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.

 

Former U.S. attorney: Clinton could face criminal indictment

page: 5
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic
a reply to: introvert

Secretary Clinton broke no laws?!
General Petraeus lost his career and pension, paid a $100,000 fine and was sentenced to two years probation. All because he had ONE classified file in his desk at home. One file. Secretary Clinton had, at last count, over 1000 classified files on her unsecured server at her home. How is it General Petraeus broke the law and Secretary Clinton has not???



It is not against the law to use a personal email account for official government business as long as the relevant emails are retained and available if requested. They have found many emails on the server that contained specific "terms" that caused a red flag, and in turn were classified after the fact, but they have yet to find anything else.

This investigation, and I can't believe how many times this has to be said, is not a criminal investigation in to her activity. It is an investigation to ensure her server was not compromised and if there were any breaches in security protocol.




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

There have been some emails found on her server that had material that was classified before it was sent to her. So she had, just like General Petraeus, classified material in her home in an unsecured location.Then there is the email released today where Secretary Clinton tells one of her staff to just remove the markings and make it "Non-paper" (Government euphemism for not an official government document) and send it non secure. Even if it is just one file,just like General Petraeus, she broke the law.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

There were a lot of emails on her server that contained classified information. She used the email to do her duties in that position. That was not against SD regulations. All of those emails were handed-over to investigators. They are now going through personal emails on the server to see if there were any security issues and have classified certain emails due to certain terms used. None of which has been found to be a violation so far.

The current "non-paper" issue has been addressed in the other thread. I invite you to tackle that issue over there.
edit on 8-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That is the issue Introvert.

That there were classified emails on Secretary Clinton's server. Secretary Clinton had classified material in her home in an unsecured location. Which is what General Petraeus was found guilty of, "Mishandling of Classified Materials" to be exact, General Petraeus had one file in his desk, which was not locked. Secretary Clinton had at least one file of classified material on her unsecured server in her home. I do not see how it is a crime when General Petraeus does this but not a crime when Secretary Clinton does this.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

No proof has been found that the information on her server was unsecured or compromised. If that is found to be true, then we can talk.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

No proof has been found that the information on her server was unsecured or compromised. If that is found to be true, then we can talk.


I hesitate to reply because of the other thread, but again you demonstrate an incredible lack of knowledge about government security policies.

There is not ONE SINGLE excuse for having any classified information on any system that has not been approved by the government. Having a email server that contained classified information out of the direct controls of the government is illegal. Hands down, end of discussion.

Do you have any idea the measures it takes just to be able to put a secure telephone in someone's residence? No you don't. I have had to deal with issues like this during my career, and unless she can provide an written agreement between her and the state department detailing the conditions of having classified information in your residence, she doesn't have leg to stand on. Case closed.

If there was even one single item deemed TS, then the requirements go much much higher.. she would have had to had a specific SCIF built to house her server, but it would have never even been allowed on an unclassified network.

Educate yourself and look up Secret Compartmented Information Facility and see what the requirements are and maybe, just maybe, you will finally understand that she broke the law in numerous ways.

I am sure you are going to claim that there is no proof that she knew about any classified information yada yada yada, but the smart money is on the fact that having over 1000 emails deemed classified so far, some of them were at the TS level. I have pointed out to you that the agreement she signed for access, stress that classified information may be marked or unmarked or even oral for that matter.

It doesn't matter if her server was breached or not.... it is the fact of storing top secret or secret material outside of an authorized SCIF that is the problem.

Do you know how thick the walls must be for a SCIF? Do you know how electrical cables must be shielded in a SCIF? Do you know anything about how Visitor logs and how long they have to be retained for a SCIF?

No you do not... educate yourself and stop making yourself look silly.

Since you most likely won't bother to research it, here ya go... took all of 2 minutes to find:

www.adamoconstruction.com...


Simply stated, a SCIF is a U.S. Government accredited facility where Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) can be stored, discussed or electronically processed. Primarily Government and government-related contractors that require high security have the need for SCIFs. The areas of concern and special attention typically include physical security and hardening, acoustics controls, visual controls, access control, electronic and TEMPEST security.


