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.

 

“Hillary’s E-mails” Are ridiculous...

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


So on what planet is failing to swap to a government server a hell worthy trespass, when private servers were common place ????

Since they stopped doing that. Or did they? If they have secretschannles (and you know they do) how would you know? Its a secret.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Clerical?

You think she was just lazy and didnt follow procedure?

She installed that server specifically so her emails would not go through the official system and be recorded/backed up and made public record. She wanted this facility because while working at Department of State, she was giving favors and making promises to foreign dignitaries in the name of the Clinton Foundation, not in the name of the USA.

Then, she made decisions at the State Department, based on how the promises and favors to the Clinton Foundation paid out..

Clerical? ....... boy some of you are in for a hard landing when the truth is exposed!!



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Ok. But that is not what we need to understand. What we need to understand is how those rules apply and how the practices employed at the DoJ deal with such issues. In a case such as this, it is usually handled internally within the various departments and is not taken to criminal court, unless specific criteria are met. Such as...intent.

Secretary of State IS NOT DoJ . Talking about needing to understand...



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Then why did they allow private servers for a decade???



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: RickinVa

Then why did they allow private servers for a decade???


I know of no one who had a private server in their residence other than Hillary. She broke the ground on that one.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: shooterbrody

We need to lock em all up everyone in every position of power make examples of those who screw the system and us the people. Weed the bad ones out keep the ones who do it for the right reasons.
We need to get money out of politics.
We need a reset.

I agree.
The money is ensuring the corruption continues.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



You call me incorrect, I call you incorrect. same day same crap.


True, but it was only you that was incorrect. Unless you are going to be dishonest.



If you cant attack the facts, attack the poster.


You are/were factually incorrect.



I have been the target of an FBI inquiry against me alleging mishandling of classified information, prior to being hired by the FBI.

Everything was dropped, and the accuser wound up with an official reprimand in his file for making false allegations.

They never even got to the point of interviewing me before everything was dismissed.


Meaningless. Anecdotal logical fallacy.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
If you "really hate defending her". Then don't. She's as crooked as a barrel of fish hooks.
The GOP has both houses, and the presidency. Supreme Court too? The Orange Messiah campaigned on 'Lock her up!'
So how come the lot of them are ignoring you?
You seem so sincere.

Get it right
Obama was the one known as "messiah"
President Trump campaigned on a lot . As do all.
But dont you worry , some in the forefront of the Dem Party are about to fall.
Ever play with Dominoes ?

edit on 2/2/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog



Secretary of State IS NOT DoJ . Talking about needing to understand...


The DoJ practices in how they prosecute or approach those that violated the laws, is what I was referring to.

Reading is fundamental.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: openyourmind1262
If you "really hate defending her". Then don't. She's as crooked as a barrel of fish hooks.
The GOP has both houses, and the presidency. Supreme Court too? The Orange Messiah campaigned on 'Lock her up!'
So how come the lot of them are ignoring you?
You seem so sincere.

Thank you for letting us know about MAGA 🤗

Good answer. Now tell me why Clinton is still walking around, seeing as the Trumpkins have cast their verdict. Seems to be a disconnect there.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



You call me incorrect, I call you incorrect. same day same crap.


True, but it was only you that was incorrect. Unless you are going to be dishonest.



If you cant attack the facts, attack the poster.


You are/were factually incorrect.



I have been the target of an FBI inquiry against me alleging mishandling of classified information, prior to being hired by the FBI.

Everything was dropped, and the accuser wound up with an official reprimand in his file for making false allegations.

They never even got to the point of interviewing me before everything was dismissed.


Meaningless. Anecdotal logical fallacy.


What did you prove me incorrect on?

Please site specific examples and not meaningless rhetoric.
edit on R532018-02-02T08:53:15-06:00k532Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



You call me incorrect, I call you incorrect. same day same crap.


True, but it was only you that was incorrect. Unless you are going to be dishonest.



If you cant attack the facts, attack the poster.


You are/were factually incorrect.



I have been the target of an FBI inquiry against me alleging mishandling of classified information, prior to being hired by the FBI.

Everything was dropped, and the accuser wound up with an official reprimand in his file for making false allegations.

They never even got to the point of interviewing me before everything was dismissed.


Meaningless. Anecdotal logical fallacy.


What did you prove me incorrect on?


The interpretation of the law and how it would apply to Hillary's case, as just one example.

