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.

 

FBI May "Leak" Clinton Email Probe If DOJ Blocking Continues

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Tiny peg to hang your hat on since that actually never happened.




posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


What am I missing?


Apparently, this:



You see that blanked out section after the "Lots of good exchanges w leaders" and before the "Have you heard anything else?"

Yeah, that would be redacted information due to the


1.4(B)
1.4(D)
B1


annotations.

 


Rick, she is either actually blind, or willfully obtuse.
edit on 3-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: corected quote, gotta make sure I am accurate, unlike those who believe the Hildebeast.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Tiny peg to hang your hat on since that actually never happened.


Are you saying she never sent that email to Jake Sullivan?

Or are you back to claiming it never happened so it doesn't matter that she was clearly telling someone to break the law in order to quench her desire for convenience?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Sillyolme


What am I missing?


Apparently, this:



You see that blanked out section after the "Lots of exchanges w leaders" and before the "Have you heard anything else?"

Yeah, that would be redacted information due to the


1.4(B)
1.4(D)
B1


annotations.

 


Rick, she is either actually blind, or willfully obtuse.


That would be it... but she will not see that either... she will claim that is referring to the Sid to Hillary part.
edit on R572016-05-03T10:57:28-05:00k575Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

The block that says classified by DAS?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Jesus I'm supposed to interpret blank spots now?
I see the classified by DAS next to the one that says forward to H C
SO the whole page is ?



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I'm not convinced it is possible that the country be taken back....

I have my doubts as well, but I also have, hope. Releasing America from the web will take a "Global" effort. No doubt in my mind.

Bill and Hillary are but the tip of the Iceberg.

There used to be communities way back that were on the coast, any coast, all costs, that were actually owned and operated by Pirates. They became very powerful and moved inland. Pirates run the world, and they use Admiralty law to enforce it.

Shiver me timbers...............





posted on May, 3 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Either way means nothing as the info was classified after the fact.
This means nothing. Nothing.
You're headed for disappointment boys.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

You do realize almost all of HRC's response back to Sidney Blumental was redacted due to 1.4(B), 1.4(D), and B1 right? That is why after the first two sentences it is all redacted. 1.4(B) and 1.4(D) have to do with info that is literally 'born classified' - i.e. the 'over-classification by the CIA / DIA' or the 'classified after the fact' hold no grounds here. Mr. Blumenthal was not a Gov employee and had zero clearance. This is literally evidence of a crime.

As I've mentioned I don't have a horse in the race, politically I am not a D or R, so save the usual defense of "witch hunt" / "republitards" you have been using. I am just trying to help you see clearly what RickinVA is referring to.

Personally, the only reason I am keep abreast of this is not due to how I feel about Hillary as a candidate, but the fact is I and close family members have held clearances (including up to TS/SCI) and it is a big smack in the face that the political class is not held remotely to the same standard that us regular GS folks are.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Either way means nothing as the info was classified after the fact.
This means nothing. Nothing.
You're headed for disappointment boys.


PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION

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;

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:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(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;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or

(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Your classified later excuse does not hold water according to Executive Order 13526.

Sorry to disappoint you.
edit on R322016-05-03T11:32:55-05:00k325Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

You might also want to include the definition of "Original Classification" due to the poster you are responding to being unable to understand even the most basic of terms.

 


Meanwhile, the Huffington Post has an entertaining article:


The actual Espionage Act “gross negligence” passage is worded in the following manner:

(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 under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

...

...gross negligence, or carelessness, isn’t an excuse. Under the law, if you’re Secretary of State and you’re so careless, that you allow state secrets to be compromised, then you could face repercussions from the Espionage Act.

...

As for the Espionage Act, the Top Secret data and deleted emails constitute not only carelessness, but “gross negligence” and perhaps far more.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Either way means nothing as the info was classified after the fact.
This means nothing. Nothing.
You're headed for disappointment boys.


Classified later because nobody doing the classifying saw it until after the fact !!




posted on May, 3 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

She was asked a question by a reporter trying to corner her. Yeah she can make a joke about it since this whole thing is one big joke anyway.
Watch it go away awayawayawaya w a y . . . . .

Trying to corner her?
The reporter asked a simple question. It required a yes or no answer.
What amazes me us that Hillary failed to use an easy opportunity to LIE.



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Here is something that I would like to see classified after the fact.

Hillary, classified as a convicted felon.
edit on b000000312016-05-03T17:36:26-05:0005America/ChicagoTue, 03 May 2016 17:36:26 -0500500000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Here is something that I would like to see classified after the fact.

Hillary, classified as a convicted felon.


classified and categorized




posted on May, 4 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Here is something that I would like to see classified after the fact.

Hillary, classified as a convicted felon.


Her husband is an unconvicted felon, and ran the White House as well as any sock puppet could.

She will never be convicted of anything--the rule of law in this country is dead.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

No Rick I'm saying it was never done. No one but you thinks it's a big deal apparently. It never happened. They never stripped anything or sent anything.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

She hasn't even been charged with anything.

This is too funny.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa


Hillary's going to be president Rick. She's not going to jail.
Give it up already.
The rumor that she was going to be subpoenaed to talk to the FBI from 61days ago hasn't happened. No one from her staff has been subpoenaed. Pagliano is the only one they spoke to. Her tech guy. Most likely to get an idea of his skills and to learn what safety measures he put in place.
When Andrea Mitchell asked Hillary just yesterday if the FBI has contacted her Hillary said no.
Trumptard is the only one daring to mention this but then again he's a conspiracy theory kind of guy.
haven't you heard the latest.. Ted Cruzs father killed JFK.



posted on May, 4 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


Your just saying that because Trump is a Bully, or is a Racist, or is it Sexist, or Rich, choose a trigger Hillary and stick with it for two days. Oops, she might "misspeak" or be "taken out of context" if we want her to have the same talking point for two straight days.


Of course she isn't going to jail. President Obama was her boss when any crime was committed and any wrong doing would reflect on him. Her husband was convicted of perjury and not removed from office (not a single Senate Dem found him guilty of perjury even after he admitted to in on TV). Do you really think Hillary is going to face the music for ANY crime committed while the Dems hold the White House and the DOJ?


Lets at least be real with one another without the party rhetoric. I can admit she may not have committed a crime, can you admit that even if she did she'll never face a trial?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join