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.
Hillary is NOT going to be indicted despite how many prayers and genie wishes people make.
originally posted by: RickinVa
" I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, United States Code, of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation. "
Looks pretty clear what laws have been broken.... just read through the list and find the ones that apply.
You are welcome.
(U) Use of a secure system such as CLASSNET to transmit e-mails or other information, does not provide protection after receipt. If the information is classified, it must be marked as such before being transmitted. If the information is unclassified but otherwise protectable under law, this should also be indicated by marking the material SBU and with additional captions as appropriate. Failure to apply appropriate markings before transmission risks compromise or unauthorized release.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5
Here's the thing, in the email that has been referenced here in this post Hillary is instructing someone to remove classification headers from a secure document and then fax that document over an unsecure line.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5
Here's the thing, in the email that has been referenced here in this post Hillary is instructing someone to remove classification headers from a secure document and then fax that document over an unsecure line.
That conveniently narrow excerpt leaves out a few crucial facts about that email exchange.
(A) It was a talking points memo for a press briefing.
(B) "Kirby also said the fact that the talking points were initially set to be sent via a secure system did not necessarily mean they were classified."
And
(C)"We have found no indication that the document was emailed to former Secretary Clinton. There are other ways it could have found its way to her for her use."
So did she ask for the talking points to be sent via a non-secure system? Yes.
Was it sent via a non-secure system? No..they got the secure fax system to work.
Was it classified information? No, it was talking points for a press briefing.
mediamatters.org...
originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5
"If retroactive counts"
Information can only be retroactively classified if that information has been previously released by the government as unclassified... that is a fact.
"On "Classified"...who determines what is classified for the State Department?"...
That is in the State Departments classification guidelines.
Who can classify information?
In the State Department, original classification authority for top secret info goes to the secretary of state or anyone the secretary has said -- in writing -- can do the job. Past examples include: "Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, the Counselor, Assistant Secretaries and equivalents; Chiefs of Mission and U.S. representatives to international organizations."
Secret or classified information is decided on by the secretary and/or a senior agency official, who can give classification power to others in writing as well.
"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.
originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: BIGPoJo
Not sure if its been posted. Biggest mystery is that Trump loving Drudge hasn't picked up on this.
EXCLUSIVE — Huffington Post Writer: Editors Deleted My Article on Hillary’s Imminent Indictment, Disabled Me from Writing
A writer for The Huffington Post is still waiting for an explanation as to why editors deleted his piece reporting that the FBI will pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton.
Huffington Post freelance contributor Frank Huguenard, a scientist and public speaker, wrote a report for the liberal site Sunday entitled “Hillary Clinton to be Indicted On Federal Racketeering Charges.” But the piece was not up for long before the Huffington Post pulled it down and replaced it with a “404” Error screen.
“Huffpo has yet to respond to my request for an explanation,” Huguenard tweeted at this Breitbart News reporter Monday morning. “I’ve got my sources, they never asked.”
Huguenard later told Breitbart News, “I want to do another story but my HuffPo account has been temporarily disabled. Not sure what’s happening with them.”
The Huffington Post media team did not return a request for comment.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5
Your source includes a LIE
"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.
The email in question:
(U) 3. Types of FGI Likely to Require Classification. FGI can encompass a broad range of types of information, including:
a. High Level Correspondence. This includes letters, diplomatic notes or memoranda or other reports of telephone or face-to-face conversations involving foreign chiefs of state or government, cabinet-level officials or comparable level figures. (See Part IV D below for the classification of information from non-governmental figures such as leaders of opposition parties.) It should be presumed that this type of information should be classified at least CONFIDENTIAL, though the actual level of classification will depend upon the sensitivity of the contained information and classification normally assigned by the U.S. to this category of information. Information from senior officials shall normally be assigned a classification duration of at least ten years. Some subjects, such as cooperation on matters affecting third countries, or negotiation of secret agreements, would merit original classification for up to 25 years.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra
It's been three days and this unproven junk is on the home page as a headline.
This place has really gone down in quality lately. There used to be standards that had to be met. I saw a long time member, a really well liked member banned for posting a story that was not true.
It doesn't matter whether or not it was sent, or whether or not the information she was requesting was in fact classified (she thought it was), the very fact that she was willing to ask someone to do so is where the problem lies.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5
Your source includes a LIE
"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.
The email in question:
The caveat is "CLASSIFIED MATERIAL"...It was not classified...it was a talking points memo for a press briefing.
Just as birthday wishes sent to your work email might not be work related...Unclassified material is often transmitted via classified systems.
originally posted by: BIGPoJo
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5
Your source includes a LIE
"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.
The email in question:
The caveat is "CLASSIFIED MATERIAL"...It was not classified...it was a talking points memo for a press briefing.
Just as birthday wishes sent to your work email might not be work related...Unclassified material is often transmitted via classified systems.
How do you know it wasn't classified? Do you work for Hillary Clinton? Where you there when it was sent or before it was sent? Where are you getting your sources from?
One particular email drew scrutiny Friday -- a June 17, 2011, exchange between Clinton and adviser Jake Sullivan. In that email string, she tells Sullivan she did not receive the evening's talking points -- typically specifics used to speak to the press and for briefings.
...
He also pointed out that it is not uncommon for unclassified documents to be created, edited and shared on a classified system. In other words, just because something is on a classified system doesn't mean it was classified.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5
Dude, come on. I know you're smarter than this.
It doesn't matter whether or not it was sent, or whether or not the information she was requesting was in fact classified (she thought it was), the very fact that she was willing to ask someone to do so is where the problem lies.
Hillary thought the information was classified and was telling someone to get around the proper method of disseminating the information.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: BIGPoJo
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Indigo5
Your source includes a LIE
"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," said spokesman Brian Fallon in a statement.
The email in question:
The caveat is "CLASSIFIED MATERIAL"...It was not classified...it was a talking points memo for a press briefing.
Just as birthday wishes sent to your work email might not be work related...Unclassified material is often transmitted via classified systems.
How do you know it wasn't classified? Do you work for Hillary Clinton? Where you there when it was sent or before it was sent? Where are you getting your sources from?
One particular email drew scrutiny Friday -- a June 17, 2011, exchange between Clinton and adviser Jake Sullivan. In that email string, she tells Sullivan she did not receive the evening's talking points -- typically specifics used to speak to the press and for briefings.
...
He also pointed out that it is not uncommon for unclassified documents to be created, edited and shared on a classified system. In other words, just because something is on a classified system doesn't mean it was classified.
www.npr.org...
originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5
Lets me get this straight.... are you saying that the State Department's own official guidelines for classifying information do not apply in Hillarys case?
foia.state.gov...
Virtual reading room is your friend.
Foreign Government Information:
(U) 3. Types of FGI Likely to Require Classification. FGI can encompass a broad range of types of information, including:
a. High Level Correspondence. This includes letters, diplomatic notes or memoranda or other reports of telephone or face-to-face conversations involving foreign chiefs of state or government, cabinet-level officials or comparable level figures. (See Part IV D below for the classification of information from non-governmental figures such as leaders of opposition parties.) It should be presumed that this type of information should be classified at least CONFIDENTIAL, though the actual level of classification will depend upon the sensitivity of the contained information and classification normally assigned by the U.S. to this category of information. Information from senior officials shall normally be assigned a classification duration of at least ten years. Some subjects, such as cooperation on matters affecting third countries, or negotiation of secret agreements, would merit original classification for up to 25 years.