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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: introvert

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.

But Senate would hold sway there. Not the DoJ
Sorry , try again




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

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.

But Senate would hold sway there. Not the DoJ
Sorry , try again


What? It would be the DoJ that would prosecute Hillary, if they could have found reason to do so.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
When was the last time we prosecuted a bigwig politician for a clerical error???


Because that’s what the “hillary’s Private server” stuff is.. a clerical error, not a moral crime...


All hillary actually did was fail to swap to a government server when whatever memo to do so was put out..

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..

Colin Powell, everyone in the Bush Jr. administration, exc, exc....


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


That’s not a moral crime, that is a loop hole or a clerical error..

I really hate defending hillary.. no one likes her..

But pretending she should be locked up , or that the fbi should have indicted her over a clerical error is just nuts?!?!

It’s crazy..

Bush lied us into the Iraq war . Then gave his private company the bajillion dollar rebuild contract.. that is a moral crime...


Nixon obstructed Justice after setting up a burglary...that’s a moral crime..


Not swapping servers when a memo came out to do so....

It just blows my mind that people are acting like this is ANYTHING that a politician has EVER been convicted over..

So if that’s the case, then that means the “fbi was covering for hillary” is garbage...

The fbi wouldn’t have prosecuted ANY politician for not swapping to a government server..


The propaganda runs strong with these ones...



So does the left's apparently. I really don't care what happens to Hillary. I'd be just as happy if she fell off the radar and disappeared. Nixon was a jerk, but compared with today's goings on, nothing would have happened to him in this climate. To hell with the servers, Benghazi, however, is an entirely different story.

"Bush's company"? I no longer care for him or his family, but calling it 'his' company is a crock.

Selective labeling of moral crimes shows your deflection efforts.

There is no shortage of 'moral crimes' in either camp.

In today's environment, I will settle for legal crimes, either party.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Dont tell the alt right this, but the Republican party has had 10 Xs the amount of indictments and convictions over the Dems, in the past 55 years. Its a FACT, not fake news. Easily looked up, I have posted it many times, and will eventually do a thread on it.

Speaking of fake news, did you know that 2.4 million more people watched Obamas first SOTU, than trumps. That is also not fake news. The fake news is coming out of trumps mouth and twitter feed, once again, saying he broke records over his SOTU. What will the man NOT lie about???





edit on 2-2-2018 by kurthall because: add



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Who decides if someone is prosecuted for felonies, the fbi or the doj?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


What about all the murders?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RickinVa

Who decides if someone is prosecuted for felonies, the fbi or the doj?



DOJ...FBI can only recommend.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Isn't that the reason given in the recommendation for the former fbi director to be let go?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Look the bottom line is this:

Hillary Clinton signed a legal agreement with the US Government saying that she had been briefed and understood fully the laws and regulations concerning safe storage, safe guarding and dissemination of classified information, whether it was marked or unmarked.

This is a 100% undeniable fact.


She then proceeded to violate damn near every law and regulation concerning classified information.

And people claim there was no intent.


She either falsely signed a government document, or she was lying when she said she didn't know information was classified because it wasn't marked.

Spin it all you want, but that is how the cookie crumbles.

Edit to please the cherrypickers
edit on R202018-02-02T09:20:24-06:00k202Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



She then proceeded to violate every law and regulation concerning classified information.


Every law?

That seems to be a bit dramatic, not to mention false.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: JoshuaCox

She deleted evidence that had been subpeonaed, right? Wasn't there something about Bleachbit, StoneTear on Reddit asking how to remove headers, all that stuff?

Is that just a clerical error?

Would you care to reply to some of the more relevant posts OP?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



She then proceeded to violate every law and regulation concerning classified information.


Every law?

That seems to be a bit dramatic, not to mention false.



Cherry pick much? or would you like to deny that she wasn't aware of what classified information was because it wasn't marked?


