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: 21
43
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob


See what you did there?


The original claim: "she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place"...

My response: The Secretary of State is not the one responsible for reviewing material and marking it for classification

You rebuttal: "she was authorized to classify material from Top Secret down." "she was obliged "


So the goalposts were moved from Clinton being "responsible for marking" classified material in the first place to being "authorized" or "obliged".

A CEO of a company is authorized to take out the garbage and clean the office, but he is the one "responsible" for getting it done.

If you are saying she "should have known" or "could have classified it" that's a different argument than saying she was the one responsible for classifying state department material.




edit on 10-3-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

There are a few cabinet positions that deal with matters so sensitive, that these people can and must classify their own work when necessary.

The Secretary of State is one of those positions that by the very nature of the position, the appointee is expected to have a high degree of knowledge of how to properly handle, classify, transmit, etc. classified material.

As Secretary of State, the appointee is expected to easily be able to tell the difference between different levels of classification and what they mean and how they are to be handled. The appointee is responsible for proof reading their own self generated documentation and placing the correct classification headers on the material where applicable.

None of this happened with Ms. Clinton which leads you to the very big hole she has dug for herself.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"How would you know? Officials never said which article it was or what it specifically contained."

Straight from the horses mouth. Hillary herself/or her campaign manager right after the leak.

"That in and of itself debunks your assertion that all TK information is derived from satellite imagery/transmission and that is was classified upon it's "birth"."

Again, all information that flows through the TK program is considered classified from birth. It doesn't matter which part, it is still and always will be classified TS/SCI from birth no matter how much you desperately need to believe otherwise.

NOTHING from any aspect of the Talent Keyhole program (whether it is satellites or manned or unmanned aircraft) is considered less than TS/SCI from the moment it is generated. The information is encrypted right on the device at the Top Secret level of encryption before it is transferred back to receiving stations or other methods of pick up. It is always classified TS/SCI.

This goes for all TK program data... it always has and it always will be considered TS/SCI the very instant it is created.. I could tell you exactly where those receiving stations are, of the ones still being used, but all that would do is get me in trouble.

The only thing that should matter to you is everything from the Talent Keyhole program remains on the Top Secret network until it is later de-classified. Some how it wound up at the NY Times, according to Hillary herself and it was just a message she forwarded.

Which again, if what she forwarded,she also commented on it, then that itself is an admission of guilt.

No one with an active clearance can comment about classified information that has been leaked. A knowledgeable government figure that confirms leaked information is not doing themselves any favors either.. that is specifically against the law which has already been cited. That's just the way it is.

And further more, I can attest that everything done with the drone programs since the early 90's is classified Top Secret, I was in the SAP for drones and specifically worked with drones from the early days of their inception. I could give you a history class about the US Drone program, but that would be whole new thread. Its been TS/SCI for decades.

Not that any of that matters to you, but hopefully someone will learn something.



edit on R322016-03-10T16:32:20-06:00k323Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R332016-03-10T16:33:57-06:00k333Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R402016-03-10T16:40:43-06:00k403Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R472016-03-10T16:47:55-06:00k473Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R002016-03-10T17:00:44-06:00k003Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R022016-03-10T17:02:16-06:00k023Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

There are a few cabinet positions that deal with matters so sensitive, that these people can and must classify their own work when necessary.



...OK...so she is the one responsible for classifying material at state...if you run with that and she chose not to classify it..so she did not send classified material..Your argument isn't helped here...



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Hillary does not say she did not send classified material...What she actually (and deceptively) says is that she never sent any material "marked 'CLASSIFIED'".
No material would be marked 'Classified'...It would be marked 'Sensitive', 'Secret', 'Top Secret', etc.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

There are a few cabinet positions that deal with matters so sensitive, that these people can and must classify their own work when necessary.



...OK...so she is the one responsible for classifying material at state...if you run with that and she chose not to classify it..so she did not send classified material..Your argument isn't helped here...



It does not work that way... The SoS can classify their own work, same as CIA director, NSA Director etc. The SoS cannot change the classification previously given to a document by another agency, only to documents she personally generates. They also weigh in on classification of other State Department documents that were self generated.. they have an office specifically for this, but she should theoretically be in that loop.

If Hillary wasn't sure of what to classify something, then by law she was required to seek the assistance of others to arrive at the proper classification.

