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.
originally posted by: Nucleardoom
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.
originally posted by: sycomix
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.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.
originally posted by: introvert
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.
originally posted by: introvert
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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: introvert
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.
LOL ... hey, what's the going rate of conversion today for "jack squat"?
originally posted by: introvert
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?
That good enough?
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: introvert
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?
Total BS as usual.
The very fact that the server was wiped with a program specifically designed to make deleted date unrecoverable, shows intent.
Period.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MountainLaurel
Others got it so don't worry. I didn't waste my time.
originally posted by: Nucleardoom
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.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: introvert
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?
Total BS as usual.
The very fact that the server was wiped with a program specifically designed to make deleted date unrecoverable, shows intent.
Period.
Again, the FBI disagrees, otherwise she would have been recommended for indictment.
originally posted by: introvert
Again, the FBI disagrees, otherwise she would have been recommended for indictment.