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: 6
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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 an FBI subject matter expert wrong.



Which one did you prove wrong sparky? I don't see him anywhere around...oh wait... you were looking in the mirror.

What ever.

I hear a fat lady singing something about 22 Top Secret emails being classified when they originated...my oh my

Tick tock tick tock goes the clock.
edit on R242016-05-13T11:24:24-05:00k245Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
The bit about the Kremlin having 20K of her emails is a lie though.

Sourced via Sorcha Faal, so yeah.

It's actually plausible.

Does The Kremlin Have Hillary Clinton’s Emails?
March 2015

According to Smoking Gun (which broke the story in 2013), when Guccifer breached Blumenthal’s account, he discovered Clinton’s email address hdr22@clintonemail.com. When Guccifer supplied Russia’s RT, an official Kremlin media agency, with the Blumenthal emails, it’s a distinct possibility that he supplied the Clinton email address as well.

If not, Kremlin cyber-security would have been keenly interested and could have used the Guccifer emails as guides to find the Clinton email address on its own. If either had happened, the Kremlin would have had Mrs. Clinton private email address since 2013 – an account, which apparently has no special security protections. If the Kremlin penetrated Clinton’s email account, it would have the most complete record of her secretary of state correspondence outside of the Clinton inner circle.


There has been well-founded speculation that Russian intelligence was aware of hdr22@clintonemail.com well before it became a story. And since the server was essentially wide-open to anyone with moderate "script-kiddie" capabilities, the probability that some information is in Kremlin hands is actually very high.



Most likely they do have all those emails, but just in case Hillary gets in they are playing both sides of the field.

They can use it a leverage for future favors. Heck that is what I would do, if I was the Kremlin. " Hey Hillary we could sink your ship really fast, we have all your emails from your server here, but we won't release anything, if........................"

imo that's why it's not all over the media, and being downplayed.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Are you Tony or Hugh?



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
The bit about the Kremlin having 20K of her emails is a lie though.

Sourced via Sorcha Faal, so yeah.

It's actually plausible.

Does The Kremlin Have Hillary Clinton’s Emails?
March 2015

According to Smoking Gun (which broke the story in 2013), when Guccifer breached Blumenthal’s account, he discovered Clinton’s email address hdr22@clintonemail.com. When Guccifer supplied Russia’s RT, an official Kremlin media agency, with the Blumenthal emails, it’s a distinct possibility that he supplied the Clinton email address as well.

If not, Kremlin cyber-security would have been keenly interested and could have used the Guccifer emails as guides to find the Clinton email address on its own. If either had happened, the Kremlin would have had Mrs. Clinton private email address since 2013 – an account, which apparently has no special security protections. If the Kremlin penetrated Clinton’s email account, it would have the most complete record of her secretary of state correspondence outside of the Clinton inner circle.


There has been well-founded speculation that Russian intelligence was aware of hdr22@clintonemail.com well before it became a story. And since the server was essentially wide-open to anyone with moderate "script-kiddie" capabilities, the probability that some information is in Kremlin hands is actually very high.



Most likely they do have all those emails, but just in case Hillary gets in they are playing both sides of the field.

They can use it a leverage for future favors. Heck that is what I would do, if I was the Kremlin. " Hey Hillary we could sink your ship really fast, we have all your emails from your server here, but we won't release anything, if........................"

imo that's why it's not all over the media, and being downplayed.


Oh yeah....the uranium deal!! I bet those details are telling and Russia is holding a real gold mine in those emails. Shame on Hillary....and Bill...using America like that.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Which one did you prove wrong sparky?


I have proven that your assertion that the emails were classified at birth (or origination) was incorrect, and you have shifted your position to reflect that. Now you claim they were classified when they hit the SD server.

That also means that the information itself was only classified when it came in to contact with government systems, and that the intel existing on Hillary's server itself is not necessarily a violation of classified material procedures.



I don't see him anywhere around...oh wait... you were looking in the mirror. What ever. I hear a fat lady singing something about 22 Top Secret emails being classified when they originated...my oh my


Is that how an experienced FBI subject matter expert conducts himself?

I don't think so.
edit on 13-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: introvert

Are you Tony or Hugh?



Do you have a point you'd like to discuss, or are you just hear to make personal attacks and be a cheerleader for confirmation bias?



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Looks like newly released emails prove Clinton did not provide all
emails as she claimed.

Another bad day for Hillary.

