Archive for the ‘Clinton lies’ category

Newt Gingrich Full Explosive Interview with Martha Raddatz (10/16/2016)

October 16, 2016

Newt Gingrich Full Explosive Interview with Martha Raddatz (10/16/2016) via YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Hdv6s8A-Y

Clinton Speech Wikileaks: Libya’s Institutions ‘Destroyed’, Benghazi ‘My Biggest Regret’

October 12, 2016

Clinton Speech Wikileaks: Libya’s Institutions ‘Destroyed’, Benghazi ‘My Biggest Regret.’, Breitbart, John Hayward, October 11, 2016

hillary-123-81b42706-dbbc-424a-b26b-6e716a6c2503-640x480

During those vital days of Obama’s re-election campaign, Clinton and Obama pretended Benghazi was a bolt from the blue, a stunning “video protest.” She blamed the man who created the video, not these militia groups and terrorist gangs she now claims to be a keen student of. There’s no way to honestly square what Clinton said in these speeches with the Obama Administration’s conduct in September and October 2012.

Clinton’s speeches in 2013 and 2014 are further evidence, if any were needed, that she and President Obama lied to the American people, and to the Benghazi families, about the attack. They were disastrously wrong about Libya, from the minute Clinton talked Obama into toppling Qaddafi.

*********************************

The WikiLeaks dump of those very expensive speeches Hillary Clinton fought to keep secret from the public for so long include some remarkable comments on Libya and Benghazi.

These comments offer a damning indictment of Clinton’s leadership, because it is clear that she and Barack Obama were completely wrong about what would happen to Libya after they toppled dictator Moammar Qaddafi.

For example, she told the Boston Consulting Group in 2013:

So what happened? Well, Khadafy is gone. They start to organize. They had one of the best elections that any of these new countries had. They did not elect extremists. They had a very good outcome of people representing the various factions, but they didn’t – they don’t have a military. They can’t provide security as we found much to, you know, our terrible experience in Benghazi, but we see it all over the country. So the jury is out but it is not for lack of trying by the people who have inherited the positions of responsibility.

The jury wasn’t “out” then, and it is not out today. Clinton and Obama caused a horrific global crisis with their Libyan adventure, and they were completely unprepared for what happened in Benghazi. It’s clear from Clinton’s remarks that she completely misunderstood the security situation.

In the same speech, she explained that now she understands how thoroughly Libya’s “institutions” were “destroyed” by Qaddafi’s rule, and violent overthrow, but sadly for Ambassador Chris Stevens and those who died with him, Clinton did not listen to anyone who tried to warn her about the danger prior to 9/11/2012:

You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn’t trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.

In a Cisco speech in August 2014, she called the Benghazi attack her “biggest regret,” and repeated her observations about how inadequate the security situation was, as if someone else had been Secretary of State at the time:

Of course it was just devastating that there was this attack on our post and on our CIA annex, which I can talk about now, because it’s all been made public. And that the kind of reliability that governments have to count on from the governments in which they operate, like we’re responsible for the security ultimately of every embassy in Washington.

Well, the Libyan government has no capacity to deliver and the people that we had contracted with were incapable or unwilling to do it.  So that was a deep regret.

And you learn from these events, just as we have over the last 30-plus years, where embassies have been attacked or taken over, or the terrible events in Beirut in 1983-84.  You learn from them, but it always comes down to this very hard choice, should American civilians be in dangerous places?

What’s especially galling about Clinton’s 20/20 hindsight is that Democrats have long made the same argument about Iraq, and Clinton claims to have accepted those arguments after mistakenly voting to authorize the invasion.

In the later years of the Bush presidency, Democrats claimed it was patently obvious, in retrospect, that Iraq wasn’t ready to deal with the savage post-Saddam era, because decades of brutal personality-cult dictatorship had destroyed the institutions upon which democracy depends. Supposedly everyone outside of the Bush Administration could plainly see that nation-building was a doomed enterprise.

