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: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa


because if someone was intending to commit espionage, it would be easy to do.


Especially if you are in a cabinet level position for the government and are running your own, non-secure, server connected directly to the internet.




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: amicktd




to most likely save a ton of time.

Or worse.
That is where the investigation needs to go. Why were they doing this?
- saving time.
- keeping something else from seeing daylight, re: the connection with the Clinton Foundation.

It is bad enough if foreign countries hacked her server, but what if she was passing information to other countries in exchange for 'donations' to the Clinton Foundation?


I would hope she isn't that greedy and careless. But you never know. I think most likely case is she was trying to save time. Almost every security violation I ever seen was directly involved in overlooking things, trying to shortcut the system, or just plain laziness.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Now you're charging her with treason. Punishable by death up until a few years back. Now life in prison.
There is absolutely no reason to even think she did that.
Why do these threads always devolve into fantasy.
This scenario. Or made up scripts of conversations being held over this. Or imaginings about what questions were asked and what answers were given...


Look up Ariel Weinmann on the USS Albuquerque. None of us would have thought of him as a spy either.

Sorry, but all options should be on the table. Especially when Special Access Programs and other such highly sensitive topics were involved.
edit on 16-5-2016 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
My money is on this:

I have been through the derivative classification training a few times... years ago but I have went through it.

The training for an Original Classification Authority is a little more in depth, simply because they have the power to classify at higher levels.

I doubt very seriously if Hillary Clinton attended one second or completed one module of training on how to properly conduct business as an Original Classification Authority. Why would she? That's for the little people, not her. It would have been very inconvenient for her to interrupt her busy schedule for something so mundane as training.

That is her problem if she blew off the training...ignorance of the law will get you exactly no where.

And they have her on film claiming that she was "certainly aware of the classification requirements" or something to that effect.
edit on R302016-05-16T11:30:19-05:00k305Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R322016-05-16T11:32:10-05:00k325Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: amicktd

I really don't think Hillary Clinton was selling state secrets for money... that would be insane of her to do that.

I do believe that she traded favors as Secretary of State for donations to the Clinton Foundation....just as bad.

One is selling state secrets for cash money... the other is trading state favors for donations to your foundation.

Either way..... you are probably going to go to jail when caught.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Yesterday I refused to engage a certain person for a specific reason... the same reason they were desperately trying to get me to commit to a certain classification date so they could take the ball and run to their retroactively classified touchdown and claim victory and accuse everyone of changing stories after the fact.


Since you are referring to me, I shall respond.

Yesterday, I pointed out that the examples you provided contained the official classification date. Here is an 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 on 01/29/2016. That would be the date of "original decision" as described in Section B of EO 13526, correct? If not, can you provide evidence that the "original decision" date is the same as the "date of origin"?

If that cannot be proven, then it is logical to suggest that the date of declassification was based on Section C of EO 13526 that extends classification periods up to 25 years from the "date of origin", which does coincide with the date the emails in question were created.

The government's position may be what you have described, but there are specific rules that are to be followed when classifying/declassifying information and I want to reconcile the difference in dates provided by the government, as it pertains to "original decision", "date of origin" and date of declassification.

I may be suggesting that your assertion in the OP is incorrect, but I am leaving the discussion open for you to prove me wrong. It seems that declassification dates are not necessarily tied to the date of "original decision", but also the "date of origin". It appears that is the case here, because the declassification date is tied to "date of origin" and not "original decision".

Also you claim Hillary is an OCA, and that is correct. But I think we're missing a huge point in all this. EO 13526 states this:

Section 1.1. Classification Standards.

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.

That is very interesting because if Hillary had doubt that something should be classified, it shall not be classified.

For example, one of the emails in question contained information deemed to be classified under the TK designation. Come to find out, the email in question contained a news article about drone programs.


The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several officials, however, described this claim as tenuous.


www.foxnews.com...

If the email chain was discussing an open source news article that is widely reported on, does open source news articles have to be classified, and is Hillary well within reason to doubt it should be classified?

If in doubt, don't classify. That's what the EO states.

That section of the EO itself opens this entire topic in to new territory.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Blow more smoke....

1. Was or was not Hillary Clinton a Original Classification Authority (OCA) while she served as Secretary of State?

Answer: yes she was.

2. As an OCA, was she or was she not responsible for marking her own classified emails?

Answer: yes she was.

Class over... you are dismissed...again.


"That is very interesting because if Hillary had doubt that something should be classified, it shall not be classified."

That is very interesting because if Hillary had doubt that something should be classified, she was by, by the legal contract she signed, required to confer with other officials before making that decision. it's very clear.

If you are willing to out on that limb and say that Hillary in her wisdom, as an OCA, believes that nothing she ever sent or received was ever classified. Go for it.... very weak defense...

edit on R532016-05-16T11:53:02-05:00k535Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R532016-05-16T12:53:10-05:00k535Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

Blow more smoke....

1. Was or was not Hillary Clinton a Original Classification Authority (OCA) while she served as Secretary of State?

Answer: yes she was.

2. As an OCA, was she or was she not responsible for marking her own classified emails?

Answer: yes she was.

Class over... you are dismissed...again.



Both are correct. But I just provided an example, with a link to the EO, that shows if there is doubt as to whether it should be classified, it should not be classified. Should open source news articles be calssified, or does that fall in to the catagory of doubt?

Please, take the time to answer my direct questions, with proper sources, and refute my assertions.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme



Now you're charging her with treason.


I don't remember doing that. Maybe you could point where I did?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

Blow more smoke....

1. Was or was not Hillary Clinton a Original Classification Authority (OCA) while she served as Secretary of State?

Answer: yes she was.

2. As an OCA, was she or was she not responsible for marking her own classified emails?

Answer: yes she was.

