FBI 'Revolt of Watergate Proportions' if Hillary Skates

Love how the trolls get smashed on this site! All you phonies defending this rotten, traitorous woman and her cronies with your infantile, disingenuous bickering...good luck you are polishing brass on the Titanic...it's going down.

Let me ask one question to you very very obvious amateurs...do you believe in karma?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Now, if you want to talk about specifics about the "compromised CIA" emails, post them. Things to consider:

1. Who sent the emails? Did Clinton originate the emails?
2. If not, who jeopardized who?

Ok, I'll play:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton's private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.

...

At least 47 of the emails contain the notation "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency.

Associated Press

Taking the above information to the State Department FOIA Virtual Reading Room, I found 44 emails released by the State Department that meet the criteria of having "B3 CIA PERS/ORG" exemptions.

Some samples:

This one is contained within an email Hillary sent to Mills and CCed Abedin:

The largest part of our US team in the embassy is the navy/coast guard/ ncis contingent that has established a Maritime training program with the AFM to good success. The defense attaché there now is new [redacted] beloved and hardworking - and to good effect, patrolling the waters and the ports for
1.4(D)
B1
B3 CIA PERS/ORG_ kers, and terror related figures.

C05787634(direct .pdf link)

The above excerpt is from an email originally sent to Cheryl Mills' state.gov email address who then sent it on to Hillary, so here Mills is implicated in the mishandling of classified information along with Hillary.

Note the header exemptions for this particular email:

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: SECRET
— Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 10/15/2036

This contains key information in identifying when it is to be declassified and who reviewed the information.

With regards to when something is considered to be classified:

Classification duration may be defined (1) in terms of a time period measured from the origination date of a d0cument (i.e., at a future date) or (2) in terms of a future event which must occur prior to declassification.2 If a date or event cannot be specified, then a classified document containing NSI will be marked to indicate that the originating agency's determination is required for declassification.*, 14 The specified marking is "Originating Agency's Determination Required" or "OADR." This indicates that the agency that originally classified the information (or originated the document) has the sole authority to determine when the information (or document) can be declassified. Therefore, for classification decisions, the question is whether a duration of classification can be specified for classified information or whether no duration can be specified so that declassification must await the actual disclosure event.

CLASSIFICATION DURATION

RELEASE IN PART B1,1.4(D),B3 CIA
PERS/ORG,B6

This is the FOIA exemption codes

I want you to think about this logically for a second. What is being referenced is the identity of an intelligence operative. Now would that information be considered classified the moment it hits the airwaves or would it have to wait until someone eyeballed it to say, "yes, that should be classified?"

The declassification date tells you all you need to know. Note that it is to be declassified (i.e. to be considered classified) 25 years from the date the information was originated, not 25 years from the date it was reviewed. In other words the information is question is considered classified from "Sunday, October 16, 2011 5:05 AM" to 10/15/2036. The information contained within the redacted portion did not become sensitive until after it was reviewed on 01/29/2016 by DAS, A/GIS, DoS, it was sensitive the instant it came in to being.

Let's look at another:

Last week I traveled to Israel [redacted] in an Iran-related seminar and simulation exercise with the IDF general who is likely to become. Israel's next chief of military intelligence and his team and, separately, [redacted] Yesterday,[redacted] an Iran workshop in Washington involving DoD and think tank experts. Despite the fact that the meetings were with defense [redacted]personnel, there was universal sentiment that a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be counterproductive, on the one hand, and that incremental measures would be perceived by Iran as an indication of weakness, on the other.

B3 CIA PERS/ORG

C05759595 (direct .pdf link)

This one appears to be an email to Hillary from a NGO intelligence think tank

Note it's declassification block:

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D)
— Declassify on: 09/07/2024

Again, 25 years from the date of origination of the document, not 25 years from the date on which it was reviewed (by the State Department, btw)

All of these and anything ever redacted in each and every one of Hillary's emails is an instance of mishandling of classified information. That NdA Hillary signed (but doesn't remember signing?) and the specialized security briefing she received regarding the handling of classified information places her 100% culpable for gross negligence in the handling of classified information.

And that is because Hillary was an Originating Classification Authority, which means that she should have been the one who classified these items and determined their declassification date due to the fact of her being an OCA.

