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: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Official from whom????




posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I'm out guys bye



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Official from whom????


the links are right in the story I gave you to read




posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: introvert

Even if you bought that explanation, it still does not negate the fact that a permanent IG would have caught the shell game with the contracts.



There was an interim IG in place and you assume some "game" was being played with the money.

You start off with a conspiracy without having any facts.



You really don't do much in-depth research, do you? Have you not looked into that temporary IG and his questionable connections? I have. Don't even ask me to. Do your own research.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Hillary Clinton's deceptive 'Word Play':



“I did not receive anything that was marked as classified.”

Clinton’s spokesman repeated this deception, saying again:
“No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.”


The FACT is that 'Classified' is NOT a marking; the actual markings are 'SECRET', 'TOP SECRET', etc.

In this way she can answer the question without TECHNICALLY lying.
Most news organizations don't follow up to press her on the deception, because they're not aware of the difference. Hillary's lawyers, however, made sure she knew the difference so she could leverage the word play to avoid technically lying.



www.speaker.gov...
edit on 8-3-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: introvert

Even if you bought that explanation, it still does not negate the fact that a permanent IG would have caught the shell game with the contracts.



There was an interim IG in place and you assume some "game" was being played with the money.

You start off with a conspiracy without having any facts.



this type of attack by the right-wing has been going on for along time. remember that the Clintons are accused by some on the right, of having something to do with the death of Vince Foster on July 20, 1993....almost 23 years ago. these threads accusing Hillary of anything the right thinks will stick to a wall, will multiply as we get closer to November. take the threads here on ATS in 2008, wash, rinse, and repeat.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Story from Politico last October.....

Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germany



Hillary Clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state — including more than 400 now considered classified — was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany after she stepped down in 2013, according to Congressional investigators.

The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee has found evidence of attempted intrusions into Clinton's server in 2013 and 2014, according to a letter Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent Monday to a Florida-based security firm tasked with protecting the hardware.

The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton's sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says.





posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"You guys don't understand what retroactive classification is. You don't understand that many of the things you claim she is guilty of, is/was perfectly legal and you don't understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty."

I AM SO TIRED OF THIS BS LINE....JUST FREAKING STOP IT.

It is really making some of you look really stupid.

Very very few, if any emails were "retroactively" classified.

YOU CAN NOT "RETROACTIVELY" CLASSIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY CLASSIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT IS A FACT JACK.

Almost every single work email written by a Secretary of State would be classified from the second it was written.

Retroactively classified is a spin put out by the Clinton Camp.


Thank goodness this will all be answered in a few short weeks... with a recommendation for indictment for Hillary Clinton and several others.


Over 25 years in the intelligence community business, last 7 with the FBI itself....served on an advisory board for Security to the Director of the FBI as a subject matter expert on communications security, I can say this with clarity:

I have never in my life seen anything like what I am seeing today. As far as innocence until proven guilty......when you have been caught with numerous, and I do mean numerous, instances of unauthorized storage of classified information outside of strict government control....you my friend are guilty of numerous felonies... and I do mean numerous felonies.

I see where they are handing out immunity offers, but darn it, I just can not seem to find Hillary's name on that list.

Tick Tock goes the FBI investigation clock.
edit on R102016-03-08T12:10:41-06:00k103Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R222016-03-08T12:22:51-06:00k223Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsreal

Imagine the non-stop media drum beat if she were a Republican. But of course, they're going to down play and run cover for her. No outrage will materialize, because they didn't instruct their brainwashed hordes to be outraged.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


You guys don't understand what retroactive classification is.


You seem to be the one laboring under a misconception:


Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG [attached].

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
emphasis mine

Inspectors General Release Joint Statement to Clear Up Hillary Email Referral Flap



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: introvert

Even if you bought that explanation, it still does not negate the fact that a permanent IG would have caught the shell game with the contracts.



There was an interim IG in place and you assume some "game" was being played with the money.

You start off with a conspiracy without having any facts.



You really don't do much in-depth research, do you? Have you not looked into that temporary IG and his questionable connections? I have. Don't even ask me to. Do your own research.


Yes I have. Does the IG's potential nefarious connections prove there is a $6 billion hole in the budget?

No. It doesn't. No $6 billion shortfall was found in the budget. It was an issue with paperwork.

Perhaps you should research the issue before jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Very very few, if any emails were "retroactively" classified.


Can you prove that?




YOU CAN NOT "RETROACTIVELY" CLASSIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY CLASSIFIED IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT IS A FACT JACK.


True. Can you prove that any of the emails contained classified information, which was classified before transmission?



Retroactively classified is a spin put out by the Clinton Camp.


That is incorrect. The FBI and SD have retroactively classified many emails.



As far as innocence until proven guilty......when you have been caught with numerous, and I do mean numerous, instances of unauthorized storage of classified information outside of strict government control....you my friend are guilty of numerous felonies... and I do mean numerous felonies.


The email server was not illegal. That has already been established.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Did Hillary send those emails without the proper markings?

That is important, is it not?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Since I'm still waiting on a source from the OP it's impossible to acknowledge that something like that even happened.

I gave you the link to the Washington Post article on page one of this thread..... and I noted that it wasn't FOX News.
The post that I am referring to.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Did Hillary send those emails without the proper markings?

That is important, is it not?

It is especially important whether she sent them over non-secure lines or if there were shared passwords on the email system.
FOX News.... but it is not like you have any investigative reporters of your own... now, do you?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Was Hillary the person whom sent the offending emails?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You suffer from short term memory loss. You and I have had these discussions before, you didn't do so well. If you would like I can link back answers to every point you made...but why? You can not see the forest because of the trees... you get fixated on terminology to try and defend a hopeless cause.

For example:

I said: "As far as innocence until proven guilty......when you have been caught with numerous, and I do mean numerous, instances of unauthorized storage of classified information outside of strict government control....you my friend are guilty of numerous felonies... and I do mean numerous felonies."

You replied: "The email server was not illegal. That has already been established."


Who is talking about an email server? Wasn't me. That's the least of her worries at this point.

So I say to you again, "As far as innocence until proven guilty......when you have been caught with numerous, and I do mean numerous, instances of unauthorized storage of classified information outside of strict government control....you my friend are guilty of numerous felonies... and I do mean numerous felonies."

Without talking about the legality of her email server, She is guilty of numerous counts of mishandling of classified information, that is the bottom line...she got caught plain and simple.



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Was Hillary the person whom sent the offending emails?

How about when she ordered Jake Sullivan to remove classification headers from classified materials and send them over non-secure lines... is that okay too?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



You suffer from short term memory loss. You and I have had these discussions before, you didn't do so well


I remember quite well. You rely on your own anecdotal understanding and each discussion ended in your anger, and lack of proper evidence, forcing you to concede that you do not have the evidence to prove what you assert.



Who is talking about an email server? Wasn't me.


Ok, if that statement was not pertaining to the email server, how is she guilty of "instances of unauthorized storage of classified information outside of strict government control"? What other means did she store the classified information?



Without talking about the legality of her email server, She is guilty of numerous counts of mishandling of classified information, that is the bottom line...she got caught plain and simple.


What proof do you have?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Was Hillary the person whom sent the offending emails?

How about when she ordered Jake Sullivan to remove classification headers from classified materials and send them over non-secure lines... is that okay too?


Sullivan did not remove headers on classified material.. They were sent as is through the proper channels.

As for it being ok, that is for the FBI and JD to decide.

It is not my place to condemn someone as being guilty without having access to that information. Do you have access to that information?

Edit to add:

I'll ask again. Was Hillary the person whom sent the offending emails?
edit on 8-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join