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: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



Yes sir........ take you pick....tons of them.... which one do you want to start with?


Please provide proof of the "born classified" argument being upheld in court.


I will tell you this my friend, that is a deceptive question and you know it...Now that I am rested, I will play your little game and prove you dead wrong, yet again my little introverted friend.


"Please provide proof of the "born classified" argument being upheld in court."

Trick question, does not apply to Hillary Clinton on anyone else who has a US classified information clearance. That is your answer, because of the fact that I, Hillary Clinton, and the US Government all agree that her emails were classified when originated, or born classified, if you prefer. You do not agree.

The correct question you should be asking is this:

"Please provide proof of the "born classified" argument being upheld in court when being used against an individual who possesses a security clearance?"

The answer to that question is none, because everyone who has a classified information clearance from the US Government, has agreed in writing that they agree with the governments assertion that information can be classified at birth/classified when originated/born classified or any other term you can pull out of your wazoo to call it.

That sir is the bottom line. Hillary Clinton signed a legally binding consensual agreement between her and the US Government, in that agreement, she agreed with the governments position of born classified. Sucks to be her.

Which makes it a tad bit difficult to claim retroactive classification, when you have already previously agreed with the governments position that the data supposedly retroactively classified was already classified at birth.

Plus you know as well as I do, that in order for information to be considered retroactively classified, that exact same information would have had to have been previously released publicly by the US Government as unclassified information. That is the very definition of retroactive classification. Pretty sure all those videos of Hillary asking the government to publicly release her emails will be used to swiftly blow any claims of retroactive classification right out of the water.







So now the burden of proof is on you....back up your statements....

Provide one single case of retroactive classification, or born classified, being involved in a court case that involves a single individual with a clearance.

You can not do it... every single reference you have posted in support of your cause, actually proves exactly the opposite of what you claim because they ALL reference multiple parties or journalists/authors/reporters/publishers/magazines/news papers/etc. as plaintiffs and not single individuals who have signed a legally binding consensual agreement between the government and themselves that they agree with classified at birth.

Classified when originated, born classified, classified at birth........all mean the exact same thing and are explicitly covered under EO 13526 can not be challenged in court if the plaintiff has previously agreed in writing with the governments assertion of born classified/classified when originated/classified at birth, etc.


Retroactively classified: 100% debunked.


Classified when sent.... film at 11.










edit on R202016-05-26T09:20:26-05:00k205Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R252016-05-26T09:25:23-05:00k255Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



The answer to that question is none, because everyone who has a classified information clearance from the US Government, has agreed in writing that they agree with the governments assertion that information can be classified at birth/classified when originated/born classified or any other term you can pull out of your wazoo to call it. That sir is the bottom line. Hillary Clinton signed a legally binding consensual agreement between her and the US Government, in that agreement, she agreed with the governments position of born classified. Sucks to be her.


I'm confused, Rick.

You say that the person signed an agreement that covers the "governments position of born classified", yet you also say there is no cases in which we can look at to prove that assertion.

Did you just debunk your own claims? It appears that way.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



The answer to that question is none, because everyone who has a classified information clearance from the US Government, has agreed in writing that they agree with the governments assertion that information can be classified at birth/classified when originated/born classified or any other term you can pull out of your wazoo to call it. That sir is the bottom line. Hillary Clinton signed a legally binding consensual agreement between her and the US Government, in that agreement, she agreed with the governments position of born classified. Sucks to be her.


I'm confused, Rick.

You say that the person signed an agreement that covers the "governments position of born classified", yet you also say there is no cases in which we can look at to prove that assertion.

Did you just debunk your own claims? It appears that way.


Nope...did you lose you reading comprehension this morning? Its pretty clear.


Everyone who had access to classified information has signed an legally binding consensual agreement between them and the US Government that they agree with the fact that information can be classified at birth/born classified/classified when originated.

You having a problem understanding that?


edit on R412016-05-26T09:41:14-05:00k415Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Ya, I read your post. You debunked yourself.

You claim people have signed the agreement that government can hold a position in which material can be deemed classified at birth, yet cannot provide a case in which such an argument has been used against someone.

You said it yourself.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Ya, I read your post. You debunked yourself.

You claim people have signed the agreement that government can hold a position in which material can be deemed classified at birth, yet cannot provide a case in which such an argument has been used against someone.

You said it yourself.


It has never been challenged in a court of law and it never will be when it comes to individuals who have access to classified information..simply because they can't challenge it because they have previously agreed to it.

It is not exactly rocket science.

You are doing an exceptional job of intellectual dishonesty by asking for proof of something that can not exist based on a legally binding consensual agreement.

