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.

 

Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

I'm a bit confused. You are lecturing someone else on their delusions, yet you said she lied about Benghazi, which was proven to be untrue, we do not have any insight into the email issue, and cannot make any claim that she has lied and we have no idea what she said in that Wall Street speech.

If you believe in something that can be proven false, or believe in something without proper evidence, wouldn't that mean you are deluded?


edit on 2-4-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UnBreakable

I'm a bit confused. You are lecturing someone else on their delusions, yet you said she lied about Benghazi, which was proven to be untrue, we do not have any insight into the email issue, and cannot make any claim that she has lied and we have no idea what she said in that Wall Street speech.

If you believe in something that can be proven false, or believe in something without proper evidence, wouldn't that mean you are deluded?



"we do not have any insight into the email issue, and cannot make any claim that she has lied"

cough cough BS cough cough

Really? She says she never sent or received any emails marked "classified". The CIA is on record as saying 22 Top Secret emails from her server were classified before they ever were on her server. The State Department does not dispute that. She authored 104 emails that had to be later classified by the State Department because she failed to do it.

You say she can't be proven a liar? no insight into the issue?

You remember talking about intellectual dishonesty? Your intellectual dishonesty cup runneth over my friend

"If you believe in something that can be proven false, or believe in something without proper evidence, wouldn't that mean you are deluded?"

If you believe in something that can be proven false, or believe in something despite evidence that it is not true, wouldn't that mean you are deluded? There, fixed it for ya.

Nothing worse than a troll that flunked out of troll school.
edit on R392016-04-02T16:39:38-05:00k394Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

No thats not leakage. Leak is someone who wasn't supposed to get the information got it. Leakage is a member of her staff tells someone something they shouldn't have and passes on secret information. A leak is hackers invaded her server and got top secret information.
Having her own e mail is not leakage.
What has happened to common sense? You tell me.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

No thats not leakage. Leak is someone who wasn't supposed to get the information got it. Leakage is a member of her staff tells someone something they shouldn't have and passes on secret information. A leak is hackers invaded her server and got top secret information.
Having her own e mail is not leakage.
What has happened to common sense? You tell me.


Anytime classified top secret material makes its way outside of a SCIF and onto any medium that has not been cleared to support it, it is called leakage or spillage. Look it up, if you know how to do that kind of stuff.

Get your facts straight .... you are really making yourself and Hillary look very bad, especially if you represent the typical Hillary supporter.
edit on R442016-04-02T16:44:37-05:00k444Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R452016-04-02T16:45:02-05:00k454Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: Sillyolme

Ex-U.S. attorney: Hillary case 'criminal,' grand jury convened

There was a grand jury for this investigation.


This is someone's "interpretation" of Bryan Paglianos being granted immunity. It says so right a the top. Joseph diGenovas interpretation of ....
He thinks that's what immunity to Bryan means. He's wrong.
No grand jury has been convened.
What is so hard to believe?

When it is, if it is it will be big news. There won't be any back and forth this means this and that means that. There won't be any doubt.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

No Rick it didn't say that it said 22 emails had to be reclassified and could not be released. Change the wording change the meaning.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

He thinks that's what immunity to Bryan means. He's wrong.
No grand jury has been convened.
What is so hard to believe?


What is so hard to believe is this:

YOU, an anonymous internet poster, expect us to take you at your word that a former Attorney General is wrong.

That pretty much sums up your whole defense.... you will believe that Hillary is Mother Theresa no matter what evidence people show you,,,its pointless.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

But it was sent to her so it was supposed to be there.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SouthernForkway26

They're investigating the security of the server.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

No Rick it didn't say that it said 22 emails had to be reclassified and could not be released. Change the wording change the meaning.


you playing word games.

The 22 Top Secret emails were top secret before they ever landed on Hillarys server... whether they were marked or unmarked. I don't even understand what point you are trying to get at.


THE 22 TOP SECRET EMAILS WERE CLASSIFIED BEFORE THEY EVER WERE ON HILLARYS SERVER. I can't make it any simpler than that. It doesn't matter if they were "marked classified" or not, they were classified none the less.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burgerbuddy

You're making assumptions based on fallacy. No one said the FBI gave him immunity. His lawyer asked for it. It doesn't mean he's got incriminating information to divulge. It doesn't mean he committed a crime and is looking to get away with anything. It's not an admission of guilt.
It's not a criminal investigation. Go find me one thing that says that it's a criminal investigation. I challenge you? What crime is she being investigated for?
Hillary wants to talk to them. She's not hiding or evading them. She volunteered her server for their investigation. No one had to force her to do that.
Would you say search my house if there was stolen merchandise in it?




