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.

 

Pretty sure Bill Clinton's doodles prove Guccifer hacked into Hillary's server.

page: 18
27
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"I thought you were a grown man. Why do you talk like a teenage girl?"

Good grief,,, that pot won't stop calling the kettle black,,, call Dr. Phil, we may need an intervention!!!!!

Bet he doesn't even see the irony in what he typed.

The BS runs deep in this one grasshopper.





edit on R012016-05-11T16:01:13-05:00k015Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Birds of a feather, huh?

You can't defend your assertions, so you flock together.

Safety in numbers, snowflake.

edit on 11-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Your statement of 'corporate intelligence' is not how the federal Government handles classified material. I'm not trying to split hairs or argue with you, I'm just telling you from experience and very close family members that possess TS/SCI clearances that this analogy is inapplicable here.

If the Government found out that a corporation was storing classified material on an unclassified server, or was in possession by people without clearances, or being sent from people with clearances to those without, they would be in violation of law and pursued on espionage charges or mishandling classified information charges.

Hillary sent info that was born classified to a non-cleared individual. Calling it "Clinton Foundation Intelligence" is a non-starter, because it is an argument based on the fact that "it was classified after the fact". That is irrelevant for born-classified information.

For SAP info to be on Hillary's unsecured server, someone would have to literally write notes or take pictures of the info off of SIPRNet or JWICS and send it to Hillary via email for it to be there. That is an egregious violation of law right there, whoever did that.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"Safety in numbers, snowflake."

I will pass.... my boat doesn't float that way.

I feel warm that you like me and want to use endearing terms... but it is just creepy......

I need a shower.

Hillary Playbook...page three..... if personal attacks fail, resort to using derogatory terms in an attempt to influence how others will view your opponent. Above all else, never let them see you sweat!!

Gee I wonder what day(s) Hillary will go in for her FBI interview into the security review of email server?? LOL LOL LOL


edit on R102016-05-11T16:10:34-05:00k105Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R142016-05-11T16:14:05-05:00k145Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R142016-05-11T16:14:56-05:00k145Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

I think you misunderstood the example. It's not about a corporation storing classified (which would imply information the government already deemed classified) on an unsecured server.

The example states that intelligence and information that the corporation collected on it's own, such as the military and political information regarding an area they wish to open oil operations or mining for example, is not property of the government, nor is it "classified". If the corporation is involved in an investigation and is required to hand over emails that contain the information and intelligence they collected, the government may classify that information because of it's sensitivity.

That does not mean the corporation is in violation of mishandling classified information. It means the information they had should be protected for a variety of reasons.

That premise would apply to the CF as well. And as we have seen, many of the emails contain information collected by a CF employee.

Hope I was a bit clearer on that.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



I need a shower.


I bet you do. You haven't been able to defend your assertions in the slightest today.

You've done better in the past, but today you fell hard. I even took care of those 17 emails for ya.




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



I need a shower.


I bet you do. You haven't been able to defend your assertions in the slightest today.

You've done better in the past, but today you fell hard. I even took care of those 17 emails for ya.



Those 17 classified emails? Are you claiming that all 17 were retroactively classified at any date after they left the possession of Hillary Clinton?

Those 17 counts of mishandling classified information?

Those 17?

How did you take care of them? Like wipe em with a cloth or something? I don't know how that works at all.


Total BS... you can't explain them away and you know it.

All you are doing is trying to muddy the waters like you always do, now this time your trying that because Sidney was a CF employee and it was about CF stuff, that's privately classified betwixt the twosome, and is none of the government business anyways because it was private between the two of them?

That about it?

Regardless of the fact that 17 have been deemed classified by people way more knowledgeable than yourself about classification matters.

I told ya man..... I will give you 99% of Hillarys emails are totally innocent and smell like blueberry pancakes....just give me that 1% of the time that they really were classified.

I am ready to go to court...all I got is negligent handling of classified information....22 top secret emails classified when they orginated.

That is all they need to go to court... those 22 top secret emails.....each a felony. They just didn't magically appear on her server and they were classified when they were originated.

She is screwed.

Security inquiry my rear end.

Okay now I am done editting.
edit on R492016-05-11T16:49:16-05:00k495Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Those 17 classified emails? Are you claiming that all 17 were retroactively classified at any date after they left the possession of Hillary Clinton?


Yes. After looking at those emails, it becomes apparent that the information it contained was coming from the Clinton Foundation and did not originate with the SD. Therefore, the intelligence that Blumenthal communicated to Hillary was not classified until after the FBI got their hands on the emails.

I provided links earlier. Many of those emails were in reference to Northern Ireland and had specific names. Names that can be tied to work the CF was doing.

