And now your neighbors all know!
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.
They need to indict her so Obama can pardon her. She needs this cleared before Trump gets in office.
So what? Until any of our “leaders” does anything to hold her accountable...so what? Our banana republic is criminal-infused, unfortunately.
Not surprsingly, she doesn’t give a damn about releasing classified information, as long as she thinks it give her personally some kind of cover.
What can be said about Clinton ethics that hasn’t already been said?
Ah, Ms Consented to be Cuckolded.
A bimbo witch if there ever was one.
Feel sorry for George? Good one!!!
“They need to indict her so Obama can pardon her.”
No need for indictment. Precedent was set by Ford.
Nixon was never indicted yet was pardoned.
The idiot was on the boob tube last week saying she takes “responsibility” for her private server fiasco. Now she’s saying that she isn’t responsible if her peons sent her classified documents on her private email server. Which is it? Her peons can’t be held responsible if her private email was they only way she could be reached. She might be the most “qualified” person ever to live to be “president” as her toads at the New Yawk Times are reporting but she is still a drooling, blithering idiot. Bull**** on a political resume does not make one “qualified” to be the President of the United States. Obama is proof of that.
You are right. There is a SCOTUS case on the issue.
What really hasn’t been addressed is if a POTUS can pardon himself.
The question is not whether or not Hillary did anything illegal. Everyone over the age of 10 knows she did, even if some won’t admit it.
The question is why (surprisingly) Clinton hack George Stephanopoulos decided to press Hillary on it.
Why does she get a free pass?
Clinton. Ethics. IN THE SAME SENTENCE...OMG stop, you’re killing me.
This is very significant. It appears to me as someone who worked 28 years for the State Department that Hillary is going to throw someone under the bus. An aide or several will be blamed for the migration of the material from the classified system (SIPRNet) to the unsecured system (NIPRNet), It remains to be seen if they are willing to take the fall for Hillary in return for some reward later on.
The classified system is totally separate from the unclassified system. There is no way electronically material can migrate between them. Some one has to do it manually.
I find Clinton's parsing of language to mean that someone else will be blamed. The "'We' were very specific about that" means that she never never ordered or was aware that someone was moving classified information to her over the unclassified system. No doubt, this will be her legal defense.
Since it is a felony, there are very serious consequences for anyone not named Clinton.
Did you really have to ask?
My gut feeling is the cunning Clintonids didn't sign off b/c that would have cutoff their access to classified and other State Dept info......info the greedy Clintons and their cronies use to cash-in.
==============================================
The FBI should determine if Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Sid Blumenthal and other Clinton cronies are STILL considered State Dept employees---perhaps as contractors--- and are still receiving classified State Dept mail and cashing US govt paychecks.
REFERENCE Brian Pagliano---billed as Hillary's personal IT--- left her employ then surfaced on the public payroll as a State Dept contractor.
======================================
Taxpayers demand to know who else among the Clinton cronies are cashing US govt paychecks. It's an old bureaucratic trick for a politician to hand-pick top aides and put them on the public payroll long after you think they're gone. Who might still be cashing State Dept paychecks?
<><> Hillary?
<><> Bill Clinton?
<><> Sid Blumenthal?
<><> Huma Abedin,
<><> Anthony Weiner, Huma's husband?
<><> Cheryl Mills?
<><> Cheryl mills' live-in David Domenici?
<><> Chelsea Clinton?
<><> Chelsea's husband?
========================================
FREEPER ACTION NOW---CONTACT CONGRESS HERE: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
Demand Congress send you all available information on individuals connected to Hillary still cashing US govt paychecks.
In light of the $6 billion that went missing from the State Dept's contractor fund when Hillary exited, taxpayers demand to know who is listed as a State Dept contractor....and whether they are receiving classified State Dept info.
And now your neighbors all know!
Hildebeast incorrectly wrote the date of the signed form. It requires a mm/dd/yyyy entry and Hildebeast wrote it in dd/mm/yyyy. It can argue that the form is null and void due to improper entries. Therefore, the form has no relevance.
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.