Hillary: By ordering “identifying headings” removed, I meant “don’t transmit classified info,” or something

posted at 8:41 am on January 11, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

“Aren’t you ordering [Jake Sullivan] to violate the laws on handling classified material there?” John Dickerson confronted the Friday e-mail release from Hillary Clinton’s secret e-mail server head-on in an interview with the former Secretary of State yesterday on Face the Nation. Hillary responded by attempting to spin, leaving Dickerson unconvinced at best. “As the State Department said just this week,” Hillary replied, “that didn’t happen.” Actually, what the State Department said was that they had no records to show what happened, but … forget it, she’s rolling. Dickerson presses onward:

CBS NEWS’ JOHN DICKERSON: What’s striking about that particular email is it suggests you were very facile with how to do this, this process. You knew the instructions for how to get around the restrictions for sending classified information. So you’re saying there’s never an instance, any other instance in which you did that?

HILLARY CLINTON: No. And it wasn’t sent. So I think this is another instance where what is common practice, namely, look, I need information, I had some points I had to make and I was waiting for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture, but often times there’s a lot of information that isn’t at all classified so whatever information can be appropriately transmitted unclassified often was – that’s true for every agency in the government and anyone who does business with the government. But the important point here is I had great confidence because I had worked with Jake Sullivan for years. He’s the most meticulous, careful person you could do business with, and he knew exactly what was and wasn’t appropriate and in fact as the State Department has said, there was no transmission of any classified information. So, it’s another effort by people looking for something to throw against the wall to see what sticks but there’s no “there” there.

DICKERSON: Well this one is a little different since the FBI is investigating this specific question of whether classification was meddled with.

Hillary didn’t tell Sullivan to remove classified information from the talking points.  That e-mail specifically instructed Sullivan to convert the data into an informal document or electronic transmission with “no identifying heading” in order to transmit it “nonsecure.”

hillary-e-mail2

Hillary tries arguing that “headings are not classification notices,” but classification is noted in headings — and that’s why they would need to be removed in order to move from a secure transmission to nonsecure transmission.

Clearly in this context, “identifying headings” relate to classification levels. If the information was unclassified, this e-mail would have been entirely unnecessary. As I noted earlier, someone as “meticulous” and “careful” as Sullivan would have already known that he didn’t need to have unclassified material transmitted securely in the first place. On top of that, Hillary wanted this information urgently. If it was unclassified, why would it be so urgent, and why couldn’t Hillary or her immediate team simply dig it up for her?

Chuck Ross believes that the information related to an explosive situation in Sudan. An e-mail two days earlier to the one in question dealing with the crisis has been redacted in large part and marked classified:

The sensitive nature of the crisis was underscored by one June 15 email Princeton Lyman, the special envoy to Sudan, sent to a group of State Department officials, including Sullivan, apprising them of developments in the region. The bulk of the email is classified as confidential. It is unclear if any of that information was included in the talking points Sullivan was preparing for Clinton.

On June 16, Sullivan emailed Clinton: “Still inching toward an Abyei deal.”

He also stated that State Department staff were asking that Clinton might call both Salva Kiir, South Sudan’s vice president at the time and a leader of the SPLA, and Nafie al Nafie, al-Bashir’s assistant.

As Clinton’s email traffic shows, at 5:51 p.m. on June 16, 2011 Sullivan forwarded Clinton an email from Matthew Spence, who then worked at the National Security Council. The email is redacted, but Sullivan added a note to Clinton telling her, “you’ll get tps this eve.” …

Other email traffic shows that Clinton was seeking the talking points just minutes before she was scheduled to talk to Salva Kiir.

“And kiir is now locked for 830 am,” one Clinton aide wrote.

At almost the same time, Bob Woodward told Fox News Sunday that Hillary’s living in a bubble. Clearly she wanted to “subvert the rules,” but the big question is whether the DoJ will allow Hillary to continue to live in that bubble. Woodward also explains that the “nonpaper” effort is itself a dodge around the rules (via John Fund):

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST:  Well, because here you have the secretary of state in 2011 saying let’s subvert the rules, which say you’ve got to send — presumably — I mean, it’s very clear from the earlier e-mails that this was a security issue, and I’ve written about nonpapers or no papers, and this is the way people in the government take the heading off and create something that exists.

