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

How on Earth are you people still defending her?

page: 6
158
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

I think he talking out his ASS again,it happens amongst men.




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: network dude

Are you ignoring my question? Please prove that Clinton had classified documents on her server at the time of the FBI and congressional investigations. If you are going to make those claims, shouldn't you be able to prove them? If not, does that just make you a gossiper and one who repeats rumors and false allegations?

Please show your proof.

I just did. Director Comey's press conference. If you don't understand it or you just aren't quick enough to grasp all the big words, let me know. I'm here to help.

ETA: Just in case you conveniently missed this.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 31-10-2016 by network dude because: posted inconvenient factoid



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: angeldoll

Withholding and destroying evidence and a direct violation of the security intelligence code but THAT would require a lengthy explanation and pretty BIG words.
www.law.cornell.edu...

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, § 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


Please show proof where these laws have been broken.

Look Cav, I'm not giving you a hard time because I already know you can't show proof, and that my good man, is my point.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

He won't HAVE to...




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: network dude

Are you ignoring my question? Please prove that Clinton had classified documents on her server at the time of the FBI and congressional investigations. If you are going to make those claims, shouldn't you be able to prove them? If not, does that just make you a gossiper and one who repeats rumors and false allegations?

Please show your proof.

I just did. Director Comey's press conference. If you don't understand it or you just aren't quick enough to grasp all the big words, let me know. I'm here to help.



He's in a lot of hot water over that release. It's playing partisan politics with his office, dropping innuendos without any substantial evidence, and he did it 11 days before the election although they've known if for weeks.

Yep. Your boy might have some problems of his own. He's released a whole lot of smoke, where there seems to be NO
FIRE.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

I saw that. Okay.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Can anyone answer me this.

When was the last time, a non-politician ran for president?

Anyone?

Anyone?


Ross perot in 1992



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Tardacus

Yes. I am voting against Trump. I am not excited about voting for Clinton. I would be excited to vote for Bernie, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed.


Not if she drops out of the race as things continue to unravel and get progressively worse at an accelerating pace.

In that scenario, under *current* DNC rules, Bernie would be made the democratic nominee as the 2nd place finisher in the primary.

I'm praying for this scenario as I'm not a Trump fan either but I can't stand HRC...



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Soloprotocol




She will flash those tits at Putin thus preventing a third world war and the extinction of all living things...


I mean really? EWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!





That is classic! My face is going to crack from laughing!



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: network dude

Why don't you just come out and State the Obvious ? Anyone who Supports a Criminal like Hillary Clinton is Un-American ! She Represents Everything that America has Fought Against since 1776 .


And pray tell what is that?


Don't be Coy , You Know Exactly What . GTFOOH .


You want me to leave your thread? Awww.. Can't hold his own. sniff sniff.
Nothing but ad hominid attacks. Well, if that's all ya got, then I guess it's all ya got.




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
IM not a good man I became something else ,for a reason.
Lawyering won't always save liars and in this case if it does WE WILL war with them.
Don't Believe YOUR participation won't be noticed anyway nor will any other SJW unless they attempt to oppose Constitutional LAW ,with violence like we would defend it.
Assault rifles are OURS ,we WILL secure the country even if we have to take it to do so,PROVIDED Russia only nukes Washington instead of ALL military posts,WE won't let pay to play or the current players off.
And part of" WE" is the US intelligence system this insipid COW picked a fight with.

edit on 31-10-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: network dude

Are you ignoring my question? Please prove that Clinton had classified documents on her server at the time of the FBI and congressional investigations. If you are going to make those claims, shouldn't you be able to prove them? If not, does that just make you a gossiper and one who repeats rumors and false allegations?

Please show your proof.

I just did. Director Comey's press conference. If you don't understand it or you just aren't quick enough to grasp all the big words, let me know. I'm here to help.



He's in a lot of hot water over that release. It's playing partisan politics with his office, dropping innuendos without any substantial evidence, and he did it 11 days before the election although they've known if for weeks.

Yep. Your boy might have some problems of his own. He's released a whole lot of smoke, where there seems to be NO
FIRE.


wait so Comey was lying in that video clip I linked?

I am sure a Clinton supporter such as yourself has the utmost credibility and all, but I think I will need some factual evidence on this, you know, other than just your word.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

You have other options - you just refuse to use them - but if you did you could really change politics.

That's what I don't get. You say you want change, yet vote for more of the same.

Put a third party candidate in the White House and watch that change come....



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: angeldoll

I think he talking out his ASS again,it happens amongst men.


So if he rambles on something you can stomach, he means it. If you can't stomach it, like using nukes, then he's just talking out his ass. I see.

Sounds like a gamble to me. One too big to take.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

The following questions are designed to summarize the legal and recordkeeping implications of the actions related to destruction of Clinton emails while government investigation was in progress:

Did Clinton conduct government business on a private email server? Yes. There is no dispute on this issue.

Was it legal for Clinton to conduct government business on a private email server? No. Maintaining federal government records on a private email service is not permitted by federal recordkeeping requirements nor under the Federal Records Act, although Clinton claimed others had used private email systems in the past. All federal government records must be kept according to federal requirements and destroyed only under federal guidelines when permitted by the records retention program. The fact that some previous government officials maintained private recordkeeping systems does not change the conclusion. The federal government has specific requirements for records, including the obligations to respond to FOIA requests, security of confidential documents, etc., which cannot be complied with in a private system.

Was Clinton subject to government investigation? Yes. A Congressional investigation of Benghazi began in 2012 and there were several private Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests still pending, creating a legal duty to preserve and turn over responsive records.

