Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: Crafty_Dog on February 12, 2008, 09:29:17 AM
-
This thread is for the matters concerning the long, sordid and frequently criminal history of the Hillbillary Clintons:
===================
WSJ
The Clintons' Terror Pardons
By DEBRA BURLINGAME
February 12, 2008; Page A17
It was nearly 10 p.m. on New Year's Eve, 1982. Two officers on New York Police Department's elite bomb squad rushed to headquarters at One Police Plaza, where minutes earlier an explosion had destroyed the entrance to the building. Lying amid the carnage was Police Officer Rocco Pascarella, his lower leg blasted off.
"He was ripped up like someone took a box cutter and shredded his face," remembered Detective Anthony Senft, one of the bomb-squad officers who answered the call 25 years ago. "We really didn't even know that he was a uniformed man until we found his weapon, that's how badly he was injured."
About 20 minutes later, Mr. Senft and his partner, Richard Pastorella, were blown 15 feet in the air as they knelt in protective gear to defuse another bomb. Detective Senft was blinded in one eye, his facial bones shattered, his hip severely fractured. Mr. Pastorella was blinded in both eyes and lost all the fingers of his right hand. A total of four bombs exploded in a single hour on that night, including at FBI headquarters in Manhattan and the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.
The perpetrators were members of Armed Forces of National Liberation, FALN (the Spanish acronym), a clandestine terrorist group devoted to bringing about independence for Puerto Rico through violent means. Its members waged war on America with bombings, arson, kidnappings, prison escapes, threats and intimidation. The most gruesome attack was the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing in Lower Manhattan. Timed to go off during the lunch-hour rush, the explosion decapitated one of the four people killed and injured another 60.
FALN bragged about the bloodbath, calling the victims "reactionary corporate executives" and threatening: "You have unleashed a storm from which you comfortable Yankees can't escape." By 1996, the FBI had linked FALN to 146 bombings and a string of armed robberies -- a reign of terror that resulted in nine deaths and hundreds of injured victims.
On Aug. 7, 1999, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. African embassy bombings that killed 257 people and injured 5,000, President Bill Clinton reaffirmed his commitment to the victims of terrorism, vowing that he "will not rest until justice is done." Four days later, while Congress was on summer recess, the White House quietly issued a press release announcing that the president was granting clemency to 16 imprisoned members of FALN. What began as a simple paragraph on the AP wire exploded into a major controversy.
Mr. Clinton justified the clemencies by asserting that the sentences were disproportionate to the crimes. None of the petitioners, he stated, had been directly involved in crimes that caused bodily harm to anyone. "For me," the president concluded, "the question, therefore, was whether their continuing incarceration served any meaningful purpose."
His comments, including the astonishing claim that the FALN prisoners were being unfairly punished because of "guilt by association," were widely condemned as a concession to terrorists. Further, they were seen as an outrageous slap in the face of the victims and a bitter betrayal of the cops and federal law enforcement officers who had put their lives on the line to protect the public and who had invested years of their careers to put these people behind bars. The U.S. Sentencing Commission affirmed a pre-existing Justice Department assessment that the sentences, ranging from 30 to 90 years, were "in line with sentences imposed in other cases for similar terrorist activity."
The prisoners were convicted on a variety of charges that included conspiracy, sedition, violation of the Hobbes Act (extortion by force, violence or fear), armed robbery and illegal possession of weapons and explosives -- including large quantities of C-4 plastic explosive, dynamite and huge caches of ammunition. Mr. Clinton's action was opposed by the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. attorney offices that prosecuted the cases and the victims whose lives had been shattered. In contravention of standard procedures, none of these agencies, victims or families of victims were consulted or notified prior to the president's announcement.
"I know the chilling evidence that convicted the petitioners," wrote Deborah Devaney, one of the federal prosecutors who spent years on the cases. "The conspirators made every effort to murder and maim. . . . A few dedicated federal agents are the only people who stood in their way."
Observed Judge George Layton, who sentenced four FALN defendants for their conspiracy to use military-grade explosives to break an FALN leader from Ft. Leavenworth Penitentiary and detonate bombs at other public buildings, "[T]his case . . . represents one of the finest examples of preventive law enforcement that has ever come to this court's attention in the 20-odd years it has been a judge and in the 20 years before that as a practicing lawyer in criminal cases."
The FBI cracked the cases with the discovery of an FALN safe house and bomb factory. Video surveillance showed two of those on the clemency list firing weapons and building bombs intended for an imminent attack at a U.S. military installation. FBI agents obtained a warrant and entered the premises, surreptitiously disarming the bombs whose components bore the unmistakable FALN signature. They found 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, disguises, false IDs and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
A total of six safe houses were ultimately uncovered. Seven hundred hours of surveillance video were recorded, resulting in a mountain of evidence connecting the 16 prisoners to multiple FALN operations past and present.
Federal law enforcement agencies considered these individuals so dangerous, extraordinary security precautions were taken at their numerous trials. Courthouse elevators were restricted and no one, including the court officers, was permitted to carry a firearm in the courtroom.
Given all this, why would Bill Clinton, who had ignored the 3,226 clemency petitions that had piled up on his desk over the years, suddenly reach into the stack and pluck out these 16 meritless cases? (The New York Times ran a column with the headline, "Bill's Little Gift.")
Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the midst of her state-wide "listening tour" in anticipation of her run for the U.S. Senate in New York, a state which included 1.3 million Hispanics. Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- Luis V. Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Jose E. Serrano, (D., N.Y.) and Nydia M. Velazquez, (D., N.Y.) -- along with local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights advocates, had been agitating for years on behalf of the FALN cases directly to the White House and first lady.
Initial reports stated that Mrs. Clinton supported the clemencies, but when public reaction went negative she changed course, issuing a short statement three weeks after the clemencies were announced. The prisoners' delay in refusing to renounce violence "speaks volumes," she said.
The Clintons were caught in an awkward predicament of their own making. The president had ignored federal guidelines for commutation of sentences, including the most fundamental: The prisoners hadn't actually asked for clemency.
To push the deal through, signed statements renouncing violence and expressing remorse were required by the Justice Department. The FALN prisoners, surely relishing the embarrassment and discomfiture they were causing the president and his wife, had previously declined to accept these conditions. Committed and unrepentant militants who did not accept the authority of the United States, they refused to apologize for activities they were proud of in order to obtain a clemency they never requested.
So desperate was the White House to get the deal finalized and out of the news, an unprecedented 16-way conference call was set up for the "petitioners" who were locked up in 11 different federal facilities so that they could strategize a response to the president's offer. Two eventually refused to renounce their cause, preferring to serve out their lengthy sentences rather than follow the White House script.
Mr. Clinton's fecklessness in the handling of these cases was demonstrated by the fact that none of the prisoners were required, as a standard condition of release, to cooperate in ongoing investigations of countless unsolved FALN bombing cases and other crimes. Mrs. Clinton's so-called disagreement with her husband on the matter made no mention of that fact. The risk of demanding such a requirement, of course, was that the prisoners might have proudly implicated themselves, causing the entire enterprise to implode, with maximum damage to the president and potentially sinking Hillary Clinton's Senate chances.
Meanwhile, Puerto Rican politicians in New York who'd been crowing to their constituents about the impending release of these "freedom fighters" were enraged and insulted at Hillary Clinton's withdrawal of support. "It was a horrible blunder," said State Sen. Olga A. Mendez. "She needs to learn the rules."
The first lady called her failure to consult the Puerto Rican political establishment before assessing the entire issue a mistake "that will never happen again" -- even as the cops who had been maimed and disfigured by FALN operations continued to be ignored. Tom and Joe Connor, two brothers who were little boys when their 33-year-old father, Frank, was killed in the Fraunces Tavern attack, were dumbstruck to learn that White House staffers referred to the FALN militants as "political prisoners" and were planning a meeting with their children to humanize their plight.
Members of Congress viewed the clemencies as a dangerous abuse of presidential power that could not go unchallenged. Resolutions condemning the president's action were passed with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate, 311-41 in the House. It was the most they could do; the president's pardon power, conferred by the Constitution, is absolute. The House launched an investigation, subpoenaing records from the White House and Justice in an effort to determine whether proper procedure had been followed. President Clinton promptly invoked executive privilege, putting Justice Department lawyers in the impossible position of admitting that they had sent the White House a recommendation on the issue, but barred from disclosing what it was.
Twenty-four hours before a scheduled Senate committee hearing, the DOJ withheld the FBI's written statement about the history of the FALN and an assessment of its current terrorist capability. "They pulled the plug on us," said an unnamed FBI official in a news report, referring to the Justice Department decision to prevent FBI testimony.
The investigation revealed that the White House was driving the effort to release the prisoners, rather than the other way around. White House aides created talking points and strategies for a public campaign on the prisoners' behalf included asking prominent individuals for letters supporting clemency.
Jeffrey Farrow, a key adviser on the White House Interagency Working Group for Puerto Rico recommended meetings with the president and the three leading members of Congressional Hispanic Caucus who were pushing the effort, stating in a March 6, 1999 email, "This is Gutierrez's [sic] top priority as well as of high constituent importance to Serrano and Velazquez." The next day, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Maria Echaveste sent an email to White House Counsel Charles Ruff, who was handling the clemency issue, supporting Mr. Farrow's view, saying, "Chuck -- Jeff's right about this -- very hot issue." Another adviser in the Working Group, Mayra Martinez-Fernandez, noted that releasing the prisoners would be "fairly easy to accomplish and will have a positive impact among strategic communities in the U.S. (read, voters)."
And there you have it. Votes.
While the pardon scandals that marked Bill and Hillary Clinton's final days in office are remembered as transactions involving cronies, criminals and campaign contributors, the FALN clemencies of 1999 should be remembered in the context of the increasing threat of domestic and transnational terrorism that was ramping up during the Clinton years of alleged peace and prosperity. To wit, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Tokyo subway Sarin attack, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1995 "Bojinka" conspiracy to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1996 Summer Olympics bombing, Osama bin Laden's 1996 and 1998 "Declarations of War" on America, the 1998 East African embassy bombings, the 2000 USS Sullivans bombing attempt, the 2000 USS Cole bombing, and the 2000 Millennium bombing plot.
It was within that context that the FBI gave its position on the FALN clemencies -- which the White House succeeded in keeping out of news coverage but ultimately failed to suppress -- stating that "the release of these individuals will psychologically and operationally enhance the ongoing violent and criminal activities of terrorist groups, not only in Puerto Rico, but throughout the world." The White House spun the clemencies as a sign of the president's universal commitment to "peace and reconciliation" just one year after Osama bin Laden told his followers that the United States is a "paper tiger" that can be attacked with impunity.
It would be a mistake to dismiss as "old news" the story of how and why these terrorists were released in light of the fact that it took place during the precise period when Bill Clinton now claims he was avidly engaged, even "obsessed," with efforts to protect the public from clandestine terrorist attacks. If Bill and Hillary Clinton were willing to pander to the demands of local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights activists defending bomb-makers convicted of seditious conspiracy, how might they stand up to pressure from other interest groups working in less obvious ways against U.S. interests in a post-9/11 world?
Radical Islamists are a sophisticated and determined enemy who understand that violence alone will not achieve their goals. Islamist front groups, representing themselves as rights organizations, are attempting to get a foothold here as they have already in parts of Western Europe by deftly exploiting ethnic and racial politics, agitating under the banner of civil liberties even as they are clamoring for the imposition of special Shariah law privileges in the public domain. They believe that the road to America's ultimate defeat is through the back door of policy and law and they are aggressively using money, influence and retail politics to achieve their goal.
On the campaign trail, the Clintons like to say that Bill is merely supportive and enthusiastic, "just like all the other candidates' spouses." Nothing could be further from the truth. Returning Bill and Hillary Clinton to the White House would present the country with the unprecedented situation of a former and current president simultaneously occupying the White House, the practical implications of which have yet to be fully explored.
The FALN clemencies provide a disturbing example of how the abuse or misuse of presidential prerogative, under the guise of policy, can be put in service of the personal and private activities of the president's spouse -- and beyond the reach of meaningful congressional oversight.
Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
-
I believe without hesitation that the Clintons would have Obama assasinated if they thought they would get away with it.
And then Hillary would get on her soapbox and accuse Repbulicans of, "why, they are even accusing us of murder!"
The Clintons can fire all their help but eventually it will dawn on them that *they* are being rejected. This is a prime example of how they think *everything* can be managed. (Extrapolate that to national and world affairs.)
The crats (and the country) are realizing Obama is more likely to beat McCain then the grifter couple. As a result they are fleeing like sheep to a new and better point man. They would vote for a rhinosaorus if it could "beat the Republicans".
10 years ago I remember talking to a lady I worked with and I exasperatingly exclaimed how I could not fathom how the Crats can support sleazy Clinton characters and reward them with the highest office in the world. Her answerwas right on - "well that's because that's all they [Democrats] have".
Not anymore.
It's a long time till the convention. If OB can stay out of trouble he's looking good.
Don't count on the Clinton's to show real humility. They'll pretend and she'll put on that phoney glued on smile but.....
-
If I have it right, the new campaign manager was the one who was involved with spiriting files out of Vince Foster's office the night he died/was killed.
-
His and Her Finances
February 22, 2008; Page A14
Stonewalling and secrecy helped Bill and Hillary Clinton win the White House without a thorough enough vetting in 1992. Now they're trying to do it again, this time by not disclosing either their income tax returns or the donor list for the Clinton Foundation.
All of this has become the target of greater attention since Mrs. Clinton loaned her struggling campaign $5 million last month. She waited until after the crucial Super Tuesday voting to disclose this news, and initially described the loan as "my money." Campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson then clarified that the cash had come from Mrs. Clinton's 50% "share" of the couple's joint resources.
Is America a great country or what? Only seven years ago the Clintons were swimming in legal bills. They've since cashed in on their celebrity to pay off a $2 million mortgage on their Washington D.C. home, and are now able to lend $5 million to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. The Senator has had her own success, earning more than $5 million for her "Living History" memoir. But the real income source has been the former President, who has been giving $450,000 speeches, and in general parlaying his political fame into personal riches.
Mr. Clinton is now trying to unwind a business relationship with billionaire pal Ron Burkle. This deal made him a partner -- along with the ruler of Dubai -- in the Yucaipa Global Fund. How much did Mr. Clinton earn from a partnership with men whose business interests might be affected by the policy actions of a President Hillary Clinton? The Clintons and their accountant know, but the public doesn't.
Mr. Clinton has also been raising cash for the Clinton Foundation, which funds his charitable activities and Presidential library. The foundation has raised more than $500 million, but Mr. Clinton has refused to release a donor list.
What we do know is that Mr. Clinton has allowed donors to use his influence to advance their business interests. That was the case with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, who won a huge mining concession in Kazakhstan after Mr. Clinton flew all the way to Almaty to introduce him to President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Bloomberg reported this week that Mr. Clinton has also been a frequent flyer on Mr. Giustra's corporate jet.
Mr. Giustra later donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and has pledged $100 million more. As the New York Times has reported, Mr. Clinton used his trip to praise Mr. Nazarbayev's bid to head the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, even as Senator Clinton was slamming the country's record on corruption and elections. If Mr. Clinton's personal business is going to affect U.S. foreign policy, he ought to tell the world who his benefactors are.
We've seen this nondisclosure before. During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons claimed to be coming clean by releasing their tax returns from 1980 forward. But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit. Remember Red Bone and Jim Blair, and how she claimed she had made the investment on her own after reading the Wall Street Journal? For that matter, remember the other characters who provided cash for the Clintons in return for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, among other things?
Senator Clinton has said she'll make her tax returns public only if she wins the Democratic nomination. Mr. Clinton has said he'll disclose his future donors only if she is President. Once again they're trying to block disclosure until it's too late to inform the judgment of voters.
Mr. Obama has released his tax returns and has suggested Mrs. Clinton do the same because "the American people deserve to know where you get your income from." If the Clintons continue to keep his and her finances under wraps, the public would be wise, given their history, to assume they have something to hide.
WSJ
-
Being a politician on the national stage has certainly become a way to glorius riches hasn't it?
They all cash in after they leave. I remember when Reagan went to Japan to speak for 2 million and how the crats tried to turn that into a scandal. That's pennies compared to the riches these people get giving speeches, working as "lobbyists", consultants, and token positions in companies that need political connections.
I still wonder what the inside deal is with Chelsea and the hedge fund.
Where is the reporting for that?
-
Have you ever been to a government office to pick up a document -- your driver's license, say -- only to be sent to another window, where the clerk sends you to another window, where a clerk sends you back to the first to start all over again?
That's what it feels like these days asking Bill and Hillary Clinton about their White House records. Last weekend, USA Today reported that it had finally received some records from the Clinton Presidency four years after making a Freedom of Information Act request. Except that hundreds of pages pertaining to the handling of Bill Clinton's 140 last-minute pardons had been redacted or withheld by the helpful folks at the National Archives.
The Archives told USA Today that they had referred all the excluded and redacted material to lawyer Bruce Lindsey, the longtime keeper of Clinton secrets who's responsible for vetting the records. But Mr. Lindsey refused; apparently he doesn't want to second-guess the Archives. The Clintons themselves, meanwhile, say that everything is in the hands of the Archives and Mr. Lindsey, even though the Archives are acting pursuant to Bill's personal instructions, and those instructions include a provision to allow Mr. Lindsay to second-guess the Archivists.
If you can't easily follow all that, maybe that's the idea.
Last October, NBC's Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton about the White House records at a debate. Her answer: "The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves." So, while she is "fully in favor" of releasing the records from her time in the White House, those bureaucrats were holding things up. As for the records that her husband had requested remain under seal until 2012, as permitted under the law, "That's not my decision to make," she said. In other words, you'll have to ask at Window 14.
Then in February, Mr. Russert asked again, noting that the Archives had actually turned over 10,000 pages of documents about Hillary Clinton's schedule as first lady to the Clintons for their review, and they were sitting on them. Her answer was again, in effect, "It's not my job."
Those scheduling records are now due to be made public later this month, but the pardon records are stuck in limbo. The Archivists say that it's up to Mr. Lindsey, but also that Mr. Lindsey won't look at them. The Clintons say its up to the Archives, and Mr. Lindsey -- well, his window is closed, we guess.
Then there's the question of the donors to the Clinton Foundation, which raised more than $135 million last year alone. Hillary Clinton says she's in favor of a law that would require disclosure of the donors to Presidential foundations. So what about voluntarily disclosing while a candidate what she favors making mandatory after she's elected? "Well, you'll have to ask them," she said back in September, referring to the foundation. Who runs the foundation? Why, Bruce Lindsey, of course.
So, has Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mr. Lindsey and Bill do the disclosure that she claims to favor? "Well," she told Mr. Russert in New Hampshire in September, "I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband." In other words, this window is now also closed -- at least until the election is over.
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc&feature=bz301
=========
And here's this:
http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Hillary_bosnia_morris/2008/03/25/83058.html
Hillary's Other Fabrication
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:15 PM
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Article Font Size
Now that Hillary Clinton has been nailed in an outright fabrication of her role in Bosnia, it is time to remind ourselves of another, even more galling fantasy that Hillary tried to sell the voters.
After 9/11, Hillary had a problem. New Yorkers were desperately focused on their own needs for protection and they were saddled with a Senator who was not one of them -- an Arkansasn or was it a Chicagoan?
Interviewed on the "Today" show one week after 9/11, she spun an elaborate yarn. The kindest thing we could say was that it was a fantasy. Or a fabrication. She said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11 and happened to duck into a coffee shop when the airplanes hit. She said that this move saved Chelsea's life. But Chelsea told Talk magazine that she was in a friend's apartment four miles from ground zero when the first plane hit. Her friend called her, waking her up, and told her to turn on the TV. On television, she saw the second plane hit, disproving Hillary's claim that "she heard the plane hit. She heard it. She did."
So why did Hillary make up the story about Chelsea? Most likely to was because her co-senator (and implicit rival for the voter's affection), a real New Yorker Chuck Schumer spoke of his daughter, who attended Stuyvesant High School (Dick's alma mater) located next to the TRade Center, being at real risk on 9/11. Hillary needed to make herself part of the scene.
She invented the entire story on national television, the "Today" show, and didn't blink an eye. Her fabrication on the "Today" show was no unique foray. It is her standard M.O.. It gives us pause in evaluating all of her stories and calls into question her entire credibility.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
-
More from Morris:
Hillary's List of Lies
Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:40 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann Article Font Size
The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.
Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:
Admitted Lies
Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)
Whoppers She Won't Admit
She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
She opposed NAFTA at the time.
She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
The billing records showed up on their own.
She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
She was always a Yankees fan.
She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?
Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll?
OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie — that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.
McCain's virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others.
Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.
It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter's simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush's personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.
When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama's patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).
The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a “strong, decisive leader,” 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama, and 61 percent said it of Hillary. Obama has looked weak handling the Wright controversy.
His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad.
We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
-
Getting Mrs. Clinton
March 28, 2008
WSJ
I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.
That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).
AP
But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.
Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves.
Not that her staff isn't policing them too. Mrs. Clinton's people are heavy-handed in that area, letting producers and correspondents know they're watching, weighing, may have to take this higher. There's too much of this in politics, but Hillary's campaign takes it to a new level.
It's not only the press. It's what I get as I walk around New York, which used to be thick with her people. I went to a Hillary fund-raiser at Hunter College about a month ago, paying for a seat in the balcony and being ushered up to fill the more expensive section on the floor, so frantic were they to fill seats.
I sat next to a woman, a New York Democrat who'd been for Hillary from the beginning and still was. She was here. But, she said, "It doesn't seem to be working." She shrugged, not like a brokenhearted person but a practical person who'd missed all the signs of something coming. She wasn't mad at the voters. But she was no longer so taken by the woman who soon took the stage and enacted joy.
The other day a bookseller told me he'd been reading the opinion pages of the papers and noting the anti-Hillary feeling. Two weeks ago he realized he wasn't for her anymore. It wasn't one incident, just an accumulation of things. His experience tracks this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing Mrs. Clinton's disapproval numbers have risen to the highest level ever in the campaign, her highest in fact in seven years.
* * *
You'd think she'd pivot back to showing a likable side, chatting with women, weeping, wearing the bright yellows and reds that are thought to appeal to her core following, older women. Well, she's doing that. Yet at the same time, her campaign reveals new levels of thuggishness, though that's the wrong word, for thugs are often effective. This is mere heavy-handedness.
On Wednesday a group of Mrs. Clinton's top donors sent a letter to the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, warning her in language that they no doubt thought subtle but that reflected a kind of incompetent menace, that her statements on the presidential campaign may result in less money for Democratic candidates for the House. Ms. Pelosi had said that in her view the superdelegates should support the presidential candidate who wins the most pledged delegates in state contests. The letter urged her to "clarify" her position, which is "clearly untenable" and "runs counter" to the superdelegates' right to make "an informed, individual decision" about "who would be the party's strongest nominee." The signers, noting their past and huge financial support, suggested that Ms. Pelosi "reflect" on her comments and amend them to reflect "a more open view."
Barack Obama's campaign called it inappropriate and said Mrs. Clinton should "reject the insinuation." But why would she? All she has now is bluster. Her supporters put their threat in a letter, not in a private meeting. By threatening Ms. Pelosi publicly, they robbed her of room to maneuver. She has to defy them or back down. She has always struck me as rather grittier than her chic suits, high heels and unhidden enthusiasm may suggest. We'll see.
What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can't trace the line from "this moment's difficulties" to "my triumphant end." But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don't lose. She can't figure out how to win, and she can't accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn't know how he did it!)
She is concussed. But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop Nafta. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "Wag the Dog," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration.
* * *
What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: "Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."
Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy. He seems to know her reputation for untruths. He seemed to be saying, "I get it."
-
Limbaugh's strategy is working for now. Leave Clinton in the race and this is continuing to hurt the Crats. But this will be all resolved by the time of election. And the polls that show some crats would not vote for either BO or Clinton mean nothing. Come november they will all vote for whoever the crat candidate is. Remember Republicans are worse than Nazis in the eyes of most crats.
With that said I still disagree with Rush. Anytime anyone has a chance to get rid of the Clintons, do so. This country has to get them off the stage. They are damaging this country. Knock them out once and for all. Get rid of them. Go away. Stop torturing us with their sick personalities.
An excerpt from David Brooks says it all:
"For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head."
The full piece:
****The Long Defeat
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 25, 2008
Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.
Skip to next paragraph
David Brooks
Related
Go to Columnist Page »
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web
First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.
Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.
Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.
In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.
Five percent.
Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.
For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.
Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?
The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.
For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.
No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.
If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company****
-
Hillary Clinton goes to her doctor for a check-up, only to find out that she's pregnant. She is furious... Here she is in the middle of her first run for President as Senator for New York .... now this has happened to her. She calls home, gets Bill on the phone and immediately starts screaming:
'How could you have let this happen? With all that's going on right now, you go and get me pregnant! How could you? I can't believe this! I've just found out I'm five weeks pregnant and it's all your fault! Well, what have you got to say?'
There is nothing but silence on the phone. She screams again, 'Did you hear me?'
Finally she hears Bill's very, very quiet voice in a barely audible whisper, he asks: 'Who's speaking?'
-
WHY HILLARY WON’T QUIT
Apr 2 2008
Dick's Articles
***Hillary Clinton’s campaign currently owes vendors $8 million, exclusive of the $5 million she owes herself. She cannot use general election money to pay for this debt. If she begins to be anything less than certain that she will stay in up to the convention, she won’t raise any money and will be stuck with the debt. She also realizes that it is only by projecting an almost manic air of certainty that she has any chance at all of hanging onto super delegates. The first whiff they get of a withdrawal, they will all run screaming to Obama to get on the late train. Don’t think that Hillary is delusional. She knows she’s lost but she has no choice but to play the rest of the game. To fold now would leave her in an untenable situation.***
They need cash. Not only to pay off their debts but to rake it in for future plans of inflicting themselves on the Democrats and this nation.
What a joke that Bill Clinton is outraged that Richardson told him "five" times he wouldn't do what he did [come out for Obama]
He and his accomplice are the world's biggest G..M liars and are ruining this country by making it respectable to lie incessantly.
Our children grow up being taught that this behavior is ok. They are pigs as far as I am concerned
Hopefully after she loses their power with the Dems will forever dimisnish and they will just fade out over the years.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us...gewanted=print
April 5, 2008
Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells
By DEBORAH SONTAG
Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.
The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.
“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.
Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.
A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”
The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.
Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.
As Deputy Holman understood it, Ms. Bachtel had died of complications from a stillbirth after being turned away by a local hospital for her failure to pay $100 upfront.
“I mentioned this story to Senator Clinton, and she apparently took to it and liked it,” Deputy Holman said, “and one of her aides said she’d be using it at some rallies.”
Indeed, saying that the story haunted her, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly offered it as a dire example of a broken health care system. At one March rally in Wyoming, for instance, she referred to Ms. Bachtel, a 35-year-old who managed a Pizza Hut, as a young, uninsured minimum-wage worker, saying, “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”
Mrs. Clinton does not name Ms. Bachtel or the hospital in her speeches. As she tells it, the woman was turned away twice by a local hospital when she was experiencing difficulty with her pregnancy. “The hospital said, ‘Well, you don’t have insurance.’ She said, ‘No, I don’t.’ They said, ‘Well, we can’t see you until you give $100.’ She said, ‘Where am I going to get $100?’
“The next time she came back to the hospital, she came in an ambulance,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “She was in distress. The doctors and the nurses worked on her and couldn’t save the baby.”
Since Ms. Bachtel’s baby died at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. Weiss, the spokeswoman for O’Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O’Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said.
The hospital would not provide details about the woman’s case, citing privacy concerns; she died two weeks after the stillbirth at a medical center in Columbus.
“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.”
Although Mrs. Clinton has told the story repeatedly, it first came to the attention of the hospital after The Washington Post cited it as a staple of her stump speeches on Thursday. That brought it to the attention of The Daily Sentinel in Pomeroy, Ohio, which published an article on Friday.
Neither paper named the hospital or challenged Mrs. Clinton’s account.
-
Clinton Tax Lessons
April 7, 2008; Page A12
New York Senator Hillary Clinton and her husband spend a lot of time on the Presidential trail deploring the "wealthy" and "well-connected." As their newly released tax records for 2000 to 2007 show, they know of whom they speak.
The former, and perhaps future, first couple earned $109 million over the past eight years, putting them among the top .01% of taxpayers. Apparently the Bush years haven't been a Depression era for everyone. The bulk of the Clintons' income came from speech-making ($51.9 million) and book-writing ($29.6 million), and it's hard to begrudge their desire to cash in on the Presidency after toiling for so many years in public service. The Clintons are hardly unique in showing that in today's Washington you can do very, very well after you've done good.
AP
Senator Hillary Clinton
We can also now understand why the couple took so long to release their returns, and are still reluctant to release other information. Their political status has given them access to wealthy folks who've helped make them rich. For example, Mr. Clinton raked in as much as $15 million working as an adviser and rainmaker for billionaire financier Ron Burkle's Yucaipa firm. We're not sure what advice Mr. Clinton gave but it must have been fabulous. The former President also took in $3.3 million in consulting fees from InfoUSA CEO Vinod Gupta, who has also helped fund Mrs. Clinton's White House bid. These are not opportunities that fall into every American's lap.
Meanwhile, the Clintons also made liberal use of the charitable deduction, claiming $10.2 million in charitable giving over the eight years. Intriguingly, nearly all the donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation, which has disbursed only half the money. The Clintons can thus use the foundation for, er, strategic giving, such as the $100,000 it donated last year to a local South Carolina library – the day after Mrs. Clinton debated in that key primary state. There are other examples of such politically targeted philanthropy, and it's worth noting that most of the foundation's disbursements came only after Mrs. Clinton announced her Presidential run.
Similar conflict-of-interest questions apply to the separate William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, for which the couple has so far refused to release a list of donors. Such a list could contain more of the likes of Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra, who took Mr. Clinton along on a trip to Kazakhstan as a character reference, won a Kazakh mining concession, and gave more than $30 million to the foundation. The Clintons have an obligation to let voters see who their foundation donors are.
Like other Americans during this tax season, the Clintons have also had to endure the complexity of the tax code. Their 2006 return alone totaled 67 pages. While they can afford a smart accountant to sift through all those forms, would it be too optimistic to think Mrs. Clinton might be inspired by her tax experience to promote tax reform?
Alas, yes. Senator Clinton's main tax proposal is to repeal the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, raising rates to the levels of the Clinton Presidency. "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them," Mrs. Clinton explained.
With friends like Mr. Burkle, clearly they didn't. But her higher tax rates wouldn't merely hit those who make $109 million; they'd soak middle-class families that make $100,000 or $200,000 a year and hardly feel "rich." If the former first lady feels so strongly that she should pay more taxes, we suggest she lay off the middle class and instead write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the difference between the Clinton and Bush tax rates. She and her husband can afford it.
-
Clinton Foundation Secrets
April 25, 2008; Page A14
WSJ
Transparency is a popular word in this presidential election, with all three candidates finally having released their tax returns. Yet the public still hasn't seen the records of an institution with some of the biggest potential for special-interest mischief: The William J. Clinton Foundation.
Bill Clinton established that body in 1997 while still President. It has since raised half-a-billion dollars, which has been spent on Mr. Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas and global philanthropic initiatives. The mystery remains its donors, and whether these contributors might one day seek to call in their chits with a President Hillary Clinton.
That's no small matter given the former first couple's history. Yet Mr. Clinton says he won't violate the "privacy" of donors by disclosing their names, even if his wife wins the Oval Office. What is already in the public record should make that secrecy untenable, however:
Chicago bankruptcy lawyer William Brandt Jr. pledged $1 million for the Clinton library in May 1999, at the same time the Justice Department was investigating whether he'd lied about a Clinton fundraising event. The Clinton DOJ cleared him a few months later.
Loral Space and Communications then-CEO, Bernard Schwartz, committed to $1 million in 2000, at the same time the firm was being investigated for improperly sending technology to China. Loral agreed to a $14 million fine during the Bush Administration.
A major investor in cellular firm NextWave – Bay Harbour Management – pledged $1 million in 1999, when NextWave was waiting to see if the Clinton FCC would allow it to keep its cellular licenses. NextWave didn't immediately get its licenses, and Bay Harbour never made good on its pledge.
And let's not forget the $450,000 contribution from Denise Rich, which was followed by Mr. Clinton's pardon of her fugitive husband, Marc Rich.
American citizens are limited to donating $2,300 to presidential candidates, but there are no limits on gifts to presidential foundations. We don't think there should be limits, but without disclosure the potential for political conflicts, real or apparent, is extensive. Were it not for some enterprising journalism by the New York Sun in 2004, for example, we might not know that notorious trial lawyer William Lerach had made a donation to Mr. Clinton's foundation. Lerach has since been indicted for, and pled guilty to, fraud. Would the Clinton Administration have pursued a similar fraud case?
Presidential candidates also aren't allowed to accept campaign checks from foreigners, but, again, no such restrictions apply to foundations. We know that donations to the Clinton Foundation have come from the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, and the governments of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Brunei. Wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen have also given big.
Mr. Clinton has also accepted money from a Chinese Internet company, Alibaba, which aids the Beijing government in censoring the Web. Most recently, one of Alibaba's Chinese homepages posted a "most wanted" list of Tibetan rioters, with pictures and a phone number for informants to call. Mrs. Clinton has condemned the Chinese crackdown on Tibet, but her husband notably hasn't returned the Alibaba money.
No doubt all of these donors would say they gave their money without a single string attached, and Mr. Clinton rightly points out that other former Presidents keep their library donors under wraps. If Mr. Clinton were merely a former President building a library for history's sake, we might not worry. But he is a potential first husband whose spouse could influence countless decisions, foreign and domestic.
Mr. Clinton seems to understand the value of his mere association. Consider his relationship with Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who took Mr. Clinton on a trip to Kazakhstan in 2005, won a Kazakh mining concession, and then committed to donate more than $130 million to the Clinton Foundation. In a letter we recently published, Mr. Giustra insists his gift was entirely philanthropic and that he won the Kazakh concession on the merits.
More recently, we've also learned Mr. Clinton arranged for Mr. Giustra to meet with Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. A Canadian company that Mr. Giustra's firm was advising later acquired interests in Colombian oil fields. Some of the money Mr. Giustra has given the Clinton Foundation has been earmarked for development projects in Colombia.
How many favors has Mr. Clinton done for foreign donors? There's no way of knowing. The former President insists he's aware of no conflicts. Notably, however, donations to the Clinton Foundation soared as Mrs. Clinton neared a presidential run – to $135 million in 2006, 70% more than the year before. Somebody seems to think there is value in being generous to the Clintons.
Mrs. Clinton says the foundation is her husband's business, not hers. But as she has said in the past, a Clinton Presidency is two for the price of one. Americans deserve to know who has been donating to the Clinton Foundation.
-
this whole concept that Hillary could and should win if only she runs the right campaign is wrong. Hillary lost because of the nature of who she is. She is a chornic bullshit artist, dishones, selfish to the core as her "skinny" Santa husband. She lost because she has very high negatives because of who she is and her flawed character - period.
This whole concept that no matter who she is the American electorate can forever be manipulated to like her is flawed. You can fool some of the people some of the time...
Look - to all Clinton lovers - feminist chicks included - your candidate is dishonest, fraudulent, selfish, narcissistic, and hated by 45% of all Americans forvever. They have to stop ruining forever American politics. We have to get back to at least some semblence of character. Some semblence of honesty and forthrightness. Bo is trying to come across this way (although I don't believe him either) but he is absolutely right that Americans are craving good, decent honest leaders. The Clintons are not, have never been, and will never be that.
***By KAREN TUMULTY 50 minutes ago
For all her talk about "full speed on to the White House," there was an unmistakably elegiac tone to Hillary Clinton's primary-night speech in Indianapolis. And if one needed further confirmation that the undaunted, never-say-die Clintons realize their bid might be at an end, all it took was a look at the wistful faces of the husband and the daughter who stood behind the candidate as she talked of all the people she has met in a journey "that has been a blessing for me."
ADVERTISEMENT
It was also a journey she had begun with what appeared to be insurmountable advantages, which evaporated one by one as the campaign dragged on far longer than anyone could have anticipated. She made at least five big mistakes, each of which compounded the others:
1. She misjudged the mood
That was probably her biggest blunder. In a cycle that has been all about change, Clinton chose an incumbent's strategy, running on experience, preparedness, inevitability - and the power of the strongest brand name in Democratic politics. It made sense, given who she is and the additional doubts that some voters might have about making a woman Commander in Chief. But in putting her focus on positioning herself to win the general election in November, Clinton completely misread the mood of Democratic-primary voters, who were desperate to turn the page. "Being the consummate Washington insider is not where you want to be in a year when people want change," says Barack Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. Clinton's "initial strategic positioning was wrong and kind of played into our hands." But other miscalculations made it worse:
2. She didn't master the rules
Clinton picked people for her team primarily for their loyalty to her, instead of their mastery of the game. That became abundantly clear in a strategy session last year, according to two people who were there. As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified - and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it. Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she'd be the nominee. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign now acknowledges privately:
3. She underestimated the caucus states
While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters - women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs - were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says Axelrod, "they - bewilderingly - seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."
By the time Clinton's lieutenants realized the grave nature of their error, they lacked the resources to do anything about it - in part because:
4. She relied on old money
For a decade or more, the Clintons set the standard for political fund-raising in the Democratic Party, and nearly all Bill's old donors had re-upped for Hillary's bid. Her 2006 Senate campaign had raised an astonishing $51.6 million against token opposition, in what everyone assumed was merely a dry run for a far bigger contest. But something had happened to fund-raising that Team Clinton didn't fully grasp: the Internet. Though Clinton's totals from working the shrimp-cocktail circuit remained impressive by every historic measure, her donors were typically big-check writers. And once they had ponied up the $2,300 allowed by law, they were forbidden to give more. The once bottomless Clinton well was drying up.
Obama relied instead on a different model: the 800,000-plus people who had signed up on his website and could continue sending money his way $5, $10 and $50 at a time. (The campaign has raised more than $100 million online, better than half its total.) Meanwhile, the Clintons were forced to tap the $100 million - plus fortune they had acquired since he left the White House - first for $5 million in January to make it to Super Tuesday and then $6.4 million to get her through Indiana and North Carolina. And that reflects one final mistake:
5. She never counted on a long haul
Clinton's strategy had been premised on delivering a knockout blow early. If she could win Iowa, she believed, the race would be over. Clinton spent lavishly there yet finished a disappointing third. What surprised the Obama forces was how long it took her campaign to retool. She fought him to a tie in the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests but didn't have any troops in place for the states that followed. Obama, on the other hand, was a train running hard on two or three tracks. Whatever the Chicago headquarters was unveiling to win immediate contests, it always had a separate operation setting up organizations in the states that were next. As far back as Feb. 21, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe was spotted in Raleigh, N.C. He told the News & Observer that the state's primary, then more than 10 weeks away, "could end up being very important in the nomination fight." At the time, the idea seemed laughable.
