"I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and removal from a position of special confidence,"
It is now revealed that Hillary Clinton did, in fact, sign a non disclosure (of sensitive material) agreement when she took over as secretary of state in 2009. The State Department had long claimed it could not find such an agreement (although it would have been one of the first documents filed in her personnel folder). Now it has surfaced as part of a FOIA request.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/07/hillary-clinton-signed-non-disclosure-agreement-to-protect-classified-info/?intcmp=hplnws\
"The NDAs played a significant role in the prosecution of former CIA Director David Petraeus for wrongly providing highly classified information to his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell. Petraeus, like Clinton, signed NDAs and a statement of fact filed in his case with the federal court stated that his "criminal conduct" was based on violations of the NDAs signed with the Defense Department and CIA."
As for that report by Politico, I would treat that with a grain of salt. Remember just thus week Politico ran with a story that charged that Ben Carson fabricated his claim of being offered admittance into West Point. Their headline read that the Carson campaign "admitted" that Carson had "fabricated" the claim. In fact, Carson and his campaign have admitted no such thing and Politico prudently changed the headline. So much for Politico's credibility.
We will soon see whether Hillary Clinton will be held to the same standard of justice as General Petraeus-or any other American.
I certainly not holding my breath waiting for her to be charged with even a misdemeanor, let alone indicted for a felony. While the FBI director appears to have the huevos to proceed, it remains to be seen if the AG does, and I kinda doubt that is the case, being as how Obama can fire the AG but not the FBI guy. We shall see what we shall see.
ReplyDeleteI believe I have previously noted that I once held SCI clearance for several years. I can assure you that both the briefing when I was granted the clearance, and the debriefing when I no longer needed it and it was rescinded, were quite extensive and left absolutely no doubt as to the importance of protecting the data, to include the penalties involved for violation. While I have no specific memory of doing so, I undoubtedly signed essentially the same documentation (NDA's, whatever) that she did.
I guess what bothers me as much as anything is not only the number of people who are dumb enough to support her now, but the number who would continue to do so (she might lose a few) if she were actually indicted. Real doofuses. Even Siarlys sees through her, as could Ronnie Milsap, Ray Charles, and Stevie Wonder all three.
Eklwood,
ReplyDeleteEven if Comey recommends charges, the AG has the call-oops- Obama has the call.
I also had an SCI clearance (I think that was what it was called) when I was head of the office in Milan for DEA. It required an updated background investigation. It meant I could get CIA info briefings. That ended when I was reassigned to Pittsburgh.
I can just see myself sending a cable out to the field unclassified.
"The CIA advised me today that ...."