Video: Hillary Clinton is finally confronted with her classified data non-disclosure agreement

posted at 3:31 pm on January 31, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

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: “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.

NonDislcose1
NonDislcose2

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.”

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.

ClintonNonDisclose


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

It’s good to be Bill.

trigon on January 31, 2016 at 3:49 PM

Interesting theories – makes for a great movie.
May even be true.

AesopFan on January 31, 2016 at 8:33 PM

Shel’s a lying P.O.S.

stenwin77 on January 31, 2016 at 8:35 PM

Gee, in all your snappy (but stupid) reparte’ Everdiso, I have yet to see you answer any of the scoldings Del Dolomente has handed you or this:

GAlpha10 on January 31, 2016 at 8:12 PM

Now why is that, I wonder?

ghostwalker1 on January 31, 2016 at 8:40 PM

As anyone can plainly see, she dated the nondisclosure 22-01-2009 when the format called for mm-dd-yyyy. Since there is not 22nd month in the year 2009 the agreement never went into effect and thus there’s nothing to see here.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NonDislcose2.jpg

SoRight on January 31, 2016 at 8:59 PM

Maybe we need a constitutional amendment to allow the Attorney General to be directly elected and not answerable to the executive branch. That may be the only way we can get someone who will prosecute a member of the government.

KW64 on January 31, 2016 at 6:53 PM

Maybe just require that the AG pick has to come from a party other than the president’s.

wifarmboy on January 31, 2016 at 9:01 PM

Can someone give me a good reason why our Republican leadership, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell haven’t threatened to bring Obama’s administration to a screeching halt unless and until he assigns an Independent Prosecutor?

If it was the right decision when George Bush had mishandled classified information in his administration, why isn’t it the right move for Obama?

Atlantian on January 31, 2016 at 9:06 PM

It’s all according to what the meaning of is….is. So at this point what difference does it make?
Now if all the pundits will stop conceding defeat and saying DOJ won’t indict, dammit if they don’t indict there will be riots in the streets. How in the hell can we send anybody in the US to jail for years for much less and Hillary goes free w/o even an indictment for selling us out on national security is outrageous!

Herb on January 31, 2016 at 9:10 PM

Hillary Clinton is lying and she’ll get away with it because the Obama Administration is going to let her. The truth be known, she probably had permission from Obama to do this and he knows, if his justice department prosecutes her, it will all come out.

bflat879 on January 31, 2016 at 9:22 PM

The agency producing the material determines the classification level, and does that via its classification authority. Each piece of classified material must clearly state a declassification date and the classification authority.

Nobody gets to declassify data without the approval of the original classification authority.

So, if Hillary is citing an interagency dispute, she’s clearly claiming that the other agency’s classification authority is suspect, and she was under no obligation to honor same.

unclesmrgol on January 31, 2016 at 9:44 PM

As anyone can plainly see, she dated the nondisclosure 22-01-2009 when the format called for mm-dd-yyyy. Since there is not 22nd month in the year 2009 the agreement never went into effect and thus there’s nothing to see here.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NonDislcose2.jpg

SoRight on January 31, 2016 at 8:59 PM

Heh. And, clearly, Hillary got a gold star on her report card regarding “follows instructions properly”.

unclesmrgol on January 31, 2016 at 9:46 PM

If the DOJ refuses to indict, can the FBI state that even if Hillary is elected President, they will not be able to allow her access to classified informatio as she cannot qualify for a security clearance based on past actions?

talkingpoints on January 31, 2016 at 9:57 PM

Hillary’s target audience is not nearly as perceptive as Shaw. These are mostly Watters World people who won’t catch the gross inconsistencies, vague fabrications and deflections that Hillary is so well self-trained in spewing out. She knows this is fuzzy sentence performance time on top of her standard tactic of deny, deny, deny.

At least when Obama lied (a lot) they were clearly seen as lies by most even if he got by with them. As president Hillary, her mountain of lies will look like convoluted fuzzy-speak requiring some analysis. God spare us!

