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: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If Sidney Blumenthal produced something for the Secretary of State of the US....
Couldn't that be considered 'produced for the US Government', especially if he sent it to the email address that the SOS used for her official government email communications?




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

That may be a tough one to prove.

Blumenthal worked for the CF and created material relating to CF activities in certain nations.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

That may be a tough one to prove.

Blumenthal worked for the CF and created material relating to CF activities in certain nations.


Yep.
And some of it came from informants that were US humint assets. That is why it is classified.
I wonder how he got that info, since he did not hold a security clearance.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

A humint classification only means that the information was gathered through human sources. It does not specify which humans or whom they worked for.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Something else interesting about Sydney Blumenthal.
You mention that he was functioning in the capacity of a Clinton Foundation employee.
Hillary wanted to hire him as a State Department employee , but Obama would not allow it.
So if Hillary would have gotten her way, he would have been a SD employee.
What is there to convince us that she utilized him as a Clinton Foundation employee in a way that would have been different from a State Department employee?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Something else interesting about Sydney Blumenthal.
You mention that he was functioning in the capacity of a Clinton Foundation employee.
Hillary wanted to hire him as a State Department employee , but Obama would not allow it.
So if Hillary would have gotten her way, he would have been a SD employee.
What is there to convince us that she utilized him as a Clinton Foundation employee in a way that would have been different from a State Department employee?


I don't deal in 'ifs'.

It serves no purpose.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No ifs needed.
What is there to convince us that SB wasn't doing the same thing at the CF that he would have done as a SD employee?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

No ifs needed.
What is there to convince us that SB wasn't doing the same thing at the CF that he would have done as a SD employee?


Some people don't want to deal with IFs. Like what they'll do IF Trump is elected POTUS.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

A humint classification only means that the information was gathered through human sources.


Your wrong here.

It is far more than that, and explicitly involves classified information and resources.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
How do emails to Clinton from Blumenthal with subject titles such as these, reflect Clinton Foundation business?


H: Latest from the streets of Cairo Lots of detail. Sid




H: Libya, latest Benghazi Intel. Sid




H: Benghazi security latest. Sid




H: Latest Algeria Intelligence. Sid




H: Algeria Latest French Intel. Sid




H: Latest Libya Intel; internal government discussions high level




H: HIGHLY IMPORTANT! Comprehensive Intel Report




h: Latest French Intel on Algeria Hostage. Sid


gawker.com...[e ditby]edit on 24-6-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

That third one from the top... 'Benghazi' .
Why does that name ring a bell?

Hmmmm. For some reason, I connect that place with the State Department , and not with the Clinton Foundation.

Someone refresh my memory...
Was it the Clinton Foundation that was subpoenaed to testify before Congress about security at Benghazi?
Or was it the Secretary of State?
edit on b000000302016-06-24T21:01:36-05:0009America/ChicagoFri, 24 Jun 2016 21:01:36 -0500900000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Sure seems like he's advising the Secretary of State on matters of State...rather than Clinton Foundation business.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Red Herring! Red Herring Alert!

Guys, I'm all for a great conspiracy but, this is not it. Repeat, this is not it.

Candidates, expecting to possibly run for something in the future, keep their fundraising committees open and continue fundraising. Except judges. There are more restrictions on judges. I swear the AP needs to hire some better bosses. This is not a story. Of course her campaign stayed active and of course those details would be handled by political staff not on her Sec. of State duties calendar.

My concern is that getting people hopped up over something that is proper and legal, makes criticism of those real transgressions a little less legitimate..

Unless I am missing something significant, which is possible as I'm still reading up on this, then this is a fake wrong to create outrage that can be completely debunked. Debunk one
like this, and you can cast doubt on the other outrages that are potentially very legitimate wrongs.

Separating your government duties from your campaign duties is required. My question is: Why is AP playing dumb on something they know is legitimate to do? Shady if you ask me. Trying to show that the other transgressions are just as benign?

Dig, but beware a red herring here. Separating duties is required. AP has been in her pocket for awhile me thinks. They have done incomprehensible things lately that seem to indicate they are helping Clinton way to much.

