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

Did Hillary Clinton Reveal Top Secret Nuclear Info During Debate??

page: 2
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
I like how people harp on her for her "carelessness" with confidential information...

Yet... at the same time.. they want her 30,000 emails released that most likely have confidential information in them.

Which is it?


If the FBI and DOJ weren't in her pocket and would do their jobs, there would be no necessity to see her emails. Unfortunately the ones investigating criminal activity seem to have no oversight or Clinton oversight.

Cheers - Dave




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I wonder why Trump didn't mention the "fact?" that Hillary's "husband", lost his "biscuit" (nuclear authentication card for use with nuclear football). SOURCE I realize that this thread focuses on "nuclear secrets", however, HRC made it clear that she believes Trump is dangerous and should not be in charge of USA's nuclear arsenal (or anything). If the story about President Clinton's carelessness with the "biscuit" is true, it would have been a great point to bring up (in my worthless opinion). Sure, HRC isn't responsible for her husband's mistakes, but at the same time, Trump probably isn't responsible for things like choosing where the steel in his buildings was generated (he surely has contractors that make these decisions and Trump probably just picks the lowest bidder). Since both candidates seem to have stooped low and disregard any boundaries, information like the missing "biscuit" would have been a great jab/distraction. My choice for president: Pizza Rat



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

According to her those emails are about yoga and Chelsea's wedding only, because if they're not and are work related, she's breaking the law by not producing them.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
I like how people harp on her for her "carelessness" with confidential information...

Yet... at the same time.. they want her 30,000 emails released that most likely have confidential information in them.

Which is it?[/quote
People are more interested in her pay for play antics with self enrichment via the Clinton Foundation at the selling of state assets or Benghazi emails which show how corrupt and treacherous she is,not seeing state secrets exposed which hurt agents in the field or make America vulnerable made public knowledge.....massive difference.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
I like how people harp on her for her "carelessness" with confidential information...

Yet... at the same time.. they want her 30,000 emails released that most likely have confidential information in them.

Which is it?


Would you say any of the leaks have been damaging to America? Most people seem disappointed that we haven't received any bombshells. The most these emails show are the inner workings of Hillary's campaign. I'm sure every foreign intelligence agency on earth already has them, so why not us? If it's only damaging to Hillary I'd prefer to know. No candidate's career should be protected over the interest of the nation.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Slave2theTruth

Hillary Clinton can't seem to help herself. She leaked top-secret information at the debate last night. IAW sec. 1.2 of E.O. (Executive Order) 13526; "Top Secret" = "unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security."

“Uhhhh …. did she just commit a felony? On national television? While saying that Donald Trump shouldn’t have access to sensitive national security information like the nuclear response time?” one person asked on YouTube: www.youtube.com...

As if it wasn't bad enough, remember Joe Biden pointing out exactly who carries the nuclear codes? Yeah, how thoughtful of Clinton to complete the gift set to our enemies. Fortunately, it's not a BIG deal as President Obama said, “there’s classified, and then there’s classified.” Which actually flies in the face of Section 1.4 (Classification Categories) of his very own E.O. 13526: "...unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 [as quoted above] of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;..."

As a result of Clinton's careless words, our national security is increasingly at risk.

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
So, even if this was public knowledge, it still seems like it was more just educated conjecture than an actual confirmation of a hard launch window. It seems similar to threads about supposedly non-existent aircraft that Zaph and a few others frequent on ATS. Everyone has educated guesses about the planes capabilities, some may even know for sure and leave little tidbits here and there to point you in the right direction, but NO ONE is going to come out and say "Yeah, we have that. It's called this, it's made from this, flys at x altitude and y speed, and can do x,y, and z" for fear of a visit by the DIA and a trip to prison. This sounds like just that case. I wish a missle tech or other individual with experience with another nuclear capable asset could confirm whether she was allowed to talk about that; it seems that should be highly classified information. If she would have said less than 10 minutes, no problem there. But 4 minutes sure seems awful specific, and the general public probably isn't allowed to know specific things about our nuclear capabilities. Maybe when she becomes president she can tell us how to make Fogbank.

edit on 20-10-2016 by DirtyBizzler because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks, I figured it wasn't necessarily something our adversaries couldn't figure out on their own anyway.

