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: 6
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: BobbyMachiavelli69
I always find the need to remind people that the Clintons left office only 15 years ago but accumulated a life time of dirt on their friends and enemies. Mrs. Clinton will never pay one dime for any crime she has committed and if anyone is stupid enough to bet against her in this race, as far as the primary goes, she'll win the left because Biden looks like a no show. You can bet that once this story gets wadded up by Loretta Lynch and thrown in the trash can maybe everyone will realize just how dangerous this woman and man are.



I remember that Obama only won, in 2008, because Hillary kept her name on the Michigan ballot while he voluntarily removed his -- despite the fact that she won the popular vote.

There's very good reason to wonder if Hillary is a planted candidate and if the Establishment is really backing Bernie because he is presenting the biggest spending plan.

That doesn't make me stupid.

If you don't think that everything we see is completely scripted to produce a certain result...then I would argue that is stupid.


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




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Chickensalad



The problem is, that no matter what evidence is brought forth, it gets dismissed for no other reason than the fact that some don't like it.


Sure. And if no evidence is found some will dismiss it because they don't like it.

I like to deal with facts and evidence. Until that is presented, this sort of garbage is a waste of time.


I'm having a hard time understanding how you think an email record isn't evidence. Your political bias is showing.


It is evidence, but you have to be able to prove a crime was committed. Why can't they prove this as easily as some would like?

Perhaps there is no evidence?



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: theySeeme
the reason is because she tranmitted topsevert material on a non secure server and they have been issues with them and china in the past. why have so much foriegn money made its way into the clinton foundation ? alot of people think it is because of some mischief she did while secretary of state.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Chickensalad



The problem is, that no matter what evidence is brought forth, it gets dismissed for no other reason than the fact that some don't like it.


Sure. And if no evidence is found some will dismiss it because they don't like it.

I like to deal with facts and evidence. Until that is presented, this sort of garbage is a waste of time.


I'm having a hard time understanding how you think an email record isn't evidence. Your political bias is showing.


It is evidence, but you have to be able to prove a crime was committed. Why can't they prove this as easily as some would like?

Perhaps there is no evidence?


For the last time, it's evidence. They are in the middle of TRYING to prove a crime was committed. When you are HRC that is difficult to do against because hey, "she's to big to bring down".



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Chickensalad



The problem is, that no matter what evidence is brought forth, it gets dismissed for no other reason than the fact that some don't like it.


Sure. And if no evidence is found some will dismiss it because they don't like it.

I like to deal with facts and evidence. Until that is presented, this sort of garbage is a waste of time.


I'm having a hard time understanding how you think an email record isn't evidence. Your political bias is showing.


It is evidence, but you have to be able to prove a crime was committed. Why can't they prove this as easily as some would like?

Perhaps there is no evidence?


For the last time, it's evidence. They are in the middle of TRYING to prove a crime was committed. When you are HRC that is difficult to do against because hey, "she's to big to bring down".


No they are not. I've had to say this many times today: This is not a criminal investigation!

They are looking for procedural issues within security. Even that has proven very little, if anything.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Chickensalad



The problem is, that no matter what evidence is brought forth, it gets dismissed for no other reason than the fact that some don't like it.


Sure. And if no evidence is found some will dismiss it because they don't like it.

I like to deal with facts and evidence. Until that is presented, this sort of garbage is a waste of time.


I'm having a hard time understanding how you think an email record isn't evidence. Your political bias is showing.


It is evidence, but you have to be able to prove a crime was committed. Why can't they prove this as easily as some would like?

Perhaps there is no evidence?


For the last time, it's evidence. They are in the middle of TRYING to prove a crime was committed. When you are HRC that is difficult to do against because hey, "she's to big to bring down".


No they are not. I've had to say this many times today: This is not a criminal investigation!

They are looking for procedural issues within security. Even that has proven very little, if anything.


Why can't you understand that procedural issues relating to security matters can very well result in criminal charges?

Almost everyone involved in these kinds of matters who end up being charged are always preceded by a security investigation? They don't just charge people right off the bat,,, they always do an investigation prior,,, when warranted, charges will always follow.

There is more than enough already for some charges,,, at this point they are likely deciding on how severe the charges will be.. That will unfortunately be influenced by the political process, that is the nature of the beast.

You can not state that it is not a criminal investigation at this point, only that it did not start out as one. You will not know when it has turned criminal, not until they are ready to file charges.

I suspect that it is taking a bit longer to get to the bottom of the rabbit hole... Hillary has already put forth that other people had access to her email account.... right now they are trying to figure out who did what and when.

It is that simple.
edit on R542016-01-08T22:54:43-06:00k541Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R552016-01-08T22:55:24-06:00k551Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

If this is not enough to put that brainless twitter on an express to jail, then what... It is totally appalling how General Petraeus was treated for FAR MINOR offences, and publicly humiliated, ousted and careerwise destroyed by this gang of goones which now, are attempting just calmly shrugging off any liability for actions FAR FAR WORSE.

