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: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Yep, all those emails on a private server and no spam or decent peanut butter fudge recipes.

Makes you wonder why a Secretary of State would want to conduct business on a piece of property that didn’t belong to the government or the people of the United States. Working off the book like that, maybe she was looking to deduct the cost of the server on her taxes since she was using for work?

Which would be tax fraud since her job would have provided an email server and therefore her servers would not be an uncompensated purchase required to do her job. Simply criminal actions.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

A) she had EVERY legal right to delete any personal emails.. she confirmed it was ok before deletion

Deleted evidence of her knowing she was supposed to swap to a government server??

Because that is the only thing she has ever been officially accused of..

Besides that people just don’t like her and are fishing. FISHING AND HAVE STILL NEVER FOUND ANYTHING!


And we ended up with all her staffs private emails.. so it is reasonable to assume we know most of her secrets ..of you have all my private messages you know all my secrets.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
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?


Yes, you're wrong. The options you provided are not the only options and what you are doing is providing a misrepresentation of the facts.

There is one way you can show us you are correct.

Can you prove she lied with the intent to do so.

Prove that and you will be correct. Prove that...and you will do what the FBI could not.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Oh hell let the cult45 crackheads worry about Her e-mails, they've only been after Her for 30 years, & how many investigations. Pfft!

Meanwhile Mueller is pouring over all the financials of these filthy republican traitors willing to sell out their country for a few Rubles & promises of power.

Be prepared for the indictments, we may just have to fill up the FEMA camps when they go ballistic over the indictments.

K~



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Only since Hillary's debacle has the intent mattered in whether something was criminal or not. Intent really only determines to what degree the illegality is present.

That doesn't mean she should hang for emails. Only that the refusal to do anything is the kind of crap that We The People have complained about for eons. It may be too late to get justice for the things done under Bush....but it doesn't mean we don't start now.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




And we ended up with all her staffs private emails..

Do we have all of Huma's emails?
How about Sidney Blumenthal's?

How about all of Hillary's texts?
Huma's texts?
Bill's texts?

She shared classified info with people that had no security clearance.

We have no idea who and what she shared.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
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?


Yes, you're wrong. The options you provided are not the only options and what you are doing is providing a misrepresentation of the facts.

There is one way you can show us you are correct.

Can you prove she lied with the intent to do so.

Prove that and you will be correct. Prove that...and you will do what the FBI could not.


Did she or did she not sign a legal document with the US government saying she fully understood and was aware of the laws and regulations concerning the safe storage, handling and dissemination of classified information whether it was marked or unmarked?

Answer the question.

Your still sticking to the assumption that the FBI investigation was unbaised and aboveboard, which we now know is a false assumption.
edit on R052018-02-02T10:05:54-06:00k052Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

She was extremely careless, not grossly negligent. It was a matter, not an investigation. It was a clerical error, not a moral crime. The euphemism continues.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

A random low level sailor is not a senator..

Can you please site me one instance where a senator was prosecuted for equal or lesser crimes???


They have not...

So what you are asking is for the DOJ to set a new precedent and prosecute a senator for a clerical or procedural error..

Because it has never happened before..

So how is the fbi or doj being biased by sticking to the status quo?!?!



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Can you prove she lied with the intent to do so.

well now is that standard only for your chosen godess or does that go for everyone?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




A random low level sailor is not a senator.. Can you please site me one instance where a senator was prosecuted for equal or lesser crimes???

so you are not for equal justice for all??
thanks for letting us know that



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



Only since Hillary's debacle has the intent mattered in whether something was criminal or not.


Incorrect. Intent has been a very important issue in deciding degrees of severity in charges for many decades.



Intent really only determines to what degree the illegality is present.


True and in this case intent was not there and to bring up charges against Hillary would have been out of line of DoJ practices.



That doesn't mean she should hang for emails. Only that the refusal to do anything is the kind of crap that We The People have complained about for eons. It may be too late to get justice for the things done under Bush....but it doesn't mean we don't start now.


Usually things like this are handled within the specific departments. In this case, hard to do anything to Hillary when she no longer works for government.

At this point, we're just beating a dead horse, but the horse is already beaten to a pulp.

People need to let it go.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Please site me a precedent of a senator being prosecuted for a procedural error???

If no senator HAS EVER been prosecuted for a procedural error, then how is the fbi or doj biased for not prosecuting her???



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Please site me a precedent of a senator being prosecuted for a procedural error???

If no senator HAS EVER been prosecuted for a procedural error, then how is the fbi or doj biased for not prosecuting her???


Now it is a procedural error?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Answer the question.


Yes. She did.

That does not help your argument in any form whatsoever.



Your still sticking to the assumption that the FBI investigation was unbaised and aboveboard, which we now know is a false assumption.


How do you know that is a false assumption? Because you read some conspiracy theories?



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: butcherguy

A random low level sailor is not a senator..

Can you please site me one instance where a senator was prosecuted for equal or lesser crimes???


They have not...

So what you are asking is for the DOJ to set a new precedent and prosecute a senator for a clerical or procedural error..

Because it has never happened before..

So how is the fbi or doj being biased by sticking to the status quo?!?!


So, some citizens get prosecuted....
but others are too important to have to abide by the law of the land.

That doesn't sound like equal representation under the law.

You don't have any problem with that, obviously.


I DO.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert




Can you prove she lied with the intent to do so.

well now is that standard only for your chosen godess or does that go for everyone?


Everyone, according to DoJ practice.

Remember, there has only been one case ever in which someone was charged without intent and that was thrown out.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Everyone

Cool
I will remind you of that



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Because that is the only thing she has ever been officially accused of..

Besides that people just don’t like her and are fishing. FISHING AND HAVE STILL NEVER FOUND ANYTHING!


Who were the people that were authorised to "fish" in Hillary's swamp? FBI? Did Loretta Lynch have a fishing license for the little pond in Hillary's lady garden?

The people who were investigating her were on her side dude.

Wake the f### up.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hewhowaits
How about we let her slide on the email/server "matter" in return for a real investigation into all the suicides and pay to play, or the uranium one deal, or the fake aids/hiv charity, or any of the thousands of shady things she's involved with?
This. At the same time, we need to investigate and prosecute others such as Bush Jr. Already and factually his admin committed two war crimes: 1) the war crime of unprovoked aggression in the case of Iraq, based on false pretenses 2) the war crime of torture. Water boarding alone was considered a war crime and prosecuted as such after WWII.




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join