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.

 

Republicans Just Leaked Classified FBI Intelligence In Attempt to Smear Hillary

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   


Appearing on NBC’s “Today” Wednesday, Tim Kaine argued that any documents released by the FBI to Congress related to the Clinton email investigation should also be released to the public.

“Anything that the FBI gives to Congress, they should give to the public,” Kaine said. “Because what we’ve seen is this lengthy, multimillion dollar congressional investigation that has been highly partisan where they’ve wanted to leak out this or that to try to make their case against Hillary Clinton. Let the public see what the FBI decides to let Congress see.”

National Memo Dated 8/17/2016

So would someone PLEASE tell me what the problem is? It sounds to me like Hillary & Kaine were asking for something that they never really wanted OR they just got what they wanted...problem solved.




posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Powell used an AOL account and had his own server. He told her via email (and possibly at a dinner party) that this worked really well for him. You would be correct that no one took him to task for negligence. That is really the only difference here.

Read on if you dare:


The shocking truth about the last two Republican secretaries of state has finally come out: Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice trafficked in classified information on their personal email accounts. This is an enormous scandal! Oh, wait. No, it’s not...

Conservative commentators have raged, presidential candidates have fallen over themselves in apoplectic babbling, and some politicians have proclaimed that Clinton should be in jail for mishandling classified information. The nonsense has been never-ending, and attempts to cut through the fog of duplicity have been fruitless.But Powell and Rice’s aides did nothing wrong. (I’m going to focus on them so that partisans who say Clinton broke the law have to attack respected Republicans first.) Start with this: Powell and Rice, like all modern secretaries of state, each had at least two email accounts—one personal and the other for communications designated as highly classified at the time of their creation...

To give an idea of how insecure these communications could be, Powell’s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the information qualified for a SCIF. (Clinton sent only one email to a foreign dignitary through her personal account, and her communications with ambassadors were, for the most part, by phone.)So did Powell and the aides to Rice violate rules governing classified information, since the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) staff has recently determined that some of their years-old personal emails contain top-secret material? No. The rules regarding the handling of classified information apply to communications designated as secret at that time . If documents that aren’t deemed classified, and aren’t handled through a SCIF when they are created or initially transmitted, are later, in retrospect, deemed secret, the classification is new—and however the record was handled in the past is irrelevant.


Shocking Truth: Colin Powell's Email's Don't Matter...



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

"Powell used an AOL account and had his own server. "

Again, everything past that statement is invalid, proving you have no idea of what you are taking about.

You got proof that Powell had his own server?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Why is it that liberals set certain standards, then when other's play by those standards, suddenly the standard changes again?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Powell used an AOL account for Secretary of State business. On further investigation, it is not known (which is kind of crazy in and of itself) if he had a private server or just used the AOL server. I made the "server" statement in error - but NOT the private email account through AOL, which is hardly a secure venue. He and Clinton also used the secured server, just not exclusively.

Powell also did not print out the emails nor kept them, and hasn't responded regarding providing them for investigation.



Secretary Powell did not keep any of his emails and has so far ignored requests to look on private servers.

We already knew that Secretary Colin Powell exclusively used an outside, personal e-mail account to conduct State Department business. The report confirmed that Powell “did not retain those emails or make printed copies.”

Powell’s team, like Clinton’s, has said he believed his emails could be found by searching the accounts of the State Department staffers who received them, an idea that is sharply criticized in this report.

The State Department has continued to look for Powell’s emails, requesting to connect with his Internet service provider. But, the inspector general wrote, as of May 2016, the department has not received a response from Powell or his staff.


Also:


Office Of Inspector General Report: Powell “Did Not Employ A Department Email Account.” According to a report from the U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General (OIG) on email records management and cybersecurity requirements: “During Secretary Powell’s tenure, the Department introduced for the first time unclassified desktop email and access to the Internet on a system known as OpenNet, which remains in use to this day. Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet’s introduction.” [U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General report, “Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements,” May 2016]

OIG Report: Clinton And Powell Both “Used Non-Department Systems On An Exclusive Basis.” According to the OIG report: “OIG identified many examples of staff using personal email accounts to conduct official business; however, OIG could only identify three cases where officials used non-Departmental systems on an exclusive basis for day-to-day operations. These include former Secretaries Powell and Clinton, as well as Jonathan Scott Gration, a former Ambassador to Kenya.” [U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General report, “Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements,” May 2016]

Clinton Campaign: Clinton “Thought It Was Allowed, As Commercial [Account] Was For Powell.” On Twitter, Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon stated: “Our take on State IG report being misreported in places so want to explain. When we liken Clinton’s email use to other secretaries… We mean that just as she used nongov't account for work, so did others at State. And that's bc rules did not bar use of nongovt email … Having said that, it's true her nongovt account was on her family's server, as opposed to commercial email account. That was distinct … But she still thought it was allowed, as commercial acct was for Powell. Now, though, State says it would've urged against that setup … To which we say, we agree it was a mistake. If she had chance to do it again, she would have used a state.gov account.” [Twitter.com, 5/26/16]


LINK

Ok. So there you have it. He may have simply used AOL instead of a private sever.

Now can you look at the topic on hand regarding the classified information?? Do you see a difference between calling up a reporter with classified information after specifically being warned against it, and having a few out of tens of thousands of emails on a private server with a (C) next to paragraphs?

AB



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

but can they prove they had malicious intent?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

but can they prove they had malicious intent?


Malicious has nothing to do with it. If someone were to leak any info, the act itself shows the intent.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

but can they prove they had malicious intent?


Malicious has nothing to do with it. If someone were to leak any info, the act itself shows the intent.


