Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal | Page 8 | INFJ Forum

Hillary Clinton caught lying in email scandal

Eventhorizon said:
Concerning the SAP emails, its been stated theres no way for them to electronically "jump" systems. The emails would have had to be taken off the one secured system and then moved to her non-secured system. Im not sure if thats in that article or not.
Click to expand...

or re-classified, which i feel like is a more likely scenario. Be it that they were non SAP before and were later labeled SAP after it had already been on her account, or stripped of a SAP heading, i don't know.

Non-secured seems like somewhat of a misnomer. Non-secured to DoS standards, probably, but there was likely some type of security (not that that's particularly heartening.)
 
[mods]moved Hillary related posts to Hillary email thread[/mods]
 
[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]

"The crime here occurs when SAPs are exposed by residing in a nonsecure venue; it does not matter for prosecution purposes whether they fell into the wrong hands."

"Shortly after the presence of the SAP-denominated email was made known, the State Department released another email Clinton failed to erase wherein she instructed her subordinates to take state secrets from a secure venue, to cut and paste and summarize them, and send them to her on her nonsecure venue.

Such an endeavor, if carried out, is a felony, masking and then not safeguarding state secrets. Such a command to subordinates can only come from a criminal mind."


oh, that makes sense...yeaaah...
 
rawr said:
or re-classified, which i feel like is a more likely scenario. Be it that they were non SAP before and were later labeled SAP after it had already been on her account, or stripped of a SAP heading, i don't know.

Non-secured seems like somewhat of a misnomer. Non-secured to DoS standards, probably, but there was likely some type of security (not that that's particularly heartening.)
Click to expand...

Another article I read indicates that SAP emails are only sent in a highly secure way. A person is given an electronic device that spits out codes that change every so often. Something like every hour or thirty minutes. The email is clicked on, its asks for a code, the code is input and the email is shown. All of this is supposed to be done only in a secure location both physically and electronically. Whats being said is that this was done but that the emails themselves that we never supposed to be taken off the secure system were, and then were put on her system where she opened them. At least that is how it was initially reported. But even if they were opened on the secure system and then copied via hand or whatever and put on her system...it doesnt matter. There was no question they were classified from the start. Theres no way to have mistaken they were classified.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Another article I read indicates that SAP emails are only sent in a highly secure way. A person is given an electronic device that spits out codes that change every so often. Something like every hour or thirty minutes. The email is clicked on, its asks for a code, the code is input and the email is shown. All of this is supposed to be done only in a secure location both physically and electronically. Whats being said is that this was done but that the emails themselves that we never supposed to be taken off the secure system were, and then were put on her system where she opened them. At least that is how it was initially reported. But even if they were opened on the secure system and then copied via hand or whatever and put on her system...it doesnt matter. There was no question they were classified from the start. Theres no way to have mistaken they were classified.
Click to expand...

Two factor authentication with like an RSA SecurID device or somesuch. Seems plausible. That being said it's still supposition on our part, we don't really know how it's handled. I'd be interested to see if/when FBI releases more details.
 
[video=youtube;8BfNqhV5hg4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4[/video]​

She makes up tons of shit and ain't new to lying a ton.
If she's not lying then she is senile :p

[video=youtube;-dY77j6uBHI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI[/video]​
 
rawr said:
serious question, try to answer as unbiased as you are unable - why do you think Hillary will end up in jail? I know you're referring to the email scandal, but why would she be jailed for this?
Click to expand...

I don't know that she will end up in prison. But if she does it would be after fact finding determines that she was careless to a criminal level (gross negligence) with information that is sensitive in relation to national security. If it is determined that she was, then under the Federal Espionage Act (18 USC 793), she should be sentenced to prison time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rawr
The United States does not have British-style Official Secrets Act; instead, several laws protect classified information, including the Espionage Act of 1917, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. A 2013 report to Congress noted that "...criminal statutes that may apply to the publication of classified defense information ... have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it), who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. While prosecutions appear to be on the rise, leaks of classified information to the press have relatively infrequently been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it." The legislative and executive branches of government, including US presidents, have frequently leaked classified information to journalists. Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to pass a law that generally outlaws disclosing classified information. Most espionage law only criminalizes national defense information; only a jury can decide if a given document meets that criterion, and judges have repeatedly said that being "classified" does not necessarily make information become related to the "national defense". Furthermore, by law, information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity; information may only be classified to protect national security objectives.
Click to expand...