Whether you understand the laws that deal with classified information or not is irrelevant to the facts presented.

(and that doesn't even include public corruption and influence pedaling related to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State)

a reply to: neo96

Sounds like a Conflict of Interest there , Loretta Lynch needs to Resign with a Vote of No Confidence Immediately . NO ONE Is ABOVE The LAW Under the LAW .

a reply to: Gryphon66

The fact is, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton knew damn well what information was classified or not whether it had a fat stamp marking it as such, or not. She absolutely had top secret information passing through a totally porous server with a welcome mat to international hacking --- totally heinous. She signed an agreement the moment she got a clearance that states, in no uncertain terms, that she would protect classified material- it also states that you accept the clearance knowing that if you break your promise, you go to jail (she's an attorney, she had to know what she was signing). Thousands of law abiding, loyal, dedicated people serve their country (whether in uniform o not) and they go about their duties protecting classified material every day; because they live up to the oath and they respect what they are protecting.

It's ludicrous that this issue has to be pushed by Republicans when every single registered Democrat ought to care just as much about the judgement of a potential Commander in Chief. Shame shame shame that this has become a political football.

Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to stage her run for the White House; her private server clearly shows this, as does the millions of dollars she accepted (via the Clinton Foundation) from foreign nationals...Chinese, Saudi... This person is willing to sell our country out to the highest bidder...correction, any bidder.

PS: I won't vote for either Hillary or Trump....hoping and praying that both fall on their own swords and we will yet have a real election with someone with a soul to vote for.
We have a few more months yet to save our nation's integrity.

a reply to: Metallicus




Joseph diGenova??? Qouted by WND and Foxnation...That's the BS mountain hat-trick!!

Good luck boy! Startin to look like desperate stuff even by BS mountain standards.

a reply to: Metallicus
Hi Metallicus,

Given....
--- Hillary is, de-facto, above the law
--- Hillary has been elevated above the law
--- Hillary is way above the law
--- Hillary is the law.

Trained by the late Stalinist, Saul Alinsky, Hillary has the power to bring hell on earth upon anyone who crosses her.

Predictions, if I may .....

His Excellency, Dictator barry hussein soetoro soebarkah, will order Loretta Lynch to drop the case and cancel the investigation.
or
Hillary will receive the full presidential pardon that she is [de-facto] entitled to.

Her main voting base, the low information voters, either will never know, or won't give a damn as they block-vote for Hillary. Hillary owns the low-information voters, just as hussein did.

Unpleasant things may happen to those who investigated or accused Hillary of classified information spillage. There will be retribution.

No matter what happens, these voters are bound to vote straight democratic and will block vote for Hillary:

Low information voters
Illegal Aliens (Mexican Nationals) whereby millions of illegals were registered to vote during the riots while Bush was president.
Illegal aliens registered to vote in many different voting places.
Illegals relatives (including aunties, uncles, cousins, cousins' cousins, etc), domiciled in Mexico, who were registered to vote absentee.
Dead Voters
Family pets and farm animals
Hacked Dibold voting machines

a reply to: reldra

He is absolutely correct. I thought ATS was all about "denying ignorance". I guess it's only about that when you have a point you believe in but no one else does. Or, when you're attempting to slow down a thread.

News flash. Clinton will not be indicted. FULL STOP.

Just like Bush was not for 9/11 or the Patriot Act. Just like Obama was not for what every reason you can think of that you think he should of been.

a reply to: SeaYote

The facts disagree with your summation, which is merely a regurgitation of what right-wing media has fed you.

You're not looking at facts, you're repeating anti-Clinton propaganda.

That's fine, but at least be honest about what you're doing, don't claim that you're working for our "nation's integrity."

HRC is beyond guilty of violating her signed agreement that the Federal government requires each government employee to sign, whose job requires that they view/distribute classified or top secret information. Contractors must also sign this agreement if the contract being worked requires employees to view/distribute and in some cases generate classified or top secret information. In addition, yearly, you are required to view an online security briefing that details your responsibilities in handling such sensitive information and reinforces the agreement that you signed initially. She knew damn well what she was doing and knew that she was violating her agreement the minute she told IT to direct her email traffic to a private, unsecured, unclassified, unapproved server. Viewing/downloading classified info onto a unclassified, unapproved system (laptop,server) is called Spillage and there was obviously tons of that going on. She's guilty of violating her security agreement, whether or not she will be prosecuted is another matter. But if she is not prosecuted, what kind of message does that send to the rest of us who have signed the same security agreement and continue to perform our duties?????

a reply to: truthwilout

So, why haven't any of the NINE Republican investigations stated that she is guilty?