Now, of course, the question seems not whether Clinton will exit the race but when. She continues to load her schedule with campaign stops, even as calls for her to concede grow louder. But the voice she is listening to now is the one inside her head, explains a longtime aide. Clinton's calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best. And then? As she said in Indianapolis, "No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." When the task at hand is healing divisions in the Democratic Party, the loser can have as much influence as the winner. View this article on Time.com***
-
The Clinton Divorce
May 9, 2008; Page A16
No, we don't mean Bill and Hillary. We mean the separation now under way between the Clintons and the Democratic Party. Like all divorces after lengthy unions, this one is painful and has had its moments of reconciliation, but after Tuesday a split looks inevitable. The long co-dependency is over.
Truth be told, this was always a marriage more of convenience than love. The party's progressives never did like Bill Clinton's New Democrat ways, but after Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis they needed his epic political gifts to win back the White House. They hated him for their loss of Congress in 1994, but they tolerated Dick Morris and welfare reform to keep the presidency in 1996.
AP
The price was that they had to put their ethics in a blind Clinton trust. Whitewater and the missing billing records, Webb Hubbell, cattle futures and "Red" Bone, the Lincoln Bedroom, Johnny Chung and the overseas fund-raising scandals, Paula Jones and lying under oath, Monica and the meaning of "is." Democrats, or all of them this side of Joe Lieberman and Pat Moynihan, defended the Clintons through it all. Everything was dismissed as a product of the "Republican attack machine," an invention of the "Clinton haters," or "just about sex."
Democrats and the media did make a fleeting attempt at liberation when Bill Clinton left office after 2000 amid the tawdry pardons. Barney Frank, the most fervent of the Clinton defenders throughout the 1990s, even called the pardons a "betrayal" and "contemptuous." More than a few Democrats also noticed that George W. Bush's main campaign theme in 2000 was restoring "dignity" and "honor" to the Oval Office, and that Al Gore had somehow lost despite two-thirds of voters saying the U.S. was moving in the right direction.
But Hillary Clinton had also won a Senate seat that year, and she had presidential ambitions of her own. So the trial separation was brief. Democrats acquiesced as the first couple put their own money man, Terry McAuliffe, in charge of the Democratic National Committee. As the Bush years rolled on and John Kerry lost, they watched Hillary build her machine and plot a Clinton restoration. They watched, too, as the New York Senator did her own triangulating on Iraq, first voting for it, then supporting it before turning against it as the election neared. Party regulars fell in line behind her, and her nomination was said to be "inevitable."
Then something astonishing happened. A new star emerged in Barack Obama, a man who had Bill Clinton's political talent but Hillary's liberal convictions. He had charisma, a flair for raising money, and he held out the chance of a 2008 Democratic landslide. Something more than a return to the trench warfare of the 1990s seemed possible – perhaps the revival of a liberal majority, circa 1965.
More remarkable still, Democrats supporting Mr. Obama had a revelation about Clintonian mores. David Geffen, channeling William Safire, declared that "everybody in politics lies," but the Clintons "do it with such ease, it's troubling." Ted Kennedy was shocked to see the Clintons play the race card in South Carolina. The media discovered their secrecy over tax records and Clinton Foundation donors, while columnists were appalled to hear her assail Mr. Obama for his associations with radical bomber William Ayers. Listen closely and you could almost hear Bob Dole asking, "Where's the outrage?"
By the time Mrs. Clinton made her famous claim about dodging Bosnian sniper fire, Democrats and their media friends no longer called it a mere gaffe, as they once might have. This time the remark was said to be emblematic of her entire political career. The same folks who had believed her about Whitewater and the rest now claimed she never tells the truth about anything.
As the scales suddenly fell from liberal eyes, the most striking statistic was the one in this week's North Carolina exit poll. Asked if they considered Mrs. Clinton "honest and trustworthy," no fewer than 50% of Democratic primary voters said she was not. In Indiana, the figure was merely 45%.
Slowly but surely, these Prisoners of Bill and Hill are now walking away, urging Mrs. Clinton to leave the race. Chuck Schumer damns her with faint support by saying any decision is up to her. Columnists from the New York Times, which endorsed her when she looked inevitable, now demand that she exit so as not to help John McCain. With Mr. Obama to ride, they no longer need the Arkansas interlopers.
If the Clintons play to their historic form, they will ignore all this for as long as they can. They will fight on, hoping that something else turns up about Mr. Obama before the convention. Or they'll try to play the Michigan and Florida cards. Or they'll unleash Harold Ickes on the superdelegates and suggest that if Mr. Obama loses in November she'll be back in 2012 and her revenge will be, well, Clintonian.
The difference between now and the 1990s, however, is that this time the Clinton foes aren't the "vast right-wing conspiracy." This time the conspirators are fellow Democrats. It took 10 years, but you might say Democrats have finally voted to impeach.
-
Can He Take a Frisk?
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: May 28, 2008
After “Rahmbo” Emanuel, the Illinois congressman dubbed “the hostage negotiator” by the Obama forces, fails to talk Hillary down, Barack Obama knows that he is left with one final roll of the dice. He sets up a secret meeting with Bill Clinton in neutral territory at Rahm’s hideaway office in the Capitol.
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Maureen Dowd
Go to Columnist Page » Bill arrives two hours late, red-faced and truculent.
“If you brought me over here to cry uncle, shame on you, Barack Obama. You and your press lackeys are engaged in a cover-up even though Hillary’s winnin’ the popular vote and the general election.”
“Hey, Bill, please, stop wagging your finger at me. Call off Harold Ickes and the Hillaryland Huns. You’re right. I can’t win without her. The two of us can clean McCain’s grandfather clock.”
“Goshalmighty. You could knock me over with a hair on a biscuit, Barack. Smart move, everybody wins. Now Hillary won’t be the skunk at your Denver garden party.”
“That’s why they call me: No Drama Obama.”
“You’re a natural, like me. I was for hope; you are for hope. I was for change; you are for change. I took the Camelot sword from J.F.K.; you took it from Teddy. I would have been with you from the beginning except for that little deal I had with Hillary. She’s going to be so relieved that she doesn’t have to return to the back rows of the Senate with everybody there snickering that she flopped. And if something happens to you, God forbid, she’s right there in the Situation Room, ready to go at 3 a.m. on her Day One.”
“Yeah. I really want to announce this quickly, so let’s clear up a few niggling details.”
“Thank goodness you’ve got Jim Johnson frisking me. He’s the guy who missed all the baggage weighing down Geraldine Ferraro’s husband.”
“Mr. President, I’m going to run a very transparent administration, everything on C-Span. So I’ll need a full accounting of your foundation donors.”
“Oh, sure thing, buddy, from this day forward.”
“No, Bill, we’ll need full disclosure of your business dealings for the last eight years. And you can no longer accept Arab millions — not if I’m going to talk tough to them about oil. I can’t send Hillary on diplomatic missions to the Middle East if you’re taking money from Dubai and Kuwait. And no more trips to Kazakhstan. I wouldn’t want to have to put a Geiger-counter bracelet on you to check that you’re not involved in another shady uranium deal.”
“Ha, ha.”
“We need to know where that $11 million came from that you guys loaned your campaign. And the $15 million from Ron Burkle at Yucaipa and the $3 million from Vinod Gupta. And you must spill about any offshore accounts in the Caymans. And no more big-money speeches, Bill. You guys have already cashed in for more than $100 million.”
“You’re right, Barack, no more speeches. Just conversations. If a C.E.O. interviews me in front of a small audience, that’s fine. But no speeches.”
“I’m not debating the meaning of the word ‘speech,’ Bill. We’re going to have an administration so squeaky clean that it makes Jimmy Carter look like Marc Rich. All your trips abroad will have to be authorized by a higher authority.”
“The State Department? Fine, I’ll check with them.”
“Higher.”
“Oh, no. Not that.”
“Yes, Michelle. She’ll have you on a much shorter leash, Bill, and it’s not so fun. There’ll be no more Ron Air, no Burkling and Binging. Eight long years of Michelle watching your every move. No eruptions of any kind. And that big telescope in the Naval Observatory is off limits. We’re going to be a family-values administration. And in the campaign, we’ll use you the way Al Gore did: Not at all. No more Bill YouTube meltdowns.”
“You know, Barack, the more I’m seein’ what you’ve got in mind for me, the more I’m worryin’ that Hillary’s just not cut out for this job. You don’t want her glomming on to everythin’. Since she’s almost even with the delegates, she’ll want to go halfsies in the government. She’ll want to run foreign policy, cause you know nothin’ about that. And legal stuff, because you never practiced real law. And economic policy, ’cause she connected better with working-class voters. And everything to do with white people, of course. I’ve got to level with you, man. Hillary’s a lot of work. And that Kathleen Sebelius is terrific and has those twinkly eyes.”
“So, Bill, you’re not wedded to Hillary being vice president? You won’t sabotage my campaign if I pick somebody I like, I mean, like, if I pick somebody else?”
“Nah. Now that I see the big picture, the idea of Hillary as your No. 2 was always a fairy tale.”
-
I love Peggy Noonan, but in my opinion she has been getting a bit wooly headed of late. There's some of that on display here, but there are good points too.
_________________________
DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN
Recoil Election
June 6, 2008; Page A11
It is the most amazing thing that a young black man who was just a few short years ago unknown to most of his countrymen—really, unknown—could, this week, win the presidential nomination of one of our two great political parties. It is even more amazing that this historic news could be overshadowed by the personal drama and spite of the woman who lost to him.
M.E. Cohen
I like it that she spent the campaign accusing America of being sexist, of treating her differently because she is a woman, and then, when she lacked the grace to congratulate the victor, she sent her stewards out to tell the press she just needs time, it's so emotional. In other words, she needs space because she's a woman.
A friend sent, by instant message, the AP flash that ran at 16:56 ET on 06-03-2008. There it was suddenly on my screen:
"*** WASHINGTON (AP)—Obama clinches Democratic nomination, making him first black candidate to lead his party."
A great old-school bulletin, and of course it carried a huge and moving message. It is good when barriers fall; it's good when possibilities seem to open up to more people, especially the young, who are always watching. (That's what's wrong with them, they're always watching, and we're always doing terrible things, like, say, not congratulating the winner on the night he won.)
But what I thought of when the friend sent the flash was something another friend told me months ago. It was the night Mr. Obama won Alabama. My friend was watching on TV, in his suburban den. His 10-year-old daughter walked in, looked, saw "Obama Wins" and "Alabama." She said, "Daddy, we saw a documentary on Martin Luther King Day in school." She said, "That's where they used the hoses." Suddenly my friend saw it new. That's the place they used the water hoses on the civil rights marchers crossing the bridge. And now look. The black man thanking Alabama for his victory.
What kind of place makes a change like this? Only a great nation. We should love it tenderly every day of our lives.
* * *
We will hear a lot of tasteful tributes this weekend to Hillary Clinton's grit and fortitude. The Washington-based media may go a little over the top, but only out of relief. They know her well and recoil at what she stands for. They also know they don't like her, so to balance it out they'll gush.
But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet. That was the other meaning of the culminating events of this week.
Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her—the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer, daily madness that is her, and him.
We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party.
They had a great and roaring fight, a state-by-state struggle unprecedented in the history of presidential primaries. They created the truly national primary. They brought 36 million people to the polls, including the young, minorities and first-time voters. They brought a kind of dogged brio to the year.
All of this is impressive, but more than that, they threw off Clintonism. They threw off the idea that corruption is part of the game, an acceptable fact. They threw off the idea that dynasticism was an unstoppable dynamic in modern politics, that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton could, would, go on forever. They said: "No, that is not the way we do it."
They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn't lose because she had no money or organization, she didn't lose because she had no fame or name, she didn't lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don't like that, I don't like the way she does it, I'm not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in.
But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done.
May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party.
* * *
Should he make her his vice president? He shouldn't, and he won't.
The reasons:
The only ones who could force him to do it are party elders, and they don't like Mrs. Clinton. They're the ones who finally forced her from the race. Their antipathy was not apparent when she was inevitable. It is obvious now.
She would never be content to be vice president. She'd be plotting against him from day one. She'd put poison in his tea.
She brings Bill.
She undercuts the cleanness of Obama's message. She doesn't turn the page, she is the page.
She would give Republicans something to get excited about. She will revivify them. They're not excited about Mr. McCain, but they could become excited about opposing her.
Her presence on the ticket would force the party to have two breakthrough moments when a rule of political life, and life in general, is: one breakthrough at a time.
He doesn't need her. He needs a boring white man. Because he's an interesting black man. He needs a sober, experienced, older establishment player who will be respected by the press, the first responders of the political game. They'll set the tone in which the choice is celebrated, or not. He needs someone like Sam Nunn. Or, actually, Sam Nunn. He could throw a wild pass at Jim Webb because he has a real-guy, Southern, semi-working-class persona, and a Scots-Irish grit and chippiness. He is from important Virginia, has Vietnam boots and is moderate.
Choosing Mrs. Clinton would make Mr. Obama look weak. No one would believe he picked her because he respected or liked her. They'd think he was appeasing her. This is not something he can afford! And in any case some people cannot be appeased. Voters would assume she and her people did their voodoo—I have 18 million voters!—and he fell for it. She doesn't have 18 million voters, she got 18 million votes. It is telling the way she thinks of them, as if they are working-class automatons awaiting her command.
As for reports of their rage, there are always dead-enders, and frantic lovers of this candidate or that. This goes under the larger heading "lonely people." But there's reason to think, and some Democratic insiders do think it, that a lot of the supposed pro-Clinton furor is ginned up on Web sites by the Clinton campaign, and even manufactured by the Clinton campaign, to prove Clinton loyalists are real and their demands must be met. In any case, you can see how Mrs. Clinton views her supposed working-class heroes by what she is doing with them now: using them as a bargaining chip to get whatever she wants.
Democrats this year have the winning fever, and Democrats will come out. By November they will be united.
Also, he doesn't like her. He recoils. Just like his party.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary
-
America "dodged a bullet" for now. Of course, it is far from over with the Clintons. Notice she says she is *suspending* her campaign.
"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate...."
Dick Morris explains:
WHAT’S UP HILLARY’S SLEEVE?
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
06.6.2008
Published on FOXNews.com on June 6, 2008.
Why won’t Hillary just concede that she has lost and pull out of the race? Why does she persist in keeping her delegates in line for her and not releasing them to Obama? Why does she feign party unity while, in fact, undermining it?
The Clintons never do anything without a lot of thinking and planning. There is no benign explanation for her maneuvers. They have several options that they are deliberately keeping open by their increasingly awkward positioning. Here’s what they’re up to:
1. The Obama Stumbles Option
As Hillary says, June is “early” in politics when the convention is not to be held until the end of August, unusually late for a Democratic conclave. And, as Tip O’Neill says “a week is a long time in politics.” So is three months.
Rumors abound about incriminating material on Obama, the potential for misstep is amplified now that he adjusts to a new task of taking on McCain, who knows how many other preachers there are in the closet? Hillary’s skilled force of private detectives, who we once called the secret police, are doubtless diving into garbage dumpsters all over America to come up with whatever they can.
Hillary wants to be there to exploit any mistakes. She will be watching and waiting. Suppose Obama flubs a line on the campaign trail or damaging material emerges from the Rezko prosecution? Hillary will indicate her continued availability as an alternative. Remember that superdelegates can change their minds anytime they want to. Now they are leaving Hillary to back Obama, the winner, but they could easily go the other way. By not releasing her pledged delegates, she remains within striking distance of the nomination if an Obama faux pas leads to an exodus of superdelegates from his camp.
2. Hillary for VP
By remaining a force at the convention, Hillary might be in a position to bail out a faltering Obama campaign by going on the ticket. There is no love lost between the two candidates. Hillary knows that Obama will not choose her voluntarily as his running mate. But if Obama falters, he might just need the shot in the arm Hillary would represent. By remaining in the shadows as a potential threat to wrest away the nomination, she might leverage her position to make Obama put her on the ticket.
She wants to be VP in case Obama loses so she can be positioned for 2012 and in case he wins so she can shoot for the stars in 2016. And, she doesn’t want anyone else to have the job so as not to create a potential rival.
3. The I Told You So Option
By remaining viable and keeping her delegates, Hillary stays in play through the convention. Her aides and associates can be counted on to dump on Obama subtly and, often, anonymously, as he moves forward. If Obama loses the election, and did not take her on his ticket, she can run as the “I told you so” candidate in 2012, much as Ronald Reagan capitalized on Gerald Ford’s defeat in 1976, after Reagan had unsuccessfully sought the nomination, to bolster his credentials in 1980.
4. Paying Off Her Debts
By staying, at least partially, in the game, Hillary can continue to raise money and pay off her debts. And she can hold out a bargaining position to force Obama to do more and more to help her to raise money. Debts to her vendors are one thing. She can always raise funds to pay them off in the future. But the election law makes it illegal for her to pay herself back any sum above $250,000 after the Democratic Convention. Since she has lent her campaign at least $11 million, she wants to get as much of it back as possible before the convention deadline.
Hillary may set her candidacy aside for the moment. But her fortunes will continue to rise and fall inversely with Obama’s. Should he hit a rough patch, Hillary’s numbers are bound to improve, strengthening her bargaining position for funds or for the VP slot or, possibly giving her enough momentum to reopen the contest.
That’s her game.
Jun 6 2008
Copyright © 2008 DickMorris.com | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Login
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism
I don't know exactly where on the narcissism spectrum the Clinton's fall but it is frightening to think how this country keeps getting dragged through their psychopathology. While BO's politics are not at all my cup of tea at least there is nothing to suggest he is sick or nuts like the Clintons obviously are:
***Malignant narcissism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about Kernberg's theory. For the instrumental song by Rush, see Malignant Narcissism (song).
Otto Kernberg described malignant narcissism as a syndrome characterized by a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), antisocial features, paranoid traits, and ego-syntonic aggression. Other symptoms may include an absence of conscience, a psychological need for power, and a sense of importance (grandiosity). Pollock wrote: "The malignant narcissist is presented as pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism."[1]
Kernberg claimed that malignant narcissism should be considered part of a spectrum of pathological narcissism, which he saw as ranging from the Cleckley's antisocial character (today's psychopath) at the high end of severity, to malignant narcissism, to NPD at the low end.[2] Kernberg wrote that malignant narcissism can be differentiated from psychopathy because of the malignant narcissists' capacity to internalize "both aggressive and idealized superego precursors, leading to the idealization of the aggressive, sadistic features of the pathological grandiose self of these patients." According to Kernberg, the psychopaths' paranoid stance against external influences makes them unwilling to internalize even the values of the "aggressor," while malignant narcissists "have the capacity to admire powerful people, and can depend on sadistic and powerful but reliable parental images." Malignant narcissists, in contrast to psychopaths, are also said to be capable of developing "some identification with other powerful idealized figures as part of a cohesive 'gang' ... which permits at least some loyalty and good object relations to be internalized." The malignant narcissist's main differences in impulse control from the psycopath is in the area of desired outcomes. While the psychopath displays more anti-social features, the malignant narcissist desires "unlimited power," a trait that is deemed positive in many capitalistic societies. It is possible for the malignant narcissist to move above and beyond their contemporaries, and make a postive contribution to society (although rarely is this the case). The malignant narcissist will attempt to make full use of their capabilities.
Malignant narcissism is related to narcissistic regression in infancy, in which the infant sees themself as the "center of the world." Whereas most infants grow out of this stage, the malignant narcissist is thought to be trapped in this period throughout their lifetime.
Malignant narcissism is highlighted as a key area when it comes to the study of mass, sexual, and serial murder.[3][4][citation needed]
[edit] See also
* Antisocial Personality Disorder
* Narcissism (psychology)
* Narcissistic Personality Disorder
* Narcissistic rage
* Psychopath
* Schizoid Personality Disroder
[edit] External links
* Malignant Narcissism vs. Psychopathy http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_narcissist_and_a_sociopath
* Narcissism and co-morbidity with other disorders http://www.narcissistic-abuse.com/faq82.html
* Is he/she a narcissist? http://www.ultimate-self.com/villains/
[edit] References
1. ^ Pollock, G. H. (1978), Process and affect, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 59, 255–276.
2. ^ Kernberg, O. F. (1994), The Psychotherapeutic Management of Psychopathic, Narcissistic, and Paranoid Transferences.
3. ^ Gerberth, V., & Turco, R. (1997) Antisocial personality disorder, sexual sadism, malignant narcissism, and serial murder. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 49-60.
4. ^ ^ Turco, R. (2001) Child serial murder-psychodynamics: closely watched shadows, Journal of The American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 29(2), 331–338.***
-
By MARTIN PERETZ
This is not about former President Bill Clinton's shakedown of the sheikhs. They can take care of themselves, Clinton Foundation or no Clinton Foundation.
APThis is also not about Hillary Clinton's vulnerability to her husband's donors. She can tell him to "go stuff it," which people say she's been doing for a long time anyway. Rest assured, the next secretary of state will not shirk her diplomatic obligations for the benefit of some scummy foreign mineral magnate's uranium.
What I've been tying to discern about the Clinton Foundation is why -- aside from the annual fancy party in New York -- foreign governments, other foundations and charities have given money to fund what they already do themselves.
I understand why McDonald's of central Arkansas would make a contribution to Mr. Clinton's present career. He has spent so much cash on Big Macs over three decades that they actually owe it to him. But I fail to grasp why the "I Won't Cheat" foundation gave a donation to Bill's charity. He isn't exactly an ideal poster boy.
The Opinion Journal Widget
Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.
None of these gifts were really big money, at least not for Mr. Clinton, for whom a million dollars isn't at all big anymore. But the scrounging operation seems to have dug down very deep to pull in thousand-dollar gifts.
There were four United Way contributions, one from the national outfit, three from local branches. Since when is the Clinton Foundation one of the approved charities of the United Way?
Then there are more serious questions about operating charities. What was the purpose of a contribution by the National Opera of Paris? Or of hospitals themselves in strained circumstances, like Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn and Arkansas Children's Hospital?
The University of Cambridge and Liverpool University in the United Kingdom threw into the pot from the other side of the pond. American universities like Tufts, Columbia, Georgetown, Iowa State, Texas, Brown, Rensselaer Polytechnic, UCLA and its school of public health all gave, plus the University of Judaism with a whopping sum between $100,000 and $250,000. (Is Bill Clinton now supporting studies in theology?) Do these educational institutions have such deep pockets to share with Bill Clinton's ego?
On the donor list are also the names of the charities we all give to generically: Human Rights Watch (well, not me), Feed the Children, and the Hunger Project. The foundation also receives funding from the International Bank for Recovery and Development of the World Bank, and the World Health Organization. They have their own, far-reaching projects. Why would they give cash to charitable work for which Mr. Clinton is at most a matchmaker?
In Today's Opinion Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
In Hoc Anno DominiCongress Targets PhilanthropyAn Ethanol Bailout?
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
Business World: Get Ready for a Lost Decade
– Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
COMMENTARY
Defense Spending Would Be a Great Stimulus
– Martin Feldstein
Clinton's Donor List Raises Lots of Questions
– Martin PeretzHow Bush Can Transcend the Shoe Thrower
– Mark BowdenA Christmas Tale – 1919
– Hans von SpakovskyThere's a certain looseness here that spreads downwards: District 1199 of the Service Employees International Union gave old comrade Bill somewhere in the range of half a million bucks. And then spreads upwards, so to speak: Citi gave him from $1 million to $5 million. Perhaps Citi's gift was just a pledge. In that case, is Treasury now paying up?
Many are focused on the contributions of the Arab states. Mr. Clinton started his charity in 1997 with four years to go in his presidency, a period when no American law provided for the most elementary public reporting of the enterprise. Still, the fact that Saudi Arabia is on the donor list comes as no surprise.
What we now know is that Mr. Clinton was indiscriminating when it came to accepting cash from all sorts of countries. He took money from poor countries like Jamaica, and more prosperous countries like Italy. He dipped into the Irish Aid Fund and the Swedish Postal Lottery for big money, and for small money from the Social Economic Council of the Netherlands. And then there was an especially strange source from which he schnorrered: Citgo, Hugo Chávez's oil company. Even if the revolucion didn't gain points for this, it is unseemly for an American president to ask the energy company of the Venezuelan dictatorship for spare cash.
So where did all this fund-raised money go? Wouldn't you want to know to which philanthropic undertaking the King of Saudi Arabia and the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques committed himself? This information is not in the report -- and it doesn't look like President-elect Obama has any interest in pushing for further disclosure. Maybe the king just gave to general expenses.
Mr. Peretz is editor in chief of The New Republic.
-
These columns have long believed that a President deserves the cabinet members he wants, barring some major dereliction. So if Barack Obama wants to make Hillary and Bill Clinton part of his governing team, that's his business. We can only hope he understands the Clinton family business he's taking on.
APTake Mr. Clinton's post-Presidential fund-raising, the scope of which he finally disclosed in late December after years of refusing and under pressure from the Obama transition. Amid the holidays and economic news, this window on the Clinton political method has received less attention than it deserves. Here is the spectacle of a former President circling the globe to raise at least $492 million over 10 years for his foundation -- much of it from assorted rogues, dictators and favor-seekers. We are supposed to believe that none of this -- and none of his future fund-raising -- will have any influence on Mrs. Clinton's conduct as Secretary of State.
The silence over this is itself remarkable. When Henry Kissinger was invited merely to co-chair the 9/11 Commission, the political left went bonkers about his foreign clients. In this case we have a Secretary of State nominee whose husband may have raised more than $60 million from various Middle East grandees, and Washington reacts with a yawn. Maybe someone will even ask about it at her nomination hearing today.
A Senator should ask, because this has the potential to complicate life for the new President. All the more so because under terms of his agreement with Mr. Obama, Mr. Clinton will be able to keep raising foreign cash as long as the donors send the checks to a Clinton entity other than the "Clinton Global Initiative." Instead of being immediately disclosed, future donations will only be made public once a year and the exact amounts and dates of previous donations will never be made public.
While Mr. Clinton will submit some donations from foreign governments to Administration scrutiny, he need only do so if the donations are new or are of a significantly larger magnitude from a previous donation. In other words, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Sultanate of Oman can keep giving millions without U.S. government review even while Mrs. Clinton is America's chief diplomat. These disclosure limitations suggest that the Clintons seriously out-negotiated Team Obama. We hope the President-elect does better with Iran.
As for potential embarrassment, consider the "up to $5 million" in donations to the Clinton foundation from Gilbert Chagoury, known for his ties to Nigeria's former military dictator, General Sani Abacha. The Journal's John Emshwiller recently noted that unfortunately for Mr. Chagoury, after Abacha died in 1998, "Swiss and other European authorities froze a number of bank accounts, including some related to Mr. Chagoury, as part of an investigation by the Nigerian government and others about whether billions of dollars had been improperly taken out of the country during the Abacha regime, according to news reports and a 2001 British court decision in Abacha-related litigation. Mr. Chagoury later agreed to return funds, estimated to be as much as $300 million, to the Nigerian government in exchange for indemnity from possible charges and to unfreeze his accounts, according to the British court decision."
Another notable donor -- also up to $5 million -- is Viktor Pinchuk, son-in-law of former Ukraine president Leonid Kuchma. Mr. Pinchuk was mentioned in a 2005 Journal story headlined, "Haunted By Suspect Deals Of Old Regime." Suspect indeed. The "privatization" of the country's largest steel plant in a sale to a group including Mr. Pinchuk was later overturned after the country held a democratic election.
And only this month, the New York Times reported that New York developer Robert Congel gave $100,000 to the Clinton foundation in November, 2004, one month after the enactment of a law that gave Mr. Congel access to tax-exempt "green bonds" to build a shopping mall in Syracuse. Mrs. Clinton had supported the law, and within a year of the donation she secured $5 million in taxpayer funds for the complex.
It'd be nice to think Mr. Clinton would forswear this money-hustle while his wife is Secretary of State, but that self-sacrifice would belie his entire career. As for Mrs. Clinton, note the scrutiny that Eric Holder, Mr. Obama's Attorney General nominee, is coming under for his role in aiding pardons for 16 unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in 1999. But keep in mind the timing of those pardons was intended to help Mrs. Clinton win Puerto Rican support in her 2000 Senate campaign. Someone should ask her at today's hearing about the role she played in that pardon.
In signing up the Clintons -- always two for the price of one -- Mr. Obama is no doubt hoping to unite his party and mute Democratic criticism when mistakes happen. He is also hiring someone whose prominence and allies make her impossible to fire, even as she and her husband have a history of cutting ethical corners. Good luck.
-
**The silence over this is itself remarkable**
Maybe but not surprising.
"oh but they all do it...."
The right has never been able to beat the Clintons with this stuff and never will. They are a cancer that doesn't respond to chemotherapy.
"it is all a right wing plot"
Here we go again with Begala Carvel Davis and the rest on the airwaves bothering us with there BS.
This stuff is all so tiring.
-
In presenting herself to Congress to become Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton at the least showed she will have little trouble conversing in the soft talk of the striped-pants set.
On the Middle East: "We cannot give up on peace." On China: "Much of what we will do depends on the choices China makes."
By default, then, the pro-forma hearing's hardest moments became the nominee's colloquies with Senator Richard Lugar over the status of Bill Clinton's foundation.
We discussed in this space yesterday the complications Mr. Clinton's donor list could create for the conduct of an Obama foreign policy. Senator Lugar pressed the disclosure point at the hearing, even proposing a detailed plan for handling future donations to the foundation. "The core of the problem," said Senator Lugar, "is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the Secretary of State."
Pointedly, Senator John Kerry, the committee chair, leaned in to let Senator Clinton know that Mr. Lugar was "expressing the view of the committee as a whole."
Senator Clinton replied that the agreement worked out between the foundation and the Obama transition was adequate.
No doubt Senator Clinton is sailing toward confirmation and then on to what she promises will be a new world of "smart power." But both Senators Lugar and Kerry have been around Washington long enough to be able to see political difficulty over the horizon.
While the troubled Clinton Presidency by now has been reduced to Monica, veteran Senators will recall that much of the problems had to do with money flowing into the Clinton campaign from mysterious donors and middle men. Then came the Republicans' turn, as the party broke apart on the Abramoff scandal. These senior Senators were trying to ensure that a promising new President doesn't founder on the practices of Washington past. Let's hope the two of them remain vigilant.
-
I was wrong. I thought the Clintons would control BO especially with many of his staff having been for them in the past.
****THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING CLINTONS
By Dick Morris 05.28.2009 Published on TheHill.com on May 26,2009
Asked why he was naming some of his rivals to top administration jobs, President Lyndon B. Johnson said it best: “I’d rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.” President Obama seems to echo Johnson’s management style in his handling of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By bringing them into his inner circle, he has marginalized them both and sharply reduced their freedom of action.
It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a “monster”).
With peers who are competitors and subordinates who can deal directly with the president, Hillary is reduced to announcing foreign aid packages for Pakistan while Holbrooke does the heavy lifting.
Part of Hillary’s problem is the institutional shrinking of the State Department. During the Bush years, while war raged, the Defense Department became more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy. And, under Obama, the financial crisis has propelled the Treasury into the forefront. State, with its emphasis on traditional diplomacy, has been forced to take a back seat. Even though Obama appointed Hillary, he clearly has not been willing to make her a co-president and confines her to the diminished role of her department.
For his part, Bill Clinton has been asked to be a special envoy to Haiti. Yes, Haiti. Obama’s predecessor asked the former president to orchestrate the response to the Asian tsunami and then to Hurricane Katrina. Obama gives him Haiti.
Meanwhile, both Clintons are effectively muzzled and cannot criticize Obama even as he reverses President Clinton’s free market proclivities and budget balancing discipline. Hillary, the supposed friend of Israel, must sit by quietly and watch Iran get the bomb while trying all the while to stop Israel from preventing it.
Bill can’t even make money. Denied the ability to accept speeches from foreign governments or their organs and fenced out of continuing his profitable relationship with the Emir of Dubai, he and his wife must accept the loss of the $13 million they spent on her campaign and sit by passively, unable to earn the money to replace it.
Just as Lincoln buried his rivals Seward, Chase and Stanton in the Cabinet and then on the Supreme Court, and Wilson buried Bryan at the State Department, so Obama has hidden his predecessor and his rival in plain sight at the upper reaches of the government.
How long will Hillary subject herself to this discipline? Likely as long as Obama is popular. Should his ratings fade, she might move away from the president and could even consider a primary contest against him in 2012. But while he is on top of his game, she’ll stay loyal.
But she is shrinking by the day. Once Obama’s equal — and before that his superior — she now looks tiny compared to the president. She doesn’t look like a president in waiting; she’s more like a senior staff member hoping to rise in the bureaucracy. No longer at the head of a movement or the symbol of rising women all over the world, she has faded into the State Department woodwork. She is much less visible than her predecessors Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Madeleine Albright or Condi Rice. She is even less in the public eye than was Al Haig during his one-year tenure. One has to go back to the likes of Warren Christopher or William Rogers to find a secretary of State as far down the totem poll. This diminished status has got to grate on her and on him. But they are trapped in Obama’s web and cannot easily escape.****
-
"Two months ago, Mrs Clinton answered, straight-faced, with a flat "no" when asked if she would ever run for president again, even adding that "it never crosses my mind".
Well if we learned anything from the Clintons there is nothing they say that can be believed.
*****Home News World News North America USASmart money is on Hillary Clinton for 2016
Hillary Clinton was written off as a failed presidential candidate who would never have another run at the White House. Not any more, writes Toby Harnden in Washington.
Toby Harnden's American Way
Published: 6:33PM GMT 19 Dec 2009
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Photo: EPA
Driving past the White House the other day, my eye was caught by the bumper sticker on the shiny black Toyota Prius in front of me. It read: "We love you Hillary - Clinton for President, 2016".
A year ago, I'd have snorted at the slogan and kept my distance from the vehicle - judging the driver to be a delusional Clintonite diehard still desperately fighting the reality that the former First Lady's presidential aspirations were history.
Barack Obama makes world believe in politics again, claims top DemocratNow, the person behind that wheel seems to be on the money. Having elected Barack Obama amid near national euphoria, America is experiencing something akin to buyer's remorse.
Obama's popularity is the lowest of any American president at the end of his first year in office since polling began. Yet as his approval ratings have nose-dived, those of his Secretary of State have curved elegantly upwards.
A recent poll by the Clarus Research Group found that Hillary Clinton had a 75 per cent approval rating compared to 51 per cent for the man who defeated her in their epic battle for the Democratic nomination.
These are very early days to handicap 2016 but it's already clear that she has gone from being the supposedly inevitable 2008 nominee who had blown her one big chance as odds-on favourite to be the next Democratic president.
When Mrs Clinton accepted the job of Secretary of State many of her supporters feared she was falling into a trap. Fearing that she could be a rival source of power from Capitol Hill, Obama calculated she would be less of a threat if he brought her inside his tent.
The downsides for the former First Lady were obvious. She would give up her cherished seat as Senator for New York, which gave her an independent power base. Her voice on domestic policy would be silenced.
And her fortunes would inevitably be linked to the man whom she fervently believed was not up to the top job.
It is a sign of Mrs Clinton's astuteness that she said yes and now finds herself ideally placed to succeed Mr Obama or, in the increasingly plausible scenario that he becomes a one-term president, the Republican who ousts him in 2012.
During the past year, Mrs Clinton has done just what she did when she entered the Senate in 2001 - knuckled down to the hard grind of policy while building relationships with wary sceptics.
The woman who was one of the most polarising figures in American politics now has a glowing 65 per cent approval rating among Independents and healthy 57 per cent among Republicans.
Even sworn enemies on the Right marvelled at her toughness in refusing to concede to Obama until the bitter end in the summer of 2008 and now view her as more hawkish than the president.
Mrs Clinton, moreover, has lived in Arkansas and won over conservatives in upstate New York as well as trouncing Obama in states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania - establishing a connection with Middle America that has eluded the president.
Though Obama trumpeted the notion that he was appointing a "team of rivals" to his Cabinet, Mrs Clinton has been instrumental in making his foreign policy team one of the most harmonious in memory by striking up a firm friendship with Robert Gates, the canny Defence Secretary chief held over from the Bush administration.
In the eight administrations Gates has served in, no two Pentagon and State Department heads have been as close. After the poisonous relations between advisers to Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell, it is a startling turnaround.
The alliance between Clinton and Gates - who both argued for a robust troop increase from the outset - helped to stiffen Obama's spine over Afghanistan.
Mrs Clinton can afford to be assiduously loyal because her critique of Obama - "a lot of talk, no action" is how she acidly described him in March last year - is already out there and increasingly resonant. She now has unassailable credentials in the one area where she appeared weak in 2008 - foreign policy.
She has been able to stay out of the contentious debates over health care, Wall Street bailouts and the spiraling deficit while her husband, confounding many, has been a low-key apparent model of propriety since she took over at Foggy Bottom.
Two months ago, Mrs Clinton answered, straight-faced, with a flat "no" when asked if she would ever run for president again, even adding that "it never crosses my mind".
Perhaps that patently implausible denial was the surest indication of all that Mrs Clinton is better placed than ever to become America's first female president - and she knows it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6844535/Smart-money-is-on-Hillary-Clinton-for-2016.html*****
-
I don't get it. What on earth has she done?
With regard to:
Russia?
Poland/Czech Republic?
Nuclear Policy?
Iran?
Honduras?
Pakistan?
Afpakia?
What?
-
What has Hillary done regarding Russia, Poland/Czech Republic, Nuclear Policy, Iran, Honduras, Afghan Pakistan etc? Nothing. In her defense, her boss asked her not to get involved with foreign policy.
Clintons became masters of delaying the story, not answering, and then they finally confront the questioner as to why they still bring up such old stories. Now stories will only be reported if they are more corrupt than usual(?)
The Obama administration needs to reassure us that donations raised by Bill won't affect rewards paid out by Hillary at taxpayer expense. The template is already written and tested. They can use what ACORN uses to keep taxpayer funds away from partisan activities - the "firewall". Simply impenetrable, like the social security lockbox.
The year is not 2016; someone in 2012 will seriously challenge Obama from within his own party.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-b...ry?id=11930878
OMFG :-o :-o :-o
Contrast this:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/reagan-city.html
After Ronald Reagan said his good-byes to Bonnie Nofziger and hung up the phone, he leaned back and chatted with his aides who had gathered around him. He talked about his favorite room in the White House residence, the Yellow Room, and mentioned the note he had left in the desk drawer for George Bush on a notepad with the printed heading, DON'T LET THE TURKEYS GET YOU DOWN. Someone suggested that the president carve his initials in the Oval Office desk. A chuckle went around the group, and they all felt the bittersweetness of the moment.
Ken Duberstein stepped forward and briefed the president on the schedule for his last day in office--where he was to stand during the inauguration ceremony, when he would board the helicopter that would take him to Andrews Air Force Base for his final flight on Air Force One, when he would give his speech to the well-wishers at Los Angeles International Airport. As Duberstein finished his briefing, the president reached into his coat pocket and pulled out a plain white, plastic-coated card, like an unmarked credit card.
"Well, I guess I won't be needing this anymore," he said, holding the card out in General Powell's direction. "Whom do I give it to?"
It was the nuclear authentication code card that Ronald Reagan had carried throughout his presidency. That thin plastic wafer, when inserted into a black leather briefcase carried by a military aide, had the power to unleash Armageddon upon the world.
"Just hold on to it, sir," said Jim Kuhn. "You're still the commander in chief. You can turn it in after Mr. Bush is sworn in as president."
Ronald Reagan nodded and placed the card back in his pocket. Then Colin Powell stepped forward and gave the president the most succinct national security breefing of Ronald Reagan's entire presidency. "The world is quiet today, Mr. President," said Powell.
