New Clinton Email lawsuit

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

So why would the ODNI decide not to follow the ICD 732 when clear evidence was shown that an actual unauthorized disclosure did most certainly occur?

What was disclosed and whom was the recipient of that information?

Were the emails mentioned in the OP sent to anyone that was not authorized to view that sort of information?

Well, that's what probably should be investigated.

Is this seriously what ATS is now? Not even one single page in and we've got someone not even remotely commenting on the OP and just posting to call someone a 'trumptard". Followed by "i can speak five languages", "yeah well, i can speak SEVEN so ner". What's next "well, I can speak every language ever and I've got an invisible forcefield and whatever you do just bounces off and my dad is proper hard and he'll batter your dad"...

Absolutely and utterly pathetic.

As to the topic at hand:

Whomever it is that's pointing this 'oversight' out has made a perfectly legitimate point. It doesn't matter if it's judicial watch or the care bears asking the question, the question is still the same and still a reasonable one: "why, if there is a procedure in place to investigate what damage, if any, has been done by a proven (or even suspected) breach of security, has there been a decision taken to ignore the procedure?

The relevant questions in regards this post are:

A) is there, in fact, a procedure in place as described?
B) is it advisory or compulsory?
C) has there been an actual or suspected breach of security?
D) if so, has an investigation been done as per the requirement?
E) if not, what is the rationale for not doing so?

It would appear that there IS a procedure in place as described.
It would appear that it is compulsory (as it is referred to as 'a requirement)
It would appear that there has been an actual breach of security.
It would appear that no investigation has been forthcoming.
It would appear that no explanation has been proferred as to why it has not.

It would be fair to assert then that the person at the centre of this incident (in this case HC) is being protected, has been given preferential treatment and has not been held to account in the same way you or i would be.

Regardless of your political persuasion, should one not find this unacceptable?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
She should be investigated from several directions... the only reason she is not in jail is daddy Rodham had a lot of dirt on people, and his little girl picked up the skill to keep dirt on people in power.

Classified emails alone would be enough to send anyone on these boards to prison, but family secrets and connections save her wrinkled butt.

That's incorrect.

What she did would not warrant prosecution. As Comey said in his hearings, a violation such as hers would have been dealt with internally, within the State Department.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Irishhaf
She should be investigated from several directions... the only reason she is not in jail is daddy Rodham had a lot of dirt on people, and his little girl picked up the skill to keep dirt on people in power.

Classified emails alone would be enough to send anyone on these boards to prison, but family secrets and connections save her wrinkled butt.

That's incorrect.

What she did would not warrant prosecution. As Comey said in his hearings, a violation such as hers would have been dealt with internally, within the State Department.

Hi introvert,

That may be the case, however, the OP is talking about a separate inquiry, that has been mandated by the aforementioned agency's policies and procedures, to examine the extent of the damage (if any) caused by the incident.
This isn't about prosecution (though i appreciate that you were only responding to the previous posters remarks in that regard), it is about a group choosing to ignore it's own procedures and requirements and the possible explanations as to why that might be.

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

So why would the ODNI decide not to follow the ICD 732 when clear evidence was shown that an actual unauthorized disclosure did most certainly occur?

What was disclosed and whom was the recipient of that information?

Were the emails mentioned in the OP sent to anyone that was not authorized to view that sort of information?

Well, that's what probably should be investigated.

I'd say it already has been investigated. The FBI have/had the emails in question and know who received them.

If there was no one individual that received those emails that were not authorized to view such material, there would not be an unauthorized disclosure and no reason to do a damage assessment.

But I'm not entirely up-to-date on whom received the emails and their clearances. If there is someone that was not authorized to view the material on the email lost, I think JW may have a valid complaint.

a reply to: introvert

Hi again,

Well, it would appear that Hilary Clinton shared classified information with her lawyers who did not have the required clearance.

www.nationalreview.com...

originally posted by: Indrasweb

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Irishhaf
She should be investigated from several directions... the only reason she is not in jail is daddy Rodham had a lot of dirt on people, and his little girl picked up the skill to keep dirt on people in power.

