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.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
John Kirby from state dept said the emails were not classified when they were sent. The only partisan reaction here are the Hillary haters.
www.cnn.com...
from the CNN article.....
"It's certainly possible that for any number of reasons, traffic can be sent that's not marked appropriately for its classification. That is certainly possible," Kirby said.
yup, especially when the Secretary of State is using a private system !!!
After that he said this:
But he added that he wasn't going to make any judgments about this particular case.
"All I can tell you definitively is it wasn't marked classified at the time it was sent," Kirby said.
originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
Yep, and that does not refute anything I've said. The same guy also says they determined the new,y classified emails were not classified at the time they were sent.
Person A: Sends TK related email to Person B on 1 Jan 2014
Person B: Strips off the classification header and sends email to Hillary on the unclass system on 2 Jan 2014
Guess what? None of that matters in the least, from a security stand point, that email was classified when it was originally sent on 01 Jan 2014
I can't explain to you any other way than using the fictional example above.
originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
Anyone saying they know what is in the emails is lying.
We don't know yet.
They weren't classified at the time they were sent.
No evidence yet any law was broken.
The only purpose this discussion serves is to hilite who the Hillary haters are.
Man your head must be really thick.... you have a letter from the IG stating that emails were Top Secret//SI//TK//NOFORN and you again state no one knows what was in the emails.... we do know for a FACT that some of the emails contained TK information... TK information is classified Top Secret from birth... it was classified Top Secret before it ever landed on Hillarys server.
Your just talking to hear your self talk. You're not doing yourself any favors in the credibility department.
Show me a link to the IG ITSELF, not some right wing blog. News sources are claiming the emails were classified long AFTER they were sent.
www.vox.com...
Look man... I already told you that ATS will not link the senate PDF... just google "IG letter 11 August 2015".. the senate website with the PDF will be listed.... if you do not know how to google something, I can't help you.
And while you are at it, google talent keyhole and learn that stuff is classified from birth.... do some research.
I worked in classified environments. Not everything is classified at birth. Many news sources are saying these emails were classified recently, not before they were sent.
Disprove it.... you can't because neither you or I know what was in that specific email other than it contained TK information.
This means it was classified before it ever wound up on Hillary's server... FACT
originally posted by: xuenchen
That's because they didn't know about most of them.
originally posted by: SkyNetBeware
Though the haters here weren't savvy enough to find a credible link to the IG letter, I did find some references to it in credible news stories. However, there were other state dept officials who were on record disagreeing with the IG conclusions.
Do you understand that at least 1 email was classified as containing TK information?
Do you understand what the Talent Keyhole designation means?
Do you understand that Talent Keyhole information is considered classified from birth?
Do you understand that the IG's classification officials deemed it to be TK information?
Do you understand that makes the information classified before it got to Hillarys server?
Do you understand that makes the information classified before it got to Hillarys server?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa
How can a case for gross negligence be made if the information was not properly marked when transmitted and she did not originate the communication?
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 12356, 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(c) and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security.
(2) Scope of "classified information" As used in the SF 312, the SF 189, and the SF 189-A, "classified information" is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination, as provided in Section 1.1(c) and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356 or any other or Executive order that requires interim protection for certain information while a classification determination is pending. "Classified information" does not include unclassified information that may be subject to possible classification at some future date, but is not currently in the process of a classification determination.
(3) Basis for liability. A party to the SF 312, SF 189, or SF 189-A may be liable for disclosing "classified information" only if he or she knows or reasonably should know that: (i) the marked or unmarked information is classified, or meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination; and (ii) his or her action will result, or reasonably could result in the unauthorized disclosure of that information. In no instance may a party to the SF 312, SF 189 or SF 189-A be liable for violating its nondisclosure provisions by disclosing information when, at the time of the disclosure, there is no basis to suggest, other than pure speculation, that the information is classified or in the process of a classification determination.
originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: burntheships
I'd love an explanation of how she's any different from Richard Nixon? Frankly, there's more than a little similarity between the two.