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: 12
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And I'm CEO of Correct The Record .




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

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.


Apparently, the FBI didn't think it was obvious. Gotta have proof or it's just an opinion.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

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.


Now you're "moving the goal posts." The requirements for being President are clearly outlined in the Constitution, to belabor the point, and your errant opinions about Clinton's guilt mean nothing in that regard.

I see you favor the "Judge Dredd" flavor of justice, eh? You're the judge, jury and executioner?

Thankfully, that's only a fantasy of yours - not reality.




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

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.


Yes, indeed. We went down that road months before the decision and we have to keep explaining it, for what I believe will be a long time to come.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

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"?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

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


I disagree. Perjury is very tough to prove.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

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.


Ok man here you go. It's an EXECUTIVE ORDER:

The basis for revocation or denial is laid out in Executive Order 12968 which, ironically, was signed by President Bill Clinton. It states:

"Access to classified information shall be granted only to employees whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates…strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment…and willingness to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information.”

Where was Hillary's "willingness to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information” when she was using a private server?

That good enough?
edit on 25-8-2016 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Guess what "trumps" an Executive Order?

Our Constitution.

LOL.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

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"?



Good question. Not sure, but I did hear through the grapevine that you are better off asking to be paid in Venezuelan food stamps.




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

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 data unrecoverable, shows intent.

Period.

The intent of running the Bleachbit program was to ensure that the data would unrecoverable. People with common sense do not need an FBI quote.





edit on R002016-08-25T15:00:13-05:00k008Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Nucleardoom



That good enough?


Nope. That says nothing about it being a requirement to become president.

As gryph said, that is laid out in the constitution.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Funny because Comey said they did get bits and pieces from her server which there were actually three cpu hard drives. Where did that bleachbit info come from? This is the first I'm hearing about it.. Comey sure didn't mention anything like that and as a matter of fact said the hard drives were only casually stripped. Some tech term but that's the gist. Not stripped clean. I heard him say they got bits and pieces from them.

Now she did this to hide some kind of criminal activity but you can't say what. You just know it.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MountainLaurel

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


Did they "get it"...are you sure? I'll ask again in a different way....Why were dogs banned from the Beach for a month, and what compelled you to confront the dog owner ?...simple question really....



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

That is what Tray Gowdy claimed in a Fox interview.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: sycomix

She still has her clearance status. She'll have it when she's inaugurated.
Why do you think she won't have top security clearance?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

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.


No scrubbed. Here's comeys own words.

www.fbi.gov... -a-personal-e-mail-system.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
edit
edit on 25-8-2016 by Realtruth because: double post



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

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.


And again, the intent of running a program to make deleted information unrecoverable is to make sure that the data is unrecoverable.

It was the intent of someone who was in charge to make the decision to do that. Hillary says she is 100% responsible for her choice of a non government email account.

There were multiple servers involved according to the FBI so there is no way of knowing which server had the program ran on it.



Somebody attempted to make sure that deleted information stayed deleted permanently on one of the servers the FBI has.

It was their intent to make sure that data was unrecoverable.. period..

Have a nice day... got things to do.
edit on R082016-08-25T15:08:49-05:00k088Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Again, the FBI disagrees, otherwise she would have been recommended for indictment.


The director of the FBI will be gone soon, because of his incompetence, and disgusting wordplay to shield the Clinton's.

Expect an indictment within 2 months, and the FBI director will step down before, or very shortly after.

Popcorn anyone?




top topics



 
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join