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: 9
32
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

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.


Thank you!




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

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.


True.

Because nobody in the security teams knew about them until long after the fact.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



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


Now you are obfuscating the issue. When did the stripping of classification headers come in to this discussion about the TK level email?

I understand this is a hypothetical, but now you not only have to prove that it was classified information sent from the beginning, but you also have to prove the headers were stripped before being sent to Hillary.

Good luck.



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


Prove it.



I can't explain to you any other way than using the fictional example above.


That's what I feared.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

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.


No you didn't



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Should have waited until my edit came through before you replied....

You can't see the forest for the trees.


Back to square one we go:

At least 1 email was classified Top Secret//SI//TK//NOFORN. This means it was classified before it ever wound up on Hillary's server... FACT

Disprove it.... you can't because neither you or I know what was in that specific email other than it contained TK information. All I or any reasonable person needs to know is that it contained some sort of TK information, hence the reason it was classified.

I tried my nicest and politest way I know how to explain to you that just because something is retroactively classified on a certain date, doesn't mean it wasn't classified on a date prior to the retroactive classification date. All that tells me is that the email didn't contain any classification headers. Ask anybody who has been in the IC.

Knock your self out.... the dog chases its tail again and again.



edit on R212016-01-30T21:21:17-06:00k211Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R222016-01-30T21:22:18-06:00k221Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R242016-01-30T21:24:29-06:00k241Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R262016-01-30T21:26:18-06:00k261Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Disprove it.... you can't because neither you or I know what was in that specific email other than it contained TK information.


Exactly. That's what I've been saying. We don't know squat.



This means it was classified before it ever wound up on Hillary's server... FACT


Yes, it does appear we are chasing tales because you have made this claim many times, yet cannot prove it. When I ask for proof you tell me I am wrong and make the same assertion again...and again.

You made the claim and the burden of proof is on you. Asking me to disprove a negative is, while actually possible depending on the circumstances, a logical fallacy.

So let's stop chasing our tales and just show I am wrong by proving it was classified before it was sent to Hillary.

According to the quote I provided in a previous post, that does not appear to be accurate.
edit on 30-1-2016 by introvert because: removed 'is'



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

What burden of proof do you need dear sir?

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 information retroactively classified by one agency may have been deemed already classified at a prior date by another agency?

Do you understand what gross negligence is in the handling of classified information?

How can I help you find your way through your confusion? Help me help you...


edit on R372016-01-30T21:37:30-06:00k371Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

That's because they didn't know about most of them.



I do not know why he can not understand that...lol geez. The State Department is part of the problem in if there is any political aspects to this it is in their statements. If she is sending information to a open server that should be classified and wasn't to finally be classified once found is that not wrong?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

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.



Why do you attack posters like you are 12?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

What's happening here is some people are not understanding what "classified" means in some contexts.

They automatically are assuming an -email wasn't "classified"- to mean it was not ranked as a top secret level and therefore cleared.

It actually means it wasn't ranked to begin with because they never knew the email existed.

Hard to figure sometimes.

Hillary did not release all the communications until after she left the department.

But she still had physical possession of her computer system.

The whole thing got exposed when Congress was asking for communications relating to Benghazi.

Then they found out many of those emails were not in the possession of the State Department.

Big Boondoggle.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Do you understand that at least 1 email was classified as containing TK information?


Yes.



Do you understand what the Talent Keyhole designation means?


Yes.



Do you understand that Talent Keyhole information is considered classified from birth?


No. I'm sure the actual imagery and such is, but does a TK classification also include correspondence containing certain terms or phrases? Has the TK classification never been used retroactively?



Do you understand that the IG's classification officials deemed it to be TK information?


Yes. Was it classified at the time?



Do you understand that makes the information classified before it got to Hillarys server?


No. Retroactive classification does not indicate it was classified at the time of transmission.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Nice pick and choose... answer the others as well.

Do you understand that Talent Keyhole Information is considered classified from birth?

"No. I'm sure the actual imagery and such is, but does a TK classification also include correspondence containing certain terms or phrases? Has the TK classification never been used retroactively?"

When a picture is snapped via TK methods, that imagery is considered classified Top Secret from the instant it is created.

