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: 17
41
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

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

Wow
That is a pretty disgusting way to describe a lie. I am sorry to have conversed with you. No further contact please.




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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.


Right. If they cannot determine an earlier specific date from ALL of the earlier dates the information existed.

ETA: I'm with the previous poster. I have better things to do than to spend time arguing in circles. You are being intellectually dishonest. I think you know this. Maybe you aren't and if that's the case, there is still no reason to continue. If you were correct, the declassification dates would have been set according to the date of the original decision under part (b).

The declassification dates were set according to part (c).

There is no reason to continue this. The end.



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



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

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

Wow
That is a pretty disgusting way to describe a lie. I am sorry to have conversed with you. No further contact please.


I didn't lie. You did not show where I lied.

I am sticking to specific areas to debate and they do not necessarily reflect my personal opinion...or they may. My personal opinion is not the topic of the OP.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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.


You find that part in the EO where it says information can be retroactively classified and is not classified information from until that point forward yet?

Can't be done because it isn't in there. I don't even think the word retroactive is used one single time in the EO...damned if I can find it.
edit on R492016-05-17T18:49:08-05:00k495Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are not understanding. That means that if the OCA "cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification", it defaults at 10 years, or up to 25 if it meets certain requirements. As we can see, Part B was not applied.

That does not address declassification for documents created before original decision. Part C does.

That is why declassification was decided upon by part C, date of origin, and not part B, which is based on original decision.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



You find that part in the EO where it says information can be retroactively classified and is not classified information from until that point forward.... Can't be done because it isn't in there. I don't even think the word retroactive is used one single time in the EO...damned if I find it.


"Retroactive" is specifically implied by the difference in language between part B and Part C.

One is based on original decision, the other based on date of origin.

Date of origin can be determined as a point in the past, as is the case here.

Retroactively classified.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Keep em honest... gotta go

Original decision and original classification are two totally separate things.. you just don't see that.

The government considers data classified if it falls under the EO 1.4 a-g requirements. Fact

The government considers that classified information is classified at the moment of its origination. Fact

The government considers that classified information may be marked or unmarked. Fact

The government considers it an unmarked classified email when sent by Hillary Clinton that had to be properly marked at a later date. Fact.

Gotta jet.

Edit done and I am out for a while.. take care guys and gals.
edit on R072016-05-17T19:07:30-05:00k075Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R072016-05-17T19:07:57-05:00k075Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are not understanding. That means that if the OCA "cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification", it defaults at 10 years, or up to 25 if it meets certain requirements. As we can see, Part B was not applied.

That does not address declassification for documents created before original decision. Part C does.

That is why declassification was decided upon by part C, date of origin, and not part B, which is based on original decision.


Let'st assume for a moment that Introvert is correct in his estimation above, for the sake of debate.

If this is true, what is the procedure in place for when declassification decisions SHOULD have been made when the first OCA (Hillary) saw the information and COULD have acted under section (b) but neglected to, requiring the decision go be made under section (c) after the fact.

Is this in any way a violation of policy or law? Or would it be unenforceable due to the discretion the classifying authority is given (speaking to Introverts point about how an OCAs "doubt" may come into play when deciding on classification)?

Interested to hear everyone's input on this point.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I am new here but following with due diligence ... I am not quite sure of posting whether right or wrong but if I may... would this bring some clarity to classification expectations and responsibilities?
I find all of this very interesting, and from my point of view I see her as willingly and intentionally misconstruing factual evidence as a way of circumventing the system, or should I word it as a way of getting around the system in a means of deception ? She knew what she was doing and with an education of such as she possess, ignorance is not an excuse, she was deliberately doing what she set out to do. Seems like a type of deception with an intent.
And I hope this is how to post this link... please correct me if I am wrong. Not intentionally trying to disrupt the thread.
..oh forget the link... I just remembered I can not post links to downloadable items... it is a pdf. I will copy and paste. Sorry.