Why plead the 5th?

It's there for "self incrimination", which means laws were broken.

Immunity, WTF dude.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SouthernForkway26

They're investigating the security of the server.


I heard somewhere once that a broken record always repeats itself...I always wondered what that meant.

It is a full blown criminal investigation. The security review of the server has been suspended because of the law enforcement investigation,,, that comes straight from the State Department... but let me guess... they are wrong too?



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

No Rick it didn't say that it said 22 emails had to be reclassified and could not be released. Change the wording change the meaning.


I know you will ignore this but:

www.state.gov...




QUESTION: Right. So are you challenging sworn declarations from the CIA that they were top secret at the time of transmission?

MR KIRBY: As I said last week, it was at the request of the intelligence community that we specifically upgraded that traffic to top secret.

QUESTION: Okay, so you don’t dispute that.

MR KIRBY: If we had disputed it, we wouldn’t have upgraded it --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- to TS at the request of the intel community.

QUESTION: Okay
.

edit on R042016-04-02T17:04:42-05:00k044Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SouthernForkway26

They're investigating the security of the server.



147 agents and 8 months.

ya right.

I know the govt can be incompetent, but come on!



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

No they weren't. They were reclassified. That's what's been told to us. Not your version of things. They were reclassified.
You don't want to face facts not me.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

No they weren't. They were reclassified. That's what's been told to us. Not your version of things. They were reclassified.
You don't want to face facts not me.


How could the State Dept make an initial "classification" when they never saw the "real-time" emails until Hillary gave them up?




posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

No they weren't. They were reclassified. That's what's been told to us. Not your version of things. They were reclassified.
You don't want to face facts not me.


Your delusional... that's the only logical thing left.... completely out there in wacko jacko land where the unicorns run free.

The State Department was asked if they disputed the SWORN DECLARATIONS from the CIA that they were Top Secret at the time of transmission

The State Department replied "If we had disputed it, we wouldn’t have upgraded it"...

How does that make it MY VERSION of events that the State Department is on public record as not denying that the CIA was correct when they said the information was classified when transmitted???

The problem you have is that it doesn't fit YOUR VERSION that everything was magically classified at some later date. You can't over ride a prior classification with a new one just because you weren't aware that it had been classified prior. The original classification always stands in cases like this.


I hear the fat lady warming up


edit on R512016-04-02T17:51:05-05:00k514Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R072016-04-02T18:07:14-05:00k074Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
ATS opinion poll more or less...

Her lawyers have to be advising her very strongly against meeting with the FBI... nothing to gain and everything to lose.


Can you give me a link to this?




So to the die hard Hillary supporters....if she is so innocent as you claim, do you feel she should meet with the FBI? If she is innocent, there should be no need for her to have a lawyer.... just tell the truth.... simple huh?


Someone can be both NOT a Hillary "supporter" and think she is innocent until proven guilty?.

[quote]
I bet she backs out of meeting with them, and it will look very bad politically. Martha Stewart can tell her all about what happens if you get caught lying to a federal agent during an interview.


I imagine she will meet with them...and yes with a lawyer as people are to do when interviewed by the FBI?

I think you are going to be disappointed with the outcome, but we will see. People sometimes confuse what they want to be true with what is actually true.

I get you want her to be guilty, but every thread of evidence, leaks, etc. I have examined...I don't see this being an issue at all. The FBI had to investigate and there will be some wrist slapping of her aides, but not seeing anything that suggests it would be more than that. Just my 2 cents.
edit on 2-4-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
You mean she's not going to cooperate with the government she wants to run?

Great future we have in store for us.



posted on Apr, 3 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Just depends on how thick the head I'm trying to communicate with is. . Some people need to hear it over and over. I'm patient. I'll repeat it for the slow people.

The state department has suspended its review while the FBI finishes up. Big deal. You want to make something of that.

I'm still waiting for that indictment. Still waiting on a grand jury. Still waiting for Loretta Lynch to make that announcement.

The silence is deafening.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join