You cannot make this stuff up.

From yesterday\’s press conference with the Harf-witted Marie Harf:

QUESTION:And then one follow-up question from yesterday: Do you have anythingfurther on whether there\’s going to be a comprehensive review ofthe contents of these emails or how it is that you\’ve reached the,I guess, decision that there was no classified informationincluded?

MS. HARF: Well, obviously – and part of this iscoming up because 300 of her emails were provided to the selectcommittee, so somebody obviously had to go through all 55,000 pagesand determine if there was anything that was deemed responsive to theselect committee\’s request. So that process for that request wasundertaken. If other requests come in the future, they will be gonethrough as well, to see if there\’s anything responsive andappropriate to be provided. She and her team has said that it was notused for anything but unclassified work. We don\’t undergo scans ofeveryone\’s unclassified email to make sure they\’re only doingunclassified work, so I don\’t think there was any indication shewas doing anything but here, so I don\’t think it\’s really apertinent question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) claim definitivelythat there was nothing classified in there because —

MS.HARF: You can\’t claim that about anyone\’s unclassifiedemail.

QUESTION: Right. But —

MS. HARF: So I\’m notsure why this would be anything different. She has said she – herteam has said she only did – I don\’t know why this would be heldto a different standard.

QUESTION: It\’s different becauseit\’s a cabinet member using an unclassified email, and most people–

MS. HARF: But we all use unclassified emails. Would it bedifferent if she —

QUESTION: No, most people use – most oftheir work is on a work email.

MS. HARF: But on the workemail, that\’s not scanned for classified information either, Brad.If she had had a state.gov email, there wouldn\’t have been aclassification review to make sure everything on that email wasunclassified.

QUESTION: Understand, but it would have —

MS.HARF: Right.

QUESTION: — the security in place to handleclassified material, as opposed —

MS. HARF: Absolutely not.That is patently false. An unclassified email system at the StateDepartment does not have security to handle classifiedinformation.

QUESTION: We weren\’t talking about anunclassified – she would have a classified capacity in heremail.

MS. HARF: Which is a complete – no, no, no.

QUESTION: No.

MS. HARF: The classified (inaudible)even in state.gov – no, no, wait. This is —

QUESTION: We\’resplitting hairs here.

MS. HARF: No, we\’re not. We areactually not. I have both; I can tell you. They are two separate workmachines, they are two separate systems.

QUESTION:Mm-hmm.

MS. HARF: Anyone can have a – people who haveunclassified emails here, those aren\’t scanned for classifiedinformation, and they are not set up, from a security perspective, tohandle classified information. They are not.

QUESTION: But youwere saying she did not have a classified or unclassified email atthe State Department. Is that correct?

MS. HARF: Yes, so -yes.

QUESTION: So presumably, if she had done her business atthe State Department, she could\’ve used a classified email system.No?

MS. HARF: She had – as – I mean, she —

QUESTION:I mean, that would\’ve been available to her.

MS. HARF: Intheory, but she had other ways of communicating through classifiedemail through her assistants or her staff with people when she neededto use a classified setting. What I was saying is our unclassifiedemail systems at the State Department are not the same system as theclassified, and they are not equipped from a security perspective tohandle classified information, even if they\’re a state.gov accounton the unclass system. So I’m just – we all use unclass systems,they don\’t have classified on them.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS.HARF: I\’m not —

QUESTION: Her question wasn\’t pertinentto unclassified email at State.

MS. HARF: Her – was notpertinent? I\’m sorry. I think we\’re —

QUESTION: Let\’smove on.

MS. HARF: — tying each other up inknots.

QUESTION: Let\’s move on.

MS. HARF: I willanswer the question. I\’m just not sure we —

QUESTION:Yeah.

MS. HARF: Did I get – sorry, let\’s stay with–

QUESTION: I think that that got to it, but I\’m still alittle unclear —

MS. HARF: As to what?

QUESTION: Maybewe can – someone else can ask a question and we can get back tome.

MS. HARF: Okay. If there are things that are unclear, I\’mhappy to try to address them.

What\’s that?  You can\’t believe you just read that Harf barf?  I can\’t say as I blame you, so click here for the video.

I would not hire this woman to be an administrative assistant.  But she\’s a State Department spokesperson.

And  I do not trust the Secretary Of State she is referring to as far as I could throw her.

Anything else you need to know about this administration?