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.

 

Trump Authorizes Congress To Pursue Criminal Charges Against Hillary

page: 7
104
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StrizzMatik

Blah blah blah. "I don't trust things that disagree with my biases". That's all I read from your wall of text there. I stopped caring about your opinions when you insulted my intelligence and reasoning ability. It's not worth talking to you seriously anymore. When you call someone stupid because they disagree with you then it is a signal that the conversation is over.

Yeah. Just like I thought. Next!




posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And that proves StrizzMatik's point. The guy nailed it. By not educating yourself, you are just lazy. Your little tiny bubble doesn't change facts, Krazy. Because you act like it doesn't exist does not make it untrue.

See, up until the DNC chose Hillary, I was a card carrying Democrat for literally 25 years. I'm still wayyyyyy left of left but the woman is dirty and corrupt AF. I guess you are either not old enough to remember the Savings and Loan crap that happened in the 80's with the Clintons or you weren't born yet. The FACT is that she and her Husband have been involved in less than above board activities for nearly 40 years. To add insult to injury, I voted for Bill Clinton when I was young, stupid and idealistic bc back then, I didn't really have a concept of how bad they really were. I do now, though.
edit on 1-2-2017 by ColdChillin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure, entitled to attempt a defense, obviously.

I'm saying it's like she regularly runs over pedestrians to get to Walmart faster. Attempt any defense you want, but the case is a slam dunk unless you are above the law.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No I think 95% of people know she's guilty , truth is truth no matter what side you think it comes from. You and about 3 of your friends here and the msm don't want to believe it. The ship of her innocence sailed a long time ago , if you think she isn't guilty of at least 4 crimes than you are very ignorant. You must be in the top percentile of ignorant soulesss humans or you have an obvious agenda that probably pays well. Probably both . You can't win an argument with an idiot , have a good day



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: 727Sky


While on the other hand if she is exonerated it will be just one more nail into the coffin of anything we read from either political party.



So the FBI investigating wasnt enough? Nor the many different congressional fishing expeditions?


To be fair, the FBI's response to Congress was "Yeah she did it, but she said it was an accident so we're going to let it slide." That's not quite the same thing as exonerating her.

Edited to add:

Link to FBI Press Release



Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.


edit on Ev40WednesdayWednesdayAmerica/ChicagoWed, 01 Feb 2017 12:40:20 -06008192017b by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First two paragraphs

Sourced & Reviewed

American Federation of Scientists DoD

I mean, it isn't too hard for you to click on a link, right?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Hillary needs to be kept busy. She is a backroom mastermind sabatour.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The Clintons and their circle all need to spend life in prison( no mercy executions) for their crimes against humanity in human trafficking and child exploitation. The greed and corruption don't even begin to come close to what they're guilty of.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Krazy had to dip out I guess. Too much factual information to acknowledge without causing cognitive dissonance so strong his head would explode. No biggie though, I was feeling like it was getting a bit shilly in here



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Because he's a racist that was bared from a federal judgeship for saying racist things...


Well, he admits he used to be a racist, but claims that is no longer the case, and he loves everybody equally today.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I hope they have real substantial evidence and this whole thing is not just more asinine political theater.

Look I get it. Many people think their opinions are facts and Hillary is as guilty as guilty gets. But in reality, if there was real evidence I just can't imagine there would not be any indictments by now. You can't just arrest someone because you think they are ugly in the eyes of God!



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Annee




The fact they feared Hillary so much - - is telling.


This was not about fearing Hillary.


You see it your way.

I'll see it mine.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdChillin

Don't care.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Annee




The fact they feared Hillary so much - - is telling.


This was not about fearing Hillary.


You see it your way.

I'll see it mine.


Congrats continue being part of the problem in this country by not holding your politicians accountable.

I'm not sure how you can't be embarrassed to not question the Clintons and Attorney General unethical decision to meet in secret , while his wife was under criminal investigation by the FBI a couple days before their dismissal?



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No I think 95% of people know she's guilty , truth is truth no matter what side you think it comes from. You and about 3 of your friends here and the msm don't want to believe it. The ship of her innocence sailed a long time ago , if you think she isn't guilty of at least 4 crimes than you are very ignorant. You must be in the top percentile of ignorant soulesss humans or you have an obvious agenda that probably pays well. Probably both . You can't win an argument with an idiot , have a good day

You just made that statistic up on the spot and is a lie. For one. No one knows the real facts except hillary. For two, you aren't a lawyer connected to this case! You don't have all the facts either, no matter what you think about the situation.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky
I recognise the name Yournewswire.
It has been the source of satirical stories which have prompted previous ATS threads.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

First two paragraphs

Sourced & Reviewed

American Federation of Scientists DoD

I mean, it isn't too hard for you to click on a link, right?


So how is that proof that wet work in THAT email was meant for assassination? Just because you can find evidence of it being used online for that purpose doesn't mean that was what it was being used for in that email. You DO know that words and phrases can have different meanings and uses right?
edit on 1-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

Yeah right, and I'm the king of Thailand.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Annee




The fact they feared Hillary so much - - is telling.


This was not about fearing Hillary.


You see it your way.

I'll see it mine.


Congrats continue being part of the problem in this country by not holding your politicians accountable.

I'm not sure how you can't be embarrassed to not question the Clintons and Attorney General unethical decision to meet in secret , while his wife was under criminal investigation by the FBI a couple days before their dismissal?



Where did I ever say Hillary could not be investigated?

Strange interpretation to what I said.



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




Where did I ever say Hillary could not be investigated? Strange interpretation to what I said.


So you are saying she SHOULD be investigated?

Where did the COULD come from on your response?




top topics



 
104
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join