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: 13
55
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.


You are correct, Comey did state that they were able to retrieve bits and pieces that were not completely swiped. That is how they were able to locate more emails that should have been turned over with the original batch and not deleted.




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

They were not marked.
We're talking about her saying she didn't get marked emails.

She got three marked.

As outlined.

She forgot them.

Oh too bad.

The other 110 they decided were classified but not a single one was marked. The marks are supposed to be very apparent top and bottom. None of them were marked.
Please...I know what I'm talking about.


No you do not know what you are talking about........again per Comey



“Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.” Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...


And she only started with the "marked" bull# after she was busted publically.

Try some other lies this one is too easily debunked.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Whatever you have to tell yourself, Rick.

We've already learned how good you are at "sizing up" these situations.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

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?


Sure....You go ahead and believe that. Whatever makes you feel better.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Guess what "trumps" an Executive Order?

Our Constitution.

LOL.


There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution refers to the office of President as the executive. He (or she) is instructed therein by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or face impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being removal from office.

An executive order of the president must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the president specific power, or by a delegation of power by Congress to the president.

If it's an EO it's already based upon support in the Constitution. Nice try Gryph.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Whatever you have to tell yourself, Rick.

We've already learned how good you are at "sizing up" these situations.



You wanna talk about me or discuss whether running a program called Bleachbit on a server before you turn it over to the FBI shows someone had the intent to make some of that deleted information stay permanently deleted.

I guess you want to talk about me because you know you are wrong.
edit on R142016-08-25T15:14:27-05:00k148Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R152016-08-25T15:15:24-05:00k158Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Whatever you have to tell yourself, Rick.

We've already learned how good you are at "sizing up" these situations.



You wanna talk about me or discuss whether running a program on a sserver before turning over to The FBI shows you had the intent to make some of that deleted information stay permanently deleted.

I guess you want to talk about me because you know you are wrong.


No. I was trying to end the conversation.

If what you describe was proof of intent, she would have been indicted.

Fact is, it's not proof of intent. So all we would do is keep going in circles.

Another fact, is that you have a horrible track record on this issue and cannot be taken seriously.

That is an important factor that people should know.


edit on 25-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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?


Taking personal responsibility would be going to jail for her crimes, instead of her buddies letting her off.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Was there anything to it? Did he have evidence that such a program was used?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

We have a system even the most naive child knows is corrupt. Just because something should lead to indiction or is evidence to make that possible doesn't mean anything will happen with it.

Just because something wasn't done about something doesn't mean it wasn't there. Trying to prove a lack of corruption using a corrupt system is kind of a catch 22. If people believe the system is broken and corrupt, you need to first prove that it is not before you can use that system as proof of non corruption. Good luck with that one.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


Taking personal responsibility would be going to jail for her crimes, instead of her buddies letting her off.


Her buddies did not let her off. They applied the law as is has been for even the lowest in government service.

Taking personal responsibility means she just checks herself in to the local jail? No charges, no trial? She just walks in?

How absurd.

edit on 25-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: introvert

Was there anything to it? Did he have evidence that such a program was used?


Honestly, I'm not sure.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Ok where's the evidence that such a program was ever used? That it's not just another unsubstantiated claim thrown out to cast further doubt.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


Taking personal responsibility would be going to jail for her crimes, instead of her buddies letting her off.


Here buddies did not let her off. They applied the law as is has been for even the lowest in government service.

Taking personal responsibility means she just checks herself in to the local jail? No charges, no trial? She just walks in?

How absurd.


She broke the law. She was let off. End of discussion.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

So now he excuse is the system is corrupt, even though we can see the laws were fairly applied?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Don't you think if he could have caught her deliberately sending classified info incorrectly, he would have shouted it to the rooftop to have her charged? The FBI knew about that "nonpaper" incident. They questioned her and others in the department about what "nonpaper" meant, and what she meant when she said it. They were apparently satisfied with the answers they got from everyone, so it was a non-issue.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: introvert

Was there anything to it? Did he have evidence that such a program was used?


Good god if the emails were in bits how do you think they got all chopped up like that?

By just normally deleting them? LOL



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

True enough.



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

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

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?


Taking personal responsibility would be going to jail for her crimes, instead of her buddies letting her off.


Here buddies did not let her off. They applied the law as is has been for even the lowest in government service.

Taking personal responsibility means she just checks herself in to the local jail? No charges, no trial? She just walks in?

How absurd.


She broke the law. She was let off. End of discussion.


The consequences of her actions are usually handled internally and do not result in criminal charges. It would have been special treatment against Hillary if she were to be indicted.

Sorry you guys can't seem to understand that, but that is not my problem.
edit on 25-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



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

"So if she considered them to be personal, then we move into the facet where she and her lawyers had those emails deleted," he said. "And they didn't just push the delete button. They had them deleted where even God can't read them."



Gowdy said the former secretary of state had used a technology known as BleachBit to scrub her server, rendering much of its contents unrecoverable.


www.washingtonexaminer.com...


What is BleachBit?

www.bleachbit.org...


Beyond simply deleting files, BleachBit includes advanced features such as shredding files to prevent recovery,


PS: If you are under investigation by the FBI, Bleachbit doesn't exactly make things impossible to recover... just a lot more difficult. You may remember that Comey said there were lots of little bits and pieces of deleted information that had to be put back to together again.

Bleachbit is a file shredder....it can be undone with enough time and resources to a great extent.

Best to just stick with the old tried and true,,,,,,,, format the drive, fill it totally with garbage, format the drive, totally fill it up with garbage... about 10 runs and your stuff is not recoverable.
edit on R412016-08-25T15:41:00-05:00k418Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R422016-08-25T15:42:44-05:00k428Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R452016-08-25T15:45:36-05:00k458Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join