WALLACE:  Explain that, explain that to the rest of the world here.  What’s a nonpaper and what is taking the heading off?

WOODWARD:  By taking it off, it’s just a piece of paper that has a bunch of paragraphs.  And there’s no classification, there’s no subject, so it’s not in the system, so no one can discover it through Freedom of Information Act or some sort of subpoena.

I mean, look, here is Hillary Clinton, somebody who worked on the staff of the Nixon impeachment committee, and what was the lesson, one of the lessons from that?  Never write anything down.

She did years of Whitewater investigations where she was the target, and here, many years later, she’s saying oh, let’s subvert the rules and writing it out herself?  You know, whether that’s some sort of crime I think is not the issue.  The issue is, it shows she kind of feels immune, that she lives in a bubble, and no one is ever going to find this out.  Well, now we have.

In other words, it’s a deception all the way down. Is it a crime? If Sullivan balked at doing this, then not in and of itself, but we don’t know whether he did or not — and neither does State. But it demonstrates that Hillary was well aware of the import of classified markings and had ordered her aides to defeat that system. That makes her “none of it was marked classified” excuse moot, and gives any prosecutor within six weeks of passing a bar exam plenty of evidence to pursue a case in federal court — especially when more than 1300 other examples of classified transmission and storage through unsecured means exist in the system Hillary forced everyone else to use.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Bush and Cheney probably did this all the time. She was doing this as a job requirement

NiteOwl on January 11, 2016 at 9:39 AM

It’s ok if we commit felonies as Democrats if we simply claim that some Republicans maybe did something bad too!

Can Republicans also do that?
After Ted Kennedy killed a woman; why would any Republican not simply decide that gives them free rein to drunken lechery and murder (or anything less than outright murder)?

Is your position you can’t criticize ANY Republicans for anything up to and including murdering a woman; or do you have different standards for Democrats than you do for Republicans?

If you can prove Bush/Cheney did this… I’ll attack them too.
This is a serious issue.
I don’t give a pass because other people are also committing serious crimes… why do you?

But feel free to decide murder is ok because Kennedy did it too.

gekkobear on January 11, 2016 at 11:37 AM

Only conservatives would seek to destroy our first female President!
.
NiteOwl on January 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM

.
As opposed to how Sarah Palin was treated?
.
Only a sorry-assed coward would leave a “hit ‘n’ run” comment, such as that.

listens2glenn on January 11, 2016 at 11:39 AM

The reason she had the personal server to begin with was to keep emails like these from ever seeing the light of day.

Once the server was discovered she had to give them “something”.

Apparently whoever was making the decisions over which harmless ones to turn over and which incriminating ones to “wipe”, wasn’t nearly as meticulous as they needed to be.

Oxymoron on January 11, 2016 at 11:42 AM

Why is this woman so protected? I simply don’t get it.
It it as simple as “She’s a democrat”? She’s on my side, so I just don’t care? I tell you, if she were a republican, I’d have called for her resignation long ago.
Lie, after lie after lie and people just love her. Why?

bbordwell on January 11, 2016 at 11:43 AM

… You would vote the Devil himself even after he told you who he was. …

oscarwilde on January 11, 2016 at 9:58 AM

Only if they were convinced the devil had a vagina.

Oxymoron on January 11, 2016 at 11:47 AM

Only conservatives would seek to destroy our first female President!
.
NiteOwl on January 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM

.
As opposed to how Sarah Palin was treated?
.
Only a sorry-assed coward would leave a “hit ‘n’ run” comment, such as that.

listens2glenn on January 11, 2016 at 11:39 AM

Yep.

VegasRick on January 11, 2016 at 11:48 AM

Clearly she wanted to “subvert the rules,” but the big question is whether the DoJ will allow Hillary to continue to live in that bubble. Woodward also explains that the “nonpaper” effort is itself a dodge around the rules….

