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: 14
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Wow... just... wow...

You do work for the Clinton campaign.


Still waiting for an intelligent response.

Or perhaps I would be better off to accuse you of something absurd.

Considering your lack of intelligent responses, you must work for the Trump campaign!






posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Ok I will bite...

You posted some while back that you had to attend the Iowa caucus because that is where your "work" took you. Later you posted pictures from the caucus.

What work do you do that made it necessary to attend the caucus?

Do you work for a candidate? Paid or volunteer?

You are very very good at disrupting threads about Hillary....take this one for example... you always manage to drive the conversation where you want it to go.. you should be getting paid if you aren't. lol



And for someone who claims to not care,,, shall we count up and see how many times you have posted on numerous threads about Hillary just to show how much you supposedly do not care? You have shown much you do not care about Hillary over 50 times, in this thread.

You have 50+ replies in this thread alone about Hillary and you still claim you do not care about Hillary?

Every defense you put up gets shot down, then you show up on a new thread and start all over again.


TELL EVERYBODY: WAS IT LEGAL FOR HILLARY TO HAVE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON HER PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER?

Yes or no man.... get off that tight rope of moral justice you talk about and make a simple decision for your self once:

Was it legal for Hillary Clinton to have classified information on her private email server? Answer that.


edit on R252016-03-09T14:25:47-06:00k253Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R352016-03-09T14:35:07-06:00k353Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R362016-03-09T14:36:38-06:00k363Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R422016-03-09T14:42:17-06:00k423Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R442016-03-09T14:44:02-06:00k443Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R562016-03-09T14:56:28-06:00k563Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I think his defense of Clinton coupled with his attempts at double talk while making claims then denying he ever said it tells us who he works for.

The Clinton campaign.

Now watch him not answer your question with more double speak while insisting he answered it.
edit on 9-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Wrong. None of the e mails were sent by her they were received by her. Most almost exclusively were issued a confidential low level after the investigation because the e mails were NOW being released and had to be changed. Nothing was classified when she got them.
Information provided by Fox may have made her look silly. But only to the foolish who were inclined to believe it.
It is a witch hunt.
3/4sent by her. Don't be riduculous
Where's your source?
Where's the link. You can't just attach bogus paragraphs and claim they're legitimate.


In that case, where's your source ? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Okeyd57

Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified


In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Clinton's SCI non disclosure acknowledgement.


The 'Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement,' which Clinton inked during her second day as Secretary of State, declared that she was personally responsible for determining if sensitive documents in her possession were classified at the government's highest level.

'I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI.



'I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,' the agreement Clinton signed states.



'I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI and removal from a position of special confidence and trust requiring such access,' the agreement reads, 'as well as the termination of my employment or other relationships with my Department of Agency that provides me with access to SCI.'



'In addition,' she agreed, 'I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 796, and 952, Title 18, United States Code; and of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code.'

'Nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violations.'



Page 1/2



Page 2/2


It's plain and simple. She violated the law as its not an excuse to "not know" if something is restricted.


Source -
* - Hillary signed State Department contract saying it was HER job to know if documents were classified top secret, and laid out criminal penalties for 'negligent handling'
edit on 9-3-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



You posted some while back that you had to attend the Iowa caucus because that is where your "work" took you. Later you posted pictures from the caucus.


That is correct.



What work do you do that made it necessary to attend the caucus?


I do not like to talk about that. It is irrelevant.



Do you work for a candidate? Paid or volunteer?


No. I do not work in either capacity.



You are very very good at disrupting threads about Hillary....take this one for example... you always manage to drive the conversation where you want it to go.. you should be getting paid if you aren't. lol


If you cannot control how and when you participate in a conversation, what is the point? But I would like to know why asking for real evidence is considered a disruption? It's a fairly simple and reasonable concept.



And for someone who claims to not care,,, shall we count up and see how many times you have posted on numerous threads about Hillary just to show how much you supposedly do not care? You have shown much you do not care about Hillary over 50 times, in this thread.

You have 50+ replies in this thread alone about Hillary and you still claim you do not care about Hillary?


