Quote of the day—Paul Ryan

These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the Justice Department’s decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information.

Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House
September 2, 2016
Statement on Clinton Investigation Document Release
[See also FBI files show Clinton claimed ignorance on classification:

According to the files, Clinton claimed to have relied on the judgment of her aides and other officials to handle classified material appropriately. She even told investigators — when asked what the “C” marking meant before a paragraph in an email marked “Confidential” – that “she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”

The FBI document notes that the email was in fact marked “classified at the Confidential level.” And when asked about different classification types like “Top Secret,” Clinton went on to say she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information and took all classified information seriously.”

The documents also say Clinton claimed she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.” Further, Clinton “could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined.”

Such passages could help explain why FBI Director James Comey said during congressional testimony in July that there were questions over whether Clinton was “sophisticated enough” to know at the time what a particular classified marking signified.

The markings on a classified document look something like this (in red):

Top Secret

(S)     We now have all the required guns and ammo for the attack.

(TS)   We attack at dawn.

Each paragraph is marked at the highest level of classification in that paragraph.* The marking at the top is the highest level of classification of any paragraph in the document.

Hillary Clinton, as described by the FBI, is not “sophisticated enough” to understand these markings. This makes it exceptionally clear that she is not “sophisticated enough” to be a president of a community book club, let alone the President of the United States.—Joe]

* A game I used to play with the classifier of the documents I created was to write the paragraphs such that no single paragraph contained any classified information. Yet when the paragraphs were taken as a whole they did qualify as classified. It was a far more amusing game for me than my poor classifier who didn’t know what to do with them and never thought to ask me to rewrite them to make it easier for her.


15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Paul Ryan

  1. I once read a book where a smartass second lieutenant asked a salty old sergeant what the classification status was for a document that had not yet been filed, but which contained classified information. As I recall, the sergeant told the lieutenant not to be so mean, and left it at that.

  2. And just what, exactly, are you prepared to do about it, Mr. Ryan?

    I think I know the one-word answer. Rhymes with, “shmothing.”

    • I think he’s hooping to shame the shameless and convince the brainless at the FBI, the DOJ, and among the Stalinist electorate who will be voting for this un American scum. Good luck with that. These people believe that the purpose of government is to enrich oneself and rule the ruled so that the enrichment can continue as long and as intensely as possible.

  3. “This makes it exceptionally clear that she is not “sophisticated enough” to be a president of a community book club, let alone the President of the United States.”

    It also makes it clear that she violated the law WITH INTENT. In fact, she admitted this intent explicitly, according to the FBI statements. I’ll explain, using quotes from the FBI documents released yesterday.

    “CLINTON did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system. She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

    She did receive such emails, but she didn’t think they should not be on an unclassified system. This demonstrates incompetence in such matters.

    Further, it demonstrates the intentional delegation to others of HER responsibilities regarding understanding and properly treating classified documents.

    “When her top staff received information, the recipient would determine if the information should be forwarded to her. None of CLINTON’s staff ever expressed a concern regarding the sensitivity of the content of these emails.”

    She delegated to others her responsibilities regarding a document’s classification, but she either ignored and/or didn’t recognize their failures to do the job for her. Again, this demonstrates incompetence in such matters, but also it demonstrates the specific intent to not pay attention to a document’s classification.

    Now, recall that she signed a document, under penalty of perjury, which stated that she had undergone the training provided by the State Department regarding the proper handling of classified material. Given that, here is the smoking gun:

    “When asked of her knowledge regarding Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential classification levels of US government information, CLINTON responded that she did not pay attention to the “level” of classified information and took all classified information seriously.”

    THIS IS AN ADMISSION OF THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW. To her, a document that is classified such that it must be contained and viewed only inside a secure facility is no different from a document that is classified as “Confidential”.

    FBI Director Comey is not stupid enough to not understand this. The fix was in.

    • You know the fix was in. So do I. So do millions of others. The probem is convincing the millions of leftists, progressives, commies, thought-police, and Democrats (but I repeat myself) that this is true and relevant. They simply refuse to believe it, or say “well, yeah, of course, but she’s on the side of good and a woman so that makes it all OK.”

      • In Wikipedia, we find this (in part):


        “Burdick v. United States,” 236 U.S. 79 (1915), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:

        A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.

        To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.

        A pardon carries an “imputation of guilt”, and accepting a pardon is “an admission of guilt”.

        A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended. A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown and cannot be acted on.

        United States v. Wilson established that it is possible to reject a (conditional) pardon, even for a capital sentence. Burdick affirmed that the same principle extends to unconditional pardons.


        I don’t see Hllary accepting a pardon if doing so is “an admission of guilt”, whether explicit or implicit. Her Modus Operandi is to never admit guilt of anything. Ever.

        So, I have a dream in which Trump wins and Hillary is prosecuted.

        It’s possible. You can argue the probabilities all you want, but it’s my dream and I’m enjoying it.

        • Trust me – you are not the only one having this dream. But in my version of it there are a few hundred loyal Clinton Cronies that get prosecuted, too. And the cumulative total of the sentences are measured in billion$ and millennia.

      • I agree and add that owning a vagina is not supposed to be a get out of jail free card. Also justice is supposed to be blind, but the Holder/Lynch DOJ has 20/20 vision and eagle eyes for granting political favors.

        My idea of GOOD is very, very different than what the God-less Progressive scum think is good which is usually SJW crap.

        I am convinced that the Hildabeast could stand naked on the debate stage and perform a child sacrifice while at the same time calling Russia or China to sell state secrets and the Left would still vote for this corrupt scum. Speaks volumes about their lack of a moral compass and discernment.

  4. I hate redaction teams with a passion – they get super pissy if the author tries to be helpful by marking information in the text as needing redaction – that is their job, and don’t tell them how to do their job. They get to decide what the public has a right to see. Then, of course they miss important stuff and let it go out without proper redaction. How could they know that was releasable and what wasn’t, they whine. Never any accountability, the only possible fix is more mandatory training. Not for them, the people who are paid to redact documents before releasing them to the public, but for the authors, to be told not to write anything in the first place with non-FOIA-able information.

  5. Somebody might advise Paul Ryan that he can impeach when the crime is no longer being committed.

  6. I did a similar thing to give the classifieds fits. In one case, I created a website on the government intranet that had links to publicly available research, none of which was classified. However taken as a whole, knowing all these topics we were interested in made the page Top Secret. I only had a Secret clearance at the time, so I was no longer allowed to update the website I created of publicly available information.

Comments are closed.