Pentagon: Hillary Clinton Should Be Arrested For Leaking Top Secret Nuclear Intelligence on National TV

[TomSea]

Pentagon: Hillary Clinton Should Be Arrested For Leaking Top Secret Nuclear Intelligence on National TV

Hillary Clinton divulged Top Secret nuclear security intelligence to tens of millions of worldwide television audience viewers Wednesday night during the third presidential debate, according to high-ranking Department of Defense personnel.

Clinton, responding to opponent Donald Trump and a question posed by debate moderator Chris Wallace, boasted specific and “damaging” details about the United States’ nuclear response time to retaliate during a nuclear attack. Clinton said:

    “But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton, National TV Appearance

“Secretary Clinton proved tonight she is unfit to be commander-in-chief,” a top-ranking DOD intelligence source said. “What she did compromises our national security. She is cavalier and reckless and in my opinion should be detained and questioned so we can unravel why she did what she did.”

According to Pentagon sources, the information Clinton disseminated publicly is Top Secret intelligence governed under the U.S. Special Access Program (SAP) which dictates safeguards and protocols for accessing and discussing highly classified and Top Secret intelligence. The specific details of the country’s nuclear response time discussed by Clinton, sources said, are only known by a handful of individuals outside top military brass, including the following “need-to-know” (NTK) officials:

    President
    Vice President
    Secretary of State
    Secretary of Defense
    Secretary of Homeland Security
    Attorney General
    Director of National Intelligence
    CIA Director
    Deputy Secretary of State
    Deputy Secretary of Defense
    Special personnel designated solely by the President in writing

Read More At: http://truepundit.com/pentagon-hillary-clinton-should-be-arrested-for-leaking-top-secret-nuclear-intelligence-on-national-tv/

[Norm Lenhart]

Good think we elected principled Republicans to...

Oh wait. We didn't. We listened to cowards and elected liberals with R's that will never prosecute her, or allow a serious inquiry.

LETS DO IT AGAIN!!!!!!!

[Neverdul]

I know a lot of people don’t trust Snopes, but follow the links that show this is not exactly a secret. 

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/

See Foreign Policy magazine:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

And (not from the Snopes post):

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/

[txradioguy]

We allow the Russians to overfly our bases with recon aircraft and inspect our nuclear sites.

Our response times are not Top Secret.

[jpsb]

I'm sure the FBI will jump right on this, can't wait to see the headlines tomorrow.

[Oceander]

Actually, the President's order does not have to be followed in unqualified terms.  The Presidents order cannot be followed until it has been countersigned by the secretary of defense.  Only then can it be transmitted to the launch teams. 

That is a matter of public record. 

[txradioguy]

I'm sure the FBI will jump right on this, can't wait to see the headlines tomorrow.

There's nothing for them to "jump on" genius.

This is a big nothing burger.

And you guys fell for it...again.

[Oceander]

There's nothing for them to "jump on" genius.

This is a big nothing burger.

And you guys fell for it...again.

[jpsb]

I know a lot of people don’t trust Snopes, but follow the links that show this is not exactly a secret. 

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/

See Foreign Policy magazine:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

And (not from the Snopes post):

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/

What is applicable is whether or not the info was classified. And no i do not trust Snopes not in the least tiniest little bit.

[jpsb]

@txradioguy @Oceander

And here I thought this was a conservative site. Silly me. Sure are a lot of Hillary boot lickers here. I think I'll wait on a credit spokes person before I conclude that the time it takes from order to launch is not classified information.

[Oceander]

@txradioguy @Oceander

And here I thought this was a conservative site. Silly me. Sure are a lot of Hillary boot lickers here. I think I'll wait on a credit spokes person before I conclude that the time it takes from order to launch is not classified information.

Go look it up on Wikipedia.  For example, you can read about the launch authorization codes that accompany the nuclear football under the subject "Gold Codes" which references the two-man protocol that applies even to the presidents ability to order a launch.  If you want to read about the limits on the presidents sole power to launch, start with the "National Command Authority".

As far as the question of time itself goes, I hardly see why 4 minutes is a matter of national security.  In fact, I'd rather that potential foes know a launch can be ordered in less time than it takes to order a Happy Meal at McDonalds.  I would only think it a national security concern if the process took, say, more than an hour.

Your desperation is really getting the better of you. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No point in arguing.  Just ask Admiral Kirby at the next Pentagon press briefing if that four minute figure was accurate.

[txradioguy]

No point in arguing.  Just ask Admiral Kirby at the next Pentagon press briefing if that four minute figure was accurate.

Kirby's not there anymore. Current SecDef preferred to have a civilian fill that role.

Kirby retired and is now the press flak for SecState.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy @Oceander

And here I thought this was a conservative site. Silly me. Sure are a lot of Hillary boot lickers here. I think I'll wait on a credit spokes person before I conclude that the time it takes from order to launch is not classified information.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to save face kid.

