“I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State.”
—Hillary Clinton, responding to a 2011 e-mail sent by senior aides about a dispatch from John Godfrey, a State Department employee.
This wasn’t the most explosive of the Clinton e-mails revealed today by the court-ordered State Department release, but it’s the one that made my head explode. How long did Hillary claim that her using a private e-mail sever for official communications was “permitted,” that she did nothing wrong, that no State Department procedures or policies dictated otherwise, four years after she expressed surprise at the irregularity of Godfrey’s conduct? Hillary wasn’t just careless or clueless—she knew all along that using a personal e-mail account was wrong and risky. Why else would she be “surprised”? Who is surprised at employees doing what is allowed and appropriate?
My head didn’t explode because I was shocked that Hillary has been lying all along. I always assume she’s lying. It exploded because her brazen hypocrisy is mind-blowing. This is worse than her saying that victims of sexual abuse have a right to be believed. This is like Bill Clinton saying that the victims of sexual abuse have a right to be believed.
For those whose brains didn’t migrate to the ceiling, the headline-maker among the e-mails revealed today was the one she sent to a top aide, Jacob J. Sullivan, instructing him how to strip sensitive material of official markings and send it in a “nonsecure” way, probably to her private server. “If they can’t [send the material via secure fax], turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton wrote. “Non-paper” is jargon for a discussion draft or memo that does not represent the official position of a government or negotiator. This suggests that Clinton instructed a subordinate to breach the laws that cover how classified material is handled. Recall that Hillary said that she never received any material marked classified on her server. Ahhh! Because she had staff unmark it! It all depends on what the meaning of “marked” is!
I really don’t know how supporters of Hillary Clinton can look at themselves in the mirror. I really don’t.
23 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Hillary Clinton (And By The Way, KABOOM!)”
During my years in the intelligence community during Democrat administrations, I experienced many times when classified documents were leaked to the press from the State Dept., and even the White House.
Some even had the real names of our American and non-American agents in them! I have told all of my friends with families to never ever work for an American intelligence activity because someday, someone on the Left will leak their name. Single men had more of a chance of moving faster than the assassins. In many countries, entire families disappeared forever.
If it took more than 24-48 hours to get approval for an operation, I assumed it was leaked and recommended that the operation be cancelled so we do not lose any of our men, American and non-American. The rules or keeping America safe do not matter to the new Democrats!
God almighty! How is that not a capital crime?
It is as if the Democratic leadership hates America.
That almost sounds wry, considering the self-evident truth of that statement.
Let’s see if I can insert an image into a comment properly, if it doesn’t work here’s a link to the photo.
I’m a failure…
Been there! Condolences.
No…the link worked, and I just imbedded the photo. Next time, just send me the link. Easier from my end.
The lady now telling someone how to scrub markings from a document is the same lady who thought you wiped a computer with a cloth. Also, she previously declared that the classified markings are “how you know what it is.”
The subject email is pretty strange: a few months later the lady and her inner circle received an email from former State employee Anne – Marie Slaughter, who said that high ranking State officials routinely used personal accounts because the State system was so inconvenient. They squashed Slaughter ‘ s proposal to bring the topic to light through an op-ed piece, instead relying on the lady to quietly raise the matter with Congress. This all begins to sound very much like treason.
From a CBS news article:
‘On Friday, the Clinton campaign’s press secretary, Brian Fallon, denied that the information was classified.
“It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system,” Fallon told CBS News’ Nancy Cordes.
And State Department spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that it is not uncommon for non-classified documents to be crafted and shared on the classified system.
Further, according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent “apparently by secure fax, after all,” and was never was sent to Clinton by email.’
Wow, I guess it all depends on what your meaning of ‘is’ is. All these people appear to have fallen through the looking glass. Or been hypnotized by Lanny Davis.
To be fair, what else are they going to say? The truth?
Jack! Some really cynical guy has hacked your computer and is posting comments on your web log today.
Now that I’m awake: This is obvious “humina humina”—if the document wasn’t marked classified, why was Clinton telling him to strip the markings that made it necessary to go through the secure fax? And it doesn’t matter whether or not the document WAS sent illegally–the point is that Clinton ordered him to do so. Note also that this is lying in the alternative, which is what lawyers do for guilty clients. And why THE HELL is the State Department making excuses for Hillary?
From Ace of Spades:
Does President Obama have the power to preemptively pardon her? I fear he does. As he might say, “Yes we can.” And I don’t think he has to wait until he’s heading out the door during Mark Rich season. He could do it before the Iowa caucuses.
Afraid so. Ford pardoned Nixon before anything could go anywhere to close and seal that chapter, rather than keep the nation focussed on his behavior as it would be with a trial. It cost him reelection, but it can be argued that it was the right thing to do to facilitate the return of stability and normalcy after a very stressful time for the nation.
I don’t think the same reasoning applies here. Obama can argue until he is blue in the face that he is doing it to close out this chapter, eliminate a distraction, help the nation move forward, etc., but I believe it would be transparently obvious that he was doing it to protect Hilary’s chance at the White House and the Democratic party’s shot at another four years. I think it would give Hilary more baggage, not less, and might be counterproductive. That’s why I believe he won’t do it.
He might just be that brazen now that the bear has been loose for a few years. Legions of hard core Dems would applaud furiously. If she’s indicted, who could step in as a viable Democratic candidate? All the base would be carrying placards printed by the public employees unions to the effect of “If it was good enough for Nixon, why not Hillary?”
My fear is the Republicans won’t be able to field a candidate that could beat her even under those circumstances.
Whether the material ended up being classified or not remains problematic, because Hillary stated on August 18, “…I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know whether something is….” If it was marked classified, you have to presume that Hillary thought the document (any document) was classified, even if that was susequently changed.
“On Feb. 27, 2011, Clinton was forwarded an email from someone name John Godfrey, identified as an expert on Libya. Godfrey’s email includes a detailed analysis of the situation in Libya after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi. “Who does he work for now?” Clinton asked. “Us,” said Jake Sullivan, her aide who had forwarded Godfrey’s email.
“I was surprised that he used a personal account if he is at State.””
“I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you, that there is gambling going on in this establishment!”
Remember: ‘reasonable’ democrats (some present here) will vote for her over any *moderate* Republican any day.
But The View-type Democrats are not a majority of the party. And there are limits.
Voting for Hillary is not reasonable by any fair definition of the word.
( I literally was just wondering where you were, and had just checked to see when your last comment was. This obviously compelled you to comment. Sorry for breaching your autonomy…)
I admire how you keep cynicism at bay, and pray you’re right.
My absence has been “multi-factorial”.
As will Joy Behar.
PLEASE Jack, I beg you to write a post about her comment!