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.

 

FBI papers reveal that Hillary Clinton did not mislead Congress, but was 'extremely careless'

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

These types of articles are meant to fool the people who don't care enough to put any time onto checking things for themselves.
That is NOT YOU and that is NOT the rest of the people here.
People on this board are not going to be fooled with simple misleading articles and findings like this.
We were all here and closely watching as this all unfolded.

You know, I know, we all know that she LIED. She to congress, the american people as a whole and some individuals like parents of benghazi victims.
How people can still try and deny that is beyond me. I honestly feel like even you don't really buy this.




posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Let's no forget that clintons aids and lawyers had unrestricted access to top secret info that they didn't have a clearance for.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Come on everyone, y'all need to stop hounding Hillary.

I mean she never intended to be extremely careless. She is, after all, often confused and not sophisticated enough to understand proper security protocols.

She didn't lie or mislead anyone, she is just completely clueless. The FBI even said so.

That's exactly what we need in a president; an often confused, extremely careless and unsophisticated woman who short circuits in office because...well, just because.

We need to keep a running list of Hillary's Presidential qualities.... lest we forget.
-Unsophisticated
-Often confused
-Extremely careless
-Carries hot sauce everywhere that she goes

-Has a medal-of-honor from all the heavy sniper fire.
-Has bad hair.
-Wears 1960's pantsuits.
-Procreated with Bill.
-Hates dogs.
-Needs a handrail 24/7 and a defibrillator within 10 meters at all times.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They are heavily redacted and have to be kept in a "skiff".

Most of the people investigating don't have the clearence to see them.

SAP emails.

She is full of crap and knows they can't be seen by the public.




posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I see right through you just like everyone else. You can ignore the facts, but that doesn't mean the rest of us do.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

I have never once said that Hillary is perfect, but you can't sit there and tell me that a Hillary Presidency would be the worst thing ever. Even if she is corrupt, at LEAST we'll get another shot for a better decision 4 years later.

Besides, at this point, there is so much hyperbole and obfuscation around hillary's scandals that I tend to distrust everyone yelling about her guilt. I just don't care about these scandals anymore. They've been played out in and out of Congress and not a single investigation has ever made anything stick. At this point I'm going to side with many of the charges and accusations being trumped up and completely blown out of proportion.

Though I'm sure I'll be eviscerated by all of ATS for this opinion. The way people reacted to me writing this thread, you'd think I shot their puppy or something.
edit on 17-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RobotBomb

No she didn't mislead. That's true intent and anyone with a brain knows that she never did that.
I'm really feeling sorry for the ones who don't get it. I mean really. Like pity.


Pity won't change the truth.

When questioned by the congressional committee about which methods were used to screen for work related emails, Hillary replied, "all of the above" and then went on to specifically point out that her legal team even went so far as to read the content of each and every one to determine if they were work related.

When Comey testified that the FBI discovered thousands of undisclosed, work related emails, he was asked if Hillary's lawyers read the content of her emails in order to determine if they were work related, (like she said they did) he replied "NO, they did not."

Sorry, but at the very least that's misleading and by most people's standards, it's flat out lying.

How many of the 30,000+ deleted emails were work related? Apparently and despite what Hillary has testified to under oath, we'll never know, because no one other than Hillary ever even took the time to read through them.

I will NOT vote for Trump under any circumstances and I still haven't decided whether or not I'll vote for Hillary but if I do, I will not stand here and deny that I voted for the liar over the idiot narcissist.

She's a liar, there's no denying that fact and no amount of pity is going to change it.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

What are you talking about? This actually happened. Congress requested this information like a week or so ago.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Even if she is corrupt, at LEAST we'll get another shot for a better decision 4 years later.

Do you really mean this?



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Did I stutter? I truly don't trust a Trump Presidency with his thin skin. At least Hillary will run the country.
edit on 17-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft




-Hates dogs.

Thank you.

I don't know how I forgot this one.
That quality is the one that stands out for me... Seems evil.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
-Procreated with Bill.


Not too sure about this one. Chelsea is Web Hubbell's kid.



...........and don't forget the whopper where she said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.

edit on 8jY by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)

edit on 8jY by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Did I stutter? I truly don't trust a Trump Presidency with his thin skin.

There are other people that are not Trump and are not proven to be corrupt in the race.




At least Hillary will run the country.

Into the ground,maybe.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Did I stutter? I truly don't trust a Trump Presidency with his thin skin.

There are other people that are not Trump and are not proven to be corrupt in the race.

Neither of those two people will win the race. So I'd rather not siphon votes away from Clinton and possibly help Trump win. I'm all for voting third party, but only when the main candidates aren't lunatics.


Into the ground,maybe.

Would 4 more years of Obama REALLY kill you? I mean try answering that question honestly for a change.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

At least Hillary will run the country.


..........most likely ineffectually and unethically, just like as she did as Senator and SOS. What's another eight years under the status quo?



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

Did I stutter? I truly don't trust a Trump Presidency with his thin skin.

There are other people that are not Trump and are not proven to be corrupt in the race.

Neither of those two people will win the race. So I'd rather not siphon votes away from Clinton and possibly help Trump win. I'm all for voting third party, but only when the main candidates aren't lunatics.


Into the ground,maybe.

Would 4 more years of Obama REALLY kill you? I mean try answering that question honestly for a change.


With 4 years of unchecked illegal immigration, yes it's very possible it will kill us.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Neither of those two people will win the race.

Well, neither one will win if people like you choose to do the wrong thing and vote for the corrupt one, and other people vote for the crazy one.




Would 4 more years of Obama REALLY kill you? I mean try answering that question honestly for a change.

Don't you mean four more years of BUSH?
Anyway....
It might kill me.
I can't afford my health care since Obama 'changed' it.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Would 4 more years of Obama REALLY kill you? I mean try answering that question honestly for a change.


Only if I happen to get caught up in the next 9-11 type of event that will definitely happen under her watch, as she opens the Syrian refugee floodgates. Honestly.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Well, neither one will win if people like you choose to do the wrong thing and vote for the corrupt one, and other people vote for the crazy one.

Correct, but you convincing me to vote for Johnson isn't going to magically convince the rest of the nation to vote for him. I just don't feel like this is the election to try to usurp the 2 party rule, because if you go all in on Johnson we could end up with Trump and then we may not even GET another election if he can't keep his cool when some other country instigates an international event.


Don't you mean four more years of BUSH?
Anyway....
It might kill me.
I can't afford my health care since Obama 'changed' it.

If there is one thing I've learned about the Obama Presidency its that it wasn't the same as Bush' Presidency. The economic turnaround and him pushing the ACA alone are two MAJOR policy differences between Bush and Obama. I mean you just referenced it here.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How could anyone support someone for POTUS who's been proven to be extremely careless with sensitive critical information of the US government?

You can't. Not unless you're a biased hypocrite.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join