Chessplayer on January 31, 2016 at 10:06 PM

Gee, in all your snappy (but stupid) reparte’ Everdiso, I have yet to see you answer any of the scoldings Del Dolomente has handed you or this:

GAlpha10 on January 31, 2016 at 8:12 PM

Now why is that, I wonder?

ghostwalker1 on January 31, 2016 at 8:40 PM

Because he and Dikloc got shit for brains?

arnold ziffel on January 31, 2016 at 10:17 PM

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.

/in my closest everditzco impression

… but, but there is no proof so you can’t prove she did anything wrong and because she didn’t do anything wrong there is no proof, or something…

Voodoo Chile on January 31, 2016 at 10:29 PM

Politically, this could be the final nail for this generation of Democrats. Between Clinton and Obama, they have wiped out entire generation of Democratic politicians at the state level. Most up and coming Dem politicians are in their 50’s, and are mostly from eastern and Midwestern big cities. The bulk of state legislators are controlled by the GOP, who Representatives are in their mid to late 30’s. It’s a numbers game, and the GOP wins hands down. With this political reality staring him in the face, it’s no wonder Obama has resorted to executive orders. Combine that with the on going national security investigation over Clinton, and Obama has no room for maneuver. With that, there is no reason for McConnell or Ryan to push, since there are committees already doing the work. From a D.C. point of view, the national Democratic is hanging themselves. So why get in the way, when they are doing an slam bang job. But no matter who wins the up coming presidential election, the Clinton case will be a cancer, until it is cut out and destroyed once and for all.

flackcatcher on January 31, 2016 at 10:41 PM

As anyone can plainly see, she dated the nondisclosure 22-01-2009 when the format called for mm-dd-yyyy. Since there is not 22nd month in the year 2009 the agreement never went into effect and thus there’s nothing to see here.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/NonDislcose2.jpg

SoRight on January 31, 2016 at 8:59 PM

In that case, she’s illegally gained access to ever piece of classified information she’s reviewed as Sec/State.

Kevin71 on January 31, 2016 at 10:59 PM

Slick Hill and Will. So slick.

Sherman1864 on January 31, 2016 at 11:06 PM

Watching a Sunday night “Seinfeld” rerun featuring Kenny Bania. He just said to Jerry: “You’re relying on partisan sources!”.

Non-Partisan Source ABC Touts Hillary Dismissing E-Mail Scandal; Non-Partisan Source NBC Promotes ‘Exclusive Look’ at Hillary App

ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News aired late Sunday on the East and Central time zones on the eve of the Iowa caucuses (with golf on CBS) and, in their previews of the Democratic race, ABC parroted Hillary Clinton’s dismissal of e-mail scandal as a partisan hit job while NBC touted an “exclusive look” at a smartphone app that will be utilized by the Clinton campaign.

After ABC News chief anchor and former Clinton Foundation official (Del sez: actually, “former $75,000 donor”) George Stephanopoulos allowed Clinton on This Week to shamefully compare the e-mail scandal to the deadly terror attack in Benghazi, correspondent Cecilia Vega promoted Clinton as having “hint[ed]” that “it’s a dirty trick” by her opponents.

Dr. Goebbels is looking up and smiling.

(Raises clenched fist in salute)

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2016 at 11:38 PM

Can someone give me a good reason why our Republican leadership, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell haven’t threatened to bring Obama’s administration to a screeching halt unless and until he assigns an Independent Prosecutor?

If it was the right decision when George Bush had mishandled classified information in his administration, why isn’t it the right move for Obama?

Atlantian on January 31, 2016 at 9:06 PM

because they are lying to you. they have no cause to threaten, demand – heck not even to ask nicely – anything of the sort.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 12:09 AM

An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge

Christien on February 1, 2016 at 2:57 AM

This was staged. Stephanopoulos is on the payroll

NYCMike on February 1, 2016 at 4:01 AM

The filthy lies this vile woman spews from her mouth
Makes what her husbands victims spewed look like wholesome goodness..

BigSven on February 1, 2016 at 4:28 AM

This is Hill.

Hill signed an agreement not to mishandle classified information.

Hill put classified information on a homemade server and let the Russians, Iranians, and Chinese see it.

Don’t be like Hill.

Wino on February 1, 2016 at 5:25 AM

Gee, George is either; a) signaling that she’s going down, or b) signaling that in spite of his years of deceit for the left, he’s a real objective journalist, who needs to stay credibly alive in order to help sway the national election, should Hillary skate free. Either way, it’s a pure political decision on his part and hardly a moment of principled dialogue. Water and oil can’t mix that easily.

