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.

 

Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

page: 19
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5
Response below...


originally posted by: RickinVa

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



At no time did Hillary Clinton send or receive classified material via her private email..marked or unmarked. Whether the CIA would deem unmarked content or subjects classified then or now retroactively is irrelevant as the State Department is the authority of classifications in their own communications unless otherwise marked by another agency...and the State Department did not classify either the emails or content at the time.




5. 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



She was not uncertain about the status of any of the content she communicated via email. The content was not classified by the State Department at the time.



6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws.


Sure...and at no time did she disclose material classified at the time..

CIA can say they thought the material classified...and State can rake over CIA un-marked non-classified communications and mark those communications classified by State Department classification authorities....NSA, FBI ad infinium...everybody break out the red pen and shout...But at the end of the day (unless clearly marked CIA-Classified) etc. State decides for itself what is classified and what is not...CIA decides for itself what is classified...ditto NSA and FBI.

Turn the agencies loose on each other with prosecutorial authority...each deciding whether the other agencies classified material as they thought it should be classified and then 95% of the intelligence community goes to jail.

No classified (by State) material was shared..

I know it takes a little bit of thinking...and it is inconvenient to do so for you...but that is really not so complicated.

If State did not classify it at the time and it wasn't marked classified by CIA in whatever was communicated...then she did not share classified material.






THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAN NOT RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFY INFORMATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED BY ANOTHER AGENCY.

They do not have that power.





Not sure what that means, but you seem really confused.

Again..EACH AGENCY is their own Classification authority.

Example...The leader of North Korea passes gas...

CIA decides to classify that information as Secret..

State decides not to classify it.

Someone in the State Department emails their buddy on an open system explaining the Leader of North Korea passed gas (Verdict...No Classified information was leaked)

Someone in CIA emails their buddy on an open system that the leader of North Korea passed gas..
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

Someone in CIA forwards state a report marked "Secret" explaining how the leader of NK passed gas and the State department share it on an open system.
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

What you have here is CIA going back a few years and reviewing old State communications and saying....hey..that information is/was classified by us...so no, don't release it in a FOIA request.



To use your own example:

You send me an email on Jan 1 2015 that is SECRET but it isn't marked as secret.

I quit my job and turn my emails in to the SD on Apr 1 2015... on April 5, The SD retroactively classified that email as SECRET prior to releasing it due to a FOIA request.

When was the email considered legally classified in a court of law? On Apr 5 when the SD retro'actively classified it? Nope...the laws says the email was classified on 01 Jan 2015, the day you sent it..just because you didn't properly mark it as secret didn't make it any less classified..... not the day it was retroactively classified.

It is not rocket science.
edit on R572016-04-18T16:57:57-05:00k574Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R592016-04-18T16:59:44-05:00k594Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5
Response below...


originally posted by: RickinVa

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



At no time did Hillary Clinton send or receive classified material via her private email..marked or unmarked. Whether the CIA would deem unmarked content or subjects classified then or now retroactively is irrelevant as the State Department is the authority of classifications in their own communications unless otherwise marked by another agency...and the State Department did not classify either the emails or content at the time.




5. 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



She was not uncertain about the status of any of the content she communicated via email. The content was not classified by the State Department at the time.



6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws.


Sure...and at no time did she disclose material classified at the time..

CIA can say they thought the material classified...and State can rake over CIA un-marked non-classified communications and mark those communications classified by State Department classification authorities....NSA, FBI ad infinium...everybody break out the red pen and shout...But at the end of the day (unless clearly marked CIA-Classified) etc. State decides for itself what is classified and what is not...CIA decides for itself what is classified...ditto NSA and FBI.

Turn the agencies loose on each other with prosecutorial authority...each deciding whether the other agencies classified material as they thought it should be classified and then 95% of the intelligence community goes to jail.

No classified (by State) material was shared..

I know it takes a little bit of thinking...and it is inconvenient to do so for you...but that is really not so complicated.

If State did not classify it at the time and it wasn't marked classified by CIA in whatever was communicated...then she did not share classified material.






THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAN NOT RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFY INFORMATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED BY ANOTHER AGENCY.

They do not have that power.





Not sure what that means, but you seem really confused.

Again..EACH AGENCY is their own Classification authority.

Example...The leader of North Korea passes gas...

CIA decides to classify that information as Secret..

State decides not to classify it.

Someone in the State Department emails their buddy on an open system explaining the Leader of North Korea passed gas (Verdict...No Classified information was leaked)

Someone in CIA emails their buddy on an open system that the leader of North Korea passed gas..
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

Someone in CIA forwards state a report marked "Secret" explaining how the leader of NK passed gas and the State department share it on an open system.
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

What you have here is CIA going back a few years and reviewing old State communications and saying....hey..that information is/was classified by us...so no, don't release it in a FOIA request.



To use your own example:

You send me an email on Jan 1 2015 that is SECRET but it isn't marked as secret.



Then what makes it secret? Who deemed it secret? When and by whom? Did Joe Blow tell me the information? Or did I read it in the newspapers?



I quit my job and turn my emails in to the SD on Apr 1 2015... on April 5, The SD retroactively classified that email as SECRET prior to releasing it due to a FOIA request.




When was the email considered legally classified in a court of law?



I don't know because your example never explained (A) When it was classified (B) By whom or (C) the information chain...

The CIA still considers acknowledging the existence of the US Drone Program as Top Secret...even though the news covers it weekly...
edit on 18-4-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5
Response below...


originally posted by: RickinVa

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



At no time did Hillary Clinton send or receive classified material via her private email..marked or unmarked. Whether the CIA would deem unmarked content or subjects classified then or now retroactively is irrelevant as the State Department is the authority of classifications in their own communications unless otherwise marked by another agency...and the State Department did not classify either the emails or content at the time.




5. 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



She was not uncertain about the status of any of the content she communicated via email. The content was not classified by the State Department at the time.



6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws.


Sure...and at no time did she disclose material classified at the time..

CIA can say they thought the material classified...and State can rake over CIA un-marked non-classified communications and mark those communications classified by State Department classification authorities....NSA, FBI ad infinium...everybody break out the red pen and shout...But at the end of the day (unless clearly marked CIA-Classified) etc. State decides for itself what is classified and what is not...CIA decides for itself what is classified...ditto NSA and FBI.

Turn the agencies loose on each other with prosecutorial authority...each deciding whether the other agencies classified material as they thought it should be classified and then 95% of the intelligence community goes to jail.

No classified (by State) material was shared..

I know it takes a little bit of thinking...and it is inconvenient to do so for you...but that is really not so complicated.

If State did not classify it at the time and it wasn't marked classified by CIA in whatever was communicated...then she did not share classified material.






THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAN NOT RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFY INFORMATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED BY ANOTHER AGENCY.

They do not have that power.





Not sure what that means, but you seem really confused.

Again..EACH AGENCY is their own Classification authority.

Example...The leader of North Korea passes gas...

CIA decides to classify that information as Secret..

State decides not to classify it.

Someone in the State Department emails their buddy on an open system explaining the Leader of North Korea passed gas (Verdict...No Classified information was leaked)

Someone in CIA emails their buddy on an open system that the leader of North Korea passed gas..
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

Someone in CIA forwards state a report marked "Secret" explaining how the leader of NK passed gas and the State department share it on an open system.
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

What you have here is CIA going back a few years and reviewing old State communications and saying....hey..that information is/was classified by us...so no, don't release it in a FOIA request.



To use your own example:

You send me an email on Jan 1 2015 that is SECRET but it isn't marked as secret.



Then what makes it secret? Who deemed it secret? When and by whom? Did Joe Blow tell me the information? Or did I read it in the newspapers?



I quit my job and turn my emails in to the SD on Apr 1 2015... on April 5, The SD retroactively classified that email as SECRET prior to releasing it due to a FOIA request.




When was the email considered legally classified in a court of law?



I don't know because your example never explained (A) When it was classified (B) By whom or (C) the information chain...

