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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The server will show they were always safe. Never at risk.
Surely you don't think she should never have gotten these emails? That was part of the job. The info was sent to her because she had clearance right? She was classified as being able to receive top secret information wasn't she? They didn't need to label them as such to send them to her.
The question is and always has been whether that information was ever at risk. The labels and redactions of her legitimate emails was so they could be published under FOIA.
I'm not being obtuse. These are plain and simple facts.


I'm swimming upstream in this thread I know and for what ever reason everyone seems to think it's ok to call me ignorant when in fact all I am doing is disagreeing with them.
My research, sentence structure, and vocabulary should be enough to prove I'm not ignorant.


What you have shown is that you have absolutely NO knowledge of the procedures in place for handling government classified information.

When the law states that classified information must be handled on specific machines built for that specific purpose and alternative machines were used, a law has already been broken.

It is useless to try and discuss matters with a person who only respond with "but why" or "no it is not" answers so I am done here. I hope that some people, someday, wake up to the world of logic and reason as it is a very nice space (albeit limited in size these days) to occupy.




posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What actions? She sell states secrets to Boris and Natasha?


Makes people wonder why all those emails were kept on her own private computer doesn't it.

And what's more alarming, she tried to keep them all for herself long after she left office too.

I bet many of those classified pieces were somehow allowed to be "viewed" at specific coded times, like open door codes to get into files on her system by "outsiders" that had the time codes.

Mark my words, that will come out soon enough after the investigations are complete.






It is not legal to subvert ANY government email subject to FOIA requirements to another server in lieu of the system in place within the governmental system. The simple reason for doing so is to avoid FOIA requests; the purported reason in this case was because the Sec State wanted one place for all her mail. Lame and illegal.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Her server was never illegal. Understand that. It was not illegal. Never ever illegal. How many freakin ways does this need to be told to you or the others. You get an idea in your head and it's impossible to change it isn't it.? But you and any others who want to stand on that wooden leg that's just fine. It's a lie but if you feel secure under that blanket go for it.
It was never against any law for her to use that server. It was discussed with the state dept before she ever went to work for them.
It won't be much longer. Of course when it's over you all will just say . "Oh her big friends got her off. "

It's like playing tic tac toe. No one ever wins.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

It was not to subvert FOIA requests.
Now we're entertaining yet another theory huh? Maybe you want to stick with one at a time.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

You just don't seem to understand that you first sentence is completely and utterly wrong. It is not illegal it was never illegal.
They are investigating the server for security .
thehill.com...

First sentence. See it? Investigation into server? Do you see it Rick? Right there the first sentence. See it?

Now bug off.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What will you say if after the investigation they say all good. No risks were found. No hacks took place. Go on and be president Mrs Clinton. Sorry to have wasted yours and the tax payers time?



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And more fantasy.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

You just don't seem to understand that you first sentence is completely and utterly wrong. It is not illegal it was never illegal.
They are investigating the server for security .
thehill.com...

First sentence. See it? Investigation into server? Do you see it Rick? Right there the first sentence. See it?

Now bug off.


Why don't you just bug off as you so politely put it?

All you do is repeat the same BS over and over again.

You should be a Trumper... he loves the less educated and you my friend have a PHD in less educated.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

So why did Hillary not simply give all the emails to the State Department while she was SoS?

She could have simply turned them in monthly.

Then she held them for herself until long after she resigned.

Never could figure that out.




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

You just don't seem to understand that you first sentence is completely and utterly wrong. It is not illegal it was never illegal.
They are investigating the server for security .
thehill.com...

First sentence. See it? Investigation into server? Do you see it Rick? Right there the first sentence. See it?

Now bug off.


Why don't you just bug off as you so politely put it?

All you do is repeat the same BS over and over again.

You should be a Trumper... he loves the less educated and you my friend have a PHD in less educated.



Dude, you're just wasting your time with this one. She's a staunch Hillary supporter. In their eyes Hillary can do no wrong. Hillary can be in an orange jumpsuit, in handcuffs, on her way to jail, but she would barely be able to walk because of all her sycophants heads buried up her arse. You're just spinning your wheels. Logic and reason and facts mean absolutely nothing to them. Why? Because Hillary has no compass, moral or otherwise. Bill can bang and have affairs with whomever he wants (which he basically did) and Hillary, unlike normal wives, stayed with him. Maybe a normal wife would forgive one dalliance, but their are at least eight others who have come forward accusing Bill of having flings while he was married to her. Bill Crosby's wife is the only other I know who is also deranged like that.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

How about just sticking with the fact that the FBI does not conduct security evaluations; they conduct CRIMINAL investigations. As such your idea that the investigation is not criminal, is WRONG.

