Three years ago, Democrat presidential nominee Hillary “Bigmouth” Clinton told a Toronto business organization exactly how the the U.S. military had tracked terrorist Osama bin Laden to his compound in Pakistan where he was killed on May 2, 2011.
“The amount of work that was required to get a strong-enough basis of information on which to plan took more than a decade,” she said during a paid speech delivered to the unnamed organization, according to the New York Post.
“And then all of a sudden putting this matrix together and saying, ‘This guy used to protect bin Laden — he has just made a phone call. He said this in the phone call. We need to figure out where he is. Then we need to follow him,’” she continued.
These words from her speech, revealed in hacked emails published late last week by WikiLeaks, were troubling for a couple of key reasons.
First, the claims she made belied official reports, which said the U.S. government either was tipped off to bin Laden’s location by Pakistani intelligence officers or tracked him down via extensive surveillance.
This means that either the intelligence Clinton shared was false or she haphazardly revealed information that was meant to remain classified and unknown by the public.
To be sure, she should not have said anything, and incidentally WikiLeaks agreed:
Advertisement - story continues below...
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 8, 2016
From the sound of it, she essentially divulged state secrets while delivering a paid speech to a Canadian business organization. It was just another example of her propensity to engage in pay-to-play schemes in which she either offers favors or shares classified secrets in exchange for money.
This raises an important question: Were she to become president and gain full access to the government’s treasure trove of intelligence, what else might she reveal? America’s nuclear codes, perhaps?
Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about Hillary Clinton intentionally revealing state secrets to a Canadian organization — and all for the love of money!
Considering her treatment of classified information, what do you think of Clinton’s fitness for the office of commander in chief? Scroll down to comment below!LIKE our Facebook page: SourcesNews