That's a real basic question that you folks keep glossing over.

a reply to: Gryphon66


What 9 investigations are you blabbing about???

I only care about 1 investigation and the FBI will be wrapping that up shortly.

You and those like you who never possessed a security clearance will never be able to fathom that what Hillary Clinton did was highly illegal, and should result in jail time.

Many of us know exactly what laws concerning classified information were broken, and we are simply waiting to see what the FBI / DOJ and the intelligence community are going to do about it.

I do not care about any scandal she has been involved in prior to the classified information...

All I know is that having 2200+ classified emails on an unclassified server will net you jail time, I don't give a big flying rats behind who you are or what your name is.

a reply to: RickinVa

Hillary Clinton says she did nothing wrong. Nothing is going to happen. Just another thing the right is trying to do to her. Everyone knew she was doing it. And it isn't unusual.

Another 4 years of sliding toward the cliff edge, unless Trump can beat that witch.

What's the FBI gonna do about it? Not deliver as much opium as usual? She'll get her husband (that she doesn't live with) to slap them in line. In between her bisexual love affairs.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66


What 9 investigations are you blabbing about???

I only care about 1 investigation and the FBI will be wrapping that up shortly.

You and those like you who never possessed a security clearance will never be able to fathom that what Hillary Clinton did was highly illegal, and should result in jail time.

Many of us know exactly what laws concerning classified information were broken, and we are simply waiting to see what the FBI / DOJ and the intelligence community are going to do about it.

I do not care about any scandal she has been involved in prior to the classified information...

All I know is that having 2200+ classified emails on an unclassified server will net you jail time, I don't give a big flying rats behind who you are or what your name is.

I've seen this before and I have to laugh. Some site decided that every congressional committee on Benghazi was about Hillary. And each one is a seprate investigation. The house authorised committee investigations onto Benghazi. Once they did that each comitee does investigations into there area. Not even all of them involve hillary like the armed services report. Thus was looking for wrong doing in the armed services. The final committee report includes all information from all the committees. Which means it took 2 yrs for thr house to investigate. And people think thr govern mentioned can build a wall but that's anot her story.

So basically what people claim are 9 investigations are just one they are just parts of the house comitee investigation.Did they find anything I'll let you know not finished reading it yet. But I will say I read one thing today which was just insane. Before hand one of the request by the Marines at thr embassy was a belt fed machine gun they wanted to mount over the cout yard. It was a request because they were concerned with the lack of security. The request was declined. Why was it declined ? Well they didn't think it was astetic to have it in the embassy. So are government put landscaping over security. Is this insane or what. Could you imagine how difrent things could have been if they could fire 10000 rounds a minute into the court yard??

a reply to: RickinVa

Hi RickinVA,

If you or I committed just one of the 2200+ willful acts of classified information spillage, that Hillary did, then you or I would be doing hard time right now.

Looks to me like the magnitude of the classified information spillage (surely in the hands of Chinese hackers by now) far surpasses the espionage damage committed by infamous spies like the Walker brothers. Aldrich Ames, Allen Robert Rosenberg, Robert Hanssen, and others.

Keywords (for the far left search engines): Espionage, Spy, Spying, Treason, Felony

originally posted by: Adonsa
a reply to: Metallicus
No matter what happens, these voters are bound to vote straight democratic and will block vote for Hillary:

Low information voters
Illegal Aliens (Mexican Nationals) whereby millions of illegals were registered to vote during the riots while Bush was president.
Illegal aliens registered to vote in many different voting places.
Illegals relatives (including aunties, uncles, cousins, cousins' cousins, etc), domiciled in Mexico, who were registered to vote absentee.
Dead Voters
Family pets and farm animals
Hacked Dibold voting machines

.....and don't forget the 1.8 million dead people. They're especially low information voters.

Talk about your silent majority! A new undercover video by James O’Keefe, the man who brought down ACORN, shows voters receiving ballots for the New Hampshire primary despite the notable handicap of being dead!

