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.

 

U.S. declares 22 Clinton emails 'top secret'

page: 10
32
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct.

If it is that simple and clear-cut, why haven't charges been filed?



No idea, other than they are not finished with the investigation. There are multitudes of people involved, tons of classified information to go over, they will do things like go to the originating person of each email and get a deposition from that person stating that the email was classified when they originated it, etc...

It appears that there was quite a bit of moving material from a top secret network to a lower class network and they want to make sure they get every single person involved.

A lot of people try to make the case that it is taking so long because they can't find anything to pin on Hillary, or it may be the exact opposite,, they have so much it's taking a long time to go through everything.

The longer the investigation goes, the worse it will be for Hillary... if it was all just a silly little simple mistake... this would have been closed months ago.

It really makes it much easier to understand why people who have or had a clearance are upset about this:

I strongly encourage everyone to read:

www.archives.gov...

It really lays everything out about the duties and responsibilities of handling classified information such as:


Question 2: What is the purpose of the SF 312?

Answer: The primary purpose of the SF 312 is to inform employees of (a) the trust that is placed in them by providing them access to classified information; (b) their responsibilities to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure; and (c) the consequences that may result from their failure to meet those responsibilities. Secondly, by establishing the nature of that trust, those responsibilities, and those consequences in the context of a contractual agreement, if that trust is violated, the United States will be in a better position to prevent an unauthorized disclosure or to discipline an employee responsible for such a disclosure by initiating a civil or administrative action.

edit on R182016-01-30T23:18:22-06:00k181Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R182016-01-30T23:18:53-06:00k181Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



(post by burgerbuddy removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

For the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct.

If it is that simple and clear-cut, why haven't charges been filed?



There's 100's of people involved.

Many are not government employees either.

And some are high ranking officials.

An investigation of this magnitude takes a long time.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
Of course it did.


Aha, yet Mr "Earnest" claims he has had words with the DOJ,
and even though Mr "Earnest" holds no clearance supposedly
he has been briefed.

Too bad its the middle of winter, someones garden could
use a load of bandini about now.


edit on 30-1-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I would like to take a moment to reflect and regroup.

I would also like to apologize to those that I may have offended, it wasn't done on purpose.

I am very passionate about the Hillary email issue and I too often tend to forget that most people do not have the back ground that I have and they just simply don't truly understand the under lying issues with her email server.

The last few posts I have made took an obvious turn in my demeanor, once I got in the mode of trying to explain things without an emotional attachment, it got easier and easier to try and get my point across.

I hope that any one who honestly sets aside any political leanings and just starts to examine everything from a purely security standpoint, that they can begin to understand that something is deeply wrong with what is going on... the 22 Top Secret emails announced should give even the hardest of the hard core Hillary supporters a reason to take a step back and look at what is the bigger issue, which just keeps getting worse with every email release by the State Department. And they still have even more that they haven't released... imagine what it is going to be like when they finally release what they can of the final emails.... most likely there will be more that are classified at the Top Secret level.

For me it is truly not a political issue.... it is about all the people, civilian and enlisted who have been demoted, stripped of their clearance and/or lost their jobs or been prosecuted for what pales in comparison to what we have seen so far.

I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg, and when this blows wide open, it will be a huge huge scandal involving multitudes of people... just the scope of how many emails are classified means that there has to be a fairly significant amount of people involved, not just Hillary herself.

I will keep trying to educate, hopefully in a more tactful way, those that do not have a back ground in security matters in the hopes that they can see past partisanship and see what lies beyond.

Had to vent... thanks


edit on R042016-01-31T02:04:12-06:00k041Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)


(post by SkyNetBeware removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
Hillary broke no law that we know of, and no evidence she knowingly sent sensitive emails to anyone who wasn't cleared to see them.

Yet you somehow can sit here and claim the doors will be blown off on a major scandal.

You're just wishing and making crap.


I guess you are working for her camp because she has broken several laws and the rest of us but two maybe three on here see that you are the one way out in left field sticking your hands in your ears going "Na na na na, I don't see it" when it is right in front of you.


And i have been saying the Bushes are a crime family for a while on ATS. We need to get them all cleaned out of Governing our land and start with new people who aren't beholden to someone besides the people who elected them.
edit on 31-1-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Jan 31 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: snipped quote



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware

Hillary broke no law that we know of, and no evidence she knowingly sent sensitive emails to anyone who wasn't cleared to see them.



Except maybe for many like this one:

Hillary email / Sid B




From: H hrod17@clintonemail.com
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:03 AM
To: sullivanjj@state.gov
Subject: Fw: H: some intel on internal german/euro maneuvering. Sid
Attachments: hrc_memo_internal_german_euro_politics_062712.docx

More on the Eurozone crisis.

From: sbwhoeop [mailto:sbwhoeop
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:00 AM
To: H
Subject: H: some Intel on internal german/euro maneuvering. Sid

the entire body of the email is censored !!

Blumenthal isn't a government employee, and he was barred by the White House from working at the State Dept after Hillary took over.

He is a heavy weight with the Clinton Foundation.

Doubt he has "clearance".

4 Times Sidney Blumenthal Was More Than Just ‘A Friend’ To Hillary Clinton



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Blumenthal?

Go away.

I'm listening to the state department. You're relying on conspiracy theorists.


edit on Sun Jan 31 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: Quote Crash Course


(post by SkyNetBeware removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkyNetBeware

Blumenthal?

Go away.

I'm listening to the state department. You're relying on conspiracy theorists.



