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.

 

Hillary Clinton + Sid Blumenthal + classified information = trouble

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Hello ATS!!!!!!!!!!

Mods move if in wrong thread:

Time for a new thread about my current favorite subject, Hillary Clinton and the ongoing classified email saga...

This thread will contain no links to any news sources, not necessary, everything is available on government sites!


Today we will look at the emails between Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal to see how they play in the current email scandal.

Turns out, they may indeed play a very big part...... unauthorized disclosure of classified information!!!


Ok...here we go:

I went to the State Departments virtual reading room @ foia.state.gov...

In the search box, I typed "sbwhoeop" which is Sidney Blumenthal.... I believe this is associated with his AOL email account.

The search brings up 1,030 hits.... a lot of these are multiples of the same email, but from different replies to the same email.

If you go through all 1,030...and yes I did.... you will find that approximately 17 emails that are classified, 16 @ CONFIDENTIAL and 1 @ SECRET.

The problem is, Sidney Blumenthal was an employee of the Clinton Foundation at the time and has no US Security clearance at all. NONE.

Out of those 17, almost all of the classified information was provided by Sid himself, and then spread to various members of Clinton's inner circle at the State Department.... Almost all... but not quite all.

NOTE FOR RECORD: According to the classification reasons stated on all 17 emails, they were considered classified when originated, which means they were classified went sent.

Let's focus on the two that will give Hillary her biggest headaches:

foia.state.gov...

and

foia.state.gov...

Both of those emails contain information sent by Hillary herself that was classified to an employee of the Clinton Foundation who had no security clearance.

Let that sink in:

Both of those emails contain information sent by Hillary herself that was classified to an employee of the Clinton Foundation who had no security clearance.


Looks like somebody has some explaining to do to the FBI.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOIA codes used on emails:

(b)(1) classified national security information
(b)(2) internal personnel rules and practices of an agency
(b)(3) information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute
(b)(4) commercial
or financial information that would cause competitive harm
(b)(5) predecisional, deliberative information
(b)(6) invasion of personal privacy
(b)(7) compiled for law enforcement purposes
(b)(8) regulation or supervision of financial institutions
(b)(9) geological and geophysical information concerning wells

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 17 of those emails were deemed classified (B1) by various agencies, including the State Department.... the reason for classification on ALL 17 emails is that they were classified when originated, as per Executive Order 13526, Sections 1.1, 1.4(B) and 1.4(D):

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

Section 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:

(b) foreign government information
(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources

Clearly states that the US government considers some information classified when it originated, or originally classified. This information includes the ones listed above. Commonly referred to as "born classified".


No news sites were harmed or used in the creation of this thread.
edit on R152016-04-24T10:15:21-05:00k154Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Great thread.
Hilary's email also contain a lot of references to various papers published by Max Blumenthal (the son of Sidney Blumenthal).

It's interesting to see what is Mrs Clinton point-of-view on these papers, and, on the other hand, the practical decisions she made about the middle-east and Israel.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I pray to the Baby Jesus and his father Cthulhu every day that she gets indicted for something. Anything.

But I know those two characters will let me down because she is a Clinton and they get away with whatever they want.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
So how could she possibly NOT be indicted?

Well researched and written thread, OP.

edit on 24-4-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

So how could she possibly NOT be indicted?


Because in contrast to the narrative the OP presents, those emails were not classified at the time of transmission. They were classified after the fact because of certain terms or phrases that were used by the investigating entities.

Honestly, this aspect has been debated many times. We cannot say for sure if the content of the emails are enough to indict Clinton because the intelligence community has a problem with over-classification. They classify damn near every thing they can. This has been a point of contention between the investigators and the Clinton legal team. While the investigators want to classify as much as they can, the Clinton team has asked many times for the emails to be released without the redactions.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
If anybody wants to see the 17 emails,

Go to the State Departments virtual reading room @ foia.state.gov... and use the codes below in the "search terms" box.

C05762494
C05766147
C05764341
C05764767
C05760780
C05760281
C05766854
C05766452
C05774510
C05774835
C05768686
C05788754
C05779465
C05787402
C05794900
C05794915
C05795628



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Could it be that Sidney Blumenthal is a covert CIA/Deep State actor or handler ? And yet the Hitlary Train keeps on keeping on .


+2 more 
posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

So how could she possibly NOT be indicted?


Because in contrast to the narrative the OP presents, those emails were not classified at the time of transmission. They were classified after the fact because of certain terms or phrases that were used by the investigating entities.

Honestly, this aspect has been debated many times. We cannot say for sure if the content of the emails are enough to indict Clinton because the intelligence community has a problem with over-classification. They classify damn near every thing they can. This has been a point of contention between the investigators and the Clinton legal team. While the investigators want to classify as much as they can, the Clinton team has asked many times for the emails to be released without the redactions.



So you are disputing that the codes placed on the emails themselves refer to the fact that the information was deemed originally classified? Is that the best you got... because the EO says something completely different.

Exactly how do you interpret Section 1.1 and sub sections 1.4(b) (d) of Executive Order 13526? Do you understand originally classified?

You are just a mouthpiece for the Hillary campaign that says the emails were classified later.... the actual proof which is right in front of your eyes, says something vastly different.

Arguing with a Executive Order....priceless.

