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.

 

Inspector General: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs

page: 12
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Said it once, will say it again..

These are not random leaks, but an effort by the intel community to make sure when she goes down, nobody can save her...


Watch and see.... the more the leaks start flowing, the sooner the recommendation for indictment will go to the AG... what happens after that is anybodies guess.

Tick Tock
Goes the investigation clock.




posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Indigo5

Put another way I5, if I snap a pic of something at area 51 and publish it and a public official with clearance comments upon it in unsecured media rather than the usual "no comment" that's a free pass for that official.

I guess I read something different in the pertinent laws.


From everything that was leaked. The email in question mentioned the sight of a Nuclear Test site in NK.

A sight that was already publicly known, publicly written about and literally indicated on Google Maps.

So the emailer that sent the email saying the North Koreans have been testing missiles at location X to Clinton could have either (1) Derived that information from TK Classified Satellite imagery or (2) Derived that information from Google Maps..



The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

"Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level," the official said. "The ICIG maintains its position that it's still 'codeword' classified."

edit on 25-1-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: IAMTAT

Said it once, will say it again..

These are not random leaks, but an effort by the intel community to make sure when she goes down, nobody can save her...




Oh...I agree they are orchestrated. But if we want to go all chess..The intel community also needs to consider that a Democrat could very well be in the White House in 12 months and they will have to account for their BS...even worse for them...potentially Clinton. The farther they assist the GOP..the more heads will roll.

We can revisit these posts in 12 months to see whose predictions are accurate.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

You know, I hate to tell you this.. but you are not really doing yourself or your argument any favors when you mention google maps and TK satellite imagery in the same discussion.

I have seen plenty of TK satellite imagery and there is no mistaking it what so ever. You're talking real time ultra high resolution satellite images vs cached low resolution images that are any where from months to years old. There simply is no comparison.


I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or are genuinely confused...but honestly, have stopped caring.

So..The letter the IG sent was clear that the intel that one agency decided to retroactively classify was potentially "derived" and specifically...did not include imagery...

So your above statement is really confusing or dishonest...or whatever...



As for the data derived, that would be the data that came from the intel analyst who reviewed the images. It would be easily discernible immediately to anyone who saw it. It would have referenced data markers from the imagery along with codes to tell you when and what satellite took the imagery. It's a real grasp to try and come up with any other answer.



No...what you are describing is an entirely different scenario from "derived"...that is direct classified data and that is not what the IG described.






I have seen plenty of TK satellite imagery


Having both friends and family both at the FBI and the intelligence communities...I am confused as to why yourself, as a self-described, retired FBI employee, would have need to regularly be authorized to examine TK classified satellite imagery of foreign countries? I have a real hard time imagining a scenario where your domestic investigation responsibilities would require understanding troop movements in Ukraine or Nuclear test sites in North Korea?

At this stage....I'll leave thread to your boasting...as we don't seem to be having an accurate or honest discussion...



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmaleI believe the FBI will recommend that charges be brought up against Hillary to the DOJ. However, there will not be any indictment. I do not believe the current admin will want to harm Hilliary's chances of getting into the White House.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

You know, I hate to tell you this.. but you are not really doing yourself or your argument any favors when you mention google maps and TK satellite imagery in the same discussion.

I have seen plenty of TK satellite imagery and there is no mistaking it what so ever. You're talking real time ultra high resolution satellite images vs cached low resolution images that are any where from months to years old. There simply is no comparison.


I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or are genuinely confused...but honestly, have stopped caring.

So..The letter the IG sent was clear that the intel that one agency decided to retroactively classify was potentially "derived" and specifically...did not include imagery...

So your above statement is really confusing or dishonest...or whatever...




"So your above statement is really confusing or dishonest...or whatever..."

Here is the letter again:

www.redstate.com... df

Please feel free to point out where it says "potentially" or "derived" for some reason I can't find it. It does say "classified up to TS/SI/TK/NOFORN.... and again TK only means one thing....either an image or information specifically derived from that image. I think your statement is really confusing and totally dishonest.

As for the data derived, that would be the data that came from the intel analyst who reviewed the images. It would be easily discernible immediately to anyone who saw it. It would have referenced data markers from the imagery along with codes to tell you when and what satellite took the imagery. It's a real grasp to try and come up with any other answer.



No...what you are describing is an entirely different scenario from "derived"...that is direct classified data and that is not what the IG described.






