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.

 

Andrew Napolitano: Mrs. Clinton’s folks are preparing for the worst.

page: 5
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



I am still trying to comprehend your point about this whole CF crap.


That's not my problem. Read your own sources. You have proven yourself, with your own sources and comments, that your assertions are questionable.



You and Hillary say it isn't classified... various Government reviewing agencies have disagreed. I can see that with my own eyeballs and so can everyone reading this if they care to take the time to look through foia.state.gov...


The last time you posted that link you had a list of emails that you claimed was proof of her guilt. That list was actually proof that her emails fell under the retroactive conditions you personally described. Can you list them again, for the sake of fairness?



I can link you 17 government links that say otherwise.... if you can cough up one government link that proves your case,,, by all means post it.


You said it yourself, Rick. Let's read it again:



The only time I ever heard retroactive classification in my 18.5 years in the intelligence community is when it is applied to things like the government taking over private companies


I don't need government sources, when your own words, if we are to believe you, are good enough, right? The CF is a private organization. You defeated your own argument.



You are taking the stance that 17 classified emails we can all see with our own eyeballs aren't really supposed to be classified.


I did not say that. What I said is that they were retroactively classified under the very premise you have provided.

Thanks!



How do you and Hillary propose to prove your claim? In court? Oopsy.


The investigation is not complete. That has to be completed before it ever goes to court.



And you think I am taking a fools bet for my stance on this? Get real.


You have posted information and words that contradict your own assertions and assisted me in my own.

Fool is a nice way of saying it.


edit on 12-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Okey dokey pokey what ever floats your boat.

When do you think they will recommend her for indictment?

June? July? August?

Before the civil depositions? After the civil depositions?

You still sticking with never?

Oh I forget...you never seem to have enough information to ever arrive at your own conclusions. Never mind

questions questions questions....tick tock tick tock tick tock
edit on R492016-05-12T23:49:20-05:00k495Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Okey dokey pokey what ever floats your boat.


Is that a technical term, or we in teenager-mode again?



When do you think they will recommend her for indictment? June? July? August? Before the civil depositions? After the civil depositions?


Oh, now it's a civil matter now, not criminal? That's interesting.



Oh I forget...you never seem to have enough information to ever arrive at your own conclusions. Never mind


I will not come to any conclusion until the matter is done being investigated. But you have...and shot yourself in the foot in trying to articulate that position.



questions questions questions


Oh, so now you admit, once again, what I have been claiming this entire time?

How convenient?

The real question in this matter is when do you start being honest and show the smallest bit of integrity? So sad that a grown man cannot back-up his claims, has to lie about the claims of another and has to resort to teenage rhetoric in a pitiful attempt to deflect from his own mistakes.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Oh, now it's a civil matter now, not criminal? That's interesting.

I thought that you were aware of the civil matter that is already underway.
If you were not aware, there is one happening.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I love your latest hare brained idea about how the Blumenthal emails were private Clinton Foundation info and only became classified once it hit the SD servers because the government can not classify non-government information.

I like to call that the Split Personality Hillary-Blumenthal Defense.

In our prior discussion, I fed you a little rope... just enough for you to get tangled in.

I told you that the emails between Hillary and Sidney were classified the moment they hit the state department servers... which is 100% true, but not for the reasons you were thinking.

You have been told repeatedly that simply because something classified is not marked, that does not mean it is not classified.

The information forwarded by Hillary was deemed to be classified 17 times by the state department and other reviewing agencies. In all cases, the reference for classification is classified when originated. Easily searchable.

You also claim I proved your retroactive classification point by taking what I said about the only times I heard about retroactively classifying something was when the Government takes over a private companies weapons project and things like that and you ran with it... you ran past the outfield, and kept right on going.

I did say exactly that .... those emails were considered classified when they hit the SD servers due to originally classified as per the markings on them today. But that is not the first time they would be considered classified.

You forgot one teeny weeny step in the process....

The US governments position will be that the emails in question became classified when first read by Hillary Clinton due to her position as Secretary of State and her training in classified information protocols. She failed to properly mark the emails before forwarding them, and she failed to report receiving classified information in an non secure means to her security officer.

In these cases, Hillary should have been the official retroactively classifying Sidney's emails because the information was not government property until it came into her possession. The originating source date of this classified information would be when Hillary Clinton received it since she got it from a civilian source.

Looks to me like you have failed with your excuse because you may see Clinton Foundation Hillary sending some emails to the SD...the government will see Secretary of State Hillary sending those emails to the SD..... she is not two separate entities.






edit on R412016-05-13T04:41:39-05:00k415Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R472016-05-13T04:47:57-05:00k475Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa




posted on May, 13 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa


My TS has lapsed since my retirement, so I am going simply by common sense with this question:

Wouldn't the fact that Clinton had a private server destroy the argument of negligence and go straight to willful misconduct?

