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: 19
92
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

If she didn't think it was classified, why is she asking for it to be "turned into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure?" (emphasis mine)


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




posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Maybe the FBI will find something worthy of prosecution among the documents that are too sensitive to release.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

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?



Here is the full email exchange where it becomes clear they are discussing Talking Points ("TPs") for the evening press briefing when she tells him to send via a non-secure server.

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



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure

That is a crime.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

If she didn't think it was classified, why is she asking for it to be "turned into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure?" (emphasis mine)



AGAIN...almost all done here if folks are going to ignore links and evidence..

It was a Talking Points memo for a press briefing...So says State, So Says Hillary, So says the guy who sent it...So says the actual full email exchange I linked to.

A list of items to share with the press at the evening press briefing is not classified...but it was sent via the classified system...and that system would not permit it to be sent to her where she was, so she asked for it to be sent via normal channels.

You got the links explaining just that by all involved and you got the link to the full exchange that the Right Wing seems to fail to cite.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5




If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure

That is a crime.


I get that you wish it was...but no...not at all...The material was not classified.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Again (and this is frustrating, because I know you're smart):


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), he very fact that she was willing to ask someone to do so is where the problem lies.


It could have been a blank document with nothing on it, she was asking for proper procedures to be circumvented, that is where the criminality lies in this particular circumstance.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

If she didn't think it was classified, why is she asking for it to be "turned into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure?" (emphasis mine)



AGAIN...almost all done here if folks are going to ignore links and evidence..

It was a Talking Points memo for a press briefing...So says State, So Says Hillary, So says the guy who sent it...So says the actual full email exchange I linked to.

A list of items to share with the press at the evening press briefing is not classified...but it was sent via the classified system...and that system would not permit it to be sent to her where she was, so she asked for it to be sent via normal channels.

You got the links explaining just that by all involved and you got the link to the full exchange that the Right Wing seems to fail to cite.


Where is the memo? Did someone post the memo? If the memo is not classified you should be able to get it and post it here. I won't hold my breath. Newsflash, you can't get the memo.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Look at what is being shopped in the media this week.

I started to type Hillary into my google search and before I finished typing her name this suggestion was at the top of my list "Clinton might not be the nominee". Very interesting.

Here is the lightweight piece that I found from the WSJ

Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee



There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president. How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
So an email that shows someone who is accused of having 2200+ classified documents on an unclassified server knew how to circumvent security protocols for her convenience is not relevant.

Okey dokey whatever floats that denial boat.

That email will haunt her for a long long time.
edit on R332016-06-01T13:33:44-05:00k336Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

www.nationalreview.com...

In the interview linked Hillary herself said it was not sent. Sending classified info is a crime. Just because you dont think it should be classified matters not.



DICKERSON: Aren’t you ordering him to violate the laws on handling classified material there? CLINTON: No. Not at all. As the State Department said just this week, that did not happen. It never would have happened because that’s just not the way I treated classified information. Headings are not classification notices and so oftentimes we’re trying to get the best information we can. Obviously what I’m asking for is whatever can be transmitted, if it doesn’t come through secure to be transmitted on the unclassified system. So, no, there is nothing to that, like so much else that has been talked about in the last year. DICKERSON: So, in no instance — what’s striking about that particular e-mail suggests you were very facile with how to do this, this process, you knew the instructions how to get around the restrictions for sending classified information. So you’re saying there was never an instance, any other instance in which you did that? CLINTON: No. And it wasn’t sent. I think this is another instance where, what is common practice, namely, look, I needed information, I had points I had to make. I was waiting for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture. But oftentimes there’s a lot of information that isn’t at all classified. So whatever information can be appropriately transmitted unclassified often was — that’s true for every agency in the government and everybody that does business with the government. But the important point here is, I had great confidence because I worked with Jake Sullivan for years. He is the most meticulous, careful person you could possibly do business with. And he knew exactly what was and wasn’t appropriate. And in fact the State Department has said there was no transmission of any classified information. It’s another effort by people looking for something to throw against the wall, as you said in the beginning of the program, to see what sticks. But there’s no there there. DICKERSON: Well this one is a little different since FBI is investigating this specific question of whether a classification was meddled with. Let me ask you about another e-mail in this batch, which was one in which you seemed to express surprise that somebody e-mailed on non-State Department personal e-mail, which is what you were doing. Why was that a surprise to you? CLINTON: Well, I e-mailed two people on their government accounts because I knew that all of that would be part of the government system. Indeed the vast majority of all my e-mails are in the government system. That’s how I conducted the business. I was very clear about e-mailing anything having to do with business to people on their government accounts. Read more at: www.nationalreview.com...


Whats worse is she has opened her mouth too many times now and cant keep her own lies straight.
What she instructed her staff to do is a crime.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Oh and state never said it was not classified they said they did not find it was sent by email.

mediamatters.org...



The State Department release does not make clear what the contents of the email were or whether the information was classified.


18 USC 1924



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: BIGPoJo

If I had a soul I would sell it to Satan right now to make this true.



Your getting ripped off then.

Sending CLinton to jail is worth your soul ?

No.