It doesn't exist man... it doesn't exist because everyone who has a clearance agrees to the fact of born classified.

You're spinning wheels and playing word games...

You have been proven wrong...yet again.

See you on indictment recommendation day old buddy.... soon!!!!

Absolutely amazing how laws and regulations that have stood for decades are now suddenly are under fire because it involves Hillary Clinton. Apparently she and her supporters believe that she is above the laws for the little people who possess a security clearances and they do not apply to her.
edit on R052016-05-26T10:05:12-05:00k055Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
For anyone that hasn't noticed the pattern.

It is blindingly obvious that department heads are covering their asses now, or creating a CYA file, so when Hillary is indicted they don't lose their positions, or their careers.

Go through the checklist, in your head, and see how one by one anyone that has responsibility, in the matter, is cover their collective butts, because Hillary is in deep crap.

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



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



It has never been challenged in a court of law and it never will be when it comes to individuals who have access to classified information..simply because they can't challenge it because they have previously agreed to it.


I didn't ask you to provide a case in which it was challenged. I asked you to provide a case in which that argument was used against someone.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa



It has never been challenged in a court of law and it never will be when it comes to individuals who have access to classified information..simply because they can't challenge it because they have previously agreed to it.


I didn't ask you to provide a case in which it was challenged. I asked you to provide a case in which that argument was used against someone.


Blow more smoke... you lost the argument dude.

"I asked you to provide a case in which that argument was used against someone."

Once again, any case against an individual who has been prosecuted for mishandling of classified information, the very core of that charge is that information that meets the specifications in EO 13526 1.4 (a)-(g) is born classified/classified at origination/classified at birth.

There have been dozens and dozens of people prosecuted for mishandling classified information....... not a single one of those cases has ever been overturned because born classified has been challenged.


So your answer is every case involving classified information and individuals with clearances, born classified is used against them and they never challenge that. ever. It's because they are sitting on the witness stand staring at a legally binding consensual agreement between them and the US Government with their signature on it that says they agree with the governments position that as long as it meets the EO specifications, then classified information is considered to be born classified/classified at origination/classified at birth.

You are doing nothing but showing how clueless you truly are about classified information....no wonder it is all just a bunch of nonsense to you.


edit on R352016-05-26T10:35:34-05:00k355Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R362016-05-26T10:36:08-05:00k365Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



the very core of that charge is that information that meets the specifications in EO 13536 1.4 (a)-(g) is born classified/classified at origination/classified at birth.


First off, it's EO 13526. The EO you listed is about Somalia.

Second, born classified has never been used in any court proceeding, by any party involved...ever. That is why you cannot provide a case in which that argument has been used against someone. Something is considered classified upon origination by an OCA.


"Born secret" and "born classified" are both terms which refer to a policy of information being classified from the moment of its inception, usually regardless of where it was being created, usually in reference to specific laws in the United States that are related to information that describes the operation of nuclear weapons.



Whether or not it is constitutional to declare entire categories of information preemptively classified has not been definitively tested in the courts.

The legality of the 'born secret' doctrine was directly challenged in a freedom of the press case in 1979 (United States v. The Progressive). In that case, a magazine attempted to publish an account of the so-called "secret of the hydrogen bomb" (the Teller-Ulam design), which was apparently created without recourse to classified information. Many analysts predicted that the US Supreme Court would, if it heard the case, reject the 'born secret' clause as being an unconstitutional restraint on speech. However, the government dropped the case as moot before it was resolved.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Still blowing smoke there Pal?


"The legality of the 'born secret' doctrine was directly challenged in a freedom of the press case in 1979 (United States v. The Progressive). In that case, a magazine attempted to publish an account of the so-called "secret of the hydrogen bomb" (the Teller-Ulam design), which was apparently created without recourse to classified information. Many analysts predicted that the US Supreme Court would, if it heard the case, reject the 'born secret' clause as being an unconstitutional restraint on speech. However, the government dropped the case as moot before it was resolved."

Apples and Oranges,,,, has absolutely nothing at all to do with Hillary Clinton. You are trying to compare a case against a magazine to a case against a cabinet level official who has signed an agreement that states they agree with the governments position of born classified.

It will never go to the Supreme Court under a case of an individual who has a clearance..it can't...they agree with the governments position that information under EO 13526 1.4 (a)-(g) is born classified in order to be given access to classified information... everybody does.

