It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"I'm not going to comment on what he may or may not have done for the United States government, but in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton's private server, there were conversations among her senior advisors about this gentleman," he said on "Face the Nation." Cotton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program.
The Iranian government has executed a nuclear scientist who was believed to have cooperated with U.S. intelligence but who returned to Iran after claiming he had been abducted and tortured by the CIA. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
As Amiri made his way across the U.S. to the Pakistani Embassy, Clinton's advisers fretted over how to react. In an email published among the trove of messages originally on Clinton's private server, top Clinton adviser Jake Sullivan (who now has a top role in her presidential campaign) expressed concern about how Amiri’s story would play in the media. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
I want people to know that the decision to have a single email account was mine. I take responsibly for it. I apologize for it. I would certainly do differently if I could."
originally posted by: RickinVa
“I take classification seriously. I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked. And so, in retrospect, maybe some people are saying, ‘Well, … among those 300 people, they made the wrong call,’” Clinton said. “At the time, there was no reason, in my view, to doubt the professionalism and the determination by the people who work every single day on behalf of our country.”
www.foxnews.com...
What a load of crap in that statement,,, lie lie lie lie and lie some more
2. This line - "This process of looking backwards to see if something should have been classified at the time is fine" - is problematic. We should not think it is fine to find something that "should have been classified at the time." Our position is that no such material exists, else it could be said she mishandled classified info. We need to clarify to make clear we mean that it is fine to perform redactions today, but in doing so it doesnt mean that the material was classified at the time it was sent.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Going to necro this thread with a Podesta email update.
This shows they knew they were in the wrong and the Hillary did indeed mishandle classified information:
2. This line - "This process of looking backwards to see if something should have been classified at the time is fine" - is problematic. We should not think it is fine to find something that "should have been classified at the time." Our position is that no such material exists, else it could be said she mishandled classified info. We need to clarify to make clear we mean that it is fine to perform redactions today, but in doing so it doesnt mean that the material was classified at the time it was sent.
/podesta-emails/emailid/7460