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: 18
41
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:40 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.

Like the released emails that show Hillary directed her staff to remove the classification header and send the same info on a non secure system? Those kind of scenarios?




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

No not that. Stuff like oh the FBI is going to say blah blah then the defendant says blah blah and they're going to bring her to a secure room yada yada . Get it? All the made up this is what will happen and that is what will happen. In a constant stream of script writing. There's nothing real about all that. What's wrong with just waiting for what the FBI really says. They have not made any statements about the investigation to the public yet.
edit on 5192016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

"What's wrong with just waiting for what the FBI really says."

Because Hillary will continue to lie her way right up to that instant... she doesn't know how to tell the truth.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: atomish


There is one flaw in saying that Hillary Clinton, as her right as an OCA, considered these emails to be unclassified.

It is a huge glaring fatal flaw that negates that whole argument. It becomes overwhelmingly obvious once you finally realize the flaw.

I will give this a while and see if anyone notices what I am talking about.... once you see it... you will be like me and go Doh!!! I should have caught that!

I can start you on the road to debunking any claim that Hillary Clinton, as her right as an OCA, determined these emails were unclassified. If you answer this question.... When an OCA analyzes a document and determines that is is not classified, what is the next step? That is what is missing.

Look at the stuff you find.... and yes I watched the whole damn boring thing. 23 minutes of my life gone.


edit on R312016-05-19T15:31:27-05:00k315Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R502016-05-19T15:50:05-05:00k505Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R512016-05-19T15:51:15-05:00k515Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
If you want to learn more about "retroactive" classification, research and read up about "The Puzzle Palace...Inside the National Security Agency, America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization" by James Bamford.

Puzzle Palace is the most revealing book ever written about the NSA...... extremely good reading if you are into that kind of stuff.

In a nutshell:

While researching his book, Mr. Bamford used unclassified documents that he retrieved from the government via FOIA... when he submitted his book for review through the NSA prior to publishing, they decided they were unhappy with some parts of the book and retroactively classified some of the documents they had previously given him as unclassified..

In the end, Mr. Bamford was never charged and the government was unsuccessful in its attempts to force him to return the retroactively classified documents or stop him from publishing the book containing the disputed classified information.

Retroactive classification is never prosecuted... it would be ignorant to try and charge someone for having classified information if the government has previously given them the same exact information in a unclassified status.

www.amazon.com...
edit on R282016-05-19T17:28:12-05:00k285Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R302016-05-19T17:30:15-05:00k305Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: atomish


There is one flaw in saying that Hillary Clinton, as her right as an OCA, considered these emails to be unclassified.

It is a huge glaring fatal flaw that negates that whole argument. It becomes overwhelmingly obvious once you finally realize the flaw.

I will give this a while and see if anyone notices what I am talking about.... once you see it... you will be like me and go Doh!!! I should have caught that!

I can start you on the road to debunking any claim that Hillary Clinton, as her right as an OCA, determined these emails were unclassified. If you answer this question.... When an OCA analyzes a document and determines that is is not classified, what is the next step? That is what is missing.

Look at the stuff you find.... and yes I watched the whole damn boring thing. 23 minutes of my life gone.



 Thank you for the video, Rick! I watched the entire webinar and while it IS dry, it is easy even for a layman to understand. I have some notes and questions based on what I just watched.

First of all, I noticed most of the policy is sourced from a particular DoD manual. Is this the same source all the agencies use for these policies? I imagine so, but wanted to be sure for the sake of  clarity.

What I gather from watching this webinar, an OCA position is a fairly rare one in our government and is apparently prerequisited by an intense amount of training as to the classification procedures, training that must be refreshed yearly. Based on this alone, it would be a safe bet to say that Clinton was certainly trained extensively on these matters, as any other SoS or OCA would be. Ignorance can certainly be no excuse if this is true.

A few additional questions:

1. Hillary's emails that were deemed classified after the fact by whichever authority, is this an example of derivative classification or is that something else?

