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: 16
55
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Would they have been subject to military law, rather than civil?




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Like I said, intent has no bearing on consequence or law, the result is the same. The law is the law, you break it you pay! So yeah hang that loon up like a human pinata, and that is getting off easy.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

1 is enough to be a breach, once is all it take, she broke the law, she needs to pay.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Both, and yes UCMJ her butt! Much more better than civilian court. Better less partial judge too!



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Those in the military? Of course. Clinton? Is she in the military? Last I heard, no. So the answer is fairly obvious.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Gryphon66

Both, and yes UCMJ her butt! Much more better than civilian court. Better less partial judge too!


Sure.

We'll just discard the Constitution and the rule-of-law completely and do things the way you'd like to see them done.




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66

Those in the military? Of course. Clinton? Is she in the military? Last I heard, no. So the answer is fairly obvious.


You were attempting, or so it seemed, to suggest that the acts of military personnel who have been charged with mishandling classified information were the same as what you think Hillary Clinton has done.

There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters.

Perhaps, I misunderstood your position.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sillyolme

Such bull.

I spent a long career in the military. Not once did I ever "misplace" sensitive documents.

So you're saying she's either incompetent or corrupt.

Choose which one.



What happened to those who did? General court? Loss of grade and pay? Retirement? All of those?


All of the above.

There was punishment for the act. "Intent" was never an option. When you're in a position of responsibility, you take the job seriously.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66

Those in the military? Of course. Clinton? Is she in the military? Last I heard, no. So the answer is fairly obvious.


You were attempting, or so it seemed, to suggest that the acts of military personnel who have been charged with mishandling classified information were the same as what you think Hillary Clinton has done.

There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters.

Perhaps, I misunderstood your position.




"There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters."

There are differences between civilian and military laws, however, the policies and requirements, et. al. are the basically the same in these matters.

Fixed it for you... you made a mistake.

NSA only has one set of guidelines, used for both military and civilian.
edit on R592016-08-25T16:59:49-05:00k598Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66

Those in the military? Of course. Clinton? Is she in the military? Last I heard, no. So the answer is fairly obvious.


You were attempting, or so it seemed, to suggest that the acts of military personnel who have been charged with mishandling classified information were the same as what you think Hillary Clinton has done.

There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters.

Perhaps, I misunderstood your position.




"There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters."

There are differences between civilian and military laws, however, the policies and requirements, et. al. are the basically the same in these matters.

Fixed it for you... you made a mistake.


Aren't you kind? See, the problem with correcting someone else ... is that you should make sure you're correct.

Sadly, you're utterly wrong, but still ... the thought counts for something, eh?




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66

Those in the military? Of course. Clinton? Is she in the military? Last I heard, no. So the answer is fairly obvious.


You were attempting, or so it seemed, to suggest that the acts of military personnel who have been charged with mishandling classified information were the same as what you think Hillary Clinton has done.

There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters.

Perhaps, I misunderstood your position.




"There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters."

There are differences between civilian and military laws, however, the policies and requirements, et. al. are the basically the same in these matters.

Fixed it for you... you made a mistake.


Aren't you kind? See, the problem with correcting someone else ... is that you should make sure you're correct.

Sadly, you're utterly wrong, but still ... the thought counts for something, eh?



Burden of proof is on you my friend.....


I say NSA only has one set of classified information guidelines for both military and civilian personnel, making your original statement false and misleading which is why it needed correcting.

Please please prove me wrong.


Again:

"There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters.""

That is a false statement.

"Policies and requirement, et. al. " are the same for both government employees, contractors and military members.

edit on R052016-08-25T17:05:00-05:00k058Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R052016-08-25T17:05:40-05:00k058Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



No, I am not. I am talking about proving intent with the false exculpatory statements Hillary made.


My apologies. I thought your were talking about those "lies" being used to prove a perjury charge. I don't see how those potential "lies" could be used to prove she had the criminal intent in the using of her email system.

Those are two separate things. The claim of false exculpatory statements being used to prove that criminal intent is very misleading. Although she made statements that were false, they do not indicate specific intent in this case.

