them state that certain emails contained certain information or terms that triggered classification, but they do not clarify as to whether it was classified at the time of being sent/received. In fact, in one of the releases it specifically stated that the classification was procedural, and not because it contained highly-classified information.
edit on 30-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware

I rely on credible sources only.

You fools can't even get past step one: a credible source.


So it looks like the Inspector General, the FBI, The State Dept, the White House are all not credible when they acknowledge the existence of classified material on the Hillary Clinton private email system.

I'll have to re-think everything now.




Don't forget the good number of emails between her and Obama considered too sensitive to release...One would think that Obama would be really pissed off with her.

The classification of top secret with 22 emails are at a point they can't even clean them up for release under FOIA, this doesn't sound like politics in making common emails top secret after the fact...lol

BTW doesn't Obama basically control all this? Hasn't he been in power to put the right people in place over the last 8 years to support him and her. If all of this is heading in this direction it got to be bad to the point people are going to protect their jobs as everyone comes under view.


You can't even put together a coherent sentence. Did you take basic writing classes in school? Try to learn to write before expounding on politics.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
The state department said the classified emails were not classified when they were sent.

They were deemed classified recently.


I guess you do not understand classification. You normally do not send classified information in an email, if you do then the email is classified after the fact of sending it, no need if the email is not sent...lol

You are also not allowed to cut and paste classified information from a classified document into an email, big no no. In this case your point (and hers) is moot in the emails were not classified when sent..duh... But both of you do not say that they didn't hold classified information when sent.

All of this is the old Bill's what is the definition of sex, or what is, is?

Someone who types/cut and paste information that would be considered classified up to top secret into a email then sends it to an unsecured server is going to jail, but to suggest that it was OK because the email wasn't classified before it was sent, though it would have been if people knew, is about as stupid an excuses as one could dream up, but then if it is your only one...lol




edit on 30-1-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
You can't even put together a coherent sentence. Did you take basic writing classes in school? Try to learn to write before expounding on politics.


Argumentum ad hominem, it seems you reached the end of your point...lol


edit on 30-1-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
The state department said the classified emails were not classified when they were sent.

They were deemed classified recently.



That's what happens when somebody like Hillary doesn't release the emails for a couple of years.

She had them on her on personal computer system.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

In none of those letters does it say that Clinton violated any law.


Of course nothing says that.

They won't comment about ongoing investigations.

If they do, some evidence would get thrown out in court.

Not to mention if the evidence is itself classified, they won't talk either.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Argumentum ad hominem, it seems you reached the end of your point...lol



The Clinton Campaign is on a massive P.R. onslaught after yesterday.

Even the kitchen sink is disconnecting.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
The state department said the classified emails were not classified when they were sent.

They were deemed classified recently.


I guess you do not understand classification. You normally do not send classified information in an email, if you do then the email is classified after the fact of sending it, no need if the email is not sent...lol

You are also not allowed to cut and paste classified information from a classified document into an email, big no no. In this case your point (and hers) is moot in the emails were not classified when sent..duh... But both of you do not say that they didn't hold classified information when sent.

All of this is the old Bill's what is the definition of sex, or what is, is?

Someone who types/cut and paste information that would be considered classified up to top secret into a email then sends it to an unsecured server is going to jail, but to suggest that it was OK because the email wasn't classified before it was sent, though it would have been if people knew, is about as stupid an excuses as one could dream up, but then if it is your only one...lol





My comments were very simple to understand. I'm telling you what the state department said. I provided a link.

Feel free to contact them about your "expert knowledge" about all that. I'm sure they need a laugh.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
The state department said the classified emails were not classified when they were sent.

They were deemed classified recently.



That's what happens when somebody like Hillary doesn't release the emails for a couple of years.

She had them on her on personal computer system.



The state dept said the info wasn't classified at the time it was sent.

Read that a few times and you may start to understand why your reply is irrelevant.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

In none of those letters does it say that Clinton violated any law.


Of course nothing says that.

They won't comment about ongoing investigations.

If they do, some evidence would get thrown out in court.

Not to mention if the evidence is itself classified, they won't talk either.





So then you would agree that we know very little and it is therefore illogical to make any conclusion whatsoever?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SkyNetBeware

Vox Media is sure a solid non-biased, non-partisan outfit aren't they.

They support Hillary, so naturally they will nudge in her direction.







top topics



 
32
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join