New York Post: Clinton Directed Her Maid to Print Out Classified Materials



Anybody see the irony of an anthropomorphic climate change advocate killing trees?


Besides not having a security clearance.


It’s her modus operandi. When she was finally forced to turn over some of her emails, she had them in digital format. She chose to print all of them out on paper. And then, those paper copies were copied again a couple times to make them harder for digital search engines to read them.

As to the original report, I’m simply past the point of being shocked at how lawless she has become. And the reason she commits so many felonies is because she knows she won’t be indicted for them.

The Teapot Dome scandal and Nixon combined have nothing on Clinton.


It doesn’t matter; no one cares.

Who is going to report on this when over 90% of those in the media contributed to Clinton’s campaign?

Just wait, though. The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for a year now. If there are any “dead bodies” to be found, it will there. HRC may eventually be sorry she ever aspired for the office of president.


I heard her driver gave terrorists the keys to the embassy in Benghazi, too…will the conspiracies never stop?:shrug:


This isn’t a conspiracy theory; it is established fact.

"As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, DC, emails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material."


You misunderstand the statistic you are quoting. That statistic applies only to those reporters who did contribute to one side or the other. The majority of reporters did not contribute to anyone.


I think we can certainly understand that the major media networks not only support HRC but that they go out of their way to not report on those things that would reflect badly on her. Certainly the rank and file in the media have little to do with what is ultimately presented in the headlines but the big-name “celebrity” news anchors and commentators, the ones who are on record contributing, are overwhelmingly for Clinton.


That is a matter of opinion. It does not appear to me as you have described.


So be it but I’ve been seeing the results of the left-leaning media since the days of the Clinton/Bush election in 1992. Anyone who can say that the media did not favor Clinton, Obama or HRC is only fooling themselves.


So do you think it was appropriate for the Maid to print the Classified emails for Hillary?

I just want to be clear - LeafByNiggle thinks it is totally appropriate for Hillary Clintons housekeeper to be emails classified materials and have access to the fax machine and receive classified documents intended for the Secretary of State and does not see this an of any importance whatsoever - Correct?


Let’s not pretend that the reporters who did not contribute are somehow without any political leanings. And let’s not pretend that the leaning is anything other than violently skewed towards the left and the DNC.


OK, but let’s not cite false statistics either.


My comment was only about the inaccuracy of the statistic cited. That’s all.


"A nonpartisan group finds 19 out of every 20 campaign dollars donated by the media industry are being given to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The analysis was conducted by the Center for Public Integrity, and it found that 96 percent of campaign donations by roughly 480 media donors went to Clinton. Roughly 430 media people donated $382,000 to Clinton, while roughly 40 media people donated $14,000 to Donald Trump’s campaign.

The center named many reporters, editors, and anchors who donated to Clinton and Trump, but did not provide a complete list of the 400-some members of the press it investigated. The center’s study is titled “Buying of the President 2016: Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash.”

The established media has been sharply critical of Trump and his supporters.

Wikileaks has also revealed the ongoing collusion between a growing number of journalists and the Clinton campaign. Emails hacked from campaign chairman John Podesta show media personalities aiding Clinton and her campaign by secretly passing her debate questions, “teeing up” problematic stories for them, volunteering as informal advisors, and more."


This is not the false statistic I was objecting to. I was objecting to this false statement you made:

… over 90% of those in the media contributed to Clinton’s campaign…

Do you see the difference between saying that 90% of people did something versus saying that 96% of the donations went to Clinton? The second (and correct) claim only says something about the reporters who donated something. But the first (and incorrect) statement attempts to say that 90% of reporters actually donated, donated to Clinton, which ignores the fact that most reporters do not donate anything to anyone. Now you can try to make the case that statistics about reporters who donate says something about reporters who do not donate. But that is a harder case to make. What’s wrong with just citing the statistic precisely?


Oh, for goodness sake. Do pardon me for not being 100% completely accurate in my generalities. The point still stands, regardless of your pontificating; the vast majority of those in the media overwhelmingly support Clinton, thus bringing into question the impartiality of their reporting. Or do have a hair to split there, too? :rolleyes:


There are over 90,000 full-time journalists in the U.S. We don’t know how many of them made campaign contributions. We can guess, and I choose to guess 100. Of these 100, 96 of them donated to Clinton, and 4 of them donated to Trump. That is entirely consistent with the facts. So I have 89,900 journalists who contributed to nobody, 96 who contributed to Clinton, and 4 who contributed to Trump. This is very different from your guess, that 90% of the 90,000, which is 81,000, contributed to Clinton. The difference between 96 and 81,000 is not splitting hairs. It is huge. Now, perhaps your point about media bias still stands, and in fact I am not arguing against that point. But if it does stand, it should stand on real facts and not mistaken ones.



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit