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: 7
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Skeletonized

I am sure it doesn't make any sense to our world neighbors, it makes no sense to us Americans. LOL.

Here is a link to a blog that actually covers pretty much everything in a very simple easy to follow order of progression.

It has a couple of small errors, but for the most part it is spot on.

informedvote2016.wordpress.com...

Would be nice for you to read through that and come back and tell us what you think.

This is the condensed version:

georgiapoliticalreview.com...


(1) Hillary Clinton’s e-mails with Clinton Foundation employee Sidney Blumenthal contain proof that she knowingly retained “classified information” on her private server and also communicated information of “the national defense” with someone “not entitled to receive it.”



Many have suspected that Clinton’s entire rationale for having the private server was not “convenience” as she has said, but rather to keep under wraps what looks like an, unofficial, unvetted intelligence network run by Blumenthal, Tyler Drumheller, an ex-CIA intelligence officer, and Cody Shearer, a long time Clinton family friend

edit on R032016-05-13T17:03:34-05:00k035Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Now you are getting there. That is the whole point


Yup, and you changed your story. You have always maintained that the emails and their content were classified at birth/origination. Since they originated with the CF, that assertion was clearly false. Now you changed your tune and said that they were supposed to be classified when Hillary got her hands on it.

Whether or not that is true is irrelevant in regard to my point. My point is that you flip-flopped and now you are trying to say that is what you have been saying all along.

How dishonest of you Ricky. Let me provide proof of your flip-flop. Earlier in the thread you said this:



She says retroactively classified... classification run amok. The FBI and other reviewing agencies disagree.


You also said this in this thread:



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 weapon designs and things of that nature


And then you also said this:



I will stick with the intell people and go with what they have said all along..... classified when originated.


But in your last post, you said this:



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 )


Well, which is it RIcky? Were they retroactively classified or not? I ran with it and have proven you were full of # this entire time.

Tick tock, more time to flip-flop.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

retroactive classification is a non factor.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

retroactive classification is a non factor.


Not the point I was making. I was highlighting Ricky's flip-flop and not arguing the relevance of the classification.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

fair enough.. my bad.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"Yup, and you changed your story. You have always maintained that the emails and their content were classified at birth/origination."

I still maintain that the emails and their content were classified at birth/origin... what is your point?


My story is and always has been that these emails classiified under 1.4 (b) & (d) are classified when they originated.

I am not sure where you are getting that I switched my story... I assume you are still mad because I used your favorite term "retroactively classified" and spanked your butt with it.

Put some ointment on it... it will be ok.


edit on R132016-05-13T17:13:23-05:00k135Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

fair enough.. my bad.


No harm. By the way, I am going to set your previous post aside and dig in to it later when I get home and have access to a faster machine. I see some info that I had not seen before and I think it may be quite good.

I'll let you know.


(post by introvert removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
My TS has lapsed since my retirement, so I am going simply by common sense with this question:

My questions would be: Why did she feel a need to control an e-mail server to begin with? With tens of thousands of employees on State Dept servers, what did she need to shield by going private?

When (if) these questions are asked ... intent will be defined.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: 200Plus
My TS has lapsed since my retirement, so I am going simply by common sense with this question:

My questions would be: Why did she feel a need to control an e-mail server to begin with? With tens of thousands of employees on State Dept servers, what did she need to shield by going private?

When (if) these questions are asked ... intent will be defined.


Which is why I think the FBI may decide to hold off until after the civil depositions by Judicial Watch....they can ask them a lot more stuff under oath than the FBI can in an interview and the FBI can use anything that comes out of the civil court in criminal court.
edit on R222016-05-13T17:22:00-05:00k225Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)


(post by introvert removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa


POST REMOVED BY STAFF


AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON AND THE UNITED STATES

1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive Order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.
edit on R292016-05-13T17:29:29-05:00k295Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R302016-05-13T17:30:33-05:00k305Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on Fri May 13 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Judicial Watch has been granted only limited discovery and also may subpoena former Secretary Clinton to testify, included will be the following questions:


Defendant shall serve its answers and the four interrogatories set forth in proposed discovery plan, ECF No. 58-1 within 21 days of the Court's order. interrogatories include:

1. Who was responsible for processing and/or responding to record requests, including FOIA requests, concerning emails of Mrs. Clinton and other employees of the Office of the Secretary;

2. Who was responsible for the accounting of Mrs. Clinton's records, and information; inventorying or and Ms. Abedin' s other emails,

3. Who was responsible for responding to Plaintiff's FOIA request from the date of submission to the present; and

4. Which State Department officials and employees had and/or used an account on the clintonemail.co. system to conduct official government business.