Of course the DoJ will drag its heels in bringing action against Hillary Clinton, even such low level action as it might deem necessary just to ‘break the bubble’. The unfortunate fact is that the DoJ knew all along that she was operating illegally (not to mention dangerously insecurely) out of her private e-mail server, and it did nothing to bring it to her attention nor make an issue of it throughout her reign as Secretary of State.

As long as the ignorant public and MSM were enamored with her it was a non-issue. But as soon as she threw her hat in the ring for the highest office in our land, as well as throwing numerous people under the bus to cover up and deflect focus from her culpability, then the continuation of such dangerous activities for national security purposes was simply unacceptable.

And yet while the DoJ is trying to avoid its own culpability in this issue, to actually take action against Clinton could conceivably be perceived as waging a vendetta against someone who thumbed her nose at anyone in government who would dare tell her what she could and could not do.

This is a very tough dynamic to deal with, but I sure hope the DoJ takes action before the election, and thereby saving the voters an awful lot of time and money. Not to mention the honorable thing to do and laws to uphold.

UPNorthWolf on January 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM

Until she is indicted, we do not live in a Republic governed by laws.

Rusty Nail on January 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM

Lie, after lie after lie and people just love her. Why?

bbordwell on January 11, 2016 at 11:43 AM

In some cases I’d bet, it’s the fact that she keeps getting away with it that endears her to them.

Big love amongst criminals.

Oxymoron on January 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM

They are banking on duping reporters into believing “no markings = not classified.” I really don’t think this is going to work.

blink on January 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM

Is it really an effort to ‘dupe’ reporters, or just a matter of tossing something up so that the sympathetic reporters can just bless it as a ‘fact’ and move on to something else, like Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be President?

They’ve tried the ‘there was no intent to mishandle classified information’ – until they discovered that intent was immaterial.

Then there was the ‘no evidence’ excuse after Clinton and her staff spent months deliberately attempting to destroy any potential evidence.

That was also when we first started seeing the ‘none of the messages contained classified information’ – until some messages started coming out with classified information. That morphed to the ‘well, the State Department didn’t consider them to contain classified information’ to the ‘no markings = not classified’.

Four year olds with their faces and hands covered with cookie crumbs like better than this.

Athos on January 11, 2016 at 11:51 AM

Four year olds with their faces and hands covered with cookie crumbs lie better than this.

Athos on January 11, 2016 at 11:51 AM

*&*^%^&% autocorrect…

Athos on January 11, 2016 at 11:51 AM

O

nly conservatives would seek to destroy our first female President!
.
NiteOwl on January 11, 2016 at 9:48 AM

.
As opposed to how Sarah Palin was treated?
.
Only a sorry-assed coward would leave a “hit ‘n’ run” comment, such as that.

listens2glenn on January 11, 2016 at 11:39 AM

And don’t forget how they went after Condoleeza Rice!

DimsdalePiranha on January 11, 2016 at 11:52 AM

Hillary: By ordering “identifying headings” removed, I meant “don’t transmit classified info,” or something

Hillary’s greatest hits.

I suppose it’s technically true, if you read “don’t transmit classified info” as “don’t transmit the info that this document is classified.”

This little gem can join the classics like claiming to dodge sniper fire, “wipe, like with a cloth,” claiming to be named after Sir Edmund Hilary in spite of being born several years before he became famous, and so many more.

There Goes the Neighborhood on January 11, 2016 at 11:53 AM

Bush and Cheney probably did this all the time. She was doing this as a job requirement

NiteOwl on January 11, 2016 at 9:39 AM

“Probably”…of course no evidence, no suggestion besides “probably”…

And that is how you form you opinion, based on “probably”.

Which probably is a fantasy in you mind…of course it is because if you did not create that fantasy, you would have to admit she was wrong.

right2bright on January 11, 2016 at 11:55 AM

Hillary lives in a bubble…the problem is that bubble is on six inch thick Plexiglas, that so far nothing has been able to penetrate it…except maybe Huma…

right2bright on January 11, 2016 at 11:56 AM

” SNAP ” goes the truth!

