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: 6
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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.



I don't need to prove that there were classified materials on her server, You stated it right there.




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic

originally posted by: introvert
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.



I don't need to prove that there were classified materials on her server, You stated it right there.


All of which were handed over when requested. That's why no charges have been filed. It is not against SD procedures to use a private email for official government business as long as the records are available upon request.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



no one can prove to your satisfaction that anything was classified


Investigators can. Why haven't they?



although anyone with common sense can easily see that if emails are redacted before release, then they contained classified information of some sort.


"Common sense" does not convict someone.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic

originally posted by: introvert
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.



I don't need to prove that there were classified materials on her server, You stated it right there.



All of which were handed over when requested. That's why no charges have been filed. It is not against SD procedures to use a private email for official government business as long as the records are available upon request.


It is when that information is housed on a unapproved server outside of government control.. why can;t you understand that?

You are only correct about two things... no charges have been filed yet and it is an investigation into the use of a private email server by HRC... criminal charges will be considered once all information about the server and storage of classified information is completed.

Charges will be forth coming.... bet on it.
edit on R322016-01-08T21:32:26-06:00k321Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic

originally posted by: introvert
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.



I don't need to prove that there were classified materials on her server, You stated it right there.


All of which were handed over when requested. That's why no charges have been filed. It is not against SD procedures to use a private email for official government business as long as the records are available upon request.


It is when that information is housed on a unapproved server outside of government control.. why can;t you understand that?


How was it outside of government control? They asked for the emails and received it. They also were able to get the server itself.

Everything they asked for was handed-over, including her person emails.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The point is not whether Secretary Clinton turned over the emails when requested, the point is that they were in an unauthorized location.

What point are we going to go back over now?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic

originally posted by: introvert
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.



I don't need to prove that there were classified materials on her server, You stated it right there.


All of which were handed over when requested. That's why no charges have been filed. It is not against SD procedures to use a private email for official government business as long as the records are available upon request.


It is when that information is housed on a unapproved server outside of government control.. why can;t you understand that?


How was it outside of government control? They asked for the emails and received it. They also were able to get the server itself.

Everything they asked for was handed-over, including her person emails.


You didn't read any regulations about off site storage of classified information did you? You are hopeless. What do unicorns eat by the way? I have always wanted to know.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

They only got the server when the got a warrant. They first asked, Secretary Clinton said no. It was the warrant that MADE her comply.


edit on 8-1-2016 by TheSemiSkeptic because: Typo



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic



the point is that they were in an unauthorized location.


That would be an easy charge to put on Clinton.....if it were true. You are mistaken on such procedures. Those emails are not required to be stored on government servers. In fact, it wasn't until well after this issue came to light that the government required official communications to be transferred to government hands after 20 days.


originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic

originally posted by: introvert
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.



I don't need to prove that there were classified materials on her server, You stated it right there.


All of which were handed over when requested. That's why no charges have been filed. It is not against SD procedures to use a private email for official government business as long as the records are available upon request.


It is when that information is housed on a unapproved server outside of government control.. why can;t you understand that?


How was it outside of government control? They asked for the emails and received it. They also were able to get the server itself.

Everything they asked for was handed-over, including her person emails.


You didn't read any regulations about off site storage of classified information did you? You are hopeless. What do unicorns eat by the way? I have always wanted to know.


Unicorns don't eat anything, because they don't exist. Kind of like the nutbag accusations against Clinton.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic
a reply to: introvert

They only got the server when the got a warrant. They first asked, Secretary Clinton said no. It was the warrant that MADE her comply.



Her personal communications were refused at first. But she did comply with the warrant. They got the server itself.

What does that say?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic



the point is that they were in an unauthorized location.


That would be an easy charge to put on Clinton.....if it were true. You are mistaken on such procedures. Those emails are not required to be stored on government servers. In fact, it wasn't until well after this issue came to light that the government required official communications to be transferred to government hands after 20 days.


originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic

originally posted by: introvert
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.



I don't need to prove that there were classified materials on her server, You stated it right there.


All of which were handed over when requested. That's why no charges have been filed. It is not against SD procedures to use a private email for official government business as long as the records are available upon request.


It is when that information is housed on a unapproved server outside of government control.. why can;t you understand that?


How was it outside of government control? They asked for the emails and received it. They also were able to get the server itself.

Everything they asked for was handed-over, including her person emails.


You didn't read any regulations about off site storage of classified information did you? You are hopeless. What do unicorns eat by the way? I have always wanted to know.


Unicorns don't eat anything, because they don't exist. Kind of like the nutbag accusations against Clinton.


