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.

 

Hillary FINALLY responds to a hard question.

page: 11
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: introvert
Sounds to me like she is taking personal responsibility for the email fiasco and not pushing it off on to others.

Isn't that what we would want?

Or perhaps anything she could/would have said would of been a "humdinger" no matter what?


It's a 10 minute video, watch it all to get a feel of the entire 'flavor' of her attitude, you won't be disappointed.


I was responding to the "humdinger" you highlighted in the OP. Wouldn't you say that it appears she took personal responsibility? Why do you call it a "humdinger"?



Its a humdinger.

Sure she takes 100% responsibility for her decision to use an email account other than a government account.

She takes 0% responsibility for her decision to go with a private server in her house as opposed to a commercial email account such as AOL like Powell.

If you can possibly fathom how much harder it is for the government to retrieve information from a private server of an unwilling participant as opposed as to how easy it is for the government to retrieve that same information from a commercial email account of an unwilling participant, then you will start to understand why she went with a private server.

She was doing things she didn't want anyone to see. And they weren't "personal emails" either.






edit on R372016-08-25T14:37:29-05:00k378Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R382016-08-25T14:38:15-05:00k388Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R402016-08-25T14:40:24-05:00k408Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

In no place in that document does it make any provisions for classification of information and delegation as to authorities to whom it is managed by. All of that came up much later and is cover under a countless number of executive and congressional mandates.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

If they can back a known crook openly and unabashedly, I think that is a good enough reason to question their character. So umm YEAH!


If you could prove she was a known crook, you would have an argument. Otherwise, you are just judging people according to your own ignorant beliefs and hyperbole.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



If you can possibly fathom how much harder it is for the government to retrieve information from a private server of an unwilling participant as opposed as to how easy it is for the government to retrieve that same information from a commercial email account of an unwillingly participant, then you will start to understand why she went with a private server.


Can you prove it was her intent to make it harder for the government to retrieve those communications?

The FBI couldn't.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MountainLaurel

Others got it so don't worry. I didn't waste my time.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Gryphon66

In no place in that document does it make any provisions for classification of information and delegation as to authorities to whom it is managed by. All of that came up much later and is cover under a countless number of executive and congressional mandates.


Is there some reason you can't say "the Constitution of the United States"?

No one here has made any claim that the Constitution addresses security clearances ... that's a King Kong-sized strawman.

What we're trying to point out to you is that the points of eligibility to be POTUS are clearly outlined in the COTUS ... and there is no higher law, including "all that which came up much later."

Civics 101.
edit on 25-8-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Nucleardoom



If you had sanctions on your security clearance you couldn't be Pres since you have to see the classified docs in order to do your job effectively.


Show me where it states that in the Constitution.


So all of our laws are written into the constitution??? Huh? If you can't see the direct conflict between being Pres with full clearance and someone aspiring to become Pres with sanctions to their clearance then I can't help you. Hello?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Actually Comey openly stated there were offenses.




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
My Navy son was disciplined because he turned in a jet fighter pilot for flying missions while drunk. If you want to get ahead in America, you have to be dishonest and lack character, like Hillary. The more dirt that accumulates on this woman before November 8th, the better the chances that Americans will elect her as our Commander-in-Chief.

(Where's the "barf" emoticon?)

-cwm



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

If they can back a known crook openly and unabashedly, I think that is a good enough reason to question their character. So umm YEAH!


If you could prove she was a known crook, you would have an argument. Otherwise, you are just judging people according to your own ignorant beliefs and hyperbole.


You're asking for facts, logic and reason.

They're going to call you a Hillary-bot again.

I do admire your chutzpah, Introvert, LOL.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Nucleardoom

You made a specific statement and I kindly asked you to back that up. Since you cannot do so, you are now reverting to an argument of "conflict".

It may be reasonable for an individual to form an opinion that she should not be president because of that alleged conflict, but what you said earlier was complete bs.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



If you can possibly fathom how much harder it is for the government to retrieve information from a private server of an unwilling participant as opposed as to how easy it is for the government to retrieve that same information from a commercial email account of an unwillingly participant, then you will start to understand why she went with a private server.


Can you prove it was her intent to make it harder for the government to retrieve those communications?

The FBI couldn't.


Yes the FBI did.... the server was wiped with a program called Bleachbit, making it impossible to recover the data. This was not done on accident, but on purpose to make sure the FBI could not access anything other than what she gave them.
edit on R422016-08-25T14:42:48-05:00k428Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
My Navy son was disciplined because he turned in a jet fighter pilot for flying missions while drunk. If you want to get ahead in America, you have to be dishonest and lack character, like Hillary. The more dirt that accumulates on this woman before November 8th, the better the chances that Americans will elect her as our Commander-in-Chief.

(Where's the "barf" emoticon?)

-cwm


Do you have evidence that HIllary Clinton has flown a plane while intoxicated?

If not, you may want to check out the concept of "false equivalency."



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Aye but it also does not provide any sort of provision to protect her actions. Even if the email thing is a wash, she wrecked her chances of having a working clearance again, that as POTUS would impact working ability. Beyond that she is without any reasonable doubt guilty of perjury.
edit on 25-8-2016 by sycomix because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: sycomix

Yes, that are handled internally within departments. That is how offenses are usually handled unless specific actions took place.

Hillary did not take any of those specific actions and could not be reprimanded by the department because she was no longer in government service.

Make sure you listen to everything Comey said.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Can you prove it was her intent to make it harder for the government to retrieve those communications?

The FBI couldn't.


Come on REALLY? She had her lawyers scrub that server AND their own cellphones before handing them the server over. I don't think that's tough to prove at all since their facts. It's obvious to anyone they were trying to hide something.
edit on 25-8-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Ut oh....haven't we been through this dark and unfriendly forrest before?

Yup. I recognize that tree...it was back in June I think. Lol.
edit on 8252016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

If they can back a known crook openly and unabashedly, I think that is a good enough reason to question their character. So umm YEAH!


If you could prove she was a known crook, you would have an argument. Otherwise, you are just judging people according to your own ignorant beliefs and hyperbole.


You're asking for facts, logic and reason.

They're going to call you a Hillary-bot again.

I do admire your chutzpah, Introvert, LOL.


I've already been accused of being a paid shill today. So I'm used to it.

By the way, did you know CTR pay is pretty bad? They need to change that.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



If you can possibly fathom how much harder it is for the government to retrieve information from a private server of an unwilling participant as opposed as to how easy it is for the government to retrieve that same information from a commercial email account of an unwillingly participant, then you will start to understand why she went with a private server.


Can you prove it was her intent to make it harder for the government to retrieve those communications?

The FBI couldn't.


Yes the FBI did.... the server was wiped with a program called Bleachbit, making it impossible to recover the data. This was not done on accident, but on purpose to make sure the FBI could not access anything other than what she gave them.


The FBI did not say she had that intent. Can you provide a quote?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You or I would have been taken by the bailiff the instant the words perjury were uttered.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join