Immunization has been given in exchange for the testimony of Bryan Pagliano; this is only done in a CRIMINAL case and only AFTER a grand jury had been convened listened to his testimony and determined that this testimony justified being heard by the court enough to guarantee immunity for any laws that he may have broken. (just so you know, Immunity can ONLY be granted by a federal judge)

You do not publicly investigate without a grand jury because there would be mo mens to compel testimony (i.e. like the testimony that results in a Grand Jury).

Your argument is invalid and illogical. Many here have given you the evidence however, you still do not grasp the facts. Possibly you are unable or unwilling however, you are definitely generating a great personality profile.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

18 USC §1924


“(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and,
(2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States,
(3) knowingly removes such documents or materials
(4) without authority and
(5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”


...now pay attention to the following:



FELONY PROOF!



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

You excel in rude. When you have nothing though that's what you resort to.
I can call you stupid too Rick because you won't agree with me. But what does that accomplish?
I'm not stupid. I'm not calling you names either.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Was never done. Only talked about.

NEXT...



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Why did she give them any? She wasn't asked to. She gave it voluntarily. No subpoena.
She and her lawyers and people from the state dept went over it and removed the personal stuff.
Why did they need to know what time they were meeting the caterers?
edit on 482016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: notmyrealname

Was never done. Only talked about.

NEXT...


And yet once again you can not see what everyone sees.

I see an email from Hillary Clinton instructing an aide how to subvert the classified system in order to get information to her on her unclass system.

Doesn't matter whether he actually did it or not...

That email is very daming evidence in a court of law that Hillary was:

1. Hillary was aware of the security protocols of passing classified information.

2. Hillary knew exactly how to get around having to use a secure fax and didn't have a problem instructing her aides how to do it either.

You say it doesn't matter because it was never sent. I say it matters a lot because it shows willing criminal intent in the mishandling of classified information...

So much for the I didn't know it was classified BS..


The clock ticks
edit on R322016-04-08T13:32:10-05:00k324Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Why did she give them any? She wasn't asked to. She gave it voluntarily. No subpoena.
She and her lawyers and people from the state dept went over it and removed the personal stuff.
Why did they need to know what time they were meeting the caterers?
LOL

Looks like she was in violation of the National Archives rules.

Here's a "source" close to the situation...

Title 36 → Chapter XII → Subchapter B → Part 1220


Email Management


Federal agencies are required to manage their email records in accordance with the Federal Records Act and 36 CFR Chapter XII Sub-chapter B.

With the issuance of the Managing Government Records Directive (M-12-18), Goal 1.2, agencies are required to manage both permanent and temporary email records in an accessible electronic format by December 31, 2016. NARA's Capstone Approach and GRS 6.1 provide one way in which Federal agencies can meet these requirements. To find additional information on how individual agencies are managing email please go to NARA's Agency Email Management web page.


DaaHaHaHa



edit on Apr-08-2016 by xuenchen because: sources close to the investigation



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Why did she give them any?


She couldn't. She wiped her server clean. She erased all potentially incriminating emails.



We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server,” he continued. “While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.

www.nationalreview.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: notmyrealname

Was never done. Only talked about.

NEXT...


Where is the proof that it was only talked about?

If there is no proof that a crime was suspected, why is the FBI of a Democrat government using so many resources and why has a grand jury convened?

Why do you insist on repeating a false narrative of events even when presented with evidence? Are you that jaded to the possibility that Hillary Clinton is a liar cheat and potential criminal? After all, she is a politician, She has been reprimanded in the past for unethical actions in an official capacity and her current actions all give evidence that a crime has been committed. Not to mention that Wikileaks has outed the fact that Libya was not a threat to the US and the military campaign against him (promoted by the Department of State) was illegal. She laughed while talking about Khaddafi being killed; what does that tell you about her humanity (or lack there of)?
edit on 8-4-2016 by notmyrealname because: expansion with the hopes some may wake up...probably useless but....



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Like I said. When ya got nothing sling poo.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join