How Hillary's email Mess is Hillarious

[longknife]

(Misspelling intentional)

Now, on the count of three, all Shrillarybots attack, deny, divert! One. Two. And...

 

[waltky]

Not so 'hillarious" - Hillary 'Blatantly' Disregarded Security and Diplomatic Protocols...

FBI Notes: Security Agent Said Clinton 'Blatantly' Disregarded Security and Diplomatic Protocols
October 18, 2016 | FBI documents released on Monday include an interview with a former Diplomatic Security agent who served on the security details of both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The agent, her name withheld from the document, told the FBI that there was a "stark difference" between the two secretaries when it came to obeying security and diplomatic procedures. Among other things, the DS agent told the FBI that Clinton frequently and "blatantly" disregarded security and diplomatic protocols; Clinton's treatment of Diplomatic Security agents on her security detail was "so contemptuous" that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere; and Clinton "made herself exempt" from security regulations requiring her to leave her BlackBerry outside her office, which is a Sensitive Compartmented Security Facility where no cell phones are allowed.

Quoting from the FBI interview with the DS agent (pages 43-45): "t is standard security and diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to ride in the armored limousine with the local U.S. ambassador when traveling in countries abroad. It is seen as diplomatic protocol for the Secretary of State to arrive at foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador; however, Clinton refused to do so, instead choosing to be accompanied in the limousine by her Chief of Staff, HUMA ABEDIN. This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol. [The DS agent] explained that Clinton's protocol breaches were well known throughout Diplomatic Security and were 'abundant.'"

The DS agent also told the FBI that Abedin possessed "much more power" over Clinton's staff and schedule than other former chiefs of staff. The agent believed that Abedin was often responsible for the security and diplomatic lapses. In another example given by the DS agent, Clinton -- visiting Jakarta, Indonesia in early 2009 -- wanted to visit an area deemed unsafe by her security personnel. The FBI report noted that the visit was reportedly for a photo opportunity regarding CLINTON's 'clean cooking stoves' initiative. The DS advance team recommended against traveling to the area, but "were told by DS management that it was going to happen because 'she wanted it.'"

MORE

See also:

Intelligence Chair Calls for 'Abuse of Power' Investigation in State Dept. Handling of Clinton Email Classification
October 17, 2016 | House Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R.-Calif.) and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R.-Utah) wrote to the inspector general of the State Department today calling for him to “initiate an inquiry into apparent abuse of power by senior State Department personnel trying to influence classification determinations for emails sent or received by Secretary Clinton.”

The chairmen also wrote to current Secretary of State John Kerry requesting that he remove Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy “pending an independent and unbiased investigation into his conduct during the review of Secretary Clinton’s emails.” “In the course of our committees’ ongoing oversight activities relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server, new information indicates that Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy inappropriately pressured State Department and FBI reviewers to refrain from marking emails classified,” Nunes and Chaffetz said in their letter to Kerry. “According to the FBI interview summaries, Under Secretary Kennedy allegedly went so far as to consider a ‘quid pro quo’ arrangement where the State Department would trade a favor with the FBI in exchange for keeping an email unclassified,” the chairmen said.

The letters from Nunes and Chaffetz to the IG and Secretary Kerry followed the FBI’s release today of additional documents from its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for government business when she was secretary of State. The documents included official FBI summaries of interviews it conducted with individuals during the course of its investigation. “The FBI interview summaries report that in the spring of 2015, Under Secretary Kennedy contacted a senior FBI official to request that FBI reverse its finding that one of Secretary Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails contained classified information,” said Nunes and Chaffetz in their letter to State Department Inspector General Steve Linnick.

“According to the papers, Undersecretary Kennedy assured the FBI official that the State Department would ‘bury’ the email using a rare Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exception (b)(9), which relates to geological and geophysical information.” “The FBI official then reportedly proposed a ‘quid pro quo’ in which the FBI would downgrade the classification if the State Department supported allowing more FBI personnel into Iraq,” said the chairmen in their letter to the IG. “Undersecretary Kennedy did not reject the proposal, though the FBI official later withdrew his offer after reviewing the content of the email in question. A veteran diplomat like Kennedy should have been receptive to the FBI’s personnel needs without resorting to a bargain that could threaten national security information.”

At the State Department briefing today, Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said that Under Secretary Kennedy had had no discussion of any kind regarding a “quid pro quo” or “an exchange” with the FBI relating to the classification the FBI placed on the Clinton email in question. “What did occur, just to clarify, Under Secretary Kennedy, Pat Kennedy, sought to understand the FBI’s process for withholding certain information from public release, and as all of you know throughout this process we were very clear in talking about at times, that this was the decision to upgrade or not upgrade certain parts of emails was a topic of discussion among our interagency colleagues--about whether certain information should or should not be upgraded in classification,” said Toner. “And, as we also know, individuals with classification authorities often have, or sometimes have, different views on how to do that or whether something should be updated,” said Toner. “So, again, no quid pro quo, no exchange here, just simply a request from our Under Secretary Pat Kennedy to clarify the reasoning or the rationale behind upgrading.”

MORE

 

[Old Rocks]

Again, these are accusations of Hilary by others. Trumps problems come from his own words, words recorded on tape and video. Trump will lose for that simple fact.

 

[longknife]

Again, these are accusations of Hilary by others. Trumps problems come from his own words, words recorded on tape and video. Trump will lose for that simple fact.

Attack! Deny! Divert! Without the least bit of proof.

 

[miketx]

Again, these are accusations of Hilary by others. Trumps problems come from his own words, words recorded on tape and video. Trump will lose for that simple fact.

Attack! Deny! Divert! Without the least bit of proof.

 

[Old Rocks]

Again, these are accusations of Hilary by others. Trumps problems come from his own words, words recorded on tape and video. Trump will lose for that simple fact.

Attack! Deny! Divert! Without the least bit of proof.

How is pointing out that the accusations of Hillary are from others an attack? From Benghazi to the e-mails? And none have been proven. While Trumps many false statements on the podium, and his past denigration of women are from his own mouth, and verified with tape and video. Nor is that a diversion, for you are stating that the e-mails are going to make a difference. They are not, they only convince those already convinced. They change no minds, and without changing some minds, Trump has lost the election. Proof? Good lord, again, Trump's own words on tape and video.

 

[miketx]

Again, these are accusations of Hilary by others. Trumps problems come from his own words, words recorded on tape and video. Trump will lose for that simple fact.

Attack! Deny! Divert! Without the least bit of proof.

How is pointing out that the accusations of Hillary are from others an attack? From Benghazi to the e-mails? And none have been proven. While Trumps many false statements on the podium, and his past denigration of women are from his own mouth, and verified with tape and video. Nor is that a diversion, for you are stating that the e-mails are going to make a difference. They are not, they only convince those already convinced. They change no minds, and without changing some minds, Trump has lost the election. Proof? Good lord, again, Trump's own words on tape and video.

President trump will send your sorry ass to gitmo.