Posted by DrJohn on 31 January, 2016 at 7:23 am. 21 comments already!

snowden clinton

 

“Names of all US foreign covert operatives found on Hillary Clinton non-secure email server. ‘They weren’t marked classified at the time’ says Clinton.”

Just waiting to see that headline.

Hillary Clinton’s entire life has been one of abusing the rules. She and her louse husband truly believe they are not bound by the same ethics as everyone else and Bill has admitted it:

“There’s one set of rules for us and another set for everyone else”

As far back as Watergate, Hillary Clinton displayed a lack of ethics:

Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee,who supervised Clinton on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s 2006 book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” states that she “… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

Further his website added:

“Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.”

With no experience whatsoever, Hillary turned a $1000 investment in cattle futures into $100,000. At the link, you’ll find more of Clinton scandals most have forgotten about, including Chinagate, Travelgate, Lootergate and Whitewater.

A list of 27 famous Clinton lies can be found here.

Way back in 2009 Clinton signed a document agreeing to protect classified information:

On January 22nd, 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure agreement, or NDA, where she agreed to protect highly classified information, and a failure to do so could result in criminal prosecution.

“I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and removal from a position of special confidence,”  the NDA reads.

“I have been advised that any authorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798 and 952, Title 18 United States Code…”  These are provisions of the Espionage Act, and as Fox recently reported, 18 USC 793 subsection (f) is of special interest to the FBI investigation as it includes “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information.

In the latest Friday night document dump 2,000 Hillary Clinton emails were made public. Twenty two of them were not released, as they were considered “too damaging” to even release in redacted form. The State Department has been dragging its feet in releasing the Clinton emails and won’t meet a Court ordered deadline to release the remaining emails due to an “internal oversight.”

Now the Clinton campaign wants the Top Secret emails made public.


democrats are attempting to defend Clinton:

“It has never made sense to me that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else,” she said in a statement. “The only reason to hold Secretary Clinton responsible for emails that didn’t originate with her is for political points, and that’s what we’ve seen over the past several months.”

If this is valid, at what point does Hillary catch on and put an end to it? Where’s her head? Where is her judgment?

Whether the information was marked is irrelevant:

But it is the responsibility of individual government officials to handle classified material appropriately, including by properly marking it as classified, according to experts.

Yeah, about that. There’s this SF312 document that Clinton signed in 2009. You can see it here. Her argument about classified information not being marked is garbage, as the document proves. It says very clearly

“classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications.”

Especially that top secret stuff. (paying attention, Greg?)

Further, she isn’t even supposed to have these emails.(see section 7)

It was her obligation to protect this information and her obligation to determine whether the information she was getting was classified or not.(Section 3)

I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

In not doing so she is either negligent, incompetent or worse. One cannot help but wonder whether she was making this information available to hackers for a price. Darryl Issa opines that the DOJ will not indict Clinton:

Despite mounting evidence against the former first lady and the FBI’s alleged desire to recommend an indictment, according to Issa, the California congressman says it is unlikely Clinton will face criminal charges during the election cycle.

“I’ve worked with both the last attorney general… and this attorney general, and I really don’t believe they’ll do it,” Issa told the Examiner. “Doing it, by definition, would end her run for president.”

He continued, “So do I think the Democrats are in an odd situation where the only thing they can do is hold their nose and hold back on and indictment?”

“Sadly, yes,” Issa said.

If she gets a pass, then so should Edward Snowden and everyone else who mishandles classified information. The message that this would send is abominable. Too big to jail? Give me a freaking break. It would establish a two tiered justice system. One for the Clinton’s and the elites, and another for David Petraeus, Edward Snowden and the rest of us. The talk about retroactively stripping David Petraeus of one of his stars makes me sick.

One thing is certain. Hillary Clinton is too dangerous to be President. She hasn’t the wisdom, honesty or integrity for the job.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
21
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x