SMOKING GUN? Hillary e-mail Instructs Aide To Transmit Classified Data Without Markings

a reply to: theySeeme

What was your MOS and what levels of clearance have you held?

I ask because it is pretty clear that your understanding of the law that HRC broke is limited. The emails (documents) that were sent to her private, unsecure server, contained classified information (even if unmarked at the time). She then kept those documents after leaving the State Dept.

When I was a contracting officer in a fed law enforcement agency, another agency wanted to utilize one of our contract vehicles that I was the CO on. Because this was a somewhat common occurrence I had a higher level clearance than many other folks at the agency. I had to go upstairs to the HCA's office, do the paperwork behind locked doors, and use the secure fax to transmit the mod to this other agency. My supervisor couldn't even review my work because of the sensitivity. All that for one lowly CO.

Every single individual I know that has a clearance is pissed (including card carrying liberals) because they feel this just shows that once you cross that magic threshold to presidential appointee, you are untouchable unless you have to fall on your sword for someone higher up.

That being said - I predict some SESs will take the fall for all of this, and HRC will be the nominee for the democrats.

I will reply back to this thread later, I am done for the day. I would like to give other people a chance to input their thoughts and opinions, I have done mine.

Quote me: Charges will be filed in time. Whether it is her or Huma or Mills, somebody is going to be charged. They have to be or there will be a revolt in the intelligence community.

You can not have a set of laws for one group of people and a different set of laws for other people when it comes to handling of classified information.

As stated above, some people clearly have no idea of what it means to hold a security clearance and the laws that govern your actions as an individual when you are granted that access. It is pointless to try and point out why what she did was wrong, they won't believe it anyways until someone gets charges slapped on them.

EDIT: Stop focusing on the word "classified". The document she requested was clearly marked, she requested that marking to be removed. Markings can be Top Secret, Secret, Confidential, For Official Use Only (FOUO), or even Unclassified. To remove the marking on a government document is illegal. Plain and simple.

a reply to: RickinVa

Although the State Department said a review showed the document never was sent to Clinton by email, and instead apparently by secure fax, after all, Republicans quickly jumped on the passage.

It was not clear whether the document was actually classified or contained classified information. A Grassley spokeswoman only pointed to the mention of the secure fax as evidence the material would have been classified.

State Department spokesman John Kirby rejected that reasoning. He said many documents are created, stored or edited on secure systems even if they're not classified.

hosted.ap.org...

So now we have to ask if her request was a crime in and of itself. It appears that it is not.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: theySeeme

What kind of fantasy world do you live in? Honestly???

Anyone who has been granted a clearance whether current or prior (TS/SCI for 20+ years) knows very well that she has broken the laws when it comes to the handling of classified information.

Whether she is prosecuted or not remains to be seen. People keep quoting laws you and you keep right on asking for proof...

Please tell us all, how she did not violate sections of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.

For instance:

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter;

Is it because the law says "he" and since she isn't a he it doesn't apply to her?

I will be awaiting your answer.

Before you reply, please consider that as Secretary of State, the vast majority of any of her correspondence would be considered classified and vital to the defense of the US at some level.

I also love the excuse that it is nothing because other officials used a private email too... I will leave that with what I once heard a judge tell a man in traffic court,,,, his excuse was... "Your Honor, it wasn't fair because a lot of other people were speeding too and they didn't get pulled over"... to which the judge replied...."When you go fishing, do you catch every single fish in the lake? You, sir, got caught,,,pay the fine."

You didn't even quote the entire provision but you are trying to use it as a basis for your argument? These provisions are only effective if they are violated, she did not violate it - understand?

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter;

She never obtained or disposed of image contrary to the provisions you failed to include in your quote. But nice try.

No more debate. You are clearly delusional and seemed to be obsessed with focusing solely on single word/sentence to make your case.

Every single person who has or has had a security clearance knows that she has broken the law. I guarantee you right now that the FBI has enough evidence to press charges, it is only a matter of time at this point.

I am clearly delusional? Your post is in clear violatin of the TOS of this website.

