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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
Your meme is a lie. There is a HUGE difference between the classifications of "secret" and "classified". Your source merely says that 4 of them were secret or classified; meanwhile your #ty meme says that all four are classified.
Seriously, this isn't Facebook. Stop with the memes.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert
Thanks for offering your unsolicited opinion of another member, and your opinion of their expertise of a subject matter. You should know that your opinion of anything is of no consequence to me in any way shape or form. Should you let me know it is raining outside, I would first walk outside to check prior to believing anything you post.
My opinion of the member you brought up varies vastly from your own. I find his analysis to be mostly accurate, and when he does not know something he states that he does not know.
All that aside do you have an opinion as to fired fbi employees and taking material that belongs to the fbi, or was this just another of your attempts to off topic this thread?
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
When were the memos classified?
As we have learned with the Hillary email investigation, even emails that contained publicly-available info were classified when it came in to government hands once the investigation began.
That does not mean the info was classified at the time, nor does it mean that Comey violated any laws.
Please provide full context and not more propaganda.
You're cooking that guys goose! Keep up the good work!
You keep spouting this BS....I will keep correcting you forever.
www.wrc.noaa.gov...
Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere? Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized dis- closure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.
Innie doesn't bother me...his logic is usually laughable at best.
Once again, now he demands proof of my FBI employment, but yet he has no proof to back up his own claims.
My employment with the FBI was 11/06 to 06/12...although technically I am still employed by the FBI. I guess he needs my name and ssn, but that won't happen.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert
what claim have i made?
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert
nypost.com...
www.washingtonexaminer.com...
canadafreepress.com...
video.foxnews.com...=show-clips
www.thegatewaypundit.com...
www.nydailynews.com...
WASHINGTON — In early January, news that the Justice Department’s inspector general launched an investigation into the government's disputed handling of the Hillary Clinton email inquiry was quickly overtaken by the chaotic run-up to President Trump’s inauguration. Nearly a year later, Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s wide-ranging review of the FBI and Justice’s work in the politically-charged Clinton case now looms as a potential landmine for Russia special counsel Robert Mueller. For months, Horowitz’s investigation — which has amassed interviews with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey and other key officials — had been grinding on in near anonymity. That is, until earlier this month when the inspector general acknowledged that Mueller was alerted to a cache of text messages exchanged between two FBI officials on his staff that disparaged Trump.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert
In addition to what broke today, had you somehow missed this?
www.usatoday.com...
WASHINGTON — In early January, news that the Justice Department’s inspector general launched an investigation into the government's disputed handling of the Hillary Clinton email inquiry was quickly overtaken by the chaotic run-up to President Trump’s inauguration. Nearly a year later, Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s wide-ranging review of the FBI and Justice’s work in the politically-charged Clinton case now looms as a potential landmine for Russia special counsel Robert Mueller. For months, Horowitz’s investigation — which has amassed interviews with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey and other key officials — had been grinding on in near anonymity. That is, until earlier this month when the inspector general acknowledged that Mueller was alerted to a cache of text messages exchanged between two FBI officials on his staff that disparaged Trump.
It is not like the doj hasn't been looking into this for a YEAR now.
Sec. 1.9 Classification Challenges .
(a) Authorized holders of information who, in good faith, believe that its classification status is improper are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification status of the information in accordance with agency procedures established under paragraph (b), below. (b) In accordance with implementing directives issued pursuant to this order, an agency head or senior agency official shall establish procedures under which authorized holders of information are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification of information that they believe is improperly classified or unclassified. These procedures shall assure that: (1) individuals are not subject to retribution for bringing such actions; (2) an opportunity is provided for review by an impartial official or panel; and (3) individuals are advised of their right to appeal agency decisions to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel established by section 5.4 of this order.
originally posted by: GuidedKill
originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
originally posted by: GuidedKill
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler
Your meme is a lie. There is a HUGE difference between the classifications of "secret" and "classified". Your source merely says that 4 of them were secret or classified; meanwhile your #ty meme says that all four are classified.
Seriously, this isn't Facebook. Stop with the memes.
What does the meme matter? Does it negate Comey broke the law? Did the meme trigger you?
You shouldn’t be so touchy... not like you’re going to prison with them, are you?
Idiots before you used the race card every time people disagreed with them..
Now people like yourself, instead of race card, use the "you are just a snowflake", "triggered", "butthurt" card every time someone exposes your stupidity or questions the crap you post.
Hilarious.
Calling someone names is against T&C but obviously not above someone on the left like yourself.
I do find the hypocrisy in your one single post staggering.
You start out by calling me names while attempting to take some high road comparing me to racists because I merely pointed out another persons emotional reply to the OP. Then continue down the road of insulting people all while not contributing anything to the OP.
And you think I'm hilarious....
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert
www.thedailybeast.com...
You speak too soon about things you know nothing about.
But that is typical.
Yes. My opinion is that your question is way too simple and obviously shows the lack of understanding of the importance of context.
Asking about fired employees and property of the employer is "way too simple"? Sorry, just because you do not understand the responsibility that some of these positions hold, others actually do. It very well may come down to the employment agreements signed by Mr Comey at the outset of his employment. Something someone who has been employed by that employer would understand and have experience with.
There is no dispute Comey made notes from some of his meetings with Trump. There is no dispute Comey did not bring up any issues from such meetings to his boss.