Don L on February 1, 2016 at 7:02 AM

Gee, in all your snappy (but stupid) reparte’ Everdiso, I have yet to see you answer any of the scoldings Del Dolomente has handed you or this:

GAlpha10 on January 31, 2016 at 8:12 PM

Now why is that, I wonder?

ghostwalker1 on January 31, 2016 at 8:40 PM

lester couldn’t answer my posts, because he knew I had him nailed dead to rights. lester gives Democrat Stupidity a bad name.

What I forgot to remind lester about “proving claims” is that in fact, lester made the first claim by claiming that the other poster was “incorrect”. When said other poster challenged lester to prove his (first, remember) claim, lester refused to do so, because he knew he couldn’t. Then in true Clintonian fashion, he claimed that the burden of proof wasn’t on him for making the very first claim.

Chelsea must be giving him lessons down in the basement…

Del Dolemonte on February 1, 2016 at 7:25 AM

I don’t understand why we can’t see the emails. The Russians and the Chinese (and who knows how many other “allies”) already have. They’re not secrets anymore, just dirty laundry.

hal_mccombs on February 1, 2016 at 7:34 AM

Well, Hillary, if we don’t put a number on your striped suit you won’t be a convicted felon, okay?

jbspry on February 1, 2016 at 8:32 AM

because they are lying to you. they have no cause to threaten, demand – heck not even to ask nicely – anything of the sort.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 12:09 AM

C’mon. Even a rabid lefty like you has to realize that what she did was wrong. This isn’t rocket science. Don’t you have any morals or integrity, or is it really all “do whatever it takes for the party”?

Monkeytoe on February 1, 2016 at 8:33 AM

Blue 2016

That Dog Don’t Hunt

GrumpyOldFart on February 1, 2016 at 8:36 AM

democrats are lying traitors and baby killers…
Their platform is from the pit of hell..
Repeat a lie often enough, it becomes their truth…
Whether they realize it or not, the father of all lies is leading them and there will be hell to pay…..

crosshugger on February 1, 2016 at 8:41 AM

Certain personality traits where pathological lying may occur include:

Narcissism or self-centered behaviors and thought patterns
Selfishness
Abusive attitude
Obsessive, controlling, and compulsive behaviors
Impulsivity
Aggressiveness
Jealous behavior
Manipulative behaviors
Deceptiveness
Socially awkward, uncomfortable, or isolated
Low self-esteem
Tempermentalness
Anger

The only trait she does not exhibit is “Low Self-Esteem”.

Cherokee on February 1, 2016 at 8:58 AM

I wonder if any enterprising journalist (I know, we’re talking about Hillary, so other than Catherine Herridge and Sharyl Attkisson, they don’t exist) has looked into whether HRC actually had the appropriate clearance to view any of the classified information stored on her illegal, unsecure, private email server(s)?

Why? If you remember back to 1996 when Gary Aldrich (former FBI agent and the individual responsible for conducting background investigations for White House staff and other senior government officials) wrote “Unlimited Access”, he did a hypothetical security clearance determination on Bill and Hillary Clinton. Based on their background (all of which was public knowledge), he determined that both of them were security risks and should not be granted a security clearance.

Now we know that the POTUS automatically has the highest clearance and the “need to know”, but as a Senator, would HRC automatically be granted a clearance considering the adverse information we all know about her? Any of the scandals swirling around HRC from the past would be cause to deny her a security clearance: Watergate (firing for unethical behavior), Whitewater (where 15 associates of the Clinton’s were convicted of 40 crimes), Filegate, Travelgate, Vince Foster’s suspicious death, Cattle Futures windfall (where the broker was suspended and fined $250,000), etc. Add to that her habitual lying (named after Sir Edmund Hillary, rejected by the Marines, dodging sniper fire, grandparents were all immigrants – when 3 of the 4 were born in the US), and she continued to be a security risk. Knowing what we know now about her illegal, unsecure, private email service, our worse fears have come to fruition.