But here’s Clinton asking us to pardon her while she learns the same horrible lesson from her own nation-building project. Why should anyone give President Obama and his Secretary of State a total pass for not understanding what would happen after Qaddafi was gone, when so many people outside the Administration were yelling those warnings from the rooftops? Who was responsible for understanding that security situation and taking appropriate precautions, if not the Secretary of State?

Clinton boasted about the wonderful Libyan elections in several of her speeches – “one of the best elections in the whole region after the fall of Qaddafi,” as she put it to Hamilton College in October 2013 – but such arguments cut no ice with Democrats after the liberation of Iraq. It wasn’t long before they were waving off those “purple finger” photos of Iraqi voters as irrelevant.

“You try to help, you try to create relationships, and, you know, the hard guys with the guns have a different idea. So if you don’t have overwhelming force, it’s difficult,” Clinton observed to General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting in 2014.

How can anyone be surprised that “the hard guys with guns” have undue influence in the Middle East? How can anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Middle East in general, and Libya in particular, reinforced by the grim lessons of Iraq, have imagined anything less than “overwhelming force” would be required?

Clinton told the Global Business Travelers Association in 2013 that it was “just a terrible crime” Ambassador Stevens was killed “doing what was really in the best interests of both the United States and Libya.”

On that, we can all agree, but that’s not how Clinton talked during the crucial days after the Benghazi attack revealed she and Obama had no idea what they had done to Libya, and no contingency plan for coping with a terrorist strike on the anniversary of 9/11.

During those vital days of Obama’s re-election campaign, Clinton and Obama pretended Benghazi was a bolt from the blue, a stunning “video protest.” She blamed the man who created the video, not these militia groups and terrorist gangs she now claims to be a keen student of. There’s no way to honestly square what Clinton said in these speeches with the Obama Administration’s conduct in September and October 2012.

Clinton’s speeches in 2013 and 2014 are further evidence, if any were needed, that she and President Obama lied to the American people, and to the Benghazi families, about the attack. They were disastrously wrong about Libya, from the minute Clinton talked Obama into toppling Qaddafi.

Trump’s dirty talk versus Hillary’s corruption

October 8, 2016

Trump’s dirty talk versus Hillary’s corruption, American Thinker, Jack Hellner, October 8, 2016

In the past week:

– Justice drops the case against a gunrunner from Hillary’s Libya fiasco whose testimony would certainly have harmed Obama and Hillary.

– Evidence surfaced that the White House participated in the cover-up of Hillary’s violation of national security laws with her private server even though they said they absolutely knew nothing about the server and would not interfere with an investigation.

– We have learned more this week about how the investigation of Hillary by the Justice Department and FBI was a pure sham as they gave immunity to so many, took so much stuff off limits, and even carried out the destruction of evidence.  The email investigation was pretend, just like the IRS investigation and any supposed investigation of the Clinton Foundation.  It is clear that the White House, Justice Department, State Department, and IRS are working specifically to protect Obama and Hillary instead of working for the American people.

– Aleppo and Syria are deteriorating rapidly despite Obama and Kerry being extremely tough and telling Russia and Assad to stop it.

– Obama partially blamed the Civil War in Syria on a drought he says was caused by humans.  That is one of the most ignorant statements ever.  The war is because Assad is a tyrant, and the Mideast is essentially a desert that has had continued droughts for millennia.

– An NBC News man topped Obama’s stupidity by saying the worthless Paris climate agreement would stop hurricanes.

– Obamacare is collapsing rapidly.  The multiple lies to pass the law are more obvious every day.  The law is greatly harming the middle class and small employers and reducing the potential for full-time jobs.

– An NSA contractor who committed the same crime as Hillary by keeping classified documents at home on several nonsecure devices is under arrest.  Why isn’t Hillary?

