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.

 

TH3WH17ERABB17 -Q- Questions. White House Insider's postings -PART- -14-

page: 301
130
<< 298  299  300    302  303  304 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: pteridine

Didn't notice that... can you just confirm how you added it up? My brains aching today and can't seem to get to 23.


I added the individual digits. This is for your post

"Timestamp Delta between #2667 and #2668 is 03 17:43:41 (dd hh:mm:ss) "

edit on 1/11/2019 by pteridine because: Clarification




posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   
To any lurkers or frequent contributors to this thread, this site may be of interest:

www.forbiddensymbols.com...

I can't say everything on the site is 100% accurate, but it's certainly interesting and quite relevant to the symbolism conversations that are floating around.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Back to pondering

Many references to Big Ben

Does it ring a bell
Stuff like that.... My proposal is

The tower the bell is in Elizabeth tower, the bell is called big ben .... On the bell an inscription. Not about that though..... Curiously this


The origin of Big Ben’s name is probably rooted in Sir Benjamin Hall. Hall was reportedly a large man (6 ft. 4 in. or 1.93 m, with a girth to match) and was the first Commissioner of Works, affectionately known as “Big Ben.”


Big ben is not famous clock tower

Led me here. Benjamin Hall NBC London twitter
Coincidence ?
edit on 1112019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)

edit on 1112019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)


Don't mind me I need to go think some more
. Tgif

edit on 1112019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)


edit on 1112019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)

edit on 1112019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

She was authorized to store the information on a private server?

Please source that.

The source for my claim that she was not authorized to store the information where she did is the following:


Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.
all emphases mine

Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of
Email Records Management and
Cybersecurity Requirements
- State Department OIG


ETA:

Former Director Comey also agrees:


None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.


Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System
edit on 11-1-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: Added Comey excerp



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
News Banners Popping Up stating FBI Investigating if Trump is Working with Russia.

www.nytimes.com...

Is this January 2017 all over again?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Lol, of course it's, "according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation."



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Got it now... the timestamp delta between the 2 posts #2667 and 2668 adds to 23.

edit on 11-1-2019 by RelSciHistItSufi because: typo


(post by eisegesis removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: carewemust

Lol, of course it's, "according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation."



There's a reason why this is being fabricated now. Possibly to cover their arses for the big Spygate release and I.G. Report on FISA abuse that's coming?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Source a question?

I'm thinking that while she may not have had authority to store information on a private server, she had authority to "knowingly remove such documents or materials" so someone thought that that statute didn't apply.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: crankyoldman

I was always curious why Hillary( and anyone else involved in the process) wasn't charged with violating this statute:


(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

Instead of the one most people were quoting:


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

I mean, she had classified information stored in an unapproved location.

Period.

The statute in question clearly states, "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location." She knew her server wasn't authorized and she also knew that some of the information she was in possession of was clearly classified, at the SAP level no less.

In anticipation of the argument that the statute I quoted requires intent. Yes, it sure does.

Is the argument going to be that she accidentally kept the information on her server or that she didn't know it was classified? Either scenario is ridiculous in the extreme.

a reply to: crankyoldman

Thank you very much, kind sir!


Besides the obvious - she/they are above the in house rules they write for those below them?

There is the issue that I have only seen bits: The "rumor" is that incoming President signs a myriad of contracts - contracts matter on earth, and one of them is the President will not prosecute or seek prosecution of a former President. That language will likely have added her. There may be some reason for it - preventing political payback for going against the "family." Like not arresting sitting congress people is practical to prevent arresting prior to a vote.

She would have fallen under that contract with Obama. This pretty much gives her free reign. If Obama was in fact the fraudulent President ( a beard for HRC) then of course it was easy to dodge it as DOJ was under Zero.

In the end the real and only reason is this: HRC is a symbol of the entire blood line, and they were in charge and never expected not to be. The "problem" is the server thing got out, had it not and she had won the the DOJ efforts to buy time would have been a win/win.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
1/11/2019

BREAKING: President Trump says that he's HOLDING OFF on declaring a National Emergency at the moment.
www.mercurynews.com...

Maybe he senses the mood of the country turning against Pelosi and Schumer.

Word is getting around how Schumer and Pelosi have been 100% for border barriers...for years. Right up until President Trump wanted to build upon the barriers Schumer and Pelosi put there, between 2007 and 2013.

It's possible that Trump is seeing movement among Democrats, so he's giving more time for Congress to approve funding. Which really is the ideal solution.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: MetalThunder

Well, isn't that special. May be worth following


*AgarthaSeed - thanks for the symbols
I'll proceed with caution.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: EndtheMadnessNow
a reply to: crankyoldman

Yes, I seen that. New Gov wasted no time! One of the Parkland victims was a distant cousin.
That sheriff needs to be dragged out to the Okefenokee swamp with the gators.





Broward/Israel = Now playing in theater 4?



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I believe it is worthy




posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I cam across a couple when I was searching. Alan Parsons Project — "Lucifer" was one of them.

I'm thinking that there are probably a lot more out there, but no one is looking.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi



Any idea what the Morse code said or how it was attributed as a message to Branson?


I'll give it in Morse since it has 'big people' words in it.

..-. ..- -.-. -.- --- ..-. ..-. .-. -...

Obviously no love lost between the two of them.




posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
News Banners Popping Up stating FBI Investigating if Trump is Working with Russia.

www.nytimes.com...

Is this January 2017 all over again?

The "leak" is saying that the FBI started investigating Trump after he fired Comey, because they were concerned he might be working with the Russians.

Not much of a leak, and it really only testifies to how flimsy the foundations of Russiagate are.

My read is, the NY Times is faithfully trying to distract us from the Broward Coward getting sh!tcanned.



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   
DECODE of Q#2670:

At what point is it mathematically impossible?
The very next day.
Red Castle.
Green Castle.
Public access to intel?
Q


This decode gives a very different steer on who has access to intel... and at what point does it become mathematically impossible...

Guccifer method using "q" gives hc = Hillary Clinton!

Is the post saying that if her access is withdrawn and all communication with her minions is terminated, then it should be mathematically impossible for her to access intel... but she can because she has the Federal Public Key Infrastructure (FPKI) Federal Bridge Certification Authority key?

(Also Guccifer method using "Q" gives " y eCc")


edit on 11-1-2019 by RelSciHistItSufi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: CoramDeo
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I cam across a couple when I was searching. Alan Parsons Project — "Lucifer" was one of them.

I'm thinking that there are probably a lot more out there, but no one is looking.

a reply to: RelSciHistItSufi



Any idea what the Morse code said or how it was attributed as a message to Branson?


I'll give it in Morse since it has 'big people' words in it.

..-. ..- -.-. -.- --- ..-. ..-. .-. -...

Obviously no love lost between the two of them.



mattfedder.com...




top topics



 
130
<< 298  299  300    302  303  304 >>

log in

join