On top of all this, her appointment as SoS would mean that she would need to have access to SAP and other highly classified information. Individuals with access to SAP information are required to undergo a polygraph examination. Was one ever conducted on HRC? If so, by whom? What were the results? I cannot believe she could pass a polygraph. She not as accomplished a liar as her husband, although she certainly is trying to match his expertise in lying.

If she was actually granted a Top Secret clearance, who granted the clearance? Where they pressured into granting the clearance knowing all we know about her past and that the man responsible for conducting background investigations for the FBI deemed her to be a security risk and should not be granted an clearance? Enquiring minds want to know.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 9:04 AM

She’s writing the campaign commercials herself. The voice overs, print and videos or her own statements will be the coup de grace. And that’s before we get to the family’s of our countrymen killed in Benghazi. Oh yes, and the Clinton Foundations practice of selling her office for millions in cash.

She has to be the most corrupt, dishonest, unlikable person ever to run for office.

Marcus Traianus on February 1, 2016 at 9:06 AM

‘Toon of the Day: Speaking Of A Lack Of Diversity

Lime in the Coconut on February 1, 2016 at 9:09 AM

I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Tlaloc on January 31, 2016 at 4:22 PM

Wherein Tlaloc tells a blatant lie about how he approaches this or any conversation with someone with whom he disagrees.

how do you think it services the conservative cause to continually build up baseless stories only to have them blow up in your faces, over and over and over again?

everdiso on January 31, 2016 at 5:07 PM

Wherein everdiso suddenly reveals his deep and abiding concern for the advancement of the conservative cause.

The Schaef on February 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM

As anyone can plainly see, she dated the nondisclosure 22-01-2009 when the format called for mm-dd-yyyy. Since there is not 22nd month in the year 2009 the agreement never went into effect and thus there’s nothing to see here.

SoRight on January 31, 2016 at 8:59 PM

In Clintonworld, this is called “plausible deniability.”

But if YOU try this, they hang you by your heels in a jail cell and throw away the key!

landlines on February 1, 2016 at 9:51 AM

Fiver says Huma’s goin’ down.

Christien on January 31, 2016 at 5:38 PM

Nah, that’s already happened.

JimK on January 31, 2016 at 5:42 PM

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Nutstuyu on February 1, 2016 at 10:39 AM

I LOVE the fact that the trolls are desperately clinging to the claim that the information wasn’t classified at the time.

I LOVE the fact that the trolls are desperately trying to claim that information in over a thousand emails MAGICALLY became classified AFTER the emails were sent.

Ha ha. Good luck with that, Trolls.

blink on February 1, 2016 at 10:26 AM

yep, desperately pointing out the relevant facts. desperately.

1. no rules were broken.
2. no classified information was sent, so not even the spirit of the rules were broken.
3. the .gov email which you guys say she should have been using is not even a classified system, and apprently less secure than her own system, so not even negligence can be argued.

cold, hard, desperate, facts.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM

Wherein everdiso suddenly reveals his deep and abiding concern for the advancement of the conservative cause.

The Schaef on February 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM

I have no problem with real conservative policy arguments, and wish america could have honest policy discussions and compromises.

But instead, for the last generation, conservatism has decided to build their house on Bullpoop Mountain, in lieu of actual good policy. This is just another in an endless line of examples.

And now everyone is shocked that the house built on BS cannot stand.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 10:54 AM

Fiver says Huma’s goin’ down.

Christien on January 31, 2016 at 5:38 PM

I see what you did there.

partsnlabor on February 1, 2016 at 10:55 AM

All this talk about Hillary’s emails from the State Department release containing classified information ignores the fact that the FBI have the original server and probably have restored all those deleted emails. I am going to bet they are not about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding. I will also bet that they will be the biggest issue in this scandal.

ObamatheMessiah on February 1, 2016 at 11:05 AM

Any of the scandals swirling around HRC from the past would be cause to deny her a security clearance: Watergate (firing for unethical behavior) …

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 9:04 AM

Actually she wasn’t fired. That story has been debunked.

sauropod on February 1, 2016 at 11:12 AM

If she was actually granted a Top Secret clearance, who granted the clearance? Where they pressured into granting the clearance knowing all we know about her past and that the man responsible for conducting background investigations for the FBI deemed her to be a security risk and should not be granted an clearance? Enquiring minds want to know.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 9:04 AM

Great posts! I also wonder if her clearance has now been revoked, and if it has, whether she or other public officials would be aware of it. At the very least, an ongoing security risk should not be a candidate.