The media, of course, don’t focus on any of these things.  Instead they trot out a tape of Trump talking dirty about women eleven years ago.  I know that no other men would ever talk like that on a bus, in a locker room, at a bar, or at a bowling alley.  The media and Hillary are absolutely shocked.  According to Hillary, no one who ever talked like that or treated women like that can ever be president.  (That is really rich coming from the wife of Bill.)

Of course, every night on TV, people can see Trump’s language compounded.  (I have heard that the Girls show starring Hillary supporter Lena Dunham is especially sweet and pure.)

dunham

Shows that use dirty language win all sorts of awards, and now the media pretends words spoken eleven years ago are a disqualifier.  I think everyone should watch the Rob Lowe roast on Comedy Central to see truly repulsive stuff.

The Clintons divert massive amounts of money from Haiti for their Foundation and friends, which left the poor more vulnerable to the hurricane than they should have been.  And then there were those kickbacks to the Foundation and Bill himself to sell a big chunk of our uranium reserves to the Russians.

And the media say Trump is the disqualified person.

Hillary and Kaine continually brag about her being in the Situation Room for Osama when she wasn’t needed, but why weren’t Hillary and Obama in the Situation Room the night of 9/11/12, when Americans were under attack in Benghazi?  They had no idea how long the attack would last, yet they did absolutely nothing to save the Americans.  They did have time to concoct a lie to protect their political power before the election.  Why isn’t the media curious as to what President Obama did that night?

Bill Clinton was accused of rape, and he mistreated and lied about many women to destroy their lives.  Hillary sought to destroy any woman who dared tell the truth about Bill.  Bill also used a cigar on an intern and got fellated from the same intern in the sacred Oval Office suite – and Hillary has the gall to say Trump talking dirty disqualifies him to be president.

I have heard the CBS radio news a few times since the tape came out, and they mention the tape prominently.  Somehow, they have not mentioned the Wikileaks documents that came out within a few hours of the Trump Tape.  It must be as accidental as all the selective editing done by the supposed fact-tellers in the media.  In the leaked documents, Hillary essentially kisses up to investment bankers and others who are paying her $250,000 per speech.  She also says absolutely that she is for open borders and open global trade.  Hillary and Kaine are campaigning on the lie that she is for more secure borders and very strict trade agreements.

And the media say Trump is unfit to be president.

I am absolutely not defending what Trump said eleven years ago, but if bragging about conquests with women were a disqualifier, at least Kennedy and Clinton would never have been president.  Hillary should be declared unfit because she lies continuously, committed perjury, has taken kickbacks throughout her public life, tried to destroy women and any other people who got in her way, violated multiple security laws and other laws, and left Americans to die.  Other people have been dispensable throughout Hillary’s and Bill’s lives.  Basically, everything the Clintons have done is to increase the power and wealth for themselves.  They certainly have little thought for the rest of us.

I have never seen a media so in the tank.  The media show every day their bias by what they report, how they report, and especially what they choose not to report.  Our freedoms are in danger, and since they have no actual accomplishments to tout for their chosen candidate, they have to destroy the other.  They also sought to destroy Bush, Palin, McCain, and Romney, so they have been at the personal destruction game for a long time.

 

 

Obama operatives stripped Judicial Watch of ‘media’ status, overcharged for FOIA requests

September 30, 2016

Obama operatives stripped Judicial Watch of ‘media’ status, overcharged for FOIA requests, Washington Times

(But how could that be?

Oh well. — DM)

 

tomfitton_c0-46-1253-776_s885x516“This is what we put up all the time from the agencies,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. (Associated Press)

Political operatives within the Obama administration wrongly punished conservative legal group Judicial Watch, stripping it of “media” status and trying to force it to pay higher fees for its open records requests, the General Services Administration inspector general said in a letter released Thursday.

The GSA botched several high-profile open records requests, delaying them for months while political appointees got involved, Inspector General Carol F. Ochoa said. The findings were released while the administration was facing charges of slow-walking open records requests for Hillary Clinton’s emails, as well as other requests.