Had these e-mails been using her government e-mail account, or had she been using a private email account through a government server I could understand the "oopsie, I'm old" excuse (though how she could say that am claim to be a capable President I'm not sure). However, she went around these security checks to ensure she had control on the information flow, how then can she claim an "oopsie" now?



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: RickinVa


My TS has lapsed since my retirement, so I am going simply by common sense with this question:

Wouldn't the fact that Clinton had a private server destroy the argument of negligence and go straight to willful misconduct?

Had these e-mails been using her government e-mail account, or had she been using a private email account through a government server I could understand the "oopsie, I'm old" excuse (though how she could say that am claim to be a capable President I'm not sure). However, she went around these security checks to ensure she had control on the information flow, how then can she claim an "oopsie" now?

Add the fact that there were State Department officials urging her to use a .gov email for reasons of security (and to ditch her personal Blackberry for a government supplied phone also) and you have more evidence of 'Willful'. She had a decision to make, and she willed to go against the security aspect.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



The US governments position will be that the emails in question became classified when first read by Hillary Clinton due to her position as Secretary of State and her training in classified information protocols. She failed to properly mark the emails before forwarding them, and she failed to report receiving classified information in an non secure means to her security officer.


That's all I needed right there. You have just proven that which you continually denied this entire time. You said that the information in these emails should have been classified upon origination. But now you say they should have been classified by Hillary once they came in to her possession.

That information existed outside of the emails, in the hands of the CF, before any emails were sent. So the information would have to be retroactively classified at one point or another and was not classified upon origination.



In these cases, Hillary should have been the official retroactively classifying Sidney's emails because the information was not government property until it came into her possession. The originating source date of this classified information would be when Hillary Clinton received it since she got it from a civilian source.


So you admit it again.

We're on a roll. My, your story has changed. At first you said retroactive classification is a Hillary myth, but now you are embracing it because your assertions were destroyed.

On top of that, you are also now admitting that the information you believe should be classified came from a civilian source. You denied that earlier. So my assertions were correct.

Tick tock goes the clock, Rick. Plenty more time to flip-flop.

edit on 13-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hahahahahahahaha Star for you! I needed a laugh, thanks!



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



The US governments position will be that the emails in question became classified when first read by Hillary Clinton due to her position as Secretary of State and her training in classified information protocols. She failed to properly mark the emails before forwarding them, and she failed to report receiving classified information in an non secure means to her security officer.


That's all I needed right there. You have just proven that which you continually denied this entire time. You said that the information in these emails should have been classified upon origination. But now you say they should have been classified by Hillary once they came in to her possession.

That information existed outside of the emails, in the hands of the CF, before any emails were sent. So the information would have to be retroactively classified at one point or another and was not classified upon origination.



In these cases, Hillary should have been the official retroactively classifying Sidney's emails because the information was not government property until it came into her possession. The originating source date of this classified information would be when Hillary Clinton received it since she got it from a civilian source.


So you admit it again.

We're on a roll. My, your story has changed. At first you said retroactive classification is a Hillary myth, but now you are embracing it because your assertions were destroyed.

On top of that, you are also now admitting that the information . You denied that earlier. So my assertions were correct.

Tick tock goes the clock, Rick. Plenty more time to flip-flop.


I use your exact same excuses to show you how you are wrong and now you get upset? Puh lease.

Are you saying that the US Government will not consider that fact that emails received by various members of the SD from Hillary after she forwarded them from Sidney that had to be classified, should have been classified by Hillary when she became aware of them not before they arrived on the SD system?

You mad?

See you on indictment recommendation day.


Whats your next theory for a Hillary excuse? No one saw her typing so there is no proof she ever actually typed an email?


edit on R462016-05-13T09:46:59-05:00k465Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R592016-05-13T09:59:43-05:00k595Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: RickinVa


My TS has lapsed since my retirement, so I am going simply by common sense with this question:

Wouldn't the fact that Clinton had a private server destroy the argument of negligence and go straight to willful misconduct?

Had these e-mails been using her government e-mail account, or had she been using a private email account through a government server I could understand the "oopsie, I'm old" excuse (though how she could say that am claim to be a capable President I'm not sure). However, she went around these security checks to ensure she had control on the information flow, how then can she claim an "oopsie" now?


You are correct that her decision to place classified information on an unclassified server was a choice she willfully made, for her personal convenience as she has stated.

A lot of pro Hillary sites will say that she won't be indicted because there is no proof of willful intent. They attempt to justify that in order for her to be indicted, they would have to meet the same standards of proof as when people are caught selling state secrets. That's total poppycock.

793(f) Gross negligence in the handling of classified information does not carry any such stipulation.

Personally, I don't see how a prosecutor would have any problems using 2200+ instances as a classic case of inference of intent.
edit on R442016-05-13T09:44:32-05:00k445Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R492016-05-13T09:49:00-05:00k495Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R502016-05-13T09:50:08-05:00k505Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R232016-05-13T10:23:58-05:00k235Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Whats your next theory for a Hillary excuse? No one saw her typing so there is no proof she ever actually typed an email?