If we remember, it was Stephanopoulos who used to marvel at the Clinton’s ability to “compartmentalize”, but this was a two part procedure: first, the Clinton makes a clearly false statement, next, the media closes the issue and moves on. Compartmentalization required media complicity.

virgo on February 1, 2016 at 11:15 AM

yep, desperately pointing out the relevant facts. desperately.

1. no rules were broken.
2. no classified information was sent, so not even the spirit of the rules were broken.
3. the .gov email which you guys say she should have been using is not even a classified system, and apprently less secure than her own system, so not even negligence can be argued.

cold, hard, desperate, facts.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM

WRONG

1. Executive Orders, State Department regulations, and the Federal Records Act all stipulate that ALL official government business be conducted on official government computer systems. A home-grown, illegal, unsecure, private email service is not in compliance with the above requirements, regardless if HRC says it was authorized. Who authorized it? She had no authority to authorize the establishment of a non-government email system for her own use. So, if it was “authorized”, it would have to have been authorized by POTUS. If so, provide the documentation that BHO authorized her to setup an illegal, unsecure, private email system.

2. Visit the official State Department FOIA web site and you can see the 1,340 (and counting) emails/documents that have classified information that were found on her illegal, unsecure, private email server(s). These emails/documents were determined to have classified information by either the State Department or by the originating government agency. So you statement is categorically untrue (a lie). Neither HRC or the State Department has the authority to downgrade the level of classification, not can they claim they are not classified because they are not marked with the classification level. Anyone who has worked with classified information knows that the information remains classified even if the classification heading is illegally removed. So, yes, classification was sent to and from HRC’s illegal, unsecure, private email system. You are WRONG.

3. Correct. She should have been using a .gov email system. Even if she was using a government email account, she would be breaking the law had she sent classified information over a non-secure email system. Apparently you have knowledge of how government email systems work. I use a DoD email system. Each and every email I send is automatically given a [UNCLASSIFIED] heading, because it is a unclassified system. Even if I attempt to send information that has PII (Personally Identifiable Information – which is not classified), the system detects that there is PII in the text and will not send the email unless I encrypt the message. Even then, it is still sent unclassified. The only way she could legally send or receive classified information is by using SIPRNET or JWICS, and then only in a SCIF. As for the security of the non-secure government networks, yes, there have been security breaches and hacks. But there are many more levels of security above what she had on her servers, which was minimal. Plus, the government employs hundreds of IT technicians who are constantly monitoring the networks and stopping cyber attacks.

The bottom line is that she was not authorized to setup an illegal, unsecure, private email service. She violated several federal laws (all felonies) by using that service to send and receive emails with classified information. No matter how many times you claim she did nothing wrong, and no matter how you attempt to deny and twist the facts, the fact remains that what she did was highly illegal.

Next time, try commenting on things you know about. You know, like navel gazing or thumb-twiddling.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 11:25 AM

Actually she wasn’t fired. That story has been debunked.

sauropod on February 1, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Ok, so she wasn’t asked to continue on the Watergate investigative staff. In layman’s terms, she was fired.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 11:28 AM

I have no problem with real conservative policy arguments, and wish america could have honest policy discussions and compromises.

Yeah, we’ve seen your history of embracing conservative policy arguments.

This is just another in an endless line of examples.

everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 10:54 AM

Yes, what a bizarre idea, that people should treat classified information with the utmost care, and not be cavalier about information that could get other people killed.

The Schaef on February 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM

All this talk about Hillary’s emails from the State Department release containing classified information ignores the fact that the FBI have the original server and probably have restored all those deleted emails. I am going to bet they are not about yoga and Chelsea’s wedding. I will also bet that they will be the biggest issue in this scandal.

ObamatheMessiah on February 1, 2016 at 11:05 AM

Correct. Everything that has been released so far is due to the FIOA lawsuit by Judicial Watch and others. The FBI has those and everything they have been able to retrieve from the server(s). Their exhibits for the criminal referral to the DOJ is numbering in the thousands.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 11:35 AM

blink on February 1, 2016 at 11:18 AM

The old switcheroo. Deflect. Deny.

