Posted on 01/31/2016 3:55:51 PM PST by Kaslin
I rarely get the opportunity to say anything positive about ABC News personality George Stephanopoulos, but he did have a moment this morning on his show, The Week, when he confronted Hillary Clinton about the Top Secret documents which we now know were stored in her infamous bathroom closet server. The story had little to do with the content of the actual emails (which we’ll likely never live to see, as is appropriate in matters of national security) and everything to do with her running excuses about how she did nothing wrong. First she is confronted about her insistence that if the documents weren’t marked classified she did nothing wrong. George pointed out to her that she signed an agreement clearly stating that markings have nothing to do with it. (Video first, then transcript.)
Stephanopoulos: Clinton's Signed Non-Disclosure Agreement Makes Her Email Defense "Not Relevant"
STEPHANOPOULOS: "You know, you've said many times that the emails were not marked classified. The non-disclosure agreement you signed as Secretary of State says that that's really not that relevant. It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference."
CLINTON: "Well of course and that's exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously. You know, you can't get information off the classified system in the State Department to put on an unclassified system, no matter what that system is. We were very specific about that. And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case."
I almost feel sorry for Stephanopoulos at this point. It’s like trying to have an argument with Rainman about buying underwear. First you tell her that she signed an agreement saying that the information is classified whether it’s marked or not. She agrees with you, saying that’s exactly how she handled things. Then, literally two sentences later, she says, “there has to be some markings, some indication...” I’ve had arguments with my niece over whether or not she already ate one of the Christmas cookies where she made a more logical defense.
And as a reminder, here is the agreement Secretary Clinton signed, obtained through a FOIA request.
Once that unpleasant little episode was over, the host went on to probe the question of why Clinton keeps insisting that even the State Department doesn’t think the emails are Top Secret and that it’s “an interagency dispute.”
Clinton Still Claims "Top Secret" Classification Is Part Of "Interagency Dispute"
STEPHANOPOULOS: "You did have that surprise on Friday. The State Department saying they will not release 22 e-mails of yours deemed top-secret. You want them released. Why are you so confident that release would not compromise national security? What do you know about those emails that we don't?"
CLINTON: "Well, here's what I know. I know that this is, I think, a continuation of the story that has been playing out for months. There is no classified marked information on those e-mails, sent or received by me. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, who's had a chance to review them, has said that this email chain did not originate with me and that there were no classification markings. So I do want them released. And of course, I can't be clear about exactly what the reasons might be for some in the government as part of this interagency dispute to make this request not to make them public. But, I would like to see them disclosed and I think they can and should be disclosed from everything I'm told about them."
How is she still sticking with this story? It was the State Department that already announced that they were refusing to release the 22 emails because they were Top Secret, regardless of how they may or may not have been marked. What imaginary agency is Secretary Clinton referencing in this alleged “dispute” unless she thinks the DNC or her own campaign staff are now government agencies. (Hey, now that I think about it… she might really believe that.)
The wheels are really coming off this wagon quickly. I’ll repeat our earlier caution that we shouldn’t expect a prosecution any time soon – if ever – because it won’t take place without the consent and active cooperation of Barack Obama and the Justice Department. But as far as the general public and the rest of the world is concerned, the alibi has fallen apart and the facts are clear. Even if Hillary Clinton turns out to be above the law, she clearly broke it.
Europeans write the date like that. Not Americans.
Well they finally got something right, but not on their own really. They are merely adhering to ISO 8601, perhaps the only time an internationalist body used common sense. Most times they are merely elitist, and arbitrary. ~cough~ metric ~cough~ ~cough~
when in the Navy we wrote the date as dd/mm/yyyy and I have continued that pattern into my 70s on my checks and other correspondence.
At least the yyyy versus yy is a discriminator and greatly reduces the confusion factor. Our public schools have force-fed our kids mm/dd/yy forever, and still do. And then came email, instant messaging, Facebook and Twitter to spur new inventive shorthand. And we haven't even mentioned all the possible time formats.
Somewhere around the time of the Y2K circus, I fell into the habit of writing dates as yyyy-mm-dd.That format has two advantages:
- While the format is possibly unfamiliar, nobody above room temperature IQ can fail to recognize its meaning
- It sorts correctly, even in software that doesn't recognize it as a date
After 2000 I remember sorting a relative's medication and saw lots of expiration dates like 01.02.01 or 03/03/02 and will never forget that. For doctor appointments or court dates or lots of other examples these become useless numbers on a piece of paper. It is stunning the amount of rabbit holes we must explore for lack of common sense.
We live in the left-to-right reading-writing world where we put MSD ( most significant digit ) first and LSD last ( screw with their minds by writing this year as 1620 or 6102 to demonstrate the weirdness of the other ideas ). Computer sort algorithms and GUI file lists naturally default to MSD->LSD. Even with that, have a look through someone's folder or flashdrive full of wildly dated photos thanks to camera/cellphone software lunacy. Each and every possible mistake will be found to exist.
Idiocracy, it's a cookbook!
The date is indicated to be in the format mm/dd/yyyy, but she has 22/01/2009. Did she do that to try to invalidate the document?
Well the Clintons do hold multiple wins in the National Word Parsing Championships.
I saw that, too. I should have scrolled down.
And here I thought it was the hangover...(8^D)
While wagging finger at Helen Thomas: “I did not have sex with that woman.” (Makes fist) “Monica Lewinsky.” Just enough pause in there to put a period at the end of the first statement, and a smirk of knowing he was pulling something off. That, and “depends on what the meaning of is, is” are textbook cases.
I recall being puzzled at a reference to C. H. Tung while reading an article in the South China Morning Post (Singapore). I quickly realized from context that the author was referring to Tung Chee-hwa, who headed the Hong Kong government after the British handed the territory over.
Hildabeast considers herself to be exempt from all laws, rules and regulations that stand in her way of gaining power.
that said, why did Vince Foster just pop into my mind?????????
“Nope; convenience/sloppiness doesn’t count as GIVING. “
Maybe, but if people like spies died and it could be proven to have come from the hacking of unsecured servers, whether it was sloppy or otherwise, there would be intense pressure for calling this a ‘given’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.