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: 13
41
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Oh, and let's also talk about retroactive classification. Even Fox News admits emails were retroactively classified:


The report says that the State Department identified the emails as containing "foreign government information" when it retroactively classified them upon their release earlier this year.


www.foxnews.com...

Also on the topic of "born classified":


"Born secret" and "born classified" are both terms which refer to a policy of information being classified from the moment of its inception, usually regardless of where it was being created,usually in reference to specific laws in the United States that are related to information that describes the operation of nuclear weapons. It has been extensively used in reference to a clause in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which specified that all information about nuclear weapons and nuclear energy was to be considered "Restricted Data" (RD) until it had been officially declassified. In the 1954 revision of the Act, the United States Atomic Energy Commission was given the power to declassify entire categories of information. The "born secret" policy was created under the assumption that nuclear information could be so important to national security that it would need classification before it could be formally evaluated. The wording of the 1954 act specified: All data concerning (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; (2) the production of special nuclear material; or (3) the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy, but shall not include data declassified or removed from the Restricted Data category pursuant to section 2162 of this title.[1]
Whether or not it is constitutional to declare entire categories of information preemptively classified has not been definitively tested in the courts.

The legality of the 'born secret' doctrine was directly challenged in a freedom of the press case in 1979 (United States v. The Progressive). In that case, a magazine attempted to publish an account of the so-called "secret of the hydrogen bomb" (the Teller-Ulam design), which was apparently created without recourse to classified information. Many analysts predicted that the US Supreme Court would, if it heard the case, reject the 'born secret' clause as being an unconstitutional restraint on speech. However, the government dropped the case as moot before it was resolved

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SonOfThor



By the way - anyone notice the Hillarites have gone somewhat quiet on these forums lately?



Me, I do it for the challenge. It is high risk, usually with no reward, but when it does work out, it's worth it. Like this thread. It's drug-on forever and it took 10 or so pages for someone to say that I was right, and I was saying it since page 1.



The above your point about challenges is why I am still a very active libertarian, despite the amount of hate I get from everyone on both sides, lol.

I try to refrain from any personal stuff on here, and keep the debate going on the merits of arguments. I think a lot of folks take it personal regardless of how they feel about Hillary because career folks with clearances have gone through insane pains in the rear in their daily work to protect sensitive information. I'm talking massive doses of vitamin D because you never see daylight during the day, or having to remember to lock EVERYTHING up anytime you have to get up to take a leak, and remembering no matter how many delicious imported beers you drink that a huge chunk of what you work on you will never be able to discuss with most if not all of your family.

People who dealt with all that for 20-30 years of Gov service without fouling up then see a political person come in and willy nilly take a majorly blasé attitude it all feel like it is a serious smack in the face.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are completely missing the point. Here is what was said in the OP:



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.


He tried to use the declassification date to make this point. As I have shown, declassification dates are created according to the creation date of the documents, not the date it was classified.

You are trying to argue against an assertion I never made.
edit on 17-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Excellent post.... we think just alike for once.... amazing.

I said exactly the same thing and used your exact same source material.

I agree 100% that it has never been challenged by the Supreme Court.......said it any times.

You saying this is the case that going to take it there??? Absolutely Positively love that idea 100% and support it by all means.

If she is going to do it in civil court, she might want to put a rush on it because right now it appears that it will be in criminal court.




edit on R202016-05-17T15:20:08-05:00k205Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R222016-05-17T15:22:01-05:00k225Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R262016-05-17T15:26:04-05:00k265Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

What that means is that retroactive classification is not a myth or a Hillary talking point...it's real. Fox News admitted it.

Also, the born classified aspect seems to only apply to nuclear issues and has never been used in court in any other circumstance.

So it appears that you were wrong on both accounts.

edit on 17-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

Excellent post.... we think just alike for once.... amazing.

I said exactly the same thing and used your exact same source material.

I agree 100% that it has never been challenged it court.......said it any times.

You saying this is the case that going to take it there??? Absolutely Love that idea 100% by all means...





Speaking of court challenges, has any one on behalf of Hillary's counsel challenged in court the OCA's decisions to classify those 2200+ emails of hers? One would think that would be an immediate step for them, otherwise I have a feeling her defense will be either retroactive classification (her role as OCA kind of squashes that defense), or her defense will in some way push all of the blame on her aides (i.e. she trusted them to follow all laws and rules and they ignored her / let her down).


edit on 17-5-2016 by SonOfThor because: sp



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are completely missing the point. Here is what was said in the OP:



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.


He tried to use the declassification date to make this point. As I have shown, declassification dates are created according to the creation date of the documents, not the date it was classified.

You are trying to argue against an assertion I never made.




As I have shown, declassification dates are created according to the creation date of the documents, not the date it was classified.

Wrong... the declassification dates are set to expire 10-25 years from when the classified information was originated. As it should be.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

What that means is that retroactive classification is not a myth or a Hillary talking point...it's real. Fox News admitted it.

Also, the born classified aspect seems to only apply to nuclear issues and has never been used in court in any other circumstance.


The info would not have had to be retroactively classified if she had just done her job.

Born classified does not only apply to nuclear issues.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
"...usually in reference to specific laws in the United States that are related to information that describes the operation of nuclear weapons."


That's at least twice you've tried to make this case.

It's so odd that people who know far more than you do from reading wikipedia seem to disagree with your point on this.

Reuters



"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."




