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: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: cosmania
Your moral relativism is what is typical of a biased individual trying to justify the actions of their hero.

This is simple. Everyone with a security clearance hears and knows the same thing.

It is illegal to mishandle classified information.

Mishandling classified info is NOT a procedural error, it's a crime. It matters not the precedence for prosecuting anybody based on role. It's a crime. We are briefed on it. We sign contracts about it. When we compromise classified information, it's a crime.

Either she knowingly mishandled classified information or she was too incompetent to know how to handle it. Either way, it's a crime.


Well said. Obvious to anyone that's held a security clearance. Including Clinton. She knew. There was intent.




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I hope you don't really believe that B.S. you are trying to generate.
a reply to: JoshuaCox



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: gimcrackery
I hope you don't really believe that B.S. you are trying to generate.
a reply to: JoshuaCox



They do. She was their queen, after all.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I think you need to read between the lines .

This e-mail brou ha-ha is the LEAST of her crimes ,

because revealing the worst ones would make the world retch ...

Kinda like a simple blue dress with superglue on it got 'ol slick the boot .




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: radarloveguy
I think you need to read between the lines .
This e-mail brou ha-ha is the LEAST of her crimes ,
because revealing the worst ones would make the world retch ...
Kinda like a simple blue dress with superglue on it got 'ol slick the boot .

So...where's the beef? All talk, no action. It's getting pretty lame, folks. I thought Trump was so busy draining the swamp, and making America Great again, so let's either see Clinton indicted...or forget about her. Anything in between sounds an awful lot like whingeing.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is no doubt that Hillary has some responsibility in the actions that took place with her server and the emails. The problem comes when we discuss what punishment fits the crime.

Fact is, this is small beans and the punishment many are seeking does not logically fit the crime.


I'd like to see her hang, but I know that's a bit melodramatic and extreme for just the e-mail thing. For that, I'd just like to see her acknowledge she broke the law, and if that boy from the Navy was punished, she should get the same as him. Her arrogant ass has yet to acknowledge any wrongdoing other than "it may have been a mistake" and I don't know for sure she has said that much.(IMHO)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



I'd like to see her hang, but I know that's a bit melodramatic and extreme for just the e-mail thing.


Yes, very melodramatic for something such as this, but not an uncommon outcome desired by many.



For that, I'd just like to see her acknowledge she broke the law, and if that boy from the Navy was punished, she should get the same as him.


I'd rather she be punished based on the law according to her particular case. To compare it to the instance you are talking about is a false equivalence (logical fallacy) and the punishment may not be comparable in regards to the "crime" committed.



Her arrogant ass has yet to acknowledge any wrongdoing other than "it may have been a mistake" and I don't know for sure she has said that much.(IMHO)


Arrogance. One thing I cannot stand. Though, I wonder if you are in any position to lecture about arrogance. I'm sure the pot and kettle may come in to play somewhere here.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I have yet to see anything more than unfounded allegations ... I don’t know the Clintons so wouldn’t care what happened to them.., but

The Juanita Broderick suff is laughable..

Pizzagate was laughable..

Uranium one was laughable..

Hell all 3 are “mustache twirling villian “ conspiracies, not things real life people do..



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

The Juanita Broderick suff is laughable..

Pizzagate was laughable..

Uranium one was laughable..

Hell all 3 are “mustache twirling villian “ conspiracies, not things real life people do..



So I guess the other half dozen are good then...

It doesn't bother you that the Clinton foundation made 100s of millions while she was in a position of power? Nothing to see there I guess...

Even back with Whitewater and "help" in her cattle future adventures most of it all stinks of payoffs... I also have direct experience with the Clintons while he was Governor, and it was rather common understanding they had a good deal of dirty friends. I know the catering company that catered all his parties and they were fun parties with everything you would see at a Weinstein party and then some, so to speak. You know the old hookers and blow routine.


Coming forward...they got smarter and found a much easier way to pay them off was just by having them do speeches and/or donating to their foundation for huge sums of money... It funny how they can be worth 250 million and not actually have a business to make that kind of money.

No need to believe anything I say, and I understand, but at the least we can say she is either guilty or really incompetent at just about everything she has done, and I'm not sure which is worst.



edit on 2-2-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
So glad we rehashed this...

lets see according to you she has never done anything remotely shady..

