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.

 

Hillary Clinton to be indicted on racketeering charges.

page: 18
92
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Yep. The guy's a flake and his story is a rehash of older material.

It's not surprising HuffPo pulled it.

It's not a conspiracy. Hillary is NOT going to be indicted despite how many prayers and genie wishes people make.

Keep rubbin' those lamps people....




posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Leaving aside the personality traits of the author for the time being, I'd like to address this portion of your post:


Hillary is NOT going to be indicted despite how many prayers and genie wishes people make.


Prior to the State Department's Inspector General's report (direct .pdf link) I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly, in fact I still more than believe that she will skate with nothing more than some administrative penalties and a few fines.

While the referenced report does indeed implicate the entire federal government and specifically the State Department in general terms, it does point out the Hillary's tenure stood out as far as severity of the lack of cybersecurity and not in a good way. The report shows a certain amount of the State Department distancing themselves from Hillary trying to cover her backside in saying that she had permission to use her private server.

The latest version of her story is "I thought it was allowed."

Really?

That doesn't work for speeding tickets, why in the hell would it be allowed for the boss of the Department of State?
edit on 1-6-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: fixed tag



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa


" I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, United States Code, of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation. "

Looks pretty clear what laws have been broken.... just read through the list and find the ones that apply.

You are welcome.


Hmmm...When was the material classified? If retroactive counts...then no one could ever speak for fear of the information they shared later being classified and them being prosecuted for sharing it without authorization.

And on "Unauthorized"...Who authorizes sharing of classified material for the State Department?

On "Classified"...who determines what is classified for the State Department?

Now...before you drag the conversation down in the weeds like you have a hundred times before...Try to answer those questions concisely. The question "who" is a one or two word answer...not pretzel twisted pages of cut and paste.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

"If retroactive counts"

Information can only be retroactively classified if that information has been previously released by the government as unclassified... that is a fact.

Has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton....the classified information in her email has never been publicly released by the government.......Hillary says so herself,..,, repeatedly.

"On "Classified"...who determines what is classified for the State Department?"...

That is in the State Departments classification guidelines. www.fas.org...


(U) Use of a secure system such as CLASSNET to transmit e-mails or other information, does not provide protection after receipt. If the information is classified, it must be marked as such before being transmitted. If the information is unclassified but otherwise protectable under law, this should also be indicated by marking the material SBU and with additional captions as appropriate. Failure to apply appropriate markings before transmission risks compromise or unauthorized release.


Hmmmm...Hillary never marked a single email that I have seen.... looks like she was in violation of the State Departments own guideline.

As for your other questions, all are covered under EO 13526.
edit on R302016-06-01T12:30:41-05:00k306Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

Here's the thing, in the email that has been referenced here in this post Hillary is instructing someone to remove classification headers from a secure document and then fax that document over an unsecure line.



That conveniently narrow excerpt leaves out a few crucial facts about that email exchange.

(A) It was a talking points memo for a press briefing.
(B) "Kirby also said the fact that the talking points were initially set to be sent via a secure system did not necessarily mean they were classified."
And
(C)"We have found no indication that the document was emailed to former Secretary Clinton. There are other ways it could have found its way to her for her use."

So did she ask for the talking points to be sent via a non-secure system? Yes.
Was it sent via a non-secure system? No..they got the secure fax system to work.
Was it classified information? No, it was talking points for a press briefing.

mediamatters.org...



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

Here's the thing, in the email that has been referenced here in this post Hillary is instructing someone to remove classification headers from a secure document and then fax that document over an unsecure line.



That conveniently narrow excerpt leaves out a few crucial facts about that email exchange.

(A) It was a talking points memo for a press briefing.
(B) "Kirby also said the fact that the talking points were initially set to be sent via a secure system did not necessarily mean they were classified."
And
(C)"We have found no indication that the document was emailed to former Secretary Clinton. There are other ways it could have found its way to her for her use."

So did she ask for the talking points to be sent via a non-secure system? Yes.
Was it sent via a non-secure system? No..they got the secure fax system to work.
Was it classified information? No, it was talking points for a press briefing.

mediamatters.org...


I guess you don't know how classification works. Once something is marked as having a classification no matter the content, it is illegal to remove those classifications and its even more illegal to disseminate that information.

Prime example, when I was in the military, our daily roll call was marked as classified. Somthing as mundane as saying who was absent from work that day remains classified for over 20 years. It has no value to the enemy in its current form. Yet, if I email you a copy of it with or without headers I will be put in prison.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

"If retroactive counts"

Information can only be retroactively classified if that information has been previously released by the government as unclassified... that is a fact.


