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.

 

FBI UNDERCOVER Informant On Hillary’s 2010 Sale Of Uranium Identified

page: 5
50
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I've heard he has video tape, of Russians opening suitcases full of cash.....Is funds via suitcase par for the course in Washington? seem's so.




posted on Nov, 17 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: grey580




I just feel like Republicans keep on spending money to grill her and have nothing to show for it.

I feel that a lot (most) of those Republicans are crooked too, probably mixed up with her shenanigans. Most of the investigations into her were BS and didn't intend to actually find anything on her.


The intent of any investigation should be to find the truth, not to find dirt on a political opponent.


Then let me rephrase it:
I believe the Republicans that are in cahoots with her helped to keep her misdeeds covered up.
.

What misdeeds? Any evidence?

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse here?

She had classified material on her server. Some of it was Top Secret compartmented information. She did not turn over all of her work related emails. She lied to Congress when she said that she turned over all of her work related emails.
She broke the law with all of these examples.
The evidence is there for all of those examples.


Context is key. While some of those emails appear to have contained classified info, we now know that they classified damn near everything, even if it was not owned or generated by government sources. Some of the things considered classified were publicly-available news stories.

Hard to try and convict someone based on those standards.



"we now know that they classified damn near everything,"

Really..you got a source for that, or is that just your misguided opinion?

Too much is classified so it is okay to break the law, because that is a valid excuse?

Hogwash.

As a matter of fact, look up how many of Hillarys email have been released, count how many were classified, and come up with a percentage to prove that "they classify almost everything."

The numbers do not support your opinion.



You of all people should know how they are when it comes to classifying information. We've been over this issue many times.

Did they not classify one of her emails because it contained a link/excerpt from a news article on drone strikes?

Yes, they did. That means that we have to have a lot more context before we make such rash statements, as did the member I responded to.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: grey580




I just feel like Republicans keep on spending money to grill her and have nothing to show for it.

I feel that a lot (most) of those Republicans are crooked too, probably mixed up with her shenanigans. Most of the investigations into her were BS and didn't intend to actually find anything on her.


The intent of any investigation should be to find the truth, not to find dirt on a political opponent.


Then let me rephrase it:
I believe the Republicans that are in cahoots with her helped to keep her misdeeds covered up.
.

What misdeeds? Any evidence?

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse here?

She had classified material on her server. Some of it was Top Secret compartmented information. She did not turn over all of her work related emails. She lied to Congress when she said that she turned over all of her work related emails.
She broke the law with all of these examples.
The evidence is there for all of those examples.


Context is key. While some of those emails appear to have contained classified info, we now know that they classified damn near everything, even if it was not owned or generated by government sources. Some of the things considered classified were publicly-available news stories.

Hard to try and convict someone based on those standards.



"we now know that they classified damn near everything,"

Really..you got a source for that, or is that just your misguided opinion?

Too much is classified so it is okay to break the law, because that is a valid excuse?

Hogwash.

As a matter of fact, look up how many of Hillarys email have been released, count how many were classified, and come up with a percentage to prove that "they classify almost everything."

The numbers do not support your opinion.



You of all people should know how they are when it comes to classifying information. We've been over this issue many times.

Did they not classify one of her emails because it contained a link/excerpt from a news article on drone strikes?

Yes, they did. That means that we have to have a lot more context before we make such rash statements, as did the member I responded to.




Look dude...she signed a document that said she was briefed and she agreed to it.

Whether you like it or not, there are certain terms you must agree too to have access to classified information.

You do not, by any means, have to agree to these terms.... if you refuse they will not grant you access to classified information.

The government does not, nor will they ever acknowledge classified information that is released into the public domain.

Given a clearance, you acknowledge that you are aware that information that is classified that is released into the public domain, whether it be a newspaper, article or what ever.... you will not repeat it or acknowledge that it is true.

Again, for the umpteenth time:


Question 2: What is the purpose of the SF 312?

Answer: The primary purpose of the SF 312 is to inform employees of (a) the trust that is placed in them by providing them access to classified information; (b) their responsibilities to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure; and (c) the consequences that may result from their failure to meet those responsibilities. Secondly, by establishing the nature of that trust, those responsibilities, and those consequences in the context of a contractual agreement, if that trust is violated, the United States will be in a better position to prevent an unauthorized disclosure or to discipline an employee responsible for such a disclosure by initiating a civil or administrative action.





Question 12: For purposes of the SF 312, what is "classified information?"

Answer: As used in the SF 312, the SF 189, and the SF 189-A, "classified information" is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination, as provided in Sections 1.2 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires interim protection for certain information while a classification determination is pending. "Classified information" does not include unclassified information that may be subject to possible classification at some future date, but is not currently in the process of a classification determination.





Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.


fas.org...

This is not rocket science... everyone.... I mean EVERYONE who signs a SF 312 acknowledges that they have read the briefing and understand it.

She signed it, and she agreed to it, and she gave away her rights to be prosecuted for violating it.


