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.

 

State Department audit faults Clinton on email use

page: 13
22
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Indeed. Pretty dumb thing to lie about and the lie had no dire consequences. Have you never lied?


No I have never lied about being under sniper fire.

Most normal people tell little white lies. The lie she told is indicative of a serious character flaw when it comes to credibility and integrity, its not something normal people do.

Such lies is associated with habitual liars, not the normal white lies.



He lied about a sexual affair. Something men do all the time.


Yes and so do women , but usually they are not under oath breaking the law. In neither case, does it make it right or paint a picture of integrity.




Yes I did. But that still does not mean she is not qualified to run for president.


Only if you have low to zero standards when it comes to picking your POTUS. The most important trait for a politician to have is integrity since they will represent the country in subjects we are not privy too. She and her husband have zero credibility and both have a history of demonstrating bad judgement.

Heck even trump is qualified to run for president, the question is Hillary worthy to run and I would say Heck to the NO.

Irrelevant of the lack of choices to pick from , it does not dismiss that she is not worthy to be our POTUS.

It should be embarrassing to everyone to have a candidate who lies about sniper fire , who has a husband disbarred for lying under oath, and who is currently under criminal investigation as a leading candidate for POTUS.




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
oh people she will never be indicted on this matter....so many would have to go down with her ! what will happen is the same thing that happened to her side kick bill....NOTHING....spending all our dollars to investigate her is a joke and people actually thinking that justice will be served are going to be so disappointed.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

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.


Hillary is about to become the poster child for how not to screw up with Top Secret information, especially the information that compromised CIA field agents and resources.

Take are look at all the department heads and agencies that worked with her, now covering their butts.

Hillary ship is sinking and the rats are all jumping ship.

And for the record I think Trump is a douche-bag too.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Looselungjones2
a reply to: DeathSlayer

I think you are believing what you want like many on here.


give it up! she pretty much nailed her own coffin shut, hell trump didnt even have to do anything lol.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Even CNN has to admit that Hillary is on an quickly s(hr)inking island, but they try and soften the blow:


(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.


Hillary Clinton's shrinking email defense

Inconsistent with federal record-keeping laws?

What a euphemism for criminal operations.




posted on May, 27 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
There is proof now that Hillary did NOT turn over all of her emails to the State Department previously.

Some of the emails quoted in the State Department report were not previously released by Clinton:
The content of the ones that were found later are interesting. I think it proves the withholding was not "accidental".


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.


How many other important emails did she selectively delete or withhold?


Origin of key Clinton emails from report are a mystery



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You think we are going into a mini ice age so that tells me enough about you lol.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk


All this arguing over this stuff!!

Goodness gracious.

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.



edit on R202016-05-28T10:20:26-05:00k205Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk


All this arguing over this stuff!!

Goodness gracious.

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.




Who can argue with THAT?
She is cooked.
Lynch may try to protect her and not move ahead with proceedings...but the FBI HAS to recommend indictment.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathSlayer

as Hillary would say what difference does it make will she really be in trouble?



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
The real question is this:

What is that sleazeball Fallon going to do when Hillary drops? Is he going to go back to selling used cars or is he going to run for office? He has the lying part of politics down pat.


I love watching him trying to cover Hillarys rear end in front of millions of viewers.. most of the time he doesn't look like even he himself believes the crap coming out of his pie hole.


edit on R092016-05-29T17:09:57-05:00k095Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join