Tuesday, July 12

Obama's top law-enforcement officer won't say whether disclosing classified material to uncleared persons is illegal??!

Remember Bill Clinton and his infamous answer (under oath) "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"?  Every rational person who saw that video clip knew right away that the scum was lying to cover his ass.  Not that this isn't a very natural reaction for a married president caught having oral sex with a 20-year-old intern in the oval office.

Well, the Democrats are at it again--this time the nation's supposed top "law-enforcement officer," Loretta Lynch.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!   Whew, sorry, just couldn't help laughing at that joke!  Law "enforcement"!  What a concept!

Anyway...anyone who's served in the military knows there are documents called "classified," and that you're prohibited from disclosing these to people without the proper security clearance.  And if you do they can throw your ass in jail for a long time.

Now, in James Comey's testimony a few days ago it was revealed that Hillary allowed her attorneys to examine the contents of her private, non-government email server--the only email address she ever used to conduct official government business.  From all reports the attorneys didn't have a security clearance.  This seemed like yet another case of Hillary saying "I don't need to obey the rules that have been established for little people, because...I'm the fucking queen and I get to decide what laws and rules I need to obey.

So the House invited Loretta Lynch to explain whether it was indeed legal and proper for people without a security clearance to have access to classified material.  Seems like a very open-and-shut proposition.  But Lynch refused to give a straight answer.
Chaffetz: Does an individual need a security clearance to review or have access to classified material? 
Lynch: Well, congressman, that would be dependent upon the agency for whom they worked and the nature of the work that they did with respect to…
Chaffetz: Can you give me an example where you don’t need a security clearance to view classified material?
Lynch: No, I believe as I was going to say, they would, but the type of clearance varies with every agency and the agency would make that decision and determination.
Chaffetz: Is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance?
Lynch: Congressman, it depends on the facts of every situation. You’d have to determine how that sharing occurred. You’d have to determine the means. You’d have to determine the reason, the intent, um, certainly depending on how you view the statute it could go any number of ways.
Chaffetz: So you think there is a scenario in which you could share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have the requisite security clearance?
Lynch: No, I would not draw that conclusion. I would say that I’m not able to answer it as a hypothetical but there are a number of factors that would go into the decision and one could have any number of results.
This exchange continued along these lines for several more minutes.   After each question Lynch reverted to her scripted, lawyerly non-answer, refusing to say if it is still a crime to disclose secret information to a person without an appropriate security clearance.

I can understand her confusion:  the law on handling classified material is very vague.  Secret documents are routinely stamped, "It is a felony imprisonable by up to ten years to disclose this information to any unauthorized person--unless you're a Democrat official."

I can understand this unqualified hack's confusion on the issue.

H/T Ace of Spades

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home