" INTELLIGENCE
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
5xxx DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC xxxxxxx
JUN 0 7 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR DOD SECURITY DIRECTORS
SUBJECT: Notice to DoD Employees and Contractors on Protecting Classified Information and
the Integrity of Unclassified Government Information Technology Systems
Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites, disclosed to the
media, or otherwise in the public domain remains classified and must be treated as such until it is
declassified by an appropriate U.S. government authority. It is the responsibility of every DoD
employee and contractor to protect classified information and to follow established procedures
for accessing classified information only through authorized means. Leadership must establish a
vigilant command climate that underscores the critical importance of safeguarding classified
material against compromise.
Accordingly, we request all DoD components send prompt notification to your
employees and contractors reminding them of these obligations. Procedures for responding to
classified information found in the public domain are attached. These procedures will be
promulgated in future DoD issuances. My point of contact is Mr. Jeremy Bouchard at xxxxxxx
xxxx or Jeremy.Bouchardxxxxxxx
Attachment:
As stated
NOTICE TO DOD EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS FOR RESPONDING TO
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
• DoD employees and contractors shall not, while accessing the web on unclassified
government systems, access or download documents that are known or suspected to
contain classified information.
• This requirement applies to accessing or downloading that occurs when using
government computers or employees' or contractors' personally owned computers
that access unclassified government systems, either through remote Outlook
access or other remote access capabilities that enable connection to government
systems.
• DoD employees or contractors who inadvertently discover potentially classified
information in the public domain shall report its existence immediately to their
Security Manager. Security Managers and Information Assurance Managers are
instructed to document the occurrence and report the event to the Director of
Security Policy and Oversight, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence (OUSD(I)). The offending material will be deleted by holding down
the SHIFT key while pressing the DELETE key for Windows-based systems and
clearing of the internet browser cache. Administrative Inquires and other
investigative responsibility will be determined by the OUSD(I) Director of
Security Policy and Oversight.
• DoD employees or contractors who seek out classified information in the public
domain, acknowledge its accuracy or existence, or proliferate the information in any
way will be subject to sanctions. The procedures outlined above apply only to the
inadvertent identification of classified information in the public domain.
The OUSD(I) Security Policy and Oversight Directorate stands ready to clarify guidance
on these issues. Components may send inquiries via electronic submission on:
• NIPRNet (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxl),
• SIPRNet ( xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), or
• JWICS (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). "

All information provided by
"“Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites, disclosed to the media, or otherwise in the public domain remains classified and must be treated as such until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. government authority,” wrote Timothy A. Davis, Director of Security in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence), in a June 7 memorandum.

“DoD employees and contractors shall not, while accessing the web on unclassified government systems, access or download documents that are known or suspected to contain classified information.”

“DoD employees or contractors who seek out classified information in the public domain, acknowledge its accuracy or existence, or proliferate the information in any way will be subject to sanctions,” the memorandum said. " all posted on Federation of American Scientist with links to the pdf memorandum .
edit on 18-5-2016 by BoXwithEaRz because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2016 by BoXwithEaRz because: sorry contained info deemed bad by ToS on ATS agreement. had to edit out info.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Pretty much what I got out of all this was, hillary is an OCA and didn't do her job.

Thereby sending and receiving secret emails.

bye bye hillary.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: BoXwithEaRz

One of the biggest problems revealed by this is the vast difference in the way classification information is handled by various agencies. There is no cohesion it seems.

I have reached out to a definitive source for answers to the topics we have been discussing.

These are the two questions I have asked them:

"Due to the recent controversies, this has created a huge argument that we are trying to settle once and for all.

1. If Source Document A is written and contains information under EO 1.4 (a)-(g) but contains no classification markings what so ever.....1 year later, this document is reviewed by an OCA who determines that it is classified and deems it to be SECRET,and properly marks it, at what point is that document considered legally classified by the government?

What is the difference between a two identical documents... one rated by an OCA as secret and the other, not marked at all if the unmarked version was obtained prior to the OCA marking it?

2. If Source Documents are written by a person who is an OCA and contains information under EO 1.4 (a)-(g), but that person feels like classification is just too much trouble and just allows all source documents to go through them as unclassified and unmarked..... 2 years later, these documents later reviewed by a second OCA who then determines the correct level of classification. What is the status of the information between the OCA1 who placed no markings and OCA2 who placed the correct markings?