Throwing a fake bone out there and letting others squack it up knowing she did nothing wrong here...well played Sec. Clinton and AP.

She can easily defend this as right and proper and it just helps her when it's proven wrong. Voters think every accusation is wrong. Think about it guys. Maybe I'm wrong here but...

edit on 24-6-2016 by DancedWithWolves because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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'.


Then why didn't you use more obvious term 'echo chamber'? Or is it you just want to use the derogatory definition to paint all Trump supporters and you are back tracking now?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

No ifs needed.
What is there to convince us that SB wasn't doing the same thing at the CF that he would have done as a SD employee?


I believe he was doing the same thing at the CF, as he would have done at the SD. The important point is that the CF is a private entity and well within their right to hire someone to do so.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

A humint classification only means that the information was gathered through human sources.


Your wrong here.

It is far more than that, and explicitly involves classified information and resources.


From the CIA:


Human intelligence (HUMINT) is defined as any information that can be gathered from human sources.


From the FBI:


Human Intelligence (HUMINT) is the collection of information from human sources


www.cia.gov...
www.fbi.gov...



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable



Then why didn't you use more obvious term 'echo chamber'? Or is it you just want to use the derogatory definition to paint all Trump supporters and you are back tracking now?


How am I backtracking?

Also, why are you trying to dictate what terms I use? If the term 'circle jerk' offends you, grow a pair of balls and quit complaining.

Better yet, quit participating in the circle jerk.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UnBreakable



Then why didn't you use more obvious term 'echo chamber'? Or is it you just want to use the derogatory definition to paint all Trump supporters and you are back tracking now?


How am I backtracking?

Also, why are you trying to dictate what terms I use? If the term 'circle jerk' offends you, grow a pair of balls and quit complaining.

Better yet, quit participating in the circle jerk.


First off, Skippy, don't tell me what to comment on, I see no 'mod' designation for you. Second off, that term doesn't offend me. You're the one coming up with various definitions for the term. Take the word 'ass'. It could mean either a donkey or the human posterior. You're an ass. But I only mean you're a donkey. Really.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Obama specifically told Clinton that he didn't want Blumenthal (a Clinton Foundation employee) involved with State Dept. matters.

Yet, Clinton continued to clandestinely seek and receive Blumenthal's advice and intelligence on specific matters of State.

Clearly, by omitting Blumenthal's name from official calendar records...in addition to communicating with him via a non-government server...Clinton was defying the Commander-In-Chief's specific orders, while intentionally seeking to avoid 'transparency' with the WH, as well as the American people.

The result of this covert intelligence gathering and direction is to give 'The Clinton Foundation' (a non-governmental entity) 'unsanctioned' and undue influence in the development and execution of U.S. foreign policy, as well as a specific say in courses of action and decisions taken by the U.S. government.



Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton confidante whose potential employment at the State Department was nixed by Obama administration officials, advised Clinton on the content of her speeches, on political developments in a number of countries and even on how her policies were playing in the international press.

The new records, all sent during Clinton's first year in office, indicate Blumenthal's advisory role went far beyond the informal intelligence memos he prepared for her about Libya. In fact, the emails suggest Blumenthal performed the duties of a full-time State Department staffer, despite being on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation during the same time period.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

edit on 25-6-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DancedWithWolves

You mention a very valid point and this tactic is readily apparent to anyone paying close enough attention to what is going on. Unfortunately most people don't dig deep enough and miss all of the nuance that is buried in most 'news' articles.

Her 'personal' server could then be used for any and all campaigning, even when she was operating as Secretary of State since it wasn't government owned equipment.

But she used it exclusively for her official government business.

She's sly, Hillary is, and very well practiced at deception and misdirection. I said a while back that some of what was on her server could be related to election rigging and that it could conceivably come back to bite her in the ass.

What we see with the Guccifer2 revelations shows that Hillary and the DNC have colluded from the beginning and that their process was not open to all.

Hillary's server opened so many cans of worms, it is no wonder the FBI is taking so long to track down all of the relevant connections.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join