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.

 

Classified went sent..Hillarys email drama

page: 1
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+21 more 
posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
This was touched on in another thread... needs more discussion: Mods move if in wrong forum!

There has been much discussion about Hillary’s emails. Most of you are aware that there is a dispute between Hillary Clinton, the State Department, which both claim that Hillarys emails did not contain classified information when sent/received, that information was classified after it came into the State Departments possession. Other Federal agencies disagree with that.

How and why information can be classified by the US Government is detailed in Executive Order 13526 which can be found here:

www.whitehouse.gov...

For the purposes of this discussion, the only information necessary can be obtained from 2 official government websites:

The White House
The State Departments Virtual Reading room for FOIA: foia.state.gov...


So let us begin… when does the Government officially recognize as the date that Hillarys emails were classified…is it the date the information was originated, or is it the date that the emails were classified once being turned over to the State Department?

The answer is quite simple and readily available to anyone who invests the time and effort to research it.

When information is classified by a classification authority, they must determine several things, again based on EO 13526:

1. Is the information classified?
2. What provision of the EO is applicable for classification?
3. What is the level of classification…CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET?
4. When will the information be declassified?

Those are four of the basic things that must be identified when classifying documents.

The EO is very clear about the declassification date and how that is to be determined….this is extremely important to this discussion.

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.

That says that if the original classification authority 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.

What is the declassification date for Hillarys emails? Let us check 10 samples and see:

1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 3/8/2011.

2. C05782907 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 09/30/2015 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 10/10/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 10/11/2011.

3. C05780602 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(C) — Declassify on: 03/12/2031….20 years after email sent on 3/12/2011.

4. C05764490 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 07/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D), 1.4(H), B1 — Declassify on: 09/05/2024…. 15 years after email sent on 09/06/2009.

5. C05764642 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 09/20/2019…. 10 years after email sent on 9/20/2009.

6. C05785530 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 05/16/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 5/16/2011.

7. C05782235 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 08/24/2031…. 20 years after email sent on 08/24/2011.

8. C05789767 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 – Class: SECRET – Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) – Declassify on: 03/24/2027…. 15 years after email sent on 03/25/2012.

9. C05791291 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 02/24/2037…. 25 years after email sent on 02/25/2012.

10. C05790513 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 03/09/2032…. 20 years after email sent on 03/10/2012.

All sample emails show declassification dates that range from 10-25 years after the date of origination, which is the day the emails were generated, not the date the State Department used after Hillary turned them in.

That is 100% positive proof that the US Government will take the position that these emails were indeed considered classified when sent, not at some “retroactive” date as Hillary and her supporters claim. They have already done it.

You can spin it all you want… but the facts do not lie!

And now those facts are right in front of your face.

The list of excuses used by Hillary grow thinner and thinner under careful observation....now she is down to over classified, or classification run amok, and none of the emails were ever classified in the first place. I wish her luck with those remaining excuses.



edit on R582016-05-15T12:58:17-05:00k585Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R312016-05-15T13:31:05-05:00k315Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Good Topic


I know the Trump Campaign is studying the whole Hillary@bagmail.ru issue.

Can't wait for Hillary's "eyes only" campaign to rebut the talking points.




edit on May-15-2016 by xuenchen because: student loan deadbeats love bernie



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

That is 100% positive proof that the US Government will take the position that these emails were indeed considered classified when sent, not at some “retroactive” date as Hillary and her supporters claim. They have already done it.



Agreed 100%, and wonder, do you think this is why The FBI instructed the
State Department to stop its "investigation" into the classifications?


The State Department said Friday that the FBI has asked the department to halt its internal investigation into emails sent or received by Hillary Clinton while she led the department, emails that are now deemed to contain "top secret" information.


www.washingtonexaminer.com...




"The FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice, which is to put our internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation underway," she said.


I do think she will face consequences.

Thanks for the great post.

edit on 15-5-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

You can actually determine the severity of the information based on the amount of years after declassification date:

Out of the 10 samples:

1 @ 10 years
5 @ 15 years
3 @ 20 years
1 @ 25 years

It appears most fall in the 15 or 20 year range... out of a possible 10-25... mid to higher end of the scale. Pretty damning evidence.

EDIT: I may be wrong... and I love statistics..always have..... but with a large enough sample of emails... out of 2000, how many would it take to establish a solid baseline for:

Taking the total number of years above and dividing it by the number of emails....170 / 10 = 17 years on average, but that's an extremely small sample...and then apply that number to a rating?

10 Years = sensitive
15 Years = moderately sensitive
17 Years = Hillary Clinton's email average
20 years = very sensitive
25 years = extremely sensitive.

(that obviously isn't a an official classification rating, only for purposes of the question, if I can find an official one I would substitute it of course)

25% for a solid baseline?

I think you see where I am going with this I hope. Bear in mind that the lowest possible average, 10, will put you in jail. She is already screwed..but I think with enough numbers... you can get an honest feel for how severe the Government has assessed this to be... the numbers are out there Mulder!

