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?
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Maxine Waters’ warm tweet to Bankman-Fried ahead of upcoming hearing draws real questions - December 2, 2022
- Heroic Minnesota dad gives chase, rescues his 4 young children taken during carjacking - December 2, 2022
- Biden admin suspiciously mum on whether ‘genderfluid’ official arrested for theft is still on payroll - December 2, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.