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: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

LOL

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:

(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


Very good... now substitute the correct names:

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:

(1) an original classification authority is classifying the information; HILLARY CLINTON

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

(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and

(b) & (d) specifically..

(4) the original classification authority, HILLARY CLINTON, 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


looks better that way.



edit on R022016-05-16T14:02:23-05:00k025Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

You didn't address my assertions. You are avoiding them.

Oh well. As expected.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Again, how is any information on her server not "under the control of the United States Government?"

The circular argument that it was "Clinton Foundation information" does not keep that information from being "under the control of the United States Government."
edit on 16-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: is not as



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Again, how as any information on her server not "under the control of the United States Government?"

The circular argument that it was "Clinton Foundation information" does not keep that information from being "under the control of the United States Government."


Her server was also used for CF business.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Again, how as any information on her server not "under the control of the United States Government?"

The circular argument that it was "Clinton Foundation information" does not keep that information from being "under the control of the United States Government."


Her server was also used for CF business.


Her server was used for CF business and Official Government business. You are not going to be able to separate the two...

I am not guilty due to the fact I was Clinton Foundation Hillary at the time because I was off duty as Secretary Of State Clinton at that specific moment?

Doesn't wash.
edit on R102016-05-16T14:10:20-05:00k105Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R102016-05-16T14:10:55-05:00k105Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R112016-05-16T14:11:16-05:00k115Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You're still failing to indicate how it is not "under the control of the United States Government"

It doesn't matter who's business is on it, if it is "under the control of the United States Government" it CAN be classified.


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



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Again, how as any information on her server not "under the control of the United States Government?"

The circular argument that it was "Clinton Foundation information" does not keep that information from being "under the control of the United States Government."


Her server was also used for CF business.


Her server was also used for CF business and Official Government business...


True and now we have to find within the classification rules that address that situation. Can you find that? Otherwise, it seems reasonable to me that information created for and by the CF would remain their property.



It doesn't matter who's business is on it, if it is "under the control of the United States Government" it CAN be classified.


It wasn't under government control. It was in her own house.
edit on 16-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Again, how is any information on her server not "under the control of the United States Government?"

The circular argument that it was "Clinton Foundation information" does not keep that information from being "under the control of the United States Government."


I don't get this either. By virtue of her position, I would think it pretty unreasonable to assume that "CF Intel" she received (deemed classifiable to whatever level, or not) never affected her decision making in an official capacity as SoS.

At the very LEAST, we're talking about a massive conflict of interest around this point. I'd put money on it being a bit more than that, but that's just like.... my opinion, man.
edit on 5/16/2016 by atomish because: Typo



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
It wasn't under government control. It was in her own house.


If it's in the Secretary of State's possession, on the same server she is conducting her official business on of all places, wouldn't it be hard to claim that it isn't under government control? If she isn't the government, who is?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Again, how as any information on her server not "under the control of the United States Government?"

The circular argument that it was "Clinton Foundation information" does not keep that information from being "under the control of the United States Government."


Her server was also used for CF business.


Her server was also used for CF business and Official Government business...


True and now we have to find within the classification rules that address that situation. Can you find that? Otherwise, it seems reasonable to me that information created for and by the CF would remain their property.



It doesn't matter who's business is on it, if it is "under the control of the United States Government" it CAN be classified.


It wasn't under government control. It was in her own house.


Interesting point you brought up. Since it was in her house and contained classified information, can you tell me if the server was keep in an authorized SCIF area?
edit on R142016-05-16T14:14:11-05:00k145Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Take a look here for an example of something that was not "owned by, produced by or for the United States Government" but yet was deemed classifiable:


Gold developed a breakthrough in wireless communications that would help people speak to one another with less interference and greater security.

Then it disappeared like a dropped call.

The Department of Defense concluded that his invention could be a national security threat in the wrong hands and slapped Gold’s patent application with a so-called “secrecy order” in 2002, which prevented him from discussing the technology with anyone.


Wired.com

Guess what, once they determined that it fell under the category of classified, they took control of it.
edit on 16-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)


Actually, they took control of it then they classified it
edit on 16-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: typos



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Again, how as any information on her server not "under the control of the United States Government?"

The circular argument that it was "Clinton Foundation information" does not keep that information from being "under the control of the United States Government."


Her server was also used for CF business.


Her server was also used for CF business and Official Government business...


True and now we have to find within the classification rules that address that situation. Can you find that? Otherwise, it seems reasonable to me that information created for and by the CF would remain their property.



It doesn't matter who's business is on it, if it is "under the control of the United States Government" it CAN be classified.


It wasn't under government control. It was in her own house.


Interesting point you brought up. Since it was in her house and contained classified information, can you tell me if the server was keep in an authorized SCIF area?


If the location of her server was such an issue, her guilt would not be under debate. But it still is. Her having the server at home seems to be a non-issue.

Also, care to address the points I made previously, or is it a foregone conclusion that you refuse to do so?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

How does that apply here? Did the CF create some new tech?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

Again, how as any information on her server not "under the control of the United States Government?"

