It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Indeed. Pretty dumb thing to lie about and the lie had no dire consequences. Have you never lied?
He lied about a sexual affair. Something men do all the time.
Yes I did. But that still does not mean she is not qualified to run for president.
originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
As much as I might wish otherwise, Hillary has even less chance of facing an indictment behind this (or anything else) than a beat cop would for executing someone on youtube.
This is the circus part of the bread and circus ration. Nothing will ever come of it.
(CNN)While an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server continues, the State Department's Office of Inspector General has raised the stakes with the release of a remarkable report finding that Clinton's actions violated State Department policies and were inconsistent with federal record-keeping laws.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was supposed to have turned over all work-related emails to the State Department to be released to the public. But an agency audit found at least three emails never seen before — including Clinton's own explanation of why she wanted her emails kept private.
The Clinton campaign has previously denied that her home server was breached, but newly revealed emails show an aide worried it could have been compromised.
The existence of these previously unreleased messages — which appear to have been found among electronic files of four former top Clinton State Department aides — renews concerns that Clinton was not completely forthcoming when she turned over a trove of 55,000 pages of work-related emails. And it has drawn fresh criticism from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
originally posted by: RickinVa
tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk
All this arguing over this stuff!!
Let's see... did Hillary sign a SF-312? DING DING why yes she did!!! Feb 2009.
By signing the SF-312, did Hillary in fact agree with the government that information that falls under 1.4 (a)-(g) is born classified? DING DING why yes she did!!!
Is she screwed at this point? DING DING why yes she is!!!!
In the last 60 years or so, in all of the cases involving prosecution for mishandling of classified information where the individual involved had previously signed a SF-312, how many cases have returned a verdict of not guilty, or had a conviction overturned based on the premise that "born classified" is unconstitutional? DING DING the correct answer is NONE!!!
Did you or did you not sign this SF-312 in Feb 2009? It is a yes or no answer...
Yes... you have waived every right you had to complain about "born classified" or any other thing addressed in the SF-312.
No... then you never had a security clearance to begin with.
Yes...but I only signed it because I had to, in order to gain the access to classified material so I could do my job. That doesn't mean I agreed with that "born classified" stuff, I always thought that was silly.....Too bad...you should not have signed it if you did not agree with the terms. Bottom line.
Not really so hard to figure out.