How would the difference be resolved? What would happen to the original OCA who failed to properly mark those documents?"

If you care to notice, both examples are completely neutral and do not use any names of individuals specifically. Waiting on a reply at this point.




edit on R002016-05-18T09:00:47-05:00k005Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Why offer any defense when you're not charged with anything? You're sure she should be covering her ass while the rest of us
know she's got nothing to defend in the first place.
Exoneration day is coming.
No tick tock because I have a digital modern up to date clock.
The silence is unbearable isn't it?
edit on 5182016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I am seeing your point and sorry I can't help identify an answer. I was just trying to add some more ways they could find more incite to additional charges with the handling and the use of government equipment, and private for the use of transmitting said documents. It stated that whether they were or were not marked and if any doubt to seek higher authority. And also she was sending and receiving emails via government web portals and the information is specific to state that as well, and that it should be considered as classified. And even then it will remain that way until unclassified by said authorities.
Sorry if of topic, no disrespect. I am seeing further justifiable ways of proceeding with more charges and making it more conclusive and valid to proceed with the prior intentions of the validity of said documents she claims were not classified. Should all information she handled via government portal been considered classified, no if's and's or but's about it. She was doing something very illegal, they are just trying to find the right stick to poke the corrupted attorney with, and she has a vast extent of knowledge in how to cover up scandals and get away with it.... just look at her record. I thank you for this thread and enjoy the information.
I think they need to stop pussy footing around and serve some serious charges and let her fight her way out instead of us.. "the people" spending countless tax dollars on this investigation. Guilty until proven innocent is the way this should be handled. And make her pay from her own accounts, not the CF or some other hidden fund she is hiding, and sure not our tax dollars. I see she had deliberately moved and secured the server and deleted information when she knew this was going to occur, she deliberately falsified statements, and delayed all this just as a means to concur with outside sources on ways of possibly loopholing the system and getting away as she always does.
Any other American in job standings would be unemployed over such circumstances with the violations to policy that she committed, and would remain so until it would be resolved , either by means of arbitration hearings or judicial hearings. Either way , she is still holding a paying position as a government official and still able to run for commander and chief. WRONG! shame, shame on us!


And without a doubt, she has been around long enough to know the system and it's procedures. She held a very high position, she was entrusted with the responsibilities she swore to uphold. Ignorance is not an excuse for negligence. This was a premeditated decision to do what she did, she did it illegally, mishandled information, used non government equipment to transmit and receive government information whether or not marked , it is still considered to be considered classified until declassified, or discussed with higher authority. And if she did consult higher, they are doing their best to keep it hidden. Right now it seems that she is deviously using wording of articles as a means of defence. It's a lawyer's way, misconstrue, use of deceitful interpretations of statements , deliberately using selective reading into specifics of a statement as a means of justifying the intentions of the wrong. Using specifics as a means of deception to distort actual facts and findings and to deter away from actual stateing of the issue and meanings.

this is all taken from liespotting page on the net..
" Liars will repeat a question verbatim. Hey Charles, did you send the email to Jackie? Did I send the email to Jackie? If this is Charles’s response, you have your answer—he didn’t send it yet. Repeating a question in full is a common stalling tactic used by people looking for an extra moment to prepare their deceptive reply. In natural conversation, people will sometimes repeat part of a question, but restating the entire question is highly awkward and unnecessary—they clearly heard you the first time. "

"Liars will take a guarded tone. If Charles had replied to the direct question by lowering his voice and asking, What do you mean?, a lie may well have been in the works. A suspicious or guarded approach isn’t usually called for, and may indicate that he’s concealing something—whether it’s the truthful answer or his attitude toward you for asking the question in the first place."

"Liars won’t use contractions in their denials. Bill Clinton provides the classic example of what interrogators call a “non-contracted denial” when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” The extra emphasis in the denial is unnecessary if someone is telling the truth. I didn’t have sex with her is how the honest person is likely to phrase his claim of innocence. Clinton said a lot more than he realized with his words."

