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: 18
55
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: nomoredemsorreps
I have KNOWLEDGE. FACTS. And it's called a book. You should read one.


OMG, a book?

Really? You're serious?




posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Proof of Hillary's intent, the hacked DNC emails.

5 DNC officials have resigned because they were proven
to be rigging an election, caught red handed lying,
bigoted, racist, etc.

Hillary was all in that game.

Proof of her intent, pay to play while she was Sec of State.

Proof of intent, she deleted emails after they were subpoenaed

Bigger than Watergate x 30,000.




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



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
Proof of Hillary's intent, the hacked DNC emails.

5 DNC officials have resigned because they were proven
to be rigging an election, caught red handed lying,
bigoted, racist, etc.

Hillary was all in that game.

Proof of her intent, pay to play while she was Sec of State.

Proof of intent, she deleted emails after they were subpoenaed

Bigger than Watergate x 30,000.





And you have proof of everything you state.

Right?



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

"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?"

There are differences in the way incidents with classified information are treated only because there are differences between the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and civilian law.

For example, in the military, they can and still do charge people with adultery which almost never happens in civilian law. UCMJ is much much stricter than civilian law and military members do not have the same rights as a civilian.

They are as different as apples and oranges.

However, the policies, procedures and requirements for classified information are governed solely by the National Security Agency... Every single person who has authorized access to classified information, whether they be civilian or military must and do sign a SF-153. EVERYBODY.

Everybody is subject to the same rules and regulations when it comes to classified information. The only difference is that civilians are usually charged way less than military because the UCMJ makes it much easier to prosecute enlisted personnel.

You are obviously confused just like last time. You want to talk about policies,, procedures and requirements as it pertains to military vs civilian personnel regarding classified information, but you refuse to acknowledge you can not have that conversation with bringing NSA into it:

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

You claim NSA is a red herring...... no, far from a red herring, it shows you have absolutely no knowledge of that of which you speak.

Have a good day.





edit on R402016-08-25T22:40:20-05:00k408Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R532016-08-25T22:53:32-05:00k538Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 11:32 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?


Ummm, yeah, this is not even remotely close to an apology nor anything close to taking personal responsibility for ones own actions. This is one of those BS political responses where it is being clearly suggested that nothing wrong happened just because the "authority" had said so.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

"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?"

There are differences in the way incidents with classified information are treated only because there are differences between the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and civilian law.

For example, in the military, they can and still do charge people with adultery which almost never happens in civilian law. UCMJ is much much stricter than civilian law and military members do not have the same rights as a civilian.

They are as different as apples and oranges.

However, the policies, procedures and requirements for classified information are governed solely by the National Security Agency... Every single person who has authorized access to classified information, whether they be civilian or military must and do sign a SF-153. EVERYBODY.

Everybody is subject to the same rules and regulations when it comes to classified information. The only difference is that civilians are usually charged way less than military because the UCMJ makes it much easier to prosecute enlisted personnel.

You are obviously confused just like last time. You want to talk about policies,, procedures and requirements as it pertains to military vs civilian personnel regarding classified information, but you refuse to acknowledge you can not have that conversation with bringing NSA into it:

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

You claim NSA is a red herring...... no, far from a red herring, it shows you have absolutely no knowledge of that of which you speak.

Have a good day.






Actually, I'm not sure if you knew this, but BIlly Boy actually went on stage and was televised saying that ''it's complicated' but there were different rules for classification in the state dept and the military and that's why it is so confusing'.

But what you are saying is that (surprise, surprise) that he was lying. I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

There are no different rules for classification between the military or civilian either, both are covered under the current Executive Order on classified information.

Ole Bill was just blowin smoke.



posted on Aug, 25 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: introvert

noo she hasn`t, taking responsibility requires some type of action or paying some type of consequences,what has she done to take responsibility?
merely speaking the words " i take responsibility" is NOT taking responsibility.


BINGO!!!! She is politically "side-stepping" consequences that she deserves for all of her actions!!! Just because the DOJ is not going to "pursue" her actions doesnt mean that her actions are in fact not "criminal!!!

She signed paperwork stating that she understood the law and how she had to operate!! Then she lied under oath!!

She broke the f-king law!! Just because she is Hillary F-king Clinton doesn't give her the right to walk away scott free!!



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
Proof of Hillary's intent, the hacked DNC emails.

5 DNC officials have resigned because they were proven
to be rigging an election, caught red handed lying,
bigoted, racist, etc.

Hillary was all in that game.

Proof of her intent, pay to play while she was Sec of State.

Proof of intent, she deleted emails after they were subpoenaed

Bigger than Watergate x 30,000.





There has also been talk that Obama never should have got elected as president the first time, let alone for 8 years in total!!

You hear that Obama, your technically not even the president of the US!! How you are going to respond to all the "illegalities" surrounding your presidential win?!?!



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The whole argument of her facing jail time for the email scandal is utterly ridiculous IMO. Comey was there to see if she could be prosecuted for criminal charges; in which they did not find enough evidence. Keyword is in bold.

What Comey did disclose, was that she was extremely careless in handling the information. I don't know about any of you (especially those posting that are swimming around inside Hillary's anus), but "extremely careless" easily translates to "gross negligence," which is applicable under the statute that was inquired about during the congressional hearings. If you're blind enough to try and refute that -- you're a fool.

