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.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: butcherguy
We might also expect that a Secretary of State might have some actual concern for national security and the protection of classified top secret information.
Should she know? yes, does it matter she doesnt yet? not really.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Biigs
Should she know? yes, does it matter she doesnt yet? not really.
Dude, she was secretary of state, you know, the one in charge of classifying certain documents?
How the hell can you say it doesn't matter if she doesn't yet?
A romanian hacked her email because of this exact mindset.
originally posted by: Biigs
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Biigs
Should she know? yes, does it matter she doesnt yet? not really.
Dude, she was secretary of state, you know, the one in charge of classifying certain documents?
How the hell can you say it doesn't matter if she doesn't yet?
A romanian hacked her email because of this exact mindset.
Dont you think she has a secretary type that stuff up from dictations and send on her behalf - i bet she does. Unless its a short answer or personnel and shes got a blackberry.
Look she should know but shes bad at her jobs for much better reasons than this.
Then the details of the story started to dribble out. Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times hadn't even been present at the grocers' convention. He based his article on a two-paragraph report filed by the lone pool newspaperman allowed to cover the event, Gregg McDonald of the Houston Chronicle, who merely wrote that Bush had a "look of wonder" on his face and didn't find the event significant enough to mention in his own story. Moreover, Bush had good reason to express wonder: He wasn't being shown then-standard scanner technology, but a new type of scanner that could weigh groceries and read mangled and torn bar codes.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vector99
She's not running to be in charge of The US government IT department.
A transcript of the first deposition in the Hillary Clinton email scandal has revealed that the Democratic Presidential hopeful did not know how to use email on a computer, nor did she use a password.
Forgive the rest of us for not wanting a total IDIOT as Potus.
So YEAH there are some IT requirements for POTUS.
Just because she does not know how to use email on a computer does not mean she is an idiot or cannot use email. Obviously, considering her email scandal, she does know how to use email.
Forgive me if I revert to the document that actually matters and not the rantings of partisan hacks that have a hard time themselves with proper English grammar, yet have the gall to call someone else an idiot.
Hillary does know how to use email. If she didn't, why the email scandal?
What position are you to lecture someone and call them an idiot when you cannot even distinguish from using email on a device and on a computer?
distinguish from using email on a device and on a computer?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: draoicht
What you just described is not treason.
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert
distinguish from using email on a device and on a computer?
The deposition does kinda say she didn't know how to use her computer and it wasn't even password protected.