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.

 

SMOKING GUN? Hillary e-mail Instructs Aide To Transmit Classified Data Without Markings

page: 3
55
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Can you not see it?
Hillary Clinton Wins the Elections.

and this this will go away just like
obama being a illegal immigrant.




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This is pretty big news here. Wonder what the distraction is going to be that draws the attention of the public while it gets swept under the rug this time?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
The real question is.....

How long will it take Donald Trump to ask her about this email during the next debate?

I am betting it won't be long.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy



She gets a pass for breaking the law because she is Hillary?


What laws have been broken?


www.law.cornell.edu...


(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.


I see you cited a law, but she did not break this law..



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: RickinVa
I was looking at one of Obama's Executive Orders ( wikisource )


(c)   An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency's control or direct that information be declassified in order to remove it from agency control.

then there is this:

Consistent with law, executive orders, directives, and regulations, each agency head or senior agency official, or with respect to the Intelligence Community, the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish controls to ensure that classified information is used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed under conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons.



She was not leaving the agency service. Are you even reading what you are quoting? Secondly,

“There is no question that Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” the administration lawyers argued. “Under policies issued by both the National Archives and Records Administration (‘NARA’) and the State Department, individual officers and employees are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”

The legal brief said that means employees are required to “review each message, identify its value and either delete it or move it to a record-keeping system.”



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
So clearly butcher, on the count that you cannot find a shred of proof she violated any law or executive order, this "obsession" with her e-mails is baseless.

You believed she had broke the law, that's why the e-mails upset you, but now you discovered that's not the case.

What else?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: theySeeme

What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Honestly???

Anyone who has been granted a clearance whether current or prior (TS/SCI for 20+ years) knows very well that she has broken the laws when it comes to the handling of classified information.

Whether she is prosecuted or not remains to be seen. People keep quoting laws you and you keep right on asking for proof...

Please tell us all, how she did not violate sections of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.

For instance:

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter;


Is it because the law says "he" and since she isn't a he it doesn't apply to her?

I will be awaiting your answer.

Before you reply, please consider that as Secretary of State, the vast majority of any of her correspondence would be considered classified and vital to the defense of the US at some level.

I also love the excuse that it is nothing because other officials used a private email too... I will leave that with what I once heard a judge tell a man in traffic court,,,, his excuse was... "Your Honor, it wasn't fair because a lot of other people were speeding too and they didn't get pulled over"... to which the judge replied...."When you go fishing, do you catch every single fish in the lake? You, sir, got caught,,,pay the fine."
edit on R142016-01-08T14:14:06-06:00k141Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R142016-01-08T14:14:46-06:00k141Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa
Plenty of members here have asked in the past whether Hillary may have removed security classification headers from documents. Hillary lovers were quick to say that there was no proof of that happening.
Now we have confirmation of her urging people to do it.... and the Hillary lovers are shouting that it is legal to do.
Even if it were legal, IS IT ACCEPTABLE?


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: theySeeme



She was not leaving the agency service.

She kept classified emails on her private server after she left the agency service.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy



She gets a pass for breaking the law because she is Hillary?


What laws have been broken?


www.law.cornell.edu...


(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.


I see you cited a law, but she did not break this law..


While waiting on your reply.... I will throw this out there.

Standard Form 312, Access to classified information.

www.archives.gov...


Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 13526, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government


#1 Clearly without a doubt states information that is marked or unmarked.


I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.


#2 Clearly you are acknowledging that you will ensure anyone you divulge information to will have the proper clearance to access that information.


I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.


We can go on and on and on..... she has clearly broken the law... it is pretty clear what is allowed and what isn't.
edit on R522016-01-08T14:52:04-06:00k521Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R542016-01-08T14:54:31-06:00k541Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Again, has it been proven that any of the TP's contained sensitive information?

You are correct, but only if that can be proven.

So far, that is not the case.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


You are dreaming.

You have an email from an account belonging to HRC that tells someone to remove the markings from a document that they are unable to send over a classified fax and send it over a unsecure fax.

Anyone who has worked with a secure fax machine knows how fickle they can be,,,I hated them. A secure fax will also send unsecure faxes, so they could have easily stripped the marking and sent it over the exact same fax machine, just not secure.

No one in their right mind would fight more than 5 minutes with an unruly secure fax if they could simply send it unsecure.

SOURCE: ME... 20+ Years TS/SCI, and I have worked on numerous secure fax machines,,, people hate them. It is still no excuse to bypass security measures.

Your dreaming if you think for one moment that the sender didn't know the information was classified which is why they were sending it on a secure fax. You can claim it was simply a menu from the chinese restaurant or whatever, but it doesn't hold water.


edit on R032016-01-08T15:03:03-06:00k031Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R042016-01-08T15:04:37-06:00k041Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I haven't been following the whole show and have only caught a few Trump stumps and it seems that the Donald is willing to throw anything including the rug into the ring so I hope to see this manifest in the only way he could . He is quick to point out some of the obvious to some and leaves the rest to dig into it further so it should make for at least a bit of entertainment .lol



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa


RickinVA thanks for the link,

Also in the Cornell link is section (f) & (g)

]Gathering, Losing or Transmitting Defense Information


(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—


I have highlighted the use of Abstracted and Abstraction in the above quotes for those attempting to say no law was broken by removing headers or creative editing etc. One is not allowed to abstract secure documents in an attempt to bypass security.