Did Clinton have a legal duty to protect and preserve the emails? Yes. Once government investigation began, Clinton had a legal duty to protect and preserve all government records in her possession that related to Benghazi and all co-mingled systems that potentially contained Benghazi records and other non-relevant government and personal records. Under standard recordkeeping procedures, she should have placed a legal hold on all these recordkeeping systems to prevent any destruction or alteration of records. For the co-mingled emails, under a legal hold, no destruction should have occurred even for records her team or attorneys deemed to be not relevant or even non-records.

Once the government investigation started, could Clinton or her team identify and turn over relevant email based on their own criteria and destroy the rest? No. While selective retention of email that are records and destruction of email determined to be non-records, based on individual discretion, is a normal business function, this activity becomes illegal once litigation, government investigation or audit is in progress or imminent. And, under 18 USC §1519 destruction of emails with the intent to render them unavailable for any matter is a felony. In this case, there were known legal matters in progress.

Once government investigation started, could Clinton legally destroy any information on her email server? No. Since the server was used for both business and private emails, for legal purposes, the entire server must be treated as a business or government system, and no otherwise private emails in that system could be destroyed until the various matters ended or the opposing party agreed that such emails were not relevant. Neither event took place when the 30,000 emails were destroyed. This is particularly true since the relevant and non-relevant were comingled, as opposed to being kept separately. Any selective destruction would involve judgment and discretion which is suspect and unreliable for a person under investigation. As stated above, a legal hold should have been placed on these records, providing notice to others and preventing destruction during government investigation.

Why could the private emails not be destroyed? Besides the answers above, the legal system is well aware that a party to a government investigation cannot objectively determine the relevance of the emails even if performing honorably and certainly would destroy unfavorable emails if acting deceitfully. Thus, the emails must be preserved to give the other party the opportunity to determine relevance, and that right is illegally extinguished when the emails are destroyed.

Can a person destroy government records based on their own discretion? Yes, if you are an authorized federal employee or contractor, provided that litigation, government investigation and audit is not in progress or imminent. During the course of regular business activities, a government employee would normally identify records required to be kept under a records retention program following approved procedures, and then destroy the remaining non-records. In this case, there was a House Select Committee on Benghazi investigation in progress plus other pending Freedom of Information Act request.

Since Clinton was not a federal employee when the records were destroyed, do the same legal and recordkeeping requirements apply? Yes. Clinton was not a government official at the time these emails were destroyed. Upon leaving office, she became a custodian of federal government records with an affirmative duty to preserve and protect federal property, and a duty to turn over the federal property to designated government representatives. By failing to protect government property in her possession, Clinton may be subject to the fines and penalties under 18 USC §1361.

If records were destroyed by a third party (PRN), would Clinton still be liable? Yes. Since Clinton remained the custodian of Department of State records, she had an affirmative duty to preserve them on behalf of the Department according to Federal and other legal requirements. The fact that Clinton team members, attorneys and third-party engineers participated in a conference call less than one week before the records destruction, raises the likelihood that they approved the ultimate destruction. Since Clinton engaged these parties to act on her behalf, she cannot claim that they were acting on their own. If the allegations that her team members, attorneys and third-party contractors conspired to obstruct justice by destroying the records prove to be true, they could also be guilty of the actual obstruction of justice or of conspiracy to obstruct justice, and the attorneys could be disbarred for violating the American Bar Association and state Rules of Conduct.

Did Hillary Clinton violate 18 USC §1519 when emails from her private email server were destroyed during government investigation? Possibly, yes. The statute applies to anyone who deliberately (knowingly) destroyed emails (records) with the intent to destroy them, rendering them unavailable during any investigation or court proceeding. Since legal matters were in progress, there existed a legal duty to keep all potentially relevant emails which extinguished any right to destroy those emails. While she may not have destroyed the records personally, she failed to protect them or place a legal hold on them and someone serving as her agent performed the actual destruction. In December 2014 she did instruct her team to destroy remaining emails after 60 days. And, ultimately, she never halted nor protested again any records destruction. Under 18 USC §1519, Clinton may have concealed and covered up the destruction of records.

Is conviction under 18 USC §1519 a felony? Yes. A conviction under a federal statute is a felony if the potential penalty is more than one year in prison or a fine over $250,000 or more.




irch.com...



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nukes would kill a hell of a lot more innocent people than everyone claims Hillary has killed.


That's sort of the point of them functioning as a deterrent to war. That deterrent factor doesn't exist when we have leaders who openly refuse to even consider them an option in times of need.


Trump would be too quick to push the button if someone like Putin insulted his tiny hands. We know how upset Trump gets when his tiny hands are mentioned.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Can anyone answer me this.

When was the last time, a non-politician ran for president?

Anyone?

Anyone?


And actually had a shot at winning? Ross Perot in the 1992 election.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll
650,000 e mails!

SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND E MAILS and you think there is no fire to be found?

And what in the name of hell makes you think Mich Obama deserves to be President?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
IM not a good man I became something else ,for a reason.
Lawyering won't always save liars and in this case if it does WE WILL war with them.
Don't Believe YOUR participation won't be noticed anyway nor will any other SJW unless they attempt to oppose Constitutional LAW ,with violence like we would defend it.
Assault rifles are OURS ,we WILL secure the country even if we have to take it to do so,PROVIDED Russia only nukes Washington instead of ALL military posts,WE won't let pay to play or the current players off.
And part of" WE" is the US intelligence system this insipid COW picked a fight with.


WTH?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nukes would kill a hell of a lot more innocent people than everyone claims Hillary has killed.


That's sort of the point of them functioning as a deterrent to war. That deterrent factor doesn't exist when we have leaders who openly refuse to even consider them an option in times of need.


As long as they don't nuke your loved ones, amirite?



new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join