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.

 

New Clinton Email lawsuit

page: 5
48
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just a thought:

Let's say it does apply, but the IC/FBI or whomever is in the middle of doing their assessment.

Would they be in a position to not comment on an ongoing "investigation" and the FOIA request could be ignored until such time as the assessment is complete?


Seems reasonable to me; the FBI at least has been very publicly candid that they don't comment on on-going investigations.

Also ...



Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.


FOIA.gov




posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Of course, I have no idea what JW's motivations actually are; perhaps I was unkind to suggest that they need donations.

The Clinton email thing just seems "so 2016" now ...

I wonder why they aren't going after the Trump Administration with anything near their former zeal?



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Perhaps JW feels they could have better access to HRC information which shouldn't have much left going on with available documents where as anything Trump related would certainly still be ongoing. Also, lets not mince words, we know JW leans!



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just a thought:

Let's say it does apply, but the IC/FBI or whomever is in the middle of doing their assessment.

Would they be in a position to not comment on an ongoing "investigation" and the FOIA request could be ignored until such time as the assessment is complete?


Seems reasonable to me; the FBI at least has been very publicly candid that they don't comment on on-going investigations.

Also ...



Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.


FOIA.gov


While I may be off-base, it seems reasonable.

Though, I'm not sure how much it really matters.

If the FBI could find any particular damage done in this case, I would have expected the FBI to much harder on Clinton and her team.



posted on Mar, 27 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I certainly don't intend to get into any of the normal unination olympics with anyone here over this ... but I will hazard a guess about the HRC emails now that we're a bit away from it.

General Powell has remarked on several occasions that regarding such information that "there's Classified and then there's Classified" ... implying that even things like the locations and times of meetings with minor diplomats might be "classified" at the time, but that there is no "national security impact" of such types of documents after the fact.

I would guess that what the FBI found on Clinton's servers was of that nature, technically "Classified" but unimportant after the fact.

Which I would further guess governed DNI Clapper's response to the demands for investigation on this issue.
edit on 27-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: xuenchen
Classified at the time is verified !!

Big Damage.



Did you mean to say brain damage.


So you are perfectly fine that the ODNI completely decided to ignore their own directive to do a damage assessment in regards to the unauthorized disclosure by Hillary Clinton?



Your using a fake group that post bs all day long, i couldent care less about the evil witch personnaly, just saying next time you might not look so silly.

Two edits and you couldn't fix your spelling errors? For shame



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: xuenchen
Classified at the time is verified !!

Big Damage.



Did you mean to say brain damage.


So you are perfectly fine that the ODNI completely decided to ignore their own directive to do a damage assessment in regards to the unauthorized disclosure by Hillary Clinton?



Your using a fake group that post bs all day long, i couldent care less about the evil witch personnaly, just saying next time you might not look so silly.

Two edits and you couldn't fix your spelling errors? For shame


Perhaps you should make certain that your own post is free of error before nitpicking someone else's?

You forgot the period at the end of your second "sentence."

I say "sentence" because it's really only a fragment.

/shrug
edit on 28-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I would guess that what the FBI found on Clinton's servers was of that nature, technically "Classified" but unimportant after the fact."

I would guess that 110 emails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information make you dead wrong.

You have have obviously never had a clearance or worked with classified information or you wouldn't be so naive.

Furthermore, It would not be up to the FBI to do a damage assessment on national security. It would be to the ODNI or the owning agencies of the information released. All it would take is that a owning agency of just 1 of the 8 Top Secret to determine that the release of the information was severely damaging to the national security to blow Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges.

On a side note, why did you disappear from Nov 6 for a few months.....we missed you posting.

edit on R202017-03-28T08:20:45-05:00k203Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I would guess that what the FBI found on Clinton's servers was of that nature, technically "Classified" but unimportant after the fact."

I would guess that 110 emails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information make you dead wrong.




Yes, yes ... do you know the subjects of those emails?

Nope. Thus, the point.

Not going to do this again with you Rick ... here's the upshot: Clinton is never going to be indicted for this, and that is because the FBI determined after 18 months of investigation that there was nothing indictable.

I know that fact burns you to your core, and I'm sorry you can't move on.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

You have have obviously never had a clearance or worked with classified information or you wouldn't be so naive.


Yes, yes, I'm sure Colin Powell is naive too ... you're still sore over the fact that you put your credibility on the line and were proven wrong about Clinton being brought up on charges, wrong about the FBI findings, etc. etc.

Like I said, I'm not going to get involved in bickering. Have fun with your thread.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I would guess that what the FBI found on Clinton's servers was of that nature, technically "Classified" but unimportant after the fact."

I would guess that 110 emails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information make you dead wrong.




Yes, yes ... do you know the subjects of those emails?

Nope. Thus, the point.

Not going to do this again with you Rick ... here's the upshot: Clinton is never going to be indicted for this, and that is because the FBI determined after 18 months of investigation that there was nothing indictable.

I know that fact burns you to your core, and I'm sorry you can't move on.


This has nothing to do with anybody being indicted....it has to do with why none of the agencies has done a damage assessment.

Hillary who?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa




Furthermore, It would not be up to the FBI to do a damage assessment on national security. It would be to the ODNI or the owning agencies of the information released. All it would take is that a owning agency of just 1 of the 8 Top Secret to determine that the release of the information was severely damaging to the national security to blow Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges.

Why do these people have such a problem with following the law?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You have posted 13 times in this thread......this reply makes my 13th ...we are tied old buddy.

Someone got triggered.
edit on R292017-03-28T08:29:45-05:00k293Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: RickinVa




Furthermore, It would not be up to the FBI to do a damage assessment on national security. It would be to the ODNI or the owning agencies of the information released. All it would take is that a owning agency of just 1 of the 8 Top Secret to determine that the release of the information was severely damaging to the national security to blow Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would press charges.

Why do these people have such a problem with following the law?


Exactly.

The FBI reports explicitly states: 110 emails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information

So there for, there is no doubt that the owning agencies were aware that classified information had been placed on an unclassified email system which automatically constitutes a breach.

It will be interesting to see how the judge rules in this case.

I have only been involved in one assessment case where someone was able to infiltrate a top secret system from the outside.....the reason was found and it was due to human error but a lot or work went into reporting the damage assessment and corrective actions.
edit on R082017-03-28T09:08:35-05:00k083Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969

originally posted by: xuenchen
Classified at the time is verified !!

Big Damage.



Did you mean to say brain damage.


So you are perfectly fine that the ODNI completely decided to ignore their own directive to do a damage assessment in regards to the unauthorized disclosure by Hillary Clinton?



Your using a fake group that post bs all day long, i couldent care less about the evil witch personnaly, just saying next time you might not look so silly.

Two edits and you couldn't fix your spelling errors? For shame


Perhaps you should make certain that your own post is free of error before nitpicking someone else's?

You forgot the period at the end of your second "sentence."

I say "sentence" because it's really only a fragment.

/shrug

It's that easy to push your buttons. Good to know



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join