Ha!
Don't be surprised if it actually happens.
Definition of 'is' is and what not.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



You mad?


Quite the opposite.

If you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing any point in an attempt to prove Hillary's innocence. I've been casting reasonable doubt on your assertions. I've done that so effectively that you have now backed-away from you assertion that the information was classified upon origination and you agree the information originated outside of the government's hands.

So I am quite pleased with how this conversation has evolved.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



You mad?


Quite the opposite.

If you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing any point in an attempt to prove Hillary's innocence. I've been casting reasonable doubt on your assertions. I've done that so effectively that you have now backed-away from you assertion that the information was classified upon origination and you agree the information originated outside of the government's hands.

So I am quite pleased with how this conversation has evolved.


Me too... so you now admit that when Hillary Clinton made the decision to use intelligence gathered from outside sources to influence decisions made by the State Department, that she was indeed the one who originated that information in that capacity to the SD and should have properly classified it at that time prior to her transmission to the SD.

You do remember that she can and should have classified her own work.... it comes with the territory.

Yes sir.. you are coming along quite nicely.

You are not arguing with me... you are arguing with the other agencies who reviewed and have found them to be classified when they were originated, where they remain today. I just agree with the other agencies with the classified when originated.

See you on Hillary indictment recommendation day.....coming soon to a theater near you!!
edit on R542016-05-13T10:54:25-05:00k545Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Ya know, one thing that has bugged me is the claims you have made about your experience in the intelligence community. There is an inconsistency that I'd like to point-out.

You had this to say in this very thread:



The only time I ever heard retroactive classification in my 18.5 years in the intelligence community


You said this in another thread a while back:



My qualifications: 25+ years in the Federal Government, 18 with the Department of Defense (DoD) and the last 7.5 with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a GS-0391 Telecommunications Specialist. I also served on an advisory board to the Director, FBI as a subject matter expert on communications security.


www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=RickinVa

Looks to me like you should claim to have 25.5 years in the intelligence community, not just 18.5.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're not just making things up. That would not be an unreasonable assertion considering that for someone that claims to be a subject matter expert for the FBI, you cannot properly formulate a coherent argument and displays the emotional stability and vernacular of a teenager.

This is not a personal attack. I am holding you accountable for your claims and your claims do not add up.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa




you cannot properly formulate a coherent argument and displays the emotional stability and vernacular of a teenager.

This is not a personal attack.



LOLOLOL!!! I would call the above sentence "two-faced".

Rick has brought more real information to this topic, information WITH links you can verify, than all the ramblings you have done. You seem fearful and obsessed with proving Rick wrong. Is Hillary your sister or something?




posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"Looks to me like you should claim to have 25.5 years in the intelligence community, not just 18.5."

Okay with me if that floats your boat...has nothing to do what we are discussing, but yes...

I spent 7.5 years in the Military as a 31P... Telecommunications Specialist with a TS/SCI attached to a Military Intelligence Brigade. Upon leaving the military, I was hired by the Department of Defense to to the exact same thing I did in the military, except for a whole lot more money. I bought back my military time and stayed with the DoD for a total of 18.5 years...I switched over to the FBI the last 7 years in the government.

I use 18.5 years in the intelligence community because that is exactly what we were and did... day in and day out 24/7/365. Looking at classified crap all day long. Surfing NSA net on a boring mid shift. Good times.

My time with the FBI was not like the 18 years with the IC... two totally different animals... law enforcement as opposed to military intelligence.

I had a great career... mostly great times... retired as a GS 0391 at GS-13/8

None of this has anything to do with this thread.








edit on R192016-05-13T11:19:13-05:00k195Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: RickinVa




you cannot properly formulate a coherent argument and displays the emotional stability and vernacular of a teenager.

This is not a personal attack.



LOLOLOL!!! I would call the above sentence "two-faced".

Rick has brought more real information to this topic, information WITH links you can verify, than all the ramblings you have done. You seem fearful and obsessed with proving Rick wrong. Is Hillary your sister or something?



Two faced? He has made specific claims as to his credentials. Since he made the claims in regard to this topic, it is fair game.

If he was in such a position to be a subject matter expert for the FBI, why did he change his position on classification at origination and the claim that the intel originated with the government?

Either he is lying, or I was able to prove a FBI subject matter expert wrong.
edit on 13-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



None of this has anything to do with this thread.


Yes it does. You made a claim as to your personal credentials in this very thread, trying to assert your claims from a position of authority, and yet you have contradicted yourself.

So let's make this simple:

Are you willing to admit that you were wrong on the issue of classification from origination, and that you flipped on that position?

Also, are you willing to admit you were wrong and changed your position on the issue of certain intel belonging to the government, but was actually property of and originated from a private entity?




top topics



 
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join