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.

 

U.S. appeals court revives Clinton email suit

page: 3
42
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Actually it was pointed out exactly how many were sent and even deemed classified prior to send date on the warrant for Huma's computer by the FBI. It even went as far as to discuss exactly how many were classified as Confidential, Secret and Top Secret prior to send date.


I'm not disputing that. It's this next part:


As such, these files, by default, had to come from SIPRnet and be transferred to her server knowingly skirting the very detailed manner in which classified information is to be transferred according to the government's procedures.


Where are you getting that from?

I don't recall seeing anything about documents being electronically transferred from SIPRnet. I've read through the FBI releases and there was no mention of it. All I've seen is some vague insinuations from commenters in the media that parts of documents might have been retyped into emails sent to Clinton.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the use of a private server let alone transmitting classified information through one or even that Clinton's goal wasn't to skirt oversight — that seems to be the explicit purpose in fact. This is what I've been disputing:


those emails had to be moved from secure govt computers to the private unsecured servers.



If there was information that was deemed Secret prior to her sending it then it HAD to come from SIPRnet by default, unless whomever she got it from was also not following protocol. Either way, the emails containing confidential information prior to her sending them or storing them on her personal server were outside protocol and again, had to come from SIPRnet. The two Top Secret emails they reference were likely from JWICS. The only way to transmit confidentially deemed files from JWICS or SIPRnet to the outside world is through a multi step process with encryption. Thereby even just opening it on the other end you would have knowledge of its confidential nature.

My problem is there are so many steps involved in getting classified information from one of these networks and on a personal server that she could not possibly claim ignorance of the classification system of markings nor ignorance of the rules about how to properly communicate information of this nature.

My real thought on this entire debacle for her is that one of these such emails was transmitted by Obama himself and likely the one referenced that has his pseudo-email account associated with it. This is likely the very reason nobody is digging into this much. After all, for Top Secret information there are only a handful of people authorized to do what was done according to EO13526 - POTUS, VPOTUS, and the Heads of Executive Agencies when given authority by POTUS himself. So however she got Top Secret info on her server, when it started out, either she herself classified it as such, or one of the small group of people that could did so.




posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001
Just out of curiosity are you calling Clinton a dead horse?

She may be dead, ( at least politically ) but she is no horse.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Sillyoleme my old fruit, Where have you been?? You disappeared off the face of the planet around about November the 9th.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


If there was information that was deemed Secret prior to her sending it then it HAD to come from SIPRnet by default, unless whomever she got it from was also not following protocol. Either way, the emails containing confidential information prior to her sending them or storing them on her personal server were outside protocol and again, had to come from SIPRnet. The two Top Secret emails they reference were likely from JWICS. The only way to transmit confidentially deemed files from JWICS or SIPRnet to the outside world is through a multi step process with encryption. Thereby even just opening it on the other end you would have knowledge of its confidential nature.


The fact that there was classified information in the emails does not mean that the emails originated on SIPRnet, JWICS or any other secure network. Here are a couple examples:

Speaker.gov


7. In 2009, Clinton emailed classified information (now redacted) to longtime crony Sidney Blumenthal, who did not have a security clearance and who was barred from working in the Obama administration by the president’s first chief of staff.




NY Post


On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.

The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

The email from Clinton was sent from the email account — hrod17@clintonemail.com — associated with her private email server.




Another one can be viewed here.

These at least aren't documents from SIPRnet, JWICS, etc. Granted, these are confidential but I haven't seen any evidence that anything was transferred from a secure network in the cases of emails containing secret or top secret information either.

This isn't to say that the information itself didn't originate from a document viewed on a secure network. It's all still improper handling of classified information regardless but clearly since there's no accidental way a document can be transferred from SIPRnet or JWICS, if a document was indeed transferred from either, it would definitively settle any question of intent and blow apart plausible deniability. Which is essentially what you're saying here:


My problem is there are so many steps involved in getting classified information from one of these networks and on a personal server that she could not possibly claim ignorance of the classification system of markings nor ignorance of the rules about how to properly communicate information of this nature.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: havok
a reply to: Diisenchanted

I agree.
Charges need to be filed, and criminals prosecuted.

If an army private can go to jail for mishandling classified information, then she needs to spend life in prison for how she handled it. It has nothing to do with party affiliations, or who thinks this is akin to "beating a dead horse". The woman is a criminal, and should be treated as such.

It's pretty bad this has been quiet lately.
I'm glad to hear someone making noise again.




Bumped. And just for the record I'll interject herre:
"If theat Ba$^A+d gets elected, we'll all be hanged!" H.Clinton
There must be a reason she said that, but let's get into
the burnout box for some real deflection. I call
guilty demeanor EXACTLY what everybody important and
a Demo did on her behalf-- and it would be naive' to assume
this doesn't go all the way to the core of our DC rotten apple.
We can't let this out, it would eat everything in sight and more.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian



These at least aren't documents from SIPRnet, JWICS, etc. Granted, these are confidential but I haven't seen any evidence that anything was transferred from a secure network in the cases of emails containing secret or top secret information either.

This isn't to say that the information itself didn't originate from a document viewed on a secure network. It's all still improper handling of classified information regardless but clearly since there's no accidental way a document can be transferred from SIPRnet or JWICS, if a document was indeed transferred from either, it would definitively settle any question of intent and blow apart plausible deniability. Which is essentially what you're saying here:


you yourself admit that despite your entire position on this, "it's all still improper handling." what an interesting way to put it.

if it's all still "improper handling," why is it that you still believe she has the privilege of plausible deniability?

is "I don't recall" or "what, like with a cloth?" a good enough defense for you to consider plausible deniability in her case? literally, every single one of her own defenses and the defenses of her legal team on this issue have either been complete distractions or flat out lies.

you have a really peculiar position on all of this. that's my soft way of saying that it looks like you're having an internal battle between not wanting to believe your elected officials are really this evil, and not being able to reasonably disprove the evidence.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I'll bite.....

www.cnn.com... index.html


The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing statement Friday, calling on Hillary Clinton to "come clean" after the State Department released an email in which she asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.



