On Monday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign team, Democratic Party strategists and the Party’s echo chamber within the news media while awaiting the release of about 7,000 more Clinton documents, including a reported 150 classified emails, fanned out to all the news outlets throughout that nation in an effort to thwart any damage to Clinton’s quest for the White House. But one of the key investigators probing Clinton’s email “shenanigans” is sticking to his guns with his report and assessment.
For example, both Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department are maintaining that no emails or information contained in emails were ever marked as classified. But more than a few experts in the spy game have said they, Clinton or her subordinates, should have marked documents transmitted over the Internet as classified at the time the emails were sent.
The inspector general for the nation’s 17 federal intelligence agencies — I. Charles McCullough, III — has openly disagreed with Clinton’s and her defenders’ statements. He has pointed out that some of the emails contained information that should have been protected from the moment they were sent.
Experts in the fields of intelligence gathering and analysis, as well as law enforcement counterintelligence professionals, have repeatedly said it was up to the people sending and receiving email containing classified information to mark those documents appropriately. “Hillary Clinton was at the time Secretary of State. And she knew darn well she was wrong in creating her own private email system to transact national security business. She was also supposed to know what information could be considered confidential, secret, top secret or other designations,” said former police lieutenant and intelligence division supervisor Peter Van Huyonsen.
- Today’s Democratic Party is full of Moonbats
- Hillary Clinton is not an email crook: Column