Hillary: I Take Classified Information Very Seriously, You Know

Guy Benson
|
Posted: Sep 09, 2016 10:15 AM
Hillary: I Take Classified Information Very Seriously, You Know

A follow-up to yesterday's post, in the form of a maddening compilation from the Free Beacon's David Rutz, who catalogues the many times Hillary Clinton has asserted -- in direct contradiction to her actual conduct -- that she considers the handling of classified material to be very, very serious matter indeed.  We'll rehearse the myriad reasons why these statements ought to earn 'Pinocchio's Pants On Fire' ratings from fact-checkers in a moment, but first, here's the montage:

(1) This is a woman who ordered the implementation of an improper, woefully unsecure email scheme for her exclusive use, in violation of federal rules and protocols.  

(2) This is a woman who lied about said email scheme every single step of the way, culminating in a comprehensive refutation by the director of the FBI.  

(3) This is a woman who was warned twice that using private mobile devices for official business -- let alone highly classified business -- puts national secrets at risk, then continued to do so anyway. 

(4) This is a woman who proceeded to lose track of more than one of those private mobile devices.  

(5) This is a woman whose unsecure email system was breached by an outsider, despite her claims to the contrary, and was very likely hacked by an array of foreign enemies, according to top Obama administration national security officials and the FBI.  And whose reckless set up made the State Department's secure system more vulnerable to hostile intrusion.

(6) This is a woman who appears to have misled the FBI by falsely claiming that she did not use private computers or devices inside the SCIF (secure facilities) at her residences, in further contravention of security protocols.  

(7) This is a woman whose team put a laptop packed with thousands of classified messages into the mail, where it supposedly vanished.  

(8) This is a woman who takes classification so deeply seriously that she "did not pay attention to" classification levels, and who claims not to know what classification markings look like or signify.  (Here's another blow to her latest spin). And who says she thought discussions of a secret US drone program operating in a foreign country's sovereign territory were not sufficiently sensitive to be classified.

(9) This is a woman who is so concerned about classification that she allegedly can't recall if she ever received her required training on such matters, even though she averred in a sworn statement that she had. 

(10) This is a woman who, in spite of all the evidence already recapitulated above, insists the FBI director was wrong to characterize her conduct as "extremely careless:"


This is a woman who demonstrably does not take the safeguarding of classified secrets remotely seriously, promoting her own political interests over national security -- yet who wants to be the next Commander in Chief.  Even after everything we've learned, and every lie she's told, she still states that she did nothing wrong.  I'll leave you with a refresher on the biggest pull quote from Wednesday's NBC forum: