If this was Trump the reporter would have a copy to stick in his face.
Posted on 06/08/2016 4:13:18 PM PDT by Nachum
Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she couldn’t remember signing a non-disclosure agreement as secretary of state that laid out criminal penalties for mishandling classified information.
In an interview with Fox News host Bret Baier the day after she declared victory in the Democratic primary race, Clinton insisted yet again she never sent nor received any material over her private, unsecured email server that was marked classified.
“Secretary Clinton, you said you sent or received nothing that was marked classified, but you did sign a non-disclosure agreement, an NDA, in 2009 that said markings don’t matter, whether it’s marked or unmarked. You remember signing that?” Baier asked.
“No, I do not, but the fact is nothing that I sent or received was marked classified and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict that,” Clinton said. “What you are seeing acted out is the desire of different parts of the government to retroactively classify material so that it is not made public, since I did ask that all my emails be made public, and this is not an uncommon process.”
As Baier pointed out, Clinton’s NDA she signed upon joining the State Department rendered that talking point moot. She wrote more than 100 emails on the server the government now says are classified.
The Free Beacon reported in November on Clinton’s 2009 NDA signing that said there were criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified material:
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out
Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info
Dem presidential candidate and top aides signed NDAs warning against ‘negligent handling’ of classified information
BY: Lachlan Markay
November 6, 2015 9:00 am
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.
A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.
Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.
Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.
The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI.
The Democratic presidential frontrunner defended her unauthorized possession of SCI and her sending of emails containing classified information by claiming that the information was not marked as classified when it was sent or received.
The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.
“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NDA.
According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such.
“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.”
Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008.
“If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard told Reuters in August.
Clinton’s NDA spells out stiff criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure of SCI.” The FBI is currently investigating whether Clinton’s private email server violated any federal laws.
In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting “negligent handling of classified information,” requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.
It adds, “I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization” from the proper authorizes.
Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, Clinton’s two top aides, also signed copies of the classified information NDA.
Mills sent classified information to officials at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2012, an email released by the State Department in September shows.
Mills’ NDA required her to inquire about the classification of information in her possession if she was unsure about its status. However, her attorney said that she “presumed” that the information she sent to the foundation was unclassified because it had been sent to her at her unclassified State Department email address.
[In one of the emails released a while back Huma described Hillary as “often confused.”]
GOOD ARTICLE: http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wordpress/many-exhibit-insanity-because-god-gave-them-over-to-a-reprobate-mind.html
EXCERPT:
Many in America do not want to retain God in their knowledge so God gave many Americans over to a reprobate mind to do those things that are not convenient….(for any moral civil society).
As long as most in America want nothing to do with God there is no hope for any change for the better in America. Praying for those willfully rejecting the knowledge of God is not going to make these people repent. Since they choose not to retain the knowledge of God they can no longer make sane choices based on anything that God reveals in His creation or in His written word.
Those given over to a reprobate mind have minds that are devoid of good judgment. They continually chose evil and deceive themselves into believing their evil is good. Poole said in his commentary:
So what if she becomes President, will she sign bills, vetoes and EO’s and then say I don’t remember signing them?
Such Clintonian Parsing is the very model of SOPHISTRY (from the web) the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false
As Mrs. Clinton undoubtedly knows, there is no marking of "CLASSIFIED".
As a vet who worked with classified material nearly every day for 4 years, classified material is marked with the appropriate classification, for example: Confidential or Secret or Top Secret.
So, Mrs. Clinton's correct-sounding...nothing that I sent or received was marked classified...
is pure deceit, pure Clintonian sophistry.
Oh, and if she gets away with this, she will just get bolder, more deceitful, and more empowered .
.
I’ve signed several NDA’s and can probably tell you with good accuracy every one of them. And that was just for work.
I recently got a heads up about 2 weeks early about a company restructuring. I was getting moved to another division and my boss thought it wise to tell me early, but I was sworn to secrecy among my colleagues. No problem.
It’s not to her advantage, so of course she doesn’t remember it.
Things I trust more than I trust Hillary Clinton:
Mexican tap water.
Farting when I have diarrhea.
Having a drink offered by Bill Cosby.
Michael Jackson’s doctor.
Prince’s pharmacist.
Half-price gas station Sushi.
A Nazi plumber fixing my shower.
Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton.
Playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic pistol.
An investment email from a Nigerian prince.
A Ford Pinto with twenty extra jugs of gasoline in the back seat.
And finally - Bill Clinton at a Girl Scout convention.
If this was Trump the reporter would have a copy to stick in his face.
not remembering signing is immaterial.
I don’t remember signing my mortgage paperwork...so I can’t be expected to pay the bank.
Yeah, right.
I don’t remember, my mind’s in a blender; it’s jello.
Kripes(sp?)
Stonewalling works best when it is used to stand pat. Hold what you already have. It’s a lot less effective when you are trying to convince people to give you something.
Her brain is jello... jello... jello...
That’s great, Brett. Ask her if she remembers signing it then all she has to say is “No, I don’t remember that.” How about “Mrs. Clinton, you signed .....”
She’s off the hook if she doesn’t remember it.
So whether she remembers it or not, or merely lies and claims to remember it (or not) does not matter. She is still bound by the law. Hey, you can't speed down the highway and then claim you "forgot" the last speed limit sign you saw. That weak-a** excuse is not going to fly either.
There is already evidence - in the form of an email they forgot to delete - that has her instructing an aide to remove the markings and send something in the clear, unprotected. She ought to hang for that. Literally hang or face a firing squad.
Even if you buy the excuses that technically nothing she saw was marked it really doesn't help her. All of her excuses that "she didn't know" and "it wasn't marked" so she can't be held accountable - they all add up to one big admission: she is unqualified to be President. The President, and others with "original classification authority" are supposed to - no, must have the good judgement to assess information and determine if it should be protected, and if so at what level - confidential, secret, or top secret.
Her claims that she is not guilty of anything because none of that information was marked is an outright admission that she lacks the judgement necessary. She should never hold original classification authority again. Given the gross negligence and outright criminal stupidity she has exhibited in using a personal server for official email, I would strip her of any security clearance and deny her any position of trust - permanently.
I’ve signed a few over the years and remember signing them. The last one was about 4 years ago. She’s a liar!!!!
Doesn’t matter whether she “remembers” singing it or not. Did she sign?
So, does this mean that as President she may not remember signing treaties, bills into law or executive orders?
Do we really want someone with such a poor memory as our Chief Executive? </sarcasm>
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.