(stretched beyond all scientifically possible limitations…)

Shirotayama on January 11, 2016 at 12:03 PM

Bush and Cheney probably did this all the time. She was doing this as a job requirement

NiteOwl on January 11, 2016 at 9:39 AM

You are probably a pedophile………

VegasRick on January 11, 2016 at 12:06 PM

The Clinton Crime foundation needs to be investigated for racketeering.

SpongePuppy on January 11, 2016 at 12:08 PM

UPNorthWolf on January 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM: “Of course the DoJ will drag its heels in bringing action against Hillary Clinton, even such low level action as it might deem necessary just to ‘break the bubble’. The unfortunate fact is that the DoJ knew all along that she was operating illegally (not to mention dangerously insecurely) out of her private e-mail server, and it did nothing to bring it to her attention nor make an issue of it throughout her reign as Secretary of State.”

Yep and whoever E-mailed her knew her E-mail address was not .gov. Thus all of them have violated federal laws including the President.

amr on January 11, 2016 at 12:09 PM

ROFLMBO.

Hilary channeling Bill Clinton…

“It depends on what the meaning of “classified” is”

lineholder on January 11, 2016 at 12:09 PM

There was no doubt that she was telling them to break the law. If she wanted an unclassified version of the talking points, then she would have asked for that like this.

“If they can’t, then send me an unclassified version in the meantime.”

blink on January 11, 2016 at 11:56 AM

It really is that simple.

Athos on January 11, 2016 at 12:19 PM

Lie, after lie after lie and people just love her. Why?

bbordwell on January 11, 2016 at 11:43 AM

Place the blame squarely on the American education indoctrination system. The system has been rigged to keep students from learning to reason with spectacular efficacy.

Those students who have not received training from their parents or the few teachers who refuse to succumb to the leftist doctrine are today’s conservatives. The rest are leaders in education, entertainment, law, and now the sciences. Non-reasoning feel gooders, reacting to perceived slights.

Neitherleftorright on January 11, 2016 at 12:22 PM

Bush and Cheney probably did this all the time. She was doing this as a job requirement

NiteOwl on January 11, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Why don’t you go check quick? All their documents are available and publicly accessible and not sitting on a personal server in a bathroom in Colorado.

Get back to us with your findings. Enquiring minds want to know.

Lily on January 11, 2016 at 12:23 PM

Bush and Cheney probably did this all the time. She was doing this as a job requirement

NiteOwl on January 11, 2016 at 9:39 AM

Probably, perhaps, maybe, might have, conceivably, possibly, perchance, imaginably… but mostly I feel like that was what could have happened.

Neitherleftorright on January 11, 2016 at 12:26 PM

“It depends on what the meaning of “classified” is”
lineholder on January 11, 2016 at 12:09 PM

And it’s not as if that’s a terribly difficult thing to find – and everyone with a government security clearance is required to get refresher training at least annually…..

A classification level must be assigned to information when that information is determined to be classified. A classification level indicates the relative importance of classified information to national security and thereby determines the specific security requirements applicable to that information. Clearly defined classification levels are essential to an effective classification system.1

The U.S. classification of information system has three classification levels — Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential — which are defined in EO 12356.2 Those levels are used both for NSI and atomic energy information (RD and FRD). Section 1.1(a) of EO 12356 states that:

(a) National Security Information (hereinafter “classified information”) shall be classified at one of the following three levels:(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.

Section 1.1(b) of EO 12356 states that “except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify classified information.”

And BTW, for those with no experience in this arena – the classification of the information is determined first, according to the definitions and the relevant Security Classification Guide – THAT then determines what markings are required to be applied, and how the information is to be protected.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2016 at 12:34 PM

Key language is “it was never sent”. The FBI is going to have to find evidence that it was actually transmitted, otherwise all we have are her orders which she can claim (falsely) was meant to only cut out the nonclassified information and send nonsecure.

ramesees on January 11, 2016 at 12:43 PM

Maybe a hit from Bengals VONTAZE BURFICT can shake truth loose

IXXINY on January 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM

Key language is “it was never sent”.
ramesees on January 11, 2016 at 12:43 PM

Not at all.
What system was that draft email typed on?
Was that a protected classified system?
If the computer containing the draft email was not appropriately protected, whether the email was ever sent is irrelevant – that system was contaminated with classified information – THAT constitutes a security violation and possible unauthorized disclosure.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2016 at 12:50 PM

