Julian Assange: 'We Released Thousands of Emails Clinton Herself Has Used a 'C' in Brackets'

a reply to: Indigo5

Actually yes...

It went to Clinton and contains confidential information and the C in brackets in the paragraphs to denote the classification level. Clinton claimed she never sent nor received classified info - she did. She claimed she didnt know what the C was for even though in those emails they are used. She also used them in her emails that were outgoing.



I don't think you used the link I gave and I dont think you looked for the information in question. Here is a email she sent that was marked confidential and contains C in the body of text that was sent by Clinton.

You have been shown an email she received that had classification markings in it, including the text.
You have been shown an email she sent that had classification markings in it, including the text.




Is their any particular reason you are ignoring the facts?

a reply to: Gryphon66

They didnt use a private server in their basement in violation of government policy or laws. They didnt send classified info like Clinton did. They didn't delete emails. They didn't delete emails in violation of a hold order. They didnt delete emails in violation of a subpoena. They didnt claim they turned over all emails only to find thousands more they didnt. They didnt send SCI material via email. They didnt divert their emails to a server thats not cleared to have any classified material on it.

Finally they didn't continue to lie.


Your comparison is invalid.

It's illegal to lie to Federal investigators, regardless of who you are. You can lie to the cops, and maybe piss them off, but lying to FBI is a specific crime. People are prosecuted for it all the time, I'll post if I can think of a good example.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It's illegal to lie to Federal investigators, regardless of who you are. You can lie to the cops, and maybe piss them off, but lying to FBI is a specific crime. People are prosecuted for it all the time, I'll post if I can think of a good example.

Done! Enjoy.

www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com...

Are you aware that it is a criminal offense to lie to a federal government official? Title 18 of the US Code, Section 1001,

a favorite of federal prosecutors, makes it unlawful to lie to a government agent, even if you: · made the false statement without the obligations of an oath, · didn’t receive warning of the law or its consequences, · were not trying to cheat the government out of money, · or lied about something that was not materially influential to government matters.

The Law Federal law makes it illegal to intentionally make false statements in any matter “within the jurisdiction” of the government. With the ever far-reaching powers of the federal government, much of what you say or lie about can be construed as a lie within government’s jurisdiction.

a reply to: FlyingFox

So if you tell the FBI something, you're legally "under oath"? You don't have to be sworn in?

It's an "intent" crime, but yeah.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: FlyingFox

So if you tell the FBI something, you're legally "under oath"? You don't have to be sworn in?

If you tell the FBI something that is false during the course of an investigation its against the law. Just like if you tell your local police something false during an investigation you can be charged.

The under oath thing usually deals with lawyers and the courts. When you are subpoenaed for court you are sworn in. If you are required to give a deposition you are sworn in (placed under oath). When you are being questioned by law enforcement and they are asking guilt seeking questions your miranda rights apply and you can refuse to speak. You can also meet with law enforcement for an interview with your lawyer so they can advise you during the process.

Lying to law enforcement is a crime.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank-you for that detailed response, Xcathdra. Then the additional information that Julian Assange provided to Sean Hannity further proves that Hillary committed a crime when she was interviewed by the FBI.

Ref: www.foxnews.com...

Why are Republicans asleep at the wheel on this? They should do whatever is needed to bring Hillary to trial. Last I checked, the GOP held a majority in both the House and the Senate. You could be your last dollar that the Democrats would have Trump put in jail and throw away the key, if this were him breaking multiple laws. Even if he were sickly like Hillary.

a reply to: carewemust

The issue is the law that allowed Congress to appoint a special prosecutor lapsed and as I understand it was because of a constitutional issue (conflict where the legislative branch was stepping into the executive branch area of responsibility). Only the AG can appoint an independent prosecutor.

Congress can request the FBI investigate but in the end the ultimate decision to proceed with charges is up to the attorney general -- Loretta Lynch in this case. Sure they could impeach lynch or comey but it wont do any good considering how close we are to the elections. There is not enough time to get a court ruling before then.

In this area the stonewalling by Clinton and Obama over the last years forced these issues to our current point in time with no real time left for the courts to do their things. We saw them do the same thing before Obama second election where they dragged their feet / lied about Benghazi / fast and furious / etc. The name of their game plan is called run out the clock.


I think this is why you are seeing the massive release in documents by the FBI and the congressional committees. If they can't use a court of law then use the court of public opinion and make your case there in hopes people see Clinton for what she is and vote for someone, anyone, else.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66
I for one thing this thread would have been boring without you.

(Now hit me up with some of that sweet DNC money you are getting)

And , my hat in hand, you have made us think how to answer such , whatever we will call it years from now.

Thank you 66

a reply to: Xcathdra

She told the FBI that she didn´t knew the simbology for "Conficential" ??!! A Secreatary of State does not know the symbology for a confidential paper???!!