"Liars tell stories in strict chronology. To keep their stories straight, liars tend to stick to chronological accounts when relating an event. They don’t want to get tripped up by an out-of-place detail—there’s enough to think about already. But this isn’t how we talk when being truthful. We relate stories in the way we remember them, not in strict chronological order. That’s because memorable events carry an emotional component too. Often we’ll lead with the most searing emotional moment, and jump around in time."

"Liars love euphemisms. It’s human nature not to implicate ourselves in wrongdoing. This holds true even for liars, who will shy away from dwelling on their deception if possible. One way they do this is opting for softer language—instead of saying “I didn’t steal the purse” they may say “I didn’t take the purse.” If you ask someone a direct question about their involvement in an incident and they change your words to something softer, raise your deception antennae."

"Liars overemphasize their truthfulness. “To tell you the truth…” “Honestly…” “I swear to you…” Oh, if only it were so! When people use these bolstering statements to emphasize their honesty, there’s a good chance they are hiding something. Learning to baseline someone’s normal behavior is important in situations such as this: You want to listen for normal or harmless use of such phrases. There’s no need to add them if you really are telling the truth, so be on guard."

"Liars avoid or confuse pronouns. We use a fair amount of pronouns in normal conversation. They are a sign of comfortable speech, and they may disappear or be misused by someone who is trying to be extra careful with his words. A liar may say “You don’t bill hours that you didn’t work” instead of making the clear first- person statement: “I don’t bill hours I didn’t work.”

"Liars hedge their statements. We hear them in court testimony, political hearings and TV confessional interviews all the time: qualifying statements that leave an out for the person on the hot seat. “As far as I recall…” “If you really think about it…” “What I remember is…” Hedged statements aren’t an absolute indicator of deception, but an overuse of such qualifying phrases certainly should raise suspicion that a person isn’t being totally up front with what he or she knows."
edit on 18-5-2016 by BoXwithEaRz because: clarifying statements and wordings.



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: BoXwithEaRz

Official file copies ? Where are they? Bring those forth to bring clarity to the situation or did she shred those?

"Important Note: It is required that you
maintain the identification of all classified
sources with the file or record copy of the
derivative document. If practical, include the
list with all copies of the derivative document."

above info derived from...
Marking Classified
National Security Information
As Required by
Executive Order 12958, as Amended
Classified National Security Information
March 25, 2003
and
ISOO Implementing Directive No. 1
Effective September 22, 2003



posted on May, 18 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Been a lot of discussion about "retroactively classified" as a primary Hillary defense...

Looks like that is totally 100% bogus, deliberately designed to play on the lack of knowledge of the average American about how classification actually works.

The term "retroactive classification" only applies to when the government decides to later classify information that the government itself has previously officially released in an unclassified form.

This does not apply to information that the government has never released to the public.

It refers to instances such as the government releasing a unclassified report to the public and then 6 months later decides that report should have been classified. There have been cases in Congress where a report that had been released by the government as unclassified for use in a committee, and then when that same committee tried to use it again a few months later, it had been deemed to be classified and wouldn't allow it's use when it had previously.

Cases like these are almost never prosecuted simply because the government had initially released information as unclassified and then later upgraded it to classified. Since the information had been publicly released as unclassified, it would be very difficult to prove a violation of the law or control its dissemination thereafter.

Does not apply in Hillarys case at all.... not even relevant. Apples and Oranges.

Also explains why I never heard that term much during my IC career. Not a term that would have been used at all in my particular area of that line of work.

Totally not true that Hillarys emails were "retroactively classified". Debunked.

In other words.... if at this point the government said... hey... this Hillary email that we released on 29 Feb 2016 under FOIA was not supposed to be unclassified and as of today, May 18 2016 we upgraded the classification to SECRET.... then you could scream retroactive classification as a plausible defense.

Indictment recommendation confidentiality status: currently 100% chance of recommendation for indictment.

Classified when sent by Hillary Clinton as stated in the OP.

Film at 11.

Tick Tock Tick Tock goes that darned ole FBI Investigation clock!
edit on R482016-05-18T23:48:39-05:00k485Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Last post before bed....

It would appear, based on the above post that her claims of "retroactive classification" is a play on words on a seldom used term to go right over the head of the average American citizen on her quest to occupy the White House.