In the case of Judicial Watch, the order to strip it of media status came from political operatives with long ties to Democratic causes — and even from the White House.

The inspector general said the decision came at the behest of Gregory Mecher, a former Democratic campaign fundraiser who at the time was liaison to the White House. He is married to Jen Psaki, a longtime spokeswoman with the Obama administration and its election campaigns.

Ms. Ochoa said stripping Judicial Watch of media status violated several agency policies and things got worse when the GSA denied an appeal by the group.

The same person who ruled on the initial request also ruled on the appeal, “contrary to GSA procedures,” the inspector general said.

Judicial Watch ended up suing over the request, the agency finally agreed to waive all fees and even ended up paying Judicial Watch $750 as part of the settlement.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, questioned the agency’s decision to fight a losing case that ended up costing it money.

“It’s outrageous but not surprising. Welcome to our world. This is what we put up with all the time from the agencies,” he said.

President Obama promised an era of transparency when it came to open records requests under the Freedom of Information Act, which is the chief way for Americans to pry loose data from the federal government.

Despite the president’s exhortations, the government is increasingly fighting requests, forcing the public to file lawsuits to look at information.

Last year, the administration spent $31.3 million to fight FOIA cases — more than twice the $15.4 million the administration spent in 2008, the final year under President George W. Bush.

The GSA has not been one of the major offenders, reporting no FOIA legal spending in 2015 and just $11,000 a year in 2014 and 2013, when it faced Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and paid the $750 settlement.

That doesn’t mean the agency has been operating cleanly. In a 2010 letter, a previous inspector general said the agency botched a request seeking information about GSA communications with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and two other Democrats.

White House officials got involved and further delayed the request, the inspector general said.

Ms. Ochoa said in her letter that she found three bungled cases in the five years since that 2010 investigation. A 2013 request for records mentioning Donald Trump — now the Republican presidential nominee — took 242 days, five times the average. A 2012 request seeking information on GSA bonuses was blocked for 515 days.

The Judicial Watch request, though, was the most striking.

The group was trying to get a look at a goofy video produced by the agency’s New York office on company time and using company resources. The GSA at the time was facing fierce criticism from Capitol Hill for having wasted money on lavish conferences with questionable team-building activities such as the video.

Judicial Watch asked to be treated similar to a member of the media, which would mean an exemption from fees. Two weeks earlier, Judicial Watch was approved for the media exemption.

But ahead of the GSA request, Mr. Mecher, the political appointee with ties to the White House, requested that Judicial Watch’s status be re-examined, investigators said. Elliot Mincberg, a lawyer with deep Democratic ties who was on loan to the GSA at the time, issued a determination rejecting Judicial Watch as a media requester.

Ms. Ochoa said the justification for that was weak — a page from a Justice Department guide that predated the current law governing the definition of media. Mr. Mincberg “did not conduct any independent legal research” about the 2007 law, and that “shows a lack of due diligence,” Ms. Ochoa concluded.

The GSA then failed to follow its own procedures in its denial letter — despite internal misgivings — and again in mishandling the appeal, Ms. Ochoa wrote.

“Why are White House liaisons involved in our FOIA request?” said Mr. Fitton, the Judicial Watch president.

Mr. Mecher, who is now a top congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, did not respond to an email seeking comment on his role.

Mr. Mincberg said in an email that he “performed a relatively minor task” at Mr. Mecher’s request but declined to elaborate, saying he was acting at the time as an attorney for the agency and would need its approval to speak more.

Mr. Mincberg had been lent to the GSA as a FOIA troubleshooter — though his arrival was met with skepticism. Ms. Ochoa reported that one senior lawyer emailed a colleague saying, “This will not end well.”

Later, Mr. Mincberg would run into trouble at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he was a senior attorney.

In 2014, that department’s inspector general cited him for obstructing an investigation into the deputy secretary. Mr. Mincberg was accused of withholding information from investigators, appearing to coach witnesses and, during one interview, threatening to bring charges against the investigators themselves.

