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

Hillary sent 'marked classified' info to nonsecure Abedin email account

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter



Remember intent is not required for it to be a criminal act under the statute. Gross negligence also applies. And to say that our Secretary of State wasn't grossly negligent in sending this info/email to a non-secure account *from* a non-secure server is ludicrous and one helluva indictment to her intelligence and judgement for someone in such an important position.


Again, if it was not government classified documents, how can she be accused of breaking any law?



The choices that intelligent voters are left with regarding her are that she's either a criminal or she's incompetent.


If they cannot understand the difference between government classified documents and confidential info for an organization, then perhaps they are not so intelligent.




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

I see the tired old meme of "not classified at the time" has been resurrected.




I guess they figure that they have used that concocted excuse for a while and everyone will have forgot about it.


Or it happens to be true. The document in question was not classified at the time it was sent/received.

Why is that so hard to understand?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

I see the tired old meme of "not classified at the time" has been resurrected.




I guess they figure that they have used that concocted excuse for a while and everyone will have forgot about it.


Or it happens to be true. The document in question was not classified at the time it was sent/received.

Why is that so hard to understand?


LOL

The classification authorities never saw the emails until after they were exposed and released to the public.

"retro" classification is targeting classified material at the time sent.

Easy to understand right?

And of course, we really don't know if any original markings were stripped off the "original" emails do we?

Easy to do btw.




posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



The classification authorities never saw the emails until after they were exposed and released to the public.


Correct, after the investigation began.



"retro" classification is targeting classified material at the time sent.


It wasn't retroactively classified.



And of course, we really don't know if any original markings were stripped off the "original" emails do we?


The original classification and marking came on 10/30/2015. No markings were stripped. You are just making things up.


SM2

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grimpachi

It's not classified. Corporations, charities and many other groups use headers like that in their correspondence. If it was a classified government document, it would of had specific markings.


Confidential
This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization

en.wikipedia.org...

so it seems it was or is indeed classified. confidential is a level of classification.

Now, even if we remove that classification from the debate, she was still knowingly using this arrangement to purposefully evade the FOIA laws. She (and her husband) are two of the most corrupt, morally bankrupt people on the planet. They openly break the law, flaunt it, then people like you give them a pass because they say some things that you agree with, then they never do it and blame it on others, and you and your ilk buy into time and time again. How much corruption and dirty playing do you need to see to stop supporting this wretch of a human being?



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SM2



Confidential
This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization


That is also used by corporations and organizations to note documents or info that may be sensitive. That does not mean it was a government classified document.

Why are you guys having this much trouble comprehending?



Now, even if we remove that classification from the debate, she was still knowingly using this arrangement to purposefully evade the FOIA laws.


If it was CF info, it is not bound by the FOIA laws.
edit on 31-10-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter



Remember intent is not required for it to be a criminal act under the statute. Gross negligence also applies. And to say that our Secretary of State wasn't grossly negligent in sending this info/email to a non-secure account *from* a non-secure server is ludicrous and one helluva indictment to her intelligence and judgement for someone in such an important position.


Again, if it was not government classified documents, how can she be accused of breaking any law?



The choices that intelligent voters are left with regarding her are that she's either a criminal or she's incompetent.


If they cannot understand the difference between government classified documents and confidential info for an organization, then perhaps they are not so intelligent.


They?

It isn't about "they". It's about the law.

Laws? Remember those?

And for a final time - intent is not required. The legal standard is gross negligence.

And *that* is an irrefutable fact.

Put a fork in HRC....she's done.

I know a little about how these things work and this is now totally out of any of her control. We all should get some popcorn as it's going to be great political theater.

Watch & see...
edit on 10/31/2016 by Riffrafter because: damn missing preposition again



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't think the declassification date has anything to do with the guilt or innocence of Hillary Clinton and/or her aides. The date in which the document was classified has everything to do with whether or not a classified was sent at the time in question.

In this case, the document was "Classified" 4 years after it was sent.


edit on 31-10-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

I see the tired old meme of "not classified at the time" has been resurrected.




I guess they figure that they have used that concocted excuse for a while and everyone will have forgot about it.


Or it happens to be true. The document in question was not classified at the time it was sent/received.

Why is that so hard to understand?


c'mon....you know the M.O. of most of the right here on ATS...it's innuendo, and hyperbolic speculation.....it's not that they don't understand, they simply don't care what the center, and center left say.....they don't even listen to their own republican congressmen, unless it's the far-right, tea party group. they do not "do" rational, critical-thinking, and objective analysis. they are all about simple emotionally loaded words, and phrases, easy to understand, and easy to get out into their own media world.....
also, there are the members that say asinine things just to get stars, responses, attention, etc...regardless of the truth.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter



It isn't about "they" It's a matter of law.


True. It's not against the law to send or receive confidential info that is not created by or for the US government. Still have a hard time understanding that?



And for a final time - intent is not required. The legal standard is gross negligence.


That's not the debate here. Not to mention, you are wrong. Intent is required, as is noted in the FBI's determination. It's called mens rea.



Guaranteed now. I know a little about how these things work and this is now totally out of any her control. We all should get some popcorn as it's going be great political theater.


Apparently you don't know as much as you like to think. You are having a hard time grasping the concept I am giving you.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't think the declassification date has anything to do with the guilt or innocence of Hillary Clinton and/or her aides. The date in which the document was classified has everything to do with whether or not a classified was sent at the time in question.