-
Monica Lewinsky Made a Stealth Appearance Last Thursday Night
03/02/11 12:51am Roger Friedman 0
Monica Lewinsky–yes, Monica Lewinsky– I saw her last Thursday night in Beverly Hills. She attended the Ed Ruscha art premiere with her brother. And I talked to Monica, and forgot about it entirely until I saw that Terry Richardson somehow got someone that night to take a picture of him with her. It’s on his blog, and I hope it’s okay that I’ve moved it over here. Monica was great, very perky, looking un-aged from her celebrity moment a dozen years ago. I asked her if she was still making handbags. She said no. She also said she was living out in LA. She was very gracious. It was not appropriate to ask about anything else. So well, well, not much of a story. She was excited to check out all of Ruscha’s work, and that was that. Fame is fleeting. A couple of said, “Isn’t that what’s her name?” And no, she didn’t go to any Oscar parties.
-
:-)
-
(http://hosted.ap.org/photos/2/25239637-0f39-4585-9e85-e4c122cec0da-big.jpg)
Not. Aging. Well.
I actually flinched when I first saw this pic.
-
I count myself in the front line of those who loath the witch, but with the campaign for the Dem nomination over, I'm guessing the mini-facelifts and face tightening creams because just a pain in the ass. Int's travel over big time zone changes combined with a stressful job have their consequences.
-
If I didn't know who she was, I'd guess this was a psych patient being escorted into a hospital for a 72 hr. hold.
-
Caption: 'Hillary Learns that Statute of Limitations has Elapsed on her Commodity Trades'.
One would guess from the relaxed look on the picture that she is not running. It should be safe now for sane Democrats to start an Anyone-but-Obama 2012 search.
-
You two crack me up :lol:
-
Wasn't there something in the last few days about a space rock/meteor/moon rock or some such thing of great value that turned up in the Clintons' possession?
-
Wasn't there something in the last few days about a space rock/meteor/moon rock or some such thing of great value that turned up in the Clintons' possession?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8783074/Missing-moon-rock-found-among-Bill-Clinton-papers.html
The rock, which weighs less than half an ounce, was brought back to Earth after the 1972 Apollo 17 mission.
It was given to the state of Arkansas more than 30 years ago - then mysteriously disappeared last year.
On Wednesday an archivist sifting through the roughly 2,000 boxes of Clinton materials that are housed in Little Rock, Arkansas, found the missing rock, said Bobby Roberts, who directs the Central Arkansas Library System.
"This morning, one of the processors opened up a box and there's the moon rock, out of nowhere," Mr Roberts said.
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette first reported the rock was missing last year. Since then, Mr Roberts said he has been following the news about the moon rock.
"It kind of became Arkansas' mystery about where's the moon rock," he said.
Mr Roberts said he's not sure how the rock ended up among paperwork from when Mr Clinton served as governor, but he said he's glad it has been recovered.
**Amazing the missing things that just happen to turn up around the Clintons. The rock was described as being less than half an ounce, so it's doubtful Bill was rubbing his cigar on it.
-
Maybe it was next to the missing billing records from Hillary's law firm that appeared in her quarters at the WH after the statute of limitations expired , , , or maybe it travelled with the WH silverware when the Clintons left the WH.
But I digress , , , BTW is there an guestimated market value to that moon rock?
-
From what I understand, they are worth millions.
-
Naturally the Pravdas are all over this , , ,
-
Naturally the Pravdas are all over this , , ,
Imagine if a moon rock given to the state of Alaska was found in some of Palin's papers......
-
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/breaking-new-evidence-show-hillary-a-mastermind-behind-gunwalker
Last week it was reported that the State Department and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were deeply involved in the scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, or Project Gunwalker. Today, however, new evidence has surfaced indicating that not only was Hillary deeply involved in the scandal but was one of the masterminds behind it.
According to investigative citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh, sources close to the development of the Gunwalker scheme state that early on, Hillary and her trusted associated at State, Andrew J. Shapiro, devised at least part of the framework of what would later become Operation Fast and Furious. It was Shapiro who first described the details of the proposed scheme early in 2009 just after the Obama Administration took office.
Vanderboegh relates the following:
My sources say that as Hillary's trusted subordinate, it was Shapiro who first described to the Secretary of State the details of what has become the Gunwalker Scandal.
The precise extent to which Hillary Clinton's knowledge of, and responsibility for, the Gunwalker Plot, lies within the memories of these two men, Shapiro and Steinberg, sources say.
The sources also express dismay that the Issa committee is apparently restricting itself to the Department of Justice and not venturing further afield. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, they say, needs to summon these two men and their subordinates -- especially at the Mexico Desk at State -- and question them under oath as to what Hillary Clinton knew about the origins of the Gunwalker Scandal and when she knew it.
There is one other thing those sources agree upon. The CIA, they say, knows "everything" about the "Mexican hat dance" that became the Gunwalker Scandal.
The 'Steinberg' mentioned in the quote above is Hillary Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State, who was appointed directly by Barack Obama and was considered from the start to be an 'Obama man' whose objective was to carry out the wishes of the President in the State Department.
Hillary had said of Steinberg,
Clinton said Steinberg had been a “fixture” at meetings with the National Security Council (NSC) and frequently represented the US State Department at the White House.
That statement is key. Hillary herself stayed out of all meetings dealing with strategy concerning the euphemism the Administration used to designate Gunwalker, 'strategy meetings on Mexico and the problem of drug and gun trafficking.' Hillary's absence would give the impression that she had no connection to the scheme while making sure that her views were represented by Steinberg and Shapiro, both of whom were fully complicit with the details that developed concerning how to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico.
According to sources, Hillary was obsessed with gun statistics that would prove that '90% of the firearms used by Mexican criminals come from the United States.' As previouly reported, that meme, repeated incessantly by Democratic Senators, Barack Obama, certan members of the ATF, Janet Napolitano, and Hillary Clinton was patently and blatantly false. The fact that they all knew it was false is borne out by the lengths to which each of the above named co-conspirators went to attempt to 'prove' that the 90% figure was true.
Again, Vanderboegh relates the following:
My sources say that this battle of the "statistics" was taken very seriously by all players -- the White House, State and Justice. Yet, WHY was this game of statistics so important to the players? If some weapons from the American civilian market were making it to Mexico into the hand of drug gang killers that was bad enough. What was the importance of insisting that it was 90 percent, 80 percent, or finally 70 percent? Would such statistics make any difference to the law enforcement tactics necessary to curtail them? No.
This statistics mania is similar to the focus on "body counts" in Vietnam. Yet if Vietnam body counts were supposed to be a measure of how we were winning that war, the focus on the 90 percent meme was certainly not designed to be a measure of how we were winning the war against arming the cartels, but rather by what overwhelming standard we were LOSING. Why?
Recall what the whistleblower ATF agents told us right after this scandal broke in the wake of the death of Brian Terry: "ATF source confirms ‘walking’ guns to Mexico to ‘pad’ statistics."
Thus, from the beginning the scheme was to pad statistics on U.S. guns in Mexico in order to be in a strengthened position to call for gun bans and strict gun control at a time when it was politically unpopular. Further, the scheme would involve a made-up statistic, out of thin air--90%--which then had to be proved by using civilian gun retailers along the southern border as unsuspecting pawns to walk U.S. guns into Mexico by ATF agents, straw purchasers, and others with connections to Mexican drug cartels.
And the evidence points to the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the original Administration officials who was 'in the loop' on the scheme from the very beginning.
-
Crafty you know as well as the rest of the *objective* world this is all a concoction of some vast right wing conspriracy. :roll:
-
a modern economy requires a government that is *smart* Obviously this is the new push for a return to the Clintons from the liberals. Government is not the problem - aka the Tea Party's claim - what we need is a "smarter" government. And who better to see that government is smarter than the beloved Clintons. Remember the cover of TIME magazine with something about Hillary Clinton and "smart" foreing policy. There is NO doubt she will run for President again. When I don't know. If VP slot with the Brockster? I don't know. If not than in 2016.
This is the new con. "Good and smart" government. I recall Soros also has spoken about "good" government. There really is no hope in stopping this relentless push for government to control everything we do. They use voter bribery (entitlements) to buy people with this ideology. I really think there is no hope.
From the Economist:
****Bill Clinton's "Back to Work"
Missing Bill
Sep 29th 2011, 14:09 by A.W. | LONDON
..DURING the 2008 presidential election Bill Clinton’s reputation took a battering. Democrats who had stuck with him through all the bimbo eruptions and political zigzags suddenly started accusing him of racism (in South Carolina) and boorishness (almost everywhere). This owed something to the press which had all but degenerated into an ahmen chorus to the Obama operation. But it owed more to a general sense of exhaustion with the former first family: few people wanted to see Bill become Putin to Hillary’s Medvedev.
How the mood has changed! The comeback kid is back with a vengeance. From September 30th to October 1st he celebrates the 20th anniversary of his announced run for the presidency in Little Rock, Arkansas. In November Knopf is publishing a new book, “Back to Work”, his second literary offering after his sprawling autobiography. And the press is primed for a love-fest. The further Barack Obama’s stock has fallen—and it has fallen a long way—the more Mr Clinton’s has risen. And the worse the global economic crisis becomes—and it is becoming very bad indeed—the more people hanker after the stable growth of the 1990s.
Unlike Mr Obama, who seems most at home with campus liberals and minority activists, Mr Clinton knew how to reach white middle America—those poor boobs who ostensibly cling to guns and God. Mr Obama knows only two registers—grand (and increasingly tedious) rhetoric and cold cerebration. Mr Clinton can feel people’s pain—can drape a hand over people’s shoulders and convince them that they are the centre of his universe. He does Oprah better than Oprah and Dr Phil better than Dr Phil. But "Back to Work" reminds us that there is an even more important reason why we should miss the old rogue: he may have been undisciplined, self-indulgent and sleazy, but he was one of the greatest policy wonks ever to sit in the White House.
One of the most surprising things about Mr Obama’s presidency—even more surprising than his appetite for golf—is his lack of interest in the nitty-gritty of policy. Mr Clinton brought the same appetite to social policy that he did to junk food and cheap women. He loved debating the finer points with the likes of Robert Reich and Lawrence Summers. As a New Democrat, he understood that liberalism needed to reinvent itself if it was to remain relevant in an age of globalisation and information technology (though his interest in IT did not extend to teaching himself how to use a computer). As a former governor, he understood that the devil of policy-making lies in the details.
In his new book “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President”, Ron Suskind quotes Mr Obama claiming that “Carter, Clinton and I all have sort of the disease of being policy wonks”. But in truth Mr Obama is surprisingly free from the disease, given his Ivy League education and cerebral style: he has never wrestled with public policy for any sustained period of time; never once gone to battle with his party’s interest groups in defence of a new liberalism, for example; never descended into the engine room of the policy machine.
Mr Obama’s supporters might retort that he inherited a far more difficult set of problems than Mr Clinton: the biggest economic implosion since the Great Depression, a huge mountain of debt, much of it accumulated by his spendthrift predecessor, and two interminable wars. But he also had huge resources at his disposal in his first two years: a solid electoral majority, Democratic majorities in both houses and a whirlwind of goodwill as the first African-American president. This could have produced health-care legislation that dealt seriously with costs and educational reforms that extended choice and competition. But instead Mr Obama handed over the detail of health-care reform to Congressional Democrats (who gutted any cost-cutting) and retreated before the teachers’ unions. Mr Obama’s supporters might also retort that after those two golden years, he was confronted by a resurgent Republican majority in the House. But divided politics can be a stimulus to creative policy making: Mr Clinton’s battles with Newt Gingrich’s Republicans led to one of his singular pieces of legislation, welfare reform.
“Back to Work” addresses the subject Mr Obama has been weakest with: job creation. Mr Clinton sounds some classic themes from the 1990s with a bit of fashionable greenery flown in. The private and public sector should be partners, not antagonists: anti-government rhetoric may be good for politics (and TV ratings) but it is bad for policy-making. A modern economy requires a government that is active but smart rather than one that is active but driven by vested interests. But the blurb also promises some “specific recommendations” on how to put people back to work and create new businesses—and even double America’s exports. It is impossible to judge whether this is just flannel or serious argument until the book is released next month. It is also far easier to make recommendations from the comfort of retirement than it is to govern. But a president who presided over America’s Indian summer—a period of sustained growth and disciplined government—should at least have something to say to a new generation of politicians who live in a far stormier time.***
-
No one but no one is smarter than the pair of Clintons - except for the other one on the way - Chelsea.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2097973,00.html
-
I guess this could go under 2012 election thread. I have ZERO doubt we have seen the last of the Clintons. Question is now as Brock VP?? or next election cycle? They still have no one else.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/question-dnc-chair-will-obama-drop-biden-clinton_616019.html
-
but a good synopsis of Hillary as SOS - In 2016 She will be 69 same age as RR:
http://www.economist.com/node/21551105
-
Anyone else notice the Hillary charm attacks in the MSM lately?
See Hillary use electronic devices and use the wireless lingo.
See Hillary kicking up her heals and drinking beer in Columbia.
She certainly has the Machine still pushing her for 2016.
I guess that's how they all keep power and make money.
-
Frankly, I wish she was President today. She is a very capable woman.
-
"Frankly, I wish she was President today. She is a very capable woman."
Of course you do and of course this is your response. She will run 2016 and you may have your wish.
-
Well, I think she is more qualified and would have done a better job than Obama. As for 2016, GM once accused me of ageism. It's not true,
but..... this is one tough job whichever side of the aisle you come from. I'm not sure I would vote for someone age 69 unless they had a very
qualified VP and was much younger. That was my problem with McCain.
I think Clinton missed her chance.... But we will see.
-
"I'm not sure I would vote for someone age 69 unless they had a very
qualified VP and was much younger. That was my problem with McCain."
I will believe this when you tell me in '16 and she runs for office that you won't vote for her due to her advanced age.
-
Well if she chooses someone more qualified than Palin (what a joke) as VP than I might. But then I probably would have voted for McCain until he chose her.
-
I guess if Palin only had a fake Chicago graft professorship it would be different for JDN.
Why are they still hiding "Austrian Language/Corpseman's" academic transcripts?
-
Frankly, I wish she was President today. She is a very capable woman sociopathic liar.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
-
"sociopathic liar"
But this is ok.
She can boogy, belt down a beer, text, tweet and she is just one KOOOL cat.
Is this for the "youth" (synonomous with fool) vote?
-
No. They are stuck in their parent's basements trying to find any job while their student loans crush them.
"sociopathic liar"
But this is ok.
She can boogy, belt down a beer, text, tweet and she is just one KOOOL cat.
Is this for the "youth" (synonomous with fool) vote?
-
Not to mention Whitewater, the weird death of Vincent Foster, the weird appearance of subpoened law firm documents in her office after the statute of limitations had expired, and whathisname going to prison on her behalf and then getting $700,000 from Chinese front family the Riady's of Indonesia, and the $97,000 pay off in the form of commodities trading profits.
But whose counting , , ,
-
Crafty wrote on the "Glibness" thread:
"I saw an extended interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN with Hillary and Leon Panetta while I was in Munich. A real soft interview of course, but I must say that Hillary is seeming warmer, more human, and more likable recently. She and P. were laughing and joking with each other a lot. It seemed like their personal comfort level was very high. Not saming I'm buying it, but what with pictures of her drinking beer, partying, and other things, on top of a lot of people thinking she has been well seasoned by her stint as SecState, I do think that she would make a formidable addition to Baraq's chances. A lot of women would see her as being a shoo-in for 2016 after VPing for 2012-2016."
That does appear to be the plan.
There is no question we are not done with the Clintons.
There is a whole industry built around them ready to pounce her into office.
JDN will post, of course, that that would be wonderful later in this thread.
Rachel who has not come back onto the board because she took the BCP flap "personally" would of course be a Hilllary champion.
Even my sister a republican recently told me she has bought the Koolaid by telling me she thinks the Hill is doing a good job.
As men, we must not underestimate the anger women have for men.
*Honesty* does not it seem have much relevance when dealing with societal segments who identify with particular candidates.
-
"She and P. were laughing and joking with each other a lot. It seemed like their personal comfort level was very high."
Well Leon is a Clinton lover from the 90's. He was WH chief of staff for the Bill.
They covered up a lot together.
-
I'd forgotten that about Leon.
Wonder if she's given him any in revenge for Bill's wanderings? , , , , :lol:
-
She may have whipped him a few times...... :wink:
-
From the 1990s:
Q: What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer with a slimy politician?
A: Chelsea.
================================
Chelsea's Got Talent – Flacking for the Islamophobia Industry
by Joel Himelfarb
IPT News
June 12, 2012
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3622/chelsea-got-talent-flacking-for-the-islamophobia
Print
Send
Comment
RSS
Share:
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Word is that former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton's career as an NBC special correspondent isn't going terribly well. Labeled the "Dork Diva" by one media blog, network officials complain about everything from her refusal to discuss growing up in the Clinton White House to what they consider her lack of story production (just a handful since starting there last year). "What's she giving us?" one NBC executive asked skeptically.
Many people think Chelsea will follow in the footsteps of parents Bill and Hillary and run for office if her television career implodes, but I disagree.
After watching her recent performance moderating a New York Jewish Community Center forum on "Islamophobia," it's apparent that mere election to Congress or some other public office wouldn't be the best use of Chelsea's talent.
But if she decided on a career as a public-relations spokesman for the "Islamophobia Industry," her growth potential would be limitless. When I refer to the Industry, I mean organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and scores of like-minded groups that have proliferated across the United States during the past 20 years.
In general, these ideologues work to stifle legitimate debate by discrediting anyone who tries to point out the role of radical Islam in terrorism around the world or the radicalism in indoctrination centers and mosques like this, this, this and this as a bigot. The Industry also works to discredit successful prosecutions of jihadists seeking to attack the United States.
One weapon that has proven useful to the Industry is so-called "interfaith dialogue" involving Jewish and Islamic leaders. The Muslim participants tend to be Islamists, while their Jewish counterparts tend to be well-meaning "useful idiots" like Rabbi Marc Schneier, who has tried to establish a partnership with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which is rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood. All too often, the result is a debacle in which the liberal Jews pine for dialogue while the Islamists stonewall and repeat anti-Semitic slanders.
And when Schneier (who heads a group called the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, or FFEU) and Imam Muhammad Shamsi Ali joined Chelsea Clinton at the JCC March 14, things didn't go a whole lot better. Although it talks a lot about the virtues of diversity, the Islamophobia Industry portrays Muslim life in America in a bleak, one-dimensional way: as if Muslims here are little more than innocent victims of thuggish, bigoted non-Muslim gangs determined to punish them for 9/11 and subsequent jihadist actions.
I was taught a long time ago in Journalism 101 that the job of a journalist is to report on the news – not to act as an advocate or partisan. NBC's special correspondent views things a lot differently, declaring it is "the responsibility of the media to help ameliorate Islamophobia."
And that's precisely what Chelsea tried to do, tossing one softball after another to Ali and Schneier, parroting misinformation of her own and failing to question whoppers from the imam and the rabbi. Schneier, for example, bragged about his collaboration with hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons at FEU, but didn't get a single question from the moderator about Simmons' long history of sycophantic praise for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite.
Nor did Chelsea seem well-informed about the Ground Zero Mosque controversy that heated up in 2010. She asked Schneier how "you think about trying to use the media to in many ways combat the media?" Chelsea suggested that Schneier might need to gear up for battle because "we saw such vitriolic statements covered widely in the media" with commentators using "terms that at best were insensitive to somewhere in the middle, or derogatory, and at worst were really dehumanizing." (She neglected to provide an example).
After Chelsea asked what the pair was doing to stop this, Schneier talked about his opposition to hearings on Islamist radicalization in the United States by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., and bragged about working with Islamist Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., in an effort to win the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Schneier received thunderous applause from the audience when he described such work as an example of "the genuine authenticity that is needed for this Muslim/Jewish reconciliation."
Neither Schneier nor Chelsea Clinton bothered to mention that this "authenticity" came at a heavy price: the release of more than 1,000 imprisoned terrorist operatives, including planners of grisly attacks targeting civilians.
Just as the New York Times propagandized against "The Third Jihad" (a film spotlighting the threat posed by radical Islamist ideology), Chelsea falsely asserted that the film attacked "Muslim Americans" as a group as "somewhere on the continuum from deceitful to a terrorist in waiting." In fact, the documentary doesn't target Muslims as a group but does detail how CAIR was created after a secret 1993 meeting in Philadelphia involving members of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. The meeting was to generate support for the Hamas terror organization which runs Gaza today.
And Chelsea accepted without challenge Ali's disinformation about the word jihad. While he acknowledged it is a "scary word," Ali said people don't necessarily have to fear jihad, which can sometimes be a good thing. "We are doing a jihad. This is a jihad for peace, jihad for harmony, jihad for cooperation between people."
Chelsea appeared blissfully ignorant of Ali's links with Islamists and his criticism of the media for associating Muslims with jihadist terror.
The imam wasn't asked, for example, about his role as co-chairman of a 2006 Muslim Day Parade in which radical Imam Siraj Wahhaj, (a character witness for the "Blind Sheikh" at his terrorism trial) served as grand marshal.
After a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad, Ali called the cartoons "psychological warfare against the Muslim world." At a protest outside the Danish consulate in New York City, Ali politely introduced speakers like Sara Flounders of the International Action Center, who called the cartoons "part of a war on all Muslim people" as well as conspiracy theorists who demanded that Washington end its support for "the racist occupying regime in Palestine."
Speaking at a 2008 conference sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society, Ali suggested that the media (rather than the jihadists) was to blame for connecting radical Islam and terror.
"The media is a culprit in damaging Islam's reputation," he said. "Such terms as 'Islamic terrorists,' 'Muslim radicals,' 'Shi'ite extremists,' 'Sunni bombers,' 'Islamic suicide bombers,' have become headlines."
Like Ali, Schneier directs much of his fire at Americans who have the temerity to ask difficult questions about radicalism and its origins. One of the rabbi's favorite targets has been Rep. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who Schneier depicts as a contributor to anti-Muslim bigotry for investigating radicalism.
At a March 2011 press conference, Schneier said he shares Ellison's concern "that these hearings will only exacerbate anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia in our country."
Schneier's own forays into "interfaith dialogue" haven't always proven to be unvarnished successes. Shortly after Nidal Hasan, an Islamist serving as a military psychiatrist, massacred 13 people at Ford Hood, Tex., Schneier described in the Washington Post the successes of a "Weekend of Twinning of Synagogues and Mosques."
Writing at Frontpagemag.com, Ilya Feoktistov of Americans for Peace and Tolerance described how one such "twinning" turned disastrous. A Buffalo, N.Y.-area Jewish geriatrician and a Muslim dentist attended a medical conference in Damascus, Syria. During a break in the conference, the Muslim escorted his Jewish counterpart to a nearby mosque where he was introduced to an imam who sounded moderate – at least in his English-language writings and remarks.
After Jewish officials in Buffalo had the imam's Arabic-language writings translated into English, they learned that he was virulent anti-Semite and a political ally of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
The Islamist radicals were doing this (with Schneier's unwitting help) because such "disingenuous interfaith dialogue with Jewish leaders is also a strategic force-multiplier for extremists," Feoktistov wrote. "The rest of American society tends to look to Jews on the topic of extremist bigotry and intolerance as the proverbial canary in the coal mine. By embracing radical Islamists in an official interfaith relationship, Jewish leaders give them a ticket into American institutions."
Interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims "can be valuable. Yet dialogue is only productive when it occurs with partners who are honest about their true intentions," he added. "Instead of promoting peace and tolerance, legitimizing such entities through interfaith partnerships will only promote the hatred they preach when they think the Jews aren't paying attention."
One person who hadn't been paying attention was Chelsea, who clearly knew nothing about such politically inconvenient facts. "I think it's part of what is so impressive about the work that you do, that it's not only dialogue, that it is motivated by a shared purpose to build a shared community, to build a shared future of the promised land," she gushed to Schneier and Ali.
While the younger Clinton's gullibility allowed plenty of opportunity for the rabbi and the imam to peddle disinformation, it's striking to note what didn't get talked about: Muslim violence against non-Muslims and Muslims alike. The JCC audience wasn't burdened with information about Taliban savagery towards women; al-Qaida attacks targeting Iraqi civilians; al-Shabaab's predations against Somalis, or annoyances like terrorist attacks targeting Christian communities in Egypt and Iraq.
No, this was a Kumbaya moment, and Chelsea wasn't about to let the facts get in the way of the rabbi and the imam's propaganda shtick. It is simply disgraceful that the leadership of the New York JCC, who should know better, allowed themselves to be used as a conduit for such one-sided agitprop.
-
Well it sounds like we won't have to worry about Chelsea going far. In her defense her parents, for better or worse, are certainly a tough act to follow.
That said I still contend we well have Hillary running in '16. We are not done with the Clintons and their political machine yet.
-
Apparently all three of them will be 1/2 block from my house tomorrow. Bill is giving a commencement speech at Redondo Union HS because his nephew (via his brother) is graduating. Due to security issues, a substantial clusterfcuk is expected.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/denise-rich-clinton-pal-renounces-us-citizenship-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Reminds me of the joke about how Bill and Hillary met because they were dating the same girl , , ,
http://www.620wtmj.com/blogs/genemueller/173086311.html
-
"Hillary Clinton Faints, Sustains Concussion"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578181403963869018.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LatestHeadlines
I don't wish injury or ill health to anyone - except maybe Hugo Chavez - so this is a sad story and I wish her truly a full and speedy recovery.
That said and no reason to doubt anything, but there is this: they didn't say when it happened, and "Mrs. Clinton's illness appears likely to delay her planned testimony Thursday before a congressional body investigating the September terrorist attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi..."
-
So, if we say we suspect she is lying, then we are wishing her good health? :evil: :lol:
Those of us who followed the White Water saga during the Clinton years in the WSJ (which did an OUTSTANDING job of not letting go of it-- a pit bull would have been impressed) will remember how again and again the Clintons moved key witnesses out of reach of investigators by assigning them overseas etc.
-
So, if we say we suspect she is lying, then we are wishing her good health? :evil: :lol:
Those of us who followed the White Water saga during the Clinton years in the WSJ (which did an OUTSTANDING job of not letting go of it-- a pit bull would have been impressed) will remember how again and again the Clintons moved key witnesses out of reach of investigators by assigning them overseas etc.
If wish her at least 50 years of good health - and hope she invests all her book money in the American private sector, hiring thousands of people under all the new tax and regulatory rules, particularly as they relate to healthcare, employee leave and all the rest.
Hillary in her prime as First Lady came on a local conservative talk show called Garage Logic, set in a fictional town where they believe most good ideas start out in the garage. The banter got a little awkward when it turned out this woman had never owned a car, a house that she lived in, or a garage.
Yes, the WSJ was all over the Whitewater scandal with all its corruption, especially before reelection, and the exposed guilt and shiftiness made no difference at all in their popularity.
-
I regret having this thought, but there is something fishy about having an unreported fall on an unspecified day at an undisclosed location, not being hospitalized, doing just fine, but unable to testify at public hearings, more than a week later, on Benghazi. They didn't request the hearings moved a day or a week, instead they will provide some other 'senior official' in her place to say things like "I don't know" and "we will have to wait until the investigation is complete."
As the Clintons used to say after blocking, stonewalling and stalling: That old issue? Those questions were all asked and answered a LONG time ago.'
It was often said about the Clintons -They lie with such ease.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI_SqqJIU14[/youtube]
-
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Hospitalized With Blood Clot
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hospitalized on Sunday with a blood clot stemming from a concussion she suffered earlier this month, a State Department spokesman said.
Mrs. Clinton, who canceled most of her public events in recent weeks because of her concussion, was at a follow-up exam Sunday when doctors discovered a blood clot, according to Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton.
“She is being treated with anticoagulants and is at New York-Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours,” Mr. Reines said in a statement.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/us/hillary-clinton-goes-to-hospital-after-exam-finds-a-blood-clot.html?emc=na
-
Previously on Benghazi: "The injury/illness seems like either BS or hiding something more serious (Daily Mail says it is not brain cancer...)"
My heart goes out to Hillary with her health challenges. My disagreement is over policy and tactics, not her well being.
The fable about crying wolf led to the question: how will we know when you are telling the truth? I have no idea what is true or false about Hillary. Press reports are of little help.
Get well, and then come testify. We have questions for you.
-
By THOMAS M. BURTON
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is suffering from a blood clot located between her brain and her skull, behind her right ear, her physicians said Monday, describing the location of the clot for the first time since she was hospitalized on Sunday.
he didn't suffer a stroke or sustain any neurological damage, said her doctors.
"In all other aspects of her recovery, the secretary is making excellent progress and we are confident she will make a full recovery," Dr. Lisa Bardack of Mt. Kisco, N.Y., and Dr. Gigi El-Bayoumi of George Washington University said. "She is in good spirits, engaging with her doctors, her family, and her staff."
The blood clot is in a vein that experts said drains blood from the brain and is in an area known as the right transverse sinus, which the physicians described as a space between the brain and skull, behind the ear.
They said the blood clot was discovered Sunday in a "routine follow-up" visit. They said Mrs. Clinton would be released from the hospital once a proper dosage of blood thinners has been established. She was being treated at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia in New York City.
State Department officials before Monday afternoon's statement had declined to say where the blood clot was located.
The clot was the latest health problem to confront Mrs. Clinton in recent weeks. She became ill with a stomach virus during a European trip early in December. That virus led to what officials described as dehydration and caused her to faint, fall and suffer a concussion. The blood clot was discovered over the weekend.
Dr. Lori Shutter, a neurologist and critical-care doctor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said Mrs. Clinton was fortunate that the clot was in this particular vein, because there are two such veins, one behind each ear. With one blocked, the second is able to continue draining used blood from the brain.
Without that backup, the clot could have led to a "venous stroke." In that condition, the brain cannot properly drain itself of blood, resulting in a buildup of pressure. Because of the pressure, the brain wouldn't be able to accept sufficient amounts of oxygenated blood from arteries to sustain the tissue—hence a stroke.
Dr. Shutter said Mrs. Clinton's clot could well have been caused by the fall and concussion earlier in December. The fall could have led to a hairline fracture of the bone surrounding the vein, or could have caused inflammation within the vein. Either way, Dr. Shutter said, a clot could have occurred.
Dr. Shutter, who isn't involved in Mrs. Clinton's care, said the secretary likely will be on blood thinners for months.
Venous strokes more typically occur because of a clot in another vein, called the superior sagittal sinus. This is because there is only one such vein and any blockage there could prove more critical. A venous stroke is considered generally less severe than the most common kind of strokes, which are caused by a clot in an artery, which blocks blood flow to the brain and can kill brain tissue. By contrast, a venous stroke can cause some minor weakness or confusion, said Dr. Shutter.
The disclosure of the location of Mrs. Clinton's blood clot came near the end of the day, after State Department officials had refused to elaborate on her condition. It wasn't clear when physicians determined the secretary had avoided a stroke or any neurological damage, or whether that determination contributed to the delay in the release of details about her condition.
Earlier in the day on Monday, hospital executives referred all questions about Mrs. Clinton's condition to the State Department, where officials wouldn't respond to questions.
The latest setback may affect plans for Mrs. Clinton to testify before Congress about the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya that claimed the lives of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, and resulted in sharp criticism of her agency.
She initially had planned to testify Dec. 20, but postponed that appearance because of her concussion, promising before her hospitalization Sunday to appear before lawmakers in January.
-
second post of day
www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/clinton-injured-us-navy-seal-killed-in.html
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/abc-news-report-on-emergency-landing-of.html
-
second post of day
She can't testify until they are sure the perjury section of her brain is undamaged.
-
GM: Take another look at my post now.
-
second post of day
www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/clinton-injured-us-navy-seal-killed-in.html
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/abc-news-report-on-emergency-landing-of.html
I'll look into this, but I'm not buying this at all at this time.
-
Hence my reference to tin foil hats in my post :-D
OTOH with the Clintons one can never be sure , , , :lol:
-
It used to be said of the Clinton's, they lie with such ease. In the latest deal, you could say they deceive, stonewall and turn things around on people with such ease. As I wrote on the Benghazi thread, that does not change the facts.
We are not learning much about Benghazi right now but might as well take the opportunity to reflect on what we may already know about Hillary. Seems well sourced, some facts in dispute.
http://www.caintv.com/watergate-era-judiciary-chief
Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
Dan Calabrese, Wednesday January 23rd, 2013
By DAN CALABRESE - Bet you didn't know this.
I've decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton's performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary's conduct at the time.
I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn't reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary's arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I've combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you're interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it's worth your time to read it.
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)
To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.
“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.
Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.
“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”
That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.
But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.
After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.
Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.
(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)
This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.
According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.
The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:
Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.
Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential "abuse of power" as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.
As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.
Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.
In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:
Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .
In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.
Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.
“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.
Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.
But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.
All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.
“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”
Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.
“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”
Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.
A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.
Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.
By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.
“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”
Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.
Vote wisely.
-
Wow, a fascinating bit of history you've brought up from the memory hole there Doug.
In a similar vein there is the matter of her receiving $97,000 laundered dollars from Tyson Foods via her commodity straddles trades in the late 70s while Bill was running for governor. (I think I have already posted about it.)
-
Hillary's Dismal Record At State
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on February 1, 2013
The media spin is that she has been an excellent Secretary of State. But its just spin.
Look at the record:
• Chavez now controls Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Ecuador as well as Venezuela and has big influence in Brazil. He is providing a base for Iran to move into the hemisphere.
• Russia has become more repressive and aggressive. Democracy advocates are more subject to arrest and torture and nothing has come of the "reset" except more appeasement.
• The Ukraine has drifted closer to Russia and further away from the West.
• Iran is much closer to having the bomb and likely using it against Israel.
• We've lost Egypt and Islamist power is sweeping the Arab world. The singular achievement of American Mid East diplomacy over the past fifty years -- the Camp David Accords -- are being undone as we speak.
• North Korea gets ever more brazen, has become a nuclear power, and now has put a satellite into orbit.
• China still weakens its currency making our products too expensive there and theirs' cheaper here. And it launches cyber attacks against institutions like the New York Times with total impunity.
• The Islamist offensive in sub-Sahara Africa gains momentum.
• Afghanistan is no closer to putting down the Taliban, is still one of the most corrupt of the world's governments, and Pakistan's collaboration with al Qaeda grows more and more evident.
And then there's Benghazi. The cover-up -- dressing the terrorist attack up as a demonstration over a movie gone wrong -- disgraces her tenure. It was a transparent attempt to sweep an issue under the rug to help Obama get re-elected.
The press corps that follows Hillary around the world is unanimous in praising her. They are her captives. Covering Hillary is their full time assignment. If they annoy her, they are frozen out on the plane and can't do their jobs. Sycophancy alone is tolerated.
Has Hillary been a good Secretary of State? Look at the record.
-
Hillary's Dismal Record At State
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on February 1, 2013
The media spin is that she has been an excellent Secretary of State. But its just spin.
Look at the record:
• Chavez now controls Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Ecuador as well as Venezuela and has big influence in Brazil. He is providing a base for Iran to move into the hemisphere.
• Russia has become more repressive and aggressive. Democracy advocates are more subject to arrest and torture and nothing has come of the "reset" except more appeasement.
• The Ukraine has drifted closer to Russia and further away from the West.
• Iran is much closer to having the bomb and likely using it against Israel.
• We've lost Egypt and Islamist power is sweeping the Arab world. The singular achievement of American Mid East diplomacy over the past fifty years -- the Camp David Accords -- are being undone as we speak.
• North Korea gets ever more brazen, has become a nuclear power, and now has put a satellite into orbit.
• China still weakens its currency making our products too expensive there and theirs' cheaper here. And it launches cyber attacks against institutions like the New York Times with total impunity.
• The Islamist offensive in sub-Sahara Africa gains momentum.
• Afghanistan is no closer to putting down the Taliban, is still one of the most corrupt of the world's governments, and Pakistan's collaboration with al Qaeda grows more and more evident.
And then there's Benghazi. The cover-up -- dressing the terrorist attack up as a demonstration over a movie gone wrong -- disgraces her tenure. It was a transparent attempt to sweep an issue under the rug to help Obama get re-elected.
The press corps that follows Hillary around the world is unanimous in praising her. They are her captives. Covering Hillary is their full time assignment. If they annoy her, they are frozen out on the plane and can't do their jobs. Sycophancy alone is tolerated.
Has Hillary been a good Secretary of State? Look at the record.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/us-embassy-bombing-in-turkey-was-eighth-embassy-attack-during-secretary-of-state-clintons-reign/
8 attacks on US embassies on her watch, but what does it matter?
-
Who is Ed Mezvinsky ?
Edward "Ed" Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937, is a former Democratic congressman. He represented Iowa 's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977. He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon. He and the Clinton's were very politically intertwined for years.
In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He was sentenced to 80 months in (Federal) prison.
Ed Mezvinsky embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams.
After serving five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008. He remained on federal probation through 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.
So who is Ed Mezvinsky? He's Chelsea Clinton's father-in law.
Has anyone heard mention of this in any of the media? If this guy were Jenna or Barbara Bush's, or better yet, Sarah Palin's daughter's father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline, large type!
God Bless America!!!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/mezvinsky.asp
Son of a bitch! .....It's true! Crooks and crooked politicians always stick together!
-
"We have a responsibility to ask for information, and I think that is not only appropriate but necessary."
A flashback caught by Drudge. Interesting in the context of all the terror information in Benghazi that Hillary Clinton had prior to 9/11 - 2012.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/18/wh.hillary/
May 18, 2002 WASHINGTON (CNN
...
The former first lady responded by saying she is simply "seeking answers and information" about recent revelations that President Bush was alerted prior to September 11 of possible terrorist attacks.
The row between the White House and the Democrat from New York began Thursday when Clinton appeared on the Senate floor and held up a copy of the New York Post with the headline of "Bush Knew."
"The president knew what?" she asked. "My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions, not to blame the president or any other American, just to know."
Fleischer responded in his daily news briefing.
"I have to say, with disappointment, that Mrs. Clinton, having seen that same headline, did not call the White House, did not ask if it was accurate or not," he said.
"Instead, she immediately went to the floor of the Senate, and I'm sorry to say that she followed that headline and divided."
Hours later, the freshman senator fired back.
"What I said is completely in line with what was said by other senators on both sides of the aisle who are asking respectfully for information to respond to questions that are legitimately being posed by the American public," she told reporters.
"We have a responsibility to ask for information, and I think that is not only appropriate but necessary. You know, nobody is more entitled to answers to these questions than the people of New York, and I take that responsibility very seriously."
She added: "I am seeking answers and information. I am not looking to point fingers or place blame on anybody."
-
With the interim House committee report (sorry, I'm drawing a blank on the exact title at the moment) calling Hillary a liar on Benghazi yesterday, the incongruity is particularly glaring.
-
Prosecute Hillary.
Last week, Speaker Boehner published an Interim Progress Report from the Committees investigating Benghazi that affirms, with absolutely no doubt, that Hillary Clinton lied under oath.
Despite her assertion that she had never seen any documents telling of a heightened threat or requesting increased security, she personally signed off on a drawdown of embassy security personnel in Libya.