Found this:

www.fas.org... a copy of the 2005 Department of State Classification Guide:


(U) 3. Picking a Date. While a significant amount of State Department information will be adequately protected by assigning a classification duration of ten years or less, that duration of classification could,. be grossly inadequate for many classes of information. This latter is particularly true for information derived from foreign governments and confidential sources and, as discussed below under several individual categories, it applies to other types of information as well. Often there are multiple considerations in determining the duration of classification. While the information provided by a source may be of lessened sensitivity in ten years, the fact that the source provided the information could be sensitive for as long as the source lives. Similarly, the signing of an agreement generally means that much of the related information loses its sensitivity, but a negotiating history of the agreement describing the diplomatic details and discussions could well remain sensitive for many years. It is therefore incumbent upon the user of this guide, as for OCAs, carefully to consider each duration decision.




edit on R312016-05-15T14:31:09-05:00k315Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

It appears most fall in the 15 or 20 year range... out of a possible 10-25... pretty damning evidence.


Indeed, and that is only the ones she turned in,
before she deleted her 30,000 yoga routines.





posted on May, 15 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
dbl post
edit on 15-5-2016 by burntheships because: system double post error



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Interesting info! S&F



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Most likely..... the first thing that the state department should have done is suspended the clearances of all involved.. That didn't happen because it was reported that the FBI requested the State Department NOT to suspend clearances so that people involved could be questioned about classified materials.

The best they they could do is what they did... just simply suspend until the FBI is done. That way they don't have to explain why these people are still maintaining active clearances while under an investigation because it isn't their investigation... they can just play dumb.

If the FBI investigation results in charges, then there will be a lot less work for the State Department once they resume their security review.


I can tell you one thing for 100% sure.... the fact that the State Department decided to suspend their security review is a huge huge bad indicator for all involved....it tells you the FBI is running the show from that point and won't tolerate any interference, that is not good news for the suspects.
edit on R552016-05-15T14:55:37-05:00k555Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

I can tell you one thing for 100% sure.... the fact that the State Department decided to suspend their security review is a huge huge bad indicator for all involved....it tells you the FBI is running the show from that point and won't tolerate any interference, that is not good news for the suspects.


Yes, and in that, the State Department referred to it as a law enforcement
matter, which at the time was telling. Now that we have the FBI
calling Clinton on her "security review" bluff, it becomes even
more clear.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa


...it tells you the FBI is running the show from that point and won't tolerate any interference,


What about Mills and the Justice Department?


Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.


Clinton aide Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview briefly after being asked about emails

If the FBI is running the investigation, how in the hell can the Justice department justify running interference for Mills here?

It was touted as "an example of attorney client privilege" but Mills was not acting in the capacity of HIllary's personal nor the Departments official attorney so attorney client privilege should not apply.

What gives with that?
edit on 15-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I would like to know how she is claiming attorney-client privileges.

Somehow that doesn't seem quite right... might be legal... but it doesn't sound right..

I don't know a lot about Mills or what her duties were at the state department that would give her the right to make that claim.

Wouldn't they have to provide proof that Hillary paid her for counsel if she wasn't a lawyer in a state department capacity, or did she do it as a favor?

Some of the emails above have Mills in them
edit on R222016-05-15T15:22:57-05:00k225Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

She was not employed by the State Department in the capacity of legal counsel:


Mills served as the Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton beginning in January 2009.[18] In her capacity as Counselor, she was a principal officer who served the Secretary as a special advisor on major foreign policy challenges.[5] As Chief of Staff, Mills managed the Department's staff, providing support to the Secretary in administering operations of the Department. At some point during her employment in the Department Mills was also paid for unknown services by the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative.


Wiki

Perhaps the service of providing attorney client shielding for nefarious activity?

Pagliano was also double dipping and is probably part of what he is in trouble for.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   


That is 100% positive proof that the US Government will take the position that these emails were indeed considered classified when sent, not at some “retroactive” date as Hillary and her supporters claim. They have already done it.


I respectufully disagree. Here is why.


Sec. 1.5. Duration of Classification.

(c) An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification up to 25 years from the date of origin of the document, change the level of classification, or reclassify specific information only when the standards and procedures for classifying information under this order are followed.


You are correct that the information in question did receive declassification dates based on the origination of the document, but that is not indicative of it being classified on the date it was created. In fact, the classification dates were provided.



1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 3/8/2011.
2. C05782907 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 09/30/2015 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 10/10/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 10/11/2011.
3. C05780602 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(C) — Declassify on: 03/12/2031….20 years after email sent on 3/12/2011.
4. C05764490 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 07/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D), 1.4(H), B1 — Declassify on: 09/05/2024…. 15 years after email sent on 09/06/2009.
5. C05764642 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 09/20/2019…. 10 years after email sent on 9/20/2009.
6. C05785530 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 05/16/2026…. 15 years after email sent on 5/16/2011.
7. C05782235 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 08/24/2031…. 20 years after email sent on 08/24/2011.
8. C05789767 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 – Class: SECRET – Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) – Declassify on: 03/24/2027…. 15 years after email sent on 03/25/2012.
9. C05791291 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 02/24/2037…. 25 years after email sent on 02/25/2012.
10. C05790513 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(B), 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 03/09/2032…. 20 years after email sent on 03/10/2012.


