Hillary Clinton + Sid Blumenthal + classified information = trouble

a reply to: Justoneman

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.

What proof do you have that the were hacked?

This is one of the biggest problems with this topic. People do not have proof. They have hearsay from internet rumors and armchair haters like the OP.

Show me the proof of that and we can talk.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

And why can't you understand that Hillarys position is a defensive position against a charge of mishandling of classified information.

She will be recommended for indictment, that is the only way this all gets resolved.

If you call trying to get you to see the truth, personal attacks....is that the same thing as everything was classified after the fact?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Justoneman

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.

What proof do you have that the were hacked?

This is one of the biggest problems with this topic. People do not have proof. They have hearsay from internet rumors and armchair haters like the OP.

Show me the proof of that and we can talk.

LOL LOL LOL you never heard of Guccifer and Sidney Blumenthal? what more proof do you need?

Seriously though:

Are you claiming that because humans do not have the capability to go back in time, that no information could ever be originally classified? Because that isn't exactly how that has worked for the last 70 years or so...hate to break that to you.

This topic is rife with trolling from ignorant liberal Hillary apologists.

a reply to: RickinVa

How can you enlighten me on the truth when you have no idea what the truth is? You have no inside information and no evidence of what was in the emails.

You know damn good and well that over-classification is a problem and that retroactive classified material can have these sorts of headers, but in this case you believe it to be proof of her guilt.

Bull#.

You want her to be guilty. It is your desire and heartfelt fantasy. You fantasy has little to do with what may actually happen.

We will have to wait and see. You've admitted that many times, yet still like to propagandize people in to believing in your personal fantasy.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Justoneman

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.

What proof do you have that the were hacked?

This is one of the biggest problems with this topic. People do not have proof. They have hearsay from internet rumors and armchair haters like the OP.

Show me the proof of that and we can talk.

LOL LOL LOL you never heard of Guccifer and Sidney Blumenthal? what more proof do you need?

Seriously though:

Are you claiming that because humans do not have the capability to go back in time, that no information could ever be originally classified? Because that isn't exactly how that has worked for the last 70 years or so...hate to break that to you.

You are correct. My apologies.

I was thinking about a different aspect referring to the hacking/malware.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

How can you enlighten me on the truth when you have no idea what the truth is? You have no inside information and no evidence of what was in the emails.

You know damn good and well that over-classification is a problem and that retroactive classified material can have these sorts of headers, but in this case you believe it to be proof of her guilt.

Bull#.

You want her to be guilty. It is your desire and heartfelt fantasy. You fantasy has little to do with what may actually happen.

We will have to wait and see. You've admitted that many times, yet still like to propagandize people in to believing in your personal fantasy.

"You know damn good and well that over-classification is a problem and that retroactive classified material can have these sorts of headers"

You keep right on repeating why Hillary be recommended for indictment,,,, actually you are the best proof I have seen that that will indeed be the case...

Everything you argue can only be proven after someone is accused of mishandling classified information in a court of law... they are defensive postures....

Thank you for enforcing the concept that Hillary has to be recommended for indictment in order to bring closure to these questions.

You are still not answering the question:

Are you comfortable with the fact that a Clinton Foundation employee was giving intelligence updates to Hillary while she was the SoS. Do you think that it is proper that a Secretary of State should be taking intelligence updates from a private citizen and forwarding them to various members of the State Department which may have unduly influenced some peoples decisions?

Ever heard of conflict of interest?

Bye bye... you won't derail this thread by talking about me or changing the subject.

a reply to: RickinVa

"You know damn good and well that over-classification is a problem and that retroactive classified material can have these sorts of headers" You keep right on repeating why Hillary be recommended for indictment,,,, actually you are the best proof I have seen that that will indeed be the case... Everything you argue can only be proven after someone is accused of mishandling classified information in a court of law... they a defensive postures....

Nice try. That's just more BS to distract from the reality of this case.