2. I see that an OCA does not retain their authority once the individual leaves their position. Did any of the parsing out of emails (these are work related, these are not) violate this policy? I.e. was someone making decisions about emails when they no longer had authority to make such decisions?

3. Lastly, I am not able to answer your question, as to what the next step is when an OCA determines something not required to be classified. I heard some things about decisions not to classify but to withhold temporarily for matters of national security but this does not seem relevant. As far as I learned here, if an OCA doubts that a particular item needs to be classified, they should take no further action. Can you elaborate on what comes after such a decision?

Again, thank you for the video and thanks in advance for any further insight you can shed on the above. I appreciate this info very much and while I don't always necessarily agree with the tone of some of your posts, I do think you are doing these boards a great service with your analysis.




edit on 5/19/2016 by atomish because: Typos and beer



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: atomish

I can answer question 1. Derivative Classification applies to when sections of a document that has been classified are cut and pasted into a new document... that information in the new document is classified the same as the classification of the original document... its classification is derived from the parent document.

#2 I am not sure about, maybe someone else can chime in.

#3... What is missing? None of her emails are marked in way, shape, fashion or form.... If the OCA does not indicate that they have read the document and rated it as unclassified, there is no way for the next person to know that it has been reviewed.. If I receive a document at work and that document is marked as unclassified, then I automatically know that the information has been reviewed by an OCA.

I can not find a single email that Hillary marked, not even as unclassified.

It would extremely difficult to claim OCA rights if you can not prove that you ever correctly marked a single document, especially the unclassified ones.

Very easy question to ask......can you provide one single email you, as an OCA,felt as unclassified and show on the email where you indicated to the recipient that the information had been reviewed and rated as unclassified prior to transmittal?

She can't do it.
edit on R582016-05-19T17:58:57-05:00k585Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: atomish

I can answer question 1. Derivative Classification applies to when sections of a document that has been classified are cut and pasted into a new document... that information in the new document is classified the same as the classification of the original document... its classification is derived from the parent document.

#2 I am not sure about, maybe someone else can chime in.

#3... What is missing? None of her emails are marked in way, shape, fashion or form.... If the OCA does not indicate that they have read the document and rated it as unclassified, there is no way for the next person to know that it has been reviewed.. If I receive a document at work and that document is marked as unclassified, then I automatically know that the information has been reviewed by an OCA.

I can not find a single email that Hillary marked, not even as unclassified.

It would extremely difficult to claim OCA rights if you can not prove that you ever correctly marked a single document, especially the unclassified ones.



Understood. Thank you for indulging my questions where you could.

I see now what your were alluding to. It is not that if an OCA determines something doesn't need to be classified (via their doubt or whatever process) that they take no further action. They STILL have to at least mark it Unclassified. No marking at all seems to show she didn't do her job whatsoever in her capacity as an OCA.

The clarification is much appreciated.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: atomish

"I see now what your were alluding to. It is not that if an OCA determines something doesn't need to be classified (via their doubt or whatever process) that they take no further action. They STILL have to at least mark it Unclassified. No marking at all seems to show she didn't do her job whatsoever in her capacity as an OCA."

Absolutely 100% correct.

Edit: I do believe that her OCA training records have been requested, but as far as I know the SD has never provided proof that she ever took any training,,,, they had it scheduled I believe and she bailed on it.. no record of her doing at it all exists that I am aware of.


edit on R242016-05-19T19:24:08-05:00k245Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: atomish

"I see now what your were alluding to. It is not that if an OCA determines something doesn't need to be classified (via their doubt or whatever process) that they take no further action. They STILL have to at least mark it Unclassified. No marking at all seems to show she didn't do her job whatsoever in her capacity as an OCA."

Absolutely 100% correct.

Edit: I do believe that her OCA training records have been requested, but as far as I know the SD has never provided proof that she ever took any training,,,, they had it scheduled I believe and she bailed on it.. no record of her doing at it all exists that I am aware of.



