.

.

Monday, March 16, 2015

ONCE AGAIN HITLERY CLINTON SEES HERSELF AS ABOVE THE LAW…


When it comes to Hitlery’s continuing email troubles, first we had that raging nutjob, and longtime Clinton attack dog, James Carville, admitting it as being something that she actually did and even made the claim that it was all perfectly legal.   And in the process he may have inadvertently admitted that she did so to avoid accountability since his basis for making such a statement was the fact that he suspected she didn't want Louis Gohmert rifling through her e-mails.  And then he took it a step further saying that, to him, it seems to be a kind of reasonable position for someone to take.  And then he really laid it on saying that it amounts to, just like everything else before it, nothing but a bunch of people flapping their jaws about nothing.

And then we also, quite recently, had some guy by the name of David Goodfriend, who was former deputy staff secretary to ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton (one of only two presidents to ever be impeached), and who is now someone described as being a Democrat strategist, who put forth the notion that the storm surrounding Hitlery Clinton's use of personal email for government business is a rush to judgment before all of the facts in.  This guy, Goodfriend, said in a recent interview: "Part of what's going on here is we have a rush to conclusions before we have evidence."  He added, "Secretary Clinton herself has said, 'I turn over documents as requested, as needed, I turned over 50,000, I'll turn more if need be.'" 

What this boob, Mr. Goodfriend, seems to be completely ignorant of is the fact that there shouldn’t be any emails that she should need to turn over to anyone.  And that the ONLY reason that there is, is because she CHOSE to violate the rules that govern such things because she simply saw them as not applying to her.  She CHOSE to use her personal email instead of the government email account, which was something that she herself fired someone else for doing.  So what other facts are there that Mr. Goodfriend thinks might be required here?  Last week, The New York Times revealed Hitlery used her personal email account to conduct State Department business and maintained a server at her home in Chappaqua, New York.

Our ex-secretary of state, has insisted, and repeatedly so, that she has now turned over all correspondence she that is “legally required” to do and has said she will not allow an independent third party to review some 30,000 emails contained on her home server because they are "personal."  She will not allow?  And I suppose we’re all just supposed to trust her when she puts forward the claim that those 30,000 emails are “personal”.  Sorry, but knowing the old girl as I think we all do, or at least should by now, she is someone who very simply cannot be trusted.  Despite the fact that, as Goodfriend claims, government officials routinely write emails, some which are public and some private.

And it was Mr. Goodfriend who, in what must have be an effort to prove that he is, in fact, Hitlery’s ‘good friend’, said, "Sometimes there's crossover. Is that a crime? Is that a violation of policy? Is it an oversight?"  So he’s claiming what here, exactly?  That all of this may have a perfectly innocent explanation, that there’s no there, there?  He then went on to say, "We can ask these questions and will ask these questions from now until Election Day assuming Hillary Clinton runs." Goodfriend said some are already concluding that "Hillary is toast, this is it, it's over, this is the big one … I would paraphrase Mark Twain in saying rumors of political death are greatly exaggerated."  Obviously, that’s how Mr. Goodfriend sees things.

Mr. Goodfriend then went on to make the claim that all government agencies have "an enormous amount of discretion … to decide what is confidential, what is highly sensitive and what is not" as far as what should be maintained.  Now try as might to defend Hitlery, what her ‘good friend’, here, is implying isn’t exactly accurate.  Having spent time in the military in a position that required a Secret clearance, I had no role to play in determining which information that I came into contact with was classified or highly sensitive, and neither would Hitlery Clinton.  The classification of information is determined by others.  There are always instances when information that you think is useless, is not.

Just because one is in the position of being the head of some government agency, bureau or department, doesn’t automatically make one an expert on what is, and is not, classified information.  That why they have people working for them who are. Now regardless of the fact that many view Hitlery as being the ‘smartest’ women on the planet, I feel quite comfortable in saying that she hasn’t a clue when it comes to being able to determine what information is to be classified and which is harmless, other than the mindless drivel that might have been exchanged on a purely personal level.  And somehow I have a rather difficult time believing that over 30,000 emails would be of this specific category.  I just don’t believe her.

No comments:

Post a Comment