Again, as you agree, we have to wait and see what happens. To continue to push your narrative is disingenuous and dishonest.

Are you comfortable with the fact that a Clinton Foundation employee was giving intelligence updates to Hillary while she was the SoS. Do you think that is proper that a Secretary of State should be taking intelligence updates from a private citizen and forwarding them to various member of the State Department which may have unduly influenced some peoples decisions? Ever heard of conflict of interest?

Sounds like intelligence gathering to me.

I'll let the investigators decide if that "conflict of interest" is enough to charge her.

Bye bye... you won't derail this thread by talking about me or changing the subject.

Quiting already?

Usually you last a bit longer before you implode and chase tail.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

"You know damn good and well that over-classification is a problem and that retroactive classified material can have these sorts of headers" You keep right on repeating why Hillary be recommended for indictment,,,, actually you are the best proof I have seen that that will indeed be the case... Everything you argue can only be proven after someone is accused of mishandling classified information in a court of law... they a defensive postures....

Nice try. That's just more BS to distract from the reality of this case.

Again, as you agree, we have to wait and see what happens. To continue to push your narrative is disingenuous and dishonest.

Are you comfortable with the fact that a Clinton Foundation employee was giving intelligence updates to Hillary while she was the SoS. Do you think that is proper that a Secretary of State should be taking intelligence updates from a private citizen and forwarding them to various member of the State Department which may have unduly influenced some peoples decisions? Ever heard of conflict of interest?

Sounds like intelligence gathering to me.

I'll let the investigators decide if that "conflict of interest" is enough to charge her.

Bye bye... you won't derail this thread by talking about me or changing the subject.

Quiting already?

Usually you last a bit longer before you implode and chase tail.

Okey dokey sparky.... see ya on indictment recommendation day.

Time to back off and allow others to reply.... I know you desperately want to make this about me and my qualifications, won't happen.

Dude, I do not have to quit.... everything I posted is on the State Department and the White House websites. You know absolutely nothing about classified information or how it is classified or handled other than what you repeat from the Hillary campaign.

The evidence is out there...in this case, right under your nose.


"Usually you last a bit longer before you implode and chase tail." say the man complaining about personal attacks.

Attack the ball and not the player.

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

"Sounds like intelligence gathering to me."

That is funny,,, to everyone else, it sounds like the Secretary of State was using her private foundation (which received millions in donations from foreign governments) employee to influence decisions made by the government on foreign policy matters. That is not exactly what I call intelligence gathering... I call that conflict of interest.

a reply to: RickinVa

Attack the ball and not the player.

You made the first attack, remember this?

You are just a mouthpiece for the Hillary campaign that says the emails were classified later

Don't be a hypocrite, Rick.

That is funny,,, to everyone else, it sounds like the Secretary of State was using her private foundation (which received millions in donations from foreign governments) employee to influence decisions made by the government on foreign policy matters. That is not exactly what I call intelligence gathering... I call that conflict of interest.

Ok. I'll wait for the investigators to come out with their findings, rather than listen to an internet activist.

Okey dokey sparky.... see ya on indictment recommendation day.

No we wont. We will see you tomorrow trying to spread the same disinformation like you have in thread after thread. And it will end like all of them do. You breakdown and have to admit that we have no evidence and without evidence you cannot prove that which you claim.

What's the definition of insanity again?

a reply to: introvert

"What's the definition of insanity again?"

What does that have to to with the topic of discussion?

Would you care to discuss the two classified emails the Secretary of State sent her Clinton Foundation employee, Sidney Blumenthal who had no official clearance? That is the whole point of this thread.... not about me.


EDIT: I also want to add this........ a whole bunch of those emails contained attachments, mostly word documents.... those actual documents have never been seen and I would like to think they should be available under the FOIA.

