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.

 

Republicans Just Leaked Classified FBI Intelligence In Attempt to Smear Hillary

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: introvert

I see. That in itself speaks volumes here.


Just telling you the truth. You are asking me to answer a question about an individual's level of responsibility. The answer to that will depend on one's personal opinion.




posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: introvert

I see. That in itself speaks volumes here.


Just telling you the truth. You are asking me to answer a question about an individual's level of responsibility. The answer to that will depend on one's personal opinion.


OK, lets take it in a generic sense then. If someone is running for President of the USA, regardless of who, and they were publicly found by the FBI to have been "extremely careless" with classified information, is that person fit to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yeah yeah we heard all that during the investigation. Born classified still classified. None of that came into play because she was not trying to reveal states secrets. She didn't set things up to allow sensitive material to be obtained by outsiders. She didn't hand over sensitive info to our enemies.
End of story.
The investigation is over. They're not reopening it .



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Why didn't the FBI make an issue about it then?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme
And my personal opinion is that I don't want someone running our country that is that careless.

Carelessness puts lives in danger at that level. It is not like the information that you or I hold. These people are to be held to a higher standard, one she can't live up to.

Just ask Shahram Amiri

(and that is if she was ONLY careless...which I do not believe )


edit on 8/19/2016 by Martin75 because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yeah yeah we heard all that during the investigation. Born classified still classified. None of that came into play because she was not trying to reveal states secrets. She didn't set things up to allow sensitive material to be obtained by outsiders. She didn't hand over sensitive info to our enemies.
End of story.
The investigation is over. They're not reopening it .


More dodging of the topic I see. I would expect no less. But again, glossing over it and diminishing it by saying "Yeah yeah we heard all that during the investigation" does not address my point about the difference, does it?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: coffeetalk

Ummm plausible deniability?
Is that like suspension of disbelief?
Because that is what it would take to swallow that garbage speculation.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Again, that is a matter of personal opinion.

Are you asking me for my personal opinion?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krakatoa

Again, that is a matter of personal opinion.

Are you asking me for my personal opinion?


Yes, After all, everything here is personal opinion.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Well yes I guess that could happen.

Why would the Secretary of state do that again?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krakatoa

Again, that is a matter of personal opinion.

Are you asking me for my personal opinion?


Yes, After all, everything here is personal opinion.


I'd say it depends on the person.

Hillary was found to be careless with her emails, but it was so minor that it wasn't worth facing charges. That being said, I think she is responsible enough to be CIC of the Armed Forces.

Gen. Petraues was found to have been guilty of doing a lot more than what Hillary did and I believe even he would be responsible enough to be CIC.

It's all just a matter of opinion.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

🎇🎆 Hey it's a free country dude. 🎆🎇



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krakatoa

Yeah yeah we heard all that during the investigation. Born classified still classified. None of that came into play because she was not trying to reveal states secrets. She didn't set things up to allow sensitive material to be obtained by outsiders. She didn't hand over sensitive info to our enemies.
End of story.
The investigation is over. They're not reopening it .


More dodging of the topic I see. I would expect no less. But again, glossing over it and diminishing it by saying "Yeah yeah we heard all that during the investigation" does not address my point about the difference, does it?

the topic is republicans leaked classified info. This whole rehash of her email status is off topic . Thanks for reminding us.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krakatoa

Well yes I guess that could happen.

Why would the Secretary of state do that again?

So, having a lawyer simply look at an email header or recipient is not sufficient to determine if the content of that email communication actually contains classified information....correct? Whomever sent the email is really irrelevant here....that scope of the investigation, and the depth to which the FBI accepts as "scouring" is very relevant. Relevant not only to this case but to all future cases of a similar nature. IF all an investigation of this type requires is to skim the headers and recipients as a measure of lawfulness, then it is, IMO, highly suspected that external influences were at play here to manipulate the investigation by lowering the bar of culpability.

That, in itself, is VERY frightening a thought. Especially, when it involves a candidate for the highest post in this country.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

This is related to the OP. The definition and levels of "leaking" is being discussed here. That, at least, is what I am trying to discern.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
More Clinton deflections. What type of bizzaro world are we in where someone's malfeasance and flat our criminal activity is supposed to be ignored because "Oh noes, you weren't supposed to find out about this... the Russians, the GOP, Wikileaks, ALIENS!!! OMG, they're attacking me and my campaign by exposing my illegalities!"

What a joke...



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Wait I thought it was already proven the lawyers had clearance.
And this is still off topic
Which is Republicans blah blah.
On that I'm betting not.
But was there classified info turned over to people without clearance????
Did the FBI give classified info to people who were not certified to receive it?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

But, what/who determines if it's "classified"? So far, from recent history, that seems to have changed to be a lot lower than when I signed my agreement and had my background check. If all it takes to determine if an email is classified, then "leaking it" is irrelevant if the headers are unclassified. Then, it is not considered leaking, only being "careless".



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
This smells like another political stunt and setup.

Where is the substance of these supposed leaks? I have yet to see this...

Moreover:




FBI 'improperly' restricting access to Clinton probe files, senator says

Congress may have the FBI’s documents on the Hillary Clinton email investigation – but Republicans are complaining that the way the files were handed over means only a few lawmakers can actually see them.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says the bureau has “improperly” limited access to the files, by mixing in classified information with the rest of the material.

The result: a cache of documents that only some can see in their entirety.

In a letter Wednesday to the Senate's security director, the top-ranking senator has asked that unclassified portions be provided to his staff – and chided the FBI for providing the files in this way.

“As I have expressed to the FBI in the past, it is inappropriate to unnecessarily mingle classified and unclassified information,” Grassley wrote.



More dirty tricks.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Nice try Rick.

They had a security clearance through the SD. That does not mean they were limited to reading emails that only applied to the Benghazi issue.


These State Department security clearances remain active. We obtained them in order to be able to review documents at the Department of State, to assist former Secretary Clinton in preparing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi



And exactly what part of "We obtained them in order to be able to review documents at the Department of State, to assist former Secretary Clinton in preparing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi" do you fail to comprehend...

They were only granted access to Benghazi related information... any other classified information was a leak of classified information to an unauthorized individual...


Spin spin spin doesn't change the facts.


They were NOT given Top Secret access to all State Department information, only about Benghazi........ any other classified information on that thumb drive that pertained to ANYTHING outside of Benghazi was technically a leak of classified information to an unauthorized individual.

Period.

As a matter of fact before you spout anymore... you might want to go back and check the dates they were granted the clearances vs the dates they were given the information by Hillary.
edit on R162016-08-19T14:16:36-05:00k168Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join