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: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   




posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Oh, a reddit thread. OK.

We've already touched on that thread and debunked it.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Nebraska, you're gettin' the hang of ATS fast. Stick around.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You think you did, but you didn't. Give it a rest man. People are allowed to speculate on things. If you don't find it interesting move on. You've "contributed" as much as you're able.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Ah okay. I think I am getting the lay of the land here on your motives.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

Good. The t&c here is pretty strict. No personal attacks (this includes calling people shills, paid shills etc.) but you're certainly allowed to doggedly irritate new members.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: NebraskaGunOwner
a reply to: introvert

Ah okay. I think I am getting the lay of the land here on your motives.


We thought it best if you learned that on your own.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

I like your point about the potential for blackmail making a candidate vulnerable. That is something that is rarely mentioned.

Clinton's use of an insecure server did indeed expose herself, her family, and all of her contacts, to the potential for blackmail. That is a threat to national security.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

It really is a pretty massive threat. It also makes me SPECULATE on what other common sense regulations she would scoff at because she's Hillary Freakin' Clinton.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

I like your point about the potential for blackmail making a candidate vulnerable. That is something that is rarely mentioned.

Clinton's use of an insecure server did indeed expose herself, her family, and all of her contacts, to the potential for blackmail. That is a threat to national security.


She's already compromised as a potential POTUS. Foreign powers that hacked her could blackmail her at will.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Right and it's not me saying that. The State Department specifically warned Hillary about this, and considered it a serious issue.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: NebraskaGunOwner

The Federal Government takes that very seriously. When they do background checks to give security clearances, they are not only looking for trustworthiness, they are specifically looking for anything in a person's past or lifestyle that could be used to blackmail them.

I have a close family member that went through such a background check, and it was brutal. They interviewed family, neighbors, looked deeply into activities and everything about him.

The potential to blackmail someone with access to classified information is always a concern.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

It could just be something as innocuous as knowing one of the foreign leaders, CEO's, or politicians she communicated with had confided in her that they have been diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's or some other medical condition that is not public.

If a foreign government has access to that info they can exploit it. If its something scandalous like an affair or other vice, then it absolutely would.
edit on 8-5-2016 by NebraskaGunOwner because: (no reason given)


(post by introvert removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah, yes.

You show the depth of thought it takes to deem someone a criminal.

Youtube is how you educate yourselves.


Prove anything stated in that video is false then if you are really serious about it.

Everyone is waiting... (forever)...


Not going to waste my time.

I believe in the constitutional principles of due process and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When she has her day in court for that which she is accused of, and is convicted, I will call her a criminal. Until then, the burden of proof is on those doing the accusing.

It's very sad that there are so many that do not uphold constitutional principles and judge based on emotions and youtube videos.


Enough with your high moral platitudes, of which you have none anyways. Nobody here is signing on to convict Hillary without a trial and no one ever did. What I'm saying is that all of what has come out so far is more than plenty for anyone with a brain to know that Hillary has broken quite a few laws. Just having the insecure server in her home with classified data on it is a broken law right there.
Petraeus was guilty of much less than Clinton is obviously guilty of and is only serving probation, but his actions before the fact made his guilt obvious enough, which never went to trial because he pleaded guilty.

Your just twisting everything around so you can figure you have won these arguments, but you have not won anything except show how dishonest you are pointing your finger at others with your logical fallacies.


Hillary is a CRIMINAL. She has a history of getting away with CRIMES. Just because of no convictions doesn't mean I would let her be my book keeper. From your arguments, I see you would let her be yours. (because no convictions yet) .. Now that is a pathetic thing.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed




Nobody here is signing on to convict Hillary without a trial and no one ever did.


It really was a bizarre tirade against something that hadn't even come up.



Petraeus was guilty of much less than Clinton is obviously guilty of and is only serving probation


Good point. Hillary is probably one of the most connected people in this country though. I'm sure she's owed a lot of favors.



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: NebraskaGunOwner
a reply to: introvert




Pay attention to the language. Even the MSM sources cannot state definitively whether or not she was hacked.

It's all speculation.

Surely an intelligent person as yourself can admit that much of this is unsubstantiated speculation.


I'm not sure what I walked into.
That is a silly argument, of course I understand that this is speculation. All speculation is merely an observation based on the information we have at our disposal.

The degree to which her server was woefully under protected is documented. There were multiple phishing attacks targeting her - including one that she responded too. As well as targeted attacks through the open ports on her server.

Claims from Guccifer are just claims. However, he has shown nothing yet that would make me speculate that he didn't compromise her server. In fact, he has shown the opposite.


Welcome to ATS!

That's just Introvert.

Between you and me, I think he has a shrine to Hillary in his closet


Keep up the good work!



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join