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.

 

Hillary Clinton and her use of a personal email server…. Let’s talk security issues.

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



For the last time...... the only thing you will accept as proof that a classified document was on her server is for someone to post that classified document as proof. That is not going to happen.


Again, all we need is for the investigators or officials to state that there were emails knowingly transmitted that were classified or top secret. I don't have to see the document itself.

Your assertion is absolutely ridiculous.



You do not like the media


I haven't said that. Again, are you pulling this out of some random hat or your backside? Either way it's an assumption.



I am of the mind set, as are most rational people


That's a logical fallacy. Your debate skills are lacking.



that it would impossible to serve as the Secretary of State without using classified information.


Then let's see a press release where it has been confirmed that classified or top secret information was knowingly transmitted, and not classified after the fact because of the investigation.

If you cannot prove that, your ENTIRE argument is nothing but speculation. Every single one of the 10 points in your OP is reliant upon proof of that one act.

Can you prove it or not?
edit on 10-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I came across this today, anyone know if it is legit?


Hillary Caught Illegally Declassifying Documents. It’s a Felony!


The State Department just released an email showing Hillary Clinton instructing a subordinate to remove the classification heading from a document and insecurely send it to her private email account

conservative-daily.com... hillary-caught-illegally-declassifying-documents-its-a-felony/
It will not direct link to the article but look and it is at the linked site.

Here is the supposed document obtained by FOIA

foia.state.gov...
Again I cant link directly to the document but I did my own search at the foia.state.gov website and found the document there.
In the search criteria enter the document case number F-2014-20439, then document date of 06/17/2011 and release date of 01/07/16. It is there for all to see.

Anyone heard of this? Seems pretty damning if legit.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

www.nytimes.com...


But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.



Doesn't count though right? Because it is the NY Times?

edit on R412016-01-10T14:41:44-06:00k411Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Yes, already been covered in another thread. The talking points were still sent via secure fax and never sent to her email address.

Non-story.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64


It would depend on what she meant by heading.... a heading doesn't always equate to a security marking.

But it must be noted the sender was trying to send it secure originally. That also is not proof that it was classified, but no one in their right mind would send material over a secure fax. They are a pain in the rear to operate sometimes.
edit on R452016-01-10T14:45:39-06:00k451Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Discussed in depth HERE:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

From your source:


The two investigators did not say whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails. If she received them, it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified. The inspectors general did not address whether they believed Mrs. Clinton should have known such information was not appropriate for her personal email.


Back to square one. Where is your proof? We can speculate and discuss what may come down the road, but to speak in absolutes is illogical and unproductive.
edit on 10-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

From your source:


The two investigators did not say whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails. If she received them, it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified. The inspectors general did not address whether they believed Mrs. Clinton should have known such information was not appropriate for her personal email.


Back to square one. Where is your proof. We can speculate and discuss what may come down the road, but to speak in absolutes is illogical and unproductive.


Whether a person is aware or not if something is classified, is not always grounds for whether they can be charged under specific laws. Research it.
edit on R492016-01-10T14:49:45-06:00k491Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

From your source:


The two investigators did not say whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received the emails. If she received them, it is not clear that she would have known that they contained government secrets, since they were not marked classified. The inspectors general did not address whether they believed Mrs. Clinton should have known such information was not appropriate for her personal email.


Back to square one. Where is your proof. We can speculate and discuss what may come down the road, but to speak in absolutes is illogical and unproductive.


Whether a person is aware or not if something is classified, is not always grounds for whether they can be charged under specific laws. Research it.


Is it or is it not? You're trying to prove something here. Maybe or "not always" does not justify your 10 points in the OP.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I think some of the "released" versions may be tainted.

Imagine the international crisis if they actually exposed a spy ring that Hillary knew about.

All these email releases are 100% damage control.

The super top secret ones are only visible to a few people.




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing 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— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


Break it down:

"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."

Being Secretary of State, Hillary had a clearance and by definition was entrusted with classified information. This applies to ANYONE who possesses a security clearance.

"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"

Having classified information in emails on an unclassified email server, is the very definition gross negligence.

"removed from its proper place of custody"

Having classified information on an unclassified server is by definition removing from its proper place of custody.

Whether the person involved knew that information was classified or not doesn't matter in order to be charged. I am sure that would come into play when determining punishment... but it won't get you out of punishment.... like they say... ignorance of the law is no excuse.

You do not have to prove intent, only that the above conditions have been met.

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." I think that is pretty clear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the above statue, and by the statement of two Inspector Generals that information was classified when it was sent, almost insures that she can be charged under this statue. It would most likely be downgraded to a misdemeanor, it would and should be devastating to her candidacy.

www.nytimes.com...


But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.


edit on R192016-01-10T15:19:52-06:00k191Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R202016-01-10T15:20:50-06:00k201Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R222016-01-10T15:22:27-06:00k221Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R232016-01-10T15:23:21-06:00k231Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R232016-01-10T15:23:41-06:00k231Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R332016-01-10T15:33:15-06:00k331Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R162016-01-10T16:16:45-06:00k161Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R172016-01-10T16:17:18-06:00k171Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R192016-01-10T16:19:16-06:00k191Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R192016-01-10T16:19:38-06:00k191Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: stosh64

Discussed in depth HERE:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thanks, I missed that thread.


2nd.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

One more thought about the referenced post above:

"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"

Gross negligence relating to matters of criminal prosecution under 8 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information is often used against the attempted defense of " I didn't know XXX was classified or I was not aware that XXX was classified." It is assumed that by the very nature of having a clearance and signing the appropriate paperwork that one is aware of what is classified and the proper handling procedures. It can also be used in cases of improper handling of classified information where there is no clear cut case on criminal intent.

Many cases where gross negligence is the mitigation factor do not result in criminal charges,,, the person is stripped of any clearance and either resigns or is fired.

Hopefully this information that I have tried to put forth and explain at basic levels will help at least one person understand why there is so much concern about the server in question. That makes it worth my effort.





edit on R292016-01-10T23:29:20-06:00k291Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R292016-01-10T23:29:43-06:00k291Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R302016-01-10T23:30:37-06:00k301Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R312016-01-10T23:31:48-06:00k311Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R322016-01-10T23:32:43-06:00k321Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R342016-01-10T23:34:35-06:00k341Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R362016-01-10T23:36:08-06:00k361Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R392016-01-10T23:39:01-06:00k391Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R432016-01-10T23:43:33-06:00k431Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
My only comment on Hillary's emails

I'd bet if you researched others in Washington, to this extent, you'd find similar email behavior.


I suspect you are right, however that is not really the point. Just because someone else breaks the law it does not mean that its ok to do it. If charged and found guilty then prison is the only correct outcome for Hillary Clinton. That would be fair given others have been and are in jail for breaking security protocols.

My major doubt that Clinton is guilty stems from the fact she is still running for President so close to the primary process. She obvioulsy feels that this is not going to hurt her later on or she would already have stepped down, because if she is indicted during the presidential run it is going to destroy the Democratic party's chances in the election. The party will surely be all over this also and if they thought that it was a major problem I am sure they would have forced her to step down.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join