This was a line of thinking introduced by Gowdy and many have picked up on it, but again it is misleading.



But they could and should have because the evidence to prosecute exists in the form of Hillary's false exculpatory statements.


I don't think so. Her false statements, which may not be factually correct, do not show her intent to commit a crime with her email system.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Proof of what exactly?

That military and civil law are different? That's blatantly obvious and you've already admitted it.

You're the one that made a specific counter-claim they're the same in a specific instance.

Go ahead. Prove that.

Prove "which policies and Requirements" are "the same" ... that's not unreasonable is it?

Off topic, but not unreasonable.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Face it...what this all comes down to is that you think Hillary should be held to the lowest possible standard and I think she should be held to the highest possible standard given the nature of her position.


I've said nothing of the sort. I think she should be held to the same letter of the law as anyone else would be. It appears that is what has happened.



And I think anyone in a high level of government should be held to the highest possible standard, too.


So you yourself are advocating for a different level of accountability for different people. That's not how America should do things.



There was evidence to prove intent, Comey said he didn't consider it.


You're stuck on what Gowdy talked about. Look in to it and get over it. It's a dead end argument.



Unless Hillary directly said, "I intended to violate the law," then Comey was unwilling to look at other methods of proving intent....methods that have plenty of precedence in the courts.


You don't have to make things up.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: introvert

Not after you contradict yourself in two or more statements it isn't.


Contradicting oneself is not equal to perjury.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

Proof of what exactly?

That military and civil law are different? That's blatantly obvious and you've already admitted it.

You're the one that made a specific counter-claim they're the same in a specific instance.

Go ahead. Prove that.

Prove "which policies and Requirements" are "the same" ... that's not unreasonable is it?

Off topic, but not unreasonable.



"You're the one that made a specific counter-claim they're the same in a specific instance."

Really?

I said and I quote:

"There are differences between civilian and military laws." Never said they were the same.

I am saying the policies, requirements. et.al. are basically the same for government employees, contractors and military members. NSA only has one set of policies and requirements for classified information.


edit on R172016-08-25T17:17:15-05:00k178Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Those are two separate things. The claim of false exculpatory statements being used to prove that criminal intent is very misleading. Although she made statements that were false, they do not indicate specific intent in this case.


As I stated, the courts have determined it is for a jury to decide whether false exculpatory statements entered as evidence in a particular case prove intent or not. Not you, not me, not the FBI, not the DOJ.

Comey simply said the FBI did not even take it into consideration.

There was evidence to indict. The 'gods' were just smiling on Hillary.

You and I just share a difference of opinion on this. I think Hillary should be held to the highest standard, you do not. It's fine to disagree, but there is no reason to scoff at people who question the legitimacy of the FBI investigation.

...especially after watching the oversight hearings with Comey and Lynch. Half the members of the oversight committee didn't even bother to take the hearings seriously. AND they get paid for those failures! It's outrageous.


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



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
You don't have to make things up.


Also, I didn't make anything up. Comey was not willing to consider circumstantial evidence to prove intent.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

I am saying the policies, requirements. et.al. are basically the same for government employees, contractors and military members. NSA only has one set of policies and requirements for classified information.



Red Herring: NSA requirements and policies are not under discussion, or at least, I have said nothing about that topic.

Are there laws, policies and requirements within what we generally refer to as military laws that are different in scope, definition, and consequences than those that are within the civil code that address the same area of concern (mishandling of information) or not?

Feel free to answer yes or no, or ... continue to obfusticate and be ignored. We're wasting screen.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



As I stated, the courts have determined it is for a jury to decide whether false exculpatory statements entered as evidence in a particular case prove intent or not. Not you, not me, not the FBI, not the DOJ.


Ok. What's your point? The FBI does not assemble a jury.



Comey simply said the FBI did not even take it into consideration.


Can you quote Comey saying that the FBI did not consider false exculpatory statements? I don't believe he did. I believe he was talking about a perjury aspect.



I think Hillary should be held to the highest standard, you do not. It's fine to disagree, but there is no reason to scoff at people who question the legitimacy of the FBI investigation.


I don't believe in different levels of "justice" for different people. That's anti-constitutional.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join