The circular argument that it was "Clinton Foundation information" does not keep that information from being "under the control of the United States Government."


Her server was also used for CF business.


Her server was also used for CF business and Official Government business...


True and now we have to find within the classification rules that address that situation. Can you find that? Otherwise, it seems reasonable to me that information created for and by the CF would remain their property.



It doesn't matter who's business is on it, if it is "under the control of the United States Government" it CAN be classified.


It wasn't under government control. It was in her own house.


Interesting point you brought up. Since it was in her house and contained classified information, can you tell me if the server was keep in an authorized SCIF area?


If the location of her server was such an issue, her guilt would not be under debate. But it still is. Her having the server at home seems to be a non-issue.

Also, care to address the points I made previously, or is it a foregone conclusion that you refuse to do so?


If any points have anything to do with retroactive classification, no I will not address a moot point,, it's a waste of time.

Her having the server at home seems to be a non-issue. is that why you say this is all just a bunch of nonsense?

WTF.... that's the whole damn issue. I am done with you... you are just too damn transparent.

I respectfully decline to assist you in your efforts... good luck to you sir.
edit on R262016-05-16T14:26:29-05:00k265Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R342016-05-16T14:34:48-05:00k345Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: atomish

originally posted by: introvert
It wasn't under government control. It was in her own house.


If it's in the Secretary of State's possession, on the same server she is conducting her official business on of all places, wouldn't it be hard to claim that it isn't under government control? If she isn't the government, who is?

Especially when earlier claims were that the house was physically guarded by the Secret Service.


On Tuesday, she said that was the right thing to do. “The system… had numerous safeguards,” she said. “It was on property guarded by the Secret Service and there were no security breaches. So I think that the use of that server… certainly proved to be effective and secure.”

Source: Wired.com
She is claiming it as secure.... because she was defending her use of it for government emails.
edit on b000000312016-05-16T14:25:30-05:0002America/ChicagoMon, 16 May 2016 14:25:30 -0500200000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: 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.


The fact that you intentionally changed "or" to "and" tells me that you know you are wrong about this and are intentionally twisting the debate into something that favors your argument.

But you don't get to rewrite the rules & regulations.

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


Jesus, it was a typo.



No, it wasn't.

You either copied and pasted the portion of the sentence or were so careful when you typed it that you managed to capitalize "United States Government" exactly as it appears in the official version and get every other word and comma exactly right.

Yet, somehow you confused "or" for "and?"

No, I don't think so. You intentionally changed that key word. And I think you are the one desperate to drop it because you know that the word "or" destroys your argument.

I think we should discuss it further. Much further.

Why did you really change that key word?


Nabbed.


Caught doing what? Making a mistake? I apologized for it and it doesn't change my assertions. If I was like a certain individual in this thread, I would just go back and edit the post, but I like to be honest and now you are holding my honesty against me.

You guys are just so desperate to catch me on anything that a simple error is justification for a dog pile. Hell, Mother is trying to use proper grammar against me. That shows the desperation.

Pretty immature and petty if you ask me, but that is par for the course around here.



It was a key word. And you are guilty of tweaking key words to suit your argument. You have argued that "many" email chains were produced by the Clinton Foundation, so they are not subject to classification.

But if the information was produced FOR the United States Government, it doesn't matter who produced it.

You tried to side step that and it's an important point.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The government will have zero problems proving that information sent by Hillary Clinton regardless of where she obtained it, to the State Department for official use was indeed government property. If that information met the criteria under the EO, then it should have been classified by Hillary prior to transmission.

I have never seen a single email classified by Hillary. Not one. I don't think she even knew how or just didn't care..

No way around it really.

edit on R312016-05-16T14:31:39-05:00k315Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R362016-05-16T14:36:45-05:00k365Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

It applies because you keep arguing the "owned by, produced by or for the United States Government" section of the order stating that since it is CF information it cannot be classified.

I provided you a real world example of something that was not "owned by, produced by or for the United States Government" and yet became classified because it did not fall under any of the limitations upon classification:


Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) restrain competition; or

(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

(b) Basic scientific research information not clearly related to the national security shall not be classified.

(c) Information may not be reclassified after declassification and release to the public under proper authority unless:


Unless the CF information in question falls under one of the above limitations, it most certainly be classified since it is "under the control of the United States Government."

You agreed that Hillary, while she was SoS, was considered to be always 'on the clock' and thus anything in her possession (or over which she can be shown to have ownership) is "under the control of the United States Government."

 


a reply to: MotherMayEye

It does not even have to be produced FOR the government, if it can be brought under government control it can be classified within the Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
edit on 16-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
It does not even have to be produced FOR the government, if it can be brought under government control it can be classified within the Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.



Oh, I understand that. I just find it telling that Introvert changed that particular word.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Could someone in the know please answer this question for me. (It's important to me for a reason.)

Does an ex-president of the US continue forever to have top secret clearance or ready access to Department of State and foreign intelligence information? Or, does that stop after he is out of office?




top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join