Hmm..

How does information ever get shared in the first place? If everyone was subject to retroactive prosecution for retroactively classified information...would not that mean that the people that first shared the information had shared (now classified) information without "authorization"???





"On "Classified"...who determines what is classified for the State Department?"...

That is in the State Departments classification guidelines.



Right...





Who can classify information?

In the State Department, original classification authority for top secret info goes to the secretary of state or anyone the secretary has said -- in writing -- can do the job. Past examples include: "Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, the Counselor, Assistant Secretaries and equivalents; Chiefs of Mission and U.S. representatives to international organizations."

Secret or classified information is decided on by the secretary and/or a senior agency official, who can give classification power to others in writing as well.

www.washingtonpost.com...



edit on 1-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Your source includes a LIE


"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.

The email in question:



Unless someone other than Hillary sent that email, she owns this.

It doesn't matter whether or not it was sent, or whether or not the information she was requesting was in fact classified (she thought it was), the very fact that she was willing to ask someone to do so is where the problem lies.

Not to mention the information that was in the emails that have not been released.

But then all of this is somewhat off topic for this particular thread.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Not sure if its been posted. Biggest mystery is that Trump loving Drudge hasn't picked up on this.

EXCLUSIVE — Huffington Post Writer: Editors Deleted My Article on Hillary’s Imminent Indictment, Disabled Me from Writing





A writer for The Huffington Post is still waiting for an explanation as to why editors deleted his piece reporting that the FBI will pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton.

Huffington Post freelance contributor Frank Huguenard, a scientist and public speaker, wrote a report for the liberal site Sunday entitled “Hillary Clinton to be Indicted On Federal Racketeering Charges.” But the piece was not up for long before the Huffington Post pulled it down and replaced it with a “404” Error screen.

“Huffpo has yet to respond to my request for an explanation,” Huguenard tweeted at this Breitbart News reporter Monday morning. “I’ve got my sources, they never asked.”


Huguenard later told Breitbart News, “I want to do another story but my HuffPo account has been temporarily disabled. Not sure what’s happening with them.”


The Huffington Post media team did not return a request for comment.


I heard on the radio this morning (Rush Limbaugh) that many media outlets are starting to hint that Hillary will drop out of the race. They are shopping around the idea that Biden will step in. People are doing the best they can not to spill the beans on the pending indictment(s) but they don't want to be scooped so they pose the question "what happens if Hillary is indicted". Its all over the Internet, its in left wing media, and now its hitting the right wing airwaves.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

Your source includes a LIE


"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.

The email in question:





The caveat is "CLASSIFIED MATERIAL"...It was not classified...it was a talking points memo for a press briefing.

Just as birthday wishes sent to your work email might not be work related...Unclassified material is often transmitted via classified systems.


edit on 1-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


Lets me get this straight.... are you saying that the State Department's own official guidelines for classifying information do not apply in Hillarys case?


foia.state.gov...


Virtual reading room is your friend.

Foreign Government Information:


(U) 3. Types of FGI Likely to Require Classification. FGI can encompass a broad range of types of information, including:

a. High Level Correspondence. This includes letters, diplomatic notes or memoranda or other reports of telephone or face-to-face conversations involving foreign chiefs of state or government, cabinet-level officials or comparable level figures. (See Part IV D below for the classification of information from non-governmental figures such as leaders of opposition parties.) It should be presumed that this type of information should be classified at least CONFIDENTIAL, though the actual level of classification will depend upon the sensitivity of the contained information and classification normally assigned by the U.S. to this category of information. Information from senior officials shall normally be assigned a classification duration of at least ten years. Some subjects, such as cooperation on matters affecting third countries, or negotiation of secret agreements, would merit original classification for up to 25 years.



edit on R552016-06-01T12:55:43-05:00k556Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's been three days and this unproven junk is on the home page as a headline.
This place has really gone down in quality lately. There used to be standards that had to be met. I saw a long time member, a really well liked member banned for posting a story that was not true.


Bashing ATS in an ATS thread because a post you don't like hit the front page? Are you mad, jealous, or did someone trigger you? I mean, if you want to see something else on the front page feel free to start your own thread with the content of your choice.

You are also alluding to the idea that I should be banned. Give me a break, moderators have all ready been up and down this thread. I am certain my OP meets the requirements of ATS or I would have already got the hammer by now. Last time I checked, this is a conspiracy site.

This thread is about the conspiracy of Hillary always avoiding the law and now she may have to face the music. Just because you don't like the FACTS presented in this thread is not my problem, its yours.

I am actually surprised that your post wasn't removed and given a warning, ATS doesn't like to be bashed on their own platform.