I have seen plenty of TK satellite imagery


Having both friends and family both at the FBI and the intelligence communities...I am confused as to why yourself, as a self-described, retired FBI employee, would have need to regularly be authorized to examine TK classified satellite imagery of foreign countries? I have a real hard time imagining a scenario where your domestic investigation responsibilities would require understanding troop movements in Ukraine or Nuclear test sites in North Korea?

At this stage....I'll leave thread to your boasting...as we don't seem to be having an accurate or honest discussion...


"So..The letter the IG sent was clear that the intel that one agency decided to retroactively classify was potentially "derived" and specifically...did not include imagery...

So your above statement is really confusing or dishonest...or whatever..."

TK satellite imagery is classified TS/TSI from the second the image was snapped. FACT

If her email contained TK derived information it was classified before she ever got it. FACT

To try and say either one of those two statements is false is nothing but a bold faced lie. FACT


"Having both friends and family both at the FBI and the intelligence communities...I am confused as to why yourself, as a self-described, retired FBI employee, would have need to regularly be authorized to examine TK classified satellite imagery of foreign countries? I have a real hard time imagining a scenario where your domestic investigation responsibilities would require understanding troop movements in Ukraine or Nuclear test sites in North Korea?"

Do you even read half these posts or do you just babble on like some kind of fool for the fun of it?

Lets break down your attempt to discredit me:

1. I have a real hard time imagining a scenario where your domestic investigation responsibilities would require understanding troop movements in Ukraine or Nuclear test sites in North Korea?"

Please feel free to go back over every single post I have ever made since I joined ATS on 3/11/2005 and find ONE single post where I claimed I was involved in any kind of domestic investigations or implied that I was ever an FBI agent. Please find just one. For your information, the vast majority of FBI employees are support employees who do a wide variety of functions...some are intel analysts for example. I won't tell you what my specific job was because frankly, it is none of your business. I do happen to know what I am talking about, which evidently you do not..which you continue to make clearer every single post you make.

You claim to have friends and family in the FBI.... yet you remain unaware that the FBI's primary focus was shifted to terrorism both domestic and foreign several years ago...strange

2. "as a self-described, retired FBI employee, would have need to regularly be authorized to examine TK classified satellite imagery of foreign countries?"

If you have bothered to read through some of these threads.. like oh I dunno maybe just one single page back in this current one... you would have read....

"because of my career, 18 years with the United States Army Information Systems Command and the last 7 with the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Look man....for over ten years I had direct access to nsa.net which is a TS/SCI network.... everybody at my job had the same exact access. We worked shift work... do you know what bored people do at 3am when there is no TV or radio and the only networks you have access to are classified networks? You surf them just like you do the regular internet. Even classified networks have search engines, some even use a modified version of google. For someone who claims to have friends in the intel community, you knowledge of even that appears to be severely lacking.


3. At this stage....I'll leave thread to your boasting...as we don't seem to be having an accurate or honest discussion...

"Having both friends and family both at the FBI and the intelligence communities"

Holy guacamole batman....you accuse me of boasting by starting off your accusation with boasting?

But unlike you... I wont leave the thread to your bs... I will call you out every time you post total BS nonsense like you just did.

Stop trying to discredit me and talk about the issues at hand...
edit on R132016-01-25T11:13:25-06:00k131Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
a reply to: mobiusmaleI believe the FBI will recommend that charges be brought up against Hillary to the DOJ. However, there will not be any indictment. I do not believe the current admin will want to harm Hilliary's chances of getting into the White House.



If it comes to pass that FBI recommends charges and DOJ refuses I wonder if Congress can appoint a special prosecutor who can convene a grand jury?



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

ATS wont let me edit the above so here:

""So..The letter the IG sent was clear that the intel that one agency decided to retroactively classify was potentially "derived" and specifically...did not include imagery...

So your above statement is really confusing or dishonest...or whatever..."

Here is the letter again:

www.redstate.com...


Please anybody.... read that letter and tell me where it says "potentially" or that it does not contain imagery... my reading comprehension must be bad because I can't find anything like that.... I do see where it says "classified up to TS//SI//TK//NOFORN.... last time I checked... TK only means one thing.... imagery or information derived from that imagery.

If it says up to.... that means it contained TK material.... it wouldn't be on there if it didn't.