I care about the truth and despise people that push absolute nonsense. There is plenty of that in this thread. You have helped push it as well.



Every defense you put up gets shot down, then you show up on a new thread and start all over again.


How's that? I'm still here and you still have yet to provide absolute proof of your assertions. In every thread in which we converse, you say the same things and every time you are easily shut down by me asking for proof.

If I remember correctly, the last couple of threads you had a little breakdown.



TELL EVERYBODY: WAS IT LEGAL FOR HILLARY TO HAVE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON HER PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER?

Yes or no man.... get off that tight rope of moral justice you talk about and make a simple decision for your self once:

Was it legal for Hillary Clinton to have classified information on her private email server? Answer that.


It's not a simple yes or no answer. That is the problem. You think it is black and white, yet there are many circumstances and legal aspects that must be considered before any determination can be made.

On top of that, I do not have all of the evidence. Neither do you. To make any claim as to her guilt or innocence is illogical.

You have made a decision because your political desires trump your ability to logically process information. I'm not blinded by either politics or desire.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RickinVa

I think his defense of Clinton coupled with his attempts at double talk while making claims then denying he ever said it tells us who he works for.

The Clinton campaign.

Now watch him not answer your question with more double speak while insisting he answered it.


I have not defended Clinton at all. I've only asked for the proof.

I like how none of you can provide solid proof that concludes her guilt is inevitable, and then turn the topic in to being about me, personally. Is your ability to discuss the matter so poor that you must turn on members that simply ask you to prove what you claim?

Or are we still stuck in derp mode?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Again thank you for proving my point.

Care to try and explain the SCI info I provided showing her failure to abide by the laws I listed and that you ignored?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Why don't you make a thread that shows / proves HRC's innocence?

All I see you doing is attempting to derail threads that are doing a great job at showing her misdeeds, it getting really old.

Myself, I think your dog don't hunt!

Sorry, just adding my 2 cents worth of thoughts!



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Again thank you for proving my point.


And what was your point? So far that statement has been used as a last effort in which you have no idea how to intelligently respond.



Care to try and explain the SCI info I provided showing her failure to abide by the laws I listed and that you ignored?


How did I ignore it? Your post was not directed towards me.

Also, it is hard for me to "explain" it because I do not have the information to say whether or not she mishandled information that was not retroactively classified.

Do you have access to FBI/JD information to confirm that?



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad



Why don't you make a thread that shows / proves HRC's innocence?


I don't have the information to show innocence or guilt. That has been the entire point. No one knows anything except the small bits that have been leaked to the media, or completely made-up by Right Wing propagandists.



All I see you doing is attempting to derail threads that are doing a great job at showing her misdeeds, it getting really old.


Asking for proof is derailing? I expect better from you.



Myself, I think your dog don't hunt!


I don't have a dog in this fight.



Sorry, just adding my 2 cents worth of thoughts!


Noted. No reason to be sorry.

Edit to add: If I am not mistaken, you are in the "Hillary is guilty" camp. If that is correct, I find your assessment to be irrelevant. You're biased from the get-go.
edit on 9-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Talking to you is like taking to a revolving door,,, you my friend should have been a politician, or maybe you are one now... because you have a PHD when it comes to saying a whole lot of BS to cover what could have been a yes or no answer and still not answer a question.

Go chase your tail,,,, good boy good boy.


Cmon indictments.... save me from this inane drivel spouted those who are too blind to seeeeeeeeeeee



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Personal attacks? Really?

All I have asked is for you and others to prove your assertions. When you can't do so, you turn on me.

I'm all for an indictment, but what if, by a small chance, there is no indictment?

What will you do then?

Like I said, you have laid all your chips and reputation on the table for a sucker's bet.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


First off define what you would consider proof?


Me I want to see a trial aired to the world, but even so one could argue any decision was not proof.

Not sure what would satisfy your specific needs or definition of proof?

Billy boy and HRC skate around the truth as the lawyers they are, proof is something they will always question.


Do you think HRC is innocent of everything being said about her email scandal?


I probably could not prove ATS exists to suit your position on proof.

