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: 15
41
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification up to 25 years from the date of origin of the document"

So you agree, that the duration of classification pertaining to the emails in question BEGINS on the date of origin and ends up to 25 years from that date?

'Duration' meaning the ENTIRE TIME the emails in question are 'classified.' So, they were classified on the date of origin -- pursuant to an EO -- regardless of whether or not Hillary marked them as such.




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

"An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification up to 25 years from the date of origin of the document"

So you agree, that the duration of classification pertaining to the emails in question BEGINS on the date of origin and ends up to 25 years from that date?

'Duration' meaning the ENTIRE TIME the emails in question are 'classified.' So, they were classified on the date of origin -- pursuant to an EO -- regardless of whether or not Hillary marked them as such.


Correct. Guess that ends that discussion.
edit on R572016-05-17T16:57:00-05:00k575Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Glad to know you agree she didn't do her job which will cause her to be indicted.
She will have her day in court for the charge you asked about amongst many others.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
All this bickering.... back and forth....

prove this.... prove that....


All I ask you people is who in the government are legally authorized and the only people who have the power to take raw classified data, make an damage assessment it would cause, and then label it either CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET OR TOP SECRET....mark what section of the EO applies, give it a declassification date and send it on its way?

Those people are known an Original Classification Authorities....

Hillary Clinton was a Original Classification Authority.

Sorry but there simply is no excuse.
edit on R152016-05-17T17:15:49-05:00k155Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R172016-05-17T17:17:21-05:00k175Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Here's a question: considering the nature of the emails not released, would any potential grand jury have to possess the required security clearance in order to hear the evidence required to bring an indictment?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: atomish



I can see how someone could follow your line of reasoning but I'm not sure if that argument stems from a solid understanding of the terms in play or a lack thereof. This is not a dig at you, just my opinion as a good deal of this stuff seems clear cut on the surface to me, but as I dig I see that is not necessarily the case.


As long as you are willing to research, learn as you go and not jump to conclusions based on partisan politics, that is all I could ask.




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



So you agree, that the duration of classification pertaining to the emails in question BEGINS on the date of origin and ends up to 25 years from that date?


No. Classification begin when it is classified by OCA. Section C allows the declassification period to begin it's "timer" at the time the document was created.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

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.

Glad to know you agree she didn't do her job which will cause her to be indicted.
She will have her day in court for the charge you asked about amongst many others.


I did not say that. Do not put words in my mouth. I have not addressed that issue, as it's not part of the topic.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



So you agree, that the duration of classification pertaining to the emails in question BEGINS on the date of origin and ends up to 25 years from that date?


No. Classification begin when it is classified by OCA. Section C allows the declassification period to begin it's "timer" at the time the document was created.



I don't see the word "timer" in section (c). I see the words "duration of classification." It begins on the date of origin and ends up to 25 years later.

IF the timer was meant to begin on the date of the original decision, then the declassification date WOULD have been 10-25 years after the date of the original decision under part (b):


(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.


See? Compare (b) to (c). The OCA did not opt for part (b), they went with the extended duration of classification.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



See? Compare (b) to (c). The OCA did not opt for part (b), they went with the extended duration of classification.


Yes, based on the date of the documents creation, not the date it was originally classified.

We agree.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
You just did



No. Classification begin when it is classified by OCA. Section C allows the declassification period to begin it's "timer" at the time the document was created.


We have signed papers showing she was OCA.
The info in question is classified.
She did not secure it.
All are crimes.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



See? Compare (b) to (c). The OCA did not opt for part (b), they went with the extended duration of classification.


Yes, based on the date of the documents creation, not the date it was originally classified.

We agree.


Fabulous. You agree that the classification period could have started on the date of the original decision,under part (b); BUT the OCA decided the classification period should start on the date of origin, instead, under part (c).

So the duration of classification was SPECIFICALLY chosen to start on the date of origin, NOT the date of the original decision.