Classified emails alone would be enough to send anyone on these boards to prison, but family secrets and connections save her wrinkled butt.

That's incorrect.

What she did would not warrant prosecution. As Comey said in his hearings, a violation such as hers would have been dealt with internally, within the State Department.

Hi introvert,

That may be the case, however, the OP is talking about a separate inquiry, that has been mandated by the aforementioned agency's policies and procedures, to examine the extent of the damage (if any) caused by the incident.
This isn't about prosecution (though i appreciate that you were only responding to the previous posters remarks in that regard), it is about a group choosing to ignore it's own procedures and requirements and the possible explanations as to why that might be.

Hi,

I'd have to look in to the policy a bit more to learn about the specific language it uses, but if no one that recieved the email was unauthorized to view such material, would that still apply to the standard of "an actual or suspected unauthorized disclosure"?

a reply to: introvert

I think you were probably formulating your reply when i posted my last post. It is a link to an article that explains that HC shared material with her lawyers, who did not have the appropriate clearance. That would suggest that there has been a breach.
I agree that, if there was nothing transmitted to individuals who did not have the required clearance then that would explain why there had been no follow up. However, it would seem that classified material did end up in the hands of those who were not cleared to see it.

I'm just going to have a little more in depth look at the wording of the directive and also see if i can find a few more sources on whom received what..

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Irishhaf
She should be investigated from several directions... the only reason she is not in jail is daddy Rodham had a lot of dirt on people, and his little girl picked up the skill to keep dirt on people in power.

Classified emails alone would be enough to send anyone on these boards to prison, but family secrets and connections save her wrinkled butt.

That's incorrect.

What she did would not warrant prosecution. As Comey said in his hearings, a violation such as hers would have been dealt with internally, within the State Department.

I am going to chalk that up to not having read any of the cases involving people that went to jail for mishandling classified information, other people have tried they didn't "intend" to mishandle things and it did not matter because they did not have the political pull at the DOJ.

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: introvert

Hi again,

Well, it would appear that Hilary Clinton shared classified information with her lawyers who did not have the required clearance.

www.nationalreview.com...

Good point.

I wonder though...We learned that many of the emails that were classified were innocuous and did not actually contain classified government information. For example, one email was classified because it contained a news article on drone strikes in the Middle East. While it was still classified for the purposes of the investigation, would something such as that warrant a damage assessment?

The info it contained was publicly available.

There is a lot of context to this issue that makes it much more complicated than it is presented.

I'll be interested to see what comes of this though.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

You got triggered bad son. Good job on derailing this thread with your poor grammar. You act like a 7 year old with low self esteem. When I feel like talking about Canadian politics I'll come find you.

I agree that we need to get rid of these people in Washington that don't care at all about us. All that we elect are corporate puppets. Why can't we elect good people that cannot be bought and that actually care about America and Americans. It should be simple. I could think of 100 people throughout my life that would be far better politicians than what we have now.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Irishhaf
She should be investigated from several directions... the only reason she is not in jail is daddy Rodham had a lot of dirt on people, and his little girl picked up the skill to keep dirt on people in power.

Classified emails alone would be enough to send anyone on these boards to prison, but family secrets and connections save her wrinkled butt.

That's incorrect.

What she did would not warrant prosecution. As Comey said in his hearings, a violation such as hers would have been dealt with internally, within the State Department.

I am going to chalk that up to not having read any of the cases involving people that went to jail for mishandling classified information, other people have tried they didn't "intend" to mishandle things and it did not matter because they did not have the political pull at the DOJ.

Comey was very specific in what he said. He said intent was key and when people are prosecuted, which only amounts to 20% of such cases, either their words or actions prove their intent. Such was the case with Patreaus.

a reply to: introvert

I suspect that nothing will come of it.