PS: Saying it was protected by the Secret Service is nothing but pure BS,,, the requirements are extremely clear about what must be done to protect classified information... being guarded by the Secret Service is no where on any list I have ever seen.


edit on R272016-01-08T20:27:07-06:00k271Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R312016-01-08T20:31:04-06:00k311Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R322016-01-08T20:32:31-06:00k321Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R372016-01-08T20:37:40-06:00k371Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

www.wired.com...

www.computerworld.com...

www.pcworld.com...


Shall we talk now Introvert or do you wish even more links? I used only tech magazines that focused on the security of the server.

edit on 8-1-2016 by TheSemiSkeptic because: Bad source



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

One more thing.

They don't need to prove that the material was accessed, just that it could be due to lack of security. No one proved the General Petraeus' file was looked over.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Doesn't mean Jack. You have to prove criminality. The opinion of others is irrelevant. It appears you may not be informed as to how far Patraeus went.


In January 2015, the New York Times reported that that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department have recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for providing classified information to Broadwell. Petraeus had denied the allegations and was reported to have had no interest in a plea deal.[195] However, on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, the U.S. Justice Department announced that General Petraeus agreed to plead guilty in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. An attorney for General Petraeus, Robert Barnett, had no immediate comment.[196] On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.[197]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 8-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Again, what laws were broken? You can bloviate all you like, but laws must broken to prosecute someone.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Doesn't mean Jack. You have to prove criminality. The opinion of others is irrelevant. It appears you may not be informed as to how far Patraeus went.


In January 2015, the New York Times reported that that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department have recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for providing classified information to Broadwell. Petraeus had denied the allegations and was reported to have had no interest in a plea deal.[195] However, on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, the U.S. Justice Department announced that General Petraeus agreed to plead guilty in federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina to a charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information. An attorney for General Petraeus, Robert Barnett, had no immediate comment.[196] On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.[197]


en.wikipedia.org...


You just make yourself look more and more uninformed with every post. You do not have to prove criminality when it comes to the storage of classified information. Failure to adhere to the standards set forth by the government is all the proof any reasonable person would need.

What is your real agenda? The continued insistence on sticking to points proven wrong time after time makes no sense.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Again, what laws were broken? You can bloviate all you like, but laws must broken to prosecute someone.


What???? Are we supposed to go over the requirements for the handling of classified information for the umpteenth time? Look over the regulations for safeguarding of classified information, and it clearly states what laws are broken and what penalties can be given for such violations....


Pretending you don't see it doesn't make it go away.


I have to assume at this point you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about and are only posting just for the sake of disagreeing with people.

Have a nice day living in whatever fantasy world is that you inhabit. I bet they have pretty unicorns there. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw someone so hopelessly continue to argue a point after repeatedly being proved wrong time and time again. Amazing.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Washington Post April 23, 2015
By Adam Goldman

CHARLOTTE — David H. Petraeus, a retired general considered one of the greatest military minds of his generation, pleaded guilty Thursday to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials, ending a long-running legal saga that had threatened to send him to prison........

www.washingtonpost.com... aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html


I like to post sources that have some credibility, and not Wikipedia.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

If what you say is correct, prove she committed a crime. No one has been able to do so, so far.

No charges have been filed against her.

We can go back and forth but until you can actually prove it, you're just wasting my time.

Again, wishful-thinking and crying wolf.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

If what you say is correct, prove she committed a crime. No one has been able to do so, so far.

No charges have been filed against her.

We can go back and forth but until you can actually prove it, you're just wasting my time.

Again, wishful-thinking and crying wolf.


So by your logic, if no one is charged then a crime has never been committed. Nice logic.

No charges have been filed.....YET.

And by the way, I do not have to prove squat....it is clearly detailed in the regulations for handling classified information,,, you just refuse to see it. Look at the post below where once again someone points out where it is criminal.

edit on R072016-01-08T21:07:12-06:00k071Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R102016-01-08T21:10:11-06:00k101Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R102016-01-08T21:10:31-06:00k101Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Sec. 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(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 one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

(Added Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, §808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)
Amendments

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “under this title” for “not more than $1,000,”.



I could see the argument made that Secretary Clinton had the intent to maintain that information at a unauthorized location, her home.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

If what you say is correct, prove she committed a crime. No one has been able to do so, so far.