Wonderful. You know now that your 'timer' argument was incorrect!



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Ok, sure.

What does that have to do with my point? I am not arguing whether or not she is guilty because she did not classify it at the time.

I'm trying to address the point in the OP.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: RickinVa

Here's a question: considering the nature of the emails not released, would any potential grand jury have to possess the required security clearance in order to hear the evidence required to bring an indictment?


They would have to possess a clearance equal to the information being discussed.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Fabulous. You agree that the classification period could have started on the date of the original decision,under part (b); BUT the OCA decided the classification period should start on the date of origin, instead, under part (c).


Yes, but using date of origin for declassification does not necessarily mean it was classified during the time period between date of origin and original decision.

You do realize that either way you look at it, you are making an argument for retroactive classification.



Wonderful. You know now that your 'timer' argument was incorrect!


No, they started the "timer" for declassification at date of origin, not original decision. Doesn't mean it was classified at that time.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: RickinVa

Here's a question: considering the nature of the emails not released, would any potential grand jury have to possess the required security clearance in order to hear the evidence required to bring an indictment?


They would have to possess a clearance equal to the information being discussed.


That's why I think the fact that the duration of classification beginning on the date of origin is so important. I'm not sure a grand jury would need to see the actual contents of the emails. I would assume that the redacted versions showing they were classified beginning on the date of origin would suffice.

The OCA (not Hillary, her chance to review them has passed) is really the only entity that needed to actually review the content.

Or that's how I think a judge would rule if either side motioned to enter the contents as evidence.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

What part of "duration of classification" is confusing to you?

It has a beginning date and an end date and everything in between is the duration period that the information is "classified."

The beginning of the duration of classification begins on the date of origin, in this case. It could begin the day after, or a week after, or a month after, or 96 days after or whatever... but the date of origin was specifically decided to be the day the document began to be classified.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: RickinVa

Here's a question: considering the nature of the emails not released, would any potential grand jury have to possess the required security clearance in order to hear the evidence required to bring an indictment?


They would have to possess a clearance equal to the information being discussed.


That's why I think the fact that the duration of classification beginning on the date of origin is so important. I'm not sure a grand jury would need to see the actual contents of the emails. I would assume that the redacted versions showing they were classified beginning on the date of origin would suffice.

The OCA (not Hillary, her chance to review them has passed) is really the only entity that needed to actually review the content.

Or that's how I think a judge would rule if either side motioned to enter the contents as evidence.


When the OCA who was doing the initial assessment because Hillary didn't do it, I am quite sure that they knew that these emails were from the Secretary of State, the original OCA...that had to be factored into the decision making process of deciding the proper levels.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Fabulous. You agree that the classification period could have started on the date of the original decision,under part (b); BUT the OCA decided the classification period should start on the date of origin, instead, under part (c).


Yes, but using date of origin for declassification does not necessarily mean it was classified during the time period between date of origin and original decision.

You do realize that either way you look at it, you are making an argument for retroactive classification.



Wonderful. You know now that your 'timer' argument was incorrect!


No, they started the "timer" for declassification at date of origin, not original decision. Doesn't mean it was classified at that time.


Please point out in the EO where it talks about this retroactive classification... I just can't seem to find that no matter how much I look....I see stuff about information being classified at origination if it meets certain criteria.

Classified at origination and Original Classification are two totally different things,,, you are confusing the two.

Your contention that data is not classified unless it is marked is totally 100% flawed.


edit on R012016-05-17T18:01:40-05:00k015Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I agree. I am not sure that part of my comment read as I intended. The OCA that classified the emails is likely the only entity with the need to review the actual content (for marking as classified).

Hillary could have done that and she didn't.

And as someone else pointed out, Hillary hasn't challenged the original decision to classify them. I would think a judge would not find it necessary for a jury to 'second guess' the original decision, now that it's been made, by reviewing the actual content as part of evidence.




top topics



 
41
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join