Secondly, I'm not "obsessed" on some single word or sentence, I am simply pointing out that she has not broken the law. I am not sure if you were aware (oh who am I kidding), clearly you were unaware that in law, every single word in a a sentence makes a case.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Although the State Department said a review showed the document never was sent to Clinton by email, and instead apparently by secure fax, after all, Republicans quickly jumped on the passage.

It was not clear whether the document was actually classified or contained classified information. A Grassley spokeswoman only pointed to the mention of the secure fax as evidence the material would have been classified.

State Department spokesman John Kirby rejected that reasoning. He said many documents are created, stored or edited on secure systems even if they're not classified.

hosted.ap.org...

So now we have to ask if her request was a crime in and of itself. It appears that it is not.

Can't say that too loud, if you look around you can see the loonies are at the edge of their seats in anxiety of being proven wrong.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Well, was it classified or not? We can speculate all we want but if it was not secure information there is no problem asking someone to do what she asked them to do.

It doesn't matter how much we want her to be guilty of something, it takes evidence to do so. So finding her guilty of something we have very little information about is illogical and silly. It just makes you guys look like loons.

You just don't get do you?

The mere fact of asking them to remove the headers from the document is a crime, whether that document is deemed to be classified or not. It is a blatant attempt to bypass security matters.

Ok, so the content of the fax is irrelevant. Glad that is settled. Now perhaps you have already covered this, but can you give me a link to the statute that covers this crime? I'd like to read it.

Well it could be this little ditty from the links provided earlier,

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

The removal of security headers and I might add editing or as the statute says "abstracting" is a felony violation along with conspiracy as outlined in quote of law above.

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Well, was it classified or not? We can speculate all we want but if it was not secure information there is no problem asking someone to do what she asked them to do.

It doesn't matter how much we want her to be guilty of something, it takes evidence to do so. So finding her guilty of something we have very little information about is illogical and silly. It just makes you guys look like loons.

You just don't get do you?

The mere fact of asking them to remove the headers from the document is a crime, whether that document is deemed to be classified or not. It is a blatant attempt to bypass security matters.

Ok, so the content of the fax is irrelevant. Glad that is settled. Now perhaps you have already covered this, but can you give me a link to the statute that covers this crime? I'd like to read it.

Well it could be this little ditty from the links provided earlier,

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

The removal of security headers and I might add editing or as the statute says "abstracting" is a felony violation along with conspiracy as outlined in quote of law above.

How do you figure the removal of security headers is in violation of the law? Do you know how this provision is even intended to function?

I'm out of this topic now, my job here is done. It's clear no one who moans cries and complains about her emails have a clue why they do it, just like Benghazi.

Just repeating some non-sense they heard on the news. Dueces

One more thought:

Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.... The State Department:

www.state.gov...

Guideline K: Handling Protected Information

33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified or other sensitive information raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.

34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences; (b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location; (c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, "palm" or pocket device or other adjunct equipment; (d) inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know; (e) copying classified or other protected information in a manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings; (f) viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual's need to know; (g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or other sensitive information; (h) negligence or lax security habits that persist despite counseling by management; (i) failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the National Security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.

a reply to: Phoenix

do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy., each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

The TP's were sent via secure fax and they did not " do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy".

originally posted by: RickinVa
One more thought:

Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.... The State Department:

www.state.gov...

Guideline K: Handling Protected Information

33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified or other sensitive information raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.

34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences; (b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location; (c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, "palm" or pocket device or other adjunct equipment; (d) inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know; (e) copying classified or other protected information in a manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings; (f) viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual's need to know; (g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or other sensitive information; (h) negligence or lax security habits that persist despite counseling by management; (i) failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the National Security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.

These are guidelines, not laws. If you bothered to read the entire contents that contains this bit you would have noticed the provision that advises officials to use personal judgement when factoring equations in decision making, but again; nice try.

a reply to: RickinVa

According to your source, it does matter if the material was classified or "sensitive". So this would not apply to the Chinese take-out menu you referred to earlier. (I believe it was you)

So, again, it appears no laws were broken.

The easy litmus test here would be to ask yourself "What would happen if Joe Shmo with a security clearance had done this ?"

I think anyone who has a clearance would know.

