It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it
Lester: Secretary Clinton, thank you very much for coming tonight. As a naval flight officer, I held a top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance. And that provided me access to materials and information highly sensitive to our warfighting capabilities. Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned. Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are entrusted with America's most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?
Clinton: Well, I appreciate your concern and also your experience. But let me try to make the distinctions that I think are important for me to answer your question. First, as I said to Matt, you know and I know classified material is designated. It is marked. There is a header so that there is no dispute at all that what is being communicated to or from someone who has that access is marked classified. And what we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked, there were no headers, there was no statement, top secret, secret, or confidential. I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system. I took it very seriously. When I traveled, I went into one of those little tents that I'm sure you've seen around the world because we didn't want there to be any potential for someone to have embedded a camera to try to see whatever it is that I was seeing that was designated, marked, and headed as classified. So I did exactly what I should have done and I take it very seriously, always have, always will.
So last night at the "CIC Forum" Hillary again had the opportunity to reset the conversation about her email investigation
So, what she is saying is that she could email the GPS locations for all the terrorists that the State Dept. knows of and that would be perfectly fine and legal... as long as there is no classification headers.
originally posted by: neveroddoreven99
a reply to: stinkelbaum
Yeah, Hillary supporters don't care if someone lies to Congress, the FBI, and the American people over national security issues! They also don't care that she wants tax dollars to pay for ALL abortions. Seriously, look up her stance on the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. What DO Hillary supporters actually support? Her commercials are nothing but people watching Tump ads. What exactly are Hilary supporters voting FOR? They don't even know.
A vote still tallies 1 no matter how dim the voter is who casts it.
The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
3. She publicly professes her ignorance on the issue and insults those who have served and understand the discipline required to safeguard our nations secrets, and the consequences of such carelessness.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Think about it like this: if you send me an email, from one private server to another (I use Gmail, which is a private server; I assume you use something similar) does the private server add any similar headers to it automatically? No, because the server cannot determine if the email needs a header. Only people have the intelligence to do that.