Actually, anything that HRC sent to a foreign leader or diplomat is automatically classified. I haven’t gone through the 25,000 plus emails to see how many she generated that were classified.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 11:38 AM

Love the trolls – their shift must have started.

The question is how this ends – Hillary is a bad politician and won’t be elected president. Now this is more than she can handle.

I don’t expect much more than Petreaus for her, if even that. Former first lady, dem candidate for president. She clearly has violated the law – she has admitted it while standing firmed on they weren’t marked. SO please trolls just drop it. What is publicly known by her own admission violates the law.

Now how bad and how much is still being investigated.

I do wonder a few things. The tie in to the foundation and her policies at State continue to intrigue me. What if, besides the obvious security violations her privately almost certainly hacked server created, what if it has evidence to show bribery.

What if it had the evidence to connect all the suspicions about the foundation, the State Dept, and foreign nations. What if it could prove she was on the take. We know she has a history of money popping up mysteriously.

Again, I expect little if any legal action. She has already shown she has no shame, so I don’t expect her to drop out unless someone from the dem party pays her a visit – much like the GOP did with Nixon. I do wonder if at some point they decide to have a late entrant to the dance – Biden or Warren.

Fun theater.

Zomcon JEM on February 1, 2016 at 11:54 AM

Not forthright and obtuse in her answers. Get this woman on trial.

jake49 on February 1, 2016 at 11:58 AM

Oh, and as much as I have sympathy for the trolls and their comment on conservative policy – and the obvious suggestion the GOP is the stupid party, which is at least one claim of theirs I agree with – the fact that the dems are essentially holed up in the large blue urban centers and not much else should demonstrate that one side is trending and it isn’t the dems. Now unlike my leftist counterparts, I have no expectation that it cannot swing back, that the left is doomed and the dem party is going to die. But they have managed to really wipe out their back bench.

I think the internet allows more people to see the stupidity of the govt on a more regular basis. That isn’t good long term for the party of big govt.

Zomcon JEM on February 1, 2016 at 12:01 PM

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.

Is that a bus engine I hear? Rev it up, Hills, and under goes whichever lackey served as mule to get the info out of the classified system for you.

evergreen on February 1, 2016 at 12:04 PM

Zomcon JEM on February 1, 2016 at 11:54 AM

In a sane world, she would have dropped out for “health reasons” as soon as the illegal, unsecure, private email system was disclosed.

Yes, in affect, she has admitted to thousands of violations of federal law. In a sane world, had she dropped out, a deal would have been reached where she pleads guilty to a lesser offense, pays a fine, gets probation, and fades from public view. I could live with that.

The problem is that the Dems have a very short bench. Sanders? An avowed Socialist who wants to raise everyone’s taxes, give everyone everything for “free” and add ten’s of trillions to the National Debt. Crazy Joe? He’s a walking gaffe machine. Warren? A populist that millions of mindless Dems would vote for, but a Senator with absolutely no accomplishments (I know, neither did BHO, but he got elected because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character). O’Malley? A former governor that toes the liberal line, but the media doesn’t love him, so he gets no traction.

Bottom line, the Dems are sticking with a lousy politician, with tons of baggage, with a pending referral for prosecution for thousands of felony violations, and no charisma. Good times.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM

Crap. Hit the wrong tag. I rally didn’t mean to strike everything.

Zomcon JEM on February 1, 2016 at 11:54 AM

In a sane world, she would have dropped out for “health reasons” as soon as the illegal, unsecure, private email system was disclosed.

Yes, in affect, she has admitted to thousands of violations of federal law. In a sane world, had she dropped out, a deal would have been reached where she pleads guilty to a lesser offense, pays a fine, gets probation, and fades from public view. I could live with that.

The problem is that the Dems have a very short bench. Sanders? An avowed Socialist who wants to raise everyone’s taxes, give everyone everything for “free” and add ten’s of trillions to the National Debt. Crazy Joe? He’s a walking gaffe machine. Warren? A populist that millions of mindless Dems would vote for, but a Senator with absolutely no accomplishments (I know, neither did BHO, but he got elected because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character). O’Malley? A former governor that toes the liberal line, but the media doesn’t love him, so he gets no traction.