All of her "emotional testimony," all of her assertions that "what difference does it make" about the reason Americans died in Benghazi, all of the snide remarks of the Administration about the Republican investigation are now revealed as nothing but a disgusting attempt to hide from the truth and deceive the American people.
Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
What needs to happen at this point is abundantly clear.
You don't lie about the death of four Americans – including two Navy SEALs – and get away with it. It's time for former Secretary of State Clinton to be prosecuted for perjury.
The case for prosecution is well established, and there are no grounds to give Hillary a pass. In fact, the report by the House explicitly states that Secretary Clinton was "seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans."
There is a strong precedent for taking such action against a senior Administration official. In 2005, Scooter Libby – the Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney – was indicted on charges of two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice in relation to the Plume affair. Libby resigned his government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.
If you'll recall from back then, liberals in the government and in the media were doing everything but calling for Libby's head. They were practically frothing at the mouth with indignation that he'd leaked information to the press and lied about it. No one had died, no American property had been destroyed – just the politics of it was enough.
But of course it's different when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Whitehouse Spokesman Jay Carney has already started the liberal spin machine at full throttle, making the outrageous assertion that Hillary signed off on all kinds of things – we can't expect her to actually read what she's signing.
Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
As far as this White House is concerned – and the vast majority of the mainstream media – lying under oath is no big deal. Sure, a few American heroes may have been murdered. Radical Islamists may have destroyed our "diplomatic facility"; with rocket launchers. Our own Ambassador may have been slain. But you can't possibly expect them to take accountability for their actions – or even expect them to own up to their mistakes. That's simply beneath a member of the Obama Administration.
This despicable arrogance has to stop. And, since there is absolutely no indication that Barack Obama or his liberal allies have any intention of taking responsibility, we must do everything in our power to bring them to justice.
The fact of the matter is that the tragedy in Benghazi could have very likely been averted if it weren't for Hillary's signature on that document months prior. She knew the dangers. She knew what the people on the ground saw, and she knew what they needed to deal with it.
But Hillary Clinton didn't do a damn thing about it. And because of that, people died. Then she willingly and repeatedly lied to the American people, to the media, and – while under oath – to Congress.
We're demanding that she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If you want to see justice served, and this destructive administration finally held accountable, I urge you in the strongest terms to join us on this mission. Talk to your friends and neighbors, and share this message with everyone you know.
Speaker Boehner is showing his willingness to do right by our service people by releasing this report. Now we have to let him and the rest of Washington know that this needs to be the beginning, and not the end.
Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.
Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.
We need a chorus of voices from all across America demanding that Hillary – and any other member of the Obama Administration involved in the Benghazi cover-up – be indicted immediately. Our service people abroad and the American people deserve accountability from the United States government.
We must never allow those who put everything on the line for this country to receive such an abhorrent disservice and then have the whole affair swept under the rug. It's time to restore responsibility and honor to our government.
That starts with indicting – and ultimately prosecuting – Hillary Clinton for her lies.
Sincerely,
Dick Brauer, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Co-founder, Special Operations Speaks
P.S. Everything we have seen from this administration since the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, points to a colossal leadership failure in the Obama Administration and their attempts to cover up the truth about what happened. And now, the smoking gun, HILLARY LIED.It is up to us to hold them accountable and to demand real leadership. Please help us hold their feet to the fire with any contribution you can afford. And then sign the petition today to demand a special select committee to investigate the truth about what happened on September 11, 2012.
-
CCP in Benghazi thread: "Yesterday the sleaze in ex chief - Bill announced Hillary is not definitely running for his past job...."
She polls well because of being out of day to day, issue politics for 5 years. George W. Bush raised his numbers above Obama's the same way. Saying she is out forever is a way of making her malfeasance and refusal to give answers in the Benghazi scandal less important. Needless to say they want this scandal to go away.
The way we know if the Clintons are lying is to watch closely and see if their lips are moving. The problem with listening to liars is that it is a waste of time. We get no information whatsoever about whether she will run or won't run by hearing either of them saying anything either way, especially during the investigation of one of their scandals.
Hillary said under oath:
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
The whole thing is a false choice. It wasn't a protest. It wasn't guys out for a walk. It was a planned terror attack. A question in response to a question is an evasion, not an answer at all. What is the matter with her and why can't anyone hold her accountable?!
The question was: "Do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest?"
The honest answer she wouldn't say, testifying before a Congressional committee, was that she did not need to make that phone call. She knew all along what this was and how the false cover story was concocted.
What did Haldeman or Erlichman ever do that was any worse than this, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice?
-
"What did Haldeman, Erlichman, or Nixon ever do that was any worse than this, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice?"
I think that reads a tad better now , , ,
-
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/10/the-moment-of-responsibility-for-hillary-clinton/#ixzz2Svmz88jL
-
Copying this over to the Clinton thread. Huma's outside payers are most certainly part of the Clinton circle.
From ccp post, Govt programs: http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1847.msg72947#msg72947
ccp, Thanks for finding this. Huma is pretty close to the center of the political universe. Huma is/was Hillary's closest confident. The right wing nuts (anyone to the right of me) were sure she was Hillary's lesbian lover; Huma accompanied Hillary everywhere. Then she was the 'Muslim' in the inner circle affecting our diplomatic policies. She has relatives with ties to CAIR etc.(?) Then she was set up to be Anthony Weiner's wife, a powerful and outspoken congressman - before his bizarre weiner scandal. They had Muslim-Jewish wedding?? Then she was the wife standing by him, sort of. Clintons did not endorse Weiner for mayor - yet. A soft spot for sex scandals? Huma is still with Hillary? Still with Weiner. Now this scandal breaks. Yes, she takes full time pay, sells access or whatever it is she is selling on the side, and we don't get to know who is involved or how this operation works.
I really don't want to spend another decade studying Clinton scandals!
-
If I may continue Huma Abedin coverage in the Clinton thread, did she really not take her husbands last name? This also goes under the category of famous people reading the forum, James Tarato, online editor for the WSJ jumps in on our coverage:
Weiner "defended his wife" during a Saturday campaign appearance. "I'm proud of my wife and I'm proud of the work she's done," he said, adding that "she has done everything completely above-board with approval of the State Department."
- Approval of the State Dept? Approval of a Clinton is not exactly the gold standard of ethics, even in Washington.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323566804578551522812888206.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
Moonlight Serenade
Whom does Mrs. Weiner work for?
By JAMES TARANTO
Anthony Weiner, who resigned from Congress two years ago this Friday in a side-splitting social-media scandal, is running for mayor of New York? We don't know why, but we're now pretty sure it's not for the money. The New York Post reports that Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, "hauled in as much as $350,000 in outside income on top of Abedin's $135,000 government salary."
Far be it from this columnist to begrudge the Weiners their financial success. What's eyebrow-raising about this, though, is that Abedin, who works for the State Department, is the source of some of that outside income:
Abedin, who served as [Hillary] Clinton's deputy chief of staff when Clinton was secretary of state, later became a 'special government employee' who was able to haul in cash as a private contractor. . . .
One of the clients she did consulting work for while on the government payroll was Teneo Holdings, a firm founded by longtime Bill Clinton aide Doug Band.
The Post reports that Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican the paper describes as "one of the Senate's most aggressive investigators," is looking into the matter. In a letter to Abedin and now-Secretary John Kerry, Grassley "wrote that he was concerned Abedin's status 'blurs the line between public- and private-sector employees, especially when employees receive full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work.' " Grassley also "suggested Abedin was providing clients 'political intelligence,' " a claim denied by an unnamed "person close to Abedin."
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XW371_botwt0_C_20130617132429.jpg)
New York's Daily News reports that white-knight Weiner "defended his wife" during a Saturday campaign appearance. "I'm proud of my wife and I'm proud of the work she's done," he said, adding that "she has done everything completely above-board with approval of the State Department."
That may well be true--in which case the scandal here may be what's above board rather than what's below it. The Post reports that an unnamed State Department official "noted there were 100 such consultants at the agency."
A hundred Abedin-size salaries would add up to $13.5 million--presumably not counting benefits--being paid to people whose work for the department has to compete with their outside gigs for their time and attention. Are they thoroughly screened for conflicts of interest? If so, that's an additional expense for the taxpayers. If not, we can't rule out the possibility that some State Department workers are trading on their access to what Grassley calls "political intelligence."
-
Doug:
Yes, please use this thread for Huma Abedin
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/13/clinton-confidante-is-tied-to-probe-into-suspected/
-
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/hillary-clinton-pushes-to-make-criticism-of-islam-a-crime-in-the-us/question-2333671/
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/hillary-has-to-dump-bill-now.html
Hillary Has to Dump Bill Now
By Margaret Carlson Jun 18, 2013 Bloomberg
-------
It doesn't get much stranger. I think Carlson is really arguing for Bill to sit down and shut up, let Hillary step out of his shadow, but she writes it like they should literally break it off for political purposes. So much for family values. If he quiets down for even a couple of years, does she think he would stay in her shadow as First Gentleman of the United States, read to children and work on nutritional education in schools?
It is two for the price of one. Her record without him is to lose to a 2-year Senator of Illinois and totally bungle Benghazi. She is a highly over-rated politician, most popular when out of the spotlight. Biggest accomplishment was to win a Senate race in a far left state and burn a record amount of jet fuel as a member - with no access to the President except the 60 Minutes payoff performance.
-
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/06/28/jeb-bush-to-award-liberty-medal-to-hillary-clinton/
-
Could anyone imagine Clinton honoring their political enemy like this?
All they have to do when she runs against Bush is replay this image of him honoring her.
:cry:
-
Could anyone imagine Clinton honoring their political enemy like this?
All they have to do when she runs against Bush is replay this image of him honoring her.
:cry:
I don't know what good it does, but I share your reaction to this. We live in an anti-liberty tsunami. How is liberty going in your business, Doc? Coercive Paternalism might be a better descriptor than Liberty. Though she was only Sec of State, these are the policies she is working to advance too. The results are a human tragedy.
Hillary was negligent in her own duties, failing to answer the security challenge in Benghazi and a co-conspirator to cover that up after the fact. That is in addition to her prior, "long, sordid, and often criminal history". But she wins the liberty award. Unbelievable.
"Clinton traveled to 112 countries"
That is how we measure success in 2013? These were the places where "Chris" Stevens could not reach her. One million miles on the taxpayer dime and liberty moved backwards around the globe on her watch.
But the elites honor the elites for "Liberty", while ignoring the loss of liberty of the people.
-
The craven stupidity of this is mind-boggling.
At least it proves that Jeb Bush is not presidential material.
-
Maybe Rush is wrong. Maybe it is not about the money after all . Perhaps some Republicans are just that stupid? :-(
-
posting this here as well for reasons of facilitating future searches:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354351/huma-unmentionables-andrew-c-mccarthy
The Corner
The one and only.
The Huma Unmentionables
By Andrew C. McCarthy
July 24, 2013 4:58 PM
Charlotte’s revulsion over Huma Abedin’s calculated “stand by your man” routine is surely right. Still, it is amazing, as we speculate about Ms. Abedin’s political future, that the elephant in the room goes unnoticed, or at least studiously unmentioned.
Sorry to interrupt the Best Enabler of a Sociopath Award ceremony but, to recap, Ms. Abedin worked for many years at a journal that promotes Islamic-supremacist ideology that was founded by a top al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef ran the Rabita Trust, a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under American law. Ms. Abedin and Naseef overlapped at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA) for at least seven years. Throughout that time (1996–2003), Ms. Abdein worked for Hillary Clinton in various capacities.
Ms. Abedin’s late father, Dr. Zyed Abedin, was recruited by Naseef to run the JMMA in Saudi Arabia. The journal was operated under the management of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a virulently anti-Semitic and sharia-supremacist organization. When Dr. Abedin died, editorial control of the journal passed to his wife, Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin — Huma’s mother.
Saleha Abedin is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and to supporters of violent jihad. Among other things, she directs an organization – the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child. The IICWC, through its parent entity (the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief), is a component of the Union for Good (also known as the Union of Good), another formally designated terrorist organization. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the notorious Muslim Brotherhood jurist who has issued fatwas calling for the killing of American military and support personnel in Iraq as well as suicide bombings in Israel. (As detailed here, the Obama White House recently hosted Qaradawi’s principal deputy, Sheikh Abdulla bin Bayyah, who also endorsed the fatwa calling for the killing of U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq.)
Like Sheikh Qaradawi, who helped write the charter for the IICWC, Saleha Abedin is an influential sharia activist who has, for example, published a book called Women in Islam that claims man-made laws enslave women. It reportedly provides sharia justifications for such practices as female-genital mutilation, the death penalty for apostates from Islam, the legal subordination of women, and the participation of women in violent jihad. Dr. Abedin has nevertheless been hailed in the progressive press as a “leading voice on women’s rights in the Muslim world” (to quote Foreign Policy). What they never quite get around to telling you is that this means “women’s rights” in the repressive sharia context.
Back to daughter Huma. In the late mid to late Nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” The MSA, which has a vast network of chapters at universities across North America, is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States. Obviously, not every Muslim student who joins the MSA graduates to the Brotherhood — many join for the same social and networking reasons that cause college students in general to join campus organizations. But the MSA does have an indoctrination program, which Sam Tadros describes as a lengthy process of study and service that leads to Brotherhood membership — a process “designed to ensure with absolute certainty that there is conformity to the movement’s ideology and a clear adherence to its leadership’s authority.” The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest Islamist organization in the U.S. Indeed the MSA and ISNA consider themselves the same organization. Because of its support for Hamas (a designated terrorist organization that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted of providing the terrorist organization with lavish financing.
As I’ve recounted before, the MSA chapter to which Ms. Abedin belonged at George Washington University
has an intriguing history. In 2001 [to be clear, that is after Ms. Abedin had graduated from GWU], its spiritual guide was . . . Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. Awlaki himself had led the MSA chapter at Colorado State University in the early nineties. As Patrick Poole has demonstrated, Awlaki is far from the only jihadist to hone his supremacist ideology in the MSA’s friendly confines. In the eighties, Wael Jalaidan ran the MSA at the University of Arizona. He would soon go on to help Osama bin Laden found al-Qaeda; he also partnered with the Abedin family’s patron, Abdullah Omar Naseef, to establish the [aforementioned] Rabita Trust — formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law due to its funding of al-Qaeda.
Ms. Abedin served as one of Secretary of State Clinton’s top staffers and advisers at the State Department. As I’ve previously detailed, during that time, the State Department strongly supported abandoning the federal government’s prior policy against official dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood. State, furthermore, embraced a number of Muslim Brotherhood positions that undermine both American constitutional rights and our alliance with Israel. To name just a few manifestations of this policy sea change:
The State Department had an emissary in Egypt who trained operatives of the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in democracy procedures.
The State Department announced that the Obama administration would be “satisfied” with the election of a Muslim Brotherhood–dominated government in Egypt.
Secretary Clinton personally intervened to reverse a Bush-administration ruling that barred Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the Brotherhood’s founder and son of one of its most influential early leaders, from entering the United States.
The State Department collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of governments heavily influenced by the Brotherhood, in seeking to restrict American free-speech rights in deference to sharia proscriptions against negative criticism of Islam.
The State Department excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from its “Global Counterterrorism Forum,” a group that brings the United States together with several Islamist governments, prominently including its co-chair, Turkey — which now finances Hamas and avidly supports the flotillas that seek to break Israel’s blockade of Hamas. At the forum’s kickoff, Secretary Clinton decried various terrorist attacks and groups; but she did not mention Hamas or attacks against Israel — in transparent deference to the Islamist governments, which echo the Brotherhood’s position that Hamas is not a terrorist organization and that attacks against Israel are not terrorism.
The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer $1.5 billion dollars in aid to Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in the parliamentary elections.
The State Department and the Obama administration waived congressional restrictions in order to transfer millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian territories notwithstanding that Gaza is ruled by the terrorist organization Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.
The State Department and the administration hosted a contingent from Egypt’s newly elected parliament that included not only Muslim Brotherhood members but a member of the Islamic Group (Gamaa al-Islamiyya), which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department refused to provide Americans with information about the process by which it issued a visa to a member of a designated terrorist organization, about how the members of the Egyptian delegation were selected, or about what security procedures were followed before the delegation was allowed to enter our country.
On a trip to Egypt, Secretary Clinton pressured General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the military junta then governing the country, to surrender power to the parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the then–newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a top Brotherhood official. She also visited with Morsi; immediately after his victory, Morsi had proclaimed that his top priorities included pressuring the United States to release the Blind Sheikh. Quite apart from the Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed “grand jihad” to destroy the United States . . . the group’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, publicly called for jihad against the United States in an October 2010 speech. After it became clear the Brotherhood would win the parliamentary election, Badie said the victory was a stepping stone to “the establishment of a just Islamic caliphate.”
As more recent events remind us, this is not an exhaustive account of Obama-administration coziness with the Muslim Brotherhood. It is just some of the lowlights.
When a handful of House conservatives tried to draw the attention of the State Department’s inspector general to some of these matters – wondering how on earth someone with Ms. Abdein’s background could have qualified for a top-secret security clearance – they were castigated by the Obama White House and the Beltway Republican establishment. As reaffirmed in the last 24 hours, Ms. Abedin’s connections to prominent Islamic-supremacist figures and groups are deemed unsuitable for public discussion – Egyptians may be able to eject the Muslim Brotherhood, but in today’s Washington it is raising questions about the Muslim Brotherhood that gets you run out of town.
Naturally, what did get Washington chattering was a scandal far more typical in Clinton circles — the lucrative arrangement Ms. Abedin struck with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department that allowed her, after returning from maternity leave, to draw a $135,000 State Department salary while remaining in New York, not actually working at Foggy Bottom, and moonlighting as a “strategic consultant” for an outfit called Teneo – founded by Bill Clinton’s chum Doug Band.
What a racket. The marriage to Huma Abedin, a Clinton insider, enables Anthony Weiner to resurrect a debased career and deflect attention from his psychotic antics even as he continues them. The marriage to Anthony Weiner, a prominent Jewish progressive, enables Huma Abedin to deflect attention from her associations with various Islamic supremacists even as, during her tenure as a top State Department official, American policy embraces Islamic supremacists.
But let’s not discuss that.
-
Bari Weiss: If Huma and Hillary Were Emailing...
'I only wish Anthony could have channeled a bit more of Bill . . . Say hi to Big Dog for me.'
By BARI WEISS
Dear Hillary,
I'm listening to "Stand by Your Man" on repeat and baking cookies. Also considering joining Twitter—@MrsCarlosDanger has a real ring to it, don't you think?
Kidding.
Seriously, just when you think it can't get worse, here comes another 20-something from another dank corner of the Internet. And this woman— her last name is Leathers, you can't make this stuff up—is straight out of "Jersey Shore" with that above-the-lip piercing. Except she's from Indiana. It's like a vast fright-wing conspiracy.
Remind me to cancel those private Zumba lessons.
The good news is that Anthony's hanging on: Sure, he took a hit in the polls, but nobody's loving Christine Quinn—her favorables are terrible. And before Tuesday, we had out-raised every other Democrat in the field. Your blessing has been gold. Can't thank you enough.
Let me know if you can swing by. Anthony's not much in evidence; would love to talk next steps.
Yours,
H
***
Huma dear:
I'm sorry I can't meet up. Bill isn't thrilled by the Anthony comparisons, so it's best for me to lie low. Anyway, re: Tuesday's presser. You were masterful.
Our phone's ringing off the hook with donors asking when Weiner's dropping out and Abedin's getting in. Perfect combination of stoic and vulnerable, dignified and authentic, they say. Only you could pull off that "whole lotta therapy" line. Bravo.
Did you see what Tina Brown tweeted? "Huma for mayor—she has all the qualities he doesn't." Same with Nate Silver: "Huma should have run for mayor; she'd win in a landslide." I'll have someone put in a call to get him working on some numbers.
Hang in there. As Rahm would have said if he really understood politics: Never let a soul-crushing marital crisis go to waste. This is far from over.
More soon. I'm bingeing on "House of Cards." Again.
Hillary
***
Dearest Hill:
What can I say? I learned from the best. Your '92 interview on "60 Minutes" was my game tape. Anthony's communications team thought it would be best for me to stay home this week, but when I watched you deliver that line—"I'm sitting here because I love him and I respect him"—I realized what I had to do for myself. Anthony, too, of course. My "I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him" bit is in every article right now.
Enlarge Image
image
image
Getty Images
Huma Abedin and her former boss.
I only wish Anthony could have channeled a bit more of Bill. A few tried to string him up for this line: "In many ways, what happened today is something that, frankly, had happened before, but it doesn't represent all that much that is new." Let's just say he couldn't get away with it like Bill did when he told Steve Kroft "anyone who's listening gets the drift of it." But you've always told me that you've got to work with what you've got. He'll learn.
Someone on TV Wednesday said you're the "pro" of taking an "embarrassing situation and owning it and winning in the long run."
Couldn't have put it better myself. My question now is how long is the long run.
I wasn't thinking of running until 2017, but our story is bigger than the royal baby so I'm reconsidering. Thanks for having Silver look into those figures. (He's going to ESPN? Really? Why?)
What did you think of my Harper's Bazaar spread? I cringed at the headline, "The Good Wife," but now I'm thinking it's great positioning for me. Nice pushback to Anthony's brother telling the New York Times that I'm a political animal.
Say hi to Big Dog for me. Curious if he has any advice.
Gratefully yours,
Huma
***
Hum:
Bill says to stick it out. This will fade if Anthony can get through this week. And he can—just keep him glad-handing in Staten Island, outdoors, where it's bright and there's no Wi-Fi. Get him talking about how he grew up in a hardworking middle-class family in Brooklyn. It's the economy, stupid. Etc. If folks think Anthony's going to make rent cheaper, they won't think twice about his utter lack of personal loyalty or honesty. I know whereof I speak.
You're less than 50 days to the primary. It's a weak field, and if Anthony sticks to the issues beside his sympathetic bride, he'll win. And in the general, who are voters going to pick? A Republican? Give me a break.
Once he's in City Hall, your path is clear. I'll give his office the aides we discussed and it'll be a perfect satellite for Hillaryland. It will be discreet, of course—no Hillary 2016 wall banners just yet. But you can meet with donors on the down low and then your path will be up to you.
Huma for mayor? Or my old Senate seat? Selfishly I'd love to have you in the White House, but it will be your call. I never make a promise I can't keep.
Talk soon,
H.
Ms. Weiss is the associate editorial features editor at the Journal.
-
No question she must have gotten an A in her body language class. Shoulders back, chin up, straight erect spine, one hand at side while other gestures with authority. But Diane Lane, I hardly think so.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/27/four-part-series-on-hillary-clinton-in-the-works/?hpt=po_c2
-
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kkEwfVR1xkAi8FXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGJjawM0dTllN2E5OHZiZWpoJTI2YiUzRDQlMjZkJTNEMkhKdmdibHBZRUt5YlFGMk1pRlExZVNsVDZUdFEycjJseWtuUkEtLSUyNnMlM0RsOCUyNmklM0RJMlJMalBTTDFhZTlxc1NoOFRITwRjc3JjcHZpZANOVW1QOWtnZXVyQlBKY2RTVWZXNmNSSDFHT1MxbzFIMXdRUUFDdVRPBGZyA2ZwLXR0cy0xMjAEZnIyA3NiLXRvcARncHJpZANWbjJMd1FXRVRpLkVrVUZOLkVSajFBBG5fcnNsdAMxMARuX3N1Z2cDMTAEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDMTAEcXVlcnkDZGlhbmUgbGFuZQR0X3N0bXADMTM3NTA2MDM5NDk4MgR2dGVzdGlkA0FDQlkwNQ--?p=diane+lane&fr2=sb-top&fr=fp-tts-120
-
Ugh. Diane Lane is a good actress , , , and can be quite hot (e.g. as Richard Gere's cheating wife who drove him to murder).
-
"and can be quite hot"; That is what I mean. Does anyone think Hillary can be quite hot? And as I thought. Except for some exceptions the crat machine was silent about Weiner until comparisons with the Clintons began. Now the Clinton "machine" will dispose of them. Including Alexrod who is going to protect Hillary. And as the article below points out, who is Huma. She is nobody next to the former first lady and sec of state and senator. There is simply nothing to compare the two with:
******Bill and Hillary Clinton are 'livid' at comparisons to Weiner’s sexcapades and Huma’s forgiveness
By FREDRIC U. DICKER
Last Updated: 8:19 AM, July 29, 2013
Posted: 1:40 AM, July 29, 2013
Fredric U. Dicker
Bill and Hillary Clinton are angry with efforts by mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner and his campaign to compare his Internet sexcapades — and his wife Huma Abedin’s incredible forgiveness — to the Clintons’ notorious White House saga, The Post has learned.
“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat.
Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State at a House Appropriations Committee hearing in 2011.Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton in 2008.Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner on their wedding day. Bill Clinton officiated the nups in the gardens of the Long Island castle.
Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State at a House Appropriations Committee hearing in 2011.
Weiner and his campaign aides have explicitly referred to the Clintons as they privately seek to convince skeptical Democrats that voters can back Weiner despite his online sexual antics — just as they supported then-President Bill Clinton in the face of repeated allegations of marital betrayals.
“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”
A longtime Hillary aide and Clinton friend, Abedin’s surprisingly unequivocal support of her husband after his bombshell admission Tuesday that he engaged in salacious online sexting well after he resigned in disgrace from Congress in 2011 left the Clintons stunned, continued the source.
“Hillary didn’t know Huma would do this whole stand-by-your-man routine, and that’s one of the reasons the Clintons are distancing themselves from all this nonsense,’’ the source said.
Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State at a House Appropriations Committee hearing in 2011.Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton in 2008.Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner on their wedding day. Bill Clinton officiated the nups in the gardens of the Long Island castle.
In the view of many Democrats, the Weiners have also alluded more subtly to the Clintons.
For instance, Abedin, with her husband at her side, declared last week, “Our marriage, like many others, has had its ups and its downs.’’
“Who didn’t think Huma was referring to the Clintons when she said that?’’ asked another prominent Democrat.
Worried about the potential impact on Hillary’s likely run for president in 2016, the political power couple has begun aggressively distancing itself from the crippled mayoral contender, according to sources.
Meanwhile, at least one prominent Hillary Rodham Clinton political operative was described as close to “going public’’ with a sharp criticism of Weiner — in order to send the message that the Clintons, fearing longtime damage to Hillary, want him out of the mayor’s race. (That would be someone other than former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, who said yesterday that she was sure the Clintons wanted Weiner out of the race.)
With all the explosive ammunition Republicans have to fire at Weiner and a handful of other disgraced Democrats, GOP activists expected Senate co-leader Dean Skelos and Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb to unload at least a few critical comments.
Instead, there’s been total silence from the state’s two top elected Republicans — in yet another example of the collapse of the state’s two-party system.
Skelos “couldn’t care less about what’s going on with the Democrats. He’s just focused on . . . sending out meaningless tweets,’’ said a Republican strategist.*****
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/28/inside-the-beltway-huma-for-mayor/
-
"Huma for mayor" :roll:
Must be the same crowd that keeps telling us how beautiful she is. :lol:
-
"Huma for mayor" :roll:
Must be the same crowd that keeps telling us how beautiful she is. :lol:
She is unfit to pick a mayor and unfit to pick a husband. MSM now turning on her: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sally-quinn-blaming-huma-abedin/2013/07/29/08833bc0-f873-11e2-8e84-c56731a202fb_story.html
Standing by her husband teaches her baby boy it is okay to do what to your family, when he grows up and looks back. Her husband knows the line he cannot cross with her is nowhere.
Sham marriage, sham people. I can only think that in the confidence of their arranged relationship he has plenty on her too, and it all has to do with Hillary.
It is a waste of time thinking about this. He would be a terrible mayor without these problems and the people will choose the policies of Detroit no matter who is left running. Too bad for America.
-
So why wasn't/isn't this being applied to Hillary?
-
So why wasn't/isn't this being applied to Hillary?
Yes, why not?
John Hinderacker at Powerline has a lengthy piece on the Hillary media wave today.
The funny thing about Hillary Clinton is how vastly her reputation exceeds her accomplishments. In reality, the only reason anyone has heard of her is that she married Bill Clinton. Otherwise, she would have toiled away as an obscure, reasonably competent if obnoxious lawyer. She was a relatively unpopular First Lady who is best remembered for being embarrassed by her husband’s serial infidelities. She served a brief term as a Senator from New York, a role in which she achieved nothing. Then she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, and punched her ticket during a singularly unsuccessful stint as Secretary of State. Never has she had an original thought, formulated a successful strategy, or stepped out of the shadow of her singular husband."http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/hillary-for-president.php
He wonders which actress under consideration for the two big jobs coming up looks most like her.
(http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/07/580x325xScarlett-Johansson-Hot-Pics-3-600x337.jpg.pagespeed.ic.BYRewr3QZY.jpg)
(http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/07/580x362xamanda-seyfried-hot-600x375.jpg.pagespeed.ic.DQWyq1Qb1q.jpg)
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/07/Diane-Lane-3.jpg)
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/07/Hillary0163.jpg)
-
BBG once posted a pic from Battlefield Earth that had John Travolta looking amazing Hillary-like.
-
DougMacG
You had to ruin your post by posting a photo of the old hag. Turned my stomach.
-
Back during Willie's first term there was a major piece on the editorial page of the WSJ by the lawyer who had been at the IRS in the late 1970s in charge of commodities futures fraud investigations in which he described the skullduggery by which Hillary made her $79,000 in commodities trading. A VERY powerful piece. GM, or anyone, is your google fu up to finding this?
-
Back during Willie's first term there was a major piece on the editorial page of the WSJ by the lawyer who had been at the IRS in the late 1970s in charge of commodities futures fraud investigations in which he described the skullduggery by which Hillary made her $79,000 in commodities trading. A VERY powerful piece. GM, or anyone, is your google fu up to finding this?
Thus far, I found this:
Hillary Clinton Futures Trades Detailed
By Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 27, 1994; Page A01
Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.
The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.
The new records also raise the possibility that some of her profits -- as much as $40,000 – came from larger trades ordered by someone else and then shifted to her account, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Merc who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview. He said the discrepancies in Clinton's records also could have been caused by human error.
Even allocated trades would not necessarily have benefited Clinton, Melamed added. "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions," he said.
Lisa Caputo, Clinton's spokeswoman, said the documents were released yesterday "to give as complete a picture as possible" of her trades. She said Clinton had never before seen them.
Blair, who urged Clinton to enter the high-risk futures market and ordered most of her trades, said in a recent interview that he "talked her into" her first futures trade in October 1978 before paperwork on her account was completed. It was liquidated quickly, he recalled, because "it was bigger than she wanted and required more money."
A close examination of her individual trades underscores Blair's pivotal role. It also shows that Robert L. "Red" Bone, who ran the Springdale, Ark., office of Ray E. Friedman and Co. (Refco), allowed Clinton to initiate and maintain many trading positions – besides the first – when she did not have enough money in her account to cover them.
Why would Bone do so? Bone could not be reached for comment, but Blair said he thought he knew why. "I was a very good customer," he said, noting he paid Bone $800,000 in commissions over the years. "They weren't going to hassle me. If I brought them somebody, they weren't going to hassle them."
Besides, he added, Bone would not worry if he agreed with his clients' bet on which way the price of a given contract would go.
Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas' largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain for his state-regulated client. At the time of many of the trades, Bill Clinton was governor.
Hillary Clinton has said she made all the trading decisions herself and has tried to play down Blair's role. But she acknowledged in April, three weeks after her trades were first disclosed, that Blair actually placed most of the trades.
Blair advised Clinton again on July 17, 1979. He recalled that she started that trading day by losing $26,460 on 10 cattle contracts she had held for more than a month, by far her worst loss as a futures player. On his recommendation, he said, she immediately went back into the market. She acquired 50 new cattle contracts – worth $1.4 million -- and when the price moved in her favor, unloaded them around noon for a quick gain of $10,550. This recouped part of her loss.
Blair said Clinton and other friends he suggested trades for had lost money that spring on feeder cattle. Those trades "caused everyone some grief," he said. "I'm sure I was pressing to get everyone back above water" in recommending the quick and bold day trade.
The White House defense of Hillary Clinton's preferential treatment was that other customers in the same office also were allowed to trade without having enough cash in their accounts.
While Clinton's account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period. An investigation of the cattle futures market at that time by Rep. Neal Smith (D-Iowa) found that in one 16-month period 32 traders made more than $110 million in profits from large trades -- those of 50 contracts or more. Clinton traded positions of 50 or more contracts only three times.
The records the White House released yesterday were part of an investigative file from 1979, when the exchange charged Bone and Refco with violations of its record keeping and margin requirement rules. Bone was suspended for three years; Refco paid a $250,000 fine, then the largest in the exchange's history. Internal memos from that investigation cover transactions from the same period in June in which Clinton was trading, but not the same trades. In one instance, the Merc found Bone and a fellow broker were ordering 1,000 cattle contracts at a time – far over the limit allowed at the time – and then allocating them to other customers.
One internal Merc memo said "there is reason to believe" that a majority of Bone's accounts were traded without the clients' permission. Blair said that Bone at times traded his personal account without permission.
Blair said he doubted Bone traded Clinton's account without her permission.
Melamed said it was "impossible" to determine the exact cause for the discrepancies between the Merc computer record of Clinton's trades and the trading records she received from Refco, which the White House released earlier.
She said that for six trades, her initial trading position in the Refco records were not reflected in the Merc documents. On one other trade neither her purchase nor sale was included. On that trade she netted $12,150 on 15 cattle contracts she held for four days.
Clinton reported a loss of $2,480 on one of the trades in question, Melamed noted.
One was a "day trade" on hog contracts that netted $2,553. Melamed said "day trades" are the only way to assure profit even if favorable trading positions are allocated to a customer's account. Any position held overnight would be subject to the rise and fall in prices in the volatile futures market, he added.
Staff researcher Barbara J. Saffir contributed to this report.
In commodities futures trading, an account that falls below the "maintenance margin" typically triggers a "margin call," where the trader must put up sufficient cash to cover the contracts. Although Hillary Rodham Clinton's account was under-margined for nearly all of July 1979, no margin calls were made, no additional cash was put up, and she eventually reaped a $60,000 profit.
June 29 ......... $56,466 (Margin: Value account should have had to continue trading.)
July 12 ........ -$24,243
July 17 ......... $22,537 (Account value: Total cash on hand plus (or minus) paper value of contracts.)
July 20 ......... $61,537
July 23, 1979: She withdrew $60,000 and never traded again, closing the account in October.
-
GM:
Nice work on finding that info so quickly on Hillary's magical career in trading commodities! The WSJ article by the IRS lawyer is even better-- it shows how it was all a pay-off by Tyson Foods (the largest employer in Arkansas) to the wife of the then-candidate for governor. Any chance you can run it down?
Hypocrisy and Hypergamy
Behind the Huma-Hillary double standard.
By JAMES TARANTO
Who the heck does Huma think she is? That's the question "a top [New York] state Democrat" is asking about Anthony Weiner's wife, according to a report by Fred Dicker of the New York Post. "The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner's campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,'' Dicker's Dem declares. "How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state."
Being called low-class by the Clintons has got to hurt. But we don't see how Dicker's source's comparison works to Huma's disadvantage. Yes, Mrs. Clinton was a U.S. senator and secretary of state--but that was after Bill hid behind her skirts during both the 1992 campaign and the 1998-99 Monica Lewinsky scandal. Before 2001, she had never held a job in politics or government--in contrast with Huma, who was already a top State Department aide when, in 2011, Weiner was first exposed as having exposed himself.
And Hillary's defenses of her husband were far more outlandish than Huma's. "I'm not sitting here some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette," Arkansas's then-first lady told "60 Minutes" in 1992. Her denial was literally accurate, since to sit standing is a contradiction in terms. But even as she literally sat, she figuratively stood by Bill, making her denial reminiscent of Richard Nixon's "I'm not a crook."
One of them abased herself to help her husband's political career. The other was an aide to the secretary of state.
Her 1998 defense called to mind Nixon's attack dog, Spiro Agnew. In an interview with NBC's "Today," she waved away Bill's Oval Office hanky panky by denouncing his political detractors: "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."
We suppose it would be an even greater strain on credulity for Huma to posit a vast right-wing anti-Weiner conspiracy. In famously liberal New York, right-wingers would be lucky to assemble a half-vast conspiracy. Even so, it seems clear that Huma has conducted herself with considerably more grace and dignity than Hillary did. We say that not as a Huma admirer, merely as an observer sufficiently fair-minded to credit her with living up to a low standard.
Yet Dicker's anonymous source isn't alone. Prominent members of the media elite have joined in dumping on the Weiners while expressing their admiration for the Clintons. Here's the Washington Post's Sally Quinn (no relation, as far as we know, to Weiner rival Christine Quinn):
Though [Huma's] friends say she is strong and resolute and defiant, sadly she makes all women look like weak and helpless victims. She was not standing there in a position of strength. It was such a setback for women everywhere.
Did Hillary deal "women everywhere" a "setback" back in the 1990s? Quinn doesn't say in this post, but in another one last month she was considerably less judgmental:
Hillary Clinton is well known for her faith. She went to Sunday school and attended church all of her life, taught Sunday school, was a member of the altar guild and youth groups. When she came to Washington in 1993, she joined a Bible study group. She says she was sent daily scriptures from her group. She was dubbed Saint Hillary at one point for her religious leanings and even made a speech referencing Rabbi Michael Lerner's "The Politics of Meaning." When she became a senator, she joined the Senate Prayer Breakfast. She has always been supportive of federal funding for faith-based initiatives. When asked in an interview after the Monica Lewinsky scandal how she had gotten through it, Clinton referred to her "very serious" grounding in faith and talked about her "extended faith family" who helped her out, as well as "people whom I knew who were literally praying for me in prayer circles, who were prayer warriors for me."
By contrast, Quinn is dismissive of Huma's faith: "So why has Abedin done this? Some have suggested that her Muslim background and growing up in Saudi Arabia have skewed her views of how women should be treated. But she's been away from that for too long."
Here's how Daily Beast editor Tina Brown concludes a denunciation of Weiner:
The trouble with Carlos [Danger, Weiner's nom de net] and his ilk is they're not just a danger to themselves, but a danger to everyone else. One look at the humiliated face of the elegant Huma Abedin, spear-carrier for Hillary Clinton's women's-empowerment message, will tell you that.
While it's possible Brown means to be sarcastic about "Hillary Clinton's women's-empowerment message," we doubt it. The cover story of Brown's inaugural issue of then-magazine Newsweek was a puff piece about "how she's shattering glass ceilings everywhere."
What accounts for the contrast between the disparagement of Huma and the reverence for Hillary? It won't do to say that Mrs. Clinton is more accomplished now than Mrs. Weiner, for Huma's now-critics treated Hillary no less kindly back then. No, the only possible explanation is the one the Washington Post's Eric Wemple puts forth:
The distinction may have more to do with political gifts than marital particulars. Despite his high media profile, Weiner is a former House member who was the the lead sponsor of only one bill that actually became law. Clinton was a successful two-term president of the United States, and he went on to be the head of a global philanthropic enterprise.
So Hillary is admired and Huma maligned because Hillary married better. Isn't feminism wonderful?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/as-2014-looms--gop-using-weiner-as-weapon-against-bill-clinton-165625398.html
-
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1830.new#new
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DkS9y5t0tR0#at=30
-
How is it one day Drudge has report on the NYT article at corruption within the Clinton Foundation and the next day the NYT website crashes and one can barely find any other reports about it?