The CIA still considers acknowledging the existence of the US Drone Program as Top Secret...even though the news covers it weekly...



rightttt the old retroactively classified / over classification run amok defense. Good strategy.... except either excuse will used as a defense in a court of law.

She will still be charged with mishandling of classified information....it's obvious she violated numerous laws as stated in the legally binding SF 312 that she has signed. retroactive/ over classification will be a defense ploy against those charges. Still going to wind up in court though.



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Hillary was in a position where she should have known what kind of information was classified.
It's not like she had to clear things with someone else to classify them.
She was often the one who initiated emails. She would then be responsible for tagging them.
And if she received an email with information that should be classified but was not properly tagged, SHE was the one responsible to stop it right then and there, mark the email, and demand that whoever sent it immediately answer for not properly tagging it.

In the end, any email that crossed her path was her responsibility. She has no right to shift blame.
She was not some clerk. She was the SECRETARY OF STATE for crying out loud.
SHE should know what kind of information should be deemed classified and not be relying on email header tags.
And she should have properly protected such information.

Her playing stupid about it does not help her case one bit.
edit on 4/18/16 by BlueAjah because: added

edit on 4/18/16 by BlueAjah because: spelling



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Indigo5
Response below...


originally posted by: RickinVa

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



At no time did Hillary Clinton send or receive classified material via her private email..marked or unmarked. Whether the CIA would deem unmarked content or subjects classified then or now retroactively is irrelevant as the State Department is the authority of classifications in their own communications unless otherwise marked by another agency...and the State Department did not classify either the emails or content at the time.




5. 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



She was not uncertain about the status of any of the content she communicated via email. The content was not classified by the State Department at the time.



6. I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws.


Sure...and at no time did she disclose material classified at the time..

CIA can say they thought the material classified...and State can rake over CIA un-marked non-classified communications and mark those communications classified by State Department classification authorities....NSA, FBI ad infinium...everybody break out the red pen and shout...But at the end of the day (unless clearly marked CIA-Classified) etc. State decides for itself what is classified and what is not...CIA decides for itself what is classified...ditto NSA and FBI.

Turn the agencies loose on each other with prosecutorial authority...each deciding whether the other agencies classified material as they thought it should be classified and then 95% of the intelligence community goes to jail.

No classified (by State) material was shared..

I know it takes a little bit of thinking...and it is inconvenient to do so for you...but that is really not so complicated.

If State did not classify it at the time and it wasn't marked classified by CIA in whatever was communicated...then she did not share classified material.






THE STATE DEPARTMENT CAN NOT RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFY INFORMATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CLASSIFIED BY ANOTHER AGENCY.

They do not have that power.





Not sure what that means, but you seem really confused.

Again..EACH AGENCY is their own Classification authority.

Example...The leader of North Korea passes gas...

CIA decides to classify that information as Secret..

State decides not to classify it.

Someone in the State Department emails their buddy on an open system explaining the Leader of North Korea passed gas (Verdict...No Classified information was leaked)

Someone in CIA emails their buddy on an open system that the leader of North Korea passed gas..
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

Someone in CIA forwards state a report marked "Secret" explaining how the leader of NK passed gas and the State department share it on an open system.
(Verdict...Classified Material leaked)

What you have here is CIA going back a few years and reviewing old State communications and saying....hey..that information is/was classified by us...so no, don't release it in a FOIA request.



To use your own example:

You send me an email on Jan 1 2015 that is SECRET but it isn't marked as secret.



Then what makes it secret? Who deemed it secret? When and by whom? Did Joe Blow tell me the information? Or did I read it in the newspapers?



I quit my job and turn my emails in to the SD on Apr 1 2015... on April 5, The SD retroactively classified that email as SECRET prior to releasing it due to a FOIA request.




When was the email considered legally classified in a court of law?



I don't know because your example never explained (A) When it was classified (B) By whom or (C) the information chain...

The CIA still considers acknowledging the existence of the US Drone Program as Top Secret...even though the news covers it weekly...



rightttt the old retroactively classified / over classification run amok defense. Good strategy.... except either excuse will used as a defense in a court of law.

