Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Seeks Commutation Of Fraud Sentence

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, who was convicted of conspiring to defraud investors in her now-defunct blood-testing startup, has asked President Donald Trump to commute her prison sentence, potentially cutting nearly six years off her time behind bars.

Holmes was convicted in 2022 of four counts of wire fraud and conspiracy and sentenced to just over 11 years in prison.

Prosecutors said Holmes lied to investors from 2010 to 2015 by promising that Theranos’s technology could run many medical tests on one blood drop from a finger prick.

A federal appeals court upheld her sentencing last year, citing sufficient evidence of intent to defraud.

Holmes, now 41, sought to commute her sentence in 2025, and it remains pending, according to the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney. She is scheduled to be released from a minimum-security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas, in December 2031.

A commutation would reduce her sentence but leave intact her conviction and $452 million restitution obligation to defrauded investors.

A full pardon, which Holmes has not publicly requested, would eliminate those requirements.

The Epoch Times reached out to the White House and the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney for comment, but did not receive a response by publication time.

Holmes was 19 when she founded Theranos in Palo Alto, California.

With 50 percent ownership in Theranos and a net worth of $4.5 billion at the time, she was listed as the “world’s youngest self-made woman billionaire” by Forbes in 2014.

Theranos became the subject of several investigations by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) after a 2015 report by The Wall Street Journal questioned the reliability of Theranos’s test results.

The flawed technology led a patient to falsely believe she had a precursor virus to AIDs, and sent inaccurate results to pregnant women and women being screened for cancer, according to the Department of Justice.

“Theranos itself eventually concluded a patient impact existed for every test run on patients and voided all tests with its analyzer,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California said in 2022.

“The government points out that Holmes was undeterred and again choose deceit over candor by downplaying the extent of the patient impact to investor-victims and continuing forward with her elaborate fraud.”

Holmes leveraged a high-powered Theranos board that included former Defense Secretary James Mattis, who testified against her during her trial, and two former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and the late George Shultz, whose son, Alexander, submitted a statement criticizing Holmes for concocting the scheme.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 13:40

Bank Of America, Citigroup May Launch Credit Cards With 10% Rate

Once again Trump's brash negotiating style appears to be paying off. 

Two weeks after Trump shocked the world by demanding lenders cap credit card interest rates at 10% for one year, Bank of America and Citigroup are exploring options to do just that in an attempt to placate the president. 

Bloomberg reports that both banks are mulling offering cards with a 10% rate cap as one potential solution. 

Earlier this week, Trump said he would ask Congress to implement the proposal, giving the financial firms more clarity about what exact path he’s pursuing. Bank executives have repeatedly decried the uniform cap, saying it’ll cause lenders to have to pull credit lines for consumers. 

The alternative proposal is to offer credit cards that would have a 10% rate specifically targeted to those consumers... who would already be eligible for the lowest rates around. And while it would do nothing to alleviate the near record high APRs for most Americans, it would let Trump declare that he managed to get the banks to yield - even if it was only a nominal success.

As Bloomberg notes, some executives have publicly said they agree with Trump’s focus on affordability, and the latest options they’re mulling are one way to potentially work with the administration in its effort to lower costs for consumers.

Many issuers including Bank of America and Citigroup already offer introductory rates for consumers as low as 0% for a period of time.

On Thursday, Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Brian Moynihan said a 10% cap would slow consumer spending, but noted that the bank has been talking to the administration about it.

“We’re working hard,” Moynihan said Thursday on a Bloomberg TV interview. “We’re trying to come up with solutions.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 13:20

Democrats Join Republicans In Voting The Clintons In Contempt Of Congress

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Yesterday, a curious thing happened in a House Committee.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were actually held accountable for flouting the law — at least as a preliminary matter. In the House Oversight Committee, Democrats joined Republicans in approving contempt resolutions against the two political figures after they refused to appear to answer questions about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.

The House panel voted 34-8 to advance the resolution on Bill Clinton to a floor vote. It voted 28-15 to advance a resolution on Hillary Clinton.

As previously discussed, the Clintons adopted a position that was devoid of any cognizable legal defense. It was simple hubris, telling Congress that they did not want to appear to be saying that congressional subpoenas are discretionary for them.

From the Whitewater case to the Lewinsky matter to the email scandal, the Clintons have always escaped accountability for their actions. Courts can find perjury and prosecutors can find classified material without a criminal charge. Evidence can suddenly surface after investigations, or thousands of emails can be destroyed without any repercussions.

After that history, it is little surprise that the Clintons would believe that they, unlike other Americans, can choose whether to comply with a subpoena. After standing in flagrant contempt, the Clintons only reaffirmed the sense of entitlement by offering to allow an interview in New York without a transcript. There would be no “what the meaning of ‘is’ is” moments.

It is a demonstration of our partisan times that the mere fact that Democrats joined in the motion came as a surprise to many. Nine Democrats voted with their GOP colleagues against the Clintons

What is disgraceful are those Democrats who dispensed with any institutional or ethical obligations in opposing the resolution.

Here were the eight Democrats who voted to allow the Clintons to disregard lawfully issued subpoenas from the Committee:

• Wesley Bell (D., Mo.)

• Shontel Brown (D., Oh)

• Robert Garcia (D., Cal.)

• Ro Khanna (D., Cal.)

• Kweisi Mfume (D., Md.)

• Eleanor Holmes Norton (D., D.C.)

• Suhas Subramanyam (D., Va.)

• James Walkinsaw (D., Va.)

Then there are the two Democrats who voted “present” rather than take responsibility by making an actual decision: Reps. David Min (D., Cal.) and Yassamin Ansari (D., Wash.).

That is the “profile of courage” for some members: voting that “I’m here” without taking a position on open contempt for the Committee.