Amazing what money and power can do.
-
Yeah, I went to read it but couldn't get to it. What did Drudge say?
-
Queen Hillary?
Political rent-seeking and her expected coronation.
By JAMES TARANTO
The New York Times gave us an amusing juxtaposition earlier this week. Editorialist David Firestone sang the praises of Hillary Clinton's deceptive and pandering speech in which she denounced measures against voter fraud, and he called on Mrs. Clinton to mount another favorite Times hobbyhorse:
Campaign finance issues deserve a speech just as impassioned as the one on voting rights, and it will be interesting to see if Ms. Clinton devotes more time to the subject than President Obama has.
Building a campaign around these kinds of issues particularly non-partisan redistricting and easy registration--has always been seen as too narrow and too wonky for a major candidate. But Ms. Clinton's political future, not to mention the health of her party and her country, depend on someone taking them on and not letting go. And should Ms. Clinton succeed Mr. Obama, she will encounter precisely the same kind of blanket opposition in the House unless she starts trying to change it now.
Firestone is confusing his categories here: Redistricting and voter registration are not "campaign finance issues," and while the federal government has broad authority to regulate registration, redistricting is almost entirely a state prerogative. The Voting Rights Act does give the feds some involvement in redistricting, but it cuts in the opposite direction of "nonpartisan redistricting": Washington presses states to create "majority minority" districts. Given current voting patterns, that leads to a concentration of Democratic voters, making surrounding districts easier for Republicans to carry.
But what intrigues us is the way in which laws restricting political speech--in the areas of both campaign finance and taxation--are vital to, as Firestone puts it, "Ms. Clinton's political future."
We noted Tuesday that Mrs. Clinton is using her sinecure at the Clinton Foundation--a charity that is fully tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code--as a "formal apparatus" to prepare for a prospective campaign for president in 2016. Yesterday's Times features a lengthy investigative report on the foundation:
Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.
The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton's early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in. . . .
Worried that the foundation's operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton's nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. . . .
And efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons' charity work from Mr. Clinton's moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton's political future, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family. Nearly all of them declined to speak for attribution, citing their unwillingness to alienate the Clinton family.
Difficult it no doubt is. It would be insurmountable if the Clintons (Bill in particular) lacked the star power that makes raising a $250 million endowment a feasible goal. That kind of money will enable the Clintons to buy the legal expertise to make sure everything they do complies with the letter of the law--no matter how shady it may seem to use a 501(c)(3) charity as a political vehicle.
Enlarge Image
image
image
Associated Press
You've never heard of him, but he's Maryland's governor.
No wonder that, as Politico reports, other prospective Democratic presidential candidates are despairing: "The Democratic field has largely been frozen in place as party leaders give near-total deference to [Mrs.] Clinton, the former secretary of state who is a prohibitive favorite in early Democratic primary polling. . . . For any non-Clinton Democrat, exploring the 2016 election is something of an exercise in perceived futility."
To be sure, the Clinton Foundation's wealth isn't the only reason Mrs. Clinton looms far larger than any of her prospective opponents. The field is somewhat weak owing to the Democrats' disastrous performance in the 2010 election. (Republicans had the same problem in 2008 and 2012.) Unless you count Joe Biden, Mrs. Clinton is the only prospective candidate who has previously run for president.
And of course, she was thought inevitable in 2008. Then again, back then, according to the Times, her husband's foundation "found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign for donors amid a recession." For now, the foundation and the "campaign" are one and the same, and one expects that if Mrs. Clinton begins a formal campaign some two years hence, it and the foundation will operate much more harmoniously this time around.
On Tuesday we asked if the Internal Revenue Service would investigate the Clinton Foundation for evidently acting as a front group for a political campaign. The question was facetious; as we wrote, the Obama IRS only goes after little guys.
The biggest problem with the IRS scandal, of course, is that it involved viewpoint discrimination: Conservative groups were at far greater risk than liberal ones of intrusive scrutiny. That is why one cannot rule out the possibility that the 2012 election was stolen on Obama's behalf.
Democrats have tried to wave this problem away by pointing to a handful of unlucky lefties that got caught in the net. The scandal would be less severe if the IRS had in fact been evenhanded in its persecution of small political groups. But it would still have been a problem for American democracy, and the Clinton Foundation story shows why.
By their nature, complex and burdensome regulations on political speech--whether in campaign finance statutes or in the tax code--are easier to comply with when you have a lot of money and can afford to hire the best legal talent. Just as in the private marketplace, regulation gives incumbents a huge advantage over upstart challengers.
Technically, Mrs. Clinton is not an incumbent, but the Clintons' dynastic strategizing has given her the advantages of incumbency and then some. If she turns out to be the 45th president, she will owe her position in large part to rent-seeking. David Firestone is right to say that her political future depends on "campaign finance issues." He's dead wrong to suggest that puts her somehow on the side of good government.
-
New York Times
Soon after the 10th anniversary of the foundation bearing his name, Bill Clinton met with a small group of aides and two lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Two weeks of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and former employees had led the lawyers to some unsettling conclusions.
The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.
And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.
The review set off more than a year of internal debate, and spurred an evolution in the organization that included Mr. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, taking on a dominant new role as the family grappled with the question of whether the foundation — and its globe-spanning efforts to combat AIDS, obesity and poverty — would survive its founder.
Now those efforts are taking on new urgency. In the coming weeks, the foundation, long Mr. Clinton’s domain since its formation in 2001, will become the nerve center of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s increasingly busy public life.
This fall, Mrs. Clinton and her staff will move into offices at the foundation’s new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, occupying two floors of the Time-Life Building. Amid speculation about her 2016 plans, Mrs. Clinton is adding major new initiatives on women, children and jobs to what has been renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Worried that the foundation’s operating revenues depend too heavily on Mr. Clinton’s nonstop fund-raising, the three Clintons are embarking on a drive to raise an endowment of as much as $250 million, with events already scheduled in the Hamptons and London. And after years of relying on Bruce R. Lindsey, the former White House counsel whose friendship with Mr. Clinton stretches back decades, to run the organization while living part-time in Arkansas, the family has hired a New York-based chief executive with a background in management consulting.
“We’re trying to institutionalize the foundation so that it will be here long after the lives of any of us,” Mr. Lindsey said. “That’s our challenge and that is what we are trying to address.”
But the changing of the guard has aggravated long-simmering tensions within the former first family’s inner circle as the foundation tries to juggle the political and philanthropic ambitions of a former president, a potential future president, and their increasingly visible daughter.
And efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr. Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton’s political future, according to interviews with more than two dozen former and current foundation employees, donors and advisers to the family. Nearly all of them declined to speak for attribution, citing their unwillingness to alienate the Clinton family.
Powered by Celebrity
Last Thursday, Mr. Clinton arrived two hours late to an exuberant welcome at a health clinic about 60 miles north of Johannesburg. Children in zebra-striped loincloths sang as Mr. Clinton and Ms. Clinton made their entrance, and the former president enthusiastically explained how his foundation had helped the South African government negotiate large reductions in the price of drugs that halt the progress of HIV. Aaron Motsoaledi, South Africa’s minister of health, heaped praise on the effort. “Because of your help we are able to treat three and a half times more people than we used to,” he told the crowd.
The project is typical of the model pioneered by the Clinton Foundation, built around dozens of partnerships with private companies, governments, or other nonprofit groups. Instead of handing out grants, the foundation recruits donors and advises them on how best to deploy their money or resources, from helping Procter & Gamble donate advanced water-purification packets to developing countries to working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents.
The foundation, which has 350 employees in 180 countries, remains largely powered by Mr. Clinton’s global celebrity and his ability to connect corporate executives, A-listers and government officials. On this month’s Africa trip, Mr. Clinton was accompanied by the actors Dakota Fanning and Jesse Eisenberg and the son of the New York City mayoral candidate John A. Catsimatidis, a longtime donor.
For most of the foundation’s existence, its leadership has been dominated by loyal veterans of the Clintons’ political lives. Ira C. Magaziner, who was a Rhodes scholar with Mr. Clinton and ran Mrs. Clinton’s failed attempt at a health care overhaul in the 1990s, is widely credited as the driving force behind the foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which, among other efforts, negotiates bulk purchasing agreements and price discounts on lifesaving medicines.
Mr. Band, who arrived at the White House in 1995 and worked his way up to become Mr. Clinton’s closest personal aide, standing behind the president on golf courses and the global stage, helped build the foundation’s fund-raising structure. He conceived of and for many years helped run the Clinton Global Initiative, the annual conference that draws hundreds of business leaders and heads of state to New York City where attendees are pushed to make specific philanthropic commitments.
Today, big-name companies vie to buy sponsorships at prices of $250,000 and up, money that has helped subsidize the foundation’s annual operating costs. Last year, the foundation and two subsidiaries had revenues of more than $214 million.
Yet the foundation’s expansion has also been accompanied by financial problems. In 2007 and 2008, the foundation also found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for donors amid a recession. Millions of dollars in contributions intended to seed an endowment were diverted to other programs, creating tension between Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Band. The foundation piled up a $40 million deficit during those two years, according to tax returns. Last year, it ran more than $8 million in the red.
Amid those shortfalls, the foundation has sometimes catered to donors and celebrities who gave money in ways that raised eyebrows in the low-key nonprofit world. In 2009, during a Clinton Global Initiative gathering at the University of Texas at Austin, the foundation purchased a first-class ticket for the actress Natalie Portman, a special guest, who brought her beloved Yorkie, according to two former foundation employees.
In interviews, foundation officials partly blamed the 2008 recession and difficulties in getting donors to provide operating support rather than restricted grants for specific programs for the deficits.
But others criticized Mr. Magaziner, who is widely seen within the foundation as impulsive and lacking organizational skills. On one occasion, Mr. Magaziner dispatched a team of employees to fly around the world for months gathering ideas for a climate change proposal that never got off the ground. Another time, he ignored a report — which was commissioned at significant expense from the consulting firm McKinsey & Company — on how the foundation could get involved in forestry initiatives.
Mr. Magaziner’s management style and difficulty keeping projects within budget were also raised in discussions that surrounded the 2011 Simpson Thacher review. (One person who attended a meeting with Mr. Magaziner recalled his lying on a conference room table in the middle of the meeting because of terrible back spasms, snapping at a staff member.)
Mr. Band repeatedly urged Mr. Clinton to fire Mr. Magaziner, according to people briefed on the matter. Mr. Clinton refused, confiding in aides that despite Mr. Magaziner’s managerial weaknesses, he was a visionary with good intentions. The former president, according to one person who knows them both, “thinks Ira is brilliant — and brilliant people get away with a lot in Clinton world.”
Indeed, by then, Mr. Magaziner had persuaded Mr. Clinton and the foundation to spin the health initiative off into a separate organization, with Mr. Magaziner as its chief executive and the Clinton Foundation appointing a majority of its board members. The financial problems continued. In 2010 and 2011, the first two years when the health initiative operated as a stand-alone organization, it ran annual shortfalls of more than $4 million. A new chief financial officer, hired in 2010, left eight months later.
A foundation official said the health initiative had only three chief financial officers in 10 years and that its financial problem was a common one in the nonprofit world: For all the grant money coming in — more than $160 million in 2011 — Mr. Magaziner had also had difficulty raising money for operating costs. But by the end of 2011, the health initiative had expanded its board, adding two seats. Chelsea Clinton took one.
Growing Ventures
As the foundation grew, so did the outside business ventures pursued by Mr. Clinton and several of his aides.
None have drawn more scrutiny in Clinton circles than Teneo, a firm co-founded in 2009 by Mr. Band, described by some as a kind of surrogate son to Mr. Clinton. Aspiring to merge corporate consulting, public relations and merchant banking in a single business, Mr. Band poached executives from Wall Street, recruited other Clinton aides to join as employees or advisers and set up shop in a Midtown office formerly belonging to one of the country’s top hedge funds.
By 2011, the firm had added a third partner, Declan Kelly, a former State Department envoy for Mrs. Clinton. And Mr. Clinton had signed up as a paid adviser to the firm.
Teneo worked on retainer, charging monthly fees as high as $250,000, according to current and former clients. The firm recruited clients who were also Clinton Foundation donors, while Mr. Band and Mr. Kelly encouraged others to become new foundation donors. Its marketing materials highlighted Mr. Band’s relationship with Mr. Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative, where Mr. Band sat on the board of directors through 2011 and remains an adviser. Some Clinton aides and foundation employees began to wonder where the foundation ended and Teneo began.
Those worries intensified after the collapse of MF Global, the international brokerage firm led by Jon S. Corzine, a former governor of New Jersey, in the fall of 2011. The firm had been among Teneo’s earliest clients, and its collapse over bad European investments — while paying $125,000 a month for the firm’s public relations and financial advice — drew Teneo and the Clintons unwanted publicity.
Mr. Clinton ended his advisory role with Teneo in March 2012, after an article appeared in The New York Post suggesting that Mrs. Clinton was angry over the MF Global controversy. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton denied the report. But in a statement released afterward, Mr. Clinton announced that he would no longer be paid by Teneo.
He also praised Mr. Band effusively, crediting him with keeping the foundation afloat and expressing hopes that Mr. Band would continue to advise the Global Initiative.
“I couldn’t have accomplished half of what I have in my post-presidency without Doug Band,” Mr. Clinton said in the statement.
Even that news release was a source of controversy within the foundation, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Band helped edit the statement, which other people around the Clintons felt gave him too much credit for the foundation’s accomplishments. (The quotation now appears as part of Mr. Band’s biography on the Teneo Web site.)
Mr. Band left his paid position with the foundation in late 2010, but has remained involved with C.G.I., as have a number of Teneo clients, like Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and UBS Americas. Standard Chartered, a British financial services company that paid a $340 million fine to New York regulators last year to settle charges that it had laundered money from Iran, is a Teneo client and a sponsor of the 2012 global initiative.
Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)
In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.
Officials said the foundation has established clear guidelines for the Clinton Global Initiative to help prevent any favoritism or special treatment of particular donors or sponsors.
Teneo was not the only worry: other events thrust the foundation into internal turmoil. In 2011, a wave of midlevel program staff members departed, reflecting the frustration of much of the foundation’s policy personnel with the old political hands running the organization. Around the time of the Simpson Thacher review, Mr. Lindsey suffered a stroke, underscoring concerns about the foundation’s line of succession. John D. Podesta, a chief of staff in Mr. Clinton’s White House, stepped in for several months as temporary chief executive.
While much attention has focused on Mrs. Clinton’s emerging role within the foundation, advisers to the family say her daughter’s growing involvement could prove more critical in the years ahead. After years of pursuing other career paths, including working at McKinsey & Company and a hedge fund, Ms. Clinton, 33, has begun to assert herself as a force within the foundation. Her perspective is shaped far more than her parents’ by her time in the world of business, and she is poised to play a significant role in shaping the foundation’s future, particularly if Mrs. Clinton chooses to run for president.
She formally joined the foundation’s board in 2011, marking her growing role there — and the start of intensifying tensions between her and Mr. Band. Several people close to the Clintons said that she became increasingly concerned with the negative impact Mr. Band’s outside business might have on her father’s work and that she cited concerns raised during the internal review about potential conflicts of interest involving Teneo.
It was Ms. Clinton who suggested that the newly installed chief executive, Eric Braverman, be considered for the job during a nearly two-year search. A friend and a former colleague from McKinsey, Mr. Braverman, 38, had helped the Clintons with philanthropic projects in Haiti after the earthquake there. And his hiring coincided with Ms. Clinton’s appointment as the vice chairwoman of the foundation board, where she will bear significant responsibility for steering her family’s philanthropy, both in the causes it tackles and in the potential political and financial conflicts it must avoid.
Ms. Clinton has also grown worried that the foundation she stood to inherit would collapse without her father, who turns 67 next week. Mr. Clinton, who had quadruple-bypass surgery in 2004 and no longer eats meat or dairy products, talks frequently about his own mortality.
Mr. Catsimatidis said Ms. Clinton “has to learn how to deal with the whole world because she wants to follow in the footsteps of her father and her mother.”
Shifting the Emphasis
Over the years, the foundation has dived into virtually any cause that sparked Mr. Clinton’s interest: childhood obesity in the United States, sustainable farming in South America, mentoring entrepreneurs, saving elephants from poaching, and more. That list will shift soon as Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea build their staffs to focus on issues including economically empowering women and combating infant mortality.
In the coming months, as Mrs. Clinton mulls a 2016 presidential bid, the foundation could also serve as a base for her to home in on issues and to build up a stable of trusted staff members who could form the core of a political campaign.
Mrs. Clinton’s staff at the foundation’s headquarters includes Maura Pally, a veteran aide who advised her 2008 presidential campaign and worked at the State Department, and Madhuri Kommareddi, a former policy aide to President Obama.
Dennis Cheng, Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of protocol at the State Department and a finance director of her presidential campaign, will oversee the endowment drive, which some of the Clintons’ donors already describe as a dry run for 2016.
And Mrs. Clinton’s personal staff of roughly seven people — including Huma Abedin, wife of the New York mayoral candidate Anthony D. Weiner — will soon relocate from a cramped Washington office to the foundation’s headquarters. They will work on organizing Mrs. Clinton’s packed schedule of paid speeches to trade groups and awards ceremonies and assist in the research and writing of Mrs. Clinton’s memoir about her time at the State Department, to be published by Simon & Schuster next summer.
Lydia Polgreen contributed reporting, and Kitty Bennett contributed research.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 14, 2013, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions.
-
Can Hillary Clinton Survive Benghazi?
Well, sure: she’s a Democrat. That’s the easy, cynical response, and let’s face it–it’s probably right. Still, by any normal standard Benghazi would be considered a career-ending debacle. Four men, including one of her own ambassadors, were murdered on Hillary’s watch, after they had pleaded with her State Department for better security. The cable denying the ambassador’s request for better protection went out over Hillary’s signature. THAT’S JUST A FORMALITY! The Democrats say. SHE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT! Oh, I see. She was just a figurehead. Small matters like mortal threats to American ambassadors are too minor to come to her attention. Right. Such attention to detail certainly qualifies her to be president!
Then there is the nagging question of what Hillary was doing during the seven hours or so when her ambassador, and those who tried to protect him, were being murdered by Islamic terrorists. Nothing, apparently. Which is just fine with the Democrats. Evidently they are content to have their political “leaders” play purely symbolic roles.
The aftermath is embarrassing, too. Hillary told the father of one of the murdered SEALs that the administration would stop at nothing to bring that lousy video maker to justice. The man must have thought she was a lunatic. Later, according to an eyewitness, Hillary erupted in rage against a Republican Congressman who suggested that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Which, of course, she knew it was shortly after it began. Is it bad to be a cowardly liar? Not if you are a Democratic presidential candidate, evidently.
The aftermath didn’t end with the administration’s initial lies, either. It continues to this day. One might think that a Secretary of State who lost an ambassador on her watch would stop at nothing to make sure that the terrorists who carried out the attack were killed or otherwise punished. (Killed, preferably.) If this is a subject in which Hillary has taken interest, she has shown no sign of it. Her hunt for the terrorists who murdered Ambassador Stevens is on a par with O.J. Simpson’s search for the “real killers.”
Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State was a disaster by any rational evaluation. It started with the mis-translated “reset” button and went downhill from there. The current fiasco that stretches from Iraq to Tunisia is, at least in part, the result of the stunningly incompetent Obama/Clinton foreign policy from 2009 to 2013. It is probably true that most Americans don’t pay enough attention to understand how poorly served we have been in foreign affairs by Obama and Clinton. But Benghazi: that is something that just about anyone can grasp. When the State Department needed a leader–the one time in Hillary Clinton’s life when she wasn’t holding on to her husband’s coattails, when she was actually supposed to be in charge of something–there was no leader to be found.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/08/can-hillary-clinton-survive-benghazi.php
-
"Where is the G*damn f**king flag! I want the G*damn f**king flag up every morning at f**king sunrise."
-From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p.244- Hillary to her staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991.
"F**k off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut."
-From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90-Hillary to her State Trooper body guards after one greeted her with "Good Morning"
"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!”
-From the book "The First Partner" p.259- Hillary to a Secret Service Agent reluctant to carry her luggage to keep his hands free in case of an incident.
"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!?"
-From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p.139- Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.
"Where's the miserable c**k sucker!"
-From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p.5- Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.
"You f**king idiot"
-From the book "Crossfire" p.84-Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.
"Put this on the f**king ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!"
-From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p.71-72-- Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.
"Come on Bill, put your d**k away! You can't f**k her here!!"
-From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p.243-Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female.
This ill-tempered, violent, loud mouth, hateful and abusive Bitch wants to be your next president and have total control as Commander In Chief of our Military ,
the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain and disrespect throughout her public life.
Surely the people of the United States of America can do better than this "toilet-mouth" woman.
Ed Schriber
Col. USMC (Ret.)
"Semper Fi"
-
In the year of the mud soaked drug sex orgy Woodstock this is what the Hill had to say. Not one kind word of America.
Whoever the Repubs pick should have some smart people pick this apart and formulate a PRO America plan going forward that America has been in theory the land of freedom, opportunity, pride, confidence, prosperity for all instead of demoralizing themes of limits, unfairness, hollow men of anger and bitterness, and self bountiful ladies of righteous degradation (aka stand by your man). The Clintons are the face of the anti Vietnam war kids of the 60's who ARE now in power. The only difference is they don't even believe in a newer America. They no longer ever believe in America. They believe in world wide government.
****By
CBSNews /
CBS/ February 11, 2009, 3:56 PM
Hillary Rodham's 1969 Commencement Address
Wellesley College
1969 Student Commencement Speech
Hillary D. Rodham
May 31, 1969
Ruth M. Adams, ninth president of Wellesley College, introduced Hillary D. Rodham, '69, at the 91st commencement exercises, as follows:
In addition to inviting Senator Brooke to speak to them this morning, the Class of '69 has expressed a desire to speak to them and for them at this morning's commencement. There was no debate so far as I could ascertain as to who their spokesman was to be -- Miss Hillary Rodham. Member of this graduating class, she is a major in political science and a candidate for the degree with honors. In four years she has combined academic ability with active service to the College, her junior year having served as a Vil Junior, and then as a member of Senate and during the past year as President of College Government and presiding officer of College Senate. She is also cheerful, good humored, good company, and a good friend to all of us and it is a great pleasure to present to this audience Miss Hillary Rodham.
Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969:
I am very glad that Miss Adams made it clear that what I am speaking for today is all of us -- the 400 of us -- and I find myself in a familiar position, that of reacting, something that our generation has been doing for quite a while now. We're not in the positions yet of leadership and power, but we do have that indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest and I find myself reacting just briefly to some of the things that Senator Brooke said. This has to be brief because I do have a little speech to give. Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities. But it wasn't a discouraging gap and it didn't turn us into cynical, bitter old women at the age of 18. It just inspired us to do something about that gap. What we did is often difficult for some people to understand. They ask us quite often: "Why, if you're dissatisfied, do you stay in a place?" Well, if you didn't care a lot about it you wouldn't stay. It's almost as though my mother used to say, "I'll always love you but there are times when I certainly won't like you." Our love for this place, this particular place, Wellesley College, coupled with our freedom from the burden of an inauthentic reality allowed us to question basic assumptions underlying our education. Before the days of the media orchestrated demonstrations, we had our own gathering over in Founder's parking lot. We protested against the rigid academic distribution requirement. We worked for a pass-fail system. We worked for a say in some of the process of academic decision making. And luckily we were in a place where, when we questioned the meaning of a liberal arts education there were people with enough imagination to respond to that questioning. So we have made progress. We have achieved some of the things that initially saw as lacking in that gap between expectation and reality. Our concerns were not, of course, solely academic as all of us know. We worried about inside Wellesley questions of admissions, the kind of people that should be coming to Wellesley, the process for getting them here. We questioned about what responsibility we should have both for our lives as individuals and for our lives as members of a collective group.
Coupled with our concerns for the Wellesley inside here in the community were our concerns for what happened beyond Hathaway House. We wanted to know what relationship Wellesley was going to have to the outer world. We were lucky in that one of the first things Miss Adams did was to set up a cross-registration with MIT because everyone knows that education just can't have any parochial bounds any more. One of the other things that we did was the Upward Bound program. There are so many other things that we could talk about; so many attempts, at least the way we saw it, to pull ourselves into the world outside. And I think we've succeeded. There will be an Upward Bound program, just for one example, on the campus this summer.
Many of the issues that I've mentioned -- those of sharing power and responsibility, those of assuming power and responsibility have been general concerns on campuses throughout the world. But underlying those concerns there is a theme, a theme which is so trite and so old because the words are so familiar. It talks about integrity and trust and respect. Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multi-media age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we're feeling. We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty. But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living. And so our questions, our questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government continue. The questions about those institutions are familiar to all of us. We have seen heralded across the newspapers. Senator Brooke has suggested some of them this morning. But along with using these words -- integrity, trust, and respect -- in regard to institutions and leaders we're perhaps harshest with them in regard to ourselves.
Every protest, every dissent, whether it's an individual academic paper, Founder's parking lot demonstration, is unabashedly an attempt to forge an identity in this particular age. That attempt at forging for many of us over the past four years has meant coming to terms with our humanness. Within the context of a society that we perceive -- now we can talk about reality, and I would like to talk about reality sometime, authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and what we have to accept of what we see -- but our perception of it is that it hovers often between the possibility of disaster and the potentiality for imaginatively responding to men's needs. There's a very strange conservative strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience. It's such a great adventure. If the experiment in human living doesn't work in this country, in this age, it's not going to work anywhere.
But we also know that to be educated, the goal of it must be human liberation. A liberation enabling each of us to fulfill our capacity so as to be free to create within and around ourselves. To be educated to freedom must be evidenced in action, and here again is where we ask ourselves, as we have asked our parents and our teachers, questions about integrity, trust, and respect. Those three words mean different things to all of us. Some of the things they can mean, for instance: Integrity, the courage to be whole, to try to mold an entire person in this particular context, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. If the only tool we have ultimately to use is our lives, so we use it in the way we can by choosing a way to live that will demonstrate the way we feel and the way we know. Integrity -- a man like Paul Santmire. Trust. This is one word that when I asked the class at our rehearsal what it was they wanted me to say for them, everyone came up to me and said "Talk about trust, talk about the lack of trust both for us and the way we feel about others. Talk about the trust bust." What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted? All they can do is keep trying again and again and again. There's that wonderful line in East Coker by Eliot about there's only the trying, again and again and again; to win again what we've lost before.
And then respect. There's that mutuality of respect between people where you don't see people as percentage points. Where you don't manipulate people. Where you're not interested in social engineering for people. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. And the word "consequences" of course catapults us into the future. One of the most tragic things that happened yesterday, a beautiful day, was that I was talking to woman who said that she wouldn't want to be me for anything in the world. She wouldn't want to live today and look ahead to what it is she sees because she's afraid. Fear is always with us but we just don't have time for it. Not now.
There are two people that I would like to thank before concluding. That's Ellie Acheson, who is the spearhead for this, and also Nancy Scheibner who wrote this poem which is the last thing that I would like to read:
My entrance into the world of so-called "social problems"
Must be with quiet laughter, or not at all.
The hollow men of anger and bitterness
The bountiful ladies of righteous degradation
All must be left to a bygone age.
And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle
For all those myths and oddments
Which oddly we have acquired
And from which we would become unburdened
To create a newer world
To transform the future into the present.
We have no need of false revolutions
In a world where categories tend to tyrannize our minds
And hang our wills up on narrow pegs.
It is well at every given moment to seek the limits in our lives.
And once those limits are understood
To understand that limitations no longer exist.
Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free
Not to save the world in a glorious crusade
Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain
But to practice with all the skill of our being
The art of making possible.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. ****
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/state-department-reveals-political-swag-article-1.1441301 The inference is that she and the others handed their gifts in as required, but somehow I find myself thinking of how she raided the White House's silverware and furniture when Bill and she left , , ,
also, she and McCain endorse Al Jazeera , , ,
-
Only a Clinton could come out with this:
****"And while Clinton said the current debate over whether the U.S. should get involved in the Syrian civil war is “good for our democracy,” she also issued strong words against opponents of Obama.
“How do we respond when international rules of the road are violated?” Clinton asked the crowd. “When we let partisanship override citizenship … our standing in the world suffers.”****
This coming from someone who lied about Benghazi to save her own and Obama's political skins just before an election. Yes Jeb - you are a fool.
-----------Hillary Clinton awarded Liberty Medal, calls for ‘strong response' against Syria
Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News
Eric Pfeiffer, Yahoo! News 16 hours ago PoliticsHillary Rodham ClintonBarack ObamaChemical weapon
Clinton takes the stage Tuesday night at the National Constitution Center (AP)
Hillary Clinton used her award ceremony at the National Constitution Center on Tuesday night to renew her call for action against the Syrian regime over its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.
Clinton was on hand to receive the National Constitution Center’s 25th annual Liberty Medal for her work on the international stage and on behalf of women and children.
There has been more attention paid to Tuesday night’s ceremony because former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush awarded Clinton the medal. Clinton and Bush are both believed to be seriously considering presidential campaigns in 2016.
“We do have some political disagreements,” Bush joked in his introductory remarks. “But there’s one thing we do agree on: the American people — especially those of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.”
Bush currently serves as director of the Constitution Center’s Board of Trustees.
“The president will address the nation shortly about the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against men, women and children,” Clinton told the audience in Philadelphia before President Barack Obama's address to the nation on Tuesday night. “It demands a strong response from the international community led by the United States.”
Clinton and Obama reportedly met at the White House on Monday to discuss the administration’s approach to the issue.
And while Clinton said the current debate over whether the U.S. should get involved in the Syrian civil war is “good for our democracy,” she also issued strong words against opponents of Obama.
“How do we respond when international rules of the road are violated?” Clinton asked the crowd. “When we let partisanship override citizenship … our standing in the world suffers.”
On Monday, Clinton said that an international effort led by Russia to have Syria hand over its chemical weapons had potential but also suggested concern that any such move could simply be a delay tactic from Syrian President Bashar Assad.
“If the regime immediately surrendered its stockpiles to international control,” as proposed by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russia, that would be an important step,” Clinton said. “But this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction — and Russia has to support the international community’s efforts sincerely or be held to account.”
In addition to Bush’s remarks, Clinton received praise from a set of bipartisan individuals including Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Republican strategist Mark McKinnon.-------
-
http://www.jammiewf.com/2013/gennifer-flowers-on-bill-clinton-he-said-hillary-had-eaten-more-pu-y-than-he-had/
-
that doesn't matter.
The coronation is well underway. Big money and celebrities and the mainstream media machine which makes tons off the Clinton's soap operas are hitching their money and investments to this wagon.
The "woman's" angle will be huge. I doubt the cans will have enough savvy to counter. And "can" women can compete for the older female vote but the younger women want the taxpayer and employer paid financial support, the pregnancy leave, etc.
http://news.yahoo.com/bill-clinton-chelsea-president-134033297.html
The cast of Clinton characters will be back en force. Being a one percenter is only a problem if you are a Republican. Otherwise it is ignored.
-
Interesting piece that questions the positioning strategy of Hillary if she decides to run. Recall the Bill Clinton ran as centrist Democrat and brags now of the accomplishments that arose out his governing partnership with a Republican congress. But when Hillary leaned just ever so slightly to the middle in 2007-2008 she got run over by the left wing of her party.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/07/clinton-faces-new-divide-in-democratic-party/
-
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/former-hillary-associate-claims-personal-hit-man-admits-killing-money/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html
-
Tinfoil:
All just coincidence. :roll: :cry: :x
Like I said. It is amazing what money and power can do - almost anything.
The media is complicit.
Like Crafty said. The legal system is not a "justice" system. It is a "legal" system. Those with money and influence and with the right know how can run around it.
We just don't see it.
-
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/clinton-foundation-received-millions-saudis-qatar-iran
-
Half the country despises her. She will simply not go away. She will as did Bill shove herself in front of us every single day. I already want to leave the country. The heckler should have yelled back that "you refuse to take responsibility when you were politely asked. So yes, now I am yelling."
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/10/24/hillary-clinton-turns-tables-on-heckler-in-buffalo/
-
The Clinton Show Returns
Terry McAuliffe's GreenTech fiasco recalls the 1990s' scandals.
Nov. 3, 2013 6:46 p.m. ET
Hillary and Bill Clinton are gearing up for a 2016 presidential run, and Tuesday's election for Virginia Governor is a preview of coming attractions. Terry McAuliffe, Bill and Hill's longtime friend and financial impresario, is leading Republican Ken Cuccinelli despite a federal probe of one of his businesses. For aficionados of the 1990s, the story includes the familiar cast of Clinton characters leveraging connections for political favors.
The focus is GreenTech Automotive, which was supposed to produce electric vehicles. Mr. McAuliffe launched GreenTech in 2009, looking to burnish his business credentials in anticipation of a second Virginia run (he lost a primary in 2009). In its hunt for cash, GreenTech turned to the federal government's EB-5 program, which provides visas to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 to create U.S. jobs.
File-In this July 6, 2012, file photograph, then GreenTech Automotive executive Terry McAuliffe, second from left, jokes with former President Bill Clinton, center and former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour following the unveiling of their new electric MyCar at their manufacturing facility in Horn Lake, Miss. Associated Press
EB-5 was created in 1990, and a federal immigration agency approves "regional centers"—often private companies—to administer the program. This outsourcing has raised national-security alarms, while federal authorities have a growing list of investigations into, or enforcement actions against, U.S. entities that have used the program to defraud foreigners.
GreenTech's use of EB-5 first raised red flags in 2009 as part of its application for Virginia state incentives to build a manufacturing plant. The state development agency refused, with one agency official writing in an email to colleagues that she couldn't view GreenTech's EB-5 program as anything other than "a visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications."
Mr. McAuliffe turned to Mississippi, where he landed $5 million in state incentives to build a factory on the promise of creating 350 jobs by 2014 and producing thousands of cars. Mr. McAuliffe's business partner, GreenTech co-founder Charles Wang, got another of his companies, Gulf Coast Funds Management, certified as a regional center for EB-5 visas for Mississippi and Louisiana.
Mr. Wang installed as CEO of Gulf Coast none other than Hillary Clinton's younger brother, Anthony Rodham. Gulf Coast's board includes several Democratic Party notables, such as former Clinton IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson and former Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. While Gulf Coast exists to direct EB-5 investments to startups across its entire "region," to date its website lists one project: GreenTech.
Mr. McAuliffe and Co. then began leveraging political connections to accelerate the visa process. The Washington Post WPO -0.85% has reported that government documents show that Mr. McAuliffe, Mr. Rodham and others at GreenTech and Gulf Coast had a dozen email and telephone conversations with senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security, including director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Alejandro Mayorkas.
You may remember Mr. Mayorkas. In the final days of the Clinton Administration, while working as a U.S. prosecutor in California, he called the Clinton White House to seek an early prison release for convicted cocaine trafficker Carlos Vignali. Mr. Mayorkas called at the request of Vignali's father, a prominent Democratic donor, who had also paid Hugh Rodham (Mrs. Clinton's other brother) $200,000 to lobby for the commutation. Mr. Clinton granted clemency on his last day in office.
Mr. McAuliffe met personally with Mr. Mayorkas, reached out directly to (now former) Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and contacted Mrs. Napolitano's chief of staff Noah Kroloff, according to testimony and publicly released documents and emails. He was clearly heard. DHS Assistant Secretary Doug Smith sent a February 2013 email to Mr. Kroloff: "Any way you can kick [Mr. Mayorkas] into gear? If this doesn't get resolved by [close of business] today, the [GreenTech] plant will have to shut down and lay off 100 people on Monday."
It isn't clear what DHS did on GreenTech's behalf, but a GreenTech prospectus in March said the company had received about $46 million from EB-5 investors. The Associated Press reported in July that the DHS inspector general has launched a preliminary investigation into whether Mr. Mayorkas improperly helped GreenTech. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley says he has documents showing Mr. Mayorkas bypassed normal security checks to accelerate visa approvals. Several DHS officials have requested whistleblower status to report that DHS officials gave preferential visa treatment to companies like Mr. McAuliffe's.
The Washington Post reported in August that one Chinese national who applied for a visa through Gulf Coast is an executive at Huawei Technologies, the telecom company that the HouseIntelligence Committee says poses a threat to U.S. security. The Post also reported that the SEC has subpoenaed GreenTech and Gulf Coast documents as part of a separate investigation into solicitation of foreign investors. Meanwhile, GreenTech's Mississippi site sits largely vacant, with a mere 80 employees and nary a car produced.
DHS, GreenTech and Gulf Coast officials have all publicly denied any wrongdoing. President Obama has nominated Mr. Mayorkas for the number two post at DHS, and at his July confirmation hearing he said he did not give special treatment to GreenTech. Mr. McAuliffe, who resigned from GreenTech last December (though he remains the largest investor), wrote in the Washington Post in August that investigators had not contacted him.
All of which will sound familiar to anyone old enough to recall the ethical follies of 1990s: the insider political deals, the dubious pardons, the stonewalling, and the denials that proved to be false after the election. If Mr. McAuliffe wins on Tuesday, the Clinton Show will officially be back in town.
-
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/06/14/hillary-clinton-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior/
-
second post of day
Clinton Turns On Obama
By DICK MORRIS
Published on Dick Morris.com on November 13, 2013
Commentators have missed the significance of President Clinton's public expression of his "personal opinion" that Obama should "honor his commitment" to let people keep their health insurance plans if they like them.
By intervening in the chaos surrounding the ObamaCare launch, President Clinton has staked out ground for his wife in her efforts to position herself for the 2016 contest.
While the former president's comments were laced with reassurances that he approved of ObamaCare and that he felt it was the right direction for the nation to take, his outspoken demand that Obama reverse the cancellations is a bold step into the waters in advance of a 2016 Hillary candidacy.
That he was speaking for Hillary goes without saying. By having her husband articulate her views without saying so, she preserves deniability while putting distance between herself and ObamaCare, an important step for the former sponsor of the similar HillaryCare package of 1993.
The cancellations in health care policies looms as the single biggest threat to the Obama presidency, undermining his signature credential even as a paltry 50,000 American go to federal -- and 40,000 to state -- exchanges to sign up. By wading into this controversy, the former president and his wife stake out important ground and bring pressure on the president.
Hillary, in effect, separates herself from the ObamaCare catastrophe while still earning points on the left for supporting the program.
Using Bill to criticize Obama is a bit like having a vice presidential candidate to do so. But having a husband who could be free-lancing (but isn't) preserves her ability to distance herself from the accusations and suggestions.
Good politics.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D74ZO082G8Q#t=13[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D74ZO082G8Q#t=13
-
In Clinton, New Look at '90s
Both Sides Seek Salient Lessons in Her Tenure as First Lady; 'Mother of Obamacare'?
By Peter Nicholas
connect
Updated Nov. 17, 2013 7:42 p.m. ET
The presidential election is three years out and Hillary Clinton hasn't even said she is running, but her political future has already touched off a re-examination of a central part of her past: the 1990s.
Republican researchers are mining archives from the Bill Clinton era in search of material that could be used to hobble her candidacy. In particular, they are laying the groundwork to capitalize on Mrs. Clinton's efforts as chairman of a task force to overhaul the health-care system in 1993-94, casting what they call "HillaryCare" as a forerunner of the Affordable Care Act that, at this point, is generally unpopular.
