HuffPo helpfully reminds us that Clinton aides promised to protect ‘marked and unmarked’ classified info. Noted that unmarked, which means they knew that some information was classified at birth, regardless of markings. Also note the implication by absence, that Hillary couldn't be bothered with signing a document promising to protect the country.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) on Thursday released classified nondisclosure agreements signed by a pair of Hillary Clinton's State Department aides in which they promised to protect classified informationHillary Claims Donald Is Dangerous On Foreign Policy (via "Wombat-socho's In the Mailbox, 06.02.16". The Wall Street Journal notes that Hillary’s Crooked Defense is that
. . .
The agreements show that Sullivan — a top adviser who now works on Clinton’s presidential campaign — and Pagliano — the IT aide believed to have set up and maintained Clinton’s controversial private server — swore to protect “marked or unmarked classified information, including email communications.”
Sullivan sent more than 800 emails that now include information marked as classified, according to the State Department. None of those emails were marked as classified at the time they were sent.
Pagliano, meanwhile, is believed to have been the point man responsible for the server’s upkeep and functioning throughout Clinton’s time as secretary of State. On Wednesday, his lawyers disclosed that he would refuse to answer questions as part of an ongoing lawsuit connected to Clinton’s email setup.
In Clintonworld, anything that isn’t found criminal becomes permissible.
In 2016 an aspiring president, Hillary Clinton, as part of her campaign for the White House, is advancing an aggressive variant of the Nixon defense. It runs like this: Anything that isn’t criminal is permissible—and therefore none of it should be disqualifying for the Oval Office.And it isn't criminal until you prove it in court. Glenn Reynold notes that when it comes to dodging FOIAs Hillary is only second best. Kissinger's lessons in FOIA evasion. Those who refuse to learn from history. The Chicago Tribune notes that Hillary is Emailing it in: Team Clinton struggles to recover as the FBI primary looms, while Some Democrats Pray for Clinton’s Indictment as Sanders Pushes On. From Politico: Why Some of the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary: Even on Wall Street, a powerful Sanders contingent so hates what Clinton stands for—the status quo—they’ll pull the lever for almost anyone else. If they're so smart, why are they for Sanders? Dan Friedman sees Hillary's Ship Listing Badly (More crap coming over the transom about Hillary's email scandal. Gotta wonder how many barnacles have to stick to that old tug before she goes under.)
She still has her fans, though. From Newsbusters a Daily Mail Editor finds 'A Lot' of the Reporters Covering Hillary Are 'Fans,' 'In Awe'. And to back that up: NY Magazine Dramatically Edits Story from "Stop Bugging Hillary Clinton About Giving a Press Conference" to "Why Hillary Clinton is Avoiding Giving Press Conferences"
The always provocative Camille Paglia finds Zombie time at campaign Hillary: Camille Paglia on Trump’s real strength and Clinton’s fatal sleepwalking
Behold the dead men walking! It was with strangely slow, narcotized numbness that the candidate and her phalanx of minions and mouthpieces responded to last week’s punishing report by the State Department’s Inspector General about her email security lapses. Do they truly believe, in the rosy alternate universe of Hillaryland, that they can lie their way out of this? Of course, they’re relying as usual on the increasingly restive mainstream media to do their dirty work for them. If it were a Republican in the crosshairs, Hillary’s shocking refusal to meet with the Inspector General (who interviewed all four of the other living Secretaries of State of the past two decades) would have been the lead item flagged in screaming headlines from coast to coast. Let’s face it—the genuinely innocent do not do pretzel twists like this to cover their asses.Of course they did: Clinton campaign suggested intros, questions prior to events. It's easy to manipulate the inherent laziness of the media.
When do you think the media will ask Hillary about this? ACLU Director Quits After Her Young Daughters Are Frightened By Tall, Deep-Voiced Parody Women Entering Ladies' Room
Stephen Green (the sometimes Vodka Pundit) invokes Bo Diddley's "Who Do Love"
"Who do you love?" asked Bo Diddley in song. Perhaps the more important question in this crazy election season is "Who do you hate?" . .Did Hillary hire an actor to play a Navy Officer (in uniform) at a campaign event? Lyin’ Hillary BUSTED Using Actor For Memorial Day Charade
“We are looking at…the most disliked candidates in a single election,” said Jennifer Dineen, a University of Connecticut polling expert who is also the director of the UConn/Hartford Courant poll.
As a pollster, “you’re not determining who’s supporting a candidate, you are trying to determine how strongly someone opposes a candidate,” she added.
FWIW, while military members are free to support who they wish, they are not free to do so in uniform.