But don't play dumb, Rick. We should be beyond that now.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I have said this to you before, and I'll reiterate it, you don't understand any of this.

www.law.cornell.edu...

www.theguardian.com...

I don't expect someone who hasn't served or worked in the government to fully understand the rules and needs for security, comsec, opsec, or common sense in general, but that also doesn't excuse proliferating stupidity. Learn first, then speak.


They are absolutely opposed to learning about this. They would have to change their position then. When news of this came out every person I was still in the Air Force. All of us thought she was going to prison. Sure, politicians get away with a lot of #, but this was so blatantly illegal we thought there was no way they'd be able to sweep it under the rug. All of us knew if we did that we'd be going to prison. A first-year Army private with a Secret clearance would know not to do what she did. It's impossible for someone with Clinton's vast experience to not know she was doing something illegal and dangerously irresponsible. Impossible. And yes you could convince a jury of that.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog



Secretary of State IS NOT DoJ . Talking about needing to understand...


The DoJ practices in how they prosecute or approach those that violated the laws, is what I was referring to.

Reading is fundamental.

I read .
You inferred that the SoS abides by rules and regulations of the DoJ . Dont back up now....deflection much ?
Reading your OWN POSTS is more fundamental...

edit on 2/2/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



You call me incorrect, I call you incorrect. same day same crap.


True, but it was only you that was incorrect. Unless you are going to be dishonest.



If you cant attack the facts, attack the poster.


You are/were factually incorrect.



I have been the target of an FBI inquiry against me alleging mishandling of classified information, prior to being hired by the FBI.

Everything was dropped, and the accuser wound up with an official reprimand in his file for making false allegations.

They never even got to the point of interviewing me before everything was dismissed.


Meaningless. Anecdotal logical fallacy.


What did you prove me incorrect on?


The interpretation of the law and how it would apply to Hillary's case, as just one example.

But don't play dumb, Rick. We should be beyond that now.


I didn't interpret the law...I simply stated it.

If you are referring to 793(f) not requiring intent,,,,,,,,it does not as the law is written.

Gross negligence does not require intent.


edit on R562018-02-02T08:56:35-06:00k562Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
oink oink

22 Clinton Emails Deemed Too Classified to Be Made Public


WASHINGTON — The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.


🐑




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Hewhowaits

Uranium one is a joke..

The suicides are a joke..

All of that stuff is the height speculation and I promise you have never even read second hand info on ANY of the cases..

I can guarantee you have never actually read any police or autopsy reports...

How is it ok for people to just lob around rape, murder and child molestation accusations like a hot potatoes???

That’s fairly horrible..



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Hillary’s server predated the policy that all government documents were to be kept on government servers.. She and her server predated a time when EVERY bigwig has their own server..


Traffic laws have changed since I got my license. Can I just ignore those?
Gun laws have changed since I was 21. Can I ignore those too?
Matter of fact, many rules and laws have changed over the course of my life. Can I just pick an arbitrary date and ignore everything after that?
Or maybe just go by what seems to be the most convenient at the time?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gothmog



Secretary of State IS NOT DoJ . Talking about needing to understand...


The DoJ practices in how they prosecute or approach those that violated the laws, is what I was referring to.

Reading is fundamental.

I read. Secretary of State is not DoJ
You inferred that the SoS abides by rules and regulations of the DoJ ?
Reading your OWN POSTS is more fundamental...


Ok. Here is what I posted:



What we need to understand is how those rules apply and how the practices employed at the DoJ deal with such issues.


How the DoJ deals with these issues. I did not say or infer the SoS worked at the DoJ.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



You call me incorrect, I call you incorrect. same day same crap.


True, but it was only you that was incorrect. Unless you are going to be dishonest.



If you cant attack the facts, attack the poster.


You are/were factually incorrect.



I have been the target of an FBI inquiry against me alleging mishandling of classified information, prior to being hired by the FBI.

Everything was dropped, and the accuser wound up with an official reprimand in his file for making false allegations.

They never even got to the point of interviewing me before everything was dismissed.


Meaningless. Anecdotal logical fallacy.


What did you prove me incorrect on?


The interpretation of the law and how it would apply to Hillary's case, as just one example.

But don't play dumb, Rick. We should be beyond that now.


I didn't interpret the law...I simply stated it.

If you are referring to 793(f) not requiring intent,,,,,,,,it does not as the law is written.

Gross negligence does not require intent.



And your were incorrect in the interpretation and application of that statute.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join