Just take solace that there is already a special place in hell for CLinton.
edit on 1-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


And Hillary will pay for her overall sleaziness and ignored criminal behavior. The chickens will come home to roost sooner, rather than later. I don't think Congress is just sitting back and hoping for an indictment, like many ATS members are. Certain members are probably working the backdoors to make it happen ASAP.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Sending CLinton to jail is worth your soul ?


I have contemplated auctioning it off for less.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
People should read the entire NDA agreement as classification is specifically addressed - 2nd to last sentence.


Click to enlarge -


"I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above."



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5

If she didn't think it was classified, why is she asking for it to be "turned into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure?" (emphasis mine)



AGAIN...almost all done here if folks are going to ignore links and evidence..

It was a Talking Points memo for a press briefing...So says State, So Says Hillary, So says the guy who sent it...So says the actual full email exchange I linked to.

A list of items to share with the press at the evening press briefing is not classified...but it was sent via the classified system...and that system would not permit it to be sent to her where she was, so she asked for it to be sent via normal channels.

You got the links explaining just that by all involved and you got the link to the full exchange that the Right Wing seems to fail to cite.


Where is the memo? Did someone post the memo? If the memo is not classified you should be able to get it and post it here. I won't hold my breath. Newsflash, you can't get the memo.


For effs sake...Well Let's see...

We know from the actual email exchange that it was a Talking Points Memo for the press ..

And
HRC says this :
""This is another instance where what is common practice -- I need information, I had some points I had to make, and I was waiting for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture, but oftentimes there is a lot of information that isn't at all classified," Clinton said Sunday on "Face the Nation."

Kirby who tried to send it said this:
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.

"Just because something, a document, is on a classified system doesn't necessarily make the document, the content, necessarily classified,"

and we know that she asked for it on June 16th and then needed it ASAP by the morning of June 17th, 2011.

So...where was she and what press conferences did she give on June 17th?

A quick search reveals....

June 17th, 2011 - UN Adopts Groundbreaking Resolution Affirming that LGBT Rights are Human Rights
globalequality.org...

Press Statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity
June 17, 2011
secretaryclinton.wordpress.com... orientation-gender-identity/

Ya...sounds like it was definitely a classified Talking Points memo...LOL

Maybe ask Judicial Watch why they did not seek for the release of that Talking Points memo?
edit on 1-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Fun stuff from the State Department Classification Guide dated May 2011:

foia.state.gov...


This Guide constitutes the classification authority to be cited by persons without original classification authority (OCA) and should be used also by persons with OCA when the Guide properly describes and characterizes the information to be classified.



This Guide describes the type of information most often classified at Foreign Service posts abroad and in Department of State domestic offices. This Guide is designed to be as specific as possible but flexible enough to cover most situations requiring the classification of information.



Part IV of this Guide is a discussion of the application of these classification categories to information in documents created by Department of State personnel. Most State Department documents are classified because they contain foreign government information, discuss foreign relations, or identify confidential sources, and are classified under E.O. 13526 Sections 1.4(b) and 1.4(d).



A significant amount of State Department information will be adequately protected by assigning a classification duration of ten years or less, but that duration of classification could be grossly inadequate for many classes of information. This is particularly true for information derived from foreign governments and confidential sources



Specifically concerning EO 13526 1.4 (a) - (g)

MILITARY PLANS, WEAPONS SYSTEMS, OR OPERATIONS.....1.4 (a):

Information in this category might include: military plans for operations or contingencies, scientific or engineering analyses or descriptions of U.S. weapons systems; weaknesses in the current U.S. defense posture; U.S. national and military command, control and communications systems, and nuclear weapon release authority and agreements, and any other information likely to weaken U.S. weapons systems.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION.....1.4 (b):

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.

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING COVERT ACTIVITIES), INTELLIGENCE SOURCES OR METHODS, OR CRYPTOLOGY....1.4 (c)

Often a purely State Department document will include reference to an intelligence presence in a particular country. This may be in the form of information from or about an intelligence source or simply identification of a U.S. intelligence presence. A document containing such information should be classified at least CONFIDENTIAL for a duration of 25 years.

And so on and so forth....

Reading is a wonderful way to expand your knowledge.

edit on R002016-06-01T16:00:47-05:00k006Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R082016-06-01T16:08:01-05:00k086Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You can't produce the memo.....gee wonder why.
Also you realize her itinerary would be classified as well.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

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"???




Hi Indigo!

I think the nuance in legalities with regard to your thought is this:

Hillary was the Original Classification Authority (OCA). So it was her duty to know what information is classified according to an EO -- not according to a label, per se.

If someone shared information that should have been marked classified by an OCA (not themself), they could not be held responsible for knowing the information was classified -- because they are not the OCA.

However, in Hillary's case, it was her duty to know the information was classified -- whether she marked it as such or not.

In another thread, I used the example of Hillary at a party verbally providing classified information to someone where others could overhear. The hypothetical conversation, itself, would not have already been 'marked' classified, but it was still within her duty and understanding to know the information was classified anyway.

Or that is my ultimate understanding of the retroactive argument and it's application, so far, in the Courts.




top topics



 
92
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join