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

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.

Interesting, what email have you seen where she's done this? I don't really trust PJMedia as a source of information given how they've acted in the past. They're rather heavily slanted, politically. As far as paragraph markings - yeah, it's done, but that's not the only way it's done. Most of what I've seen is blanket header/footer classification markings.

What I see in this thread is linking to cables - not emails by Clinton. What I see in the FBI report is this (p 20):

The FBI identified three e-mail chains, encompassing eight individual e-mail exchanges to or from Clinton's personal e-mail accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked "(C)," a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level. The emails contained no additional markings, such as header or footer, indicating that they were classified. State confirmed through the FOIA review process that one of these three e-mail chains contains information which is currently classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level. State determined that the other two e-mail chains are currently UNCLASSIFIED. State did not provide a determination as to whether any of these three e-mails were classified at the time they were sent.

When asked about the e-mail chain containing "(C)" portion markings that State determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated she did not know what the "(C)" meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order. Clinton identified a "CONFIDENTIAL" header and footer (inserted by the FBI prior to the interview) and asked of the "(C)" related to the "CONFIDENTIAL" header and footer. Clinton did not believe the content of the e-mail was classified and questioned the classification determination. When asked of her knowledge regarding TOP SECRET, SECRET, and CONFIDENTIAL classification levels of USG information, Clinton responded that she did not pay attention to the "level" of classification and took all classified information seriously.

Looks like she relied on header/footer markings. Along with other information, it paints a worrying picture about the State Department - everyone relied on people sending them stuff to do it appropriately. Look at this bit (p 27):

On July 2, 2016, the FBI interviewed Clinton. Clinton was aware that she was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at State, however, she could not recall how often she used this authority nor could she recall any training or guidance provided by State. Clinton could not give an example of how the classification of a document was determined; rather she stated there was a process in place at State before her tenure, and she relied on career foreign service professionals to appropriately mark and handle classified information.

I don't really care for Clinton, and I'm not trying to defend her. I'm just calling it how I see it.

originally posted by: Justoneman

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.

Not directed at me but since you claim I've "helped" you, I just wanted to say "you're welcome" and best of luck to you while you're ... uh ... saving the entire planet from tyranny.

I've posted nothing BUT facts. ANd I have never, ever not even once stated or implied that "HRC can do or know no wrong."

First of all, it's hideous grammar. Second of all, it actually contradicts what I have said about Clinton, e.g. she's a successful politician in the public eye for 27 or more years. The ridiculous, dime-store-novel crap that the right-wing media in this country lays at her feet is probably child's play compared with the truth, but everyone is so distracted by emails and "What difference does it make" and Bill getting serviced that the real crimes (that I know everyone in power is either responsible for or party to) go unnoticed.

So ... good luck with your sharpened arguments. Perhaps you'd like to actually try them out sometime, rather than just talking about them.

a reply to: Greven

Received -




Sent -



Source -
www.thenewamerican.com...

In the second paragraph you will see a red link that says "published by wikileaks". Its searchable by classification, sent by and received by. The direct link does not work as its an https link.


All located back on page 5 and 6 of this thread.

They use the exact same headers and paragraph classification markings, which counters the lie she told the FBI that she didnt know what the [C] was. Her lie has gone through several phases with the header bs as the latest lie. The FBI also noted that a person in her position should know better. The NDA's she signed also invalidate her lie. She is also an OCA, invalidating her lie.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Again, those are cables not e-mails - cables that were leaked by Pfc. Manning years ago.

She's clearly said other people did classification markings, and those cables clearly say someone other than her classified them.

So, where are you going with this?

a reply to: Greven

She told the FBI she didnt know what the [C] classification meant, stating it was paragraph markings. The images linked shows she received emails/cables with [C] markings and that she sent emails/cables with [C] markings. The number of cables makes her "story" about paragraph markings impossible since she used those markings in the cables / emails she sent. The markings are consistent across the federal system when it comes to classified info markings.

It shows she is lying and knew what she was looking at was classified. That was backed up by her statement during the Commander in Chief interview where she gave detailed info about classification markers.

The cables/emails prove she lied to the FBI and American people.

Again she signed 2 NDA's that are specific when it comes to information that is classified and spells out what to do if you have a question about info and its status. Clinton ignored the 2 NDA's and failed to do her due diligence in checking about info she was not sure was classified or not - like the drone strike conversation. Information does not have to be marked with a header in order to be officially classified, as the FBI also pointed out.

She also received training in handling classified material, even though she lied when she said she didn't.

Finally she was an OCA as SecState.

See the point now?

i'm surprised she didn't think the "C" stood for Clinton or Cash or Coal People or Colored People or Cigars in Monica.

a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL you mean Killary the same one who gave us ISIS, ran guns to Libya, left soldiers in Benghazi to die is the better choice because she knows whats going on? LOLOL Sheeple in full effect.

The same one who lies and lies and lies again when she doesnt even need to? Lies about emails, lies about her medical condition? Takes money from countries who persecute/kill gays and relegate women to 3rd class yet shes a champion for those people?

The same lady who threatened the ladies who spoke out about Bill raping them in the past?

Sure shes great!

SPAM removed by admin

Update 7.22.2019

On video, Julian Assange discloses that he got the DNC e-mails from Seth Rich. Not from Russian Hackers.

Source: theconservativetreehouse.com... rom-seth-rich-not-a-russian-hack/

a reply to: carewemust

Those of us paying attention, and blessed with a bit o' common sense, have thought that to be the case for some time now.

If Mueller had actually been seeking the truth, he would have deposed Assange. He was not seeking the truth, he was only doing as he was told, trying to blame the Russians for Hillary's and the DNC's own failures.

That so many Americans still buy into the Russiagate narrative show just how brainwashed we are.