Maybe you should send Mr. Leonard your wikipedia link.
edit on 17-5-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

What that means is that retroactive classification is not a myth or a Hillary talking point...it's real. Fox News admitted it.

Also, the born classified aspect seems to only apply to nuclear issues and has never been used in court in any other circumstance.

So it appears that you were wrong on both accounts.


Wrong again..want to go for three?

Bye man.. got to ignore you. You are totally delusional in the excuses you continue to come up with for your mentor, Hillary Clinton.

All you are doing is regurgitating the same ole BS that comes straight from Hillarys press. Its pointless to try to reason with you.

Doesn't really matter... I know in my heart what I type to you is true...and that is all that really matters at the bottom line...none of the absurd excuses to continue to pop up with are nothing more than the rantings of someone who is either intentionally deceptive are knows absolutely nothing about how classification works.

You spend so many hours defending someone, who, for all intents and purposes, at this point is totally indefensible.

Good luck with that, because nothing you say on here will affect the outcome of the FBI "law enforcement investigation". That's a darn good thing because personally, I have a lot more faith in the FBI than I do the BS you keep repeating.


To each his own.


Tick Tock goes the clock.


edit on R372016-05-17T15:37:21-05:00k375Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R392016-05-17T15:39:39-05:00k395Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



As I have shown, declassification dates are created according to the creation date of the documents, not the date it was classified.


Yes, but that does not mean that the government will consider them to have been classified documents when they were created. The dates you provided are when the government classified the material and those dates do not match the declassification dates.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

What that means is that retroactive classification is not a myth or a Hillary talking point...it's real. Fox News admitted it.

Also, the born classified aspect seems to only apply to nuclear issues and has never been used in court in any other circumstance.


The info would not have had to be retroactively classified if she had just done her job.



But they were retroactively classified. That is my point. Whether she did her job or not is not the point I am debating.



Born classified does not only apply to nuclear issues.


Can you find any court case in which that argument has been used? The link I provided show it was only tried once and the government shut it down before it even went to court.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Also, the born classified aspect seems to only apply to nuclear issues and has never been used in court in any other circumstance.


Seems to?


...usually in reference to specific laws in the United States that are related to information that describes the operation of nuclear weapons.


Not exclusively, ie, can apply to other categories of classified information.

For example:


(b)(1) Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. Executive Order 13526 includes the following classification categories:

1.4 (b) Foreign government information
1.4 (d) Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources


Are you saying that information falling in to the above categories only becomes classified once markings are placed upon it after review or rather the nature of the information is what warrants marking after being reviewed?

If not marked, it is "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;"

If, as Rick has mentioned, Hillary skated past her training session because, convenience (or any other reason at all, really), she does not deserve to sit in the president's chair for carelessness.

To paraphrase someone else, if she didn't know it was wrong she's too stupid to have the job, if she did know it was wrong, she broke the law and didn't care and so should not have the job.

Either way, she should GET OUT!



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are completely missing the point. Here is what was said in the OP:



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.


He tried to use the declassification date to make this point. As I have shown, declassification dates are created according to the creation date of the documents, not the date it was classified.

You are trying to argue against an assertion I never made.



His point was that the origination date to the declassification date encompasses the entire time the information was classified.

So, it was classified info from the get go. And I agree with that assessment.

The content of the emails never changed, so why would the classification? Marked or unmarked, the info in question was always classified per law.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



J. William Leonard


All sources of that claim link back to this one man. No one else in an official capacity has made the "born classified" argument.

Also, it appears that the lack of legal precedence of a "born classified" approach is also very telling.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Name another case in which the "born classified" argument was used.

edit:



If not marked, it is "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


EO 12958 is outdated and has been replaced by EO 13526.
edit on 17-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


When do you think Hillary will be indicted so we can resolve these issues you point out in a court of law?

edit on R412016-05-17T15:41:38-05:00k415Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R442016-05-17T15:44:46-05:00k445Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



J. William Leonard


All sources of that claim link back to this one man. No one else in an official capacity has made the "born classified" argument.


Oh good lord. You don't like what the qualified source says so he's not good enough. Wikipedia says that "usually" only info concerning the operation of nuclear weapons is "born classified" so Leonard must have-ta be so wrong saying that the term applies to Hillary, too.

Your argument is worthless opinion, Introvert. Don't conflate it to anything more. It's a nothing argument.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


When do think Hillary will be indicted so we can resolve these issues you point out in a court of law?


I highly doubt she will be indicted.


A POLITICO review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it’s highly unlikely — but not impossible. Story Continued Below The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.



Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. Of the six where charges were filed, all the defendants apparently pled guilty, the data show.



But only about 100 of those 2100 messages were sent or forwarded by Clinton, and in many cases the information deemed classified originated with her aides or lower-level personnel. Clinton and her campaign team dispute the idea that any of the emails should be classified and have urged that those messages be released to the public, so others can judge whether any involved actual secrets. None of the messages were marked classified at the time.


www.politico.com...



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



J. William Leonard


All sources of that claim link back to this one man. No one else in an official capacity has made the "born classified" argument.


Oh good lord. You don't like what the qualified source says so he's not good enough. Wikipedia says that "usually" only info concerning the operation of nuclear weapons is "born classified" so Leonard must have-ta be so wrong saying that the term applies to Hillary, too.

Your argument is worthless opinion, Introvert. Don't conflate it to anything more. It's a nothing argument.



Name another court case in which the "born classified" argument was used. I don't care about your personal attacks.

Prove it.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join