"She could be the mother of Obamacare," said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster.
Mrs. Clinton, in speeches she has been giving since leaving the State Department, has signaled she would use the 1990s as a selling point if she jumps in the race, making the case that, as first lady, she was part of an era that found solutions to the same sorts of political difficulties that bedevil present-day Washington.
Should Mrs. Clinton run, GOP campaign strategists also are zeroing in on the financial dealings of her husband's foundation and on the terrorist attack at a diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans last year, while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. But a thorough re-litigation of the 1990s could be on the horizon.
Both sides are using the same episodes from the decade to argue to their advantage. Take the government shutdown in 1995-'96, which has special resonance in light of the 16-day shutdown that played out last month.
In recent speeches, Mrs. Clinton has mentioned the earlier shutdown to illustrate how the Clinton White House dealt with the type of gridlock that now engulfs Washington.
Speaking at Colgate University last month, she said that during the 1990s shutdown, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich "would spend all day saying terrible things about Bill on every TV station he could get on—occasionally about me as well—and then he would come to the White House at 9 o'clock at night" to strike a deal.
Implicit in the argument: She wouldn't let partisan differences harden to the point where the two sides stop talking.
Republican strategists, who expect Mrs. Clinton to run and believe she would be a heavy favorite to win the Democratic nomination, said they would portray the 1990s shutdown as a turbulent part of the Bill Clinton era, seeking to remind voters that Mrs. Clinton was in the White House during a time of political dysfunction that echoes the present day.
"People remember all this crazy stuff that was happening in the 1990s, like the government shutdown, and they say, 'Who needs that again?' " said a Republican strategist who is preparing for a possible Clinton bid.
Researchers at the Republican National Committee and conservative groups are sifting through old Clinton administration records to see if there is anything that takes on new relevance in view of her service in the Obama administration. They have fresh records to mine. The watchdog group Judicial Watch, through litigation, recently won the release of about 57,000 pages of health-care records from the Clinton presidential library in Little Rock, Ark.
In Mrs. Clinton's circle, associates fully expect Republicans to aggressively attack her on all fronts. One person close to her said: "I'm losing track—so far it's been the Golden Girls, Benghazi, the 1990s."
If she does run, Mrs. Clinton could rebut attacks by asserting that as secretary of state she had little responsibility for domestic policy and even less to do with the health-law rollout that has caused such difficulties for the president. The plan she proposed in the early 1990s would have capped premiums in order to hold down costs and would have created a system under which insurers would be required to bid for regional business.
In her 2008 presidential bid, her unsuccessful 1990s health revamp didn't loom large as an issue because she was rolling out a new proposal that, like the Affordable Care Act, included a mandate under which individuals would have to buy insurance.
In her Colgate speech, she trumpeted the budget surpluses that marked her husband's last years in office. "We were on a path to literally paying off our debt—not just our deficit—at the end of my husband's second term," she said. She went on to say that after Mr. Clinton left office the surpluses disappeared as a result of "two wars and a very large tax cut," among other reasons.
Republicans argue the economic gains under Bill Clinton didn't prove durable and that the middle class is struggling five years into the Obama presidency.
-
If you're a Democrat...
the Clintons are a pre-existing condition.
----------------------------------------------------
http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/16/maher_rips_bill_clinton_if_youre_a_democrat_the_clintons_are_a_preexisting_condition.html
-
Dick Morris called Clinton's comment a "brilliant political" move.
I am not so sure. Someone else pointed out that such a public criticism is walking a tight rope for the Clintons.
Hopefully Bill will do for Hillary in '16 what his big fat mouth did for her in '08.
Remember this? The MSM seems to ignore history but it precisely this that cost Hillary the primary against the ONE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNkYDHUsQOM
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-bill-and-hillary-show-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Of course Sam who I assume is a die hard Jewish Democrat was posting his disgust of the bashing of Sarah Palin by the Democrat machine. (as a Jew I am more revolted that non Jews who my fellow people who have been so successful in this country still as Savage points out wrap themselves in the flag of discrimination)
This is what '16 is going to be all about: women vs. men. And of course the single women vote is going to be their new core base. In the health field there are many young single mothers. And most are getting some assistance in some way. Indeed some choose not to marry because they have realized they can more from the taxpayer that way.
I don't know how the Republicans can compete. It is interesting that recent polls show even men who voted for Obama are beginning to realize the errors of Obama and his progressivism. Not true of women. Particularly the young single mother kind.
And this fact will drive the Crats to even more push the gender divide! The gender divisiveness will make racial divisiveness seem like small potatoes I have a feeling:
The History of Hillary-Bashing
By Sam Kleiner 5 hours ago The Daily Beast
The History of Hillary-Bashing
While Hillary Clinton has made clear that she won’t decide whether she wants to pursue the presidency in 2016 until next year, Republicans have decided they already are going to make her a top target. Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee Chairman, has promised this month to go after the “rough stuff” about Clinton in an ad campaign that will be “very aggressive.” The Republicans are promising a shotgun approach; just shoot out things like the “a botched health care roll out in the '90s and Benghazi,” and hope something hits.
This isn’t the first time that Republicans have tried to nasty attacks against Hillary. That tradition stretches back to 1992, when Republicans decided to go after her with a series of sexist attacks that continued into her husband’s administration. As Republicans start to open up attacks against Hillary once again, it’s worth remembering the sexist overtones in the earliest Republican attacks on Hillary, and how these attacks can backfire on Republicans.
“Hillary-bashing” became a central theme in the Republican campaign in 1992. “No one can convince me that the American people are so blind that they would replace Barbara Bush with Hillary Clinton," Pat Roberston told the Republican convention. This was no ordinary First Lady, she was, as Patrick Buchanan said, a “lawyer-spouse” who “has compared marriage as an institution to slavery.” While Hillary had been the stable breadwinner in years when Bill tried to get his political career to take off, Republicans were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a marriage in which a woman could hold a successful career, especially one that may be on par with that of her husband. Even Barbara Bush, who first resisted the idea of going after Hillary, eventually came around to seeing her as “quite different” and a fair target.
In that election cycle, Republicans were attracted to portraying Hillary’s career as the manifestation of something maniacal about her intentions. In 1992, the right-wing American Spectator characterized Hillary as the “Lady MacBeth of Arkansas.”
The deep-seated antipathy to Hillary in that campaign was part of the right’s inability to accept women in the workplace. The idea of a professional woman disturbed Republicans. The year before, the party had gone after Anita Hill for speaking out about workplace sexual harassment from her boss, Clarence Thomas. “Are you a scorned woman?" asked Republican Senator Howell Heflin, in a line that became synonymous with apparent Republican discomfort with the role of women in the workplace. Watching the all-male Senate panel grill Anita Hill encouraged women across the country to run for political office. Amongst them was a state legislator, Patty Murray of Washington, who was told that she couldn’t succeed in politics as a “mom in tennis shoes,” but she used that as her campaign slogan.
Despite Republican opposition, women gained made huge strides in politics that year. President Bush said, “This is supposed to be the year of the women in the Senate. Let's see how they do. I hope a lot of them lose." His wish was unfulfilled. The vicious Republican attacks on Hillary, and the impression that the Republican Party was opposed to women’s rights, alienated women voters and helped to motivate women to turn out to the polls for Democrats. The record level of women who came out to vote in 1992 not only elected Bill Clinton but turned out in record numbers “helping to elect 24 new women to the House and five to the Senate, the largest increase in history.” That election went down in history as “the year of the woman.” Twenty years later, that “mom in tennis shoes,” Senator Patty Murray, helped to usher in another “year of the woman” when she helped to elect five new Democratic women in the Senate.
-
http://www.examiner.com/article/egyptian-ag-charges-hillary-clinton-for-conspiring-with-the-muslim-brotherhood?fb_action_ids=10201298005681216&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[376601275819342]&action_type_map=[%22og.likes%22]&action_ref_map=[]
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/gates-hillary-faked-it-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Reliability of this site and piece are unknown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvxUuAl85ho
-
As for the sex - means nothing. It is only sex. :-P
Hacking and erasing years of emails and other documents. Sounds familiar.
They can also determine if copies were made. They could also plant spyware into computer and keep tabs. Communicate with the printer or phones.
If copies are made they will get into the house without leaving a trace or bribe someone else to do so or set up a contractor. Oh you need an electrician. We will have our coincidently leave a flier on you door - 10% discount.
Maybe you need phone or cable service. No sweat.
I can go on. Think it don't happen? Think it is only the government. Think people who were/are in government don't work with organized crime to do this?
Yes. Snowden is right ( I am not referring to whether he is a traitor or not - different issue). Only the naïve think otherwise.
And I am not referring to people on this board. Just too many naïve people in this world.
-
A must-read for anyone obsessing on the upcoming Hillary candidacy. When you look back at the way the rats fled the ship last time - at the first sign of a credible alternative, the inevitable looks far less inevitable.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195188-hillarys-hit-list
-
The Goldberg File
By Jonah Goldberg
January 17, 2014
Dear Reader (Including those of you who have merely stumbled onto this "news"letter via the filthy Internet rather than receiving it via the space-age pneumatic technology it was intended for),
Say you work for a company that depends on sales ("Um, are there other kinds of businesses?" — The Couch).
Imagine you have a saleswoman who everyone says is the best — THE BEST!! (ideally said in a Kenny Banya voice). Whenever you point out that her sales numbers stink, everyone calls you "sexist" or insists that you just "don't get it."
You respond, "What has she done?"
The universal answer is, "She clocked more miles on sales calls than anybody in company history! She's driven a million miles! One. Million. Miles!"
You ask: "Yeah, but has she, you know, sold anything?"
"Sexist! You don't get it!"
If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm talking about Hillary Clinton. When you ask her diehard supporters what she did as secretary of state they start with, "She travelled a million miles! More than any secretary of state."
Put aside the fact that the "more than any secretary of state" part isn't actually true — Condi Rice flew more. When you ask, "Okay, what did she get for it?" you get a blank stare or you get some stuff about championing women's rights. Two people have told me she did good work in Myanmar, but I've never really gotten to the bottom of that. I suppose I could look it up, but at the end of the day we're still talking about Myanmar, which is not the locus of America's most pressing international problems. ("That's right, because Hillary prevented the Myanmarese hegemony," someone at MSNBC just shrieked. "She stopped it cold.") While the Wikipedia page on her tenure doesn't even mention Myanmar, it does mention her championing of better cook stoves in the Third World. That's good. And so is improving the plight of women in various countries where their status ranges between "Slightly More Important than the Village Mule" to "So Incredibly Delicate We Must Keep Them Covered with Burlap Sacks All Day Long Even Though It's Like 115 Degrees in the Shade Today."
But when I take out my handy pocket realpolitik calculator, I just can't make all that add up to much. Particularly when you compare it with our worsening problems in the Middle East, Asia (minus Myanmar!), Europe, Russia, and South America. Those problems are by no means all her fault (nor are they all Obama's fault). But Clinton was the second most important foreign-policy official. If you were, say, the assistant coach of the 1999 Cleveland Browns or the deputy spokesman for Baghdad Bob during the lead-up to the Iraq War, you might — just might — want to highlight other things on your résumé. So it is with Clinton. As our chief diplomat, she presided over a long slide into foreign-policy suckitude. On her watch, America's standing got worse every place it matters (except Myanmar!), despite all of those sales calls.
What Difference It Makes
And that leaves out the <sarcasm> little </sarcasm> issue of Benghazi. The Senate Intelligence Committee report is at once a fascinating and utterly banal artifact of Washington. It identifies a huge mistake. It denounces said mistake. It concludes that the mistake could have been prevented. But nobody is responsible for the mistake.
The bureaucracy did it!
Okay, you ask, who was in charge of that bureaucracy?
Shut up, they explain.
Liberal pundits and reporters are utterly contemptuous of the idea that the Benghazi scandal will be a problem for her. Eugene Robinson writes today that the Senate Intelligence Report is a total exoneration of the administration. This is bizarre on many levels. It's also hard to square with the fact that the White House is livid with the Democrats who signed on to the report (or so a couple of Hill folks have told me). Why get furious at an exoneration?
The lack of curiosity about the report from the mainstream media is really remarkable. Why, exactly, aren't reporters camped outside Clinton's home demanding a reaction? I mean I understand that she didn't close a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, but four murdered Americans, including a U.S. ambassador, is important, too. Maybe if she had joked about putting traffic cones in front of the embassy on September 11?
Still, it is obvious that this is bad news for Hillary Clinton. No, she won't be indicted. No, it won't sink her candidacy (if she runs). Yes, it's true: There aren't many Americans who would have otherwise voted for Hillary were it not for Benghazi. But when you have pretty much no real accomplishments to put on the pro side of the scale, and you have a U.S. ambassador murdered in an attack your department could have prevented (and which you subsequently lied about) on the con side of the scale, the scale simply won't balance in your favor. Nor should it.
Another Word about Hillary
I've been saying for a while, if by a while you mean two decades, that Hillary Clinton has never lived up to the hype. She wasn't an effective senator, she was effective at managing her image as a senator. She wasn't an effective manager; HillaryCare was a paper behemoth that never even came up for a vote, but nonetheless helped her party lose control of the U.S. Congress. She isn't a great politician; she's the wife of one. She's not even charismatic. As I wrote last May in USA Today:
Clinton has been in the news for two decades. And even with Obama's glory in full fade, it's worth noting he's still a vastly more compelling personality. Watch January's (journalistically vapid) 60 Minutes interview with both Clinton and Obama. The president comes across as engaged and energetic. Clinton seems like the person who comes up to tell you "there's no eating in the library."
The fascination, the excitement, the thrill of Hillary Clinton is like a psychological potluck dinner for liberal Democrats and the Washington press corps: They bring their own. All she provides is the venue.
And when I hear people talk about how amazing or unstoppable or charismatic she is I feel like Will Ferrell in Zoolander, shouting "Does no one else see this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"
-
Pasting this from the Benghazi thread as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLKsHCDmWaA
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/can-anyone-stop-hillary-absolutely/283224/
The Atlantic: Can Anyone Stop Hillary? Absolutely
She hasn't done much to help her cause lately.
Politics has a way of surprising us.
-
Besides the babe factor I just started hearing about this so called "split" in the Democrat party between, guess what, and get this, the "moderate" Clinton camp and the "progressive" Obama camp. The coronation continues:
http://www.ksat.com/news/politics/Post-Obama-Democratic-divide-grows/-/2567674/24124676/-/xxd1wl/-/index.html
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/27/clinton-tells-auto-dealers-hasnt-driven-since-16/
-
Hillary' biggest regret are the deaths in Benghazi?
What a stinking slime bucket she is. After lying before an election and trying to hide behind a cover-up NOW she expresses her regrets.
And of course her slime-ball supporters will be defending her from now on saying, " what more do you want?" "She expresses her regrets". "She is taking responsibility".
This is not taking responsibility! If there is a God she should not get away with this. :x
Doesn't American deserve better than this? Selfish lying scum bucket.
Not another 8 years of this please.
-
Amen.
History trivia: 15 years ago today Hillary said that Spermgate was a vast right wing conspiracy against her husband.
-
Amen.
History trivia: 15 years ago today Hillary said that Spermgate was a vast right wing conspiracy against her husband.
Yes, how is that for being able to analyze the available intelligence, draw the right conclusion and tell the American people the truth, no matter what it is. One of the comforts people have with her is that Bill Clinton will be right there with her when the 3am call comes in. Will he? Liberal mainstream media conspiracists now admitting knew but didn't report on Bill Clinton's affairs during Hillary's previous, ill-fated run: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/media-covered-up-bill-clintons-2008-affair-during-hillarys-presidential-run/ :-o
BTW, she already had the 3am phone call - Benghazi - and failed the test. The right answer was that she hounded and drove the President for more security prior to the attack and for more assets to help during the attack and she didn't do it. She didn't do anything, even make a return phone call (as far as we know). If she did and has held back on telling us to protect the President, that would begin the separation she needs from this President. She also needs to prove she has consistently opposed government botched healthcare as well. Good luck with that.
Rand Paul called out Bill Clinton as a sexual predator on Meet the Press: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rand-paul-bill-clinton-is-a-predator-20140126 (Funny they didn't edit that out.) Bill Clinton could use his stock lowered a notch too. Not exactly a role model.
I have previously predicted:
a) She won't run.
b) If she runs, she won't be the nominee.
c) If she is the nominee, she won't win.
d) When this proves true, it will appear so obvious in that I won't be able to brag about this prediction.
Try to imagine - packed crowds coming out in Iowa and New Hampshire, shrieking like 1963 Beattles fans, exciting for hope and change, like Hyde Park 2008, with thrills running up and down their legs - over a Hillary Rodham Clinton candidacy. I don't see it.
-
From Rand Paul thread
Yesterday RP brought up Spermgate in the context of an interview about Hillary. Error in my opinion.
As far as most people are concerned the issue has been presented to the American people and settled and bringing it up now is going to play poorly.
When hit with the "Rep War on Women" meme, a fair rejoinder could certainly include reference to Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick (wasn't she the one Bill groped against her will in the WH when she came to ask for a job? on the very day that her husband, also a loyal Clintonite, was committing suicide? or something like that?) but in this moment RP displayed a serious tin ear on an issue that is usually a seriously weak link politically for Reps.
No, Kathleen Willey was the one groped. Juanita Broaddrick was the one raped and told: " 'You better get some ice for that.' And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door," she recalled., http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/janedoe022099.htm, if you are inclined to believe a Democrat volunteer victim of serial predator. Paula Jones was the one summoned, intimidated, sexually harassed in the most vulgar way, and then tossed out and called white trash by his surrogates.
Hillary was the enabler - all the way through. Interview of Juanita Broaddrick in which she discloses (alleges) having been threatened by Hillary Clinton 2 weeks after (alleged) rape: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0 (below). A''champions of women's rights' - right.
Rand Paul was bold and right, in my view, to bring the dark side of the Clinton Presidency back to public awareness. As suggested by Crafty, there is plenty more to the story. I doubt if they want to go there.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0[/youtube]
-
Thanks bringing that here and for doing the work on it. We may have need to mention this from time to time between now and 2016.
-
"I have previously predicted:
a) She won't run.
b) If she runs, she won't be the nominee.
c) If she is the nominee, she won't win.
d) When this proves true, it will appear so obvious in that I won't be able to brag about this prediction."
Doug,
I will personally pay for an ad in the WSJ the moment this comes true giving you credit for knowing it before anyone else. The Dog Brothers' version of Nostradamus! :-D
I am rooting for you.
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/01/30/
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/27/clinton-tells-auto-dealers-hasnt-driven-since-16/
Remember how shocked people were that Pres. George H.W. Bush had not seen a grocery scanner in 1992?
Prior to Chappaqua house, the Clintons had barely owned a house, much less a car. Like most, typical middle American couples, they lived in government mansions and were driven by government drivers. It was state troopers who took Bill Clinton to his Gennifer Flowers affair.
-
On the R side, we keep looking for the right combination of experience. Hillary appears to have that. She was a US Senator. Has foreign policy experience. Worked in the executive branch and was involved in it with her husband.
Recently mentioned was her bald faced lying to the American people as their First Lady, excusing the predator while blaming the opposition. Clever at the moment and proven wrong. For another post, her dismal record as a US Senator. Suffice it to say, they collapsed the US economy. As Secretary of State, we should recall how it began and how it transpired.
It was a reach out to a hated rival that he chose Hillary Clinton and from then on they were such great friends, if you believe that. Pres. Obama chose Hillary Clinton as Sec of State, then he diminished that job by appointing Special Envoys to the key trouble spots in the world, George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East 'peace', and Richard Holbrooke as special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Obama appointed Rashad Hussain, an Indian-American Muslim, as the United States special envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration
In other words, Hillary held the title but the White House wanted to work through others in what they considered key areas. So Hillary traveled and traveled and traveled - to everywhere else. What did she accomplish?
Radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Politico's Maggie Haberman, who had just written a major fluff piece on Hillary Clinton in Oct 2013, to name her accomplishments as Secretary of State:
"There is not a giant list that I think people can point to".
"The biggest achievements was, and you’ve seen this pointed to a lot, was the amount of travel time she logged...", the communications professional struggled to go any further:
http://www.hughhewitt.com/politicos-maggie-haberman-struggles-list-accomplishments-state-hillary-clinton/
Politico’s Maggie Haberman Struggles To List Any Accomplishments At State By Hillary Clinton
Monday, October 28, 2013
HH: Joined now by Maggie Haberman of Politico.com, who had a huge story this morning on Hillary Clinton’s potential 2016 run. Maggie, welcome, it’s good to have you on the Hugh Hewitt Show.
MH: Thanks for having me.
HH: Did the reaction to your column flow in today and raise questions about whether or not she’s actually running? Or does everyone assume she’s running?
MH: I’ve heard a mixture of reactions. I think that most people think the preponderance of evidence is that she is running. I had actually been among those who had thought she wasn’t running, and I no longer think that. It’s hard to think it after some of the speeches she’s given recently. I think most people think that there is a chance that she won’t run, that those would be for, you know, mostly personal reasons, or the unforeseen. But that chance seems pretty small at the moment.
HH: Now this is a process story that turns primarily on the argument that the biggest complaint about Clinton in 2008, and I’m quoting now, was that she ran a campaign of entitlement, showing feistiness and emotion only after Obama had surged when it was already too late. Is that what you consider, or what your sources consider to be her biggest potential problem this time around? Or is it her record as secretary of State?
MH: Well, I think that there are two different issues. And I certainly think that her approach to a campaign will be very significant in terms of how she handles it. I think that her record as secretary of State is obviously her most recent, and it is one of the pieces of her curriculum vitae that have been the least looked at, certainly in terms of repeated, in terms of the crux of a campaign and the crucible of a campaign. And I think that it’s relevant. I think that it’s going to come up a lot. I think that people around her are certainly prepared for that, or at least prepared for it to be an issue. How they handle it remains to be seen.
HH: What is her biggest achievement as secretary of State?
MH: I think that the folks around her believe that among the biggest achievements was, and you’ve seen this pointed to a lot, was the amount of travel time she logged. They felt very good about the Chinese dissident, and how the disposition of that case went in 2012. I think that what they, and what most people are prepared for is a lot of questions about the aftermath of Benghazi, and I think there was a 60 Minutes piece about that, that went out yesterday. I think there’s going to be a lot more of that. I think that this is where the fact that most people believe she is running, but she has not set up a team of any kind in any meaningful way, potentially becomes problematic, because if her folks believe that they have something to say in response to that and they’re not, they’re sort of letting time slip away from them.
HH: But pause for a moment with me on the achievement side.
MH: Sure.
HH: Articulate further. What is it that people say is her achievement? That she logged a lot of miles? What, is she running for George Clooney’s role in Up In The Air?
MH: (laughing) That has been certainly one of the focuses that her folks have talked about. They’ve also talked about how she ran a functional effort at State. Look, I think that when you hear from her world about what her accomplishments were, I think that they genuinely believe that she had made progress in terms of how America was perceived. People can agree or disagree with that. I think that that is obviously been coming into question now, and this is again something I think she’s going to have to talk about more. She’s clearly aware of that, but she’s not saying much about it so far, on the NSA issue. It’s very, very difficult for a former Obama administration official to run a sort of smoke and mirrors campaign on foreign policy. She’s going to have a very hard time doing that.
HH: Well, I know all the critiques, because I’m a conservative talk show host. So I know what all the vulnerabilities are.
MH: Right.
HH: I’m just curious as to what they think her strengths are, other than, you know, frequent flyer miles.
MH: Look, they think that she was an effective diplomat. They think that she was good at helping America’s image globally. They have a couple of cases like the case of the Chinese dissident where they think that State played a very effective role. She was among those who was pressing for more action in Syria of a restricted type earlier on than what you saw the Obama administration ultimately do this year. But you know, look, she was not, she certainly was not part of the team that, say, was dealing with Israel. She was not integral in that way, and so I think for some of the issues that are the hottest right now, globally, she was not a key factor in them.\
HH: So a Chinese dissident? That’s it?
MH: Well, I think we will see what they issue as her biggest strength as secretary of State. That has not been a case they’ve been emphasizing so far. You’ve, I’m sure, read the New York Magazine piece, like everybody else, where they talked about again, her time as secretary of State which was largely mechanical, at least in the focus of that piece, and how they thought she had run an effective effort. Everything with Hillary Clinton gets looked at through the prism of how she manages whatever team she’s running, and that’s been where a lot of the focus has been.
HH: Well, it’s very interesting to me, though, as you report early on, they are going to try, Team Clinton is going to try and give you the talking points, which they hope then enter into the bloodstream, and into the circulatory system of Washington, D.C. that is Politico, and then out through the rest of the country. And what I’m hearing you say is they’ve got a Chinese dissident.
MH: No, I think, but I think that when you’ve asked me off the top of my head what are some of the things that her folks have pointed to over the last two years, that has certainly been one of the cases.
HH: Anything else, Maggie?
MH: Yes, there are others, but I’m just not coming up with them at the moment, but, and I’m not trying to avoid the question.
HH: Oh, I know you’re not. I just don’t think there’s anything there. I think, actually, her biggest problem is that there is no there there. She occupied the State Department, and there’s nothing to show for it. I guess there’s this Chinese dissident, but I’m, that’s not, that’s not a name that’s tripping off of my tongue right now. Do you know his name?
MH: I think that, no, at the moment, I actually cannot think of his name. I think that they’re, I think this is going to be an ongoing problem for her. I think that showing sort of a body of work at State is going to be something that she’s going to be pressed to do increasingly, and I think that running sort of a shadow campaign through paid speeches and free speeches over the course of the next year, I think is going to not cut it eventually, not just for conservative critics, but I think on the left. I think she’s going to have a problem.
HH: But doesn’t this sort of underscore the major problem? Here I am, a conservative critic, and I know the critique. And you’re a mainstream reporter, and as far as I know, you have no ideology. You’re one of the people at Politico that I don’t put on the left or the right, you’re just down the middle.
MH: Yeah.
HH: And neither of us can come up with any claim that she has to having succeeded at anything, and they are not able, they didn’t spin you, because they’ve got nothing to spin you with. It’s like the washing machine’s broke.
MH: Well, we’ll see. I mean, I think we need to see what they ultimately come up, to be fair. I think that since she’s not yet running, I think looking at how they present her and present what she did there is an open question.
HH: They’ll come up with something. What I’m getting at is, how long have you been with Politico, five years?
MH: Four years, three and a half years.
HH: Okay, so almost her entire tenure at State, and I’ve been on the air since 2000. And I can’t think of anything, and I’m giving you the floor. If you can come up with anything for her case, lay it out there. Just from the top of mine, it should be front shelf, right?
MH: It certainly is not, there is not a giant list that I think people can point to.
HH: There is no list.
MH: There are a couple, and I think there’s a couple of reasons for that like I said. With the major issue of dealing with Israel, she was not front and center. And she certainly received criticism early on in terms of how the U.S. dealt with Russia. I think these are all going to be issues that she is going to have to address, and I suspect she is going to get asked about them repeatedly, and by many, many outlets.
HH: I mean, it’s just a big, we’re done, but go around the bullpen at Politico and ask them what did she do, and it’s going to be a giant whiteboard, and there’s not going to be anything on it, Maggie.
MH: I like the invocation of whiteboard, though.
HH: It is a whiteboard. Maggie Haberman, great piece today, great process piece, but boy, she’s got problems if after writing it, you don’t have the list at the tip of the tongue. The Clintonistas had better come up with a list, because there’s nothing on it. Really, nothing.
-
Like the Nixon tapes, the “Hillary Papers” — actually the papers of Hillary’s close friend and confidant, the late Diane Blair — tend mainly to confirm what we thought we already knew about a highly public figure who has been in the limelight for decades.
Take, for example, Mrs. Clinton’s reaction to the Lewinsky scandal. Blair wrote this after listening to the First Lady on the subject:
[Hillary] is not trying to excuse [Bill Clinton]; it was a huge personal lapse. And she is not taking responsibility for it. But, she does say this to put his actions in context. Ever since he took office they’ve been going thru personal tragedy ([the death of] Vince [Foster], her dad, his mom) and immediately all the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them.
In other words, Clinton’s political adversaries — that vast right-wing conspiracy — are partly to blame for his sexual indiscretions. Is anyone surprised that this was her take?
Or consider her stance on “single payer” health insurance. Blair recounts:
At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.
Yet, as the Washington Free Beacon points out, in an interview with the New York Times when she ran for president in 2008, Clinton said:
You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.
Again, is anyone surprised at the dishonesty and opportunism? This, after all, is the same person Robert Gates heard say she opposed the 2007 Iraq surge because she couldn’t let Barack Obama get to her left on the issue. (Note the double cynicism here: if the surge had failed, Clinton wouldn’t have said that her opposition was other than merits-based, and it’s not clear that the statement to the contrary that Gates heard her make was honest).
There’s much more of interest in the Hillary Papers, but the pre-existing record is more damning, as we expect to have many occasions to point out.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/same-old-hillary.php
-
Doug I hear you.
But,
The question is do enough people care? If they did then why is Hillary ahead in polls. Yes I know it way early but still..... Someone with her record of lying should be in the cellar. Not in the penthouse.
I heard Rush for ten minutes today. He more or less has stopped banging his head against the wall asking how such a person as Hillary is not in the garbage can like Nixon.
He just realized none of this seems to matter.
-
Doug I hear you.
But,
The question is do enough people care? If they did then why is Hillary ahead in polls. Yes I know it way early but still..... Someone with her record of lying should be in the cellar. Not in the penthouse.
I heard Rush for ten minutes today. He more or less has stopped banging his head against the wall asking how such a person as Hillary is not in the garbage can like Nixon.
He just realized none of this seems to matter.
Of course you are right at this moment. I am perhaps the only person who holds Hillary and Barack accountable for the economic fall of 2007-2008. Maybe only me and about two others know President Bill Clinton accomplished NOTHING economically before Newt took congress and he signed on with their Republican agenda, dumping Hillary and HillaryCare. Still, what can they say they accomplished when they took control of congress and the country went to hell? What can they say they accomplished when they took control of foreign policy and the world went to hell? There isn't going to be Hyde Park 2008 level excitement for this known, dismal commodity. I guarantee you, she would rather win in 2016 than be a frontrunner now. I highly doubt she can be both. Her frontrunner status does not match her lack of curb appeal. She has a good resume - as to where she has been, not what she has accomplished. She has top notch name recognition. Yet she is smart enough to know Hillary fatigue is setting in - even when she is totally silent!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0[/youtube] 'I am Sick and Tired'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR3XTOjZPfg 'What Difference Does it Make'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWRtlPas4ko Barack eats her debate lunch.
-
"She has a good resume - as to where she has been, not what she has accomplished."
Ah, but the Hillary makeover. The incessant smiling. (She reminds me of the Joker) The reports of her sense of humor! The reports of her being so warm and cuddly! The reports she is so polite and friendly and kind!
I don't know if you saw Joe Schmo Scarborough even touting how nice she was to him. He was "surprised". They were such mortal political enemies and yet when they met she was so kind.
I can't believe my ears.
Like I said with people in our party like this we have no chance.
OTOH Colin Powell pointed out the Republicans "need" him more than the Democrats after, again, highlighting how bigoted an "element" in the party is. Small Colon I have news for you. The Republican party not only doesn't need you we don't want you if this is what you stand for. And BTW why do you still call yourself a Republican? Are you fishing for some sort of deal?
But I digress...
Back to Hillary. She is despised by half the country. Yet she still seems to be able to get over 50% adoration. I just don't understand how people can be so conned so often.
-
ccp, I'm glad you're on this and I feel your pain.
We could re-name this thread Clinton-fatigue right now. That is what will bring them down, not their long, sordid, and often criminal history, true as that is. A Hillary Presidency isn't exciting to anyone now and she won't be more exciting later when she's front and center on the news every hour.
-
She will be exciting in an affirmative action way; just as Baraq was despite his complete lack of preparation and, given his friends and allies, apparent inability to qualify for security clearance.
-
"We could re-name this thread Clinton-fatigue right now. That is what will bring them down, not their long, sordid, and often criminal history, true as that is. A Hillary Presidency isn't exciting to anyone now and she won't be more exciting later when she's front and center on the news every hour."
Doug, your optimism is well received by me - :-D;
I guess it is my problem but I won't sleep well until they are brought down once and for all. Not until they leave the political stage and leave good decent Americans the hell alone.
And their crooked gang of sick twisted and depraved bullshit artists.
I wish I played golf and could do a round with Rush. He too understands my pain. He carried me through the 90's while having to endure the media love affair with their darling Bill. God help me if she wins and something happens to Rush. Then again I have people on the Forum.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/us/politics/trade-dispute-centers-on-ukrainian-executive-with-ties-to-clintons.html?_r=0
-
Hillary's Univision
It's no secret that the Leftmedia is desperate for another Democrat in the White House come 2016, or that many outlets want that Democrat to be Hillary Clinton. But few have given the unmistakable and direct endorsement that Haim Saban, owner of Univision, gave to Clinton. "Seeing her in the White House is a big dream of mine," he said. And USA Today reports, "Univision, the country's top Spanish-language network [and fifth largest network overall], has entered into a multiyear deal with Hillary Clinton to promote the health, education and well-being of young children." Out on a limb here, but that seems problematic. One might even think it amounts to in-kind campaign contributions. Yet other media outlets aren't making a peep.
-
Another Soros type living like a king but dictating to the rest of us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haim_Saban
I know I am not the only Jew (20% of us) who have had enough of this crap.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/26/whats-the-hold-up-in-releasing-the-secret-clinton-records/
-
It doesn't matter. If anyone thinks the Clinton mob will ever release to the public any records with incriminating evidence they need their head examined.
When finally released we will find essentially nothing and their crowd will be laughing and yawning.
-
But doesn't the decision actually rest with the President?
His motives here may favor them, but it sure will be hard to explain if we keep the pressure on. If he does the wrong thing, well then we can use that too.
-
If they contained things the Clintons wanted public, we'd know about them by now.
-
http://floppingaces.net/2014/02/25/hillary-clinton-was-fired-from-watergate-for-being-a-liar/
-
http://floppingaces.net/2014/02/25/hillary-clinton-was-fired-from-watergate-for-being-a-liar/
How shocking!
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/03/remember-hillarys-russian-reset-button-guess-where-she-got-it/
-
Hillary Echoes Appeasers Line On Hitler In Comments On Putin
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on March 5, 2014
Without knowing that she was being recorded, Hillary Clinton told a recent gathering
that when [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin "looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he
believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia." Her remarks come perilously
close to justifying Putin's behavior.
More of concern, the also echo the very justifications the Munich-era appeasers
cited for not responding to Hitler's incursions into Austria and the Sudetenland.
In the 1930s, it was common for advocates of appeasement toward Nazi Germany to
describe Hitler's ambitions to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia as merely an attempt
to unite all Germans under one roof. When Hitler occupied the Rhineland, in
violation of the Treaty of Versailles, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said
he was just "marching into his own back yard."
In attributing to Russian leader Vladimir Putin the same rationale as Hitler used --
the desire to "protect my people," Hillary is echoing the appeaser's rationale for
muting their response to Nazi aggression eighty years ago.
Putin does, indeed, cite the concentration of ethnic Russians in all of the former
Soviet Republics to justify his intervention in their affairs. These Russians live
there, largely, because former Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin ordered them to move
there to establish a Russian ethnic presence in these conquered territories and to
weaken the centrifugal forces of nationalism.
Hitler's foreign Germans largely lived in other lands as a result of the division of
territory after World War I in the Treaty of Versailles. His demand that the three
million ethnic Germans who lived then in the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia
formed the basis for his demands to take over the territory.
In this case, too, Putin is using the justification of taking care of his people to
explain his invasion of the Crimea and his threats of invasion of the Ukraine.
But only Hillary is buying it.
Her comparison of Hitler's transparently fraudulent characterization of his
motivations in the 30s with Putin's today was not to demean Putin's, but rather to
offer it some context and explanation, just one step short of a justification.
Putin could care less about the ethnic Russians in Ukraine just like Hitler did not
give a damn about the ethnic Germans living abroad. Each used them as an excuse for
territorial acquisition and aggression.
It's too bad that Hillary chose to repeat this rationale for aggression in this
context.
Her embrace of Putin's rationale -- or at least her citing it without refutation --
illustrates her naiveté when it comes to the Russian leader.
The only thing Putin is looking to "reset" is territorial boundary of Russia.
Hillary didn't see through him then and she doesn't quite get it now.
-
Hillary Echoes Appeasers Line On Hitler In Comments On Putin
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on March 5, 2014
Without knowing that she was being recorded, Hillary Clinton told a recent gathering
that when [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin "looks at Ukraine, he sees a place that he
believes is by its very nature part of Mother Russia." Her remarks come perilously
close to justifying Putin's behavior.
More of concern, the also echo the very justifications the Munich-era appeasers
cited for not responding to Hitler's incursions into Austria and the Sudetenland.
In the 1930s, it was common for advocates of appeasement toward Nazi Germany to
describe Hitler's ambitions to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia as merely an attempt
to unite all Germans under one roof. When Hitler occupied the Rhineland, in
violation of the Treaty of Versailles, British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said
he was just "marching into his own back yard."
In attributing to Russian leader Vladimir Putin the same rationale as Hitler used --
the desire to "protect my people," Hillary is echoing the appeaser's rationale for
muting their response to Nazi aggression eighty years ago.
Putin does, indeed, cite the concentration of ethnic Russians in all of the former
Soviet Republics to justify his intervention in their affairs. These Russians live
there, largely, because former Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin ordered them to move
there to establish a Russian ethnic presence in these conquered territories and to
weaken the centrifugal forces of nationalism.
Hitler's foreign Germans largely lived in other lands as a result of the division of
territory after World War I in the Treaty of Versailles. His demand that the three
million ethnic Germans who lived then in the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia
formed the basis for his demands to take over the territory.
In this case, too, Putin is using the justification of taking care of his people to
explain his invasion of the Crimea and his threats of invasion of the Ukraine.
But only Hillary is buying it.
Her comparison of Hitler's transparently fraudulent characterization of his
motivations in the 30s with Putin's today was not to demean Putin's, but rather to
offer it some context and explanation, just one step short of a justification.
Putin could care less about the ethnic Russians in Ukraine just like Hitler did not
give a damn about the ethnic Germans living abroad. Each used them as an excuse for
territorial acquisition and aggression.
It's too bad that Hillary chose to repeat this rationale for aggression in this
context.
Her embrace of Putin's rationale -- or at least her citing it without refutation --
illustrates her naiveté when it comes to the Russian leader.
The only thing Putin is looking to "reset" is territorial boundary of Russia.
Hillary didn't see through him then and she doesn't quite get it now.
At this point, what difference does it make?
-
and noted my previous post and its implications with alarm:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/hillary-clinton-russia-nazi-germany-vladimir-putin-ukraine-crimea-104268.html?hp=f1
-
"all parties should avoid steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation at this delicate time."
Right after she makes criticisms that take her another week to try to explain and re-assemble.
"I am not making a comparison, certainly."
This she says right after she just made a comparison. Now she looks like a fool walking backwards.
Of course the MSM makes it look like she is tough.