The State Department did the censoring.




posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Standard Form 312: CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

www.archives.gov...

Pertinent parts as related to this thread:


1. 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.


Important parts of the above section as related to this thread:

1. Intending to be legally bound

2. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information


3. 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.


Important parts of the above section as related to this thread:

1. 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

2. 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


4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b], title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.


Important parts of the above section as related to this thread:

1. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold

2. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.


7. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have, or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or that provided me access to classified information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of sections 793 and/or 1924, title 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.


Important parts of the above section as related to this thread:

1. I understand that all classified information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement is now and will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government

2. I agree that I shall return all classified materials which have, or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency

Debrief statement:


I reaffirm that the provisions of the espionage laws, other federal criminal laws and executive orders applicable to the safeguarding of classified information have been made available to me; that I have returned all classified information in my custody; that I will not communicate or transmit classified information to any unauthorized person or organization; that I will promptly report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation any attempt by an unauthorized person to solicit classified information, and that I (have) (have not) (strike out inappropriate word or words) received a security debriefing.


Straight from the horses mouth... deny ignorance.
edit on R222016-01-31T12:22:24-06:00k221Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R232016-01-31T12:23:48-06:00k231Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
Standard Form 312: CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT



I will bet anyone lunch she never signed one...



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: RickinVa
Standard Form 312: CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT



I will bet anyone lunch she never signed one...


The State Dept hasn't said whether she did or not.

I doubt that it really matters in the long run, but you also have to look at it as a double edged sword...

All government employees are required by law to sign a SF 312 to be authorized access to classified information...

" I never signed a SF 312, so I wasn't aware of any of the rules about classified information,, silly me...oopsy!!"

I think if you really want to press the flip side of her not having a signed SF 312, then the argument could be made that she was never legally authorized to have any classified material while serving as SoS, so every single instance of her being around or having classified material could technically result in a charge of unauthorized access to classified information.

It's a very slippery slope and nothing but a game of words...

If she signed a SF 312.... she is screwed.

If she didn't sign a SF 312.... she is screwed.

I still don't see any way out at this point.


edit on R582016-01-31T13:58:40-06:00k581Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R002016-01-31T14:00:22-06:00k001Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R012016-01-31T14:01:58-06:00k011Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R042016-01-31T14:04:08-06:00k041Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R182016-01-31T14:18:57-06:00k181Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

It's a very slippery slope and nothing but a game of words...

If she signed a SF 312.... she is screwed.

If she didn't sign a SF 312.... she is screwed.

I still don't see any way out at this point.



Not really, the President can override all of it. As example, Bill Clinton had a number of people in his staff who could not qualify for a clearance normally, but they all got the clearance with the stroke of his pen. The only game we are playing right now is whether the public will vote for her or not, and hopefully this builds to the point that she loses all public trust, nothing else would come of it because Obama has the power to just wave all her wrong doings away.

It is pretty bad when the conservative starts to root for the old socialist, that got to say something about her...lol


edit on 31-1-2016 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Headline: Corruption in US Government, Sky Blue



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
What people don't realize is that top secret and above can only be transmitted on JWICS of which there are only about 150 fixed sites. Secret and below is SIPRNET.

If the data is SAP level, if it comes off a JWICS machine, someone goes to jail. Doesn't have the word "CLASSIFIED" on any of the documents because it has SECRET, or TOP SECRET stamped all over it, every page, top and bottom. To use the semantics that the "documents were not marked classified" is for the stupid or ignorant people to digest. None of them ever are.

As you know JWICS and SIPRNET are air gapped, just as is SIPRNET and other DOD or civilian internet. To get data from JWICS to unsecure required extraordinary espionage. If you insert a removable device of any sort in any .MIL machine, ADMIN flags go flying and a security detail with weapons is instantly dispatched to that location. That machine is automatically locked down instantly. Can you imagine putting a removable device into a SIPRNET or JWICS machine? I'd be surprised if you aren't instantly shot.

The Rosenbergs were executed for far less. I hope the "I got a pen and a phone" doesn't pull a scorched Earth on us.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I read through all 8 pages of posts that I missed. Glad I missed them in real time as it seems several individuals were blatantly trolling just to get people riled up.

The "rumor" is that many people in the FBI are calling for charges to be filed and if the AG refuses, then they will go public. Of course there are people who are going to say this is politically motivated. That would be said about ANY politician, and especially so about one as incendiary as HRC. That doesn't make the allegations true or false, but given the seriousness of the charges I think it serves everyone's interests to have this matter openly tried. If she is innocent, it is her chance for vindication.... If not, it will become very obvious. And I believe there are ways to mask the classified material and systems from the public while preserving the argument on their legality or lack of.

However, at a minimum, if she said she turned over all State related emails at the end of her tenure and there are emails found (deleted or otherwise) on her server that were NOT turned over, then she lied and should be prosecuted for that alone.

Personally I think she will let a scapegoat take the fall,depending on when charges are filed (before or after the election)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I will bet anyone lunch she never signed one...


She did sign one.

Actual copy here:

cei.org...

www.foxnews.com...

If she is let off the hook, what about the thousands upon thousands of
people who did sign a NDA? Should justice be applied fairly?



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Are we seriously suggesting that our politicians are going to be held to the law, the way the rest of us would be?

I am less worried about Clinton, and more concerned with people who are still shocked by this sort of thing... this is a pattern that exists. This is normal.
edit on 31-1-2016 by misterz because: typo




top topics



 
32
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join