And, this is the case she can be ordered to testify under oath.


The new release also includes emails from Clinton from January 2009, according to Judicial Watch. Clinton has said she did not start using her private email server until March 2009, and the earliest email she turned over to the State Department was from March 18, 2009.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents after requesting emails “received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from Jan. 1, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013” from an unofficial email address.
freebeacon.com...



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



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
Looks like newly released emails prove Clinton did not provide all
emails as she claimed.

Another bad day for Hillary.

And, this is the case she can be ordered to testify under oath.


The new release also includes emails from Clinton from January 2009, according to Judicial Watch. Clinton has said she did not start using her private email server until March 2009, and the earliest email she turned over to the State Department was from March 18, 2009.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents after requesting emails “received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from Jan. 1, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013” from an unofficial email address.
freebeacon.com...




So now perjury is added?
She is done if the dems dont disconnect Trump will will easily.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: burntheships
Looks like newly released emails prove Clinton did not provide all
emails as she claimed.

Another bad day for Hillary.

And, this is the case she can be ordered to testify under oath.


The new release also includes emails from Clinton from January 2009, according to Judicial Watch. Clinton has said she did not start using her private email server until March 2009, and the earliest email she turned over to the State Department was from March 18, 2009.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents after requesting emails “received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from Jan. 1, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013” from an unofficial email address.
freebeacon.com...




So now perjury is added?
She is done if the dems dont disconnect Trump will will easily.


Yup, this was actually part of last week's Friday news drop but it is just now beginning to percolate up into the more general awareness.

Perjury, corruption, mishandling classified information, conspiracy...there's a long list of charges stacking up as we near the end of the crimimal investigation.
edit on 13-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

So now perjury is added?


She did sign an affidavit that claimed she turned all of her emails in.

www.cnn.com...

Also, since Pagliano's emails to and from her are missing, but his
emails to other people can be found, that spells real trouble,
obstruction of justice, destroying evidence....

Whom ever did that could be facing the worst of it all.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

Given what we have seen of government computer security, poor security implementation seem reasonable.

edit:

On the other hand, given the way the person who did the setup has acted, maybe purposeful failure was planned and he doesn't want to get caught in that mess. Knowing and doing puts him in hot water.
edit on 5/13/2016 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Even if trump is elected guys

Military industrial complex will not allow what they built to be destroyed, they will threaten trump and if necessary kill him

So nothing will change

Sorry



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

How come private central bankers like Rothschilds or warburgs or Rockefeller are never in the news and spotlight



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

What's interesting about that is that it's not just his emails that are missing. It's the .pst file that is missing. This is the file that contains his emails, contacts, appointments, tasks, and all other configuration and usage of MS Outlook.

I'm curious as to what is learned from an examination of everything in the .pst file other than his emails to show maybe why his was missing.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

On the other hand, given the way the person who did the setup has acted, maybe purposeful failure was planned and he doesn't want to get caught in that mess. Knowing and doing puts him in hot water.


He has been granted immunity, maybe they will find out who deleted
the emails, and why? Also, the FBI has his server too.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


"I have proven that your assertion that the emails were classified at birth (or origination) was incorrect, and you have shifted your position to reflect that. Now you claim they were classified when they hit the SD server.' cough cough BS cough cough

"That also means that the information itself was only classified when it came in to contact with government systems, and that the intel existing on Hillary's server itself is not necessarily a violation of classified material procedures. " cough cough BS cough cough

What part of this have you proven to be a false statement there Sir Talks Alot?

"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."

She failed to do anything because she knew what she was doing was illegal.... having classified information on her unclassified server would be jail time if caught. She opted to go for plausible deniability and just simply claim nothing was ever classified until after the fact. The same story you keep regurgitating for her. Which is going to bite her right in her pant suited rear end.

Where did I claim they were only classified when they hit the server only? I said they were classified the minute they hit the server. I left out the other part that they were also considered classified prior so you would do what you do best, take it and try to run to the end zone with it, which you did making yourself look like a fool. Not only did you run with it...you ran with it like Forrest Gump.

Of course they were classified when they hit the server, as I stated and have shown you above, the Governments position will be that the emails that were classified when turned over to the state department were classified when originated coming from Hillarys server in regards to Sidney Blumenthal, not when the state department classified them after receiving them from Hillary.


How many times do we need to have the discussion that because the State Department classified emails they got from Hillary after the fact, that in no way over rides any previous classification. In this case, the previous classification should have came from Hillary herself after she received the email from Sid, but she neglected to do so.... time after time after time.