The only Dem I ever voted for was Bubba, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Hearing about HRC's white water scandal daily, sucked. But she put herself into a questionable situation as she gas done with her emails.

I will end this with the admission that I dislike HRC and can not be impartial when discussing her.

Have a great day!

AD



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra



Again thank you for proving my point.


And what was your point? So far that statement has been used as a last effort in which you have no idea how to intelligently respond.



Care to try and explain the SCI info I provided showing her failure to abide by the laws I listed and that you ignored?


How did I ignore it? Your post was not directed towards me.

Also, it is hard for me to "explain" it because I do not have the information to say whether or not she mishandled information that was not retroactively classified.

Do you have access to FBI/JD information to confirm that?


thanks introvert for staying on this....the right on ATS does not like to be challenged, and it can turn into a real slog. I've been there a couple of times, not nearly to the extant that you have. hence, my 2nd line in my signature.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Personal attacks? Really?

All I have asked is for you and others to prove your assertions. When you can't do so, you turn on me.

I'm all for an indictment, but what if, by a small chance, there is no indictment?

What will you do then?

Like I said, you have laid all your chips and reputation on the table for a sucker's bet.


Tell me anything you deem proof.... you are only asking for things that you know people can not provide....absence of physical proof does not necessarily dictate innocence.

You will never see any emails as proof,,, the classified ones will stay that way. That doesn't mean you are right, just that you keep asking for something you know damn well they can't provide.

We can't use news source unless you deem they are credible and not some vast right wing group...


Here is your chance to shine little man..........


Things that Introvert will accept as proof of Hillary's guilt or innocence:

1

2

3

I doubt if there are even three, but what the hell I give every dog a break now and then.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad



First off define what you would consider proof?


We would need clear evidence that she is guilty of knowingly and willfully mishandling classified information, and that does not include emails in which the context was retroactively classified.

I have not seen any such proof.



Me I want to see a trial aired to the world, but even so one could argue any decision was not proof.


That would be what most of us want, but you do realize you are setting-up this entire investigation to become a product of conspiracy.



Do you think HRC is innocent of everything being said about her email scandal?


How would I know? I do not have access to that information.



I probably could not prove ATS exists to suit your position on proof.


Absurd. I can access and use ATS. It is clear it exists. Do you have access to information that clearly shows Hillary is guilty?



But she put herself into a questionable situation as she gas done with her emails.


That is obvious. While her guilt is up in the air, we can be certain her judgement was not the greatest.



I will end this with the admission that I dislike HRC and can not be impartial when discussing her.


I respect the honesty. Wish more people were willing to say the same and admit that it wouldn't matter one bit if she was guilty or not. They already desire her to be guilty and no amount of proof of her innocence will matter.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra



Again thank you for proving my point.


And what was your point? So far that statement has been used as a last effort in which you have no idea how to intelligently respond.



Care to try and explain the SCI info I provided showing her failure to abide by the laws I listed and that you ignored?


How did I ignore it? Your post was not directed towards me.

Also, it is hard for me to "explain" it because I do not have the information to say whether or not she mishandled information that was not retroactively classified.

Do you have access to FBI/JD information to confirm that?


thanks introvert for staying on this....the right on ATS does not like to be challenged, and it can turn into a real slog. I've been there a couple of times, not nearly to the extant that you have. hence, my 2nd line in my signature.


Thanks.

Sometimes I like to get in the mud and roll around with the pigs. It keeps things interesting.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Tell me anything you deem proof.... you are only asking for things that you know people can not provide....absence of physical proof does not necessarily dictate innocence.


Exactly!

As you have admitted previously, you and others, unless part of the investigation, have absolutely no information that can be used to come to any logical conclusion.

So why are you guys coming to a conclusion?



That doesn't mean you are right


I am right and you have just proven it. We cannot come to any conclusions whatsoever.



Things that Introvert will accept as proof of Hillary's guilt or innocence:

1

2

3

I doubt if there are even three, but what the hell I give every dog a break now and then.


Unlike a dog, I don't do requests.

You've already proven and conceded my major point. There is no need to play your silly game.
edit on 9-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join