Looks like your statement is the one that is really confusing or dishonest...or whatever...
edit on R252016-01-25T11:25:53-06:00k251Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R312016-01-25T11:31:29-06:00k311Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R442016-01-25T11:44:27-06:00k441Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R442016-01-25T11:44:53-06:00k441Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Your posts seem very emotional...Alas, I honestly think reality is going to disappoint you given that emotional investment..

As for the rest...



The Central Intelligence Agency is the agency that provided the declarations about the classified programs, another U.S. official familiar with the situation told POLITICO Wednesday.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.

www.politico.com...

BTW since it is CIA doing the FOIA classifications and redactions, then it is Martha Lutz...the woman who once retroactively classified how to dial a Rotary Phone in 2006..

www.emptywheel.net...

Good luck to you and how you are hoping this turns out..


edit on 25-1-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-1-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
This has devolved into nothing but derail, snark, and pointless filling of space with posts that do nothing.

Surely we can do better than that.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: intrptr

What she was doing was illegal as hell.
My guess why she used a private server in the first place was to accomplish exactly what happened, the server was hacked, so that the information could be shared by those she actually has loyalty for. And, in this way she can acclaim "I didn't give the information to "X", they stole it"

What information for instance does she make that claim about. Or is it just if…

Imo, she has always been secretive, not following procedure. Those are the worst kind.Theres only one reason for it, deception. To cover up.

"Use the private channel."



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



Imo, she has always been secretive, not following procedure. Those are the worst kind.Theres only one reason for it, deception. To cover up.

"Use the private channel."


There is another reason, arrogance. I do what I want when I want to because I am the exception to all the rules of man and gods.
edit on 1/25/2016 by pteridine because: quote



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
She decided somewhere along the line that there were no laws that would be applied, to stop her from selling classified info and American uranium, for 100's of millions. She also has no concept of this keeping her from being president, either. In her world, you get to be the prez, even while selling out the country to the highest bidder. Bubba and Al did it. Obama sides with our enemies and is loved by the left for it.

She and her husband have routinely lied right to congress' face with them knowing it full well, and no repercussions, so you can't actually blame her much for making these assumptions.

You could really blame the GOP even more, for deciding that a time-share with the dems is fine, and laws and the constitution, and character and beliefs, are just a nuisance to that.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

"Use the private channel."



Man from U.N.C.L.E. communicator ringtone

Open Channel "D" !!!!






posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

It must really suck being a Clinton and not having those, that can make or break you, in your back pocket.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Lol, Secret Agent Man, you given me a number and take away my name.

Elected politicians and appointed officials operate differently from the cloak and dagger crowd. They are in 'Public' office so have to be on up an up.

But not Hillary



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Megalomaniacal knows no bounds.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: mobiusmale

It must really suck being a Clinton and not having those, that can make or break you, in your back pocket.


Typically, these are the people who end up shooting themselves in the back of the head, twice.

Or accidentally being shot in the head WHILE their plane crashes.

That's what happened a lot in backwoods Arkansas. Maybe they can't do it quite as easily to congressmen, senators, and federal judges. That would be nice.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: intrptr

What she was doing was illegal as hell.
My guess why she used a private server in the first place was to accomplish exactly what happened, the server was hacked, so that the information could be shared by those she actually has loyalty for. And, in this way she can acclaim "I didn't give the information to "X", they stole it"

What information for instance does she make that claim about. Or is it just if…

Imo, she has always been secretive, not following procedure. Those are the worst kind.Theres only one reason for it, deception. To cover up.

"Use the private channel."
No that is my point. Part of her M.O. is ignorance, but so many others use it as well. Another excuse widely used is stupidity "Darn, guess Im just stupid". No, no way, not even buying it anymore. These defenses are not typical and must be taught, or directed. Heck, anyone ever consider what all these "Advisers" are actually doing? They are not elected but covertly manipulate governmental policy, and direction. Think about it......



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: intrptr

What she was doing was illegal as hell.
My guess why she used a private server in the first place was to accomplish exactly what happened, the server was hacked, so that the information could be shared by those she actually has loyalty for. And, in this way she can acclaim "I didn't give the information to "X", they stole it"

What information for instance does she make that claim about. Or is it just if…

Imo, she has always been secretive, not following procedure. Those are the worst kind.Theres only one reason for it, deception. To cover up.

"Use the private channel."
No that is my point. Part of her M.O. is ignorance, but so many others use it as well. Another excuse widely used is stupidity "Darn, guess Im just stupid".


"Wiped the server?...What, like with a rag or something?"




top topics



 
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join