Based on what I've read and the webinar you linked to earlier, it sounds to me like they don't take this training lightly. Most of these OCAs are designated to very high offices or positions, how is the SoS special? It's mind-blowing to me that she could have gotten out of this training, the system is also at fault for letting her slide on that if it turns out she never took it. Especially considering the continued refresher course required yearly, she must've skipped those too?


I imagine the "official" punishment for such a thing must be pretty hefty. Are we privy to such policies/procedures or would this all be internal stuff civilians don't get to see?
edit on 5/20/2016 by atomish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: atomish
I would say that Hillary just wouldn't have any of that, imagine her attending a class where someone told her how she should do something.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

If true what does that have to do with waiting to see what their findings are? One, as usual, has nothing to do with the other. The waiting is an action we do. Not Hillary.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Consensus now is that they are having a tough time pinning anything down and that is what this is taking so long.
Yesterday on one of the news channels. Talking head I don't remember even what channel and it was someone I don't know on sight.
But if we're allowed imagination I imagine this is true. Combine that with last weeks brief saying they don't have anything on her and it makes your little play more fantastical by the hour.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme



Consensus now is that they are having a tough time pinning anything down and that is what this is taking so long. Yesterday on one of the news channels. Talking head I don't remember even what channel and it was someone I don't know on sight.

Well, that has a lot of teeth.
Who said it? I don't know.
What channel? One of them... I don't know.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Sillyolme



Consensus now is that they are having a tough time pinning anything down and that is what this is taking so long. Yesterday on one of the news channels. Talking head I don't remember even what channel and it was someone I don't know on sight.

Well, that has a lot of teeth.
Who said it? I don't know.
What channel? One of them... I don't know.



Maybe it's part of that "Correct the Record" nonsense. I honestly can't take anything seriously from the Hillary supporters. Problem is their candidate of choice devalued their words.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Consensus now is that they are having a tough time pinning anything down and that is what this is taking so long.
Yesterday on one of the news channels. Talking head I don't remember even what channel and it was someone I don't know on sight.
But if we're allowed imagination I imagine this is true. Combine that with last weeks brief saying they don't have anything on her and it makes your little play more fantastical by the hour.


"Combine that with last weeks brief saying they don't have anything on her and it makes your little play more fantastical by the hour."

That is a totally 100% fabricated lie on your part.


You are doing EXACTLY what you cry about.... taking anonymous sources as credible information and then making a false statement by attempting to justify it by alluding to the fact that the FBI director refused to comment on the ongoing INVESTIGATION of Hillarys server as evidence they haven't found anything.


Total BS... nice try.

That briefing by the FBI Director was what is known as a pen and pad briefing... He normally gives those to the press every 3 months... this was not some special briefing to discuss Hillary Clinton... that briefing should be coming up fairly shortly.

I suspect that Hillary has already been interviewed at least once since May 10.
edit on R572016-05-20T09:57:11-05:00k575Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R012016-05-20T10:01:23-05:00k015Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The foia testimony that is being taken is under oath. That testimony had better be in line with what the fbi has already been told or perjury charges will be in order.

Tangled web of their own making.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Question I have is this:

Since Hillary proclaims her innocence and has stated numerous times how she is so willing to talk to the FBI to help resolve this issue.....

Shouldn't she leave that interview and tell the world how she just fulfilled her vows to protest her innocence from the roof tops?

Or do we hear from a leak that she has already been interviewed?

That will be very telling I think... who spills the beans first that Hillary has been interviewed by the FBI.


edit on R122016-05-20T11:12:12-05:00k125Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I still saw it. You're not calling me a liar are you? I'm not lying.

I just went through my history to see if it was something I read and that is where I saw it. Between CNN, MSNBC, news on the web and all of the articles I read linked here or researched on my own these bits are getting mixed up as to source.
Anyway I read it.
Last part of this article. Like second from last line but the article is interesting and balanced too.

www.politifact.com...



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I have several articles from CNN saying so Rick I already linked them.

This is the original source

www.cnn.com...

And don't call me a liar. Don't make this personal.
edit on 5202016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
41
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join