On June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get "tps" -- presumably short for "talking points" that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it's not clear what topic these points covered.



"If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."


If this isn't instruction to remove classified material from it's classified networks to a unsecure method of communications I don't know what is....but hey keep that head in the ground!!

OSTRICH





edit on 29-12-2016 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2016 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2016 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: theantediluvian



Lock her up... in a cell right next to Michael Flynn.


That "lock her up" chant/meme has always humored me.

She would never see the inside of a jail cell even if they did decide to indict her. Either she would plead guilty and get a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor, or the court finds her guilty and has a great appeal case based on equal application of the law.




It's a lawsuit everyone.


Lawsuit (non-criminal) seeks punitive damages typically = Verdict (For) or (Against) with or without prejudice. NOT A Criminal trial or case, no one goes to jail.


edit on 29-12-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
In my opinion the above statement is inaccurate. It should read mishandling of government emails.


We've covered this in another thread. Which laws were broken? Mishandling confidential information? That's only a severe crime if something bad happens because of it. Just because Anthony Wiener got to see some emails he shouldn't have, doesn't make it a serious crime. What's he gonna do - send the confidential information some dickpics?

She'll get a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine. Then maybe we'll finally hear the end of it. Except for noise from the people who are beating a dead horse.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: havok

Then you must also believe that Gen. Petraeus deserved life imprisonment? After all, he revealed classified information to a woman he was having an affair with. How many state secrets have been leaked via pillow talk? I'm pretty sure they cover not divulging classified information to people your screwing on the first day of How Not To Handle Classified Information 101.

How about the new National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn? He inappropriately shared classified information with Pakastani military officers (about CIA operations). Shouldn't he spend his life in prison too?


It has nothing to do with party affiliations


The bloodlust in one case and lack of concern in the others by those on the Right is a direct result of partisan politics.

Lock her up... in a cell right next to Michael Flynn.


You fail to mention that his mistress had the security clearance to view those documents.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
tsk tsk tsk


Has anybody ever heard of the State Departments Classification guidelines??

You know... those things that lowly GS workers have to read but evidently elite people like Hillary never heard of?

foia.state.gov... search for C05246691


(U) Part IV of this Guide is a discussion of the application of these classification categories to information in documents created by Department of State personnel. Most State Department documents are classified because they contain foreign government information, discuss foreign relations, or identify confidential sources, and are classified under E.O. 13526 Sections 1.4(b) and 1.4(d). These categories are discussed in considerable detail in Sections IV B and IV D respectively. Some categories of classified information in State-created documents will have been originally classified by another federal agency, e.g., military plans by a DOD component, intelligence by CIA or other intelligence agency, etc. This is particularly true for INR, which produces many all- source documents drawing on material from other agencies. In these cases, the other- agency-derived information should be given a derivative classification in the State document. The discussion of categories of information usually classified derivatively is, therefore shorter in this Guide. Bureaus and offices in the Department that rely extensively on derivative classification may supplement this guide with their own guide.


Oh darn... wait...looky here..... same crap in DSCG 05-1, which was replaced by DSCG 11-01, quoted above

fas.org...


A large majority of State Department documents are classified underE.O. 12958 Sections 1.4(b) (foreign government information) and 1A(d) (foreign relations)~ These categories are discussed in considerable detail in Sections III B and III D respectively. Most other categories of classified information in State-created documents will generally have been originally classified by another agency of the federal government, e.g., military plans by DOD or the military services, intelligence by CIA or other intelligence agency, etc. This is particularly true for INR, which produces many all-source documents drawing on material from other agencies. In,these cases, the information is to be given a derivative classification in the State document.



So given the above readily available guidelines, how on earth does anyone think a Secretary of State could do their job without ever sending or receiving classified information in emails?

Anybody? Hello? Taps screen...is this thing on?????
edit on R042016-12-30T02:04:02-06:00k0412Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: GodEmperor


Ahh right, because any ruling made by a Republican judge is automatically null and void in your mind.


Nope. You're projecting. I'm pointing out that the case was thoroughly investigated and there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Why don't you accept that finding? Because the FBI director was a Democratic appointee, and all Democratic appointees are automatically null and void in your mind?


Maybe just release murderers rapists by the thousands, because Republican judge.


Maybe release Wall Street thieves and fat cat corporate murderers because Democratic judge?


Yep that sounds like perfectly sound logic there. The only proper authority is from some Acitivist liberal judge, that believes in legalizing criminal behavior. That's why Hillary Clinton is innocent, because criminal behavior is part of the liberal culture.


Whereas in your world the only proper authority is some activist Conservative judge that wants to bring back segregation, if not slavery? One that believes in allowing the 1% to continue to exploit the working class? That's why that tax dodging, contract breaking, illegal immigrant exploiting, tiny fingered sexual predator Trump is President: because criminal behavior is at the very heart of so-called "Conservative" culture.


What do you have to say for yourself, Comrade?


Sieg Heil, baby!

Because the FBI director mysteriously reopened the case and just as mysteriously closed it. We all know it was fishy and he was likely bullied or threatened. You can stop with the bloviating about bringing back slavery and segregation. That's just plain ridiculous.
edit on 30-12-2016 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa




So given the above readily available guidelines, how on earth does anyone think a Secretary of State could do their job without ever sending or receiving classified information in emails?


They still have no clue how deep hillary is in on this.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join