Class over... you are dismissed...again.



Both are correct. But I just provided an example, with a link to the EO, that shows if there is doubt as to whether it should be classified, it should not be classified. Should open source news articles be calssified, or does that fall in to the catagory of doubt?

Please, take the time to answer my direct questions, with proper sources, and refute my assertions.



Again here we go...watch the dog chase its tail for introverts amusement....

"if there is doubt as to whether it should be classified, it should not be classified."

100% true,,,, you get a cookie!!!

Now all she has to do is explain why her decisions not to classify information was over ridden 2200 times by another OCA. That is what the Federal Governments position will be.

Looks like we are going to court.....which is my whole premise to start with...

Hillary Clinton will be recommended for indictment by the FBI.


So now you have given up on retroactive classification and are going all in with Hillary, as her right as an OCA, examined the information and determined that nothing was classified.

Is that where we are?


edit on R112016-05-16T12:11:17-05:00k115Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

Blow more smoke....

1. Was or was not Hillary Clinton a Original Classification Authority (OCA) while she served as Secretary of State?

Answer: yes she was.

2. As an OCA, was she or was she not responsible for marking her own classified emails?

Answer: yes she was.

Class over... you are dismissed...again.



Both are correct. But I just provided an example, with a link to the EO, that shows if there is doubt as to whether it should be classified, it should not be classified. Should open source news articles be calssified, or does that fall in to the catagory of doubt?

Please, take the time to answer my direct questions, with proper sources, and refute my assertions.



I think the article I posted two pages back explains what you seem to be missing or misunderstanding. Some information is actually "presumed classified" from the get go:


While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.


Reuters
edit on 16-5-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I am still wondering if there is any doubt about whether the 22 Top Secret emails that can not be released are really classified





posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Now all she has to do is explain why her decisions not to classify information was over ridden 2200 times by another OCA. That is what the Federal Governments position will be.


Ok, but why would an OCA be compelled to classify and open source document that is publicly available?



So now you have given up on retroactive classification and are going all in with Hillary, as her right as an OCA, examined the information and determined that nothing was classified.


That is not what I said. I was asking for you to address the discrepancies in the declassification policies as it relates to the "date of origin" and "original decision". If you cannot do that, it would appear the documents were retroactively classified and your OP gives the dates in which they were.

Also, what I said is that it the EO includes a section in which it states if there is doubt, do not classify. That would explain some of the emails not being classified, but not all.



Is that where we are?


I'd like for you to address my original concerns and assertions. You still have yet to do that.

edit on 16-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The problem here is that many of the email chains originated from the Clinton Foundation and they contained info regarding foreign countries, their actions and such. A good example is the Blumenthal emails that discussed Norther Ireland.

According to EO 13526, they may not have had to be classified. Let's look at the EO:


PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION Section 1.1. Classification Standards.

(a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:


Notice how it says "all"? All of the conditions must be met. What are the conditions?


(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;
(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;
(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and
(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage


Pay close attention to number 2. The information must be owned by, produced by and for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

If the emails contained information that was created and owned by the Clinton Foundation, it would not adhere to the second criteria of the Original Classification clause and would not meet "all" of the requirements to be classified.

Is that a reasonable assertion?

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Since people insist on being somewhat stubborn headed....


That means.......... flow chart time......yeah!!!

1. Original Classification Authority - Hillary Clinton
2. Unmarked Classified information emailed to address at State Department.
3. Unmarked Classified information received by State Department, sometimes years after the fact.
4. Reviewed by Original Classification Authority - unknown but due to nature of the case, it's someone very knowledgeable.

1-2-3-4


Failure to comprehend that the transmission of unmarked classified information is exactly the same the transmission of marked classified information by you is not my fault. Classified information may be marked, unmarked, or oral communications.

Only way out is somebody is wrong.... 2200+ times.





edit on R462016-05-16T12:46:29-05:00k465Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"Pay close attention to number 2. The information must be owned by, produced by and for, or is under the control of the United States Government."

Nice attempt to try and change the meaning on the sly,,, big difference between the statements "produced by and for" versus "produced by or for"

Doesn't say that. It says produced by OR for.

Blumenthal produced ad hoc intelligence updates for use by the US government via Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton was the US Government represenitive.

Easy Peasy case for the government to go forward with.


edit on R372016-05-16T12:37:22-05:00k375Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R412016-05-16T12:41:02-05:00k415Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R582016-05-16T12:58:58-05:00k585Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Also, this part:


or is under the control of the United States Government;


Hillary, being as she was Secretary of State was the United States government and thus any information in her server is therefore "under the control of the United States Government."

Unless one were to attempt the arguement that somehow she was not representative of the Government while she held that office.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Doesn't say that. It says produced OR for.



(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;


That's exactly what it said.



Bluthmenthal produced ad hoc intelligence update for use by the US government... Hillary Clinton was the US Government.


Blumenthal was on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation and the information in the emails discussed areas, such as Northern Ireland, in which the CF was working. Therefore, the info was created and owned by the CF, so it would not meet the criteria for classification.

Blumenthal did not work for the SoS or US government. In fact, Hillary tried to hire him but Emmanuel blocked him.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Unless one were to attempt the arguement that somehow she was not representative of the Government while she held that office.


It would be absurd to argue that, but it's easy to argue that she was not only SoS, but also part of the Clinton Foundation. Two separate entities.

Therefore, her having information created for and by the CF is not unreasonable to suggest.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Secretary of State is fourth in line in the order of presidential succession. I don't think one gets to 'clock out' of their position unless and until they are relieved of duty. Even when he's on vacation, Obama is still the President of the United States of America; likewise for Hillary.

Any and everything one does while holding such a high level of public office is official business, you literally take a vacation from your private life when you become the embodiment of our governing system.




top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join