As far as the government pushing a case against an entity such as a magazine/newspaper/book/ to the SCOTUS....I doubt very seriously if that would ever happen. No point in if...if the information is already loose...it's very difficult to put the hens back in the hen house once they are free.


edit on R012016-05-26T11:01:56-05:00k015Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

There is no other case to use as an example because the "born classified" argument has not been upheld in any court case. That is the point.



It will never go to the Supreme Court under a case of an individual who has a clearance..it can't...they agree with the governments position that information under EO 13526 1.4 (a)-(g) is born classified in order to be given access to classified information... everybody does


If it has never been decided upon by the SC, how can you say what they agree with?

Information is considered classified upon original decision by an OCA.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

Exactly.
This report spells out specifically that Hillary's actions were not approved or condoned by the State Department.
It shows that they don't want to get dragged into the mess when she is indicted. They are absolving themselves of blame and putting all of the choices and responsibility squarely on Hillary.
edit on 5/26/16 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
There is more in the audit that was also mentioned that should be taken into account.

The first is that it was not just Clinton, but her predecessors also mishandled email. Powell did not turn in all of his emails, and when requested he blew it off, and it was found that Rice had discrepancies in the way she handled emails as well.

The next was how antiquated and easy it is to mess up the entire system. Think about it, under the rules that the department had at the time, every time the Sectary of State got or sent an email, they had to print it out and then put it in a box, not sort or put it into some form of system, but just in a box that is then sent to some archive and stored for clerks to have to go through and ultimately sort and categorize. Now the question is how many emails does a Sec of state receive and sent out on a daily basis, and how many emails would that total and how many boxes. So then all of that has to be given to the State department to do with as they need to.

So this can not just be about Clinton, and just ignore her predecessors as well, for it is known that they also received classified emails via a private servers, and did not exactly follow policy or law either.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

There is no other case to use as an example because the "born classified" argument has not been upheld in any court case. That is the point.



It will never go to the Supreme Court under a case of an individual who has a clearance..it can't...they agree with the governments position that information under EO 13526 1.4 (a)-(g) is born classified in order to be given access to classified information... everybody does



"Information is considered classified upon original decision by an OCA."



If it has never been decided upon by the SC, how can you say what they agree with?

Information is considered classified upon original decision by an OCA.





"Information is considered classified upon original decision by an OCA"


Dead wrong yet again.. you are having a really bad day... I will take a break after this spanking so you can recover.

Information is considered unmarked classified information from its creation/birth to the point where it is given a classification level by an Original Classification Authority. Just because information has not been properly marked by an OCA does not mean that information is considered any less classified.

You lose another argument.

At this point, what does it matter anyways....Hillarys indictment recommendation day is rapidly approaching.

Tick Tock Tick Tock
edit on R192016-05-26T11:19:33-05:00k195Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
The questions I have about the audit are these:


Why did Hillary and her blue crew refuse to cooperate with the State Department IG?

Were they told not too by the FBI?

Or did they refuse for some other reason?



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

While your assumptions are correct as far as they go, this needs to be figured in also:


And unlike previous secretaries of State, the department’s recordkeeping policies were more evolved by the time Clinton took office, the report maintained.


source

Laws have been changed since Rice and Powell were in office, so using "they did it too" as a scapegoat does not hold up.

As for,



The next was how antiquated and easy it is to mess up the entire system


That sums up most of our government!



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



Information is considered unmarked classified information from its creation/birth to the point where it is given a classification level by an Original Classification Authority.


Ok. I shall concede for the sake of argument.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Information is considered classified upon original decision by an OCA


Keep up with that diversion, you are 100% wrong on this portion of the argument.

Dispute the objectively verifiable facts:

Hillary's email contained:

"several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET/SAP information."


Letter from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community direct .pdf link.

Regarding SAPs:


It is the policy of the Department of Defense to use the security classification categories and the applicable sections of E.O. 12958 and its implementing ISOO Directives to limit access to classified information on a "need-to-know" basis only to those personnel who have been determined to meet requisite personnel security requirements. Further, it is DoD policy to rigorously apply the need-to-know principle in the normal course of controlling collateral classified information so that Special Access Program (SAP) controls will be used only when exceptional security measures are required based on threat and/or vulnerability (e.g. sensitivity or value of the information) associated with the SAP. Need-to-know principles shall also be applied within SAPs. In this context, SAPs may be created or continued only on a specific finding that:

a. The vulnerability of, or threat to, the specific information to be protected is exceptional;
b. Normal criteria for determining access to the assigned level of classification are not sufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure;
c. Careful consideration is given to: assessing the vulnerability, the sensitivity of the information to be protected, and the adequacy of needed safeguarding requirements; and/or
d. The establishment of the SAP is required by statute.


