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.
Nope.
Nixon was preemptively pardoned - no indictment. Basically said “whatever he did is forgiven.”
As a former US Naval Communicator/Cryptographer, I have to side with Mz C on this one.
I distinctly remember copying messages or receiving them on the TTY Machine and after they ‘made the rounds’ someone came along and put a classification of sorts on it -.
On the other hand, the ‘system’ must not have been all that good as it appears that no matter where you were in the world, the Bar Girls were always a jump or two ahead of the Port Directors etc what ships movements were.
I also remember putting out to sea and everyone watching the ‘horizon’ being careful not to get too close, lest the ship fall off the earth.
Hillary has the goods on Obaman, and Obama has the goods on Hillary.
Thus, it is check, and never will be checkmate because either can expose the other. Neither dare do so.
This is why nothing will happen.
On purpose.
Europeans write the date like that.
Not Americans.
“What really hasn’t been addressed is if a POTUS can pardon himself.”
Under the constitution, Amendment XIV, one cannot become President if one has been proven to have given aid and comfort to the enemy. Keeping an unsecured server that our enemies can access lends itself to this situation, and the FBI is pursuing this as we speak/
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/14/essays/173/disqualification-for-rebellion
Yeah, on purpose. Hildebeast has plausible reason to claim the form is inapplicable and null and void. Like a voided check.
She insists she wants them released because she knows they cannot be and so never will be.
Its like if you murder someone and then you say you insist that the person come forward to prove you are innocent.
I just saw this thread and noticed that also. What month is 22? Is that like 57 states?
“Homina, homina, Huma!”
LOL...that’s right up there with “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” But they’ll try it.
That's because she directed them to do that in another email. But if that is really her final story then I hear a bus revving up.
That's got to be her final solution to the illegal leak of classified. Also as she claims in the interview it is disputed so her underling might not have realized it is classified even though (as you said), they had to know. But the bus is a nice solution for this particular problem because as many people as needed can fit under it.
the writer is overlooking the story
the story is that Steffie pinned her ass to the wall
Stephanopoulos didn’t ask her if she had read in the news about the other eighteen emails.
Example of received TTY traffic per APC127G
Note the UUUU & the UNCLAS. Those marking are on the received TTY print out.
If the message were classified it would have the marking CCCC, SSSS, or TTTT instead.
The line here UNCLAS
would spell out single spaced the classification. If it were restricted or SCI the codeword(s) would be follow the classification marking and be double spaced.
Everyone sending or receiving TTY traffic is required to know this, and those dealing with classified traffic sign documents swearing they will follow the rules.
Well, just trying to figure out why they, of all the people in the world who are so completely rotten to the core, always get a pass from the media and why are they allowed to break the law with impunity.
Like I want to know the real reason.
“They need to indict her so Obama can pardon her. She needs this cleared before Trump gets in office.”
The next President could rescind the pardon.
Bttt
They need to indict her so Obama can pardon her. She needs this cleared before Trump gets in office.
She actually doesn't need to be indicted for Barry to pardon her. In fact, it is better for Barry's legacy that he blanket pardon her prior to any indictment.
If honest folks at FBI really want her, they gotta move fast. Shrillary is essentially running for immunity by seeking an office that offers no way to remove the holder except for impeachment where which she is counting on the feckless (R)epublicrats to continue their streak of doing nothing.
Theoretically, as President she could pardon herself, but that has never been tested obviously. All those fanciful statutory penalties concerning forfeiture of office cannot apply to a Constitutionally protected position and she knows it. She will no doubt push this thing right to the edge of Constitutional crisis territory.
Supposedly there is a Sergeant-At-Arms in the House empowered to arrest the President ( mentioned during the Watergate era ) under special circumstances, but this is not in the Constitution anywhere.
How cool would it be though for this former member of the Watergate lynch mob ( who was already so corrupt even back then that she was fired ) to be perp-walked out the front door hopefully in an orange mumu.
Another interesting but far-fetched scenario would be a test of the 25th Amendment cabinet removal for inability to discharge duties ( they were probably thinking of Woodrow Wilson's stroke ), but instead applied for her being so busy tied up in court and depositions ( ironic since her degenerate husband argued against Paula Jones case distracting the President, wait til I'm outta office folks! ). What a bunch of crooks.
24 Season 2 ...
'Madam President, the vote is against you, Aaron please escort the beyotch to a holding cell. I got an oath of office to take. Thank you Aaron.'
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.