GSA spokeswoman Ashley Nash-Hahn did not respond to specific questions about Mr. Mincberg or Mr. Mecher, but insisted that her agency had improved its handling of FOIA requests. She said the agency has a new tracking system and increased training and coordination.

“With these improvements, GSA accelerated its processing time from an average of 21 days for simple requests and 63 days for complex requests in fiscal year 2013 to 12 days for simple requests and 46 days for complex requests last fiscal year,” she said.

Judicial Watch is fighting a series of court cases to get a look at Mrs. Clinton’s emails from the State Department and has other cases pending against the CIA, the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the IRS.

A case against the Homeland Security Department, in which Judicial Watch argued that the department regularly obstructed its requests, was dismissed Thursday.

Judge Richard J. Leon, sitting in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that delays for Judicial Watch’s requests weren’t enough to prove that Homeland Security was violating its policies.

Judicial Watch points to no fact or statement to establish why the requests were delayed or how the delays were the result of an either formal or informal DHS policy or practice to violate FOIA’s requirements, rather than an inevitable but unintended delay attributable to a lack of resources,” the judge wrote.

Hill on Bill’s Women: ‘We Reached Out to Them’

September 30, 2016

Hill on Bill’s Women: ‘We Reached Out to Them’ American ThinkerJack Cashill, September 30, 2016

In a halfway honest front-page article Thursday, the Washington Post posed the following question in the headline, “Enabler or family defender? How Hillary Clinton responded to husband’s accusers.”

I say “halfway” because reporter Shawn Boburg knew the answer to his question. Hillary provided it herself during a crucial “60 Minutes” interview to which Boburg alluded more than once. That interview took place on January 26, 1992, the day America first met Hillary Clinton.

Earlier that same month, Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers confessed to a tabloid that she and Bill Clinton had had a 12-year affair. In a Hail Mary attempt to save Bill’s candidacy, the Clintons agreed to the interview with CBS’s Steve Kroft.

When Kroft asked Bill about the affair, he answered, “That allegation is false.” Hillary, her hands lovingly intertwined with Bill’s, nodded her approval. Of course, they were both lying, Bill with much greater skill.

At this point in the interview, Hillary explained how Flowers’s claim surfaced. “When this woman first got caught up in these charges,” she said, “I felt as I’ve felt about all of these women: that they had just been minding their own business and they got hit by a meteor, and it was no fault of their own.”

Hillary then followed up with the assertion that answered the Washington Post’s question: “We reached out to them. I met with two of them to reassure them they were friends of ours.” (italics added) Yes, Hillary was — and still is — an enabler.

Hillary did not do all her own dirty work. As the Post acknowledges, in 1992 the Clinton campaign hired private detective Jack Palladino “to investigate the accusers involved in two dozen allegations.”

At the time, the Clinton campaign was insisting that these women were being pressured to lie by tabloids waving cash. Palladino’s role, as Clinton aide Betsy Wright memorably told the Post’s Michael Isikoff in July 1992, was to manage the “bimbo eruptions.”

Among the presumed bimbos the Clinton campaign “reached out” to was a former Miss Arkansas, Sally Miller Perdue. In July 1996, Perdue appeared on the Sally Jesse Raphael show to discuss her 1983 affair with Clinton, an affair later corroborated by several Arkansas State troopers. In his article a week after Perdue’s appearance, Isikoff noted that Palladino had done a sufficiently good job smearing Perdue that “no major news organization has reported the account.”

In August 1996, still worried about Perdue’s potential to disrupt the campaign, the Clintons had Democratic party operative Ron Tucker speak to Perdue. According to Perdue, Tucker told her, “There were people in high places who were anxious about me and they wanted me to know that keeping my mouth shut would be worthwhile.”

“Worthwhile” meant a GS-11 or higher job with the federal government. If she turned down the offer and talked to the media, “He couldn’t guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs.” After harassing phone calls and damage to her car, Perdue chose to go into hiding.