And yet you do not use this obvious logic in regards to Clinton.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Why is it that liberals set certain standards, then when other's play by those standards, suddenly the standard changes again?


It would only be "by the same standards" if Clinton called up reporters and gave them classified information given to her by the FBI. Especially if it was in the hopes of derailing an opponent's political campaign.

In a previous statement I said "a few emails" - so here is the actual number...



Some classified information ended up on her private server, which was an unclassified system, but there was not enough evidence to charge her with a crime.

Clinton had repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server, but the results of the FBI investigation show that claim was incorrect.

Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. FBI Director James Comey has said Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed.

Comey said the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Clinton because there isn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didn’t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice.

politifact

The difference is very clear. One is a pre-meditated and intentional attempt to leak classified material from an FBI report. The other is unintentional mishandling - careless and a mistake, but not worthy of prosecution.

- AB



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
There is no such thing as "Classified". This is a Free for All.

Anyone in power can do anything they want, the Law only applies to average people.

Realism 101



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

but can they prove they had malicious intent?


Malicious has nothing to do with it. If someone were to leak any info, the act itself shows the intent.


And yet you do not use this obvious logic in regards to Clinton.


What info did Clinton leak?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

but can they prove they had malicious intent?


Malicious has nothing to do with it. If someone were to leak any info, the act itself shows the intent.


And yet you do not use this obvious logic in regards to Clinton.


What info did Clinton leak?


Comey: Clinton gave non-cleared people access to classified information
edit on 19-8-2016 by coffeetalk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: coffeetalk

At your source:


But Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted, “To be clear, the lawyers who sorted through Clinton's emails had Top Secret-level clearance."

Clinton’s personal attorney David Kendall said last August that he received Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance from the Justice Department in November 2013 and a Top Secret clearance from State in the year that followed. In the same letter, Kendall said that his law partner, Katherine Turner, received State clearance in September 2014.

“These State Department security clearances remain active. We obtained them in order to be able to review documents at the Department of State, to assist former Secretary Clinton in preparing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi,” Kendall wrote in the letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry to say that Kendall's clearance was inadequate. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


Again, what did she leak?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

From your post.



uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States


Maybe you missed this part. Hillary was literally treated differently than anyone else that would've done the same thing that's not a bought out politician.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: coffeetalk

At your source:


But Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted, “To be clear, the lawyers who sorted through Clinton's emails had Top Secret-level clearance."

Clinton’s personal attorney David Kendall said last August that he received Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance from the Justice Department in November 2013 and a Top Secret clearance from State in the year that followed. In the same letter, Kendall said that his law partner, Katherine Turner, received State clearance in September 2014.

“These State Department security clearances remain active. We obtained them in order to be able to review documents at the Department of State, to assist former Secretary Clinton in preparing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi,” Kendall wrote in the letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry to say that Kendall's clearance was inadequate. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


Again, what did she leak?


Yes, as per my source:

Hillary Clinton granted non-cleared people access to classified information, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.

But he could not definitively confirm that those with access, in this particular instance, her attorneys, had actually read the classified material, and a spokesman for Clinton sharply contested the assertion.

“Did Secretary Clinton's attorneys have the security clearances needed?” Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked Comey, who responded, “They did not.”

Asked whether that concerned him, the FBI director said, “Oh yeah, sure.”

This is were your quote comes into play, immediately following the above paragraph.
edit on 19-8-2016 by coffeetalk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


"So there you have it. He may have simply used AOL instead of a private sever. "

Exactly...so now you understand why it is stupid to try and use Powells use of an AOL account to compare to Hillarys uses of private email server.

Apples and Oranges.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: AboveBoard


"So there you have it. He may have simply used AOL instead of a private sever. "

Exactly...so now you understand why it is stupid to try and use Powells use of an AOL account to compare to Hillarys uses of private email server.

Apples and Oranges.


Again, from the OIG report:


OIG could only identify three cases where officials used non-Departmental systems on an exclusive basis for day-to-day operations. These include former Secretaries Powell and Clinton, as well as Jonathan Scott Gration, a former Ambassador to Kenya


The report states that Powell used a non-departmental system to do his day to day operations. He used a laptop. While it is was not used as a "server", per se, the report still considers that to be equal to Hillary's use of a server, as they are both considered "non-departmental systems".



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: coffeetalk

At your source:


But Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted, “To be clear, the lawyers who sorted through Clinton's emails had Top Secret-level clearance."

Clinton’s personal attorney David Kendall said last August that he received Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance from the Justice Department in November 2013 and a Top Secret clearance from State in the year that followed. In the same letter, Kendall said that his law partner, Katherine Turner, received State clearance in September 2014.

“These State Department security clearances remain active. We obtained them in order to be able to review documents at the Department of State, to assist former Secretary Clinton in preparing to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi,” Kendall wrote in the letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry to say that Kendall's clearance was inadequate. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


Again, what did she leak?


I call BS...

Her lawyers had a top secret clearance....so what? What on earth could possible give someone's private attorney the need to know classified US information?

As you say... you got proof to back up that claim that just because someone has a Top Secret clearance that automatically gives them access to all Top Secret information everywhere in the government?

That is not how it works.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: coffeetalk

That is not the same as an intentional leak.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



As you say... you got proof to back up that claim that just because someone has a Top Secret clearance that automatically gives them access to all Top Secret information everywhere in the government?


I did not say "everywhere in the government". The lawyers claimed to have the proper clearance to sort through State Department info for the sake of the Benghazi hearing.

If they had proper clearance, that would not necessarily apply to everything else the government classifies.

Where did you come up with that?
edit on 19-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join