Why are you talking about normal emails? We are talking about classified emails being kept on an unapproved server.. why can't you understand that one simple fact?

The only thing that makes any sense about your replies is that you are hoping that you can provoke someone into saying something that will get them banned.... won't work on me.

Repeating the same thing time and time again does not make an argument a valid argument. It only serves to look like you have no valid point at all.

There is a HUGE difference between normal emails and emails that contain classified information. You just refuse to acknowledge that fact.
edit on R502016-01-08T21:50:06-06:00k501Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You are right, prior to this situation coming to light, there were no requirements that these types of emails were not required to be on Federal Servers.I do not know what the requirements are now.
However the location would have to be authorized, which means someone would have had to know about Secretary Clinton's private server and the use of a private email. To all accounts I have read, NO ONE knew Secretary Clinton was doing that. Therefore it could not have been authorized, if no one knew about it then no one could have authorized it.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic
a reply to: introvert

You are right, prior to this situation coming to light, there were no requirements that these types of emails were not required to be on Federal Servers.I do not know what the requirements are now.
However the location would have to be authorized, which means someone would have had to know about Secretary Clinton's private server and the use of a private email. To all accounts I have read, NO ONE knew Secretary Clinton was doing that. Therefore it could not have been authorized, if no one knew about it then no one could have authorized it.



Correct... but when the emails contain information that is classified, it is a whole new ballgame. And once again, no one can prove than any emails were classified because the information that made them classified was redacted prior to release. You are playing a catch-22 game.
edit on R542016-01-08T21:54:16-06:00k541Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I am sorry I was not clear. When I said these types of emails, I meant Classified emails.
My apologies for not being clear. I am guessing that going over and over the same points is making me sloppy.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



The only thing that makes any sense about your replies is that you are hoping that you can provoke someone into saying something that will get them banned


I'm hoping someone will say something that makes sense. You cannot prove any of which you claimed. Investigators have everything they need and if any wrongdoing is found, charges will be filed.

If it's as simple as you say and this information is clear-cut, why no charges?

a reply to: TheSemiSkeptic



You are right, prior to this situation coming to light, there were no requirements that these types of emails were not required to be on Federal Servers.


Bingo!



However the location would have to be authorized, which means someone would have had to know about Secretary Clinton's private server and the use of a private email.


Anyone that received an email from her private address would know it. It was not an official domain name. Which, as discussed earlier, was not a violation of SD procedures.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

While someone sending an email to, or receiving an email from, Secretary Clinton would see her personal domain name. That does not grant the knowledge that the server that is going to is NOT an authorized server with proper security. While this is not a violation of State Department policy. Not being an authorized server, as defined by the law, is a violation.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSemiSkeptic
a reply to: introvert

While someone sending an email to, or receiving an email from, Secretary Clinton would see her personal domain name. That does not grant the knowledge that the server that is going to is NOT an authorized server with proper security. While this is not a violation of State Department policy. Not being an authorized server, as defined by the law, is a violation.



If that's true, why no charges on something so simple? Could it be that you are mistaken?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
"You cannot prove any of which you claimed"

I can guarantee you that asking a federal employee to remove classification markings from a document in order to circumvent security procedures is a crime.

The email is right there for everyone to see.

It doesn't matter whether the person asked did it or not, the fact that you are asking a federal employee to violate what they feel is security procedure is in fact illegal. The person who was sending the fax in question was trying to do it following protocol via a secure transmission media.

Someone using her account attempted to persuade them to commit a crime by removing the markings from the document...that my friend is illegal and shows piss poor judgement for someone who aspires to be POTUS.

Before you chime in with "it wasn't classified or it was finally sent via a secure method".... it doesn't matter... at the time it was requested that the information be stripped of markings and sent unsecure, they had no idea what the information they were asking to be sent contained. It's illegal to try and coerce a federal employee to violate security procedures.
edit on R102016-01-08T22:10:54-06:00k101Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



I can guarantee you that asking a federal employee to remove classification markings from a document in order to circumvent security procedures is a crime.

The email is right there for everyone to see.


Ok. Provide the statute that covers such an issue. An earlier attempt only showed that the act had to actually occur before any violation was deemed against the law.



It doesn't matter whether the person asked did it or not


Actually, it does.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Could it be that the investigation is not complete yet? Could it be that there is even more information the FBI has, that they are keeping close to the vest.So the FBI does not tip their hand? Could it be that someone higher up is purposely slowing/stalling the investigation? I don't know, I am not privy to the minds of those doing the investigation.




edit on 8-1-2016 by TheSemiSkeptic because: typos



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join