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.

 

Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up

page: 11
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

But it wasn't actually done .




posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You only have to listen to the chatter still going on about Benghazi to have your answer on that.

It's like the moon landings. For some no proof will ever be sufficient.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

But it wasn't actually done .


You know this for sure?




posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



You've been given numerous reputable links supporting the stances of those of us who believe that several laws have been violated without remorse


There are two parts to this statement:

First, you use a very important word. "Believe". Beliefs do not convict people. Yes, you have provided links to support those beliefs, but not to proof that clearly shows she committed a crime.

Second, to say laws were broken without remorse indicates you wish to project your "beliefs" on to someone else's intent. You don't know her intent. To say such a thing is absurd.



and you have yet to provide one link to support your stance.


I have not made any specific claims, have I? I've only asked people to prove their assertions. So far all I have received is copy and paste of US Code, but not specifics in to what she did to violate those codes with specific evidence. What do I have to prove, which would require links?


Because your reply was better than mine would have been.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

He did not say Hillary didn't direct her staff to do those things. He said those things were not done. The suggestion was made apparently because of hardware issues but since the action never occurred we should logically assume the issue was resolved . Because the actual stripping and sending apparently never occurred.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

But it wasn't actually done .

A subordinate was ordered to break the law by Hillary. The fact that he chose to disobey her order does not absolve her of her guilt.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
It is you who have failed to prove she's done anything illegal.
Siteing code is fine. Connecting those codes to her actions is what's needed.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

But it wasn't actually done .

A subordinate was ordered to break the law by Hillary. The fact that he chose to disobey her order does not absolve her of her guilt.


Is what she did actually a crime she can be charged with, even though the subordinate did not do as she asked?

If so, what would she be charged with?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

We would have to assume straw man that an e mail containing that information would never ever be transmitted without a top secret classification in the first place.
Back to the real world now



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

You know, a little research keeps you from looking silly!!!

My my I wonder how the State Department knew about Powell and Rice's emails.....hmmmmmmmmmmm

A vast right wing republican conspiracy?

Kanye West told on them?

I know,...it was George Bush wasn't it???


You know how they found them? Because they started doing reviews of all their emails after the Hillary debacle... guess where they found them?

In Colin Powells bathroom on a server??

Nope.


They came straight from the State Department archives where they have sat for years after already being captured by the State Department.

Nice try though.... I rate it 1 out of 10 stars.

edit on R532016-03-09T09:53:46-06:00k533Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

PS how do you mark information in a conversation?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

But it wasn't actually done .

A subordinate was ordered to break the law by Hillary. The fact that he chose to disobey her order does not absolve her of her guilt.


Is what she did actually a crime she can be charged with, even though the subordinate did not do as she asked?

If so, what would she be charged with?


What it shows is criminal intent... it may be the one email that hangs her....it will be used as evidence that not only was she aware of security regulations, she was also aware of exactly out to try and circumvent them.

Tick Tock goes the clock.
edit on R562016-03-09T09:56:40-06:00k563Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

PS how do you mark information in a conversation?

I guess it went over your head.
The point is that the nature of the information is what makes it classified... Not a stamp on the paper.
Hillary was trained in how to identify and handle classified material before she took over the reins of command at the State Department. She signed a paper to acknowledge that she understood what was expected.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



What it shows is criminal intent... it may be the one email that hangs her....it will be used as evidence that not only was she aware of security regulations, she was also aware of exactly out to try and circumvent them.


Criminal intent is only an applicable aspect if an actual crime has taken place. No security regulation was circumvented.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Again. If I say I'm gonna kill you. Can I be charged with anything?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

But it wasn't actually done .

A subordinate was ordered to break the law by Hillary. The fact that he chose to disobey her order does not absolve her of her guilt.


Is what she did actually a crime she can be charged with, even though the subordinate did not do as she asked?

If so, what would she be charged with?

Conspiracy.
Even if she didn't order a crime to be committed, just simply had knowledge that it was being planned and did nothing to stop it, she could be charged with conspiracy.
In this case, since she was the BOSS, she could coerce a person to break the law. Jake Sullivan did the right thing in this case, but Hillary did the wrong thing.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Again. If I say I'm gonna kill you. Can I be charged with anything?

Terroristic threats.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

To be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime you must have at least two people agree to commit an unlawful act.

That is not the case here.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

We would have to assume straw man that an e mail containing that information would never ever be transmitted without a top secret classification in the first place.
Back to the real world now

Good god.
The whole point of this thread is that Hillary did send classified information over unauthorized means of transmission.
Did you think this one through before you typed it?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

So where's the grand jury at on making that decision. Oh yeah they haven't convened one yet. You must know with your close association and all that the FBI can't bring any charges against her right? So where's the grand jury that's going to do that?
They didn't even want to subpoena for the IT's logs which would have required a grand jury. That is why Paglianos lawyer asked for and received immunity.


Tick Tock goes the clock....

sooooooooooooooon myy precioussssssssssssssssssssssssss soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon.

Do you think the FBI has the authority to grant someone immunity from prosecution? There is an excellent chance a grand jury is already underway.

I will go you even one better.... my money is on the bet that the FBI never talks to her prior to her indictment... they don't need to..... all the little birdies are starting to chirp.... especially the ones who did not receive immunity.




top topics



 
43
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join