She will still be charged with mishandling of classified information....it's obvious she violated numerous laws as stated in the legally binding SF 312 that she has signed. retroactive/ over classification will be a defense ploy against those charges. Still going to wind up in court though.



The fact that State is the classification authority for State Material...the CIA for CIA Material and NSA for NSA Material is not some ploy...it is actual reality...

In that context, 90% of your posts BSing around the truth are kind a pathetic trolling. A way for you to vent frustration...

I will make you the bet again? If Hillary Clinton is indicted I will delete my account? And if she is not..you can delete yours?

I say that with 100% confidence, not because I want her to not be indicted, but simply because objective reality has proven 90% of your claims to be BS.

State decides what is classified in their communications...she did not send any classified communications..

Having stuff retro-actively classified by other agencies is irrelevant to that.

You can throw all kinds of tantrums..but reality...the FBI ...and the courts...don't care about tantrums...

Troll away...cuz I know how this show ends...
edit on 18-4-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm sorry but you clearly don't know how information is classified or de-classified in the federal Government.

Arguing against hillary being indicted because of elite / connected status is one thing, but basing that opinion on a glaring lack of knowledge regarding the handling of classified info and how it becomes classified makes it obvious to folks that have held clearances, signed NDAs, and do know about these processes...



posted on Apr, 18 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Do not worry man, you are about to get a crash course on how information is classified and handled in a very short time frame, once the indictment recommendations come down.

This isn't just Hillary, several of her SD inner circle are right there neck deep in the doo doo with her. I can promise you that this issue is not going to go away nor will it be swept under any rugs... too many people in the know for that to happen.

It is almost popcorn time!

Give up your inane attempt to get me to bet. Won't happen in your life time. Doesn't mean anything other than I do not want to see you lose your account.


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 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 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b], title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the 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.

edit on R572016-04-18T22:57:32-05:00k574Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R012016-04-18T23:01:00-05:00k014Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm sorry but you clearly don't know how information is classified or de-classified in the federal Government.

Arguing against hillary being indicted because of elite / connected status is one thing, but basing that opinion on a glaring lack of knowledge regarding the handling of classified info and how it becomes classified makes it obvious to folks that have held clearances, signed NDAs, and do know about these processes...


Precisely the opposite...everything I have explained is 100% accurate??..

For you to claim it as ignorance while pretending to have special knowledge is complete BS.

Shall I let you respond and dig a little deeper hole before providing link after link clearly explaining the facts I explained?

Or would you like to look it up yourself?

So much posing and BS on here..


edit on 19-4-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm sorry but you clearly don't know how information is classified or de-classified in the federal Government.

Arguing against hillary being indicted because of elite / connected status is one thing, but basing that opinion on a glaring lack of knowledge regarding the handling of classified info and how it becomes classified makes it obvious to folks that have held clearances, signed NDAs, and do know about these processes...


Precisely the opposite...everything I have explained is 100% accurate??..

For you to claim it as ignorance while pretending to have special knowledge is complete BS.

Shall I let you respond and dig a little deeper hole before providing link after link clearly explaining the facts I explained?

Or would you like to look it up yourself?

So much posing and BS on here..



Do you even SIPRNet bro?


Meh - no posing here, but no need to prove much of anything at this point it is just back and forth and no one is ever going to post personal info to prove anything. Some very knowledgeable people have explained in detail over and over again why some of the info being on a private server or being in possession by folks that don't have clearances is an issue. The fact that some of the investigators didn't have clearance to view some of the data is telling.

My personal prediction however, based on Hillary being in a politically protected class, is that some of her inner circle are SOL, and she will coast through this with some kind of acknowledgement of a mistake and move on, or even if the DOJ put politics aside she would be pardoned. People at her level excel at getting their inner circle to fall on swords in situations like this.

