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.

 

How are Hillary Clinton AND Huma Abedin not going to prison...Warrant Release revelation...

page: 7
104
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
A lot of talk about intent here.

How can a court prove that a person speeding on a road in a car actually intended to exceed the speed limit?

Yet people are convicted of that everyday.... with no proof of intent.
edit on b000000312016-12-21T09:09:17-06:0009America/ChicagoWed, 21 Dec 2016 09:09:17 -0600900000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Well she clearly knew because she made a video about it and signed a document to that effect.

The corruption at the top seems to know no bounds based solely on those facts and the fact the FBI notes in their Federal warrant that these emails were classified all the way to Top Secret meaning grave danger to national security.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



81 were classified at the time of sending, meaning they had already been assigned a classification PRIOR to HRC or her team sending them out to unsecured devices....not hard to understand and no other information is needed here to determine anything


I think you may be mistaken. I believe there were only 3 email chains that contained classification markings. The rest of the emails only contained information that was classified if it was in the hands of government. Again, refer to the Blumenthal emails for an example.

While the emails discussed info that would be considered classified, the emails themselves were not classified. For another example, refer to the emails discussing a publicly-available news article discussing drones.

There is a lot more context to this issue than you are presenting and it is that context that means the difference between indictment and a slap on the wrist.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That's because they were stripping the classified markings off.




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe



81 were classified at the time of sending, meaning they had already been assigned a classification PRIOR to HRC or her team sending them out to unsecured devices....not hard to understand and no other information is needed here to determine anything


I think you may be mistaken. I believe there were only 3 email chains that contained classification markings. The rest of the emails only contained information that was classified if it was in the hands of government. Again, refer to the Blumenthal emails for an example.

While the emails discussed info that would be considered classified, the emails themselves were not classified. For another example, refer to the emails discussing a publicly-available news article discussing drones.

There is a lot more context to this issue than you are presenting and it is that context that means the difference between indictment and a slap on the wrist.




Are you kidding? I am not asking about what you think or believe was the case. I have posted direct clips from the FBI Warrant that was issued for Huma's Computer....twice for you now to read. Can you please explain from the following clips (again) exactly where you are not able to follow the information the FBI themselves stated in this warrant:




and the description of the classifications also included in the warrant:



And in it's entirety at this link:

Source

Please do me a favor and point out where I am incorrect in my interpretation citing where on the warrant it discredits anything I have said.

The FBI themselves stated everything I have put in here in the warrant. That is not open for any interpretation. That is why it is a legal document....they cover their bases. The classification system is there for a reason. She didn't follow the rules she specifically signed agreements for and even made a video about. The FBI made this determination speaking with the classification authorities.

It was the State Department that I believe you are referring to, and it also specifically states in the warrant that the State Department made no determination of the classification of the emails at the time of sending.

So again, I ask for sake of being able to actually discuss this with you, please cite from the warrant I have now posted 3 times and linked to, anywhere that undermines what I have said. Outside of that I can't continue to post it up time after time if it is just a misunderstanding or whatever with your interpretation of the warrant. Facts are facts and they lined them all up very well in this warrant.



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

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


That assumption would be incorrect if that is what is being said. Either way, these emails were directly referencing classified information and it was classified at the time of sending as evidenced by the warrant and the FBI's investigation with the classification authorities. Regardless of a conversation or anything else.....these emails were classified.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That was my point.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Here is another clip from the warrant that should make it even MORE clear for everyone:




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That was my point.


Yep...I figured. Just reiterating the point.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


What I am saying is that we don't know the context in which the emails in question were classified. Some emails, such as the Blumenthal emails, were classified after the fact, contained info that would have been classified if it were in the hands of government at that time, but actually originated outside of government for private usage.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

But the warrant clearly says there was information that was classified, within 81 emails, when those emails were sent.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's the problem. You are relying on the warrant alone and are not putting this issue in complete context.

The Blumenthal emails, for example, were found to contain classified info about foreign leaders and governments, but the email and info was not created by/for the US government. It should have never been classified because it was private info for the Clinton Foundation. But it was classified and was included in the list of emails that contained TS info.

Another example would be the email containing a news article about drone strikes. Even though that info is publicly-available, the emails was classified under SAP designation.

It is reasonable to suggest that those sorts of email were included in the warrant for the laptop.

It's that sort of context we have to know when we ask why they are not in prison.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

But the warrant clearly says there was information that was classified, within 81 emails, when those emails were sent.


Correct, but its' not that simple when it comes to prosecution.

Look at my post to Vasa for more clarification.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


What I am saying is that we don't know the context in which the emails in question were classified. Some emails, such as the Blumenthal emails, were classified after the fact, contained info that would have been classified if it were in the hands of government at that time, but actually originated outside of government for private usage.



Like I said however many times before. Read the clips from the actual warrant. The FBI worked with the classification authorities to determine these emails were indeed classified PRIOR to sending...not after the fact....this not a question of if they were or would have been classified...they made a clear determination that they were.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


What I am saying is that we don't know the context in which the emails in question were classified. Some emails, such as the Blumenthal emails, were classified after the fact, contained info that would have been classified if it were in the hands of government at that time, but actually originated outside of government for private usage.



Like I said however many times before. Read the clips from the actual warrant. The FBI worked with the classification authorities to determine these emails were indeed classified PRIOR to sending...not after the fact....this not a question of if they were or would have been classified...they made a clear determination that they were.


You are taking a very narrow view of this issue and are completely missing the point. It's no wonder why you can't understand why they are not in prison.

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it and that has been a major problem throughout this entire ordeal.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The next question I have is when was the laptop purchased in comparison to when the investigation began?

Was the laptop purchased after the investigation began?

How is Huma not being held responsible for placing classified material on an unclassified laptop which was accessible by someone without a clearance of any kind?

Something is not adding up.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


What I am saying is that we don't know the context in which the emails in question were classified. Some emails, such as the Blumenthal emails, were classified after the fact, contained info that would have been classified if it were in the hands of government at that time, but actually originated outside of government for private usage.



Classified "after the fact" because the classifying authorities didn't know the emails existed until "after the fact".




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


What I am saying is that we don't know the context in which the emails in question were classified. Some emails, such as the Blumenthal emails, were classified after the fact, contained info that would have been classified if it were in the hands of government at that time, but actually originated outside of government for private usage.



Classified "after the fact" because the classifying authorities didn't know the emails existed until "after the fact".





In the case of the Blumenthal emails, they should have never been classified, by the governments own criteria.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

That sounds like you are saying anyone can verbally exchange classified info with an unauthorized person because the conversation itself was not classified at the time.

I'm not seeing any difference, if I am understanding your point.


What I am saying is that we don't know the context in which the emails in question were classified. Some emails, such as the Blumenthal emails, were classified after the fact, contained info that would have been classified if it were in the hands of government at that time, but actually originated outside of government for private usage.



Like I said however many times before. Read the clips from the actual warrant. The FBI worked with the classification authorities to determine these emails were indeed classified PRIOR to sending...not after the fact....this not a question of if they were or would have been classified...they made a clear determination that they were.


You are taking a very narrow view of this issue and are completely missing the point. It's no wonder why you can't understand why they are not in prison.

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it and that has been a major problem throughout this entire ordeal.


There is no other view to take. Emails determined to have been classified prior to being sent using unsecured devices is what we have. Regardless of how they became classified or where they originated, they were deemed such prior to bring sent by the classification authorities in charge of determining exactly this point.

When these classified emails were sent the person sending them knew they were classified. No other information is necessary.



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join