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.

 

Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up

page: 17
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: 11andrew34

Whiskey tango foxtrot.
He hacked Sid Blumenthals emails not Hillary's. He found a memo regarding Benghazi. Opened a can of worms and then they say "how secure is her server?". Hence the investigation.




posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
But, but, but...
Hillary!
-Single-handedly prosecuted the Watergate case.
-Stood by her man.
-Vast right-wing conspiracy
-Braved enemy fire in Bosnia
-Saved countless number of lives in Benghazi by refusing to act
-Used her position as Secretary of State to build the Clinton Foundation into the Haiti saving juggernaut that it is today.

She simply must be the first woman POTUS.

She deserves it.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme




He hacked Sid Blumenthals emails not Hillary's.

Would this be the same Sid Blumenthal that was sending Hillary (via email) secret information that included the names of specific HUMINT resources in Libya?
When she received an email like that from a guy that has NO reason to have the information in the first place, she should have reported it then and there. If Guccifer was hacking Sid, and he had top secret info, that put lives at risk.
She did not report him.
We need a reporter to ask her why she didn't.
edit on b000000312016-03-10T10:24:47-06:0010America/ChicagoThu, 10 Mar 2016 10:24:47 -06001000000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"Interesting isn't it? How can something in the public domain, including news reports and general discussions be classified? It appears they may classify damn near everything."

Amazing you keep saying that.... oh yeah.... amazing you and Hillary keep saying that.


Once again I will give you undeniable proof that what Hillary did was wrong and she knew it before she did it.

UNDENIABLE PROOF: Hillary signed her SF-312... signed copy available.

UNDENIABLE PROOF: Along with the SF-312, comes a handy little booklet with some neat spiffy little question and answers... one which just happens to cover exactly what you are talking about:


Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and dis- seminate it elsewhere? Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized dis- closure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declas- sified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.


www.wrc.noaa.gov...

Even though you may not like it, it is the law my friend and she broke it.

Or are you now saying that because something doesn't seem right to you, that you can just dismiss it...


Once again Hillary got caught with Top Secret information on an unclassified server as stated in the letter to congress from the Intelligence Community IG. You say that is not true and I will straight up call you liar.


" It appears they may classify damn near everything."

Total material that occasionally falls from the south end of a north bound bovine. It only covers material that was ALREADY classified that has found its way into the mainstream media.


Cmon man grow a pair....

Hillary got caught with Top Secret information on an unclassified server as stated in the letter to congress from the Intelligence Community IG. Is that true of false Mr Introvert..... the evidence has been presented...what say you? True of False???
edit on R402016-03-10T10:40:26-06:00k403Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Amazing you keep saying that.... oh yeah.... amazing you and Hillary keep saying that.


Because it is true. I gave you a link that shows even news reports/public domain information can be classified by intelligence agencies. Does that mean it is a punishable offense, regardless of the agreements she signed?



Even though you may not like it, it is the law my friend and she broke it.


It's possible, but how do we know? We don't know what the email specifically contained.



Or are you now saying that because something doesn't seem right to you, that you can just dismiss it...


I'm not dismissing anything. I'm looking at it logically and referring to sources.

Why did you dismiss the fact that you do not have as good of knowledge of the TK classifications system as you claim? Hell, you have less knowledge than a wiki page.



Once again Hillary got caught with Top Secret information on an unclassified server as stated in the letter to congress from the Intelligence Community IG. You say that is untrue and I will straight up call you liar.


I never said it was untrue. What I said is that it is not spy satellite information, as you so wrongly asserted, and that it may be classified as such due to a conversation regarding a drone. What kind of drone and under what circumstances, we do not know.

Therefore, how can we come to any conclusion whatsoever?

Edit to add:



Total material that occasionally falls from the south end of a north bound bovine. It only covers material that was ALREADY classified that has found its way into the mainstream media.


That is untrue. Intelligence agencies can use any designation when retroactively classifying information.


edit on 10-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Amazing you keep saying that.... oh yeah.... amazing you and Hillary keep saying that.


Because it is true. I gave you a link that shows even news reports/public domain information can be classified by intelligence agencies. Does that mean it is a punishable offense, regardless of the agreements she signed?



Even though you may not like it, it is the law my friend and she broke it.


It's possible, but how do we know? We don't know what the email specifically contained.



Or are you now saying that because something doesn't seem right to you, that you can just dismiss it...