In regards to her facing jail time..can we drop it? No one that mishandled sensitive information should ever be allowed a job in which they are required to do so, ever again. Ever. She was in a position to know the sensitivity of all information that traversed her emails and the server they were stored upon. She was in a position to understand that the server she was using was not sanctioned by the government for handling of such information, nor was in protected by the government to do so. She KNEW what she was doing -- plain and simple. The lack of intent is only applicable to her facing, or not facing, jail time.

Strip her of the ability to obtain any sort of clearance levels, and you strip her of the presidency. Any layman can read the law, and Comey's testimony, and translate it perfectly to read that gross negligence applies. Fact is not an opinion.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: imthegoat

Exactly.

Excellent reminder that the State Department still has not suspended her clearance. This would be unheard of for a GS employee, they would have yanked their clearance before they had time to sit down.

One set of rules for them, one set of rules for everybody else.

Status Quo.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: imsoconfused



show me one case our feds didnt prosecute. Besides HRC.

george w bush linky

tonnes of others cases here, trump got away with destroying emails while on trial.

Which of the above lied to the FBI when asked about it?

Harte



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

Do you have a specific point? Obviously, a jury needs to be instructed fairly and fully according to the facts of the case they are hearing.

What you have quoted is irrelevant to the admissibility of false exculpatory statements as evidence of intent and consciousness of guilt.


Yes, the point is that it is up to a jury to decide if false exculpatory statements prove intent when deciding the fate of a particular case, but your assertion that only a jury can decide if false exculpatory statements are enough to indict is false. You posted a ruling related to false exculpatory statements and wrongly concluded that it applies to all cases.

The false exculpatory statement line of argument is a non-starter.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

not sure if someone else has noticed this but:




relitigate. Verb. (third-person singular simple present relitigates, present participle relitigating, simple past and past participle relitigated) (intransitive) To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time.


Ms. Clinton has had extensive training and experience in the law, and to say it in such a way, seem to me, to be saying that whether I am guilty or not I have proven myself innocent and we are moving on.

For her and Trump, this campaign is just a game playing for the rabbling masses, dancing for fools who are ingrained in one form or another of polarized politics.




posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Actually, what I am saying is that Comey claimed he didn’t even investigate whether Hillary lied to Congress or not. So, it stands to reason that he didn’t investigate whether the false statements she made to Congress are evidence of intent and guilt of consciousness, or not.

ALSO, one exception to the hearsay rule is ‘Recorded Recollection.’

Therefore, any false statement Hillary made to the public is also admissible as false exculpatory evidence, if it was recorded. And Hillary made a lot of questionable public statements on record. Unfortunately, the oversight committee completely failed to address this issue with Comey, and Comey failed to address it himself. But, it stands to reason, that Comey did not even take her recorded public statements into consideration, because he didn’t answer to that lingering question when he detailed the work done on the investigation.

There is enough between Hillary’s false statements to Congress and on the public record to have indicted and allowed a jury to weigh the evidence of Hillary’s intent.

I don’t believe it is a non-starter issue, at all. Difference of opinion and standards.


edit on 26-8-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Puppylove



The proof exists, if it didn't it wouldn't be so widely known by name.


Let's see it.



They are ignoring it because they are under severe pressure to let her off.


Ahhh, conspiracy.

It's always a conspiracy.


Like the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy Hillary is always touting?



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable


It is now the vast alt-right-wing conspiracy against poor wittle Hillary.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

You just proved my point, twice. Finally did enough internet research to discover the facts, eh?

A. There are different sets of laws governing our military personnel and civilians.

B. The requirements for conviction under those two sets of laws are different.

No one is convicted of breaking an NSA rule. They are convicted of mishandling classified information.

Glad you finally got caught up.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

You just proved my point, twice. Finally did enough internet research to discover the facts, eh?

A. There are different sets of laws governing our military personnel and civilians.

B. The requirements for conviction under those two sets of laws are different.

"No one is convicted of breaking an NSA rule. They are convicted of mishandling classified information."

Glad you finally got caught up.



A. There are different sets of laws governing our military personnel and civilians. TRUE. You get a cookie.
B. The requirements for conviction under those two sets of laws are different. TRUE. You get a cookie.

"No one is convicted of breaking an NSA rule" FALSE... and then you top it off with... "they are convicted of mishandling classified information...."


Guess what?

Who do you think wrote the rules governing mishandling of classified information? I will give you a hint... it has three letters and starts with a N and ends with an A, and there is an S in the middle. See if you can figure it out.


You just can't fix stupid.

Keep posting your nonsense... you make debunking your claims extremely easy.

Your statement that started all this:

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

That statement is FALSE, at the very best it is misleading and confusing. There are no differences between the policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters when it comes to mishandling of classified information, Those rules are written for EVERYBODY by NSA. Period.
edit on R032016-08-26T14:03:19-05:00k038Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R042016-08-26T14:04:28-05:00k048Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R122016-08-26T14:12:54-05:00k128Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MasterRenji

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: introvert

noo she hasn`t, taking responsibility requires some type of action or paying some type of consequences,what has she done to take responsibility?
merely speaking the words " i take responsibility" is NOT taking responsibility.


BINGO!!!! She is politically "side-stepping" consequences that she deserves for all of her actions!!! Just because the DOJ is not going to "pursue" her actions doesnt mean that her actions are in fact not "criminal!!!

She signed paperwork stating that she understood the law and how she had to operate!! Then she lied under oath!!

She broke the f-king law!! Just because she is Hillary F-king Clinton doesn't give her the right to walk away scott free!!


Criminal is a bit harsh, don't you think?

She is merely a poor "undocumented felon"!


edit on 26-8-2016 by Enderdog because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join