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.

 

AP: Clinton State Dept. Calendar Hides 75 Meetings With Donors

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
OP NOTE:

That Hillary Clinton is fat, unattractive and generally unexceptional in any conceivable way, may be true...it is NOT the topic of this thread.

Please see Thread title:



AP: Clinton State Dept. Calendar Hides 75 Meetings With Donors


Lets keep the discussion centered on her rampant corruption, as exemplified by the topic of this particular thread.
Thank you...and carry on.
-OP
edit on 24-6-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
dp
edit on 24-6-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

What access and favors were granted? Please be specific.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT



Yup. Interesting too,...and with that in mind, her meetings with Sid Blumenthal were not recorded either. Sid was 'Persona non grata' to Obama regarding State Dept. business. Wonder if Hillary didn't want the BOSS to know she was secretly meeting with Blumenthal while SOS.


It was/is pretty well known that Blumenthal worked for the Clinton Foundation.

Yes it was/is.
...And we also NOW know (thanks to the Benghazi investigation) he was actively involved in exchanging off-the-books intelligence reports emails to her in her capacity as SoS.


It wasn't off-the-books. It was CF intelligence that was in conjunction with work the CF was doing.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

I think the more pertinent question is why is there anything other than State Department business on her calendar at a time when she should have been doing nothing else?

Talk about conflict of interest and actual impropriety, nevermind the appearance of!



Now that is a decent question. As to it being indicative of anything else nefarious, I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: IAMTAT

Interesting thing about the Hillary presidential run.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you can't elect an evil authoritarian dictator as president.

Our republic is ours to give away.


Fat and ugly too.


That's not nice to say about someone with cankles like a troll, a wrinkled face that looks like an old catcher's mitt, and wears size 14 polyester pant suits from Lane Bryant.

Yep.
She actually is someone's grandma.... the poor kid.

OHHHHH and they might say size 14.... but I don't think there is any chance of squeezing that ass into an actual size 14.


You guys, or girls, have a lot of growing up to do.



That's rich coming from someone who always uses the phrase 'circle jerk'. Until you said it, I think I last heard it on the sixth grade playground.


Perhaps you did not know that the term 'circle jerk' is also used as another way of saying 'echo chamber'.

Calling someone a fatty and commenting on the size of her pant suit is indicative of a child-like mentality. Kind of like calling someone a 'doody head'.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Perhaps we could get back to the topic instead of it getting TROLLED as usual.

Which was about Clinton hiding she's bought, and paid for.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The Clinton Foundation Intelligence Branch... dealing with subjects that are deemed Classified by the US Government.

Kind of redefines what a 'non-profit organization' is all about.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
The Clinton Foundation Intelligence Branch... dealing with subjects that are deemed Classified by the US Government.

Kind of redefines what a 'non-profit organization' is all about.


Not really.

Private organizations and corporations do collect intelligence that is considered their property, but could be considered classified if the government got their hands on it.

Hillary's email issue is proof of that. Many emails that were classified by the investigators contained CF intelligence relating to their work in foreign countries. Most notably, Northern Ireland.
edit on 24-6-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert



but could be considered classified if the government got their hands on it.

Could it be considered classified if the info came from the Secretary of State of the United States..... and also is a member of the Foundation?




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert



but could be considered classified if the government got their hands on it.

Could it be considered classified if the info came from the Secretary of State of the United States..... and also is a member of the Foundation?



One of the criteria for something to be deemed classified is that it has the material has to be "owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government".

The information was not owned or produced by or for the government. It was classified because it came under the control of the government for investigative purposes.

Edit: Also, the emails I am speaking of did not come from Clinton. They came from Blumenthal.
edit on 24-6-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

First, recall that HRC is under a criminal Federal Investigation, by the FBI.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now then onto the pay for play.

Gifts
www.wsj.com...

Uranium One
www.newyorker.com...

Cash for land
www.nytimes.com...

More cash for favors.

www.breitbart.com...

Too many scandals to be "specific".
Take your pick.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Thanks.

Guess we will have to wait and see if she is convicted of anything in regards to that.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I haven't seen everything that was on the CF server.
Maybe the FBI will release some of that stuff so we will know more about it.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

I haven't seen everything that was on the CF server.
Maybe the FBI will release some of that stuff so we will know more about it.


Many of the emails are already available. The Blumenthal emails that have been released directly reference work the CF is doing in other nations, and was not part of the SD.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

I haven't seen everything that was on the CF server.
Maybe the FBI will release some of that stuff so we will know more about it.


Many of the emails are already available. The Blumenthal emails that have been released directly reference work the CF is doing in other nations, and was not part of the SD.

So Hillary released the entire contents if the CF server, or Bill released it all .... or the FBI released everything?
I wasn't aware that anyone had.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Released everything? I don't believe so.

What I was referring to was some of the emails that were considered 'smoking guns' that were released partially-redacted, but clearly refer to work the CF was doing in the countries they referenced.

Even the names of people involved that were mentioned in the emails coincide with the names of people working with the CF on specific issues/programs.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm not sure that much was voluntarily released.

There was a cloud hosting company who got suspicious about CF personnel who started to hound them about deleting backups of the mail servers. The hosting company didn't want an obstruction of justice charge and so called the FBI. I think the FBI took it from there.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


One of the criteria for something to be deemed classified is that it has the material has to be "owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government"


Thank you for proving things not owned by or produced by or for the United States Government but subject to the statues of (which is what brings the item in question under the control of) the United States Government can be classified.

There are countless examples of the government classifying research carried out by private industry.


Determining whether information is under governmental control requires that three major questions be answered. First, is the information subject to governmental control when that information is within the United States? Does the government have the power to control the information, either through governmental ownership, contractual relations, or by a statute? If the government cannot control information that is under consideration for classification, then it is generally futile to classify that information. Second, do the government's adversaries already have the information? Protecting information already known to adversaries is a wasted effort.* Third, can the government's adversaries readily obtain the information by their own, independent, nonespionage efforts? If adversaries can easily obtain the information, then it is usually not cost effective to classify it. Considerations in determining the answers to these three major questions are described in the following subsections of this chapter.


Chapter 4.
CAN THE INFORMATION BE CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT?


Anything subject to the statutes of the United States Government can indeed be classified.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Thank you for proving things not owned by or produced by or for the United States Government but subject to the statues of (which is what brings the item in question under the control of) the United States Government can be classified.


It is only classified if it comes "under the control" of the US government. In this case, it came under the control of the US government when the investigation began.



Anything subject to the statutes of the United States Government can indeed be classified.


That does not mean the act of classifying such information is indicative of a violation of US policy.

That is very important to remember.
edit on 24-6-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join