*****Clinton again blasts Putin after her Hitler remark
Associated Press
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD 14 hours ago
Clinton Again Blasts Putin After Hitler Remark
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin is a tough but thin-skinned leader who is squandering his country's potential, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday, a day after she likened his actions on the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential contender, warned during her a speech at the University of California, Los Angeles, that "all parties should avoid steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation at this delicate time."
Putin has said he was protecting ethnic Russians by moving troops into Crimea.
Clinton said Tuesday at a closed fundraising luncheon in Long Beach that Putin's actions are similar what happened in the Nazi era in Czechoslovakia and Romania.
"Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s," Clinton said, according to the Press-Telegram of Long Beach. "Hitler kept saying, 'They're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people.' And that's what's gotten everybody so nervous."
Responding to a question submitted at the UCLA talk, Clinton said she was not making a comparison although Russia's actions were "reminiscent" of claims Germany made in the 1930s, when the Nazis said they needed to protect German minorities in Poland and elsewhere in Europe.
"The claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities, that is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland and Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe," she said.
"I just want everybody to have a little historic perspective. I am not making a comparison, certainly. But I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before," she said.
Clinton said Putin is trying to "re-Sovietize" the periphery of Russia but is actually squandering the potential of his nation and "threatening instability and even the peace of Europe."
In recent days, some Republicans, including Sen. John McCain have criticized the Obama administration's policy in Ukraine. Clinton echoed President Barack Obama's assessment that Russia's intervention was a violation of international law, and she said she supported the administration's call for Russia "to refrain from the threat or use of force."
Kathryn Stoner, a Russia expert at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, said she considered Clinton's comparison between Putin and the tactics of Nazi-era Germany "a bit of a stretch," in part because Putin "doesn't look like he is intent on spreading across the Ukraine and permanently occupying this area."
In a delicate diplomatic situation "I don't think it's helpful on either side to say things like this, but in these crises it happens," Stoner added****
:lol: But she is a very nice person if you get to know her.
-
March 6, 201'
VIDEO: Fans at DNC meeting can't name a single Hillary accomplishment
Published by: Dan Calabrese
Not that it matters. We should know by now that stuff like track record and achievement are no longer even ancillary to the matter of choosing a president. They're now
completely irrelevant. The election of Obama established that, and his re-election cemented it. Democrats don't expect Obama to get results. They expect him to protect their hold on power.
So if you had asked someone why Obama would be a good president in terms of ability to govern, the response will be a blank stare. What do you
mean? The job of a presidential candidate is not to govern. It's to get elected, and then to get re-elected. And this is why it doesn't matter to
these fine folks at the DNC that Hillary Clinton has never accomplished anything either:
The funniest thing about this is that they seem to understand on a certain level that they need totry to defend her as accomplished. That's
where you get nonsense like how "well-traveled" she is, or the totally meaningless rot about "how well she represented America".
The truth is that most of these folks probably don't even know what the Secretary of State does, let alone have the ability to assess whether she
did it well. I would like to have heard the guy ask them to name her major accomplishments during eight years in the U.S. Senate, since that would surely have elicted the same blank stares and baseless yammering
about how she "exercised leadership" or whatever.
Hillary's supporters don't back her because they think she's ever done anything to demonstrate she would be a good president. They back her
because they think she can win, and that means thousands of federal jobs that bring control of lots of money stay in Democrat hands. It really doesn't matter how the nation fares as long as the members of the
political class who reside on the left side of the aisle make out OK.
Coming up with a rationale to sell Hillary's candidacy to the general public is theoretically trickier. But if people are only paying attention
as much as they were when they decided to elect and re-elect Obama, maybe it won't be that hard after all.
"She's been everywhere."
"She's traveled so much."
"She's ready."
"She's such a fixture."
"She's tough."
"She's smart."
OK. Stop. How can you possibly offer a rejoinder to a case like this?
Hillary's presumptive candidacy is actually the most audacious test yet of the proposition that the Republican Party is completely inept, and
that is a proposition that history would suggest is sadly unlikely to fail.
-
She allegedly has a vagina. Oh, and she has skillfully facilitated he husband's predatory behavior as a means to gather wealth and power and described his victims as "whiney women".
She's an amazing investor in cattle futures!
Isn't that the very embodiment of the feminist ideal?
-
And somehow making those points will get her more votes , , ,
-
Clinton Campaign Corruption
Washington businessman Jeffrey Thompson pleaded guilty Monday to illegal campaign finance activities. Thompson funneled millions of dollars to several DC and federal office holders while getting a kickback in the form of city contracts. Among the recipients of his money was Hillary Clinton, whose 2008 presidential bid deposited over $600,000 of Thompson's "off the books" money. Clinton's aide, Minyon Moore, sought and secured the contributions, though prosecuting her for campaign finance violations now will be difficult given the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. Prosecutors say they have no evidence that Clinton was aware of the activity, but let's face it -- the Clintons are pros. And really, what difference does it make anyway?
-
Dinesh D'souza was unavailable for comment.
Clinton Campaign Corruption
Washington businessman Jeffrey Thompson pleaded guilty Monday to illegal campaign finance activities. Thompson funneled millions of dollars to several DC and federal office holders while getting a kickback in the form of city contracts. Among the recipients of his money was Hillary Clinton, whose 2008 presidential bid deposited over $600,000 of Thompson's "off the books" money. Clinton's aide, Minyon Moore, sought and secured the contributions, though prosecuting her for campaign finance violations now will be difficult given the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations. Prosecutors say they have no evidence that Clinton was aware of the activity, but let's face it -- the Clintons are pros. And really, what difference does it make anyway?
-
*****Hillary Clinton Psychoanalyzes Vladimir Putin
By Liz Kreutz
@Liz_Kreutz
Follow on Twitter
Apr 8, 2014 9:24pm
AP Hillary Clinton ml 140409 16x9 608 Hillary Clinton Psychoanalyzes Vladimir Putin
Credit: Timothy J. Gonzalez/Statesman Journal/AP Photo
Russian President Vladimir Putin may have a buff physique, but former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sees right through it.
During a Q&A at a marketing summit in California today, Clinton gave a deep read on Putin’s personality, and compared the encounters she’s had with him to those she’s experienced on an elementary school playground.
“I have had my personal experiences with him,” she said, when answering a question about Putin and the recent situation in Crimea. “He’s a fascinating guy. Obviously he is determined.”
Clinton then proceeded to dissect his psyche.
“He is very difficult to read personally,” she said. “He is always looking for advantage. So he will try to put you ill at ease. He will even throw an insult your way. He will look bored and dismissive. He’ll do all of that.”
But Clinton said she was never fazed.
“I have a lot of experience with people acting like that,” she quipped. “Go back to elementary school. I’ve seen all of that, so I’m not impressed by it.”
Clinton made the comments during her first leg of a jam-packed, four-day long speaking tour through the West Coast at Marketo’s Marketing Nation Summit in San Francisco.
During her speech and the following Q&A, with Marketo CEO Phil Fernandez, Clinton spoke on issues including technology, immigration, income inequality, and advancement for women in the workplace.
The event wrapped up with the inevitable question about 2016. But when asked if she plans to run for president, Clinton gave no more of an indication that she had made a decision either way. She said that she is still thinking about it, and that she is “going to continue to think about it for a while.”
Even Clinton, however, admitted she’s become an expert at dodging the question.
“I danced around that pretty well, don’t you think?” she remarked with a smile.*****
Hillary knows not to let Putin's "buff" physique fool her. I wonder if he knows not to let her hideous physique fool him. Using HER school yard metaphor she sound like the ugly duckling who can't get the popular athlete so she simply has to insult him.
Low information voters will swoon over her nonsense.
-
http://freebeacon.com/blog/obamas-new-hhs-secretary-proved-her-loyalty-by-clinton-by-digging-through-a-dead-mans-trash/
-
Hillary won't run and can't win. Where do they get this stuff? :wink:
http://nypost.com/2014/04/16/hillary-clintons-top-2016-worry-is-obamas-economy/
Hillary Clinton’s top 2016 worry is ‘Obama’s economy’
"...count me as skeptical that she will run — and even more skeptical that, if she does run, she wins. Because, based on everything she’s telling people about the problems of inheriting the Democratic Party from President Obama, even she’s skeptical of her chances."
---------------------------
Not to mention his foreign policy failures, most easily tied to her!
-
speaking of which , , , http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/us/politics/unfinished-business-complicates-clintons-diplomatic-legacy.html?emc=edit_th_20140417&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/20/usaid-documents-cite-hillary-clinton-in-chaos-of-a/
-
http://www.caintv.com/list-accomplishments-hillarys
-
On MSLSD last night, I think, the noted her great achievement as Secretary of State was the wise move it was to become a Sec of St under Obama. They then showed her popularity in the poles soared while she was Sec of St and are now down again.
So the spin is not what she accomplished other than it improved her popularity - at least that is what I deduced the logic to be.
This kind of slime brings back the gut wrenching memories of the 90s.
Unfortunately we don't have an honest person in the WH now either.
-
On MSLSD last night, I think, the noted her great achievement as Secretary of State was the wise move it was to become a Sec of St under Obama. They then showed her popularity in the poles soared while she was Sec of St and are now down again.
So the spin is not what she accomplished other than it improved her popularity - at least that is what I deduced the logic to be.
This kind of slime brings back the gut wrenching memories of the 90s.
Unfortunately we don't have an honest person in the WH now either.
She was willing to cut into wasteful diplomatic security budgets and reset the relationship with Russia.
Victory lap!
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-department-gets-second-chance-to-list-hillary-clinton-accomplishments.-it-doesnt-go-well./article/2547639
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/04/27/
-
Pasting Obj's post on the 2016 thread here as well.
Hillary Clinton’s Problem Isn’t Age, It’s Experience
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On April 30, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com
The problem with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy isn’t that she would take office at the age of 69. An older and more mature president is not a bad thing. It’s how little she has done in that time.
After 2008, when Hillary was beaten by an even more inexperienced candidate, most people forgot just how little experience she has holding elected office.
Hillary Clinton only won one political office and she did so in her fifties. Despite winning two elections, her Senate career only covered the period from January 2001 to January 2009.
It’s more time than Obama spent in the Senate, but that’s not saying much.
JFK was considered young and inexperienced after spending 14 years in Congress. Hillary Clinton isn’t young, but her experience in elected office at the age of 69 will be less than his was at the age of 44.
Hillary’s supporters will argue that she has plenty of experience in public life. Unfortunately it’s the wrong kind of experience.
Like Elizabeth Warren, a slightly younger and more left-wing Hillary clone, she spent a good deal of time in the corrupt intersection between leftist non-profits, corporate boards and politically connected legal positions. The bad lessons those posts taught her are evident from Whitewater and HillaryCare.
Hillary Clinton embodies the corrupt culture of Washington D.C. whose cronyism and nepotism she has far too much experience with as the other half of a power couple notorious for personal and political corruption.
When they left, Bill and Hillary trailed illegal pardons and stolen property behind them. As recently as 2008, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote, “The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.”
Back in 2001, he had suggested that the Clintons might one day be “led away in handcuffs”.
That’s Hillary Clinton’s real experience and it’s not policy experience or foreign policy experience. It’s the politics of political corruption. Hillary Clinton’s track record doesn’t consist of policy achievements. It’s in the people she knows and owes favors to, the legion of corrupt associates of Clintonworld and the millionaires and billionaires who fund her unscrupulous political ambitions with their dirty money.
If Hillary’s last name were still Rodham, no one would have even proposed her for Senate. There is absolutely nothing in her record or her ideas that recommends her for higher office.
Not only is she inexperienced and inept, despite her many makeovers she is a colorless figure with the speaking style and fashion sense of a college registrar, and a bureaucrat’s cagey instinct for pre-emptive cover-ups that only make her look more suspicious even when she didn’t actually do anything wrong.
Hillary Clinton did nothing of note either as Senator or Secretary of State. The reason why her time in the Senate is remembered on the left for her Iraq War vote and her time as Secretary of State is remembered on the right for Benghazi is that there isn’t anything else to remember her for.
The high points of her national career are negative; terminated from Watergate after unethical behavior, a failure on government health care as First Lady, an Iraq War vote that she spent five years lying about and the abandonment of Americans in Benghazi as Secretary of State.
And a track record of trying to blame her decisions on everyone else.
Despite voting for the Iraq War, Hillary blamed Bush for a “rush to war” and for “triggering” the conflict. Few on the left have forgotten that she had even more positions on the Iraq War than John Kerry and that her positions changed completely based on what was going on in America and Iraq at the time.
When it came to Benghazi, other people took the fall for a horrifying failure that she claimed to be accepting responsibility for, while her own pet committee shifted the blame onto others.
Hillary Clinton accused Obama of being unready for a 3 A.M. phone call, but does anyone believe that she would take a 3 A.M. phone call and make a quick decision in a crisis? Is there anything in her track record in the Senate or as Secretary of State that suggests that she is bold and decisive?
Anything at all?
Hillary Clinton carefully avoided a track record. In the Senate, she invariably went with the least controversial position on every issue until she began overcompensating on Iraq to win back the left.
In the Senate, she was for a ban on flag burning, Cap and Trade, nuclear power, for Israel, for Palestine, for abortion, against abortion, for harsh criminal penalties, against harsh criminal penalties, for No Child Left Behind, against No Child Left Behind, for gay marriage, against gay marriage, for medical marijuana and against medical marijuana.
If the polls opposed gay marriage, she was against it. If the polls supported it, she was for it. The same went for everything else.
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton staked out a bold position in favor of visiting other countries and shaking hands with their leaders.
This is not a woman who takes 3 A.M. phone calls. Not without polling them first and issuing a non-definitive statement in the vaguest possible language that she can’t be held accountable for in any way.
This isn’t a record that speaks of experience. It’s the record of a woman working hard to avoid ever having an experience, a position or a conscience.
JFK came into the White House having seen combat and having come close to dying many times. He had spent almost a decade and a half in Congress and taken positions on important issues.
Hillary Clinton may be almost 70 at that same point, but without a fraction of his experience, and she has tried to make up for it with childish lies like claiming to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia, claiming to have negotiated open borders for refugees in Kosovo and claiming to have been instrumental in the Irish peace process.
It’s no wonder that the chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in Watergate said of her, “She was a liar.”
Hillary’s experience is as imaginary as her work bringing peace to Northern Ireland. The issue isn’t her age; it’s her lack of principles and her lack of courage. Hillary Clinton compensates for a mediocre career of political cronyism with ridiculous lies in an act of neurotic insecurity.
Hillary Clinton isn’t too old to be president. She’s too adolescent, untried and immature. She has made too few decisions that matter, taken too few risks and even less responsibility and lives an imaginary Walter Mitty life of death-defying adventures that only exist in her mind and her press releases.
Hillary isn’t just incompetent, corrupt or a liar. Like too many of her peers, she’s a 66-year-old child.
-
Have not read these two yet, posting them so I can read them tomorrow:
http://rense.com/general80/hll.htm
http://wearechange.org/hillary-clinton-fire-boeing-gave-foundation-900000-weeks-made-shameless-pitch-company-russian-airline/
-
Have not read these two yet, posting them so I can read them tomorrow:
http://rense.com/general80/hll.htm
http://wearechange.org/hillary-clinton-fire-boeing-gave-foundation-900000-weeks-made-shameless-pitch-company-russian-airline/
Rense is tinfoil land.
-
(http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Hilary2016-bumper-sticker.jpg)
If she can go past her role in this, she sure hasn't shown how. If Hillary can't win over a lead female, liberal journalist from NPR, who can she win over?
MARA LIASSON, NPR: I think that it did give the story a new set of legs, and I think that even if nothing else comes out between now and 2016 this will be an issue in the 2016 race if Hillary Clinton runs.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/04/mara_liasson_new_emails_show_benghazi_will_be_an_issue_if_hillary_runs_in_2016.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The brazenness and scope of the disinformation would make any KGB colonel sigh with admiration." - Mona Charen (below)
She may run and win but opponents will have plenty of material with which to expose her true, wicked self.
It was David Geffen who said, "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, .
A prominent conservative female journalist nails it for Benghazi:
Could You Lie to a Bereaving Father?
Mona Charen - May 2, 2014
The Ben Rhodes memo revealing the duplicity of this administration on the subject of Benghazi reminds us about the character of those involved. That President Barack Obama could lie so evenly and so passionately (remember the second presidential debate?) is not perhaps surprising at this stage. But let's not forget what it took for Hillary Clinton to lie to the grieving father of an American hero.
First, a refresher on the facts (as they were certainly known to the principals):
A convoy of well-armed terrorists rolled into the complex housing the American consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. The attackers sealed off streets leading to the consulate with trucks and then commenced the attack on the building using rocket-propelled grenades, AK-47s, mortars and artillery mounted on trucks. Ambassador Chris Stevens called Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks for help, saying, "Greg, we're under attack." Hicks, who was in Tripoli, conveyed this up the line, but no help arrived.
The terrorists killed Stevens and another American and set the building ablaze. (Two more Americans would die later attempting to protect the annex.) As soon as the next morning, Congressman Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, described the attack as a "commando-style event" with "coordinated fire, direct fire, (and) indirect fire." A few days later the Libyan president said that it was a planned terrorist attack. He also said that the idea it was a "spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous." Yet a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign by the Obama administration managed to put the press off the story and mislead the American people.
The brazenness and scope of the disinformation would make any KGB colonel sigh with admiration. At 10:32 on the night of the attack, Clinton issued a statement deploring violence in response to "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." In the days that followed, the president and his spokesman repeatedly invoked the supposedly offensive video as the cause of the attack. The president and secretary of state even filmed commercials to play in Muslim countries denouncing the video while also upholding America's tradition of religious and political freedom. "We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," said the president. "But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence."
But as the State Department finally disclosed a month after the attack (and as had been widely reported before then), there was no protest outside the American consulate in Benghazi. Nothing. Not a peep.
As the Rhodes memo makes clear, the president sent his U.N. ambassador to the Sunday shows to lie. Susan Rice was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." Rice did as she was told. The election was less than two months away. A foreign policy failure would not be politically convenient, so it would be made to go away. It's one of the minor injustices of this sorry story that Rice has received more condemnations than the president or secretary of state, who pulled the strings.
Clinton began to peddle the "Internet video" story from the first moments after the guns went silent in Benghazi. When the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. apologized to her on Sept. 13, 2012, for the "terror attack," she ignored this and burbled on about "the innocence of Muslims."
The president, vice president and Clinton welcomed the bodies of Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Glen Doherty to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Sept. 14. According to Woods' father, the vice president used remarkably offensive locker room talk about the deceased Navy SEAL, but Clinton stayed on message. She greeted the man whose son had bravely attempted to fight off far more numerous and better-armed terrorists on the roof of the CIA annex and who gave his life. Did she praise the courage and self-sacrifice of the decorated Navy SEAL? Did she express regret that he had been left nearly alone to fight off the Islamist terrorists? No. Not even the flag-draped coffins spread before Clinton could shake her iron determination to stick with the script. She told Woods they would catch the guy who made the Internet film and make sure he was punished.
Most politicians are capable of stretching the truth on occasion. But this question, this setting and this egregious a lie suggest that Clinton's conscience -- if she ever had one -- is growing flaccid from disuse.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/02/could_you_lie_to_a_bereaved_father_122493.html#ixzz30tFaGjA0
-
One must ask WHY? Afraid to call terror what it is?
“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment...”
So did this mass kidnapping.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html
Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorist
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.
In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringOurGirlsBack, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.
On Wednesday, Clinton said that the abduction of the girls by Boko Haram was “abominable, it’s criminal, it’s an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria.” Clinton said that as Secretary of State she had numerous meetings with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan and had urged the Nigerian government to do more on counterterrorism.
What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.
“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”
In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.
Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group’s escalating abilities to wreak havoc.
Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.
The State Department’s refusal to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization prevented U.S. law enforcement agencies from fully addressing the growing Boko Haram threat in those crucial two years, multiple GOP lawmakers told The Daily Beast.
“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”
“For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “The U.S. government should have moved more quickly to list them as a terrorist organization and brought U.S. resources to track and disrupt their activities. The failure to act swiftly has had consequences.”
Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.
In the House, leading intelligence-minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.
In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.
“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”
Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.
“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”
Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.
“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”
Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to regimes guilty of human rights violations.
“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.
Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.
In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.
Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.
Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.
“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.
The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.
“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”
Twenty female senators wrote to President Obama Tuesday urging him to now push for Boko Haram and Ansaru to be added to the United Nations Security Council al Qaeda sanctions list. (Earlier this year, Boko Haram’s leader express solidarity with al Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Yemen, according to the SITE Monitoring Service, which tracks jihadist communications.)
“In the face of the brazen nature of this horrific attack, the international community must impose further sanctions on this terrorist organization. Boko Haram is a threat to innocent civilians in Nigeria, to regional security, and to U.S. national interests,” the senators wrote.
The White House declined Wednesday to say whether or not the president will push for Boko Haram to be added to the U.N. list.
“Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped these girls, has been killing innocent people in Nigeria for some time,” National Security Council spokesman Jonathan Lalley told The Daily Beast in a statement. “We’ve identified them as one of the worst regional terrorist organizations out there. That’s why last November we designated them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. And we're actively exploring -- in partnership with Nigeria and others -- broader multilateral sanctions against Boko Haram, including UN Security Council sanctions."
Representative for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
-
The hILL is already out along with Obamster on the talk circuit turning this into the her image of girl power. Of course this is horrific. Along with all the other horror stories that come out of Africa as long as I can remember. Black on Black crime. Remember Bush I going into Somalia for humanitarian reasons?
But she seizes on this to change the topic from Lewinsky and it fits her gender twist. IF 200 Black boys were murdered she would have been silent.
Typical Clinton change the story, twist to her political game and benefit and the journalist MSM do everything to give HER free press. Why is it her opinion even matters now on this?
Ten more years of the Clintons.... :cry: :x :roll:
-
You wish!
This gal is going to survive the scrutiny of a Presidential election and win 45 states? I don't think so.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/07/hillary_clinton_no_reason_to_further_investigating_benghazi.html#ooid=JnZzJ0bTp96HreEDgB8CX_rW80mtmyzK
ROBIN ROBERTS, ABC NEWS: Benghazi, the new investigation. Are you satisfied with the answers and are you content with what you know what happened?
HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely. I mean, of course there are a lot of reasons why -- despite all of the hearings, all of the information that’s been provided -- some choose not to be satisfied and choose to continue to move forward. (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?) That’s their choice. And I do not believe there is any reason for it to continue in this way, but they get to call the shots in the Congress.
----------------------------
Then why did you lie about the cause of the attack? Where were you when the US decided to surrender and send no help? Did you rise up and object? Who witnessed that? Why did they close the embassy in Tripoli for security risk if what happened in Benghazi was merely a video protest that just got out of control? Since you utteredt he same words BEFORE the Ben Rhodes memo, were you the author of that national lie?
To all these officials of all administrations, we shouldn't have to wait and buy your damn books to find out what happened when we trusted you with our national security interests.
-
Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty
May 8, 2014
Whoops! Guess What Hillary Didn't Do While She Was Secretary of State . . .
Boy, this is awkward:
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government's ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.
In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria.
What Clinton didn't mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.
"The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn't use. And nobody can say she wasn't urged to do it. It's gross hypocrisy," said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. "The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials."
Anybody else think we'll be hearing a lot about Boko Haram between now and Election Day 2016?
-
May 9, 2014
Signs of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Culture of Complacency
Of course:
.
Notice this from Jeryl Bier on the State Department's reluctance to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization:
In 2012, even U.S. State Department diplomats in Nigeria seemed mystified about why the government was "reluctant" to issue the designation.
On September 20, 2012, then Bureau of African Affairs Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson appeared on a State Department "Live at State" webchat regarding "U.S. Policy toward Sub-Saharan Africa." Questions from journalists and other individuals via webchat were posed to Carson by the host, Holly Jensen. At one point, a question was asked by the "U.S. Consulate in Lagos [Nigeria]":
MS. JENSEN: The U.S. Consulate in Lagos wants to know: Why is the government reluctant to designate the Boko Haram sect as a foreign terrorist organization?
AMBASSADOR CARSON: Thank you very much. We look at the issue of Boko Haram as a major concern not only to Nigeria but also to Nigeria's neighbors and Niger and Cameroon and Benin as well. Boko Haram, we believe, is not a homogenous, monolithic organization, but it is comprised of several different kinds of groups.
. . . In the September 2012 webchat, Carson seemed to suggest that the State Department did not even consider the "Boko Haram movement," as he called it, to necessarily be a terror organization, but rather several groups simply "focused on trying to discredit the Nigerian Government":
[CARSON:] But we believe that the bulk of the Boko Haram movement is -- they're focused on trying to discredit the Nigerian Government, trying to do everything in its power to show that the government is ineffective in the defense of its people and in the protection of government institutions, so we have not designated the entire organization. We constantly keep that under review, but we have, in fact, designated the three top leaders in Boko Haram who we believe to be out establishing broader terrorist networks and who have a broader jihadist agenda that goes beyond simply discrediting the Nigerian Government.
As I laid out on Campaign Spot yesterday, Boko Haram's terror tactics were crystal clear by 2009; by 2012, it was ludicrously inaccurate to characterize them as "focused on trying to discredit the Nigerian government."
With Benghazi and now Nigeria, we have two examples of State Department people on the ground sending back warnings of gathering terrorist threats . . . and in both cases, the warnings were ignored.
Remember all the talk about New Jersey governor Chris Christie's alleged culture of bullying within his administration? How about the signs of a culture of complacency in Hillary Clinton's State Department?
==========================================
The Saga of Boko Haram and Hashtag Diplomacy
The tough face of Obama diplomacy
If you ask most Americans about Boko Harum, they might think you're talking about the psychedelic rock band Procol Harum, best known for "A Whiter Shade of Pale." But this band is a group of Islamic terrorists who are deadly serious about their craft, including the kidnapping of hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls in April.
In an effort at social media diplomacy, First Lady Michelle Obama was photographed with a sad face and holding a sign with the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. This seems to be in conjunction with a second social media effort by some Hollywood actors who play tough guys on screen admonishing the terrorists that #RealMenDontBuyGirls -- one threat made by Boko Harum was to "sell them in the market, by Allah." It doesn't seem that a Twitter hashtag game would dissuade them.
Unfortunately, in the real world, there isn't much that can be done to Boko Harum at the moment, at least not without potentially putting the kidnapping victims at risk. The group was on the State Department's radar screen, but then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resisted for two years labeling it a terrorist group, which may have hampered our present ability to respond.
The obvious question is why did the State Department resist? A look at the timing and narrative provides the answer. After Boko Harum bombed the UN headquarters in Nigeria's capital city, Abuja, the CIA, the FBI and others urged the State Department to place the group on the list of foreign terrorist organizations. The group had ties to al-Qaida, however, which Barack Obama claimed he had "decimated." Hence, no terror designation for Boko Harum. Clinton can tweet, "We must stand up to terrorism," all she wants, but that doesn't explain her dereliction of duty in doing just that when she actually had authority.
Trying to manage Obama's flailing foreign policy, there's no question the State Department is also suffering greatly under the feckless leadership of John Kerry. But our bitter foreign policy harvest was sown by Clinton. Had sanity prevailed, Boko Harum would have been added to our terrorist watch list two years ago. Instead, as Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review, "Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have convinced themselves that they know more about Islam than Muslim terrorists do, and that the peaceful, pliable, progressive Islam they have concocted somehow renders the jihadists' Islam false." There are over 200 Nigerian girls and young women who would beg to differ.
This self-deception has proven dangerous and destructive, and the new hashtag for the Obama/Clinton/Kerry State Department should be #CriminalIncompetence. Finally, if nothing else, we see once again that Clinton is utterly unfit to serve as commander in chief.
-
Some clickable URLs in the article at http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/opinion/gingrich-hillary-clinton-boko-haram-terrorist/?utm_source=Gingrich+Productions+List&utm_campaign=5d9a6c70ca-clintonbenghazi_050914&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bd29bdc370-5d9a6c70ca-46602837
Hillary Clinton, Boko Haram and Benghazi: The Real Scandal
Hillary Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram could become at least as serious an issue as her decisions surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate Benghazi.
Much of the attention Thursday was on the announcement that the House will create a select committee to investigate Benghazi, but the same day, Daily Beast reporter Josh Rogin revealed details about her time as Secretary of State that raise significant questions about her broader record on issues of terrorism.
Rogin reported that from 2011 through early 2013, the Clinton State Department repeatedly rejected efforts to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. In recent weeks, the group has exploded onto the world stage by kidnapping more than 250 girls at a Nigerian boarding school.
It is so clearly and vividly a terrorist organization that it seems indefensible that the Clinton State Department would have refused to designate it as such. A thorough investigation of the decision process that protected Boko Haram from 2011 until late 2013 could be devastating.
Now that Boko Haram has attracted worldwide attention for its vicious assault on young girls, political leaders, including former Secretary Clinton, are rushing to issue emotionally powerful but practically meaningless statements.
Hillary tweeted: "Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls"
Hillary's tweet contrasts vividly with her failure to stand up to terrorism in 2011 by naming Boko Haram for what it was.
The requests to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization were serious and came from very responsible authorities.
As Josh Rogin reported:
“What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.
“’The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,’ said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. ‘The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.’
“In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a ‘safe haven’ for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.”
The protection of Boko Haram from designation as a terrorist organization is even more unbelievable when you read the description of the group’s activities in the American Foreign Policy Council's World Almanac of Islamism.
Consider the following highlights:
• Boko Haram means "Western education is sinful."
• The initial Boko Haram organization grew to an estimated 280,000 followers. In 2009 there was a huge fight with the Nigerian Army and over 1,000 followers and the founder were killed.
• A revitalized Boko Haram launched an attack on Bauchi prison on September 7, 2010.
• Since then they have carried out over 600 attacks killing over 3,800 people.
• Boko Haram's orientation can be discerned in its support for Taliban-like extremist Sharia and its designation of its original encampment in northern Nigeria as "Afghanistan."
• The Nigerian terrorists have allied with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and a number of transnational terrorist groups.
• On Christmas Day in 2011 Boko Haram staged church bombings.
• Boko Haram has deep ties with extremists in Saudi Arabia. Supposedly dozens have been trained in Afghanistan.
Given these facts it is amazing that Secretary Clinton's State Department refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, since clearly it was engaged in terrorist activities. Why would the department she led not call a terrorist group a terrorist group when it was in her power to do so, and, as Rogin reports, the FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and many members of both the House and Senate were urging her to do just that?
Rogin reports that some U.S. officials, and possibly the Nigerian government, opposed the listing because they thought it might give the group more publicity. But this is a fairly weak rationale. For one thing, Boko Haram seems to have managed the publicity part on its own. And despite designating three individuals associated with Boko Haram as terrorists in June 2012, by refusing to list the organization, the State Department was denying the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department the tools they were seeking to use against the group as a whole and anyone linked to it.
It is a potentially devastating addition to a record as secretary of State that included a number of decisions favoring the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (after abandoning a longtime U.S. ally there), as well as appeasing a virulently anti-American regime in Iran--moves that have not turned out so well, to say the least.
Now the Boko Haram decision raises a whole new set of questions.
How could the Clinton State Department reject naming Boko Haram as a terrorist group?
Who was involved in blocking Boko Haram's terrorist designation?
Are any of the so-called experts who were totally wrong still at the State Department?
Did Secretary Clinton have anything to do with refusing to designate Boko Haram?
If not, was she even aware of the controversy? Shouldn’t she certainly have been aware, considering the number of federal agencies and members of Congress that were asking her to designate the organization?
These questions about Secretary Clinton’s record are potentially even more serious than the questions about Benghazi. As Congressman Patrick Meehan, who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, told Rogin, by failing to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization in 2011, “We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago.”
In light of the recent events in Nigeria, Secretary Clinton and other key State Department officials owe the American people some answers about their decisions.
Your Friend,
Newt
-
Monica Lewinsky Wasn’t a Victim —- America Was
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On May 12, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com
Monica Lewinsky wasn’t brought back from a cul-de-sac of the ‘90s celebrity scandal universe, where Kato Kaelin still sleeps on a couch, Amy Fisher stalks quiet Long Island streets and Tonya Harding skates around in circles, in order to hurt Bill and Hillary.
Vanity Fair brought Monica in to help them.
That’s why it’s Monica’s essay in Vanity Fair and not the essays of any of the women whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and whom Hillary Clinton tried to silence.
Hillary’s political career was built on Monica Lewinsky and cancer. Rudy Giuliani’s cancer. Without Monica and cancer, instead of running for president she would be delivering a commencement address at Bennington College and the dean would be introducing her as Hillary Rodham.
Monica made Bill and Hillary into the victims of their own misbehavior. Vanity Fair is hoping that Democrats forget the political dysfunction, sellouts and blatant corruption of the Clinton years. Its editorial staff is hoping that they’ll get angry about Ken Starr and “privacy violations” all over again.
But Bill and Hillary aren’t victims. They’re two dysfunctional people with a knack for making their personal problems into the country’s problem. They’ve done it before and they’re doing it again. They deal with their personal problems, just as they dealt with Monica Lewinsky, through abuses of power.
Monica was disposable. If it hadn’t been her, it would have been someone else. Bill and Hillary treated her the way they treated any woman who became an obstacle to their political ambitions. That’s a step up from how the Kennedy clan treated inconvenient women by drowning them, drugging them or lobotomizing them.
Feminists are debating whether Hillary was right to call Monica a “narcissistic loony toon” instead of discussing the private War on Women she waged against any woman complaining about her husband’s behavior. It’s a cheap distraction from what really matters. The outrage over the War on Women, ‘90s edition, featuring stops at the Tailhook Symposium and Anita Hill’s Department of Education digs, did not extend to abuses by powerful liberal men. There was one set of feminist rules for a drunken Navy lieutenant in Vegas and another for the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
As long as he was a liberal.
Monica isn’t a victim either. Liberal feminists were hypocritical in their treatment of her, but they were far more hypocritical in their treatment of the women Bill Clinton sexually harassed. Talking about how unfair they were to Monica lets them off the hook for how unfair they were to women who did not want a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton and who demonstrated more authentic feminist creds by speaking out about it than the professional liberal feminists who smeared and demeaned them to protect Bill.
There was a power imbalance between Bill and Monica. And Bill Clinton is a compulsive manipulator, but Monica wasn’t a child. She chose to have an affair with another woman’s husband and was humiliated because that man was the President of the United States. The outcome was inevitable.
Hillary Clinton was right to call her a “narcissistic loony toon”, but Hillary, running for president on a platform of her own Monica-manufactured celebrity, is an even more narcissistic loony toon than Monica could ever aspire to be. And Bill Clinton, who chases cameras as avidly as he chases women, is the king of all narcissistic loony toons.
The real victim wasn’t any of these three repulsive characters. It was the United States of America.
The American people wanted good government and instead got a demented duo whose uncontrolled appetite for power, admiration and everything else, including White House furniture, knew no limit.
And they’re still the victims today.
There are two types of victims. There are those Americans who consented to have a political relationship with Bill and Hillary. Twice. And there are those who didn’t.
There are the Monica Lewinskys and the Juanita Broaddricks.
There are Americans who were raped by the Clinton Administration. And there are Americans who chose to be abused by it and would still be willing to be abused by it all over again.
Obama and Clinton voters have much in common with Monica Lewinsky. They caused their own problems and yet, like Monica, they whine about being unable to find work. They blame Republicans for humiliating them by revealing their disgusting relationship with a politician who is a serial liar.
And they act as if the whole thing is someone else’s fault.
They whine that if it hadn’t been for the Republicans no one would know just how disgusting their affair with the man who wrecked the country’s national defense, sold pardons like hotcakes and used his own adultery to position his wife’s presidential bid was.
They complain that if Republicans would just shut up about Benghazi, the national debt, the return of Al Qaeda, the imperial presidency and the constant lies leaking out of the White House, no one would judge them for that faded Obama-Biden sticker on the back bumper of their taxpayer subsidized Prius.
They’re not the victims. Victims don’t choose to be victims.
It’s the women who didn’t accede to Bill Clinton’s sexual demands and were smeared by Hillary Clinton for daring to complain about it… who are the victims. It’s the Americans who didn’t play Monica Lewinsky at the ballot box, surrendering to Bill Clinton’s charms while ignoring a funny little man in a cave who was threatening to attack America after bombing its embassies, who are the victims.
Monica Lewinsky is the Clinton and Obama voter, narcissistic to a fault and incapable of acknowledging fault, feeling victimized but unable to point to the real perpetrator, blaming Republicans for exposing her sordid behavior and that of the man who was taking advantage of her, and then complaining that she can’t find work.
Who needs a special essay from Monica Lewinsky when any Obama voter will tell you the same story?
The real victims of Bill, Barack and Hillary are the hardworking Americans who do the best they can for their families and their country, who don’t make excuses for their misbehavior or the misbehavior of their politicians, who work hard at their jobs and work harder to raise their children.
They are the victims of bad governments and bad politicians they didn’t vote for. They are harassed and assaulted by a corrupt political machine, a power-mad bureaucracy and a degenerate Washington establishment. They did not consent to be abused by Bill, Barack, Hillary, the EPA, the DOJ, the BLM, the FEC, the IRS and every other alphabet soup agency out of D.C.
And they are smeared and demonized when they complain about it.
They are the real victims of the abusers, exploiters and manipulators in Washington D.C. whose lust for power knows no limits. And they are also the victims of the Monica Lewinsky voters who whine and make faces, but refuse to end their political affair with the abusers of their country.
-
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-analysis-karl-rove-hillary-clinton-whisper-campaign-internet-20140513-story.html
-
"Barring the release of audio, it is impossible to determine whether Rove uttered the words “brain damage,” but it’s also beside the point. The point was that through his words prospective 2016 voters were reminded of Clinton’s 2012 health issues and, by extension, a host of loosely related things, including her age (69 were she to be elected in November 2016) and her family’s past resistance to transparancy.
And Clinton was reminded that, if she runs, her opponents will be merciless and not always bound by reality."
Oh, cry me a river! POOR Hillary. She's SO put upon by mean old nasty Karl Rove. Of course neither she nor her husband have ever employed such mean, nasty tactics. They're just innocent victims. And she's a WOMAN, for God's sake! How could Rove be so insensitive? Gag me.
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
One would hope so!
==================================
Did Clinton OK Surveillance?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 13, 2014
A new book by Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden's journalistic confessor, charges that former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice asked the National Security Agency to spy on U.N. diplomats from countries casting the swing votes on the Security Council on whether to toughen sanctions on Iran.
So did then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approve the surveillance? Did she know about it?
We need to know if the person who wants to be president of the United States approved and allowed the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats.
In Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the U.S. Surveillance State, he charges that as the Security Council met in May 2010 to consider tougher sanctions against Iran, Rice asked the NSA for help "so that she could develop a strategy" to win over the votes of undecided diplomats. Greenwald bases his accusation on leaked agency document unveiled by Snowden.
The NSA obligingly moved ahead with the paperwork to get approval to spy on diplomats from four Council members: Bosnia, Gabon, Nigeria and Uganda. On May 26, 2010, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the surveillance. What was the conceivable connection with terrorism that justified these taps?
But, the move worked. All four nations fell in line and voted for the sanctions.