You and Hillary are too hung up on the old.. of course it has to be marked..that's how you know it is classified. You have been told many many times... classified information may be marked, unmarked, or oral communications.

Classified information that lacks the proper classification markings is not considered unclassified simply because it is not properly marked as such.


See you on indictment recommendation day.

Sucks to be Hillary right now.


Is this where you want to drop back and punt the "Hillary was a classification authority and she simply deemed all the emails to be unlcassified based on that authority excuse? You guys haven't tried that one in a while.
edit on R502016-05-13T15:50:16-05:00k505Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R512016-05-13T15:51:20-05:00k515Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R552016-05-13T15:55:33-05:00k555Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R002016-05-13T16:00:15-05:00k005Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



How many times do we need to have the discussion that because the State Department classified emails they got from Hillary after the fact, that in no way over rides any previous classification.


So they were retroactively classified? The emails were not previously classified.

Cool. That's all I needed to know. That's what I've been saying all along and you said the emails were classified at birth/origination.

You have changed your story.



You have been told many many times... classified information may be marked, unmarked, or oral communications.


From the government, yes. Those emails and intel came from the CF.

Glad we agree.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



How many times do we need to have the discussion that because the State Department classified emails they got from Hillary after the fact, that in no way over rides any previous classification.


So they were retroactively classified? The emails were not previously classified.

Cool. That's all I needed to know. That's what I've been saying all along and you said the emails were classified at birth/origination.

You have changed your story.



You have been told many many times... classified information may be marked, unmarked, or oral communications.


From the government, yes. Those emails and intel came from the CF.

Glad we agree.


"The emails were not previously classified."


DING DING DING WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!!!!

Now you are getting there. That is the whole point..... none of these emails were classified by Hillary Clinton prior to being transmitted from her server to the state department server...

That is the freaking problem... thank you for finally seeing the light.

The email below has been retroactively classified with the designation of CONFIDENTIAL. ( I put that in there worded specifically like that just for you....run with it ).

Which means in this example for instance:

foia.state.gov...

That email is considered by the government as classified on 6/30/12 10:49 PM, the date she sent it.

That email is not considered by the government as classified on or after 1/29/2016 simply because that is the date on the classification markings. It meets the rules of the EO under 1.4 (d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources and is considered classified as of the date of origination, 6/30/12.

The governments position is and will be that the email that Hillary forwarded from Sidney to the SD should have been properly marked by her prior to sending.

That's the way the cookie crumbles.


edit on R432016-05-13T16:43:39-05:00k435Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R492016-05-13T16:49:49-05:00k495Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R542016-05-13T16:54:30-05:00k545Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I live outside the US and this e-mail scandal just isn't in the media here. I had heard about it but i was of the opinion that this was just a minor thing . Clearly there's more to it. What's the biggest issue here? What those e-mails contained or just the fact that she was seemingly lacking in security protocol?

Also, the word "Witch" comes up alot here. Can anyone point me to any particular official, indisputable cases she's been involved with that i can read up on? Many politicians lie and deal under the table all the time. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why she deserves to be called the Devil. She's in pretty high regards around my neck of the woods.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

First - Intent is not at factor for an espionage charge. So the talking heads who keep saying their was no intent need to stop as its a non factor.

Secondly - Its not relevant if the emails / info they contained were marked confidential, secret or top secret. Clinton trying to play the word game by saying classified is not going to work nor will it save her.

Finally whether or not they were classified at a later date is also not a valid defense to violation of the Espionage Act.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(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.

(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.


For those not familiar with legal language you will see the words "and" and "or" used. When a law lists the elements that need to be violated, you will see those 2 words used. If the word "and" is used it means all elements must be met in order to be in violation of the law. When the word "or" is used it means the elements stand individually and only the individual sections need to be violated instead of all elements listed.

Information being marked as confidential, secret or top secret is not required to be in vio0lation of the espionage act.

Also:
Hillary Clinton NDA **PDF LINK**

As you can see below its not relevant if it was marked and its not relevant if she didn't know it was confidential, secret or top secret. If she was not sure she was legally required to find out before doing anything with the info.

She broke the law and no amount of lies, "I didn't know", "was not marked at the time", other excuses are a defense that can be used. That holds especially true for the SCI information.

* - click for larger image



Key word - "Negligent handling"
edit on 13-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join