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.

 

More Classified Hillary Clinton Emails Released

page: 2
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: subfab

She wasn't found guilty of a crime because she was never put on trial. Obama, the DOJ and FBI protected her by refusing to indite and prosecute her sorry ass. The fact she hasn't been found guilty, in her case, is irrelevant.


it is relevant.
if found not guilty for the crimes the original poster suggests then she can never be tried for the same thing again.
i'm not a lawyer and could be misunderstanding this legal situation.



How can someone be found "not guilty" when they were never prosecuted or went to trial? Fact is, since there was no case ever filed, these actions are still relevant and prosecutable if they have enough evidence to consider it a good case.




posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: subfab

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: subfab

She wasn't found guilty of a crime because she was never put on trial. Obama, the DOJ and FBI protected her by refusing to indite and prosecute her sorry ass. The fact she hasn't been found guilty, in her case, is irrelevant.


it is relevant.
if found not guilty for the crimes the original poster suggests then she can never be tried for the same thing again.
i'm not a lawyer and could be misunderstanding this legal situation.



How can someone be found "not guilty" when they were never prosecuted or went to trial? Fact is, since there was no case ever filed, these actions are still relevant and prosecutable if they have enough evidence to consider it a good case.



thank you.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

What about not being arrested and tried in the process of finding someone guilty of a crime do you not understand. Congress does not try felonies. They recommend to the DOJ for prosecution and the DOJ refused to pursue her treason. Get It? She has not been found guilty because they refused to prosecute. They covered her ass.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: subfab

What about not being arrested and tried in the process of finding someone guilty of a crime do you not understand. Congress does not try felonies. They recommend to the DOJ for prosecution and the DOJ refused to pursue her treason. Get It? She has not been found guilty because they refused to prosecute. They covered her ass.


i understand what you are saying.
i'm asking for links supporting these statements.
i don't just blindly follow what people say about legislators. i need evidence to support statements (good or bad) that what you or anyone else is saying is truth and not an emotional reaction to mass media.


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

You are trying to support your position by playing stupid?



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: subfab

😆



so you don't have a link then?
okay i guess it's time to move on.


Yup time to move on.

She was never prosecuted because the FBI/DOJ rigged the original investigations 😎

Ask Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Their testimonies are easily found 😎




posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: subfab

You are trying to support your position by playing stupid?


if you got nothing to support your position then just say so.
no need for insults.
i'm open to listening to your viewpoint. just have supporting documentation to validate your position.
it's all i ask of anyone trying to convince me of their idea.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

link then?


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: xuenchen

link then?


Alright I'll give you one even though you already know.

Lisa Page said FBI discussed charging Hillary Clinton with 'gross negligence' in 2016, and DOJ told them no

😆


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

Where have you been these past 3 years? Why should anyone here have to provide you with proof at this point? I feel sure members could fulfill your request but like me, why bother? Truth can and has slapped you in the face and you still deny the bitch did any wrong. At this point, trying to convince you of her guilt is like butting heads on a brick wall. Believe what you will. I don't care. Keep your head up your arse...



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Why can’t everyone see the similarities between Saudi Arabia and Clinton ?


Saudi Arabia Assures UN There’s No Need For Investigation Into Khashoggi Murder


Change Saudi Arabia to Obama DOJ and change UN to American people and change Kashogi murder to any number of crimes Hillary committed



newspunch.com...
edit on 21-3-2019 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2019 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: subfab

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: subfab

She wasn't found guilty of a crime because she was never put on trial. Obama, the DOJ and FBI protected her by refusing to indite and prosecute her sorry ass. The fact she hasn't been found guilty, in her case, is irrelevant.


it is relevant.
if found not guilty for the crimes the original poster suggests then she can never be tried for the same thing again.
i'm not a lawyer and could be misunderstanding this legal situation.



How can someone be found "not guilty" when they were never prosecuted or went to trial? Fact is, since there was no case ever filed, these actions are still relevant and prosecutable if they have enough evidence to consider it a good case.



thank you.


Glad you agree. Since I also think that these are nails in a criminal coffin they are building to bury Hillary Clinton. Once they have enough nails, then the indictments could follow. So, if that happens, I hope you still agree that she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and have the legal system (one without her and hubby's direct influence) bring her to trial for these breaches of National Security policy.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: xuenchen

link then?


Alright I'll give you one even though you already know.

Lisa Page said FBI discussed charging Hillary Clinton with 'gross negligence' in 2016, and DOJ told them no

😆


thank you for the link.

in the link they did not find classified information on the servers. only the potential that there was sensitive information there.




Page’s testimony raises further questions related to the decision not to charge Clinton with any crimes, including gross negligence, following a lengthy FBI investigation into her email practices that potentially put classified information at risk.


i'm sure politics played a part of the decision. but even so, unless there is clear evidence of wrong doing, it would have been wrong to bring charges up without solid evidence to support their charge.

without strong evidence no one should be brought on trial for anything.
and after all this time, not one email has been presented that shows any national secret was in jeopardy.
if it had, then she should be brought to trial and answer for it.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

We both know that it was Obama who made sure Hillary got as pass, he even campaigned for her and brought her along on Air Force One a few times for that purpose.