On the other hand, I am still amazed that after everything that has happened, she is still so cavalier with TS/Classified info about national security.



It's not classified it's known published information..

If anything it increases the deterent factor because 4 min isn't long enough to disable our ability



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DirtyBizzler
So, even if this was public knowledge, it still seems like it was more just educated conjecture than an actual confirmation of a hard launch window. It seems similar to threads about supposedly non-existent aircraft that Zaph and a few others frequent on ATS. Everyone has educated guesses about the planes capabilities, some may even know for sure and leave little tidbits here and there to point you in the right direction, but NO ONE is going to come out and say "Yeah, we have that. It's called this, it's made from this, flys at x altitude and y speed, and can do x,y, and z" for fear of a visit by the DIA and a trip to prison. This sounds like just that case. I wish a missle tech or other individual with experience with another nuclear capable asset could confirm whether she was allowed to talk about that; it seems that should be highly classified information. If she would have said less than 10 minutes, no problem there. But 4 minutes sure seems awful specific, and the general public probably isn't allowed to know specific things about our nuclear capabilities. Maybe when she becomes president she can tell us how to make Fogbank.



Not educated guesses..


Known published information..



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
I like how people harp on her for her "carelessness" with confidential information...

Yet... at the same time.. they want her 30,000 emails released that most likely have confidential information in them.

Which is it?


Would you say any of the leaks have been damaging to America? Most people seem disappointed that we haven't received any bombshells. The most these emails show are the inner workings of Hillary's campaign. I'm sure every foreign intelligence agency on earth already has them, so why not us? If it's only damaging to Hillary I'd prefer to know. No candidate's career should be protected over the interest of the nation.



I think he meant dangerous to America..not more politicians than just hillary..

Like say it contains the identity of undercover agents or spy's? What if it gets entire foreign pro American families killed for filtering our intelligence agencies information?



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Since when is classified information disseminated like that?... Looking at the dates of "supposed discussions on this" it seems most of them are from a month, or a couple months old. Then snopes supposedly points to a discussion in a blog... The difference here is that a former secretary of state, a government official, giving the response time is not the same as rumors from a blog.

It is not the same thing that someone who does not have access to classified information spreads a rumor that is unconfirmed, and having someone from the government who does know the classified information confirming the response time on live tv... This is not grasping at straws.


edit on 21-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Since when is sensitive information disseminated like that?...


What makes you think it is "sensitive information"? It was talked about 30 years ago!


The difference here is that the current secretary of state, a government official,


So you now think Hillary is the Current Secretary of State.... you really have no clue at all!



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Talked about by whom?...

BTW, I changed my statement to "former" secretary of state"... Now who the heck is grasping at straws and shooting the messenger?...
edit on 21-10-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Now who the heck is grasping at straws and shooting the messenger?...


That would be you, claiming this is sensitive information and blaming Hillary!



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

That would be you, claiming this is sensitive information and blaming Hillary!


It is sensitive information. Only morons would think that having unconfirmed reports from blogs is the same as having a government official confirm our nuclear response time... Blogs can post rumors, having a government official state it on national tv to the whole world is completely different...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Slave2theTruth

Yeah. She's revealed all our best secrets. Game over, man. Treason, jail and all that.



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
having a government official ....
having a government official


What are you babbling about? Hillary is NOT a government official.... you really know nothing!

Hillary Derangement Syndrome in action!
edit on 21-10-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

She was one was she not?... There are laws that even after you leave your government job if you give out sensitive/secret information it is a federal offense...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
There are laws that even after you leave your government job if you give out sensitive/secret information it is a federal offense...


But she did not give out sensitive/secret information.... so what are you babbling about?




top topics



 
18
<< 1   >>

log in

join