That is important piece of the puzzle as well.... somebody needs to do a FOIA request for those attachments.

a reply to: RickinVa

Rick Rick Rick Rickster Richard Ricky Ricardo Montalban...You see, it's like this...This thread has to be made about you...otherwisethe very damning information you reference would have to be confronted and discussed.

a reply to: RickinVa

And who "really" is Guccifer? He is being described more or less as a prankster hacker, but I have a feeling he is much much more than that. He is supposedly a Romanian that speaks English and was just having fun. Yeah...right.

I am also hearing that out of the original four emails that were leaked to Russia Today, the State Dept. released word for word three of them, but the fourth is missing. Do you have any information about this fourth email missing that was originally leaked to Russia Today?

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa

And who "really" is Guccifer? He is being described more or less as a prankster hacker, but I have a feeling he is much much more than that. He is supposedly a Romanian that speaks English and was just having fun. Yeah...right.

I am also hearing that out of the original four emails that were leaked to Russia Today, the State Dept. released word for word three of them, but the fourth is missing. Do you have any information about this fourth email missing that was originally leaked to Russia Today?

You can find all of the emails that Gucccifer released from Sid....

As a matter of fact, I bet you can find some that have not been censorsed..on some of the emails on the State Department you can fill in the blank spots by doing some legwork, but I wouldn't recommend that for anybody that has a clearance or is thinking about getting one.

All I know about Guccifer is from what I have read.... A Romanian cab driver who happened to be very good at guessing peoples passords/or resetting peoples passwords. I still think he has a big part to play in this, if nothing else the Sid connection.

If Guccifer accessed either of the 2 classified emails she sent Sid, then her problems just get worse and worse. One of Sid's emails was deemed to be SECRET.(not the two in question)

Interesting that they finally just extradited Guccifer to the U.S.

No 'coincidence' Romanian hacker Guccifer extradited amid Clinton probe

The extradition of Romanian hacker “Guccifer” to the U.S. at a critical point in the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email use is “not a coincidence,” according to an intelligence source close to the case. One of the notches on Guccifer’s cyber-crime belt was allegedly accessing the email account of Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, one of Clinton’s most prolific advice-givers when she was secretary of state.

It was through that hack that Clinton's use of a personal account -- clintonemail.com -- first came to light.

Former law enforcement and cyber security experts said the hacker, whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, could – now that he’s in the U.S. – help the FBI make the case that Clinton’s email server was compromised by a third party, one that did not have the formal backing and resources of a foreign intelligence service such as that of Russia, China or Iran.

“Because of the proximity to Sidney Blumenthal and the activity involving Hillary’s emails, [the timing] seems to be something beyond curious,” said Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division from 2012-2014.

www.foxnews.com...

They hand out secret security clearances like candy.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I bet “Guccifer” gets an immunity deal too.

He may have more info than most people involved !!

Correction, suprised no one caught this:

foia.state.gov...

Is not from Hillary to Sid, but rather from Hillary to Jake Sullivan. I misread the header.

Doesn't change much at at all, you still can't email classified information from your unclassified email server at home.

Still doesn't answer the question of why Sid sent her 17 emails that were classified... that is all a part of the big puzzle.

a reply to: introvert

Seems pretty clear to me that this information was classified but maybe I missed something to. Also how as to other agencies can determine they were originally classified. I am hoping you are just riding the line of the rules or the law like the patriots lol. If you think this lady is not beyond crooked then you had to much of her kool-aid and pizza! I would like to think that people are arguing for the technicalities of the law and not for her. I wonder how many IT correctors are on ATS on her pay roll sometimes for sure!

a reply to: randomthoughts12

I am hoping you are just riding the line of the rules or the law like the patriots lol. If you think this lady is not beyond crooked then you had to much of her kool-aid and pizza! I would like to think that people are arguing for the technicalities of the law and not for her

I am not a Clinton supporter and am open to the idea that she may be charged, if the proper evidence is found.

What I do not like is that people will come to a website and spread ignorance because their inner fantasies include Hillary sitting in prison for a long time. I'm able to separate my political ideology from facts and evidence.

Sadly, many can not.