Perdue was the least of the Clintons’ problems in 1992. More potentially troublesome were the women that Clinton had assaulted, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, and Paula Jones among others.

This week’s Post article pulls its punches on both Jones and Broaddrick. In the Post’s account, Jones was “groped” and Broaddrick was the victim of a claimed “sexual assault.” Yes, Clinton did grope Jones, but as she would later testify under oath, “Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to ‘kiss it.’”

As to Broaddrick, she was not merely assaulted. She was raped. “It was a real panicky, panicky situation,” Broaddrick told NBC’s Lisa Myers in February 1999. “I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip.”

Immediately afterwards, a colleague found Broaddrick in her hotel room crying and “in a state of shock,” her pantyhose torn and her lip swollen. The Post made no mention of Hillary’s literal hands-on effort to silence Broaddrick. “She threatened me at that fundraiser,” Broaddrick said of an intimidating grip-and-grin with Hillary soon after the rape, “that’s foremost in my mind; I’ll never forget that; I’ll never forget that encounter.”

The Post article in question makes no mention of Gracen. As Iskoff reported in his 1999 book, Uncovering Clinton, Gracen had a one-off with Clinton in 1983 when Clinton was governor and she was serving as Miss America.

To assure Gracen’s silence during the 1992 campaign, Clinton campaign manager Mickey Kantor got together with Clinton’s friend and Hollywood producer, Harry Thomason, and they arranged for her to take a part in a mini-series then filming in Croatia.

There was a reason to get Gracen out of the country. Like Broaddrick, Gracen was married when she was sexually assaulted by Clinton. “It was rough sex,” Isikoff wrote, “Clinton got so carried away that he bit her lip, Gracen later told friends. But it was consensual.”

Writing before Broaddrick’s prime-time confession, Isikoff missed the lip-biting MO. He also failed to acknowledge that at least one of Gracen’s friends, Judy Stokes, had told the Paula Jones legal team that the sex was not consensual at all.

“Do you believe Clinton raped her?” investigator Rick Lambert asked her. “Absolutely,” Stokes replied. “He forced her to have sex. What do you call that?”

In April 1998, Gracen came to the embattled Clinton’s aid, this time by recanting an earlier lie that she had never had sex with Clinton. In a television interview, Gracen said of the 1983 encounter with Clinton, “What I did was wrong, and I feel very bad about it now.” Gracen denied that the sex was coerced and said almost laughably of Hillary, “I’ll apologize to her now. It was wrong.”

After her 1998 TV interview, fearing a subpoena from prosecutor Ken Starr, Gracen flew to the Caribbean where she went island hopping for several months. “She had no interest being drawn into the case,” wrote Isikoff. “She had already lied for Clinton once.”

Then as now, the media had no interest in discovering who arranged for Gracen’s faux apology or her sun-drenched flight from justice.

Despite her decades-long sexist and classist war on women, Hillary had confidence enough in the major media to tweet in November 2015, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

Every survivor, that is, except Bill’s “bimbos.” Although she had yet to coin the term, Hillary had apparently assigned these women to the ranks of the “deplorable.” If clarification were needed, Clinton aide James Carville provided it on national TV in 1996. “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park,” said Carville for the ages, “you never know what you’ll find.”

 

The Clinton Lie Ratchet

September 19, 2016

The Clinton Lie Ratchet, Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, September 18, 2016

Yes, Hillary Knows Classified Information Does Not Always Come with a ‘Header’

September 8, 2016

Yes, Hillary Knows Classified Information Does Not Always Come with a ‘Header’, PJ MediaAndres C. McCarthy, September 6, 2016

(Hillary’s comments about “headers” are in the first substantive part of her appearance during the commander in chief forum and during the question and answer segment. — DM)

who-me

Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton’s oft-repeated canard — “I never sent or received any e-mails marked classified” — has been so thoroughly discredited that it now poll-tests poorly. Hence, she broke out a new wineskin for the same old rotgut at last night’s candidate forum: the “header.”