Not at all.
What system was that draft email typed on?
Was that a protected classified system?
If the computer containing the draft email was not appropriately protected, whether the email was ever sent is irrelevant – that system was contaminated with classified information – THAT constitutes a security violation and possible unauthorized disclosure.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2016 at 12:50 PM

I’m not talking about the email – I’m talking about the fax she asked her aide to clip the “Classified” header from and send. That particular one would’ve been sent via nonsecure fax.

ramesees on January 11, 2016 at 1:02 PM

No Justice – no peace. Time for Republicans, Independents and honest Democrats to demand that Hillary step down as a candidate. There simply must be someone within the Democratic Party that is not beholden to the Clintons or scared of the Clinton machine.

HoosierStateofMind on January 11, 2016 at 1:10 PM

I’m not talking about the email – I’m talking about the fax she asked her aide to clip the “Classified” header from and send. That particular one would’ve been sent via nonsecure fax.

ramesees on January 11, 2016 at 1:02 PM

Were they sending a handwritten letter via fax?
What kind of document are we looking at then, and what system was it written on and/or printed from?
Where were they storing that piece of paper?
Security violations are not just about how something is transmitted.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2016 at 1:12 PM

As I posted on the other thread:
NSA definition of “spillage” – also known as a “security violation” – which would put any of us peons out of our job and likely in prison.

Loss of control over sensitive and protected data by organizations is a serious threat to business operations and national security. In recent years, attackers have exfiltrated over 20 terabytes of sensitive data from Department of Defense, defense industrial base, and civilian government organizations. Malicious attacks are alarming, but more often spillages occur from unintentional user error or negligence.
Data spillage is the transfer of classified or sensitive information to unaccredited or unauthorized systems, individuals, applications, or media. A spillage can be from a higher level classification to a lower one. The data itself may be residual (hidden) data or metadata. Spillage may result from improper handling of compartments, releasability controls, privacy data, or proprietary information.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2016 at 1:16 PM

She believes that Ambassador Stevens was just joking 600 times (including in urgent messages) about needing more security and how the situation in Libya was deteriorating. Her judgement seems flawed on things like this – telling someone to remove markings means just that not what she now claims it to mean.

evie1949 on January 11, 2016 at 1:19 PM

She is a pathological liar.It just keeps getting worse.Her contempt for the ability of the American people to discern the truth is disgusting.She and Bill truly do belong together.

redware on January 11, 2016 at 1:22 PM

Were they sending a handwritten letter via fax?
What kind of document are we looking at then, and what system was it written on and/or printed from?
Where were they storing that piece of paper?
Security violations are not just about how something is transmitted.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2016 at 1:12 PM

The document seems to be a Classified piece of paper ie non-electronic with some classified talking points on it. Clinton ordered her aide, Jacob Sullivan, to clip the “Classified” heading and fax the document to her via nonsecure fax. If the FBI can find proof that this was actually done, it’s smoking gun evidence of a felony.

Like I said in my original comment, the problem is that the FBI cannot provide evidence to the DoJ that this nonsecure fax with the classified talking points was ever sent, which Hillary alludes to by saying, “It was never sent.” This is Clintonian for “You can’t prove it was sent.”

Her lawyer, probably that scum Cheryl Mills, has told her that the DoJ must prove that Classified information was actually mishandled, and not just talking about mishandling. Unfortunately there’s no crime “Conspiracy to Mishandle Classified Information”.

ramesees on January 11, 2016 at 1:22 PM

ramesees on January 11, 2016 at 1:22 PM

Where did that piece of paper come from, who had access to it, and where/how were they storing it?
Again, electronic transmission is not the only issue when it comes to mishandling of classified information – i.e. security violation.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM

Where did that piece of paper come from, who had access to it, and where/how were they storing it?
Again, electronic transmission is not the only issue when it comes to mishandling of classified information – i.e. security violation.

dentarthurdent on January 11, 2016 at 1:26 PM

OK, let’s posit a likely/plausible scenario: Talking points generated by State Dept, stored at the State Dept, Jacob Sullivan had level access to this info.

