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: 16
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



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


But the beginning date was given to us in the OP. For example:



1. C05780110 - Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 - Class: CONFIDENTIAL - Reason: 1.4(D) - Declassify on: 03/08/2026….


Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016

From what I understand, Part B of the section deals with classification periods that can be determined at the time of original decision because the document has been recently "originated".

Part C of section 1.5 allows them to start the "timer" for declassification at the date of origin, not original decision, in cases where the document was orginated at some point in the past.

That does not mean it was classified at that time.



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.


The very nature of the language used in part C allows the "timer" for declassification to begin retroactively, because it is based on date of origin, not original decision.

Again, doesn't mean it was classified or considered classified at that time.




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.


That is a good point....Hillary won't challenge it because she knows she is in deep trouble..If I was innocent, I would be protesting every day, filing every form I have to file, anything I had to do to clear my name...other than keep repeating "I never sent or received any emails marked classified".
edit on R092016-05-17T18:09:24-05:00k095Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary and her legal team did protest.

They wanted the emails to be made public, but they were classified instead.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary and her legal team did protest.

They wanted the emails to be made public, but they were classified instead.


Lame.. they knew they couldn't release the emails because they were classified.. not the other way around.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary and her legal team did protest.

They wanted the emails to be made public, but they were classified instead.

Again she wants to mishandle classified info.
She would rather jepordize the national security of the USA than take responsibility for her actions.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Been good talking my friends but I have to make myself scarce for a few days... very busy schedule and limited PC access.

Will pop in as much as I can to see how the old " If you can't dazzle them with factual information, baffle them with as much BS as you can make up" current theme is coming along.

Classified when sent. 100% guaranteed for the Top Secret Ones....99% likely for the rest.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016

From what I understand, Part B of the section deals with classification periods that can be determined at the time of original decision because the document has been recently "originated".


Ok, I don't not want you to feel I am personally attacking you. I am just exasperated because I think you are perfectly capable of understanding this but you are unwilling to.

Nothing in part (b) says anything about the information being recently originated. I know you can see that. Here it is again:


(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.


The emails in question were given declassification dates based on the date of origin. And as you correctly pointed out, that is because they were given declassification dates under part (c).

The duration of the classification period began on the date of origin. Here is part (c) 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.


If the "timer" started on the date of the original decision, that would be reflected in the declassification date.

I know you see this. I know you understand this. The classification period was intentionally set to start on the date of origin and NOT the date of the original decision.

The age of the emails have nothing to do with anything substantive in part (b).


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



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary and her legal team did protest.

They wanted the emails to be made public, but they were classified instead.


Lame.. they knew they couldn't release the emails because they were classified.. not the other way around.


Still, they did exactly as you said you would.

Would your protests be considered just as lame?



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary and her legal team did protest.

They wanted the emails to be made public, but they were classified instead.


Ah, ok, I did not realize that she made a failed attempt to protest. Obviously, there was nothing substantive to support her argument.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary and her legal team did protest.

They wanted the emails to be made public, but they were classified instead.


Lame.. they knew they couldn't release the emails because they were classified.. not the other way around.


Still, they did exactly as you said you would.

Would your protests be considered just as lame?


No sir.. once they denied it, I would have hired a fleet of the best lawyers money could buy and sued to force them to release them if that would prove my innocence...that is exactly what I or anyone else that has the money she has available would have done.

I would have done that 9 months ago when this crap started if I was running for office and innocent and had her money.

Still waiting for Hillary to file that lawsuit to force release of these emails to prove her innocence... you going to tell me she could not have done just exactly that by now?

BS... she is about to be recommended for indictment.




edit on R242016-05-17T18:24:35-05:00k245Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R252016-05-17T18:25:35-05:00k255Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R412016-05-17T18:41:35-05:00k415Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



The age of the emails have nothing to do with anything substantive in part (b).


I believe it does, because the EO differentiates between the date of original classification in part B, "from the date of the original decision", and part C, "from the date of origin of the document".

They are making two separate distinctions.

One is directly tied to the date of official classification, the other tied to date or origin.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



BS... she is about to be recommended for indictment.


Considering past cases similar to this, I doubt it.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



BS... she is about to be recommended for indictment.


Considering past cases similar to this, I doubt it.

You lying now?
Or earlier?



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 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



BS... she is about to be recommended for indictment.


Considering past cases similar to this, I doubt it.


Hillary has a three letter acronym problem that apparently has escaped your attention.... FBI and OCA.

Those will become a huge sticky thorn in her side very soon.
edit on R352016-05-17T18:35:00-05:00k355Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary and her legal team did protest.

They wanted the emails to be made public, but they were classified instead.


LOL

That fits her psychopathic tendencies to a "T".

Not like she had any choice after the whole boondoggle was exposed.

The comments about releasing TS documents to the public was just a campaign knee-hits-jaw over-reaction.




edit on May-17-2016 by xuenchen because: hillary@bagmail.ru



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You can believe that all you want but what is written does not reflect your beliefs.

In fact, your beliefs aren't logical, at all.

Part (b) clearly refers to earlier dates that exist before the date of the original decision.

You are just being willfully ignorant about these points.
edit on 17-5-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary and her legal team did protest.

They wanted the emails to be made public, but they were classified instead.


LOL

That fits her psychopathic tendencies to a "T".

Not like she any choice after the whole boondoggle was exposed.

The comments about releasing TS documents to the public was just a campaign knee-hits-jaw over-reaction.



Exactlyyyyyyyyyyy


I demand that the government release to the public what they had to drag out of me because I refused!!!!!
edit on R372016-05-17T18:37:07-05:00k375Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

Hillary has a three letter acronym problem that apparently has escaped your attention.... FBI and OCA.

Those will become a huge sticky thorn in her side very soon.


And don't forget this acronym....

BOP (Bureau of Prisons)




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The point I was arguing was not connected to my personal opinion.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



Part (b) clearly refers to earlier dates that exist before the date of the original decision.


You need to re-read it. This is what it says:


If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification


That does not address documents created in the past that are part of a current investigation.

It appears that part C does, as it allows them to create declassification dates based on their date of origin, not date of original decision.
edit on 17-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join