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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Exactly When Did Chelsea Clinton Become Entitled to Receive Sensitive Information

page: 3
45
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: butcherguy

OK, but I didn't ask that.

Who determined that classified info was actually passed to her? The accusation is that Chelsea was sent classified information.

If that really happened and there is evidence to prove it then there is a serious issue.

I am saying that if she had unfettered access to it all....
what difference does it make if anyone sent it to her?




posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Again, the accusation in the op is that there was classified info sent to Chelsea.

True or false?


Your concerns of possible access to info should be another thread topic IMO, either way it certainly shouldn't have been directed to me.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   


I am absolutely against your point of view. Classified information is only for people with the according security clearing. Not for husbands/wifes/daughters/sons or others. It s really the point of "classified".


Exactly.

My father worked on classified projects most of my childhood. I never knew any classified info. You don't just come home and blab all to your family. That's not how this works.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: butcherguy

Again, the accusation in the op is that there was classified info sent to Chelsea.

True or false?


Your concerns of possible access to info should be another thread topic IMO, either way it certainly shouldn't have been directed to me.


I don't know whether anyone else sent her classified info.

But it is a moot point.

Like being worried whether or not someone sent Chelsea a photo of the inside of the house when she has the keys to the house.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

If it is a moot point then the entire thread becomes a moot point.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: butcherguy

If it is a moot point then the entire thread becomes a moot point.

If the fact that Chelsea had access to classified info because her mom couldn't be bothered with protecting it,
Yeah... It's a moot point.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
But the obvious point is, Hillary told her daughter it was a terrorist attack, meanwhile, in the media, the WH kept refusing to label it a terror act. And then the blame was laid on the video. Why isn't this being disected more?



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Asktheanimals





Chelsea is also a member of the CFR. Why?


I believe the first sentence in my post answered that question.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Regardless of human nature and the tendency to want to tell loved ones information that may be classified, the non-disclosure agreements and extensive briefings received by those who hold security clearances disallow them from doing so. There are no exceptions to this basic measure of opsec. In this particular instance, given what we now know about HIllary Clinton's willful disregard and violation of every aspect of opsec imaginable it is likely she routinely shared information with Chelsea. The intent behind any such disclosure is irrelevant. If the violation occurred, then the individual committing the act would normally lose their clearance while being investigated and the receiver of said information would be questioned and debriefed as to what was actually disclosed to them. This would then be compared with the sender's admission / non-admission and referrals for charges would be based on this.

That's my two cents from signing the non-disclosure forms and having held a few levels of clearance working in sensitive military operational positions.



posted on Sep, 10 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: mobiusmale

Without getting into the politics, I personally think this is down to human nature - in that you tell your nearest and dearest the truth and what they need to know.

So telling Chelsea that it was an Al Qaeda like group is not, in my opinion, a problem. If she also dicussed aspects that were Top Secret, that would be another matter.

However, there is recognition in higher echelons around the world that people talk, especially to those they are close to (one reason Mata Hari was so successful). Whether a signatury of the Official Secrets or not, some aspects will be revealed to the nearest and dearest. Probably / possibly not the operational details as that would be a big no no but certainly a loose overall picture.

WOW! Great! So we can let Petraeus off the hook then?



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I wonder if Diane Reynolds did much trading on the stock market?



posted on Sep, 11 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Good point OP. Also worth asking why one of her top advisors, not employed by the govt at the time, had access to Top Secret information hours after it was circulated to approved users with clearance. This also came out of the email leak.
Sounds like Hillary was freely passing around top secret information to people she knew.







 
45
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join