You keep saying that Hillary will not be recommended for indictment, and yet you keep posting reasons why she will be, but you are too Hillary blind to see it...

17 Emails Hillary says were classified after the fact. The State Department "claims" it can't determine if they were originally classified because they can''t go back in time to make that determination... pure poppycock.

You got 17 emails 2 other agencies say were classified from origination.

Sounds to me like this will have to go to court to be resolved.


Take off your certified Hillary blinders for one second and ask your self this:

Why was an employee of the Clinton Foundation, who had no security clearance, sending Hillary Clinton classified intel updates about the Middle East?

Ever heard of conflict of interest among other things?
edit on R072016-04-24T10:07:58-05:00k074Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R162016-04-24T10:16:59-05:00k164Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Excellent thread opener and research. I wonder what the Hillary apologists will say about this, considering you are literally referencing primary source material.

I will be shocked if she isn't recommended for indictment. Even as a protected class, these emails are blatant and egregious.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
I will be shocked if she isn't recommended for indictment.


Will you? I mean deep down inside we all have to think nothing is ever going to come of it.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

How many briefings have you sat in on up in Langley or in the basement of the Pentagon? What clearance have you held? I keep seeing this trope about the agency over classifying things, but I'm wondering what personal experience you have in the matter, or if you're just regurgitating liberal talking points??



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

To clarify - I think they'll recommend it and she will wriggle out of it with an apology for a 'necessary' mistake and that a few of her inner circle will fall on their swords for her.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT

So how could she possibly NOT be indicted?


Because in contrast to the narrative the OP presents, those emails were not classified at the time of transmission. They were classified after the fact because of certain terms or phrases that were used by the investigating entities.

Honestly, this aspect has been debated many times. We cannot say for sure if the content of the emails are enough to indict Clinton because the intelligence community has a problem with over-classification. They classify damn near every thing they can. This has been a point of contention between the investigators and the Clinton legal team. While the investigators want to classify as much as they can, the Clinton team has asked many times for the emails to be released without the redactions.


I have read your comments on this subject and find you reaching for answers to questions that are different from the facts. Such as any of emails that were not classified, yet turned out to be later, had issues of chain of custody. Plus, those emails that were identified as hacked because the person stupid enough to expose themselves to such an opportunity allowed this to occur, is indeed a crime in an of itself. That is if lawful procedures being required to be followed in State affairs matter to you. But you seem to be asking those who can read for ourselves and draw the logical conclusions, why should we have wasted our time sharing facts on you when your spin keeps you oblivious anyway?
edit on 24-4-2016 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2016 by Justoneman because: need a proofreader



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

I see that as a very likely outcome.

I wonder though how much it would tarnish her support, particularly with the sad sack hardcore Clintonites. I could see her spinning it as they only went after her because: vagina.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Disclaimer I'm a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist so I don't really have a pony in the race these days. Buuut, I have seen plenty of clintonites gripe about paying taxes, lol and basically become dismissive when they are presented with facts that in any way tarnish their queen.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
Disclaimer I'm a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist so I don't really have a pony in the race these days.


Same boat, I am a Libertarian.


Buuut, I have seen plenty of clintonites gripe about paying taxes, lol and basically become dismissive when they are presented with facts that in any way tarnish their queen.


My very good friend who is a huge Clinton supporter misstates her income to avoid paying taxes.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your friend doesn't surprise me, granted taxation is theft so I kind of admire her for that, but the hypocrisy part is pretty distasteful.

I have held lower level clearance and have family that have held TS/SCI clearances and believe me the general consensus of this Clinton email thing is that there will be serious fallout from the Intel community if she were to not face consequences from this. Granted, to do so a lot of those folks would be putting their careers and pensions on the line.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
Your friend doesn't surprise me, granted taxation is theft so I kind of admire her for that, but the hypocrisy part is pretty distasteful.


Kind of the same for me. Uncle Sugar gets too much as it is.


I have held lower level clearance and have family that have held TS/SCI clearances and believe me the general consensus of this Clinton email thing is that there will be serious fallout from the Intel community if she were to not face consequences from this. Granted, to do so a lot of those folks would be putting their careers and pensions on the line.


I can see the long term ramifications impeding how everyone communicates in the future and the conundrums this would create.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

What I am saying is that those classification headers being used is not indicative of the email's content being classified at the time of transmission. You even answered your own question:



The State Department "claims" it can't determine if they were originally classified because they can''t go back in time to make that determination


While you continue to make personal attacks against me each time I point out that you have no grasp, or are willfully ignorant, of the fact that these headers were used retroactively in the interest of NS, Clinton has been fighting the intelligence community because of their practice of over-classification.

I say this every time we converse. We cannot come to any conclusion because we do not have proper evidence that she is guilty of any wrongdoing and the classification headers are not an indication of what, if any, charges she may face.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: introvert

How many briefings have you sat in on up in Langley or in the basement of the Pentagon? What clearance have you held? I keep seeing this trope about the agency over classifying things, but I'm wondering what personal experience you have in the matter, or if you're just regurgitating liberal talking points??


The internet is ripe with information on this topic. Go research.

As far as asking about my clearances or experiences, that is anecdotal. It's a logical fallacy. Plus, I could tell you whatever I think you want to hear.

Don't believe what people tell you. Look for yourself.



new topics




 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join