In that case, the only crime is the mishandling of classified information, but only if classified information were actually mishandled, which can’t be proven. Classic Clintonian BS.

ramesees on January 11, 2016 at 1:30 PM

Also – please note that I’m on your side. The woman is a criminal and in a sane world she’d already be serving time.

I’m just noting how her statement to John Dickerson saying, “No. And it wasn’t sent.” is the key phrase because it’s classic “Depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is” Clintonian horsemess.

ramesees on January 11, 2016 at 1:36 PM

Big love amongst criminals.

Oxymoron on January 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM

And no honor among thieves.

leftamark on January 11, 2016 at 1:51 PM

So, Hillary, we seem to have a problem with your “tps” reports. Did you see the memo?

What a bunch of corrupt clowns.

goflyers on January 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM

She thinks she is so clever. By naming Mr. Sullivan in the interview, she takes a few moments to inform the audience that Mr. Sullivan is meticulous and on top of his game when it comes to discerning what is appropriate to send or not to send via unsecured fax. In other words, she is setting her defense of, “Hey, I’m a babe in the woods and was being led by someone who I believed to be an expert in secure information.” She will sell him out quicker than Bill Clinton ushers women out his hotel room.

stop2think on January 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM

Yes, and a confused bubble it is. Bob Woodward is spot on.

jake49 on January 11, 2016 at 2:24 PM

For clarification, the ruse here from HRC is a bit more subtle (though no less slippery) than represented in this continuing blog topic. What HRC said was to remove the “identifying heading” from the fax in question, not its classification marking. Does it make a difference? Not substantively but we should be accurate.

For example, let’s say the fax contained talking points that had, in the heading (i.e., “Subject” or “Re:”), the subject designation, “Bombing Moscow” and talking points in the body. Would removing the “identifying heading” so that it was a list of talking points without a heading have made the talking points any less classified?

I say no, it still counts, and the subject would be fairly clear from the list of TPs themselves in any event. But we might as well be clear: an identifying heading is not a classification stamp. The two have been confused now and then. If we’re hunting big game, we might as well be extra careful. Yes, the information was classified, regardless. But it’s not because of the subject line on the fax.

If the Chinese were reading her e-mails, they could put together the string of back-forth and figure out the subject, just as Ed has. She’s slick, no doubt. Might be time for Willie to share his nickname.

IndieDogg on January 11, 2016 at 2:27 PM

IndieDogg on January 11, 2016 at 2:27 PM

We don’t know what she meant at the time she said to “remove the identifying heading and send nonsecure”. And we certainly cannot believe anything she says about her intentions at this point.

She could have meant remove the “classified markings” – possibly, since if they were not classified there would be no compelling reason to send them by secure fax.

She could have meant the title of the talking points and left the “classification markings” – not probable, since they would be transmitting classified materials by nonsecure means (but what do they care, they stored over 1340 classified documents on an illegal, nonsecure server).

She could have meant removing both the classification and title and send nonsecure – probable, thinking if caught, she could deny that the talking points were classified and could just be random comments.

GAlpha10 on January 11, 2016 at 2:42 PM

IndieDogg on January 11, 2016 at 2:27 PM

My point is, I don’t think she is smart enough to know the difference between classification markings or identifying header. I think she was instructing Sullivan to remove anything that would make the document look classified and in need of being protected and send it anyway.

GAlpha10 on January 11, 2016 at 2:44 PM

She lives in a bubble?
Obligatory.

Galtian on January 11, 2016 at 3:11 PM

Hillary: By ordering “identifying headings” removed, I meant “don’t transmit classified info,” or something

hillary doing what the clintons to best… redefining their language for the easily manipulated useful idiots to understand.

To the rest of us, she is nothing more than an f’ing liar.

Voodoo Chile on January 11, 2016 at 4:41 PM

Sometime in the next few months the Official Whitewash will be released basically saying pretty much the following:


“oh yeah, we were so damn thorough we totes looked at everything its possible to look at you guys. Did HRC stretch a few rules? Yeah, but YOLO and any means necessary, right?