Having downloaded and read through the PDF of ICD 732 it is quite clear that an investigation (though it is referred to as a 'damage assessment') should be conducted where a breach may "cause damage" or "adversely affect" national security.
It may be the case, as you said, that the information in question does not meet this standard and so a damage assessment may not be required.
Without further details in regards the content of the emails in question it is not possible to ascertain whether that is the case on this occasion.
I will have a closer look..

a reply to: Indrasweb

It's also important to note that Comey said her lawyers did not read the emails. They read the headers of the email.

But...they still had access to those emails, which could be considered a "breech".

a reply to: introvert

I had read that, yes. I also read that he said, when questioned in regards intent, that; "it would nearly be impossible to prosecute Hilarly Clinton for giving the lawyers access (to the classified information) for the purposes of evaluation".
So his defense of the position not to prosecute is that the intent was for the lawyers to evaluate the contents. That seems at odds with his assertion that they did not read them.

I have been unable to find anything in regards to what specifically was shared in the emails (unsurprisingly) and so it is still unclear as to whether the threshold of damage caused to, or adverse affect upon, national security has been met.

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?

In the higher levels of the federal government they play CYA as an SOP, if you know what I mean. Today's higher officials consider themselves above the law. Thus ODNI doesn't give a damn what the law is.

Thank you for that story.

a reply to: Indrasweb

So it appears that we have to wait this out.

As you stated previously, I doubt much if anything will come of this.

For those who wish to view the document in question:

www.dni.gov...

4 pages long

The document references 32 CFR 2001.48 - Loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure.

Which can be found here:

www.law.cornell.edu...

(c)Inquiry/investigation and corrective actions. Agency heads shall establish appropriate procedures to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information, in order to implement appropriate corrective actions, which may include disciplinary sanctions, and to ascertain the degree of damage to national security.

So we can argue for days, call each other names, spin, twist...what ever.

The facts are solid:

1. Under 32 CFR 2001.48 - Loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure, James R. Clapper, signed off on ICD-732 on June 27, 2014.

For some reason, it was decided by someone that it wouldn't be done on the Hillary Clinton email unauthorized disclosure. This not only applied to just the ODNI...it forbade any IC element to conduct their own damage assessment.

The question is who and why such a wide ranging clamp down to prevent any IC element from doing a damage assessment on Hillary Clinton.

There are a lot of questions to be answered, but it will probably take years to get the answers.

This was not intended to be a Hillary bashing thread...it was written to inform people that certain people appear to be immune to the ODNI's own policies.... for what ever reason.

a reply to: RickinVa

Hi RickinVa,

Could you point me in the direction of where you got the info that the ODNI forbade any IC element to conduct their own assessment?

As i understood the ICD, it is the case that; where a single IC element is affected by the unauthorised disclosure, that agency will conduct the assessment and, where multiple agencies are affected, a joint assessment would be required.

If the ODNI did not think that any agency was adversely affected, or that the unauthorised disclosure did not cause damage, then they would render the verdict that no IC elements are required to conduct an assessment. That would not be the same as forbidding an assessment.

Just curious as it's relevant to the discussion I was having with introvert above.

Thanks



Oh and thanks for bringing the issue to our attention.

Personally, I am leaning towards this being an attempt to obfuscate but am also considering other possibilities.

Well there are some really important, save the world and children, reasons to ensure that she, Bill, Obama, and all the corrupt leaders, judges, police, corporate heads, all of them, even if its 30% of the population, have to go to jail. Estimates on generational long term ritual sacrificial families is rather high and shocking. Even if you took that down to 15%, don't build the wall, build high security prisons to put all these vile despicable people in! And serve and protect and save the children! PERIOD!!!!! PERIOD!!!! PERIOD!!!! PERIOD!!! Unto Infinity and Beyond PERIOD!!!!