I'm not dismissing anything. I'm looking at it logically and referring to sources.

Why did you dismiss the fact that you do not have as good of knowledge of the TK classifications system as you claim? Hell, you have less knowledge than a wiki page.



Once again Hillary got caught with Top Secret information on an unclassified server as stated in the letter to congress from the Intelligence Community IG. You say that is untrue and I will straight up call you liar.


I never said it was untrue. What I said is that it is not spy satellite information, as you so wrongly asserted, and that it may be classified as such due to a conversation regarding a drone. What kind of drone and under what circumstances, we do not know.

Therefore, how can we come to any conclusion whatsoever?

Edit to add:



Total material that occasionally falls from the south end of a north bound bovine. It only covers material that was ALREADY classified that has found its way into the mainstream media.


That is untrue. Intelligence agencies can use any designation when retroactively classifying information.



Here we go again:

"We don't know what the email specifically contained."

BS... it contained TK material,,,, you want to play word games and say you don't know what type of TK material.... IT DOESNT FREAKIN MATTER.... ALL TK MATERIAL IS BORN CLASSIFIED.

again:

In a letter to congress, the IG for the Intelligence Community stated that some of Hillarys email contained information up to TS//SI//TK//NOFORN.


Lets examine the FACTS:

All TK material is born classified... it resides on a Top Secret network that has no physical connection to the outside world.

The IG letter stated TK material was found in at least one or more emails. You don't have to know what the specific information is, only that it came from TK. That means it was TS/SCI.

I will keep asking you over and over:

Hillary was caught by one of the IG's with Top Secret Information on an unclassified server as he stated in a letter to congress. Are you saying that is false?

That requires a yes or no answer.... not three paragraphs of trying to explain why you are not wrong..thanks




edit on R532016-03-10T10:53:07-06:00k533Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: 11andrew34

And this
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: 11andrew34

Whiskey tango foxtrot.
He hacked Sid Blumenthals emails not Hillary's. He found a memo regarding Benghazi. Opened a can of worms and then they say "how secure is her server?". Hence the investigation.


A notorious foreign 'Master Hacker' hacks Blumenthal's emails...and discovers secret messages from the private, unsecured secret email account of Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State of United States; Once discovered, do you seriously think he'd not hack her too?
It would be irresistible.
edit on 10-3-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

You'll never make any headway here due to the simple fact that this poster continues to cling to the false idea of "retroactively classifying information."

Their insistence upon that empty foundation renders and and all further statements of theirs moot. From there it's nothing but circular arguments leading to no conclusion.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Oh didn't know you were copied in. Perhaps you can attach that particular thread of emails so we all know what you know. .
Is this the email that Gowdy did his own personal redaction on? Just to make it look way more egregious?
Because the CIA sent it back saying "maybe you should have investigated this before slandering Mrs Clinton.",
edit on 3102016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Oh didn't know you were copied in. Perhaps you can attach that particular thread of emails so we all know what you know. .
Is this the email that Gowdy did his own personal redaction on? Just to make it look way more egregious?
Because the CIA sent it back saying "maybe you should have investigated this before slandering Mrs Clinton.",

LINK?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

From the document produced by the office of the IC IG:


On June 29, 2015, OIG and ICIG sent you a follow-up memorandum providing additional information supporting our concerns about the FOIA process used for the Clinton emails (see Attachment D). Since then, ICIG has received confirmation from IC FOIA officials that several of these emails contained classified IC information, though they were not marked as classified.


Original government source:

source direct .pdf link @ oig.state.gov

The authors of which being:

I. Charles McCullough, III


I. Charles McCullough, III was confirmed as the first Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) on November 7, 2011. In this role, he is dual-hatted as the lead for IG audits, inspections, evaluations and investigations for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as the chair of the IC IG Forum to promote and further collaboration, cooperation and coordination among the IGs of the Intelligence Community.


and

Steve A. Linick


Steve A. Linick began his tenure as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors on September 30, 2013. Prior to his appointment, he served for three years as the first Inspector General of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (2010-2013). As Inspector General, Mr. Linick is the senior official responsible for audits, inspections, evaluations, investigations, and other law enforcement efforts to combat fraud, waste, and abuse within or affecting the operations of the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: RickinVa

You'll never make any headway here due to the simple fact that this poster continues to cling to the false idea of "retroactively classifying information."

Their insistence upon that empty foundation renders and and all further statements of theirs moot. From there it's nothing but circular arguments leading to no conclusion.


I know,,, their whole hope depends on one single thing... that all 2000 emails were classified retroactively, ignoring the fact that Hillary wrote 104 of which 75 or so which probably should have been classified.

It is mind numbing stupid to even remotely believe that a Secretary of State (Insert name here) who is one of the few classifying officials.... didn't even bother to classify her own work.

It is either total 100% arrogance or 100% stupidity.

The scale weighs heavily the side of arrogance in this case.... arrogance that is going to come back and bite her right in the wazoo.

I am telling you it just doesn't get any better than this:

People (you know who you are) are still blindly loyal to Hillary Clinton at this point and time...

Dozens of emails written by Hillary Clinton that should have been classified but weren't by the State Department....

Dozens of emails written by one of the few people in the government that have the capability to classify their own work who just freaking "forgot to do it" dozens and dozens of times to her own emails?

read that again:

Dozens of emails written by one of the few people in the government that have the capability to classify their own work who just freaking "forgot to do it" dozens and dozens of times to her own emails?

And you believe Hillary Clinton enough to swallow that 2000+ emails were all magically "retroactively" classified. You got a lot of faith my friend.... or lack of brain cells.

edit on R212016-03-10T11:21:56-06:00k213Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R232016-03-10T11:23:47-06:00k233Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



BS... it contained TK material,,,, you want to play word games and say you don't know what type of TK material.... IT DOESNT FREAKIN MATTER.... ALL TK MATERIAL IS BORN CLASSIFIED.


That is false and I already posted a link that shows as much. Even press reports discussing aerial recon can be classified, but they are not classified on "birth".



All TK material is born classified... it resides on a Top Secret network that has no physical connection to the outside world.


Again, false. Refer to the link I provided earlier.

Information outside a top secret network can be deemed classified under TK designation.



Hillary was caught by one of the IG's with Top Secret Information on an unclassified server as he stated in a letter to congress. Are you saying that is false?

That requires a yes or no answer.... not three paragraphs of trying to explain why you are not wrong..thanks


You do not get to set the rules of engagement here. It is true that emails on her server contained information deemed Top Secret/TK, but we do not know what the email contains and do not know if it would be a punishable offense since one simple word can set-off alarms....resulting in it's classification.

It is false to say all TK information is classified upon "birth" and your assertion is flawed from the very beginning.

I've provided links to show that.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: 11andrew34

And this
www.nytimes.com...


"no known evidence"

"said to"

all from "condition of anonymity" people.

And you complain about questionable "sources"


And of course Pagliano took the 5th.




posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
well okey dokey then... You did it I am convinced.

I am voting for Hillary....


For President of "D" Block,, that's about it.


2000+ classified emails,104 emails she wrote herself.......Pagliano gets immunity....Guccifer comes back to stand trial for hacking into ole Sids emails amongst other people soon.... wonder what the FBI would like to ask him when he gets here and they have a long time to "chat".

It's almost time to pop the corn... might wanna stock up on some of the beverage of your choice........its going to be a ride.
edit on R322016-03-10T11:32:41-06:00k323Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
When a hacker is a spy, their goal is for the person being hacked doesn't know that they have been hacked.
It isn't like when your buddy hacks your Facebook page and puts gay porn on it.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

He found a copy of a memo that Sid had sent to Clinton.
The investigation is into the security of Clinton's server.
www.nytimes.com...


Also just saw the tail end of a crawl on MSNBC saying indictment of Clinton not going to happen....waiting for more info



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
When a hacker is a spy, their goal is for the person being hacked doesn't know that they have been hacked.
It isn't like when your buddy hacks your Facebook page and puts gay porn on it.


lol better not post that story..

nevermind



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

This just shows that you really have no clue what you are talking about and must resort to childish posts hoping to get a little back-slapping from the fanboys.

Let's recap:

You made certain claims about classifications, yet have exposed yourself as knowing less than a wikipedia page.

You have know clue, as neither do anyone else except investigators, as to what is in the emails, yet make specific claims you are not qualified to make.

And to top it all off you actually think this is about whom to vote for?

Obviously you have a hard time recognizing that this has nothing to do with whom to vote for. It has to do with potential charges coming against Hillary.

We are back to square one, in which we know very little and no one can make any claims about her guilt or innocence. That has been my point all along. She may be guilty, she may be innocent. But none of us know enough to say either way.

Can you agree with that?



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join