If it makes you happy....she broke damn near every law and regulation concerning classified information.
edit on R192018-02-02T09:19:45-06:00k192Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: JoshuaCox

She deleted evidence that had been subpeonaed, right? Wasn't there something about Bleachbit, StoneTear on Reddit asking how to remove headers, all that stuff?

Is that just a clerical error?

Sounds like a cover up to me boss.



Don't forget this one -

FBI: This Blackberry has been smashed to bits with a hammer!

Hillary: Oops sorry, must have been a clerical error.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RickinVa

Isn't that the reason given in the recommendation for the former fbi director to be let go?


That I don't know..that was a while back.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
In which case she is a completely moral and respectable woman. We all agree.



NOT!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Look the bottom line is this:

Hillary Clinton signed a legal agreement with the US Government saying that she had been briefed and understood fully the laws and regulations concerning safe storage, safe guarding and dissemination of classified information, whether it was marked or unmarked.

This is a 100% undeniable fact.


She then proceeded violate to several laws and regulations concerning classified information.

And people claim there was no intent.


She either falsely signed a government document, or she was lying when she said she didn't know information was classified because it wasn't marked.

Spin it all you want, but that is how the cookie crumbles.


There ya go....

Cleaned up all nice just for you...

Wanna to tell me the above is wrong?

edit on R302018-02-02T09:30:08-06:00k302Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Uranium one is a 145,000,000 dollar joke- and the Clintons are laughing all the way to the bank...



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
When her staffers pull from Confidential, Secret and Top Secret systems to them load on to Unclassified Home Brewed Networks and Distribute them Carte Blanche it becomes a problem and violates these things called laws. Everyone/Anyone else working in the Federal System goes to Prison for a long time if they do this so how is it that they are above the law? Well they aren't but the Canal is about to come down, WE are about to give them free Bracelets and Vacations to Cuban because they are Treasonous Enemies of OUR Constitutional Democratic Republic.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
When was the last time we prosecuted a bigwig politician for a clerical error???


Because that’s what the “hillary’s Private server” stuff is.. a clerical error, not a moral crime...


All hillary actually did was fail to swap to a government server when whatever memo to do so was put out..

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..

Colin Powell, everyone in the Bush Jr. administration, exc, exc....


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


That’s not a moral crime, that is a loop hole or a clerical error..

I really hate defending hillary.. no one likes her..

But pretending she should be locked up , or that the fbi should have indicted her over a clerical error is just nuts?!?!

It’s crazy..

Bush lied us into the Iraq war . Then gave his private company the bajillion dollar rebuild contract.. that is a moral crime...


Nixon obstructed Justice after setting up a burglary...that’s a moral crime..


Not swapping servers when a memo came out to do so....

It just blows my mind that people are acting like this is ANYTHING that a politician has EVER been convicted over..

So if that’s the case, then that means the “fbi was covering for hillary” is garbage...

The fbi wouldn’t have prosecuted ANY politician for not swapping to a government server..


The propaganda runs strong with these ones...




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

From what I've read and heard, it doesn't matter if it was a clerical error, a mistake or even a minor slip up. Mishandling classified information whether it was on purpose or just clear stupidity is still a felony and a criminal offense. She did it that's clearly a fact and the FBI clearly covered for her big time. Others have gone to prison for the same sort of thing or less, I'm not talking about leakers or whistle blowers but people who have been arrested for the same thing.

This right here is the problem, it's something that Clinton is hoping will happen. Enough time will pass so that people will be less interested in her emails and corruption (although if it were a choice her corruption and the pay for play deal that she had going). I'm not an ardent LOCK HER UP but she needs some sort of comeuppance.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



She then proceeded to violate every law and regulation concerning classified information.


Every law?

That seems to be a bit dramatic, not to mention false.



Cherry pick much? or would you like to deny that she wasn't aware of what classified information was because it wasn't marked?




You said it and I did not cherry-pick the context.



If it makes you happy....she broke damn near every law and regulation concerning classified information.[


Damn near every law and regulation?

Well, at least you are backing-down from your previous assertion, but still being dramatic, I see.
edit on 2-2-2018 by introvert because: fix quote tags



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join