You need to quit blowing smoke out of your butt... You make yourself look ignorant.


edit on R182017-11-18T02:18:26-06:00k1811Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

collusion is not a crime . I will not defend any politician , I think they all lie . Our government got this way because we let it . There is no difference between republicans and democrats



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Not just Russia. I worked at a Global Fortune 100 company that had to pay bribes just to get company sponsored literature through to employees at different locations across the world.
edit on 19-11-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: bender151

originally posted by: Jefferton
How many more Hillary threads do you need to do, before you get the *big* prize?

And what is it???


Awww. Don't worry. When justice is served, we'll leave your darling alone. I mean, she's only quite possibly the most corrupt politician in American history

I hear she also caused Ebola, and probably had something to do with the Holocaust.

You guys keep swinging.



And your liars keep throwing home run balls.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: introvert

Even more, why did Sessions say he has no evidence against her last week????


Another inconvenient fact.


The story says evidence is to be presented not the Sessions had it. Lose again leftist.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: grey580




I just feel like Republicans keep on spending money to grill her and have nothing to show for it.

I feel that a lot (most) of those Republicans are crooked too, probably mixed up with her shenanigans. Most of the investigations into her were BS and didn't intend to actually find anything on her.


The intent of any investigation should be to find the truth, not to find dirt on a political opponent.


Then let me rephrase it:
I believe the Republicans that are in cahoots with her helped to keep her misdeeds covered up.
.

What misdeeds? Any evidence?

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse here?

She had classified material on her server. Some of it was Top Secret compartmented information. She did not turn over all of her work related emails. She lied to Congress when she said that she turned over all of her work related emails.
She broke the law with all of these examples.
The evidence is there for all of those examples.


Context is key. While some of those emails appear to have contained classified info, we now know that they classified damn near everything, even if it was not owned or generated by government sources. Some of the things considered classified were publicly-available news stories.

Hard to try and convict someone based on those standards.



"we now know that they classified damn near everything,"

Really..you got a source for that, or is that just your misguided opinion?

Too much is classified so it is okay to break the law, because that is a valid excuse?

Hogwash.

As a matter of fact, look up how many of Hillarys email have been released, count how many were classified, and come up with a percentage to prove that "they classify almost everything."

The numbers do not support your opinion.



You of all people should know how they are when it comes to classifying information. We've been over this issue many times.

Did they not classify one of her emails because it contained a link/excerpt from a news article on drone strikes?

Yes, they did. That means that we have to have a lot more context before we make such rash statements, as did the member I responded to.




Look dude...she signed a document that said she was briefed and she agreed to it.

Whether you like it or not, there are certain terms you must agree too to have access to classified information.

You do not, by any means, have to agree to these terms.... if you refuse they will not grant you access to classified information.

The government does not, nor will they ever acknowledge classified information that is released into the public domain.

Given a clearance, you acknowledge that you are aware that information that is classified that is released into the public domain, whether it be a newspaper, article or what ever.... you will not repeat it or acknowledge that it is true.

Again, for the umpteenth time:


Question 2: What is the purpose of the SF 312?

Answer: The primary purpose of the SF 312 is to inform employees of (a) the trust that is placed in them by providing them access to classified information; (b) their responsibilities to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure; and (c) the consequences that may result from their failure to meet those responsibilities. Secondly, by establishing the nature of that trust, those responsibilities, and those consequences in the context of a contractual agreement, if that trust is violated, the United States will be in a better position to prevent an unauthorized disclosure or to discipline an employee responsible for such a disclosure by initiating a civil or administrative action.





Question 12: For purposes of the SF 312, what is "classified information?"

Answer: As used in the SF 312, the SF 189, and the SF 189-A, "classified information" is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination, as provided in Sections 1.2 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires interim protection for certain information while a classification determination is pending. "Classified information" does not include unclassified information that may be subject to possible classification at some future date, but is not currently in the process of a classification determination.





Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.


fas.org...

This is not rocket science... everyone.... I mean EVERYONE who signs a SF 312 acknowledges that they have read the briefing and understand it.

She signed it, and she agreed to it, and she gave away her rights to be prosecuted for violating it.


You need to quit blowing smoke out of your butt... You make yourself look ignorant.



No rebuttal to what I posted as usual.

Poster will wait a while and repeat the same nonsense, claiming intellectual supremacy, but unable to debate cold hard facts.

Another day as usual on ATS.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


Uranium in Canada





posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical






posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: AboveBoard


Uranium in Canada




Wow! Mind dripping that into my other thread on this from a while back? Great stuff JC!!!!



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: AboveBoard


Uranium in Canada



Looks like some of that stuff was destined for a place other than Canada.
I thought Russia was our enemy?
Maybe the Hillary gang will have to rework that now.
.
.
.
.
No wait!

They are really heavily invested into that Trump Russia collusion thing.
edit on b000000302017-11-21T18:32:06-06:0006America/ChicagoTue, 21 Nov 2017 18:32:06 -0600600000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join