Figures like Ro Khanna have long portrayed themselves as more moderate voices, but appear to be yielding to the far left, including his recent support for the disastrous wealth tax in California.

Now he is effectively saying that congressional subpoenas simply do not apply to the Clintons like they would every other American.

The three Democrats who voted to advance the resolution against Hillary Clinton are Lee, Stansbury and Tlaib, according to Politico.

Two Democrats voted “present” for the Bill Clinton contempt resolution: California Rep. David Min and Washington Rep. Yassamin Ansari, while just Min voted “present” on the Hillary Clinton resolution.

This vote was the true test of courage for House members. There has to be something that is not entirely dispensable in the face of political advantage.

Even if you disagree with the need for a subpoena, members should be able to support the authority of their colleagues to demand that everyone, even the Clintons, respect such subpoenas.

For a party that runs on fighting the privileged and entitled wealthy class, this vote is comically ironic. They are supporting the claim of the Clintons that they get to decide when they will be subject to legal demands without offering any even remotely plausible legal defenses.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 13:00

Trump Sues JPMorgan And CEO Jamie Dimon For $5 Billion Over Alleged 'Political' Debanking

President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon, claiming the banking giant debanked him for political reasons. 

The lawsuit was filed Thursday morning in a Miami state court by his attorney, Alejandro Brito, on behalf of Trump and several of his hospitality companies. 

The complaint cites JPMorgan's code of conduct, which reads: "We set high expectations and hold ourselves accountable. We do the right thing—not necessarily the easy or expedient thing. We abide by the letter and spirit of the laws and regulations everywhere we do business and have zero tolerance for unethical behavior."

According to Brito, "Despite claiming to hold these principles dear, JPMC violated them by unilaterally—and without warning or remedy—terminating several of Plaintiff’s bank accounts."

Trump and his companies have "transacted hundreds of millions of dollars" through the bank, the lawsuit reads, adding that Feb. 19, 2021 was the day that "forever altered the dynamic of the parties’ relationship," when the bank allegedly "without warning or provocation," notified Trump and his companies that several of their bank accounts or were beneficiaries of, "would be closed just two months later, on April 19, 2021."

"JPMC did not provide plaintiffs with any recourse, remedy, or alternative—its decision was final and unequivocal," reads the suit. 

JPMorgan Responds

In a statement following the filing of the suit, the bank blamed "rules and regulatory expectations."

"We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company," adding "We regret having to do so but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so. We have been asking both this Administration and prior administrations to change the rules and regulations that put us in this position, and we support the Administration’s efforts to prevent the weaponization of the banking sector."

According to Trump's attorney, his team is "confident that JPMC’s unilateral decision came about as a result of political and social motivations, and JPMC’s unsubstantiated, ‘woke’ beliefs that it needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views."

"In essence, JPMC debunked plaintiff’s accounts because it believed that the political tide at the moment favored doing so," reads the complaint. "In addition to the considerable financial and reputational harm that Plaintiffs and their affiliated entities suffered, JPMC’s reckless decision is leading a growing trend by financial institutions in the United States of America to cut off a consumer’s access to banking services if their political views contradict with those of the financial institution."

Trump’s attorney alleged that, "JPMC’s conduct, in violation of its code of conduct and Dimon’s lofty assertions, is a key indicator of a systemic, subversive industry practice that aims to coerce the public to shift and re-align their political views."

The lawsuit goes on to allege that JPMorgan Chase and Dimon have "unlawfully and unjustifiably published some or all of their names, including the names of President Trump, the Trump Organization with its affiliated entities, and the Trump family, on a blacklist." -Fox News

According to the lawsuit, the JPMorgan blacklist is accessible by federally regulated banks and is comprised of individuals and entities that are not to be served. 

"Given that Plaintiffs have always complied with all applicable banking rules and regulations and their wealth management accounts were in good standing, JPMC’s publication of President Trump, the other Plaintiffs, the Trump Organization and its affiliated entities, and/or the Trump family’s names on this blacklist, is an intentional and malicious falsehood," reads the lawsuit, which claims that the bank engaged in "an unfair and deceptive trade practice" by directing the publication of the names to the list, noting that the bank "had no legitimate basis to do so and knew that doing so would induce, and did in fact induce, other banking institutions not to deal with them."

Trump Announcement

Over the weekend, Trump quashed a WSJ article claiming that he offered JPM's Jamie Dimon the job of Fed Chairman, which he said was "totally untrue, there was never such an offer and, in fact, I'll be suing JPMorgan Chase over the next two weeks for incorrectly and inappropriately DEBANKING me after the January 6th Protest..." 

In response, a JPMorgan spokeswoman, Trish Wexler, told media outlets that the bank does not "close accounts because of political beliefs."

As the Epoch Times noted over the weekend, in August 2025, Trump issued an executive order to ensure that banks cannot refuse services to individuals based on their political or religious beliefs, a practice known as “debanking.” A watchdog in December found that nine large U.S. banks actively engaged in the practice between 2020 and 2025.

“To date, the [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] has observed that between 2020 and 2023, the banks maintained public and nonpublic policies restricting certain industry sectors’ access to banking services,” the report reads. “Many industry sectors were restricted based primarily on how it might appear to the public if the bank provided access to financial services to these sectors.”

Advocates against debanking have cited cases of Christians and conservatives who have stated that they have been victims of the practice by major financial institutions, including claims from the Indigenous Advance Ministries, former Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Trump himself, among many others. First Lady Melania Trump, in her memoir “Melania,” wrote that she, too, was denied banking services.

“I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one,” she wrote in her book.

When issuing the order over the summer, the White House said banks could face fines, consent decrees, or other punitive actions if they continue to remove financial access for certain individuals.

Tyler Durden Thu, 01/22/2026 - 12:40

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.