More importantly though is the conspiracy clause which negates content arguments by HRC defenders in this case as the email pertinent to the OP post is specific in its request for second party to conspire in getting around security of document transmission via secure fax. Slam dunk IMHO.


(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


There is only so much political cover available and it may be near an end when one hears rumors of FBI forcing the issue of indictment before the public eye.

One of the penalties for even misdemeanor violations of these laws is a prohibition on a person convicted holding any federal office - notwithstanding the more egregious felony counts which appear to be violated.


edit on 8-1-2016 by Phoenix because: missed ]



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: theySeeme

What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Honestly???

Anyone who has been granted a clearance whether current or prior (TS/SCI for 20+ years) knows very well that she has broken the laws when it comes to the handling of classified information.

Whether she is prosecuted or not remains to be seen. People keep quoting laws you and you keep right on asking for proof...

Please tell us all, how she did not violate sections of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.

For instance:

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter;


Is it because the law says "he" and since she isn't a he it doesn't apply to her?

I will be awaiting your answer.

Before you reply, please consider that as Secretary of State, the vast majority of any of her correspondence would be considered classified and vital to the defense of the US at some level.

I also love the excuse that it is nothing because other officials used a private email too... I will leave that with what I once heard a judge tell a man in traffic court,,,, his excuse was... "Your Honor, it wasn't fair because a lot of other people were speeding too and they didn't get pulled over"... to which the judge replied...."When you go fishing, do you catch every single fish in the lake? You, sir, got caught,,,pay the fine."


You didn't even quote the entire provision but you are trying to use it as a basis for your argument? These provisions are only effective if they are violated, she did not violate it - understand?




(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter;


She never obtained or disposed of image contrary to the provisions you failed to include in your quote. But nice try.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: theySeeme

What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Honestly???

Anyone who has been granted a clearance whether current or prior (TS/SCI for 20+ years) knows very well that she has broken the laws when it comes to the handling of classified information.

Whether she is prosecuted or not remains to be seen. People keep quoting laws you and you keep right on asking for proof...

Please tell us all, how she did not violate sections of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.

For instance:

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter;


Is it because the law says "he" and since she isn't a he it doesn't apply to her?

I will be awaiting your answer.

Before you reply, please consider that as Secretary of State, the vast majority of any of her correspondence would be considered classified and vital to the defense of the US at some level.

I also love the excuse that it is nothing because other officials used a private email too... I will leave that with what I once heard a judge tell a man in traffic court,,,, his excuse was... "Your Honor, it wasn't fair because a lot of other people were speeding too and they didn't get pulled over"... to which the judge replied...."When you go fishing, do you catch every single fish in the lake? You, sir, got caught,,,pay the fine."


You didn't even quote the entire provision but you are trying to use it as a basis for your argument? These provisions are only effective if they are violated, she did not violate it - understand?




(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter;


She never obtained or disposed of image contrary to the provisions you failed to include in your quote. But nice try.



No more debate. You are clearly delusional and seemed to be obsessed with focusing solely on single word/sentence to make your case.

Every single person who has or has had a security clearance knows that she has broken the law. I guarantee you right now that the FBI has enough evidence to press charges, it is only a matter of time at this point.
edit on R132016-01-08T15:13:24-06:00k131Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Well, was it classified or not? We can speculate all we want but if it was not secure information there is no problem asking someone to do what she asked them to do.

It doesn't matter how much we want her to be guilty of something, it takes evidence to do so. So finding her guilty of something we have very little information about is illogical and silly. It just makes you guys look like loons.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Well, was it classified or not? We can speculate all we want but if it was not secure information there is no problem asking someone to do what she asked them to do.

It doesn't matter how much we want her to be guilty of something, it takes evidence to do so. So finding her guilty of something we have very little information about is illogical and silly. It just makes you guys look like loons.


You just don't get do you?

The mere fact of asking them to remove the headers from the document is a crime, whether that document is deemed to be classified or not. It is a blatant attempt to bypass security regulations.
edit on R192016-01-08T15:19:27-06:00k191Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R202016-01-08T15:20:48-06:00k201Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Also wanted to ask: What sort of "talking points" were faxed? Was it the daily talking points outlining the topics covered at the daily press briefing?

If so, everything that was in that fax was covered by the media the next day.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Well, was it classified or not? We can speculate all we want but if it was not secure information there is no problem asking someone to do what she asked them to do.

It doesn't matter how much we want her to be guilty of something, it takes evidence to do so. So finding her guilty of something we have very little information about is illogical and silly. It just makes you guys look like loons.


You just don't get do you?

The mere fact of asking them to remove the headers from the document is a crime, whether that document is deemed to be classified or not. It is a blatant attempt to bypass security matters.


Ok, so the content of the fax is irrelevant. Glad that is settled. Now perhaps you have already covered this, but can you give me a link to the statute that covers this crime? I'd like to read it.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join