This differing treatment of the political class is what seriously irks a lot of career GS folks I know. Similar to the feeling they get in briefings when experts are dismissed by white house staffers who know nothing about something like say, nuclear physics, or secure IT infrastructure for example.
edit on 19-4-2016 by SonOfThor because: sp



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


Lets say you own a store. Let's say you take a vacation for a few months. Let's say I empty the cash drawer as you are driving to the airport. Let's go even further and say you do not know the money is missing until you get back.

Do you believe no crime was committed because you didn't report it at the time it happened?

This is what you argue for with the "not at the time of transmittal" excuse. If Clinton sent information out years ago, that was discovered to be classified when exposed, it wasn't retroactively classified. It was classified at the time of discovery.

Word games are fun to play in the newspaper but flimsy excuses for Presidential contenders.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


"before providing link after link clearly explaining the facts I explained?"

I would love for you to post link after link that proves your demented version of how stuff is classified and why it is classified, that is, if you can find anything real except for some nonsense posted on a pro Hillary site.

The government has a plethora of information on how/why information is classified right on government websites, please use only those so not to cloud the issue with pro Hillary bias.

You do know the NSA is the ultimate authority when it comes to classification issues.


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






edit on R212016-04-19T09:21:51-05:00k214Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R232016-04-19T09:23:31-05:00k234Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R252016-04-19T09:25:42-05:00k254Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5


"before providing link after link clearly explaining the facts I explained?"

I would love for you to post link after link that proves your demented version of how stuff is classified and why it is classified.


Now, now Rick. That's not very nice. It's also hypocritical because you have done that very thing. You have posted link after link on this issue trying to prove your own twisted version of it.

But you have not proven anything. You can't and you know it. You have conceded in previous discussions that we have to wait to see what evidence, or lack thereof, is produced before we come to any conclusion.

You've also displayed an unfortunate ignorance on the issue of retroactive classification. You've said many times that nothing was retroactively classified, as it was classified upon transmission. Yet, one of the biggest problems that the Hillary camp has been vocal about is the intelligence community over-classifying and retroactively classifying emails that Clinton wanted to be fully released...as they were not actually classified. They simply contained certain terms that triggers classification.

As someone that claims to have worked for the FBI and had a clearance, you should know this. But you refuse to admit the obvious.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"You have posted link after link on this issue trying to prove your own twisted version of it."

Here ya go....my own twisted version of the truth that Hillary signed:

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

I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information

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 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

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 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b], title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the 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.

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 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 or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible.


www.archives.gov...


Yes sir, my own twisted version right there.


Are you saying she never signed that and she can not be prosecuted under that contract she signed?

I have told you before intro sweety.... I will give you that 99% of her emails were "retroactively" classified.... still leaves us over 20 possible felony charges,,,, do the math.

Can't prove anything? I think there is ample evidence of mishandling of classified information,,, I do not need to see the actual email like you do, I have more than enough faith after 18 years in the intelligence community that they know exactly what they are talking about.

So yes, I will say that the opinions of the Inspector Generals, CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies are 100% correct when they say the emails were classified before they ever landed on Hillarys server and that Hillary is guilty of mishandling of classified information.

You just don't get it like indigo..... retroactive classification and over classification are two defenses against a charge of mishandling classified information. The only way Hillary can prove she is innocent, is in a court of law after being charged with mishandling of classified information.

You really think there is an investigation this long simply because things were retoractively or over classified? I think that issue would have been resolved months ago.

Somebody was taking information off of classified networks and emailing it to Hillary.... she got busted.

The evidence is out there Mulder


"As someone that claims to have worked for the FBI and had a clearance, you should know this."

I do not claim to have worked for the FBI, I did work for the FBI and retired in 2012. This is easily provable and I have stated before, I have no problem going on skype with certain ATS Moderators and proving exactly what I state...but that wouldn't really mean anything would it? I would still be right and you would still be wrong and nothing would change.

Why do you think I have been posting about this? I know for a fact Hillary has violated numerous provisions of the legally binding contract that she signed... I signed the same one, everybody signs the same one.

It is very clear, it lays out what laws are broken when that contact is violated.




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.


All I know is that your team is in very bad field position.... they are on their own 1 yard line and it is 4th and 99 for a first down. It ain't looking good...they may want to drop back and punt. Their entire hope is on a hail mary pass (all 2200+ classified emails were retroactively/over classified).



