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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Collusion to withhold emails by HRC Staff 3-4-15...the same day as subpoena..Wikileak 7

page: 3
70
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So far, the followup emails have shown that the previous leaked emails were a tease, with the followup making the issue a completely benign issue.

This is why you aren't seeing any of this reported outside of far right wing websites.

If you know this isn't the whole story, why make a post about it and get so giddy over it? What if the followup email back from Mills says, "No, hand over everything"?

that is only if you assume their only method of communication was email




posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen




that is only if you assume their only method of communication was email


LOL.

So you are going to speculate what their other forms of communication contained?

So silly.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So far, the followup emails have shown that the previous leaked emails were a tease, with the followup making the issue a completely benign issue.

This is why you aren't seeing any of this reported outside of far right wing websites.

If you know this isn't the whole story, why make a post about it and get so giddy over it? What if the followup email back from Mills says, "No, hand over everything"?


No...they haven't done that.

And sure...a follow up email could say that. Doesn't change the fact they directly referenced the emails from POTUS that he claimed he had no knowledge of.

Didn't he say that he heard about the emails on the news or something...just like the rest of us?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The documentation for Hillary deceiving the American people is far better than what the groped women have produced.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: dashen




that is only if you assume their only method of communication was email


LOL.

So you are going to speculate what their other forms of communication contained?

So silly.


LOL.
so you are going to speculate that they only discussed this matter over gmail?
Zo SILLY!



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

No, I am not going to assume anything...like a logical person.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Hillarys crimes obstructed...the 25 EMAIL questions are ANSWERED...ijr.com... tm_source=email&utm_campaign=conservative-daily&utm_medium=owned


HRC ...OBJECTS AND LAWYERS UP THE ANSWERS...
edit on 14-10-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

A lot of people knew she was using a private server except for the ones who were supposed to have known she was using a private server.

Nice attempted deflection and your prior post would be a good thread on it's own but it is entirely off topic here.

The topic here is information in the Podesta emails which shows them discussing what to hand over or not hand over on the day the subpoena was issued. Corresponding information confirming or debunking such would also be on topic.

Trump, Powell, Putin, etc. are all off topic and serve no purpose other than deflection.

*the secret was Obama's pseudonym, but it wasn't classified within the emails as Hillary never classified anything she sent even though she was an OCA.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

WHAT you have said only informs me the Directors of ALL agencies will probably need to take a walk after Obama in order to lance the bulging boil the prior administration "relied" on,when HE wasn't golfing .



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
"Colluding or conspiring" isn't really the appropriate term for this. John Podesta is asking Cheryl Mills her opinion on whether or not Obama's executive privilege would cover any emails that are on the server that are to/from the President.

It certainly implies that there were emails to/from the President or at least that Podesta believed that to be the case.

There's a longstanding argument about the legitimacy of executive privilege but in some form, in regards to some communications, it has been claimed all the way back to George Washington. Eisenhower was the first to call it "executive privilege" AFAIK.

So there's no "it shows intent" argument here. It shows intent to what? Question whether or not to supply any emails to/from the President who may want to invoke executive privilege?

As to the "it shows the President was aware of the server" comment. That's been addressed by the White House:

TownHall - White House Claims Obama Was Unaware of Hillary's Private Server, Despite Exchanging Emails With Her


Now the White House is claiming although President Obama did in fact exchange emails with Clinton on her private email account, Obama was unaware the account was hosted on a private server.

"The President was aware of Secretary Clinton's email address, the two did exchange emails but the President I think, not surprisingly, was not aware of the existence of Secretary Clinton's private server," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Monday during the daily briefing.


So that dog won't hunt. At least not as 'shocking new evidence!' (of what? Something that has been admitted already?)

I'm not saying that Obama didn't know, I'm just saying this isn't new and a response has been put forth. Beyond all that, don't ever expect any court to use any of this. First off it's fruit of the poisonous tree and because they're digital reproductions of emails, they're even more susceptible to fabrication or manipulation.

In a more general sense, the largest problem with leaked emails is that short of having access to the server, the only way to authenticate them in any meaningful way is for a sender/recipient to attest to their authenticity.
edit on 2016-10-14 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: dashen

No, I am not going to assume anything...like a logical person.


actually logic means using available information to infer unavailable information



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

There out to be more emails in a string immediate to that one that further paint the picture.


And yet there isn't.

Have you stopped to ask yourself why?


A bit soon to be calling that one, dontcha think? Or do you work for WikiLeaks and have vetted all the email released to know a mere hours after a release all of their contents, and what is to be released?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: dashen

No, I am not going to assume anything...like a logical person.


actually logic means using available information to infer unavailable information


Oh boy.

Maybe you should take some formal logic classes.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: dashen

No, I am not going to assume anything...like a logical person.


actually logic means using available i nformation to infer unavailable information


Oh boy.

Maybe you should take some formal logic classes.

.. I think you are confusing logic with waiting to be told
what to think



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: dashen

No, I am not going to assume anything...like a logical person.


actually logic means using available information to infer unavailable information


That's not logic. It's extrapolation. Or interpolation, depending.
edit on 14-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

before we get muddy in definitions, i think my point is ,clear



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Nice try..... "we could get them to ask for that." Thats intent to withhold information. You cant swing that in any way or shape.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Greggers

before we get muddy in definitions, i think my point is ,clear


About as clear as mud.

Logic is a formal method of reasoning to analyze arguments.

Logic isn't a magical way to discover unknown information.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: flice
Nice try..... "we could get them to ask for that." Thats intent to withhold information. You cant swing that in any way or shape.


We'd need more context to know for sure.

Was he saying, "We could get them to ask for that" if they don't want us to turn those emails over? That's what it seems like to me.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Greggers

before we get muddy in definitions, i think my point is ,clear


About as clear as mud.

Logic is a formal method of reasoning to analyze arguments.

Logic isn't a magical way to discover unknown information.

does assuming that this discussion ended with this email seems logical to you?



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join