...

8-102 Control and Administration

a. SAPs shall be controlled and managed in accordance with DoD Directive O-5205.7.


All of the above basically says that any and all SAP programs are super-squirrel secret and need to be super-squirrel protected.

Chapter 8

SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS

8-100 Policy


Whomever it was that got the SAPs is in a deep pile of fecal matter:


e. All personnel accessed to DoD SAPs shall notify the Director, DoD SAPCO, in a timely fashion, when briefing or providing DoD SAP material to any members of Congress or congressional staff. No DoD contractor entity, contractor employee, contractor representative, or consultant shall provide SAP material to any members of Congress or congressional staff without Director, DoD SAPCO, approval.


Here is where Hillary is culpable:


No copies shall be stored outside DoD repositories or control without the approval of the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Defense.


DoD directive O-5205.7

Here is some training she should have received when she signed her NdA:


Lesson 3.
2: Responsibility – Completing an NdA

The NdA is a contract between you and the U.S. Government that creates a lifetime contractual obligation to protect classified information

. The importance of this contract, and your resulting responsibilities to national security, cannot be overstated.

The NdA specifically indicates that the failure to properly protect classified information may result in several criminal or administrative sanctions as outlined by various governing documents.

Call Out Box:

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, ...of classified information by me could cause damage...to the United States. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations...”

Call Out Box:

“In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations of...”

• 18 United States Code (USC) 793 / 794 / 798 of the Espionage Act
• 18 USC 641(Theft of Government Property)
• 50 USC 421of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act Individuals who have been granted access to classified information must understand their obligations to safeguard classified information. You must also be aware of additional responsibilities, including:

• Properly classifying and handling information
• Reporting unauthorized disclosures
• Obtaining proper authorization prior to communicating with the media
• Submitting all material related to your position for pre-publication review prior to public release


And here is what she agreed to happening to her should she violate her NdA:


The type of sanction which can be levied depends on the nature and severity of the disclosure.

Administrative

Administrative sanctions include:

• Suspension without pay
• Revocation of clearance
• Termination of employment

Federal statute specifically allows the heads of agencies to terminate an employee if they believe the termination is necessary in the interest of national security.

Criminal

Criminal sanctions include:
•Incarceration
•Fines
•Death penalty (under very specific circumstances)


Specifically:


Unauthorized retention or disclosure of national defense information
Section 793 of the Espionage Act discusses the unauthorized retention or disclosure of national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it. If you improperly disclose or retain national defense information you can be fined, incarcerated for up to ten years, or both.

Unauthorized disclosure to a foreign government
The Espionage Act of 1917 is best recognized for Section 794 which prohibits the disclosure of classified information to a foreign government. If you disclose classified information to a foreign government, you can be punished by death or incarcerated for any term of years up to life.

Additional Sanctions
In accordance with the Hiss Act which was passed in 1954 and amended in 1961, an individual convicted of certain offenses, including the provisions of the Espionage Act, may not be paid a federal annuity or pension.


Unauthorized Disclosures of Classified Information Text Alternative

One last thing:


(1) Security Violation. Any incident that involves the loss, compromise or suspected compromise of classified information. Additionally, (1) Any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information; (2) any knowing, willful, or negligent action to classify or continue the classification of information contrary to the requirements of E.O. 13526 or its implementing directives; or (3) any knowing, willful, or negligent action to create to continue a SAP contrary to the requirements of E.O. 13526.


Student Guide
Short: Special Access Program (SAP) Security Incidents


Hillary's decision to have and keep SAPs on her server is, at the very least, gross negligence.

Arguments, meet fork.
edit on 26-5-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: sapcing fix



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Realtruth

Exactly.
This report spells out specifically that Hillary's actions were not approved or condoned by the State Department.
It shows that they don't want to get dragged into the mess when she is indicted. They are absolving themselves of blame and putting all of the choices and responsibility squarely on Hillary.


What's ironic is all the years the Clinton's used scapegoats to take the fall, for their dirty deeds, this time they are the ones taking the heat, and this time they deserve everything that comes their way.

Karma is a bitch.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Keep up with that diversion, you are 100% wrong on this portion of the argument.


I already conceded on that point, for the sake of argument.


several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET/SAP information


We have to know which emails specifically they refer to. Many emails were classified Top Secret, etc, after the government got their hands on them, but by definition they would not of had to have been classified because they were not produced by or for the US government. They were property of the Clinton Foundation. That refers to the Blumenthal emails.



Arguments, meet fork.


These conversations would be much more productive if people weren't so childish and arrogant.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join