All of these voters were registered Democrats, which may be a coincidence—or maybe not. New Hampshire remains one of 20 states that require no voter ID, and its Democratic governor, John Lynch, vetoed a voter ID bill that came across his desk last year.

hotair.com...

ETA: Sorry, I see you already included the dead in your list. I'm just reiterating and sourced it.

a reply to: Adonsa

If you or I committed just one of the 2200+ willful acts of classified information spillage, that Hillary did, then you or I would be doing hard time right now.

That's not entirely true. Prosecution in cases such as this are actually rare.

Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. Of the six where charges were filed, all the defendants apparently pled guilty, the data show.

The cases indicate that a strong dose of prosecutorial discretion is involved, partly because the laws on mishandling classified information are written broadly.

But only about 100 of those 2100 messages were sent or forwarded by Clinton, and in many cases the information deemed classified originated with her aides or lower-level personnel. Clinton and her campaign team dispute the idea that any of the emails should be classified and have urged that those messages be released to the public, so others can judge whether any involved actual secrets. None of the messages were marked classified at the time.

Of those subsequently marked as classified, more than 96 percent have been marked “Confidential,” because they contain diplomatic exchanges or information about foreign governments. Many of those messages had already been shared on other unclassified systems, including within the State Department.

www.politico.com...

Certain conditions have to exist for prosecutors to even look at a case and so far it does not appear that those conditions apply here.

I highly doubt Clinton will be indicted.

a reply to: RickinVa

Oh, that's right ... you're the only person (well, you and some of your unnamed associates) with a security clearance in the United States that understands the laws, and you're all just "waiting" to see what is going to happen.

Sorry, I'm not buying that one anymore. I actually dislike calling folks liars to their faces, but, come on, why aren't you (or any one of your unnamed associates) being interviewed daily on Fox News, Limbaugh, Breitbart, etc. crowing the precise laws that you KNOW have been broken from the housetops?

I mean, really, if you (and your unnamed associates) have cracked the case so thoroughly without ANY investigation at all, without any firsthand knowledge of anything, just going on what you find out in the media ... well, frankly, the answer is obvious, I shouldn't belabor the point.

You "don't care" about any other scandal Clinton has been involved in? Well, you'd be the only Clinton-basher on this site (and in this discussion) that doesn't bring up everything but the kitchen sink.

We'll see. You've been claiming the indictment will come any day now for about a month or so, yes?

Shouldn't be long now ...

a reply to: dragonridr

So are government put landscaping over security. Is this insane or what.

Yes, it is.

But this is the same Obama Adminstration/ Clinton State Dept that authorized Chevy Volts and charging stations for the embassy in Vienna.... but claim that the Republicans are to blame for budget cuts that made security unaffordable in Benghazi.
Then they threw a big party to celebrate the Volts.
National Legal and Policy Center
That's right.
There was enough money to have a party to celebrate a sad car that burned up sitting in parking lots, but not enough money for a machine gun for US Marines. Maybe that is why Hillary was so intent on blaming a video?

I just not so subtly cited another member for claiming special knowledge about security clearances.

In doing so, I made an argument from authority myself (which is the main issue with that poster's claim) in something of an inverted way, arguing that if they actually had this special knowledge that htey claim, they'd be interviewed on right-wing media, et. al.

This is a bit more in the gray area of forensics than I usually like to go in an ATS post, as just because someone else makes an invalid argument should not' also excuse my doing so.

However ...

Going on the basis of information that I do know we all have (commonly available in the media) we know a few things:

These are from a Washington Post March 2016

The analysis also showed that the practice of using non-secure email systems to send sensitive information was widespread at the department and elsewhere in government.

For federal employees other than Clinton, nearly all of the sensitive email was sent using their less secure, day-to-day government accounts. Classified information is supposed to be exchanged only over a separate, more secure network.

In posting this, I'm arguing that, even the Washington Post has taken the time to "analyze" these emails. As have many other media outlets. As have, undoubtedly, many agencies in govenrment, including, of course, the FBI.

It seems ... questionable to assert special knowledge about the "classified" nature of some of these emails (which varies from 22 to 104 in reasonable estimates, rather than "2200+") which is not available to the public at large.

Just wanted to clarify the point.