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: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Here is what Jeb Bush did before he began his presidential run last year:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who announced in December he would "actively explore" a presidential bid in 2016, has resigned from all of his corporate and nonprofit board memberships, an aide confirmed to CNN.

Notice what I highlighted in red.

Source

Maybe Hillary should have severed her connections with her own non-profit while she was SOS? Would have saved a lot of questions.




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

And of course Hillary was careful not to claim the SS was "guarding" against internet intrusions.




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: butcherguy

And of course Hillary was careful not to claim the SS was "guarding" against internet intrusions.



Only because the wiping cloths available to them were not anti-viral.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
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?


I would assume it is the same as the SD... for life....but only on a need to know basis...

Basically they could talk about classified stuff that occurred during that time but they wouldn't have access to current or new classified information unless it concerned them specifically.

That's a good question.

The phrase "need to know" will be used frequently by the press once this thing blows opens.
edit on R472016-05-16T14:47:23-05:00k475Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R472016-05-16T14:47:58-05:00k475Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R482016-05-16T14:48:24-05:00k485Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



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


No, it was not. It was intel collected and originated by a CF employee.

Again, I apologized for my error. You are trying to capitalize on a small mistake that does not change the context of my assertions.

It's an act of desperation and a complete assumption to claim I did it to suit my argument.
edit on 16-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"No, it was not. I was intel collected and originated by a CF employee."

very good!! intel that was gained from multiple sources by ole Sid, sent to Hillary and deemed classified... now you are getting it...

multiple sources.. is the key word here


EO specifically states that mulitiple sources of unclassified information may be compiled into a single classified source, if it meets the conditions.

1.7

(e) Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that: (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and (2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information.
edit on R142016-05-16T15:14:05-05:00k145Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

We are done, Rick. I've tried to converse with you on the issue by being polite, using official sources and building intelligent arguments based on those official sources. You refuse to address my assertions and will only comment on the little things that fit your agenda.

When you can reciprocate in kind and address the issues I highlighted, we can move forward. Until then, I refuse to play your childish games.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

We are done, Rick. I've tried to converse with you on the issue by being polite, using official sources and building intelligent arguments based on those official sources. You refuse to address my assertions and will only comment on the little things that fit your agenda.

When you can reciprocate in kind and address the issues I highlighted, we can move forward. Until then, I refuse to play your childish games.


Your assertions that Hillary Clintons emails were retroactively classified by the SECOND Original Classification Authority and that trumps the fact that Hillary Clinton was the OCA for her own emails?

Those assertions?

Those assertions are nothing more than a huge load of what comes out of a male bovines rectum...

You have fun on whatever thread you go to! Buh Bye!!
edit on R182016-05-16T15:18:45-05:00k185Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Her server was also used for CF business.


This only adds to her problem, and in no way relieves her
of her duty to protect government classified info.

Instead of having classified information just on one server,
if she was reading and replying to Blumenthal, who did
not have a clearance ( which we know she did )
it was her obligation to take that classified
info and get it into a SCIF.

Here is Hillary being asked if she had a SCIF in her home.



She went home the night of Benghazi and was using her non secure
server, emailing classified information.

She claims she had a SCIF in her home, but we know that
her server was non secure, and in no way met the requirements of a SCIF.
edit on 16-5-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

I believe the argument can be made that the information was not under the control of the government. It was under control of the CF. According to the EO, that is one criteria that must be met to classify information.


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


Also, it has to be classified by an OCA.


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


Why didn't Hillary classify it?


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


Significant doubt. Perhaps she doubted it met the criteria mentioned above because the info originated from the CF, not the government.

www.whitehouse.gov...



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Most intelligent post you have made so far.. thank you for confirming that you are well aware the Hillary was an Original Classification Authority and I assume her responsibilities as well that along with that position. ...very good. that's one . .. only a couple more thousand to go.

So Hillary Clinton had a significant doubt 2200 times that someone else, a well trained government official, had no doubt about deciding that the information should be classified?

Is this your position?


edit on R342016-05-16T15:34:20-05:00k345Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R362016-05-16T15:36:24-05:00k365Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R452016-05-16T15:45:53-05:00k455Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
And don't forget Hillary didn't turn over the "private" system emails until long after she left office.

That alone is suspicious.

And then she had to scurry fast and attempt to delete specific data.

Hmmm




posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Also, it has to be classified by an OCA.