JW v. State Discovery approved 01363



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Criminal will always take precedent over civil.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
When you read Executive order 13526...

You learn lots of things...

Like how long information can be classified... but you know else you learn....you learn the date that the federal government considers the information lawfully classified... the date of origination.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Sec. 1.5. Duration of Classification. (a) At the time of original classification, the original classification authority shall establish a specific date or event for declassification based on the duration of the national security sensitivity of the information. Upon reaching the date or event, the information shall be automatically declassified. Except for information that should clearly and demonstrably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source or key design concepts of weapons of mass destruction, the date or event shall not exceed the time frame established in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification, information shall be marked for declassification 10 years from the date of the original decision, unless the original classification authority otherwise determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it be marked for declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original decision.


Understand what that says?

That says that if the original classification authority, in this case, the agencies that were doing Hillarys email review, can not determine a specific date or event for declassification...it shall be declassified 10-25 years from the date of the original decision based on the severity of the information contained.

Let's look at some of Hillarys emails.... random samples:

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

foia.state.gov...

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on:
05/16/2026

The declassification date is 15 years from when the email was originally sent on 5/16/2011

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

foia.state.gov...

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(G), B1 — Declassify on:
04/04/2035

The declassification date is 25 years from when the email was originally sent on 4/5/10.

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

foia.state.gov...

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 09/30/2015 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 10/10/2026

The declassification date is 15 years from when the email was originally sent on 10/10/11.

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

That is about as close to a smoking gun as you will get with what we know....That is proof solid that the governments position will be that the emails were classified when originated. They already took that position in the declassification dates which all happen to be 10-25 years from the date the emails were sent.... not the when they were "retroactively" classified date as some like to call it.

Oh snap!!!! Hillary is in some serious crap!!!!!!!!!!!!





edit on R222016-05-13T19:22:17-05:00k225Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R412016-05-13T19:41:31-05:00k415Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


"To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”


Fox News

There's a screenshot of the .pdf of the letter naming the source.


Special access programs (SAPs) in the federal government of the United States of America are security protocols that provide highly classified information with safeguards and access restrictions that exceed those for regular (collateral) classified information. It may be a type of black project. In addition to collateral controls, a SAP may impose more stringent investigative or adjudicative requirements, specialized nondisclosure agreements, special terminology or markings, exclusion from standard contract investigations (carve-outs), and centralized billet systems.


Wiki

DOD 5200.1-R, 1997

Google the above and you will learn:


C10.1.2. Reporting

C10.1.2.1. Anyone finding classified material out of proper control shall take custody of and safeguard the material, if possible, and immediately notify the appropriate security authorities.


This is what Hillary, or anyone so cleared, should have done as soon as it became known that they possessed SAP info outside cleared systems designed for such information.


C10.1.2.2. Any person who becomes aware of the possible compromise of classified information shall immediately report it to the head of his or her local activity or to the activity security manager. If the person believes that the head of the activity or the security manager may have been involved in the incident, he or she may report it to the security authorities at the next higher level of command or supervision.


Anyone who worked under Hillary and knew qhat was going on had a legal duty to report such activity.

Many geese are being prepped for cooking, I'll bet there are more than a few pigeons willing to give up the big honker...



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Rick...You are definitely the 'go to' guy for informed information on gov. classification.
I don't even want to know what all the other member's 'Manners Violations' were about...but I'll just continue to consider the source.

Keep up the good work...many here look to you for your knowledge and expertise on this subject.

P.S. Nice work, too, Jaded.
edit on 13-5-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

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



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Thanks man I appreciate that.

I could write a book by now with at least 100 hours of research by now.

It's ironic, but the more the Hillerites post BS about this classified stuff... the more that empowers me to research and find the truth. Iol
edit on R022016-05-13T20:02:53-05:00k025Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join