Now if you have something of merit to contribute to this thread, please do. Otherwise start your own thread.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Dude, come on. I know you're smarter than this.


It doesn't matter whether or not it was sent, or whether or not the information she was requesting was in fact classified (she thought it was), the very fact that she was willing to ask someone to do so is where the problem lies.


Hillary thought the information was classified and was telling someone to get around the proper method of disseminating the information.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

Your source includes a LIE


"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.

The email in question:





The caveat is "CLASSIFIED MATERIAL"...It was not classified...it was a talking points memo for a press briefing.

Just as birthday wishes sent to your work email might not be work related...Unclassified material is often transmitted via classified systems.



How do you know it wasn't classified? Do you work for Hillary Clinton? Where you there when it was sent or before it was sent? Where are you getting your sources from?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

Your source includes a LIE


"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.

The email in question:





The caveat is "CLASSIFIED MATERIAL"...It was not classified...it was a talking points memo for a press briefing.

Just as birthday wishes sent to your work email might not be work related...Unclassified material is often transmitted via classified systems.



How do you know it wasn't classified? Do you work for Hillary Clinton? Where you there when it was sent or before it was sent? Where are you getting your sources from?




One particular email drew scrutiny Friday -- a June 17, 2011, exchange between Clinton and adviser Jake Sullivan. In that email string, she tells Sullivan she did not receive the evening's talking points -- typically specifics used to speak to the press and for briefings.

...

He also pointed out that it is not uncommon for unclassified documents to be created, edited and shared on a classified system. In other words, just because something is on a classified system doesn't mean it was classified.



www.npr.org...


edit on 1-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

Dude, come on. I know you're smarter than this.


It doesn't matter whether or not it was sent, or whether or not the information she was requesting was in fact classified (she thought it was), the very fact that she was willing to ask someone to do so is where the problem lies.


Hillary thought the information was classified and was telling someone to get around the proper method of disseminating the information.


The evidence suggests the precise opposite...The "information" was talking points for a press briefing and was not classified.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

Your source includes a LIE


"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.

The email in question:





The caveat is "CLASSIFIED MATERIAL"...It was not classified...it was a talking points memo for a press briefing.

Just as birthday wishes sent to your work email might not be work related...Unclassified material is often transmitted via classified systems.



How do you know it wasn't classified? Do you work for Hillary Clinton? Where you there when it was sent or before it was sent? Where are you getting your sources from?




One particular email drew scrutiny Friday -- a June 17, 2011, exchange between Clinton and adviser Jake Sullivan. In that email string, she tells Sullivan she did not receive the evening's talking points -- typically specifics used to speak to the press and for briefings.

...

He also pointed out that it is not uncommon for unclassified documents to be created, edited and shared on a classified system. In other words, just because something is on a classified system doesn't mean it was classified.



www.npr.org...



Do you have a copy of the document so I can review it? Does anyone have a copy of it?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5


Lets me get this straight.... are you saying that the State Department's own official guidelines for classifying information do not apply in Hillarys case?


foia.state.gov...


Virtual reading room is your friend.

Foreign Government Information:


(U) 3. Types of FGI Likely to Require Classification. FGI can encompass a broad range of types of information, including:

a. High Level Correspondence. This includes letters, diplomatic notes or memoranda or other reports of telephone or face-to-face conversations involving foreign chiefs of state or government, cabinet-level officials or comparable level figures. (See Part IV D below for the classification of information from non-governmental figures such as leaders of opposition parties.) It should be presumed that this type of information should be classified at least CONFIDENTIAL, though the actual level of classification will depend upon the sensitivity of the contained information and classification normally assigned by the U.S. to this category of information. Information from senior officials shall normally be assigned a classification duration of at least ten years. Some subjects, such as cooperation on matters affecting third countries, or negotiation of secret agreements, would merit original classification for up to 25 years.






I see a bunch of legalese like "Likely" "Can Encompass" "Normally" yada yada in GUIDELINES..

That is not a prosecutable doc..

next..



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


You're hopeless.....


You ignore the State Departments very own guidelines because you do not understand them.

Typical of a Hillary supporter.

Nothing else I can post will change your mind.... as Ron White says.... you can't fix stupid.

You are going to see a whole bunch of "legalese" when the indictment recommendation comes down.

Take care.


edit on R012016-06-01T13:01:35-05:00k016Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R012016-06-01T13:01:48-05:00k016Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That is the same line of thinking that got her in trouble in the first place.
Just because you dont think it should be classified has no bearing on its actual classification; and furthermore no bearing on the consequences if it is mishandled.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join