The date these documents were classified do not coincide with the date of the documents origination, but the declassified date does, per the EO.

So this is proof that these emails were, in fact, retroactively classified and the declassification dates are based on the documents date of creation, not the date of classification.
edit on 15-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


No Sir, it is proof that the Governments position will be that the emails were considered classified on the date they were originated, not the date the classifying authority classified it... if that were true, the declassification date would be 10-25 years from the date the classification authority classified it. You're dead wrong.

If you would care to go through the government sites and find where it says that the date used by the classifying authority is the legal date that the information is considered classified,,, knock your self out.


The emails are considered for legal purposes to have been classified as originated under the guidelines EO 15326. That's the law.


2200 times crap had to be classified by a classification authority because the first classification authority (Hillary Clinton) failed to properly mark it classified.

No excuse for that and I am sure that will be the Governments position as well.

You are forgetting a very important detail.... the classification authority who classified those emails was NOT the first classification authority to see that email.

I believe the Government has every reason to ask her why 2200 emails had to be classified by individuals other than herself. We all know why... she couldn't mark them because she knew that was illegal to be on her server and she was hoping not to get caught.











edit on R552016-05-15T15:55:53-05:00k555Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R022016-05-15T16:02:06-05:00k025Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
older thread about the Cheryl Mills top secret clearance.....

Senior Clinton aide maintained top secret clearance amid email probe




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Counselor is a lawyer. God almighty.....



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



No Sir, it is proof that the Governments position will that the emails were considered classified on the date they were originated, not the date the classifying authority classified it... if that were true, the declassification date would be 10-25 years from the date the classification authority classified it. You're dead wrong.


I quoted EO 13526 in my reply. Here it is again.

(c) An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification up to 25 years from the date of origin of the document, change the level of classification, or reclassify specific information only when the standards and procedures for classifying information under this order are followed.
www.whitehouse.gov...

"From the date of origin of the document"

The declassification dates coincide with the dates the documents were sent. They do not coincide with "the date of the original decision", as stated in section B, which appears to be the more current dates the material was actually classified.

So it appears that declassification was based on the date of creation of the document, not the date of "original decision" to classify.
edit on 15-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Your blowing smoke.

In court... which date will be used for legal purposes? It will be the origination date of the email.

You are trying to absolve Hillary of her responsibility as the first classification authority... won't work, it's obvious she never marked any emails with the proper classification marking which was her legally bound duty to do.

She has repeatedly stated "I did not send or receive any emails marked classified" The real truth is she tranmitted and received 2200+ classified emails that were unmarked.... still classified in the eyes of the government...they have a contract with her acknowledging that classified information may be marked or unmarked.

She is totally screwed

But this is all what you like to refer to as nonsense so I will leave you to your version of nonsense and let the grown folks talk now.

I can see the prosecutor now.... fade to dream......................



Mrs Clinton, did you or did you not send this email?

Yes

Mrs Clinton, can you please tell us the date that you now see on this email that it was classified?

Why yes, it says right here in black and white: 01 Jan 2016

Mrs. Clinton can you please us what the position of the person who classified that email?

I believe that would be the classification authority.

Mrs. Clinton can you please tell us what date you sent that email that was classified on 01 Jan 2016?

Yes Sir...right here... 01 Aug 2011.

Mrs. Clinton, were you or were not on 01 Aug 2011, because of your position as Secretary of State, in fact a classification authority yourself when you sent that email?


It will rapidly go down hill from there....

Dang I like that dream.







edit on R142016-05-15T16:14:32-05:00k145Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R242016-05-15T16:24:25-05:00k245Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I'm actually trying to have a reasonable conversation here.

What part of my assertion is incorrect? The declassification dates do not match the date in which the "original decision" was made to classify. They match the date of creation of the documents, per section C of EO 13526.

The dates of "original decision" are listed, as you have provided in the OP, and they do not match the declassification dates.

Therefore, we can conclude that declassification was decided upon the date in which the documents were created, not when the "original decision" was made to classify the documents.

Is that assertion unreasonable? All that information is there for all to see.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Point granted.

However:


Exceptions to attorney-client privilege may arise when there is an overriding public policy, as enunciated by the court or a fiduciary responsibility to another party, such as a shareholder. A “crime-fraud” exception to the privilege allows disclosure of information communicated by the client in an attempt by the client to use the lawyer’s services to commit or cover up a crime or fraud


Confidentialit y, Privilege: A Basic Value in Two Different Applications.
By Sue Michmerhuizen*


Furthermore:


Whether the crime-fraud exception applies depends on the content and context of the communication. The exception covers communications about a variety of crimes and frauds, including (to name just a few):

* “suborning perjury” (asking an attorney to present testimony she knows is false)
* destroying or concealing evidence
* witness tampering, and
* concealing income or assets.



The Crime-Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege

It would be interesting to know if the FBI came back to Mills after seeing a judge to enact this exemption.
edit on 15-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join