Will anything of legal consequence happen to her as a result? Absolutely not. Ready4Hillary is America’s Abuela, so stop asking us because we’re telling you she did nothing wrong enough to make a big fuss about.

And any further mentioning of it by you right wing whackos will be swiftly dealt within the Court of Elite Media Opinion.”

Sacramento on January 11, 2016 at 5:02 PM

Its nice to think that the FBI has integrity.. and its nice to think that justice will come. The amount of money involved is staggering
and that’s keeping Justice at bay. It always boils down to the money.
even for the trolls.. most likely on gov payroll one way or another have
nothing better to do besides defend the status quo and run commenters
in circular arguments. Its tiresome.

time for some change … keep the hope, lets just get it done.

MrMoe on January 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM

They are banking on duping reporters into believing “no markings = not classified.” I really don’t think this is going to work.

She’s not duping them, she’s sending in the next play.

Ray Van Dune on January 11, 2016 at 8:05 PM

It’s not that she lives in a bubble. It’s that she’s an arrogant and deceitful hag.

S. D. on January 11, 2016 at 8:16 PM

They are banking on duping reporters into believing “no markings = not classified.” I really don’t think this is going to work.

blink on January 11, 2016 at 11:41 AM

Is it really an effort to ‘dupe’ reporters, or just a matter of tossing something up so that the sympathetic reporters can just bless it as a ‘fact’ and move on to something else, like Ted Cruz’s eligibility to be President?

They’ve tried the ‘there was no intent to mishandle classified information’ – until they discovered that intent was immaterial.

Then there was the ‘no evidence’ excuse after Clinton and her staff spent months deliberately attempting to destroy any potential evidence.

That was also when we first started seeing the ‘none of the messages contained classified information’ – until some messages started coming out with classified information. That morphed to the ‘well, the State Department didn’t consider them to contain classified information’ to the ‘no markings = not classified’.

Four year olds with their faces and hands covered with cookie crumbs lie better than this.

Athos on January 11, 2016 at 11:51 AM

Shorter version:

She’s not duping them, she’s sending in the next play.

Ray Van Dune on January 11, 2016 at 8:05 PM

AesopFan on January 12, 2016 at 1:10 AM

There was no doubt that she was telling them to break the law. If she wanted an unclassified version of the talking points, then she would have asked for that like this.

“If they can’t, then send me an unclassified version in the meantime.”

blink on January 11, 2016 at 11:56 AM

It really is that simple.

Athos on January 11, 2016 at 12:19 PM

Mic drop.

AesopFan on January 12, 2016 at 1:11 AM

Is it really an effort to ‘dupe’ reporters, or just a matter of tossing something up so that the sympathetic reporters can just bless it as a ‘fact’ and move on to something else…

Athos on January 11, 2016 at 11:51 AM

Yes, it’s both. Half the MSM will believe her. The other half will simply be happy that they have a lie that they can repeat and pretend that it answers everything. They started this under Bill Clinton in the early 90s. After terrible information was revealed, his people would issue some type of response. It didn’t matter how stupid or preposterous the response was, the reporters would dutifully report that the matter was closed.

The only time this didn’t work was when Hillary was running against Obama in 2008. I still remember the look in Bill Clinton’s eyes as he realized that the media was treating him like a republican in order to get their savior elected.

blink on January 11, 2016 at 12:03 PM

I didn’t see that precise moment, but their rage against the media and Obama was Shakespearean in its palpability.

AesopFan on January 12, 2016 at 1:13 AM

Probably. Lol. I see we have an even dimmer troll.

CWforFreedom on January 12, 2016 at 6:18 PM

I am shocked that I didn’t see more of this. I’ve been traveling again, and thought I’d catch up… the TV is on, it hinted that something Hillary said was a big deal… it took me a while to find it!!!

This is so huge. This should be front page everywhere, and if it was any Republican… even a minor one… it would be front page news for a week.

Hillary is not worthy to be President.

petunia on January 12, 2016 at 8:57 PM

Cleombrotus on January 11, 2016 at 10:23 AM

Pretty good catch. (both you and me) :-)

NiteOwl on January 13, 2016 at 6:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 2