I´ve never seen bigger incompetence confession in my life!

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It's illegal to lie to Federal investigators, regardless of who you are. You can lie to the cops, and maybe piss them off, but lying to FBI is a specific crime. People are prosecuted for it all the time, I'll post if I can think of a good example.

A good example is Martha Stewart, prosecuted by the Whore Comey.

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: Xcathdra

She told the FBI that she didn´t knew the simbology for "Conficential" ??!! A Secreatary of State does not know the symbology for a confidential paper???!!

I´ve never seen bigger incompetence confession in my life!

you do know that "confidential" and "classified" are 2 separate degrees of classification, right?

a reply to: jimmyx

What does that matters? The point is that a Secretary of State didn´t knew or lied by telling that she didn´t knew.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

They didnt use a private server in their basement in violation of government policy or laws. They didnt send classified info like Clinton did. They didn't delete emails. They didn't delete emails in violation of a hold order. They didnt delete emails in violation of a subpoena. They didnt claim they turned over all emails only to find thousands more they didnt. They didnt send SCI material via email. They didnt divert their emails to a server thats not cleared to have any classified material on it.

Finally they didn't continue to lie.


Your comparison is invalid.

Private server: irrelevant. Mishandling is mishandling.

Sent classified information: What classified information? Tell us what the classified information regarded, who classified it, when was it classified, was it marked correctly, who marked it?

Deleted emails: Again, who deleted them? When? Which ones were deleted at what point?

Deleted emails under hold order: Prove it. The FBI couldn't, Congress hasn't. Go ahead.

Deleted emails under subpoena: Prove it. Ditto

Didn't turn over all emails:

Director Jim Comey:

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

Source

Didn't send SCI material: Wow, we've been using drones to strike at our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Shocker.

Didn't divert to a unclassified server: Now you're just repeating yourself.


... and finally, none of that relates to the claim of the OP and the nominal topic here that "thousands of emails sent by Clinton used the (C) mark."

Did you have proof of that claim yet? No?

As I thought.

Perhaps you'd like to give everyone a warning about reading my posts again? Because I disagree with your glossing over the truth I am a danger? LOL

a reply to: Gryphon66

gryph...this won't be the last time this dead horse is beaten, but I am glad you are responding to it.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Gryphon66

gryph...this won't be the last time this dead horse is beaten, but I am glad you are responding to it.

Jimmy: I expect a repetition of the repetition of the repetition ... and then some redundancy in the inevitable response.

The fact remains: Clinton did what other SoS have done, what members of Congress are doing right now, there has been no classified material endangered or lost because of Clinton's email use ... and for the most part, the whole thing is and has been nothing more than a political snipe hunt conducted on the People's time with the People's money by a Republican Congress that has vastly abused its investigative powers merely to cause harm to a political rival ON A LEVEL UNHEARD OF in American history.

... and finally, Clinton did not send "thousands" of emails marked with (C) as the OP alledges.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Gryphon66

gryph...this won't be the last time this dead horse is beaten, but I am glad you are responding to it.

I am too and very glad, he is proving the opposite points so repeatedly I now have MY talking points sharpened and you guys are still totally brainwashed into la la land that it is now laughable to foreign members of ATS from their comments. We will lose the entire planet to tyranny with out due diligence and when we choose to willingly ignore bad players in the power struggle we all lose.

You've awakened common sense in the rest of us that you are not willing to entertain the facts but are willing to spin them to make sure "hrc can do or know no wrong". Time will not be on that sides team.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
If true I don't see how Clinton is going to survive this latest revelation. It would prove she lied to the FBI with regards to classification's used in emails to denote classified info.

As far as I know, classification markings are spelled out not abbreviated on the actual materials.

Typically it's spelled out at top & bottom of an individual document, or there's a cover sheet with it spelled out.

Abbreviations might be used in documents that reference other materials and include their classification.

a reply to: Greven

Yeah thats the header bs they are trying to spin. In the main body of text paragraphs are marked as well. That is the issue with the lie clinton told the FBI because emails she sent out not only contain header info they contain paragraph markings as well.

Second the NDA's she signed spells out her responsibility towards the handling of classified information (all levels). As an OCA she also should know better than to try and make a distinction about markings. Markings are not relevant when it comes to a person in her position and the NDA's she signed state the same. The NDA's also state that if their is info a person is not sure is classified or not to treat it as classified until the entity responsible for the information can give a determination.

Clinton violated her oath.
Clinton violated the NDA's she signed.
Clinton violated the MOA she signed with the Obama White House.
Clinton lied to Congress during her confirmation hearings with regards to the clinton foundation.
Clinton destroyed evidence by ignoring a hold order / subpoena.

I can keep going but the remainder of the list would take up several more pages.

Suffice it to say its always someone elses fault according to the Clintons and the laws that govern everyone else dont apply to this blind bat with no control.