Your sadly mistaken. Just because Hillary did not "classify" the
non marked classified information, it was still classified.

And she can not declassify information that was previously
"classified" and done so by another agency.

So, as an example, when she was emailing the SI/TK information,
or when she received it, even if it was not marked, it still belonged
to the CIA, and remained highly classified. As soon as she saw it,
it was her obligation to get it into a SCIF, and report it.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships



And she can not declassify information that was previously "classified" and done so by another agency.


The emails in question were not previously classified as far as I know. Can you provide proof that the Blumenthal emails contained information that was classified previously and that Blumenthal used those sources in the email?



So, as an example, when she was emailing the SI/TK information, or when she received it, even if it was not marked, it still belonged to the CIA, and remained highly classified. As soon as she saw it, it was her obligation to get it into a SCIF, and report it.


The email designated with a TK classification contained an article from a public news source. How does the CIA own news articles that discuss drone strikes?



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: burntheships

You can actually determine the severity of the information based on the amount of years after declassification date:

Out of the 10 samples:

1 @ 10 years
5 @ 15 years
3 @ 20 years
1 @ 25 years

It appears most fall in the 15 or 20 year range... out of a possible 10-25... mid to higher end of the scale. Pretty damning evidence.

EDIT: I may be wrong... and I love statistics..always have..... but with a large enough sample of emails... out of 2000, how many would it take to establish a solid baseline for:

Taking the total number of years above and dividing it by the number of emails....170 / 10 = 17 years on average, but that's an extremely small sample...and then apply that number to a rating?

10 Years = sensitive
15 Years = moderately sensitive
17 Years = Hillary Clinton's email average
20 years = very sensitive
25 years = extremely sensitive.

(that obviously isn't a an official classification rating, only for purposes of the question, if I can find an official one I would substitute it of course)

25% for a solid baseline?

I think you see where I am going with this I hope. Bear in mind that the lowest possible average, 10, will put you in jail. She is already screwed..but I think with enough numbers... you can get an honest feel for how severe the Government has assessed this to be... the numbers are out there Mulder!

Found this:

www.fas.org... a copy of the 2005 Department of State Classification Guide:


(U) 3. Picking a Date. While a significant amount of State Department information will be adequately protected by assigning a classification duration of ten years or less, that duration of classification could,. be grossly inadequate for many classes of information. This latter is particularly true for information derived from foreign governments and confidential sources and, as discussed below under several individual categories, it applies to other types of information as well. Often there are multiple considerations in determining the duration of classification. While the information provided by a source may be of lessened sensitivity in ten years, the fact that the source provided the information could be sensitive for as long as the source lives. Similarly, the signing of an agreement generally means that much of the related information loses its sensitivity, but a negotiating history of the agreement describing the diplomatic details and discussions could well remain sensitive for many years. It is therefore incumbent upon the user of this guide, as for OCAs, carefully to consider each duration decision.





Not really. The LEVEL of classification tells you it's sensitivity or rather, the amount of damage it would do to US interests if released. The amount of time it will be classified is most directly related to it's source.

If it is sigint, it would depend on the systems used and when they and their capabilities are expected to be obsoleted.

If if is humint, then it would depend on the type of source, but typically it's humint that has the longest period of classification due to people being around much longer than signals intelligence or IMINT(imagery intelligence) sources.

Jaden



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"The email designated with a TK classification contained an article from a public news source. How does the CIA own news articles that discuss drone strikes?"


Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.


Funny how that works... she acknowledged that and signed that contract... sucks to be her.


edit on R592016-05-16T15:59:05-05:00k595Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Thanks for that reply.

Excellent points.

Thanks



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



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


It's an act of desperation and a complete assumption to claim I did it to suit my argument.


No, you used your *ahem* "typo" to prop up your argument. I didn't assume it, you put it on display and I simply noticed it.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MotherMayEye



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


It's an act of desperation and a complete assumption to claim I did it to suit my argument.


No, you used your *ahem* "typo" to prop up your argument. I didn't assume it, you put it on display and I simply noticed it.


How did I use a typo to prop-up my argument, when I immediately acknowledged my mistake, apologized and in no way used the word "and" to change my basic premise?

You're making something out of nothing.



posted on May, 16 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

This is what you wrote:

"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."


****

So, yeah, you did prop up your argument with your typo.




top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join