In this case, the document was "Classified" 4 years after it was sent.



Declassification dates are decided upon the origination date of the document. That means its declassified based on the date when it was created, not when it was classified.
edit on 31-10-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




That's not the debate here. Not to mention, you are wrong. Intent is required, as is noted in the FBI's determination. It's called mens rea.


Umm....no.

On multiple levels.

First off - mens rea is almost always used in court as a way of determining knowledge and or competency of the accused. Either for insanity defenses or if the accused is a minor child or suffers some other mental handicap.

Secondly - read the statute. Intent is *NOT* required which is why so many people were up in arms the first time when Comey let her slide. He applied a different standard to her than for others. Now with the new evidence he cannot ignore this any longer, hence his letter to Congress.

As far as "grasping the concept" - You should be careful who you try and match knowledge/creds with Introvert. Especially on ATS. There are a lot of really smart, really knowledgeable people here.

And you never know who's on the other side of that Avatar...


edit on 10/31/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter



First off - mens rea is almost always used in court as a way of determining knowledge and or competency of the accused. Either for insanity defenses or if the accused is a minor child or suffers some other mental handicap


It's also used to decide to prosecute.



Secondly - read the statute. Intent is *NOT* required which is why so many people were up in arms the first time when Comey let her slide. He applied a different standard to her than for others. Now with the new evidence he cannot ignore this any longer, hence his letter to Congress.


No, he did not apply a different standard. In fact, he said that it would have been a different standard if he did recommend charges. He even said that he welcomed anyone to show a case similar that was brought to court without intent.



As far as "grasping the concept" - You should be careful who you try and match knowledge/creds with Introvert. Especially on ATS. There are a lot of really smart, really knowledgeable people here. And you never know who's on the other side of that Avatar...


Veiled threats from an internet cowboy do not scare me.

I don't care whom you are, you have no clue what you are talking about. Did you even watch Comey's testimony in which he laid all of this out for us? Here ya go:



Edit: I notice you did not comment on the rest of my post. Do you concede that she did nothing illegal and that this document was not classified government material?
edit on 31-10-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SM2



Confidential
This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization


That is also used by corporations and organizations to note documents or info that may be sensitive. That does not mean it was a government classified document.

Why are you guys having this much trouble comprehending?



Now, even if we remove that classification from the debate, she was still knowingly using this arrangement to purposefully evade the FOIA laws.


If it was CF info, it is not bound by the FOIA laws.


Well it was not an organization or corporation, it was the Secretary of State for United States of America. An orginating source of classified material, which means she was on the of the few people that could classify/declassify information. So it was, on the merits that it was her sending an email(s) related to government business a government document marked confidential, which is, as stated and backed up above a level of government classification that could damage national security.


As to your second remark, well which is it? Is it classified or not? If it classified, regardless of the date, as she should know that it contained information related to classified subjects, or it would not have been classified then or at a later date. Or is not classified? either way, she broke the law by either distributing classified information to people with out the proper clearance on an unsecure system. Or she is guilty of purposefully hiding government records from FOIA requests. Either way she is a criminal. And no, it doesnt mater who obtained the emails to begin with, I am so sick of the "russia hacked our stuff' excuse. She still did it!! Noone cares that her dog ate her homework. Deal with it, she is a low life piece of garbage that needs to be in prison not the oval office



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SM2



Well it was not an organization or corporation, it was the Secretary of State for United States of America


Prove that.



As to your second remark, well which is it? Is it classified or not?


It was only classified when the investigation took place. It was not classified before because it came from Sid Blumenthal, a CF employee.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't think the declassification date has anything to do with the guilt or innocence of Hillary Clinton and/or her aides. The date in which the document was classified has everything to do with whether or not a classified was sent at the time in question.

In this case, the document was "Classified" 4 years after it was sent.



Declassification dates are decided upon the origination date of the document. That means its declassified when it was created, not when it was classified.


That's what I figured.



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Veiled threats from an internet cowboy do not scare me. I don't care whom you are, you have no clue what you are talking about. Did you even watch Comey's testimony in which he laid all of this out for us?


What threat? Methinks you're being paranoid. Simply some advice.

And what Comey says and what the *law* says may be 2 different things. Do you understand that? Do you also understand that that is the reason so many people at the FBI sent in their resignation letters after he initially closed the investigation?

And it appears I have many more clues than you. But keep it up. This is getting entertaining.





posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter



And it appears I have many more clues than you. But keep it up. This is getting entertaining.


Apparently not. You are failing to grasp the simplest of concepts.

That's about as entertaining as licking a window. But if that's your thing, who am I to judge?


SM2

posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
no sense arguing with introvert on this. He (she) is a die hard Hillary drone. Hillary could be caught red handed eating the souls of unborn babies while embezzling cash and snorting coc aine off Huma's rear and Introvert would just want to discuss some mean things that Donald said while praising the heavens for such a wonderful candidate like Hillary



posted on Oct, 31 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Riffrafter



And it appears I have many more clues than you. But keep it up. This is getting entertaining.


Apparently not. You are failing to grasp the simplest of concepts.

That's about as entertaining as licking a window. But if that's your thing, who am I to judge?

Which concept do you think I fail to grasp?

I believe I've addressed (read: decimated with actual facts) most of your posts related to intent and whether or not that is required by the statute or what Comey says vs. what the law says.

So please enlighten me oh wise one...







 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join