(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-- Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


Your constant attempts to derail discussing Hillary breaking the law by shifting the discussion over to me and my qualifications, is nothing more than a lame attempt to keep from discussing Hillary breaking the law.
edit on R422016-04-19T11:42:57-05:00k424Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

You do know the NSA is the ultimate authority when it comes to classification issues.




The amount of false and inaccurate info you spew is exhausting...I have better things to do..

As far as your (yet another) whopper above, I will let you figure that one out...Hint: each President issues an Executive Order about classification when taking office...Why? and what does it say?...find and read that and then tell me who is the ultimate classification authority and how does it work with multiple agencies and classification authorities at each agency treating the same independent info differently...

Example: CIA consider US Drone Program's existence top secret.

The NYT times writes an exhaustive article on the US Drone Program.

State Department cites that Article in communications..

CIA has Classified it as Secret..

State DOES NOT classify that information (nor did the information originate as a classified doc from CIA)
State needs to be able to glad hand foreign diplomats and governments after drone strikes in foreign countries...they need and do talk about KNOWN drone strikes with foreign diplomats.

Each Agency is the classification authority for their own communications...and as long as that information is arrived at independently (News broadcasts and articles etc.) VS CIA or other agency marked and classified docs ...State can communicate information that the CIA, NSA or other agency might consider classified by their "Classification authority"...Agencies cant communicate classified docs or information that ORIGINATES from other agencies and is marked as classified.

All done here since you are all bait, troll and flat earth..

You can pull your hair out once your indictment dream crumbles.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

You do know the NSA is the ultimate authority when it comes to classification issues.




The amount of false and inaccurate info you spew is exhausting...I have better things to do..

As far as your (yet another) whopper above, I will let you figure that one out...Hint: each President issues an Executive Order about classification when taking office...Why? and what does it say?...find and read that and then tell me who is the ultimate classification authority and how does it work with multiple agencies and classification authorities at each agency treating the same independent info differently...

Example: CIA consider US Drone Program's existence top secret.

The NYT times writes an exhaustive article on the US Drone Program.

State Department cites that Article in communications..

CIA has Classified it as Secret..

State DOES NOT classify that information (nor did the information originate as a classified doc from CIA)
State needs to be able to glad hand foreign diplomats and governments after drone strikes in foreign countries...they need and do talk about KNOWN drone strikes with foreign diplomats.

Each Agency is the classification authority for their own communications...and as long as that information is arrived at independently (News broadcasts and articles etc.) VS CIA or other agency marked and classified docs ...State can communicate information that the CIA, NSA or other agency might consider classified by their "Classification authority"...Agencies cant communicate classified docs or information that ORIGINATES from other agencies and is marked as classified.

All done here since you are all bait, troll and flat earth..

You can pull your hair out once your indictment dream crumbles.



To use your example above:




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 disseminate 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 disclosure. 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 declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.


If the CIA determines that the newspaper article was derived from classified information, then that information is still considered classified regardless of the fact it was in the newspaper.

You obviously know extremely little about how classified stuff works.....you really are making yourself look bad.

The only one spewing false and inaccurate info is you my friend.


By its very nature, what NSA/CSS does as a key member of the Intelligence Community requires a high degree of confidentiality. Our Information Assurance mission confronts the formidable challenge of preventing foreign adversaries from gaining access to sensitive or classified national security information. Our Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.


The NSA is all over this.
edit on R312016-04-19T12:31:04-05:00k314Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
She should talk to the FBI. However, the agents should be aware that she will be lying mostly to them. Or she will have some lawyer intercept her answers and block all her answers from getting into a record of some sort.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

See. Your own twisted version. Thanks for proving my point.



Your constant attempts to derail discussing Hillary breaking the law by shifting the discussion over to me and my qualifications, is nothing more than a lame attempt to keep from discussing Hillary breaking the law.