Unfortunately for her, I, and people like me will continue to strive to educate the masses about why what she did was so wrong and expose her feeble excuses for what they really and truly are:

Feeble excuses that any green horn prosecutor with no experience in classified information could absolutely positively destroy with minimal effort on their part.

And the biggest irony of it all???

Clear your brain.......... absorb what I am about to say.....

The very fact that Hillary Clinton calls for the US Government to publicly release her emails to prove her innocence is 100% proof that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt in any US Court of Law that the Government can and will in fact claim that they have never publicly released the emails based on Hillary's own well documented statements!

It is 100% total BS to claim that information has been retroactively classified unless the government has publicly released the information in an unclassified state... game over.

Sucks to be Hillary!!


You can not make this crap up......It's going to be a movie.

And now we continue to wait for the FBI Investigation to continue...while my last two posts will be attacked vigorously, despite the obvious truth.
edit on R152016-05-19T02:15:06-05:00k155Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R222016-05-19T02:22:10-05:00k225Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Debunked Hillary excuses:

1. I never sent or received any emails marked “classified”

There are only three authorized levels of classification, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, & TOP SECRET. “Classified” is not an official US classification marking.

2. Other Secretary of States used private emails to conduct official business.

Other Secretary of States used commercial email accounts instead of government email accounts. Hillary Clinton took it to a whole new level by using her own personal private email server.

3. Her decision to use her own server was perfectly legal.

Play on words. In addition to FOIA questions regarding that use, the moment the first piece of classified information hit that server, it became highly illegal.

4. Nothing was classified at the time…it was retroactively classified at a later date!

In order for information to be considered retroactively classified, that information has to have been previously released by the US Government in an unclassified state. Hillary demanding the government release her emails is 100% proof that this has not occurred.

5. No big deal!!! Powell and Rice had classified emails on their non government emails.....Arrest them too!

False. Powell and Rice's emails were "retroactively" classified after being pulled from the state department archives where they had been released to the public by the government as unclassified for years.. this meets the qualifications to be referred to as "retroactively classified".

6. George Bush deleted 22 million emails.... arrest him!!!

Nobody cares.........Hillarys case is about mishandling of classified information.... Apples and Oranges.

7. Over Classification run amok!!!!!

The US Government actively strives to keep classification of information to a minimum. They encourage all federal workers to challenge any anything they feel is over/under classified. Government employees can earn on the spot cash awards for proving that information has been unnecessarily over classified. Hillary should have complained while a government employee... at least she could have gotten a cash award for it. Now it is nothing more than what it is...a lame excuse to cover her rear end.


Classified when sent by Hillary Clinton... Film at 11

Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock




edit on R352016-05-19T11:35:13-05:00k355Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
Debunked Hillary excuses:

1. I never sent or received any emails marked “classified”

There are only three authorized levels of classification, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, & TOP SECRET. “Classified” is not an official US classification marking.

2. Other Secretary of States used private emails to conduct official business.

Other Secretary of States used commercial email accounts instead of government email accounts. Hillary Clinton took it to a whole new level by using her own personal private email server.

3. Her decision to use her own server was perfectly legal.

Play on words. In addition to FOIA questions regarding that use, the moment the first piece of classified information hit that server, it became highly illegal.

4. Nothing was classified at the time…it was retroactively classified at a later date!

In order for information to be considered retroactively classified, that information has to have been previously released by the US Government in an unclassified state. Hillary demanding the government release her emails is 100% proof that this has not occurred.


Well played sir



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

Opinions are fine. I have an issue with these fantasy scripts where someone imagines what this person said and imagines the other person's answer. And has this whole big scenario including the set these fantasies take place on. They play this out in their head, weigh their creativity and call it reality. It has no bearing on the truth.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: amicktd

Opinions are fine. I have an issue with these fantasy scripts where someone imagines what this person said and imagines the other person's answer. And has this whole big scenario including the set these fantasies take place on. They play this out in their head, weigh their creativity and call it reality. It has no bearing on the truth.


You forgot to send me your encryption key to decipher what you said. Just do it like Hillary and send it in plain text next time so I understand it.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join