My brain is totally cooking on this one, and oh boy will I vote for Trump to get this sorted out, and to restore honor of one of the best strategists, general Petraeus back in the game. And send Hillary to ISIS as a gesture for peace, love and understanding.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I think I understand your line of thinking. Pretty similar to Bill Clinton's logic I think, when he said,"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true." a reply to: introvert



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I'm dubious,

if a document or email has a classification that will get blocked being sent outside its permitted network, if you change that classification to a lower setting, it will still get blocked, as the original classification will be in the metadata,

I have setup such systems, and have first hand knowledge, if this has been allowed to happen, then whoever set this up, is an idiot

Peace!
edit on 9/1/16 by Phatdamage because: I'm BATMAN



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: IAMTAT

There are so many smoking guns around that wretched woman that you could consider it an arsenal.


More smoking guns than ww2.

There's so much smoke surrounding her It's like watching a Cheech and Chong movie... except she's the only one laughing.

And that's not even counting all the actual smoking guns from all the people who've been murdered because of her, whether on her watch, on her direct command, due to her incompetence, or just from the pure evil that radiates from her into the surrounding atmosphere that seeps into the souls of passerby, giving them the sudden inescapable urge to kill... themselves if necessary... just as long as something dies, only then can the evil subside temporarily, having done its job.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Someone asked what laws have been violated by the use of a personal email server. Again, it is not the use of a personal email server, it is the unauthorized storage of classified material upon that personal server, as well as the attempt to keep control over official government documents.

Taken from the comment section on CBS news, I wanted to share this with you in order to clarify what laws have been broken:


1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor’s charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years. The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and an accused person has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 may be “pled-down” to a single or to multiple misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. A misdemeanor conviction would probably result in a period of probation and a less significant fine. The prohibited conduct is the unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or its retention in an unauthorized location. The mens rearequired is the intent to remove from government control or the intent to store the classified information in an unauthorized location.

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally To sustain a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b), a federal prosecutor need only prove that the accused transferred and held the only copies of official government records (whether classified or not), the very existence of which was concealed from government records custodians. The mens rea required is that an accused knows that official government records were transferred or removed from the control of government records custodians. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) is a felony with a maximum prison term of three years.

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records Again, if the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years.

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States 18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television 18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense If any accused and any third party can be proven to have colluded in any violation of federal, criminal law, then all involved can be charged with criminal conspiracy as well as being charged with the underlying offense. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States


Food for thought and an excellent example of what laws were broken and why they were deemed to be broken.
edit on R142016-01-09T10:14:54-06:00k141Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R152016-01-09T10:15:59-06:00k151Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Wouldn't it be nice to hear just one MSM reporter ask her about this?

I won't hold my breath.


I am with you on this one... all I want to see is someone ask her on live TV one single question:

Did you or did you not direct a government employee to remove classification markings from a government document in order to avoid sending it over a secure fax?


I really really want to see someone ask her that one simple question.
edit on R272016-01-09T12:27:08-06:00k271Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
This story is really starting to bubble up. Bernie Sanders is starting to surge in New Hampshire and even Nevada is softening up. If this is happening Hillary should step down and support Sanders.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Moors
This story is really starting to bubble up. Bernie Sanders is starting to surge in New Hampshire and even Nevada is softening up. If this is happening Hillary should step down and support Sanders.


Not gonna happen. Sanders'll have to pry her nominee crown from her cold dead hand.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Ah, this is supposedly what the FBI was tracking back in August,
according to this from the New York Times.

www.nytimes.com...

Appears that someone is carefully orchestrating the timing of release
of certain emails, one of Killarys buddies still working at the State Dept?
Hmmm...



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
She's guilty of multiple felonies but don't be shocked if Obama lets her off.Why? Because she's the one, that if elected will continue his destructive policies.He's not going to just roll over and let Trump undo his legacy.If he prosecutes Shillary then watch for a state of emergency to be declared in order o thwart the election and send congress home.Hail king obama.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Illuminating, just up from a security expert and former
National Security Agency analyst
and counterintelligence officer:

"This appears to be a clear violation of Federal law
and the sort of thing that is a career-ender, or worse, for normals"
John Schindler

Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear


NSA is aflutter this weekend over this strange matter. One Agency official expressed to me “at least 90 percent confidence” that Blumenthal’s June 8 report was derived from NSA reports, and the Agency ought to be investigating the matter right now








edit on 9-1-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: IAMTAT

Illuminating, just up from a security expert and former
National Security Agency analyst
and counterintelligence officer:

"This appears to be a clear violation of Federal law
and the sort of thing that is a career-ender, or worse, for normals"
John Schindler

Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear


NSA is aflutter this weekend over this strange matter. One Agency official expressed to me “at least 90 percent confidence” that Blumenthal’s June 8 report was derived from NSA reports, and the Agency ought to be investigating the matter right now









I was just reading it on Drudge.
THIS is nothing BUT 'Top Secret' , by anyone's standards.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Double MINT.
I suppose we may have MINT pudding, only time will tell.



ETA: INTeresting, between the lines.
It will be a very revealing year, either way it goes down.

May Good prevail.



edit on 9-1-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
She is on Face the Nation and said the State Department said the fax was never sent. That it is just people trying to dig up something, anything ......



new topics




 
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join