The bare minimum would be no more clearance and no more job. Period. It is 100% clear that she is getting special treatment. People who disagree, please illustrate one instance of similar scale mishandling that had zero repercussion.

Secondly, the fact that someone who is in the position of Sec. of State doesn't seem to care or realize that most of their correspondence is LIKELY classified shows gross negligence in handling it, which can be persued criminally as well as incredibly bad judgement.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.

Perhaps I'm a bit thick...but, what part, exactly, of the FAX protocols would that be?

I reviewed the T.38 specification, and couldn't find anything even remotely connected to security, so, it seems to me that there is a very great deal of misunderstanding going on...

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: RickinVa
One more thought:

Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.... The State Department:

www.state.gov...

Guideline K: Handling Protected Information

33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified or other sensitive information raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.

34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences; (b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location; (c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, "palm" or pocket device or other adjunct equipment; (d) inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know; (e) copying classified or other protected information in a manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings; (f) viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual's need to know; (g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or other sensitive information; (h) negligence or lax security habits that persist despite counseling by management; (i) failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the National Security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.

These are guidelines, not laws. If you bothered to read the entire contents that contains this bit you would have noticed the provision that advises officials to use personal judgement when factoring equations in decision making, but again; nice try.

Care to show where I claimed that was a law? As you so eloquently stated....nice try.

Since it is guidelines put forth by the State Dept and oh I don't know, maybe because she was Secretary of State, for some reason I find that to be relevant to the conversation,,, but maybe that is just me.

I find it funny when people try to rationalize other people's behavior.

Especially on this topic since I have been a life long democrat. I just can't stand crooks.

a reply to: theySeeme

How do you not comprehend the linked data on the law regarding the conspiracy clause???????

No moaning and crying going on but neither is any justice regards HRC's actions which have lessor known or connected actors sitting in prison or fined and out of a job right now.

That Benghazi where an ambassador was hung out for slaughter to cover-up gun running to Syria is so easily dismissed by HRC supporters shows a moral turpitude even she may have a hard time surpassing with her email and foundation scandals.

a reply to: RickinVa

Can you be charged with a crime for exercising that "personal judgement", even though info was still sent via secure transmission?

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: RickinVa
One more thought:

Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.... The State Department:

www.state.gov...

Guideline K: Handling Protected Information

33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified or other sensitive information raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.

34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences; (b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location; (c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, "palm" or pocket device or other adjunct equipment; (d) inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know; (e) copying classified or other protected information in a manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings; (f) viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual's need to know; (g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or other sensitive information; (h) negligence or lax security habits that persist despite counseling by management; (i) failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the National Security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.

These are guidelines, not laws. If you bothered to read the entire contents that contains this bit you would have noticed the provision that advises officials to use personal judgement when factoring equations in decision making, but again; nice try.

Care to show where I claimed that was a law? As you so eloquently stated....nice try.

Then why mention it at all?

KO'd.

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: theySeeme

originally posted by: RickinVa
One more thought:

Straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.... The State Department:

www.state.gov...

Guideline K: Handling Protected Information

33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified or other sensitive information raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.

34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences; (b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location; (c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, "palm" or pocket device or other adjunct equipment; (d) inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know; (e) copying classified or other protected information in a manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings; (f) viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual's need to know; (g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or other sensitive information; (h) negligence or lax security habits that persist despite counseling by management; (i) failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the National Security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.

These are guidelines, not laws. If you bothered to read the entire contents that contains this bit you would have noticed the provision that advises officials to use personal judgement when factoring equations in decision making, but again; nice try.

Care to show where I claimed that was a law? As you so eloquently stated....nice try.

Then why mention it at all?

KO'd.

from above:

Since it is guidelines put forth by the State Dept and oh I don't know, maybe because she was Secretary of State, for some reason I find that to be relevant to the conversation,,, but maybe that is just me.


KO'd back at ya

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Can you be charged with a crime for exercising that "personal judgement", even though info was still sent via secure transmission?

A question on this point if you please,

Providing that fax at sending point was secure is a given, was the receiving end secure? or was it the by now well known to be insecure possibly or more probably hacked private email account of HRC?

What say you or other HRC defenders?