Nancy Pelosi engaged in a little Clinton damage control on Monday as she made an appearance on one of the pretend news programs, CBS This Morning. The host notes that Clinton told the FBI she didn’t know the letter “C” on emails stood for confidential. He asks, “How concerned then, should voters be, that a former senator, a former Secretary of State, didn’t know what that “C” stood for?
As is to be expected, Pelosi says, “I think they shouldn’t be that concerned. I think the Secretary of State deals with a large number of issues, thirty thousand emails, we’re talking about a few that may have been marked confidential. Classified, is really, and secret and highly sensitive is where it becomes more problematic.”
In trying to explain away this small portion of the Clinton web of deception, Pelosi may have stepped into something that she can’t just wipe off her heel. Since Clinton claims to not know what the designations meant, when did she learn that they meant “confidential,” as she now claims to have skipped out on mandatory training. How does she know that the “C” stands for confidential and not for classified? Even documents that are classified as unclassified have a “U” designation on them denoting that they have gone through the classification process and a determination made.
According to the Hill, Hillary Clinton played the role of super stupid incompetent boob during their questioning, explaining that she thought the classification markings in the paragraphs of her emails at the Department of State were to organize messages in alphabetical order.
Is that because all of the emails started with random letters so to make things convenient they assigned them all the same alphabetizing designation? She’s not that stupid but she is that dishonest. Clinton claimed she thought that someone wanted to alphabetize the paragraphs and since they started with the wrong letters, had attached a “C” or a “U” to them all.
The FBI summary states, “When asked what the parenthetical ‘C’ meant before a paragraph within the captioned email, [Clinton] stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”
The Hill article explains that a “C” in parentheses in the body of an email is used to designate a specific paragraph as containing classified information. But wait a minute, didn’t Pelosi just say that it would be problematic if the markings had meant classified? So did she just inadvertently acknowledge that this is a real problem?
Pelosi continues saying that “Whatever it was that Hillary Clinton dealt with “in that manner” (recklessly and carelessly) had “no threat to our security.” Okay, then, Mrs. former Speaker, why bother with the classified markings at all if they don’t mean what they say?
She goes on to say that too much is being made of this and praises Clinton as being “as talented and informed and as knowledgeable a leader as we have seen in our country.” She’s another George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson or Reagan, according to that statement. Of course Washington was noted for his honesty. Nobody, not even this gushing former Speaker mentions Clinton’s honesty or lack thereof when discussing her “character” traits.
Pelosi reminds us that she’s been “the top Democrat on the intelligence committee for years,” a low bar indeed that might help to explain why she and her fellow Democrats have no problem with electing a spy and corrupt parasite to represent them in the highest office in the land.
The self-declared supposed example of Democrat intelligence expertise is asked about Clinton’s 39 separate claims that “she doesn’t recall receiving any training with regard to monitoring and using her email for confidential information, how believable is that?” Of course it’s not believable at all, but the bastion of intelligence, Nancy Pelosi, doesn’t allow that to be an obstacle. She simple babbles something about 30,000 emails and “you’re talking about one thousand.” It’s a reply that has nothing to do with the question and the questioners let her get away with it as she move on to distract and deflect by labeling the questions of her criminality to be the distraction.
Pelosi, Clinton and Obama are proof that when you elect criminals and charlatans to high office and put them above the law, the result is abuse of power, self-enrichment and treachery.
Ask the follow up questions, media. Every ridiculous and moronic response is simply accepted and allowed to stand as if it is a statement of fact.