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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Your right she didn't leak them. She removed them from the classified system, stripped the markings off and then sent them.




posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: introvert

Your right she didn't leak them. She removed them from the classified system, stripped the markings off and then sent them.


No she didn't. If she had, she would have been brought up on charges.

That is intentional misconduct.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

One of the important distinctions that is repeatedly glossed over is that if the TOPIC is considered classified, ALL communications about that topic are automatically considered classified, whether marked as such or not. In having a security clearance, you AGREE to abide by that by KNOWING a topic is classified and NOT communicating about that topic via an unclassified medium. This includes talking about it in public as well as sending an email via any unclassified system about that topic. The email does NOT have to be explicitly marked, the sender/originator is responsible for knowing and following this directive.

Powell using an AOL account for State Dept business does NOT indicate he did so on classified topics. There are a lot of state dept topics that are unclassified and are perfectly OK to discuss in an unclassified manner. Details and TOPIC content is the differentiation here....not the medium.

See the difference?


edit on 8/19/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert
We do not know if she did or did not do that. What is known, there is no other way that classified information ended up on those servers but being taken off JWICS or SIPR, copied over, and markings left out.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
" The lawyers claimed to have the proper clearance to sort through State Department info for the sake of the Benghazi hearing. "

Thank you... let's repeat that:

" The lawyers claimed to have the proper clearance to sort through State Department info for the sake of the Benghazi hearing. "


Exactly. Which means by default that any classified information that she gave them on her thumb drive that contained classified information that WAS NOT about Benghazi was in fact a leak of classified information to an unauthorized individual.

You said it yourself.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
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.



If Powell was running for President, many would be digging into his past...but he isn't. This is only a distraction. Clinton and Trump are being vetted due to them seeking a powerful position in politics.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa



Powell using an AOL account for State Dept business does NOT indicate he did so on classified topics.


We do not know if he did or not. He has not complied with the request for the rest of his emails.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: coffeetalk
a reply to: introvert
We do not know if she did or did not do that.


She did not do that. If she had, the FBI would have recommended indictment.



What is known, there is no other way that classified information ended up on those servers but being taken off JWICS or SIPR, copied over, and markings left out.


Did the FBI say that act occurred?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Nice try Rick.

They had a security clearance through the SD. That does not mean they were limited to reading emails that only applied to the Benghazi issue.


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



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

She did not do that. If she had, the FBI would have recommended indictment.

If they could prove it, yes. Unfortunately, there is way too much plausible deniability to prove she did do that. Just because the FBI did not prosecute her on that fact, does not mean she did not do it. Simply put, we do not know, and likely will not know who did it.


Did the FBI say that act occurred?

No, and they do not have too for me, or anyone who has ever had a TS/SCI, to know that is how it happened. It is the only way that information could makes its way there. No possible other way. Familiarity and experience with the processes helps to understand this point.
edit on 19-8-2016 by coffeetalk because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: coffeetalk



If they could prove it, yes. Unfortunately, there is way too much plausible deniability to prove she did do that. Just because the FBI did not prosecute her on that fact, does not mean she did not do it. Simply put, we do not know, and likely will not know who did it.


If it was done at all. You are assuming it did happen, but cannot prove it. So it's a useless argument.



No, and they do not have too for me, or anyone who has ever had a TS/SCI, to know that is how it happened. It is the only way that information could makes its way there. No possible other way. Familiarity and experience with the processes helps to understand this point.


That doesn't mean squat. I listened to the same argument from people claiming to have special clearances trying to educate me on this topic, and come to find out I was right. I was better informed by doing simple research than those that claimed to have had clearances.

So forgive me if I stick to what I know and refuse to listen to anecdotal fallacies.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: coffeetalk


That doesn't mean squat. I listened to the same argument from people claiming to have special clearances trying to educate me on this topic, and come to find out I was right. I was better informed by doing simple research than those that claimed to have had clearances.

So forgive me if I stick to what I know and refuse to listen to anecdotal fallacies.


Right about what? I would like to see the information here.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: coffeetalk
a reply to: coffeetalk


That doesn't mean squat. I listened to the same argument from people claiming to have special clearances trying to educate me on this topic, and come to find out I was right. I was better informed by doing simple research than those that claimed to have had clearances.

So forgive me if I stick to what I know and refuse to listen to anecdotal fallacies.


Right about what? I would like to see the information here.


About Hillary's emails, the laws and regulations and how she would not be indicted. It's off topic, so if you want to see how it all went down you will have to find the threads.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Krakatoa



Powell using an AOL account for State Dept business does NOT indicate he did so on classified topics.


We do not know if he did or not. He has not complied with the request for the rest of his emails.


You addressed my second point, but conveniently ignored my first point about handling of classified topics? If someone is publicly accused by the head of the FBI to be so extremely careless with classified topics as to communicate about them via any unclassified medium, how is that person then responsible enough for the position of commander-in-chief of the armed forces?

I await your learned response.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: coffeetalk

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


She gave access to her lawyers who helped her decide which emails were work related and which ones were not. No one thinks these guys sat down and read the contents of each email in its entirety. In most cases headers or even just recipient would be enough to determine work or personal when going through tens of thousands of emails. Apparently the FBI didn't have a problem with this, didn't think this was an issue at all as a matter of fact and Comey even answered to that saying exactly what I said.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Even better! I didn't know that. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Then I guess if I were in that situation (as Hillary was) I could easily hide any unsecured communications (with someone that would not be considered a classified recipient) of a secure nature by using an unrelated personal sounding subject line, while the body of the text contains the classified discussion.

Good to know the FBI is OK with that and is considered legal now.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa



If someone is publicly accused by the head of the FBI to be so extremely careless with classified topics as to communicate about them via any unclassified medium, how is that person then responsible enough for the position of commander-in-chief of the armed forces?


I cannot answer that question because it would be a matter of personal opinion.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I see. That in itself speaks volumes here.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

Everyone knows by now what that really meant. First the original was not classified. It was talking points she needed for a speech. Second the action was never taken.
Strip the header means remove anything sensitive. So if it had been done it would have only been common info that was sent.again the FBI is aware of this and had no issue with it but you guys have to keep pulling it out of the file cabinet and waving it in the air yelling but but but...



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join