The Espionage Act of 1917 is a United States federal law passed on June 15, 1917, shortly after the U.S. entry into World War I. It has been amended numerous times over the years. It was originally found in Title 50 of the U.S. Code (War) but is now found under Title 18, Crime. Specifically, it is 18 U.S.C. ch. 37 (18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.)

It was intended to prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of U.S. enemies during wartime. In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled through Schenck v. United States that the act did not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under its provisions. The constitutionality of the law, its relationship to free speech, and the meaning of its language have been contested in court ever since.

Among those charged with offenses under the Act are German-American socialist congressman and newspaper editor Victor Berger, Four time Socialist Party of America candidate, Eugene V. Debs, who languished almost three years in penitentiary after his conviction, anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, former Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society president Joseph Franklin Rutherford, communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Cablegate whistleblower Chelsea Manning, and NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden. Rutherford's conviction was overturned on appeal. Although the most controversial sections of the Act—a set of amendments commonly called the Sedition Act of 1918—were repealed on March 3, 1921, the original Espionage Act was left intact.
Click to expand...

The Espionage Act authorizes the government to classify information, but does not necessarily coincide with policy implementation (classified information and national defense information are not synonymous/meaning that the courts can disagree with the government over prosecuting perceived breaches of the policy or Executive Order).

Max Weber:

Every bureaucracy strives to increase the superiority of its position by keeping its knowledge and intentions secret. Bureaucratic administration always seeks to evade the light of the public as best it can, because in so doing it shields its knowledge and conduct from criticism...

While the classification of information by the government is not supposed to be used to prevent information from being made public that would be simply embarrassing or reveal criminal acts, it has been alleged that the government routinely misuses the classification system to cover up criminal activity and the potentially embarrassing.

Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists notes that:

... inquiring into classified government information and disclosing it is something that many national security reporters and policy analysts do, or try to do, every day. And with a few narrow exceptions—for particularly sensitive types of information—courts have determined that this is not a crime." Aftergood notes, "The universe of classified information includes not only genuine national security secrets, such as confidential intelligence sources or advanced military technologies, but an endless supply of mundane bureaucratic trivia, such as 50-year-old intelligence budget figures, as well as the occasional crime or cover-up.

In The Pentagon Papers case, a classified study was published revealing that four administrations had misled the American public about their intentions in the Vietnam War, increasing the credibility gap. Russo and Ellsberg were prosecuted under Espionage Law. The case prompted Harold Edgar & Benno C. Schmidt, Jr. to write a review of Espionage law in the 1973 Columbia Law Review. Their article was entitled "The Espionage Statutes and Publication of Defense Information". In it, they point out that Espionage law does not criminalize classified information, only national defense information. They point out that Congress has repeatedly resisted or failed to make the disclosing of classified information illegal, in and of itself. Instead, Congress has strictly limited which sort of classified information is illegal, and under which specific circumstances it is illegal. i.e. in 18 U.S.C. § 798 congress specifically criminalized leaking cryptographic information that is classified, but when it passed the law it specifically stated the law didn't criminalize disclosing other types of classified information. Another article that discusses the issue is by Jennifer Elsea of the Congressional Research Service.
Click to expand...

Technically, the President should be able to declassify anything he wants as he has the highest authority (by Executive Order) and is the one who actually implements classification policy:

The United States government classification system is established under Executive Order 13526, the latest in a long series of executive orders on the topic. Issued by President Barack Obama in 2009, Executive Order 13526 replaced earlier executive orders on the topic and modified the regulations codified to 32 C.F.R. 2001. It lays out the system of classification, declassification, and handling of national security information generated by the U.S. government and its employees and contractors, as well as information received from other governments.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States

It's actually quite a grey area of the law because the policy implementation and legal interpretation can disagree a great deal. Unless she had put legitimate national secrets into jeopardy, which seems unlikely, I don't think she will be facing any legal consequences.

Eventhorizon said:
http://www.newsmax.com/AndrewNapolitano/hillary-clinton-fbi/2016/01/28/id/711562/
Click to expand...

This article seems to exaggerate the perceived importance of the information, as if she were receiving nuclear weapons secrets, rather than mundane information.

What type of data is typically protected by the SAP denomination? The most sensitive under the sun, such as the names of moles (spies working for more than one government) and their American handlers, the existence of black ops (illegal programs that the U.S. government carries out, of which it will deny knowledge if exposed), codes needed to access state secrets and ongoing intelligence gathering projects.
Click to expand...

