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.

 

China was hacking Hillary Clinton's e-mails in real time.

page: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



your opinion less sources is worthy?


No. That is why I ask for one comparable case being tried in court.

No one has provided one.

They tried with the case of the sailor, but he took very specific action and plead guilty.



charging a crime is hardly "precedent" if you believe so you have been sorely mislead, or knowingly so in your case


What?

What are you talking about?




posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Since we are on a conspiracy site, I'm going to throw this out.

The Chinese didn't hack Hillary's server. They were given access to it. The "hacking" bit was a scam to give Clinton deniability if she got caught. Think about it a moment. How would the Chinese even know of the server's existence?
When Bill Clinton was running for President, there were hundreds of campaign contributions made by people of Chinese heritage. When Bill got elected the export ban on some CNC equipment that was used to mill complex geometric shapes (submarine propellers) was lifted. How many donations were made to the Clinton Foundation as payment for open access to the State Department by the Chinese? How many speaking engagements were the Clintons paid for by the Chinese. If this can be proven, lack of intent goes right out of the window.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert


And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.


That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.


I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.


Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..


You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?



Who was it that decided Hillary had no intent?


He did. And this is because he's not partisan at all ya know..

oh no, he is not partisan, I made the mistake of that simple assumption...he is something other than partisan



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

But wait a minute, how did he plead guilty?

Oh thats right, because he was CHARGED in the first place.

Again, comneys standard was that hillary couldnt be proven to have intent to commit a crime.

The sailor also didnt intend to commit a crime, and yet he was charged.

The sailor pleading guilty is irrelevant to rather or not prosecutors brought charges without proof of his intent.

Perhaps had hillary been charged, she also would have plead guilty as well.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert


And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.


That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.


I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.


Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..


You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?



Who was it that decided Hillary had no intent?


He did. And this is because he's not partisan at all ya know..


Can you provide a case as an example?

I know you guys like to talk like teenage girls and gossip about other members, but why don't you take a moment of your time and prove what is being claimed.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




No.

again an honest answer...BRAVO



That is why I ask for one comparable case being tried in court.

Site the requirement for such?
Charging a crime is hardly "precedent" if you believe so you have been sorely mislead, or knowingly so in your case.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



Site the requirement for such? Charging a crime is hardly "precedent" if you believe so you have been sorely mislead, or knowingly so in your case.


Ok. Provide a similar case that led to a conviction.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert


And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.


That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.


I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.


Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..


You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?



Who was it that decided Hillary had no intent?


He did. And this is because he's not partisan at all ya know..


Can you provide a case as an example?

I know you guys like to talk like teenage girls and gossip about other members, but why don't you take a moment of your time and prove what is being claimed.


They were referring to Comey in that post, not a member.

Funny how you address a perceived personal attack with personal attacks though.

Again, if you are going to demand standards of the conversation, hold yourself to them.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody



Site the requirement for such? Charging a crime is hardly "precedent" if you believe so you have been sorely mislead, or knowingly so in your case.


Ok. Provide a similar case that led to a conviction.


We've provided several.

I'll admit they are not completely symmetrical cases, because politicians don't get charged, they live under separate law.

So you say they are not completely comparable, but then you keep saying intent when that is no where in the law... Even if it was, I showed emails proving they were knowingly circumventing the SD servers with the intent their information not get stored on those servers.

But continue to move the goal posts. No skin off my nose.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Can you provide a case as an example?



Leave your body and re read all your posts, should be enough



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert


And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.


That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.


I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.


Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..


You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?



Who was it that decided Hillary had no intent?


The evidence, apparently.


LOL .. Who looked at the evidence and decided she had no intent?

Its like talking to a "special" person..



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Ok.

Perhaps you are the one with comprehension challenges?



Provide a similar case that led to a conviction.

Site the requirement for such?



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody



Site the requirement for such? Charging a crime is hardly "precedent" if you believe so you have been sorely mislead, or knowingly so in your case.


Ok. Provide a similar case that led to a conviction.


Did Cohen get to pick and choose what would be included in the investigation when he was raided? How come he couldn't destroy "personal" documents unrelated to the campaign?

PS, I'm all for transparency and the truth, so frankly I'm fine with all of them being included in the investigation.

Hillary's team handpicked what they handed over and destroyed the rest.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



They were referring to Comey in that post, not a member.


Comey was not mentioned, unless I missed something.

Where was he mentioned?



Funny how you address a perceived personal attack with personal attacks though. Again, if you are going to demand standards of the conversation, hold yourself to them.


It appears as though it was a personal attack, and I am also addressing the topic at hand.

I am living up to my own standards, thanks though.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



We've provided several. I'll admit they are not completely symmetrical cases, because politicians don't get charged, they live under separate law.


So they are not the same and you admit it.

Ok.



So you say they are not completely comparable, but then you keep saying intent when that is no where in the law... Even if it was, I showed emails proving they were knowingly circumventing the SD servers with the intent their information not get stored on those servers.


That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.



But continue to move the goal posts. No skin off my nose.


No need to move goal posts. You keep posting false equivalencies and then wonder why things do not match up?



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: introvert

Can you provide a case as an example?



Leave your body and re read all your posts, should be enough


I haven't been tried and convicted in a similar case.

Perhaps you do not know what you are talking about.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert


And I was right. Reading seems to be an issue. If it wasn't, you would not be saying irrelevant BS that I had not brought up, unless you are trying to somehow deflect.


That's like, your opinion man.

Read the emails I posted between Powell and Clinton above your post.


I have. That's old news and you admitted it's a matter of policy, not law.


Wow Just read the thread and you look ridiculously slow..


You do understand the difference between law and SD policy, correct?



Who was it that decided Hillary had no intent?


The evidence, apparently.


LOL .. Who looked at the evidence and decided she had no intent?

Its like talking to a "special" person..


Indeed. You had to change the question to properly fit.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert




Ok.

Perhaps you are the one with comprehension challenges?



Provide a similar case that led to a conviction.

Site the requirement for such?


Can't provide an example, huh?

This shouldn't be so hard.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


That was Colin Powell and it only show he intended to keep his communications with his friends private.


You keep saying that while ignoring he literally said he used it for business communication too, even with foreign leaders.



posted on Aug, 28 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



Did Cohen get to pick and choose what would be included in the investigation when he was raided? How come he couldn't destroy "personal" documents unrelated to the campaign?


What does Cohen have to do with this and how is it comparable to the topic at hand?

Is that a goalpost I see moving, or is that just simple deflection?



PS, I'm all for transparency and the truth, so frankly I'm fine with all of them being included in the investigation. Hillary's team handpicked what they handed over and destroyed the rest.


Sure.




top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join