Are you denying what I have proven? can you refute the connections?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Those 17 classified emails? Are you claiming that all 17 were retroactively classified at any date after they left the possession of Hillary Clinton?


Yes. After looking at those emails, it becomes apparent that the information it contained was coming from the Clinton Foundation and did not originate with the SD. Therefore, the intelligence that Blumenthal communicated to Hillary was not classified until after the FBI got their hands on the emails.

I provided links earlier. Many of those emails were in reference to Northern Ireland and had specific names. Names that can be tied to work the CF was doing.

Are you denying what I have proven? can you refute the connections?


I am telling you for the umpteenth time, you can not have classified information on an unclassified network... you know this....almost every one of those emails were forwarded to other members of the SD. Once they arrived on the SD domain and that information is deemed to be classified when originated, they were classified.... everyone in those email chains has some explaining to do on why this was occurring.

So you and her disagree with the governments assertion that the information was classified, and that it is just a huge mistake of over classification gone amok.

Sounds good...what ever floats your boat.... I will put myself in the corner with the government professionals who have read and deemed that this information was classified.

Still sounds like it has to go to court..... it's he said she said.... I don't see a possible way out of her being indicted unless the DOJ refuses to pursue or Obama pardons her...

I am still 100% positive that Hillary Clinton and a few others will face recommendations for indictments.

In summary.... you didn't prove squat.

What day do you think it will be revealed that she is recommended for indictment?





edit on R072016-05-11T17:07:30-05:00k075Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

OK, Rick. You win. I was very clear and made my comments easy to understand and you still cannot grasp the concept. Either you have comprehension issues, or your are being intentionally obtuse to fit your agenda.

Those emails were not classified, even after they hit the SD domain server. They weren't classified until later for investigative and FOIA purposes. The SD had them the entire time and they were never classified because the emails did not contain classified government intelligence. They contained information derived from the CF sources.

It's right there in the links I provided.



So you and her disagree with the governments assertion that the information was classified, and that it is just a huge mistake of over classification gone amok.


No. The government may of had good reason to classify it. But that does not mean it contained information classified by the government at the time of transmission. It was sensitive information the CF had on certain topics, like Northern Ireland at the work the CF was doing in the area.



In summary.... you didn't prove squat.


Actually, I did. I cast a huge shadow of doubt on your assertions regarding those 17 emails and I connected them to work the CF was doing in specific regions.

Stick you fingers in your ears all you want, but the shadow is still there. You can't run from it, not matter how much you obsess for a Hillary indictment.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Once they got the requested info, they began classifying it for investigative and FOIA purposes



Your writing fiction here.
Classic Hill speak campaign rhetoric

You obviously do not have the faintest knowledge on any
of this. Go ahead, keep repeating the lie you believe.



They approach to the investigation is not indicative of guilte


"Under investigation", of course she is still being investigated.
It is a criminal investigation by the FBI, on the level of terrorism.

That's not a compliment to her, unless she is criminal minded.

Maybe she thinks it is bad ass to be investigated by the FBI?
Then she lies about it to the public.

This is everything that makes her so disliked by the majority of Americans,
and why an old Socialist is beating her.

Disingenuous, Dangerous, Deluded.

Who says Donald has a corner on the D's?







edit on 11-5-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Do you have some points of contention you wish to discuss, or are you just attacking me while you transition in to the Two Minutes of Hate?

It's sad that you guys are so emotionally-invested in your hatred that you cannot sit at the adult table and debate properly.

There's always room at the kiddee table. They have crayons...



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Did I mention Benghazi?
You realize that was a terrorist attack, right?

Hillary was Sec of State during that terrorist attack, right?


edit on 11-5-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Yup, and after numerous investigation she walked away clear of any wrongdoing.

Do you think that is what is going to happen here? She will walk away clean?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

She is still under investigation...
Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

You really have not done your homework.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Yes, she is under investigation and Benghazi was a terrosit attack. That's pretty well known. Little homework needed.

What I don't understand is what your #ing point is.

What's your point?



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

What's your point?


I'm sure you will be reading about it in the news.

You'll either have to look it up for yourself, its all
there in black and while already....or wait
till you get further talking points.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I know that you got the point and I certainly didn't expect you to acknowledge that you did.

I'll settle for you calling me a teenager while you stand back with your fingers stuck in your ears saying:
" Nah, nah, nah, nah.... classified after the fact.... nah, nah, nah.... Clinton Foundation can have classified info.... nah, nah, nah.... I can't hear you..... nah, nah, nah....."



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert

What's your point?


I'm sure you will be reading about it in the news.

You'll either have to look it up for yourself, its all
there in black and while already....or wait
till you get further talking points.




Crayons it is, huh?

My how childish people have become. But hey, at least you tried. Here's your ribbon.




posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

No ribbon for you.

You can share with burns.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join