While you're waiting why don't you work on your English a bit.  It's credible spokesperson not credit spokes person.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Kirby's not there anymore. Current SecDef preferred to have a civilian fill that role.

Kirby retired and is now the press flak for SecState.

Fine.  Then ask the current spokesman for Defense whether or not that four minute statement was accurate.

If he says "I don't know' then ask if he'll get back to you.  They generally do that.

[TomSea]

No point in arguing.  Just ask Admiral Kirby at the next Pentagon press briefing if that four minute figure was accurate.

Point still stands, thanks for this info.

[txradioguy]

Fine.  Then ask the current spokesman for Defense whether or not that four minute statement was accurate.

No need to wait for the Pentagon Press Office to get around to responding to a FOIA request.

We already have the info readily available.  H/t @Wingnut

Here:
Why a ‘nuclear mutiny’ against a President Donald Trump would likely fail
http://globalnews.ca/news/2862433/why-a-nuclear-mutiny-against-a-president-donald-trump-would-likely-fail/

And Here:
Is Launch Under Attack Feasible?
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/launch-under-attack-feasible/

And Here:
Our Nuclear Procedures Are Crazier Than Trump.
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/launch-under-attack-feasible/

[txradioguy]

Point still stands, thanks for this info.

Your point has been rendered invalid by the facts.  You can continue to  if you choose...but you'll just do more to show how little you know about this if you do.

[TomSea]

Now, more "credible" sources are taking up this story, Western Journalism and now the Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro) and who knows whom else.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10086/watch-hillary-reveals-americas-nuclear-response-chase-stephens#

Politco:

This four minute figure may be “out there,” but it's certainly alarming how casually Hillary Clinton talks about sensitive matters of national security.

Almost as sloppy as hosting a private server without government security and transmitting classified and sensitive material via email.

[txradioguy]

Now, more "credible" sources are taking up this story, Western Journalism and now the Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro) and who knows whom else.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10086/watch-hillary-reveals-americas-nuclear-response-chase-stephens#

Politco:

Wait I thought all you Trumpkins hated Politico?  Now when it allegedly backs up your false claim you use it as "proof"?

Amazing how little you guys know about all of this stuff...but somehow act like you're an SME.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No need to wait for the Pentagon Press Office to get around to responding to a FOIA request.

We already have the info readily available.  H/t @Wingnut

Here:
Why a ‘nuclear mutiny’ against a President Donald Trump would likely fail
http://globalnews.ca/news/2862433/why-a-nuclear-mutiny-against-a-president-donald-trump-would-likely-fail/

And Here:
Is Launch Under Attack Feasible?
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/launch-under-attack-feasible/

And Here:
Our Nuclear Procedures Are Crazier Than Trump.
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/launch-under-attack-feasible/

There is a difference between a piece of information/speculation being in the public domain, and having that information/speculation confirmed by someone with knowledge bound by security protocols.  That's largely what happened with Gen. Cartwright.

That's why you ask the Pentagon spokesman.  If he is willing to confirm it, then the information is not classified.

Pretty simple.

[Wingnut]

No need to wait for the Pentagon Press Office to get around to responding to a FOIA request.

We already have the info readily available.  H/t @Wingnut

Here:
Why a ‘nuclear mutiny’ against a President Donald Trump would likely fail
http://globalnews.ca/news/2862433/why-a-nuclear-mutiny-against-a-president-donald-trump-would-likely-fail/

And Here:
Is Launch Under Attack Feasible?
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/launch-under-attack-feasible/

And Here:
Our Nuclear Procedures Are Crazier Than Trump.
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/launch-under-attack-feasible/

FYI my link was wrong on the last one is should be:
Our Nuclear Procedures Are Crazier Than Trump.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

This, and more is available on line with a google search.  From credible places too.

[txradioguy]

Actually, the President's order does not have to be followed in unqualified terms.  The Presidents order cannot be followed until it has been countersigned by the secretary of defense.  Only then can it be transmitted to the launch teams. 

That is a matter of public record.

Bingo!  There are fail safes in place to prevent the POTUS from launching them unilaterally in a fit of Twitter rage.

[txradioguy]

There is a difference between a piece of information/speculation being in the public domain, and having that information/speculation confirmed by someone with knowledge bound by security protocols.  That's largely what happened with Gen. Cartwright.

That's why you ask the Pentagon spokesmam.  If he is willing to confirm it, then the information is not classified.

Pretty simple.

And where exactly do you think the authors turn to first for articles like this?

[Wingnut]

There is a difference between a piece of information/speculation being in the public domain, and having that information/speculation confirmed by someone with knowledge bound by security protocols.  That's largely what happened with Gen. Cartwright.

That's why you ask the Pentagon spokesmam.  If he is willing to confirm it, then the information is not classified.

Pretty simple.

Screw that.  If the info is in the public domain no one can say it is classified.  Only a Trumpkin.