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