Short answer is no, she can't arbitrarily say everything was unclassified and fly away. Doesn't quite work like that.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Ok, how do you know the information in the NYT article was classified TK information?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Ok, how do you know the information in the NYT article was classified TK information?


Cos Hillary said so? That was part of her excuse. She said she just forwarded a New York Times article. You have to go back and to find the specific quotes, but as your mentor says:

At this point. what does it really matter anyways?

Don't worry man... it was only the IG that said her emails contained up to TS//SI//TK//NOFORN.... nobody we should listen too right? I am sure he hasn't a clue what he is talking about, and it is all a big fuss about a little forwarded NY Times article.... no biggie if you believe Clinton. I am going with the IG on that one.
edit on R232016-03-10T17:23:00-06:00k233Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R242016-03-10T17:24:29-06:00k243Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Cos Hillary said so? That was part of her excuse. She said she just forwarded a New York Times article.


She said the NYT article contained classified TK information?



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Cos Hillary said so? That was part of her excuse. She said she just forwarded a New York Times article.


She said the NYT article contained classified TK information?


I don't know... did she? Look the crap up if you are so concerned. I really could care less... much much less than you seem to.

Your focusing on 1 out of 2,000+ emails.... might want to watching for the ones sneaking up behind you.

Don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff and life will be better.


edit on R252016-03-10T17:25:19-06:00k253Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R272016-03-10T17:27:27-06:00k273Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R292016-03-10T17:29:35-06:00k293Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Cos Hillary said so? That was part of her excuse. She said she just forwarded a New York Times article.


She said the NYT article contained classified TK information?


I don't know... did she? Look the crap up if you are so concerned. I really could care less... much much less than you seem to.



Wait a minute. You made a very specific claim:



The only thing that should matter to you is everything from the Talent Keyhole program remains on the Top Secret network until it is later de-classified. Some how it wound up at the NY Times


How did you come to that conclusion? Where did you learn TK info from a Top Secret Network wound up in the NYT piece if the specific article in question was never identified?


(post by RickinVa removed for a manners violation)

posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Because that was what was going around at the time Mr Prosecutor.... go look it up....its very trivial in the grand schemes of things the way they are now


No thanks. You made the claim, now prove it. Unless you can't.



or do you need this to specifically try to debunk me or whatever so you can claim glory and testify to the world how I don't know what I am talking about?


Are you worried?



Hillary used the excuse that it was all a misunderstanding about an email she forwarded that originated with NY Times.


It is not denied that the NYT piece triggered classification. Now you have the burden, or pleasure, of proving the NYT's article contained TK classified information that came from a Top Secret Network.

You made the claim, kindly prove it.



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
not worth wasting my time.... disregard.



edit on R572016-03-10T17:57:40-06:00k573Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I bet nobody can cough up the NYT email and article.




posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I would not take that bet lol.

To be honest, I don't remember ever seeing the actual article... only the part about Hillary said she forwarded one part.

I


edit on R132016-03-10T18:13:38-06:00k133Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: xuenchen

I would not take that bet lol.

To be honest, I don't remember ever seeing the actual article... only the part about Hillary said she forwarded one part.

I



Maybe the whole thing was "re-classified"



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 10 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Because that was what was going around at the time Mr Prosecutor.... go look it up....its very trivial in the grand schemes of things the way they are now


No thanks. You made the claim, now prove it. Unless you can't.



or do you need this to specifically try to debunk me or whatever so you can claim glory and testify to the world how I don't know what I am talking about?


Are you worried?



Hillary used the excuse that it was all a misunderstanding about an email she forwarded that originated with NY Times.


It is not denied that the NYT piece triggered classification. Now you have the burden, or pleasure, of proving the NYT's article contained TK classified information that came from a Top Secret Network.

You made the claim, kindly prove it.




And Clinton said during an NPR interview on Wednesday that “the best we can determine” is that the emails in question contained a forwarded New York Times article mentioning a classified drone program. “How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about,” Clinton said.


www.npr.org...


Not saying anything is true, just telling you that I read it before...its been posted before... now you want three days talking about this now? Or do you have your handy dandy insta-rebuttle ready to fire? Guess what... don't care.... I wasn't making a claim, just saying that subject has already been talked about here too.
edit on R282016-03-10T18:28:28-06:00k283Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
43
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join