Repeating a familiar refrain, two security contractors say the rules for government security clearance holders did not seem to apply to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her team.
Dave Whitnah and Amel Smith have spent decades helping protect the United States’ most sensitive secrets and recently spoke exclusively with Fox News about Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.
“The State Department was her oyster and it was great for the [Clinton] foundation and great for the Clintons to be able to have such a great position,” said Whitnah, who worked in the State Department’s Office of Security Technology.
In explaining that the secretary of state is the “number one” target of foreign intelligence services, he makes it clear just how egregious it was for Clinton to use an unsecured private server.
“The number one person would be the secretary of state and their communications,” Whitnah told Fox News. “You can think of the Iran negotiations, nuclear negotiation, negotiations with Russia, talks with Russia. You know, anything to do with foreign policy.”
Whitnah dismissed Clinton’s claim that she did not send or receive information that was marked classified as a “misrepresentation.”
Smith was equally skeptical after reviewing some of the witness interviews from the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s private server.
“I hear things like, well, I forgot, um, I don’t know that I was trained, I don’t know this,” he said. “You know — every single person that had access to that information when it was sent is in violation.”
“If you’ve got an uncleared person in there, it’s automatically a compromise,” Smith said in response to witness testimony that secure facilities for classified information within Clinton’s homes in Washington, D.C., and Chappaqua, N.Y., were not locked.
Smith also commented on FBI notes that say despite Clinton’s claim that she did not have a computer of any kind in these facilities, there were personally owned desktop computers there.
“If somebody said they’re there, then they probably were there, and you know, the reason you would deny it was because you probably didn’t have approval,” he said.
Then again, when the rules don’t apply to you, who says you need to get approval?
Latest posts by Tom Tillison (see all)
- Ben Carson’s ‘big, hairy men’ comment outraged HUD staffers; Dems pounce - September 20, 2019
- Cali judge blocks law requiring president’s tax returns to enter 2020 primary - September 20, 2019
- Take it slow, Joe: Biden promises more jobs for women than there are U.S. citizens - September 18, 2019