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.
How did you possibly do your job as SecState then, Mrs. Satan's Wife, since it is now a matter of public record that you never got a State Dept. account or computer and the only one you had was your unclassified homemade server?
How can she possibly claim to be ignorant of that since the only system she had was her home server? Especially with this signed classified data non-disclosure agreement?
LOL. This is the 21st century. Side with Mz C? Do you understand the issue and the problem?
FYI: Only the originator can change the classification. If NSA sent a Top Secret message, the recipient can't change it to unclassified, the only kind of material allowed on Clinton's server.
So when the she debates whichever repub candidate- she can claim old news was dealt with in January
No. this is just more Kabuki theater. Just one more layer of we went over this already even my good friend George grilled me on this.
If George had been serious he would have asked about the email she told an aide to strip the headings off and send it to her unsecurely.
George was just faking on being a serious journalist instead of a sworn Clintonista. He failed.
Do you understand the issue and the problem?
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Uh YES I DO!!!!!!!!!!!!
sar·casm
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Although I didn’t use the ‘international symbol for sarcasm’ /sarc or whatever,
The dead giveaway should have been when I said we feared going over the horizon and falling off the earth.
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.
*****************************************************
LOL! My ship did a cruise in the Med in the early ‘60s. Girls we saw in Naples were at our next port before the ship arrived and that pattern continued for months whether France, Greece, etc., except they skipped Tripoli Libya (and so did I).
Europeans write the date like that. Not Americans.
*****************************
That is generally true. However, 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.
Where does it say that?
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:
Correct me if I am wrong, but don’t you need to be convicted of something before you can be pardoned? If indicted, I seriously doubt a conviction would come before the end of BHO’s term.
No, the Nixon pardon was a pre indictment pardon for any crimes. A sitting president cannot be indicted...the only way to get him out is through impeachment. After office, all bets are off but not sure about whether the statutes on crimes tolls while he is in office.
The point here is whether Ohole pardons her or not, she could become president while under indictment. The Dems will have to decide whether she can be elected if indicted. If they think she can win even under indictment or scandal, Ohole will provide the pardon, if not or if he wants another candidate he will not.
There is no redress for a pardon, frankly it should be removed from the powers of the executive as it has no place except in a kingdom. But it is what it is.
How about to the day?
A year??
Nope; convenience/sloppiness doesn't count as GIVING.
The Right way, the Wrong way and the Navy way.
Hillary hates the military and has never served a day.
Remember how she couldn’t get hired when she wanted to enlist because she is a woman?/s
I remember hearing that when Ford pardoned Nixon.
Think I’ll throw this into this email mix just to be a pain.
On Morning Joe or the like, ex-Senator S. Brown made the remark that there is more to the email bit than has been mentioned relating to H’s time as SecState. This concerns her refusal to have Boko Harum listed as a terrorist group as there is some connection between that group and her Fund/Foundation, some quid pro quo as yet hidden ...
I wonder if this ‘connection’ has something to do with Benghazi and BH’s potential take over of some 60 countries in Africa, now being the world’s leading Islamic group by body count. Right now there is an impending link up between ISIS in southern Libya and BH moving north to the Libyan border.
Blasted autocorrect.
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.