It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: 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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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...
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..
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
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.
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.
(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.
originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5
You do know the NSA is the ultimate authority when it comes to classification issues.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.