Black ops are, by definition, illegal. They would not be acknowledged even in secret. It is law that classified information cannot be used to cover illegal activities. This is blatantly false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawr and PintoBean
Matt3737 said:
The Espionage Act authorizes the government to classify information, but does not necessarily coincide with policy implementation (classified information and national defense information are not synonymous/meaning that the courts can disagree with the government over prosecuting perceived breaches of the policy or Executive Order).



Technically, the President should be able to declassify anything he wants as he has the highest authority (by Executive Order) and is the one who actually implements classification policy:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States

It's actually quite a grey area of the law because the policy implementation and legal interpretation can disagree a great deal. Unless she had put legitimate national secrets into jeopardy, which seems unlikely, I don't think she will be facing any legal consequences.



This article seems to exaggerate the perceived importance of the information, as if she were receiving nuclear weapons secrets, rather than mundane information.



Black ops are, by definition, illegal. They would not be acknowledged even in secret. It is law that classified information cannot be used to cover illegal activities. This is blatantly false.
Click to expand...

Start at paragraph D and read a few in and tell me what you think.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
 
Eventhorizon said:
Start at paragraph D and read a few in and tell me what you think.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Click to expand...

The law has determined that classified information is NOT synonymous with national defense information and that just because it is classified does not mean it is national defense information. The release of classified information is not necessarily illegal.

Most espionage law only criminalizes national defense information; only a jury can decide if a given document meets that criterion, and judges have repeatedly said that being "classified" does not necessarily make information become related to the "national defense".
Click to expand...
 
Matt3737 said:
The law has determined that classified information is NOT synonymous with national defense information and that just because it is classified does not mean it is national defense information. The release of classified information is not necessarily illegal.
Click to expand...

A perspective I have not heard so thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Siimplicity
FUbIhdD.jpg

Ouch >.> Saw this posted on one of my teachers their FB page x)
 
I accidentally came across this video yesterday (hoping to watch the rest today) and found it compelling and disturbing. There are quite a number of sources cited and one in particular made me stop what I was doing at the time and I backtracked the video....Senator Ron Johnson (Chairman of Homeland Security Committee) describes Hillary as “sloppy and showing a reckless disregard for national security interest.” I hope justice prevails and a thorough investigation is conducted and she doesn’t get extra privileges just because she’s a Clinton!


[video=youtube;pW2_onKX5po]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW2_onKX5po[/video]
 
Isabella said:
Senator Ron Johnson (Chairman of Homeland Security Committee) describes Hillary as “sloppy and showing a reckless disregard for national security interest.”
Click to expand...
Sen Johnson holds a very vulnerable senate seat and is not above hyperbole to discredit his political opposition.
 
Skarekrow said:
Why would you think Hillary would go to jail if no one went to jail for this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Oh, how quickly history repeats itself...
Click to expand...

Tit for tat.

There is mention of the Bush scandal at the beginning of the video (Clinton slammed Bush WH over emails) with Hillary condoning it by saying, “Our constitution is being shredded…..….it is a stunning record of secrecy and corruptions of cronyism run-a-muck.” This is then followed by the newsreader shaking her head in disbelief and saying, “What a hypocrite.”

I would like to see justice prevail (regardless of what party I support/endorse), hence, I wrote, “I HOPE” — “a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen.€
 
Stu said:
Sen Johnson holds a very vulnerable senate seat and is not above hyperbole to discredit his political opposition.
Click to expand...

When I get a bit more time, I'm going to go through all the sources cited in the above video and find out which party they are affiliated to - that should help me get a better picture.

There is also a very inspiring speech at the end of the video which I will try and post at some point......
 
Isabella said:
Tit for tat.

There is mention of the Bush scandal at the beginning of the video (Clinton slammed Bush WH over emails) with Hillary condoning it by saying, “Our constitution is being shredded…..….it is a stunning record of secrecy and corruptions of cronyism run-a-muck.” This is then followed by the newsreader shaking her head in disbelief and saying, “What a hypocrite.”

I would like to see justice prevail (regardless of what party I support/endorse), hence, I wrote, “I HOPE” – “a feeling of expectation and desire for a particular thing to happen.”
Click to expand...

It is tit for tat…I agree that both side are bought and sold.
There are a whole lot of people out there who deserve prison…but will never see it because they are rich…plain and simple…they are above the law in the current state of our “justice” system.
I just don’t see it happening….now it may fuck up her Presidential run…but I doubt she’ll see a jail cell anytime in her life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back