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.

 

WH rejects call to block Clinton from receiving classified briefings

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Shamrock6



Bad faith, according to that case, is either demonstrable intent OR committing the act while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.


Exactly what I have been saying. if the act itself cannot be proven to have harmed the interests of the US, intent must be looked at.

In this case, neither apply.


Still incorrect.

Reasonable belief that the information COULD disadvantage the United States.

Not that it DID.

Again, semantics matter.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6



while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.


Can you prove Hillary had "reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States"?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Can you get me a JD? Job as a federal prosecutor? Access to all the interviews, emails, and files from the investigation?

Hook that up and I'll give your strawman an answer.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
This is all just so Huma can still supply the brotherhood....right?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Weeee, round and round we go..in circles it seems.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Shamrock6



while having reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States.


Can you prove Hillary had "reason to believe the information could be used to harm the interests of the United States"?


She either knew the sensitive data she was carrying and storing on unprotected devices was dangerous or she didn't.

I'd say odds are she definitely knew but either way, doesn't show her in a good light and certainly should preclude her from any position handling sensitive data again, IMO.
edit on 7/7/2016 by atomish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You may not have liked my answer, but you should have known that would of been the next step.

Fact remains, you cannot prove what needs to be proven to make your case.

Like you said, semantics matter.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join