A receiving station on the ground will down load that imagery and disperse it via Top Secret networks to those who have a need to know. Intelligence Analysts will go over the imagery looking for specific information related to whatever project they are working on. They will then summarize their findings in a report that is usually attached to that imagery or may simply be a header or a footer ( or both ) on that imagery. This report is classified due to the imagery itself being classified. Together or separate, they are classified at some of the highest levels. None of this information EVER leaves the TOP SECRET network it is on. The only way for it to migrate to a lower class system is for someone to willfully and knowingly copy it from one network to the other.

TK information is already classified and usually stays that way for decades.... it is impossible to retroactively classify something that is already classified.

Do you understand that the IG's classification officials deemed it to be TK information?

"Yes. Was it classified at the time?"

Yes it was already classified prior to that time. Anything that is TK imagery or information derived from that imagery was classified at birth...It would appear that what ever information that the IG's classification officials found did not contain any classification headers when they found it... that didn't make it any less classified, just that it was not properly marked when it came to their attention. They have a duty to properly classify materials like that when they come into their possession to ensure that they do not go to people who do not possess the proper clearance to view them.

If someone read a TK report on the Top Secret network and then summarized that report in their own words on an unclassified email system, that email would still be considered to be classified at the level of the report it was taken from.

Do you understand that makes the information classified before it got to Hillarys server?

"No. Retroactive classification does not indicate it was classified at the time of transmission."

Again my friend, TK imagery or information derived from that imagery is classified from the instant it is created. Retroactive classification by the State Department DOES NOT over ride a different agency's prior classification.

The State Department DOES NOT have the capability to download TK information directly.. they had to have gotten it from a different federal agency or off the Top Secret network, which means it was already classified before they ever got it, and it was classified before it ever got to Hillarys email server.






edit on R122016-01-30T22:12:58-06:00k121Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R222016-01-30T22:22:51-06:00k221Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R272016-01-30T22:27:56-06:00k271Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Ok, let's try a different approach:



Do you understand that makes the information classified before it got to Hillarys server?


Assuming that is true, can Hillary be charged with a crime if the information did not contain the proper classification markings before it was sent to her server and she did not originate the communication?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Yes Sir...

Gross negligence in the handling of classified information can get you 10 years.

Gross negligence means:

Having classified information whether it is marked classified or not on an unclass email is gross negligence.

Putting emails containing classified information whether marked or not, on a thumb drive and giving them to your lawyer is gross negligence in the handling of classified information.

If you read through the federal code, it is not hard to understand that the term "gross negligence" is a loose catch all phrase that can be applied to a wide variety of situations...especially when the claim of "I didn't know it was classified", I didn't know it was classified because it wasn't properly marked, or even just having classified information outside of strict control will get you gross negligence...

A lot of people get slammed for gross negligence... because the vast majority of people who get caught up in this is because they do stupid stuff.

The thing you have to understand is that the spotlight is on Hillary because of her own actions and the vast number of those actions.

I was stationed in a top secret facility where every time you left the facility, MP's would search any bags you had with you. It wasn't to specifically catch anybody, it was just a reminder to not leave with any classified materials... they routinely caught officers with classified materials in their briefcases... all they did was turn them around and make them go back and store it properly. It was just a reminder because if someone wanted to steal classified material, they could have easily stuck it in their pants or socks or whatever and just walked out.

edit on R412016-01-30T22:41:12-06:00k411Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R032016-01-30T23:03:13-06:00k031Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Listen Up!!!



Name-calling, bickering and rudeness need to stop NOW!!!!! You are responsible for your own posts.

Community Announcement re: Decorum

Post removals and Posting Bans will be applied if member refuse to chill.



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   

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?


Very easily... she signed clearance documents.. the government will make the case, and it will stick, that by the very virtue of her position as Secretary of State, that she should have easily recognized whether or not something contained classified material... they tell you at your in briefing very plainly in no uncertain terms that classified material may be marked or it may not be marked.... she had to have signed off acknowledging her responsibilities before they ever granted her a clearance..

Even a private in the military signs the same acknowledgement. Civilian government workers and contractors all sign the same agreement.

www.archives.gov...


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.


She really has no way out at this point, at least not that I can see.
edit on R552016-01-30T22:55:33-06:00k551Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   

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.



I'm thinking she knew the in's and out's of Watergate, hence why she used her
own server, wiped it down and waited years to turn in her edited yoga routines.

And...absolutely, it is Nixonian to a degree...only Watergate was over what,
6...8 minutes? As it stands, by Hillary's own admission she erased something
on the order of 33,000 yoga positions???




top topics



 
32
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join