No charges have been filed against her.

We can go back and forth but until you can actually prove it, you're just wasting my time.

Again, wishful-thinking and crying wolf.


So by your logic, if no one is charged then a crime has never been committed. Nice logic.


It's a high-profile case with many against her waiting in the wings to pounce on any information that could lead to charges.

If she committed a crime, she will be charged. Prove she committed a crime and quit wasting my time with absolute bull#.

By your logic we should charge and convict someone without due process or properly-vetted evidence.

That's idiocy and against the very principles this nation was founded upon.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic



documents or materials containing classified information


Cool. Now you have to prove that the information was classified.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

If what you say is correct, prove she committed a crime. No one has been able to do so, so far.

No charges have been filed against her.

We can go back and forth but until you can actually prove it, you're just wasting my time.

Again, wishful-thinking and crying wolf.


So by your logic, if no one is charged then a crime has never been committed. Nice logic.


It's a high-profile case with many against her waiting in the wings to pounce on any information that could lead to charges.

If she committed a crime, she will be charged. Prove she committed a crime and quit wasting my time with absolute bull#.

By your logic we should charge and convict someone without due process or properly-vetted evidence.

That's idiocy and against the very principles this nation was founded upon.


Holy hand grenades Batman,,,, do you realize how you silly you are making yourself look? If the bathroom that the server was stored in or her residence that it was stored in do not meet the specific requirements set forth by the government for the storage of classified information, then criminal charges most certainly do apply.

Are you implying that said bathroom or the room in her residence met the following requirements?

Again:

www.adamoconstruction.com...

1.

All telephone, electrical power, security systems, data and emergency systems equipment must be dedicated to and contained within the SCIF. Any utility that enters the SCIF should terminate in the SCIF and not traverse through the space. Where the conduit for any of these systems penetrate the SCIF perimeter, they must be treated to minimize the chance of compromise. Fire sprinkler systems and other metallic materials that penetrate SCIF perimeter must be grounded or use dielectric unions. Additional shielding or isolation is often required to prevent interference or electronic eavesdropping through electromagnetic or radio frequencies.


2.

There are very specific requirements for ductwork. For example, if ductwork for mechanical operations has openings in the SCIF larger than 96 square inches, they must be equipped with steel man bars that are ½-inch in diameter and 6 inches on center each way, welded at the intersections, with inspection ports inside the SCIF. The openings, the ductwork and the duct breaks must also have special sections inserted to secure audio and electronic emanations from leaving the SCIF space.


3.

n most cases the perimeter doors must utilize two access control technologies. The first one for operational day-to-day use, and the second for high security lock up when personnel leave the space unattended. The door and frame assembly must not only meet local building and fire/life safety requirements, but must also achieve the same specified Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating as the perimeter wall assemblies of the facility.


Need I go on? Are you telling me that the bathroom and her residence met these requirements? Do You do not know there is a checklist that must be completed on storage before the government will grant access for storage of classified material.

Give it up already and admit you are wrong... sheesh

EDIT: I see that you are once again back to the prove it was classified argument. You are just baiting people at this point and I hope a mod steps in to end this endless cycle of nonsense. Without having access to the unredacted emails, no one can prove to your satisfaction that anything was classified, although anyone with common sense can easily see that if emails are redacted before release, then they contained classified information of some sort.

You are just playing a game.
edit on R252016-01-08T21:25:08-06:00k251Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



If the bathroom that the server was stored in or her residence that it was stored in do not meet the specific requirements set forth by the government for the storage of classified information, then criminal charges most certainly do apply


Ok, then why is this investigation not a criminal investigation? It's an investigation in to security protocol and so far all the information released has not shown criminality.



Are you telling me that the bathroom and her residence met these requirements


I don't know. No charges or allegations of such have been made by investigators.

Why would you believe anything else unless it can be proven.

So the onus is back on to you......prove it.



EDIT: I see that you are once again back to the prove it was classified argument. YOu are just baiting people at this point and I hope a mod steps in to end this endless cycle of nonsense.


Can't prove it? Calling for a life line?

edit on 8-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)







 
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join