THAT TIME HILLARY CLINTON WAS ASKED ABOUT HER EMAILS AND SHE DIDN’T GIVE ONE STRAIGHT ANSWER
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton appeared on This Week, and answered several questions on her negligent use of a private email server. I will leave it to others to analyze the questions or the interview itself. I will note that I have yet to find an interview which specifically cites a released email, many of which prove Mrs. Clinton’s statements to be false.
In reacting to her answer’s I tweeted: “You could disprove almost every single statement made by Hillary this morning on classified emails. And that’s being generous.” To which John Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary, replied: “please. please do it. post it on Medium.”
Who am I to disappoint John? So here is yesterday’s transcript, with each of her statements analyzed in [brackets].
THIS WEEK: JANUARY 31, 2016
STEPHANOPOULOS: You did have that surprise on Friday; the State Department saying they will not release 22 emails of yours deemed top secret. You want them released. Why are you so confident that release would not compromise national security? What do you know about those emails that we don’t?
CLINTON: Well, here’s what I know. I know that this is, I think, a continuation of the story that has been playing out for months. There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, who’s had a chance to review them, has said that this email chain did not originate with me and that there were no classification markings. So I do want them released and of course I can’t be clear about exactly what the reasons might be for some in the government, as part of this interagency dispute, to make this request not to make them public. But I would like to see them disclosed and I think they can. It should be disclosed.
[COOPER: 1) Yes, this story has been playing out for months. The reason is that the State Department is only releasing a limited number of emails on a monthly basis. Hillary should be happy that this story routinely only lasts a day or two after the release of the latest batch, and then falls to the back burner for 3 weeks. 2) Clinton’s team is desperately clinging to this ‘no classified markings’ defense, which means absolutely nothing. Intent or motive is not applicable when your negligence caused classified material to be spilled. And even if it was, the existence of the server in the first place is all you need. When unmarked classified material is inadvertently spilled on an agency system, there is a protocol for recovering it. Plus, Secretary Clinton SOLICITED classified material to her “personal email” such as the July 25, 2010 email to her Middle East Envoy George Mitchell requesting a readout of his conversation with the Foreign Minister of Italy on the day Wikileaks dumped 1000s of documents online about our military strategy in the Middle East. That conversation is almost certainly classified at conception, as she would know, and it later was. 3) She is asking for emails to be released that have been deemed Top Secret or above. This transparently empty request means nothing. As Federalist and Hot Air contributor Gabriel Malor points out: “if someone at State were to release the emails that Clinton is calling on them to release, that person would go to jail.”]
STEPHANOPOULOS: — your supporters including Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, and Senator Feinstein herself, has suggested it’s political. Is that what you think?
CLINTON: Well, it’s — I’m going to leave that to others who are quite experienced in the ways of Washington to comment on. I just have to point out that the timing and some of the leaks that have led up to it are concerning. And I just want this matter resolved. The best way to resolve is to do what I asked months ago, release these, let the public see them and let’s move on.
[COOPER: Hillary questions the timing of this story. Note this news cycle, and the reason for this part of the interview, is about the emails not being released by the State Department because they share enough information that someone could put pieces together, trace back to Top Secret information and expose sources and methods. The State Department is actually behind in these email releases. State “missed” sending 7,000 emails to the interagency review process, and then later blamed the snow storm for further delay. If Hillary thinks this is too close to Iowa, call Secretary Kerry. But furthermore, the State Department has pushed back the final deadline for email release to February 29th, well after the early primary states. If anything seems overtly political, it would be that. And in conclusion, another empty request for the State Department to release classified information.]
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified. No evidence that that’s not true. But the non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state said that that really is not that relevant. It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of your training to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.
CLINTON: Well, of course. And that’s exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously. You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system, no matter what that system is. We were very specific about that and you — when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case. The final thing I would say because clearly the best answer to all of this is release and disclose these materials is that what I’m told is that this chain of emails very well included a published newspaper report. That seems a little hard to understand, that we would be retroactively over classifying a public newspaper article. So let’s just get it out. Let’s see what it is and let the American people draw their own conclusions. This is very much like Benghazi, George. You know, the Republicans are going to continue to use it, beat up on me. I understand that. That’s the way they are. But after 11 hours of testimony, answering every single question, in public, which I have requested for many months, I think it’s pretty clear they’re grasping at straws and this will turn out —
[COOPER: 1) No, that’s not exactly what you did. You did not treat this information sensitively, or you would have not had it running across a personal email server. One email, two emails, you could make the case that this was an isolated problem. But there are now over 1,000 classified emails discovered on her server, and these are the ones she did not delete. 2) “there has to be some markings…” No, there does not. Again, this markings defense is a red herring. Classified material is created and transmitted often without markings, which is exactly why her non-disclosure agreement makes that distinction. Plus, it is up to her to be as careful as possible, she wasn’t, and recognize when something is even close to the line, she didn’t. As said above, she ‘solicited’ classified information to her personal email. 3) “over classifying a newspaper article.” Here’s another one the Clinton team has hung their hat on. You could perhaps make this case if there weren’t 1000s of classified emails on her server. Are they all New York Times articles? 4) “This is like Benghazi” In no way is this like Benghazi. They literally have nothing to do with each other, except that Clinton was routinely emailing sensitive material about Libya with Sidney Blumenthal. But this is trying to lump everything into the vast right wing conspiracy machine, which is usually pretty effective. 5) “They’re grasping at straws…” Who, THE FBI?]
STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally on this matter, you know, a few months back, you told my colleague, David Muir it was a mistake to set up this private server. Yet just this Monday, you said there was no error in judgment. How do you square those two statements?
CLINTON: Well, look, as I’ve said many times, it was permitted. My predecessors had engaged in a similar practice. It was not the best choice. I wouldn’t be here talking to you about it.
[COOPER: 1) It was “permitted” by who? It is not permitted by the State Department rules, nor the official guidance from the White House. It was permitted by her, as Secretary of State? She permitted herself to break the rules and expose classified material? 2) Yes, this wasn’t the “best choice.” It’s taken her campaign off message and despite the grave consequences to our national security, that seems to be her only concern.]