The issue arose when she was bluntly questioned by a military vet who pointed out that, had he recklessly mishandled classified information the way she did, he’d have been prosecuted. She countered:

Classified material has a header that says “top secret,” “secret,” “confidential.” None of the emails sent or received by me had such a header. What we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked. There were no headers, there was no statement … “top secret,” “secret” or “confidential.”

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton is tactically morphing “marked” into “header” because some of her emails were marked classified.

Were she to repeat the “nothing marked classified” lie and leave it at that, the public would be reminded not only that she is known to have lied about this (FBI director Comey acknowledged as much in his House testimony); but also that she fibbed in ludicrous fashion when called on the markings in her FBI interview — claiming to have believed the “(C)” designation had to do with putting paragraphs in alphabetical order. (Of course, it refers to classified information at the confidential level, something well known to Clinton because, among other reasons, she was for a decade a heavy-duty consumer of classified documents, in which the “(C)” designation is ubiquitous.)

Clinton is also seeking to exploit what little is to be gained from the FBI’s feeble defense of her transmission of documents marked classified. Comey noted that there were “portion markings” within three e-mail documents (meaning there were designations — e.g., “(C)” — that indicated a particular paragraph in the document was classified). Yet, he also testified that those documents did not conform to the proper procedure for marking documents classified. That procedure includes placing on the document a header indicating its classification level (e.g., “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret”), so there is no mistaking its status.

Clearly, the absence of a header does not change the fact that the classified portions of the three documents in question were marked as such. Nor does it alter the fact that Mrs. Clinton, a regular consumer of classified information who claims always to have been careful in handling it, would have known exactly what the markings meant — and, thus, that storing or transmitting a document containing such markings on a private, non-secure system was illegal.

Nevertheless, as I have repeatedly pointed out since the Clinton email scandal came to light in March 2015, this whole brouhaha about “marked” classified — and, in its new iteration, classification “headers” — is a red herring. A great deal of classified information is not marked at all.

If an official with a security clearance sits in on a meeting or briefing at which classified information is presented orally, it would be unlawful for that official to transmit that information via a non-government, non-classified email system. The fact that such an email would obviously not be marked would make no difference — officials trained in handling classified information and given security clearances for access to it are intimately aware of the rules.

To take another notorious example, General David Petraeus, the former CIA director, knew that his diaries contained top secret information notwithstanding the absence of markings and headers designating them as such. That is why, when he pled guilty to mishandling classified information, he did not attempt to use the lack of markings on the diaries as a defense. Such a claim, he had to know, would have been frivolous.

But the most significant point here is that Hillary Clinton knows that what she is saying is nonsense.

As Jeryl Bier recently pointed out at the Weekly Standard, Clinton signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” on January 22, 2009 upon becoming secretary of State. That agreement clearly states (my italics):

As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12959, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security[.]

Not only does her Agreement elucidate in unmistakable terms that no markings or headers are necessary for information to be deemed classified. It also includes Clinton’s acknowledgment that “I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.” This, despite telling the FBI in her interview that she couldn’t recall any briefing or training regarding the handling of classified information.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discussing the Weekly Update. 9-2-16

September 2, 2016

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton discussing the Weekly Update. 9-2-16, Judicial Watch via YouTube, September 2, 2016

Trump on Clinton Foundation: Shut it down, give money back

August 22, 2016

Trump on Clinton Foundation: Shut it down, give money back, Fox News via YouTube, August 22, 2016

(The interview is wide-ranging and touches on far more than the Clinton Foundation. — DM)

 

Trump: I am the Law and Order candidate, email scandal shows Clinton is deceitful and incompetent

July 11, 2016

Trump: I am the Law and Order candidate, email scandal shows Clinton is deceitful and incompetent, Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, July 11, 2016