No. You think it's derailing because I call you out on your leaps in logic and assumptions. We do not have enough information to come to any conclusion, as I have said many times in our discussions. Yet, you still continue to push the same narrative over and over.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ceeker63
She should talk to the FBI. However, the agents should be aware that she will be lying mostly to them. Or she will have some lawyer intercept her answers and block all her answers from getting into a record of some sort.


The FBI knows 2 thing Hillary doesn't:

If they have recovered the deleted emails, and what Bryan Pagliano told them about who directed him to set up the server and what instructions they gave him in doing so.

Personally, I don't think anyone should ever talk to anybody who can put you in jail unless you have to. It never turns out good...ask Martha Stewart.



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

See. Your own twisted version. Thanks for proving my point.



Your constant attempts to derail discussing Hillary breaking the law by shifting the discussion over to me and my qualifications, is nothing more than a lame attempt to keep from discussing Hillary breaking the law.


No. You think it's derailing because I call you out on your leaps in logic and assumptions. We do not have enough information to come to any conclusion, as I have said many times in our discussions. Yet, you still continue to push the same narrative over and over.


"You have posted link after link on this issue trying to prove your own twisted version of it."

Here ya go....my own twisted version of the truth that Hillary signed:

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

I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information

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 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

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 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b], title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the 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.

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 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 or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible.


www.archives.gov...


Yes sir, my own twisted version right there.


Are you saying she never signed that and she can not be prosecuted under that contract she signed?

I have told you before intro sweety.... I will give you that 99% of her emails were "retroactively" classified.... still leaves us over 20 possible felony charges,,,, do the math.

Can't prove anything? I think there is ample evidence of mishandling of classified information,,, I do not need to see the actual email like you do, I have more than enough faith after 18 years in the intelligence community that they know exactly what they are talking about.

So yes, I will say that the opinions of the Inspector Generals, CIA, NSA and other intelligence agencies are 100% correct when they say the emails were classified before they ever landed on Hillarys server and that Hillary is guilty of mishandling of classified information.

You just don't get it like indigo..... retroactive classification and over classification are two defenses against a charge of mishandling classified information. The only way Hillary can prove she is innocent, is in a court of law after being charged with mishandling of classified information.

You really think there is an investigation this long simply because things were retoractively or over classified? I think that issue would have been resolved months ago.

Somebody was taking information off of classified networks and emailing it to Hillary.... she got busted.

The evidence is out there Mulder


"As someone that claims to have worked for the FBI and had a clearance, you should know this."

I do not claim to have worked for the FBI, I did work for the FBI and retired in 2012. This is easily provable and I have stated before, I have no problem going on skype with certain ATS Moderators and proving exactly what I state...but that wouldn't really mean anything would it? I would still be right and you would still be wrong and nothing would change.

Why do you think I have been posting about this? I know for a fact Hillary has violated numerous provisions of the legally binding contract that she signed... I signed the same one, everybody signs the same one.

It is very clear, it lays out what laws are broken when that contact is violated.




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.


All I know is that your team is in very bad field position.... they are on their own 1 yard line and it is 4th and 99 for a first down. It ain't looking good...they may want to drop back and punt. Their entire hope is on a hail mary pass (all 2200+ classified emails were retroactively/over classified).

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-- Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Everything comes straight off the SF 312 that Hillary Clinton signed in 2009. Yet you claim it is my own twisted version.... go figure




edit on R432016-04-19T12:43:30-05:00k434Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R472016-04-19T12:47:15-05:00k474Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Look man, call it my own twisted version or whatever it is that floats your pro Hillary boat.

All I need is the SF 312 and associated hand book to go with it, that states what numerous federal laws Hillary has broken. This information is easy available from the government if you care to get it.

In fact, That is all I am going to post every time you make one of your ignorant claims. I do not need to post anything but the SF 312. And I will. The SF 312 has already been upheld by the Supreme Court and was found to be legal and legally binding.

Supreme Courts decision is good with me.

I tend to trust certain things like that more so than some anonymous poster on the intertubes,,,,I trust things like the FBI,CIA, Inspector Generals, Supreme Court.
edit on R142016-04-19T13:14:21-05:00k144Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join