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.

 

State Department audit faults Clinton on email use

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You conceded whilst I was typing my reply.

Ignoring the final frippery, do you have any response other than, "it depends?"

SAPs are SAPs, and all should be protected in the same way. There is no, "We have to know which emails specifically they refer to," when they indicate that there are SAPs, those are by definition "produced by or for the US government."


edit on 26-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: quotation mark




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



SAPs are SAPs, and all should be protected in the same way. There is no, "We have to know which emails specifically they refer to, when they indicate that there are SAPs, those are by definition "produced by or for the US government."


Yes, we do have to know. The Blumenthal emails were an example of emails being classified once the government got their hands on it, but would not have had to be classified otherwise because they did not fall under part 2 of Section 1.1 in EO 13526.


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



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You're trying to deflect again.

The SAPs are in the group not released because they are of such a high level of classification.

And that argument is invalid anyway as anything can be brought "under control of the United States Government."

 


Back to Chapter 8:


8-103 Establishment of DoD SAPs

a. In accordance with E.O. 12958, within the Department of Defense, only the Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense may create a SAP.

edit on 26-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If the SAP designation was not part of the emails I referred to, then I cannot comment on that.

In reference to the Top Secret and other designations, do you agree that it was applied only after it came in to possession of the government and would otherwise not be deemed classified because it was property of the CF?



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


No. We're just going off of very little information. That has been my point through all of this. We need a lot more information before we say she is guilty of anything.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


The poster your are responding to maintains that sone of the emails were Clinton Foundation business and since they weren't produced by or for the US governmen, they cannot be classified.

That is an attempt to deflect from my quoting the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community where he indicates that there is SAP level material within the emails on the server.

He is arguing two different things to confuse the issue.
edit on 26-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



The poster your are responding to maintains that sone of the emails were Clinton Foundation business and since they weren't produced by or for the US governmen, they cannot be classified.


No. What I said is that they weren't classified until the government got their hands on them for investigative and FOIA purposes.



That is an attempt to deflect from my quoting the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community where he indicates that there is SAP level material within the emails on the server.


I cannot comment on that aspect if the emails with the SAP designation have not been released. Included in that comment was a reference to Top Secret, Secret and other designations besides the SAP.

So I commented that we would have to see what the emails contained, because we have already seen some (Blumenthal emails) that were considered classified but were not property of the US Government.

Can you comment on that aspect?



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


The poster your are responding to maintains that sone of the emails were Clinton Foundation business and since they weren't produced by or for the US governmen, they cannot be classified.


The poster I asked the question of is the only one I trust to give me a straight forward answer.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


No. We're just going off of very little information. That has been my point through all of this. We need a lot more information before we say she is guilty of anything.


Yes, I agree.

And there's the question of mishap, or intent.

I expect new regulations may come out of this, but not much else.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


The poster your are responding to maintains that sone of the emails were Clinton Foundation business and since they weren't produced by or for the US governmen, they cannot be classified.


The poster I asked the question of is the only one I trust to give me a straight forward answer.





I appreciate that, but I can't give you a definitive answer. There is a whole lot that we do not know.

The Blumenthal emails cast a lot of doubt on how and why certain emails were classified, considering it's content can be directly tied to Clinton Foundation work. By definition, they do not need to be classified. But they were for the investigation.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


The poster your are responding to maintains that sone of the emails were Clinton Foundation business and since they weren't produced by or for the US governmen, they cannot be classified.


The poster I asked the question of is the only one I trust to give me a straight forward answer.





I appreciate that, but I can't give you a definitive answer. There is a whole lot that we do not know.



Exactly!

I did not think any official statement had been made. I expected that you would have that answer.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


No. We're just going off of very little information. That has been my point through all of this. We need a lot more information before we say she is guilty of anything.


Yes, I agree.

And there's the question of mishap, or intent.

I expect new regulations may come out of this, but not much else.


New regulations have already been put in place after Hillary's email scandal began.

It is my opinion that unless her emails contained some absolutely earth shattering info, no charges will come out of this. This audit report highlights the issues within the entire system and it is not limited to just Hillary.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


No. We're just going off of very little information. That has been my point through all of this. We need a lot more information before we say she is guilty of anything.


Yes, I agree.

And there's the question of mishap, or intent.

I expect new regulations may come out of this, but not much else.


New regulations have already been put in place after Hillary's email scandal began.

It is my opinion that unless her emails contained some absolutely earth shattering info, no charges will come out of this. This audit report highlights the issues within the entire system and it is not limited to just Hillary.


From everything I've read, it seems Hillary was very dedicated in doing her job.

The objection seems to be in how she did it.

I still think its a witch hunt, same as the Swift Boaters with John Kerry.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Blumenthal's emails to Hillary were classified the second they hit her server address.

But nobody marked them like they were supposed to.





Not true. The emails by definition do not meet the standards for classification under part 2 of Section 1.1 of the EO.


Has there been any actual confirmed statement or announcement from the investigation?

Other then, someone said.


No. We're just going off of very little information. That has been my point through all of this. We need a lot more information before we say she is guilty of anything.


Yes, I agree.

And there's the question of mishap, or intent.

I expect new regulations may come out of this, but not much else.


New regulations have already been put in place after Hillary's email scandal began.

It is my opinion that unless her emails contained some absolutely earth shattering info, no charges will come out of this. This audit report highlights the issues within the entire system and it is not limited to just Hillary.


From everything I've read, it seems Hillary was very dedicated in doing her job.

The objection seems to be in how she did it.


"Dedicated to her job"? LOL!

UNITY MOMENT:
Can we ALL, at least, agree she's been lying through her teeth?



We Now Know Hillary Lied Multiple Times About Her Email Server

finance.yahoo.com...



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The classified info you two are debating about will not be released to the public. It is CLASSIFIED. That is why she is in trouble in the first place.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




We need a lot more information before we say she is guilty of anything.

Not true , we can say without a doubt she is guilty of extreme bad judgement , enough so for the FBI to investigate her.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: introvert




We need a lot more information before we say she is guilty of anything.

Not true , we can say without a doubt she is guilty of extreme bad judgement , enough so for the FBI to investigate her.





I can agree with that. According to this audit report, she is not the only one.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join