Bottom line, the Dems are sticking with a lousy politician, with tons of baggage, with a pending referral for prosecution for thousands of felony violations, and no charisma. Good times.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 12:11 PM

The problem is that the Dems have a very short bench. Sanders? An avowed Socialist who wants to raise everyone’s taxes, give everyone everything for “free” and add ten’s of trillions to the National Debt. Crazy Joe? He’s a walking gaffe machine. Warren? A populist that millions of mindless Dems would vote for, but a Senator with absolutely no accomplishments (I know, neither did BHO, but he got elected because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character). O’Malley? A former governor that toes the liberal line, but the media doesn’t love him, so he gets no traction.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 12:11 PM

I think if there was anyone in the primary that might give me heartburn in the general, it was Jim Webb: a combat veteran and Reagan cabinet member who made headlines a decade ago for giving W the business about bringing home his son from Iraq. But there’s no room in the New Left for Reagan Democrats so he’s long gone and we’re stuck between the woman who tried to do O-care 20 years ago and the man who wants to put everyone on Medicare.

The Schaef on February 1, 2016 at 12:27 PM

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.

Ummm, maybe because she knows that if she says anything about the contents she has an even higher chance of going to jail? (Because then it will be classified coming from her own mouth.)

GWB on February 1, 2016 at 1:04 PM

Clinton’s sticking with “the markings” defense is clearly designed to confuse easily confused Democrats, and allow them to believe it’s a plausible excuse.

Any sentient Democrat, however, has to know this is straight-up dishonesty. You have foreknowledge that your preferred candidate is corrupt (the quid pro quos with State Department business and The Clinton Foundation — which I suspect is the ENTIRE reason for the home-brewed server) and dishonest … and you’ll vote for her anyway?

FishingwFredo on February 1, 2016 at 1:19 PM

I think if there was anyone in the primary that might give me heartburn in the general, it was Jim Webb: a combat veteran and Reagan cabinet member who made headlines a decade ago for giving W the business about bringing home his son from Iraq. But there’s no room in the New Left for Reagan Democrats so he’s long gone and we’re stuck between the woman who tried to do O-care 20 years ago and the man who wants to put everyone on Medicare.

The Schaef on February 1, 2016 at 12:27 PM

Agreed. There are some Dems who would be worthy political opponents, but most of them are not liberal enough for the party leaders.

GAlpha10 on February 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM

Wow! I have to say that after reading those statements from Clinton I can see no basis whatsoever for people saying she is untrustworthy! How more forthright, clear, and unarguably honest can the woman be about her diligent care to protect classified information? (/sarcasm in extremis)

s1im on February 1, 2016 at 1:35 PM

yep, desperately pointing out the relevant facts. desperately.
1. no rules were broken.
2. no classified information was sent, so not even the spirit of the rules were broken.
3. the .gov email which you guys say she should have been using is not even a classified system, and apprently less secure than her own system, so not even negligence can be argued.
cold, hard, desperate, facts.
everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM

1. Incorrect
2. Incorrect
3. Cite your sources.

Skywise on February 1, 2016 at 2:26 PM

No one should be surprised if Clinton’s eventual defense includes the argument that her signature is meaningless because she entered “22-01-2009” in the field marked “DATE (mm-dd-yyyy).”

Colony14 on February 1, 2016 at 4:01 PM

yep, desperately pointing out the relevant facts. desperately.
1. no rules were broken.
2. no classified information was sent, so not even the spirit of the rules were broken.
3. the .gov email which you guys say she should have been using is not even a classified system, and apprently less secure than her own system, so not even negligence can be argued.
cold, hard, desperate, facts.
everdiso on February 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM

1. True, no rules were broken, however federal law was.

2. True again, rules were not broken, however federal law was.

3. Utter bollocks, the state.gov is more secure and more tigtly controlled than HillOL ever was with a server sitting is a freeking bathroom.

F X Muldoon on February 1, 2016 at 4:20 PM

obma and the state department were involved in illegally running guns and illegally assisting the muslim brotherhood, using Libya as their staging area. This is why they panicked and forbid any help to those trapped in the annex, and why they have worked so hard to cover it up. You think the petty prevaricator is going to let this information come out?

maryo on February 1, 2016 at 5:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3