His use of a pseudonym to her on her private server, the fact that his records are sealed for 5 years and cannot be accessed, the documents from his administration, that some of which went to an undisclosed location that will eventually end up in his presidential library (that won't house actual physical documents, only electronic copies of same), which a fair number of Chicagoans do not want located where he has his eye on to name but a few, certainly point to his knowledge and implied consent of her use of a private, unapproved, unsecured, server with open access to and from the Internet to conduct any business she likes as long as he was kept in the loop.

(how's that for a run on sentence?)

Oh, and we'll throw in a side of SAPs on the server, not just these day to day emails with classified information. Those right there should have her incarcerated immediately upon learning that she was in the possession of. No matter who she had set up and maintain the systems, she is the one ultimately responsible for things that were entrusted to her care.

All of the immunity deals only served to cover for her accomplices misdeeds at her direction.

Yeah, they never though she'd lose and all of this would have been quietly forgotten in the maelstrom which would have hit had she become president.

Can you imagine what kinds of muck we'd be facing right about now had she prevailed?



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

Here is a link to a Politico post in 2015 you should refresh your memory with.
www.politico.com...


Clinton’s email woes deepen as classified messages pile up The number of emails now marked classified doubled with the latest release. By JOSH GERSTEIN and NICK GASS 09/30/2015 08:32 AM EDT Updated 09/30/2015 08:18 PM EDT Share on Facebook Share on Twitter The controversy over Hillary Clinton's use of personal email while she was secretary of state is showing no signs of easing, as the number of messages now deemed classified doubled with the State Department's latest release and as more details emerged about the potential vulnerability of her account. The number of emails now considered classified total more than 400, with three of the 215 newly classified documents marked as SECRET — the middle tier of the national security classification system. While Clinton has maintained that she never received or forwarded messages that were marked classified at the time, critics have argued that the use of a private email account and server put her in a precarious position when dealing with sensitive materials. In another blow to the Clinton campaign's "nothing to see here" narrative, the latest release shows that hackers targeted her personal email at least five times in August 2011, as part of a widespread speeding ticket hoax. It's not clear if Clinton ever clicked on what appeared to be virus-laden attachments that security experts say seem to have originated in Russia. Clinton and her surrogates have argued there is no evidence her "home brew" email system was ever compromised. Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill maintained that stance Wednesday. “We have no evidence to suggest she replied to this email nor that she clicked on the attachment,” Merrill said. “As we have said before, there is no evidence that the system was ever breached. All these emails show is that, like millions of other Americans, she received spam." 20150930_hillary_clinton_ap_1160.jpg The 11 must-read Hillary Clinton emails By NICK GASS



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

The FBI wasn't the classifying authority.

In early and mid 2016, the State Dept had not yet completely determined what was classified.

That happened later as they read each email word for word and then started publishing all the known emails (at the time).

State Dept emails

Remember, the Clinton system was not a government monitored system, so there was nobody (at the time) determining "classified".

more background...

During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using her family's private email server for official communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on secure federal servers. An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.

Some experts, officials, and members of Congress contended that Clinton's use of a private messaging system and a private server violated State Department protocols and procedures, as well as federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping. Clinton responded that her use complied with federal laws and State Department regulations, and that former secretaries of state had also maintained personal email accounts. News reports indicated that the emails discussed "innocuous" matters already available in the public domain. For example, the CIA drone program has been widely discussed in the public domain since the early 2000s; however, the very existence of the program is technically classified, so even sharing a newspaper article that mentions it would constitute a security breach as far as the CIA is concerned.



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab


in the link they did not find classified information on the servers.


Testimony given by Peter Strzok:

From page 119:



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


We both know that it was Obama who made sure Hillary got a pass, he even campaigned for her and brought her along on Air Force One a few times for that purpose.


It is a valid theory but one I cannot back without concrete evidence.

HOWEVER..

I can prove time and time and TIME again that Hillary did, in fact, break the law with her server and the information on it.

So I'm starting with concrete evidence and hoping the next lower fruit will fall...

Which it all seems to be doing now.




edit on 21-3-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab

...and after all this time, not one email has been presented that shows any national secret was in jeopardy.
if it had, then she should be brought to trial and answer for it.


The fact is, many Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential emails were found and nobody is disputing that in any circles (except maybe you).

The national secrets in jeopardy are defined by the classification level.




Top Secret
The highest security classification. "Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe."

Secret
This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its unauthorized disclosure would cause "serious damage" to national security. Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity.

Confidential This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization


This is what EVERY person who has a clearance has to understand and sign to uphold. You don't get to claim ignorance.

Fact: she had several dozen emails disclosing Top Secret info.

Question: Does exceptionally grave damage not count in your eyes?



posted on Mar, 21 2019 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

sorry just asking is this what is called double jeopardy




top topics



 
52
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join