According to the majority of posters that dealt with classified material, InfoSec 101 you do not send classified material to an unsecured server.

You say, but so and so did it...

we reply, you got proof charge them.. we have proof here, but her friend in the FBI covered her butt.

You go no charges no crime...

We go clown and walk away..

There did I some everything up for everyone.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You don’t get it and you never will.
Deflect deflect deflect.....but but but Trump said “grab them by the pussy”
That’s more important to you Leftists than national security, illegal alien crimes etc.
You do know that there is a US Navy sailor that is sitting in jail for snapping a couple pictures of his life on a sub to show his family right?
Probably nothing classified in them but nevertheless, he is sitting in jail because of it.
Any #ing way you look at it, Hillary and her goons broke the law.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 06:26 PM
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.



Yeah, because that would go over well, if Trump put her in jail jan 21 last year.

The IG report is coming out about how that was handled and the email case will be reopened due to mishandling of the investigation in the first place.

Then ya'll will get your Obstruction charges that's been called for.








posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: network dude



I'd like to see her hang, but I know that's a bit melodramatic and extreme for just the e-mail thing.


Yes, very melodramatic for something such as this, but not an uncommon outcome desired by many.



For that, I'd just like to see her acknowledge she broke the law, and if that boy from the Navy was punished, she should get the same as him.


I'd rather she be punished based on the law according to her particular case. To compare it to the instance you are talking about is a false equivalence (logical fallacy) and the punishment may not be comparable in regards to the "crime" committed.



Her arrogant ass has yet to acknowledge any wrongdoing other than "it may have been a mistake" and I don't know for sure she has said that much.(IMHO)


Arrogance. One thing I cannot stand. Though, I wonder if you are in any position to lecture about arrogance. I'm sure the pot and kettle may come in to play somewhere here.


I likely am arrogant, being that I am right and all. But you be sure to get your last word in sweetie. If you can't be more correct, at least you can do that.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 06:50 PM
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, different rules for certain people?

That doesn't sound like America to me.

MAGA!!




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:02 PM
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?!?!



I didn’t read the entire thread before I posted.
So you know about the sailor.
She was not a senator at the time either....she was Secretary of State.
She performed both of those jobs equally terrible, almost as good as any other criminal hack could perform them.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I'll just leave this here...
twitter.com...



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

originally posted by: Arnie123
I'll just leave this here...
twitter.com...


That’s outstanding!!



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

it depends on why she used personal non secure server .

1 was it because she was a dumbass and didnt understand classified material had to go through secure servers .

2 did she send stuff of classified nature thru here so foreign entities could access it after donations to clinton foundation.
that is espionage and treason a felony max penalty death.
3 after she had been ordered to turn over said emails she used it people to destroy documents that were under order to turn over. that alone is willful destruction of evidence and is a felony

her clerical error was not understanding emails have a copy at sending location and recieving location and trusting huma would destroy stuff on her end.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It isn't a clerical error. She was informed numerous times that she wasn't permitted to use private email, and especially not host SCI on her private server in her non-SCIF private basement. Never mind the fact she evades oversight and accountability monitoring, breaks public record retention laws but it exposed a great deal of our most classified data to any/every enemy who wants to see it.

A mistake is doing something by accident. It is correcting your error when you're informed about it. Not ignoring it, and continuing to do whatever you want. And then deleting TENS OF THOUSANDS of emails from a server subject to a SEARCH WARRANT. This is called destruction of evidence/obstruction of justice. Her and her aides lying to the investigators (POS Strozok) is called making false statements to federal officials, the exact same thing General Flynn is on the hook for.

Give me a break. The double standards and Clinton defense network is really on overtime today. That's how I know this memo is devastating them.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

Why is exactly why she's nowhere near competent enough to protect SCI, especially in digital form connected to the CLEARNET. This isn't SIPRNET, NSANET or any of the other intranets designed for classified data. This is the regular old WWW, same thing we're using now. The very same platform which thousands upon thousands of free hacking tools exist to compromise, by any ambitious 13 year old who comes across them - which would be pretty damn easy considering her MAIL SERVER has to be internet facing.

In fact, there are at any given time thousands of worms/bots/etc scanning and probing the entire public IP address range. Getting any reply from a public IP will result in major targeted hacking/infection attempts. I know because I run a honeypot on my network for collecting malware for my research project here.







 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join