Afterward, a grateful Rice wrote the NSA thanking it. She said that the intelligence helped her to know when diplomats from the other permanent Council members -- Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France -- "were telling the truth ... revealed their real position on sanctions ... gave us an upper hand in negotiations ... and provided information on various countries 'red lines.' "
Unless she had blinders on, Clinton must have known of this surveillance and, most likely, would have been privy to the intercepts themselves. Whether she approved this kind of cloak-and-dagger diplomacy, which sows distrust of America all over the world, is a key question as her presidential candidacy looms.
Clinton had previously directly ordered spying on foreign diplomats in connection with the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change in December 2009. Again, documents from Snowden reveal that the NSA conducted surveillance on foreign delegations and monitored their communications, giving U.S. negotiators advance information about other nations' positions at the meeting.
The NSA monitoring likely played a role in a dramatic moment at the conference when, according to reports in The New York Times, "Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret. The intrusion led to new talks that cemented central terms of the deal, American officials said."
Jairam Ramesh, then the Indian environment minister and an important player in the talks, asked why the U.S. spied on rival delegations: "Why the hell did they do this and at the end of this, what did they get out of Copenhagen? They got some outcome but certainly not the outcome they wanted. It was completely silly of them."
Clinton called for spying on other diplomats as soon as she took office as secretary of State. Documents unearthed by WikiLeaks show that she signed an order telling U.S. diplomats to spy on Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the U.N., and other top U.N. officials. She asked her people to get biometric information, such as DNA, fingerprints and iris scans, as well as passwords and personal encryption used in private and commercial networks for official communications. She also asked for Internet and intranet usernames, email addresses, website URLs useful for identification, credit card numbers, frequent flier account numbers and work schedules.
With this penchant for spying, we are entitled to know if Clinton was involved in the latest revelations to come from the never-ending Snowden disclosures.
-
Spying on foreign nationals, including diplomats IS the job of our intelligence agencies.
-
Morris's contempt for the Clintons appears to be quite genuine and even to the point of overriding logic as we see here. He has never met a subject on which he does not feel qualified to opine. Apparently his syllogism is that because due to his being a polling and Clinton expert on FOX he is an expert on any subject covered by FOX.
-
Yes, a brain injury. No, it shouldn't be Republicans pointing it out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did Hillary Clinton wear those glasses after her concussion?
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/post-politics/Images/Was8597634.jpg)
Technically, Republican strategist Karl Rove was correct when he suggested that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffered a “traumatic brain injury” after a fall in 2012. A concussion is the most common form of mild traumatic brain injury, according to experts in the field. It is caused by a blow to the head or an action that bounces the brain around in the skull, such as whiplash from a car accident.
Symptoms can include headache, dizziness, sensitivity to light and blurred vision, all of which can occur even when MRI and CT scans are normal, said Steven Galetta, a neuro-opthalmologist at the NYU Langone Medical Center in New York.
Rove’s comment that when Clinton appeared in public after recuperating “she’s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury,” referred to a lens or lenses that the former first lady wore for a short period after her concussion and a subsequent blood clot that developed in her brain. Known as a Fresnel prism, the device helps treat double vision, especially for close-up viewing, experts said.
Special lines in the prism bend light seen by one eye and align it with the image seen by the other, according to Galetta and a representative of the company that distributes the lenses. The prism can be in the form of a clear plastic overlay that is pasted to the lens of eyeglasses in cases, such as Clinton’s, when the double vision is expected to be temporary, or can be ground into the lens for longer-term use, according to Laura Balcer, director of the Concussion Center at NYU Langone medical center. When built into the eyeglass lens itself, the prism is not visible, Balcer said.
On Tuesday, Rove distanced himself from a provocative report in Monday’s New York Post, saying he does not believe — as the newspaper asserted he had said — that Clinton suffered “brain damage” when she fell and sustained a head injury in December 2012. The fall was attributed to dehydration from a stomach virus, and Clinton subsequently developed a blood clot, which was treated.
Stomach flu? Or ...?
-
She can clear all this up by releasing her medical records.
-
One of my fellow neurologist friend whose politics would fit well on this board said she was lucky to come out of it without (obvious) brain damage. It is not my area, but my understanding from him is that some of these people do suffer strokes and permanent brain damage.
Of course she had immediate and top of the line care. Suppose it was someone who was home alone.
-
GM, what do you think?
Can we banish or send her on a long vacation to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elba
????
We need to rid the world of her where she can do no further harm.
-
Well, if the republicans wanted to win, they would beat the brain damage meme into the low info voters.
But it's the repubs we are talking about.
-
Well, this is true that the Republican establishment has an incredible knack for pulling defeat from the jaws of victory (Hello, Mr. Karl Rove,) but I hope that we all focus hard on this midterm election THIS year and work hard for true conservative candidates. Then, if God forbid, this horrid woman should become President, we can keep her in check.
Frankly, I'm still not completely convinced that Obama intends to leave office on schedule. We've got to cripple him for these last couple of years, regardless.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/05/19/5-arguments-Hillary
5 'INAPPROPRIATE' ARGUMENTS AGAINST HILLARY SHE USED ON OPPONENTS
by BEN SHAPIRO 19 May 2014
The media are on a mission to protect Hillary no matter what the cost. And that means they’ll invalidate any attack on her as beyond the pale, over the top, and underhanded. Even if she or her husband have used precisely the same angles of attack on her opponents in the past.
Age and Health. This week, the media went berserk over Karl Rove’s suggestion that Hillary Clinton underwent brain damage. President Clinton, while maintaining that Hillary had to do six months of tough recovery, stated, “First, they said she faked her concussion and now they say she is auditioning for her part on ‘The Walking Dead.’” The media brayed that it would be entirely inappropriate for Republicans to talk about Clinton’s age or health.
Ignoring, of course, the fact that Bill Clinton had no problem attacking Bob Dole’s age in 1996. In typically passive-aggressive fashion, Clinton stated in a debate with Dole, “I can only tell you that I don’t Senator Dole is too old to be President, but it’s the age of his ideas that I question.”
What Did She Know and When Did She Know It? Hillary’s defenders have stated that questions about Benghazi have been answered. On Sunday, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stated, “I think it’s a hunting mission for a lynch mob.” Not coincidentally, Feinstein praised Hillary to the skies, stating, “In my view, she’s in the prime of her political life. She’s got the energy; she’s articulate; she’s got the background; she’s got the smarts; she has all of the elements of a good leader.” Feinstein simply wrote off questions about why her State Department refused requests for additional security, why the State Department did not request military intervention, and why the State Department took part in manipulating talking points presented to the American people.
Meanwhile, Democrats and media personalities have dismissed the fact that Clinton refused to designate the Islamist terror group Boko Haram a terror group.
But it was Hillary on the floor of the Senate, standing with newspaper outstretched in 2002, the headline blaring, “BUSH KNEW.” She then stated, “We have learned that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible plot by those associated with Osama Bin Laden to hijack a US airliner.”
But when she was in a position of power, her ignorance was bliss – and now it’s off limits.
She’s Never Accomplished Anything. None of Hillary’s supporters seem to be able to answer the simplest question about her: with all of her power and prestige, what has she actually accomplished? And yet that question has now been deemed irrelevant – we all know what she’s done, even if no one ever knows what she’s done.
When Hillary Clinton was running against a young Senator named Barack Obama, however, Obama’s lack of accomplishment was central to Hillary’s campaign. “An untested man who offers false hope,” she said. “On a lot of these issues it is hard to know where he stands, and people need to ask that...Where’s the beef?”
She Goes Missing When Stakes Are Highest. When the manure hit the fan in Benghazi, Hillary went completely AWOL. In the aftermath of the attacks, she sent out uninvolved UN ambassador Susan Rice to take the hits on the Sunday shows. She then jetted off to Australia for a wine tasting. But we’re supposed to ignore her complete absence during the most critical period of her tenure as Secretary of State.
She wasn’t so generous to Obama during their 2008 race, when her campaign crafted an ad suggesting that if the red phone rang at 3 a.m., Obama wouldn’t be there to pick it up.
Hillary’s Marriage Is A Sham. Now that Bill and Hillary are back in the spotlight, many Americans are wondering just how their business relationship will work again in the White House. They’re wondering if they want the drama of the Arkansan Carringtons. That’s off limits. Or so say the media, who are the self-appointed arbiters of appropriateness (even when they’re spilling the juicy details of Bill’s Oval Office doings).
But it was Hillary attacking other women back when her husband was president. Not only did she attack Monica Lewinsky as an insane narcissist, she reportedly attempted to discredit “trailer trash” Gennifer Flowers. And she tried to have her husband’s campaign plant rumors that George H.W. Bush had cheated on Barbara Bush.
-
Turn Up The Heat On Clinton
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 20, 2014
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has characterized her place in history as akin to a runner in a relay race: taking the baton, running her laps as best she can, and then handing it off to John Kerry, her successor.
But the actual record indicates that, rather than a relay, her role in Iranian sanctions might better be compared to a high hurdles race -- with Clinton erecting the hurdles.
In her full-throated defense of her tenure as America's top diplomat, delivered to the American Jewish Committee last week, Clinton touted her efforts to impose, strengthen and enforce sanctions against Iran in an effort to stop its nuclear weapons program. But the record shows she fought tooth and nail against each new round of sanctions and had her minions in the State Department do all they could to kill them.
In her speech, she said, "We went after Iran's oil industry, banks, and weapons programs, enlisted insurance firms, shipping lines, energy companies, financial institutions and others to cut Iran off from global commerce."
Her supposed role in backing sanctions against Iran was the only specific part of her tenure or legacy that she chose to mention.
But the record contradicts even this claim. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) who, along with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), led the battle for sanctions, says that she was on the other side.
"Secretary Clinton's comments are a blatant revision of history," he told The Daily Beast. "The fact is the Obama Administration has opposed sanctions every step of the way as was thoroughly documented at the time."
The record is clear, documented in The Daily Beast.
Click Here To Sign The Petition To Give Congress Power To Veto Final Iran Deal!
In 2009, the administration opposed the passage of gasoline sanctions against Iran, which eventually passed unanimously.
In 2011, Clinton sent her undersecretary, Wendy Sherman, to state her "strong opposition" to sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran.
Sherman said it would antagonize U.S. allies. She even had her top deputy at the State Department, Bill Burns, meet with top senators to oppose the amendment. It eventually passed unanimously.
Menendez angrily accused the administration of negotiating in bad faith, saying "at your request, we engaged in an effort to come to a bipartisan agreement ... and now you come here and vitiate that agreement."
In 2012, Clinton opposed barring Iranian financial institutions from doing business with SWIFT, the global financial clearinghouse.
The administration, reportedly, was afraid that "the SWIFT-related sanctions would cause too much disruption to the system."
Also in 2012, the administration battled for a six-month delay in additional sanctions. Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said that "the decision not to crack down immediately on gold exports ... ultimately allowed the Iranians to blow a massive hole in the international financial sanctions." Iran was able to sell oil to Turkey in return for gold to shore up its dwindling hard currency reserves.
Clinton's one apparent contribution to the enforcement of sanctions was her help in lining up votes in the United Nations Security Council, but even this claim may backfire. Recent leaks from Edward Snowden indicate that former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice requested the National Security Agency help in spying on swing votes in the council: Nigeria, Bosnia, Gabon and Uganda. Did the secretary of State use NSA surveillance to get the votes?
Clinton's role in surveillance has been largely unexplored. It deserves more scrutiny.
-
Clinton writes that she takes responsibility for the deaths, but adds that there has been "a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation and flat-out deceit" by some in politics and the media.
"I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It's just plain wrong, and it's unworthy of our great country," Clinton writes. "Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me."
Can anyone think of anything more infuriating than this? IS this the best America can do? A shyster lying slob. The corruption is mind boggling.
-
Well, as a contribution to the defense of our Republic, I offer this thread as a research resource for those who would stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
-
I'm not embarrassed to admit that I will relish the opportunity to watch Hillary squirm under Trey Gowdy's aggressive questioning. I hope it happens. She and her husband are a disgrace to this nation. The thought of her as a Presidential candidate is nauseating.
-
"as a contribution to the defense of our Republic"
Yes Crafty. *You* have contributed immensely.
But their is something that has gone rotten about our Republic.
The corruption on display from these people in Washington and those who are happy to look the other way for varieties of reasons is just plain depressing.
To me all those things you posted to cheer up Conservatives means nothing if we can't expect our leaders to be honest and forthright and to stop playing with our heads.
-
I think our Founding Fathers expected the foibles and weaknesses of human nature-- it's why they wrote the Constitution as they did. The Americana Creed is a magnificent one. It does poorly now because we have not taught it. It is no coincidence that I quote our FF (hat tip to "Patriot Post") some 5 days a week both here and on FB-- so that over time people get a sense of the depth and wisdom of the American Creed.
-
"The Americana Creed is a magnificent one. It does poorly now because we have not taught it."
That is certainly part of it. The educators today at least at the University level spend too much time making us ashamed than proud as it was when I grew up.
I recall my sixth grade teacher. He pointed out a famous picture in our history book showing the two trains connecting from the East and West Coasts and people sitting on the trains waving bouquets of flowers. Celebrating the first complete trans America railroad. He told us something I didn't know or realize. He said this picture is a drawing from a real photograph. Well one can google the real photo. The people are not waving flowers. They are waving whiskey bottles. I recall he was irritated about the dishonesty in our textbooks.
I later found out he was gay. So I suppose he had an emotional axe to grind so to speak. That said he was without a doubt the very best grade school teacher I ever had. He taught us things I still vividly remember today. Architecture, Civil War history, Russian Revolution history, and more. I think I saw him once back in the early eighties at a Fourth of July fireworks. I wish I had gone up to him to verify it was him so I could tell him he was the best teacher of my life. I am sure that would have meant something for him. My sister is a teacher and I've seen previous students and parents of students of hers do that. I know she feels great.
Any way I am going way off topic.
Back to the bigger less personal topic at hand. Yes children growing up being taught to hate America is a travesty. Especially from a population of people whose alternative is total totaliarism. But that is only part of it. There is still other causes like bribing voters with other peoples' monies, people coming in from countries who do not believe in capitalism, and are quite happy to have endless benefits.
The racial and gender divides......
Look at the Pope from Argentina. Look at the liberal Jews who descended from fascist, socialist Europe. Their warped answers to everything is a bigger and more powerful state. These people have no clue what the founders understood. Indeed they now admonish our founders as just a bunch of rich white Christain men....... :cry:
-
Walter Russell Mead puts her service in pretty good balance though I think misses some of the main criticisms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/was-hillary-clinton-a-good-secretary-of-state/2014/05/30/16daf9c0-e5d4-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html
Was Hillary Clinton a good secretary of state?
By Walter Russell Mead, Published: May 30
Walter Russell Mead is the James Clarke Chace professor of foreign affairs at Bard College and editor at large of the American Interest. He is the author of “Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.”
...
For some realists, “global meliorism” — the belief that U.S. foreign policy can and should try to make a better world — is a dirty word. For Clinton, it is a bedrock conviction. “We are the force for progress, prosperity and peace,” she said during a remarkable speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in early 2013.
http://translations.state.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/01/20130131141925.html#axzz338KQJdUR
...
These ambitious new ideas [focus on the rights of women and girls, and emphasis on Internet freedom and connectivity]— though not amounting to the Clinton “doctrine” foreign policy junkies hunger for — could come back to haunt us. The U.S. emphasis on human rights and democracy, as well as the active support for civil society organizations, contributed to China’s harsh response to the pivot to Asia and probably deepened Vladimir Putin’s view of the West as a danger to Russia. For Moscow and Beijing, Washington’s work to engage and strengthen democracy activists and movements represents an aggressive effort to undermine the Russian and Chinese regimes. And the push for changing gender relations allows Islamists to portray the United States as a threat to religious values. American opponents often fear ideological and cultural “aggression” as much as U.S. military power.
...
Historians will probably consider Clinton significantly more successful than run-of-the-mill secretaries of state such as James G. Blaine or the long-serving Cordell Hull, but don’t expect to see her on a pedestal with Dean Acheson or John Quincy Adams anytime soon.
-
On pins and needles I will wait for her big, exclusive, hard-hitting interview with Diane Sawyer. Meanwhile a couple of questions I would pass forward:
1) Tell us everything you said and did during the 8+ hours of the Benghazi crisis to try to persuade the President to use all available means to support and rescue your ambassador and the Americans that were left to die at the hands of terrorists attacking Americans and America in an act of war on September 11, 2012 in which Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were murdered.
2) Tell us everything you would have said and done at every juncture during that crisis to get help to the compound if the Ambassador's name or his assistant there was not Chris Steven but Chelsea Clinton. Same answer as the first question, right?
-
Mayb e add;
1) Tell us exactly when you learned the video had NOTHING to do with the attack and why you still refuse to admit that.
2) Tell us why you were blaming a video as an acceptable excuse to attack our embassy and kill 4 Americans and it was necessary to almost apologize to and excuse the actions of terrorists on behalf of our country.
3) Why are you qualified to be President when you cannot be hones and level with Americans?
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/06/01/
-
Cover of People.
On,
her marriage
grandmother status
sleeping in to 8 AM
so involved
time to break the highest glass ceiling
post more botox and a quarter inch of makeup
saving the elephants
getting to know her [again]
the real Hillary behind the scenes
and of course an "oh my gosh"
http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-run-becoming-grandmother
-
Cover of People.
On,
her marriage
grandmother status
sleeping in to 8 AM
so involved
time to break the highest glass ceiling
post more botox and a quarter inch of makeup
saving the elephants
getting to know her [again]
the real Hillary behind the scenes
and of course an "oh my gosh"
http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-run-becoming-grandmother
Yes - it appears to be on. That's how you sell books. This book is meaningless but the money beats working for a living. The next book will be the blueprint for her Presidency if she is running.
The deadline for not running is coming up shortly - after the book revenue runs its course, after the midterms in November, about the same time Hillary becomes a Grandma.
The Oh my "Gosh" statement (more likely uttered with f-words) was that they couldn't believe they could just sit and watch TV, OMG! That's the image on sale here, just Bill and Hill together snuggling up watching TV - like the walk on the beach after Monica. I'm visualizing more of a living room war-room where both have staff bustling around, Bill's mostly young and busty, and Hillary with Huma and some focus group managers going over the Obamanomic plowhorse damage demographic by demographic, and the TV in the background
My cover all bases prediction was that she will not run, won't win the Dem nomination if she runs and won't win the Presidency if she runs and is nominated. Looking wrong on all counts, but I stand by it.
The 2016 table is getting set with Obama scandal and malaise fatigue along with recurring Hillary-fatigue, while the opposition is poised to sweep the 2014 elections and enter with fresh faces and fresh ideas for 2016. She will need to separate herself from Obama, on the past and on policy, without pissing him off because she will need his complete cooperation to have a chance - of all his staff and his magical Get Out The Vote operation right while she is separating herself. She needs to sound like him, hope and change, the first fill in a different blank President, the winning formula, and yet not sound like him or govern like him. More like Pelosi, we need a woman to clean up the House, how is that going? And she will need Bill disciplined on a short leash, mostly quiet, but ready to pull off his magic from time to time because she is a run of the mill politician without him. Two for the price of one? Again? Meanwhile, aging and health issues are plaguing both of them. The end of 8 years of a (hypothetic) Hillary administration is 34 years after the start of the 1992 campaign and 48 years after being 'elected' First Lady of Arkansas. They were the new generation, full of excitement and promise. Still true? I don't think so.
Washington Post poll today, 55% say Obama made America weaker. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/04/poll-obama-administration-less-competent-than-bushs-or-clintons-more-americans-say/ When George H.W.Bush followed two terms of Reagan, the implication was 'stay the course'. Good luck with that in 2016!
-
Doug,
"My cover all bases prediction was that she will not run, won't win the Dem nomination if she runs and won't win the Presidency if she runs and is nominated"
Well you do make three predictions here.
How are you so sure?
'Inside info' you can share here?
-
Doug,
"My cover all bases prediction was that she will not run, won't win the Dem nomination if she runs and won't win the Presidency if she runs and is nominated"
Well you do make three predictions here.
How are you so sure?
'Inside info' you can share here?
Yes, there is some hedging there with the 3 predictions. :wink:
I am only certain that she is not a great politician and this is not great timing for her to achieve her (disappearing) dream. If Obama approval was at 60%, healthcare was roaring, the plowhorse was in a canter, and people were demanding more, she would be the gal.
On paper, to a Dem, she has a perfect resume. Executive, Legislative, and Foreign Policy experience. She was co-President during a rather successful administration. She served in the US Senate. She ws Secretary of State. She is a woman. And she leads in ALL polls!
But a resume is not a list of titles held. It is the basis for a discussion about what you accomplished in the roles that you had. Each of these is loaded with problems. She wasn't really co-President. The part they gave to her she bungled. Her husband didn't grow the economy - until he partnered with a Republican congress. Even before that he ran as a split with the politically failed left. She won her Senate seat in the yellowest of yellow states. (Formerly called Blue) And did it as a sitting First Lady, the easiest place to get an approval rating up. She accomplished nothing positive in the Senate. She has already run for President as certain frontrunner and people on her own side ran away from her. Her Sec of State record is loaded with ALL kinds of problems, and those WILL be scrutinized. First female President would be more exciting if it was not right after first half-Black President. Also someone a little more feminine... ?! But we are electing a President and policy direction, not a portrait. Issues will be front and center, the economy and the dangerous world. She can't perfectly triangulate a serious split with Obama while needing and securing all of his help. At some point they will say F-U. We don't even know that Bill won't undercut her too. The age and health thing is real in terms of energy (and look), if not real problems. The rising crop of Republicans are in their early 40s. The job of running all these functions of government is grueling. She didn't even stay up for Benghazi.
She got popular by stepping away from the day to day issues. She wins early polls with name recognition. Her own publicists can't name her achievements other than holding high posts, traveling great distances and knowing many names. The campaign is harder than that and more and more missteps will come up. Example today, she favors the Taliban deal?! Any chance she will shrink away from that in the next 2 years? Not based on hard facts already known but based on public reaction that she TOTALLY misjudged.
As a Republican I would be far more afraid of another unknown Democratic outsider from across the heartland emerging with any charisma who can draw a distinction between themselves and the Democratic past. (I see Hickenlooper leading in Colo again.) Bill Clinton didn't come to the Presidency as a frontrunner. He had no chance of the nomination until Mario Cuomo stepped out and they were left with something more like the 1988 seven dwarfs again. Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey?
Mostly I have an optimism that America, including some core Dem constituency groups, will figure this out - eventually. Without that blind and maybe stupid optimism it is hard to care or go on.
-
You make a good argument. My position one can never underestimate the Clinton machine. No matter how unbelievably dishonest Bill would be, let alone her, they would always manage to weasel out of trouble still on their feet. :-o
I would like to place some heavy duty wagers with you:
1) If she doesn't run I buy dinner. If she does I get a dinner.
2) If she doesn't win the Democratic nomination I buy lunch. If she does you buy lunch.
3) If she wins the Presidency I get breakfast. IF not you do.
:-D
-
By the time of the next election, three meals in one day might be a luxury. :|
-
You make a good argument. My position one can never underestimate the Clinton machine. No matter how unbelievably dishonest Bill would be, let alone her, they would always manage to weasel out of trouble still on their feet. :-o
I would like to place some heavy duty wagers with you:
1) If she doesn't run I buy dinner. If she does I get a dinner.
2) If she doesn't win the Democratic nomination I buy lunch. If she does you buy lunch.
3) If she wins the Presidency I get breakfast. IF not you do.
:-D
Okay, you're on. But if Hillary wins the Presidency, as GM alludes, we may be in the bunker eating the end of the canned food. My treat!
At the end of this ordeal I hope we can close the thread while the Clintons ride off quietly off into the night never to be heard from again.
Don't stop, thinking about tomorrow, ...
Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone.
-
"the end of the canned food"
:lol:
Even worse if it canned spam!
I admit I am in the awkward position of hoping I lose the bet. :-D
-
Clintons Hit $200 Million for Endowment Before 2016 Race
By Jonathan Allen and Annie Linskey Jun 6, 2014 12:00 AM ET
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton raised $200 million in 10 months for their foundation’s endowment, positioning the nonprofit to survive even if its cash-collecting namesakes engage in a 2016 presidential run.
With four-fifths of their $250-million target in the bank, they are also changing fundraising strategies to include small donors -- a tactic that would create a list that could be politically useful, as well.
The Clintons’ initial appeals for foundation money were to contributors who could give $1 million or more. Those answering that call included Irish cell phone billionaire Denis O’Brien, and Bill Austin, owner of Minnesota’s Starkey Laboratories. Others were charities founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu -- the world’s second richest man -- and one run by Chicago venture capitalist J.B. Pritzker and his wife.
“As with many of the nation’s leading non-profit organizations, an endowment will provide the Clinton Foundation with the permanent capacity to support established and new programs and responsibly plan for the future,” Craig Minassian, the group’s chief communications officer, said in an e-mail.
The race to build an endowment is a sign that the foundation is maturing, that 67-year-old former President Bill Clinton won’t always be able to serve as its chief rainmaker, and that the time for Hillary Clinton, 66, to settle the question of her presidential ambitions is running out, said three people involved in the endowment project who asked for anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the fundraising effort.
The foundation’s officials are compiling a list of investment management firms to maintain the fund, and will soon put out a request for proposals, a foundation official familiar with the strategy said.
Establishing and funding the endowment now is important because a return by the Clintons to the political stage will also require a shift from generating cash for the foundation to financing the campaign, said those involved in the current fundraising drive.
That shift in status, from private to public life, also would mean the couple could be subject to conflict-of-interest charges if foundation donations are sought from those with interests before the federal government.
Avoiding Conflicts
Also, raising an endowment prior to a presidential run will ensure the foundation doesn’t starve a potential Clinton super-political action committee, said Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a Washington-based watchdog group. Super-PACs that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money didn’t exist during Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
“Historically, many of the people who could give to a Clinton Foundation would have maxed out to the Clinton campaign,” Holman said. “Now they can throw all that money at the candidate herself.”
U.S. law bans foreigners such as billionaires Slim and O’Brien from contributing to political campaigns, so a potential Clinton campaign wouldn’t be competing for their dollars.
During the 2008 presidential primary campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama tried unsuccessfully to pressure the Clinton Foundation to reveal its donors. As part of the deal struck for Hillary Clinton to join Obama’s administration as secretary of state, the foundation agreed to disclose its contributors.
Donor Disclosure
The backers of the endowment will be listed along with other supporters in annual public disclosures going forward, according to a foundation official.
At a minimum, the Clintons simply wouldn’t have the time to nurture the endowment or foundation in the midst of a presidential campaign. If she runs and wins, the foundation could be deprived of their fundraising prowess for a decade.
The fundraising drive will be a hot topic of hallway conversations today when top donors -- including some who wrote checks for the endowment -- gather at Goldman Sachs (GS) Group Inc. headquarters in Manhattan for the organization’s annual spring briefing on programs.
The Clintons’ urgency is evident in the speed at which they have been generating donations.
“Most small or medium foundations wouldn’t be able to raise that kind of money in a year,” said Reina Mukai, a research manager at the New York-based Foundation Center, which tracks philanthropy. “It’s fairly unique.”
Small-Donor Event
In September, the foundation will hold a $1,000-a-head reception at the Italian Embassy in Washington. For $25,000, a couple will be able to dine after the reception with Bill and Hillary Clinton at the Washington home they’ve kept. A check for $50,000 includes dinner and an invitation to the New York-based foundation’s next donor conference.
Bill Clinton, advised by longtime aide Doug Band, created the Clinton Foundation shortly after leaving the White House in 2001. In 2012, it took in $54.7 million in revenue and ended the year with $183.6 million in assets. Its endowment, though, was just $292,000.
In the past dozen years, the foundation sprouted 11 separate arms, from the Clinton Global Initiative to Hillary Clinton’s “Too Small To Fail” project, which was founded in 2013 to improve the health of children younger than 6 years old.
Whether or not Hillary Clinton runs for president, foundation officials said it makes sense to set up a mechanism for building the family’s legacy “in perpetuity.”
One Clinton confidant described a maturation process at the foundation that made an endowment a natural move.
Start-Up Tendencies
In its early years, this person said, the foundation was more like a start-up, trying to figure out how to make it each year. More recently, its officers have begun considering how to make sure it can endure for decades.
While the $250 million level may secure the operation of existing programs, it hardly puts the Clinton foundation in the same league as those with the names Ford, Gates or Rockefeller attached to them.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, reports having an endowment of $40.2 billion -- 160 times the size of the Clinton Foundation’s goal. At $32.7 billion, Harvard University ranks first on the list of major college endowments.
The Clinton goal compares more closely to the size of the endowment of former President Jimmy Carter’s Atlanta-based foundation, which reported having a $460 million endowment in 2011.
Foundation Turnaround
The success of the Clinton fundraising drive marks a turnaround for a foundation that, according to the New York Times, was rife with disorganization and incurred about $40 million in deficits in 2007 and 2008. Bill Clinton disputed the account.
Still, in 2011 the foundation contracted with the New York-based law firm Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP to audit finances and policies. Recommendations included: hold regular staff meetings, review expense reports, and adopt a gift acceptance policy “to ensure that all donors are properly vetted.”
In July, the Clintons reorganized its staff, removing Chief Executive Officer Bruce Lindsey from day-to-day management and installing Eric Braverman from McKinsey & Company in his place.
As the foundation announced those changes, Bill Clinton added a request. “We need an endowment,” Clinton said in Aug. 13 open letter posted on the foundation’s website “which our family and friends are working to raise.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Jonathan Allen in Washington at jallen149@bloomberg.net; Annie Linskey in Washington at alinskey@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net Don Frederick
-
A diplomatic record she "came to regret"...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-hillary-by-the-book-1402356458
Hillary Clinton will likely be the next president of the United States, and why not? We live in an age of choreographed reality, and hers is among the most choreographed of lives. Also, an age of the triumph of symbol over substance and narrative over fact; an age that demonstrates the power of the contention that truth matters only to the extent people want it to matter. Mrs. Clinton's career is testimony to these things as well.
Which brings me to the subject of her book.
I obtained an advance copy of "Hard Choices," her latest doorstop of a memoir, and started reading it before its publication Tuesday. There she is, bitterly regretting her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. There she is again, standing by her actions during the Benghazi debacle, insisting on the relevance of the "Innocence of Muslims" video.
Elsewhere we find her equivocating over her opposition to the Iraq surge (which, as we learned from Robert Gates's memoir "Duty," she privately admitted was purely political), or allowing that the Obama administration's decision to stand silent over the stolen 2009 Iranian revolution was something she "came to regret."
Addressing the Marketing Nation Summit in San Francisco, April 8. ASSOCIATED PRESS
And so on. But to go point-by-point through the prose would be to miss the book's true purpose. Like Victorian children who were supposed to be seen but not heard, this is a book that is supposed to be bought but not read, discussed but not examined, excerpted but not critiqued.
In fact, it's not really a book at all. It is an artifact containing printed words, an event conveying political seriousness. Perhaps it could have been written at half its length (635 pages) with twice the interest. But that would have made it easier to read from start to finish, defeating its own purpose of being big and therefore, presumably, weighty. Ceci n'est pas une pipe, wrote (or painted) René Magritte. Just so with "Hard Choices": Ceci n'est pas un livre.
How then, are we supposed to understand the memoir?
Surely it isn't about the money. Her publishers at Simon & Schuster are reported to have paid a $14 million advance for "Hard Choices," a nice raise from the $8 million she got for her first memoir, "Living History." After taxes and ghostwriting expenses (in the acknowledgments, Mrs. Clinton credits her "book team" for "making sense of my scribbles") the fee isn't so eye-popping.
Surely it isn't about the story, either. Dean Acheson, Harry Truman's secretary of state, told the riveting tale of how the Cold War began—and how the U.S. organized itself to fight it—in "Present at the Creation." George Shultz told the inside story of how the Reagan administration won the Cold War in "Turmoil and Triumph." Probably the best of the diplomatic genre, at least from a literary point of view, are the first two volumes of Henry Kissinger's memoirs, "White House Years" and "Years of Upheaval."
These books are important not (or not merely) as personal testimonies or historical documents. They describe the complex process by which a diplomat pursues great aims under the concrete pressure of events using the cumbersome mechanisms of government. They are arguments for policy and manuals for statesmanship.
Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, doesn't really have a story to tell: Her book is an assemblage of anecdotes, organized geographically, held together by no overarching theme, or underlying analysis, or ultimate accomplishment. In April she was asked to name her proudest achievements as secretary. She fumbled for an answer, as well she might. There are none.
Nor, finally, is it about the argument. What is Mrs. Clinton's version of Acheson's containment, or Mr. Kissinger's triangular diplomacy, or Mr. Shultz's muscular idealism? Perhaps it's what she used to call "smart power," a phrase that is more of an intellectual conceit than a foreign-policy concept. Calling your diplomacy smart doesn't make it smart. Saying isn't showing. And showing off isn't doing.
Which brings me back to the real purpose of the book.
However one feels about Mrs. Clinton, she was the least consequential secretary of state since William Rogers warmed the seat in the early years of the Nixon administration. This is mainly the fault of the president for whom Mrs. Clinton worked, and of the White House hacks who had the larger hand in setting the tone and shape of foreign policy. Most everyone knows this, and most everyone doesn't want to admit it. So in place of a record we have a book.
Then again, Mrs. Clinton has, prospectively, the most consequential future of any secretary since James Buchanan (the last of her predecessors to become president). How does she secure her ambition?
There is a Platonic dialogue, the "Phaedrus," which observes that the surest way to forget is to write it down. Preferably in minute detail, at extravagant length. If there's a book you can consult, no need to remember it for yourself. "You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding," warns Socrates, "and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom."
Mrs. Clinton has produced a book that asks us to forget her tenure as secretary of state. It's going to be a blockbuster.
-
"Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, doesn't really have a story to tell: Her book is an assemblage of anecdotes, organized geographically, held together by no overarching theme, or underlying analysis, or ultimate accomplishment. In April she was asked to name her proudest achievements as secretary"
This is the story of her entire life not just as Sec of State. Her whole persona has been one of a defiant hippy in search of something to rebel against.
-
We charge $100 million in speaking fees because we "struggled". She worked two jobs (total) in college, you know, and Bill grew up poor.
"We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt," Clinton told ABC's Diane Sawyer for an interview that previewed the Tuesday launch of Clinton's memoir, "Hard Choices."
They were dead broke because of legal costs of the 'hard choices' made by her husband.
Clinton recalled how she "struggled" to purchase "houses".
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-first-gaffe-2016-2014-6#ixzz34LLNtOBA
The friend who 'helped" the "struggling" family with an extra 1.35 million out of the goodness of his heart for one of their houses is now Governor of Virginia.
And this woman will win, unchallenged, in a national mood of anti-government, anti-cronyism, anti-Obamacare, anti-Washington, anti-big money, anti-Wall Street? I don't see it.
-
Painful to watch.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/10/abc-newss-diane-sawyer-destroys-hillary-rodham-clinton-on-benghazi/
-
http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/09/24679-clintons-mistress-comes-forward-says-hillary-clinton-is-bisexual/
-
Flowers is only alleging that Bill, a known cheater and liar, told her, not that she had any personal, direct knowledge.
Referring back when they "struggled" with money, were "dead broke", and had to charge such inordinate speaking fees because Bill grew up poor. But why didn't she buy a Wall Street Journal subscription - again - and put a couple dollars down on commodities futures? It worked last time. Or was she lying then?
Gaffes continued: “I actually write about Rahm in the book,” Clinton said. “I asked him not to read it before we sat and did our interview! But it was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”
Ummm, Abraham Lincoln was never a Senator. This is not an off the cuff mis-speak but a carefully thought out analogy - that happens to be wrong. I wonder how much money they made renting out the Lincoln bedroom without ever knowing what the guy did for a living.
News Reports confirm what I alleged last week: "Fact Check: Hillary came up with Benghazi video explanation"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/fact-check-what-hillary-left-out-benghazi-chapter/
Hillary Clinton’s newly released memoir leaves little doubt she was the first member of the Obama administration to publicly link an anti-Islam video to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack – though she does not explain what intelligence she relied on to make the faulty connection.
The former secretary of State and potential Democratic presidential candidate discussed the Benghazi attack in her memoir “Hard Choices.” The 33-page Benghazi chapter sheds some light on events, but it leaves plenty of inconvenient details out.
According to the chronology she offers, Clinton issued the statement linking Benghazi to the video before she called President Obama on the night of the attack to provide an update, suggesting she was the originator of the flawed explanation.
The State Department press release, issued in her name, on Sept. 11, 2012 at 10:07 p.m., tied the death of Foreign Service officer Sean Smith to the video. Later that evening, a mortar strike killed former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, permanently maimed another CIA contractor and severely injured diplomatic security agent David Ubben – all of whom were defending the CIA annex. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens also died in the Benghazi assault.
The accuracy of the mortar attack, three out of five rounds on target, from more than a half mile away in the dark of night in under a minute, required military training, and premeditation according to multiple military and intelligence professionals.
“As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss,”Clinton’s press release said. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
In her book, Clinton makes passing reference to the Sept. 11 press release, and the former secretary of state offers this argument for citing the video:that violence was erupting all over the Middle East and the obscure Internet video was to blame, throwing Benghazi, without credible intelligence reporting, into the same category.
“[The video] was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over, so it would have been strange not to consider, as days of protests unfolded, that it might have had the same effect here, too,"Clinton wrote. "That's just common sense."
What else does she know that isn't true?
-
Update on Hillary running or not and my bet with ccp:
There is no doubt she is acting like a candidate with the release and promotion of this book. This is a full blown trial balloon, if not the kickoff.
There is no doubt she HATED the tough questions from Diane Sawyer. How dare her ask that!
There is no doubt she lacks the political magic and skill of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. She also exhibited NO CONCEPT of the idea of managing people. The only way she could think of to have done more to protect the facility in Benghazi would be to have taken courses in analyzing blueprints!
But there is still plenty of doubt as to whether or not she knows she is a lousy candidate and that this will end again in failure. No one hired by her campaign is going to tell her that and her husband isn't going to do it. He probably can't duck fast enough anymore when she throws the lamp at him.
What happens when we see and hear more of Hillary:
"Hillary Clinton favorability rating keeps falling, poll shows" (Who knew that would happen?)
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-favorability-rating-keeps-falling-poll-shows/wed-06112014-904am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171290/smaller-majority-americans-view-hillary-clinton-favorably.aspx
This is before news of her gaffes starts to spread.
The 18-time Most Admired Woman was at her lowest of the last 12 years when running for President.
The Presidential table was set for her far better in 2008 than it is in 2016. Bush finally leaving instead of Obama finally leaving.
Here is your choice Hillary: Go out on top as the most admired woman, or forever be known as a loser.
-
Her whole life has built up to this moment. She is a shoo-in for the Dem nomination and the Rep field is strikingly weak. She has the vast left wing conspiracy of the Pravdas on her side.
She will run.
-
Her whole life has built up to this moment. She is a shoo-in for the Dem nomination and the Rep field is strikingly weak. She has the vast left wing conspiracy of the Pravdas on her side.
She will run.
Some smart people agree with you:
Based on Intrade.com trading: Hillary is more than a 3:1 favorite for the Democratic nomination. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/12/hillary-31-dem-favorite-3-way-tie-for.html#sthash.NpvAnAIL.dpuf
the contours of the presidential race are now clear. On the Democratic side, the nomination is still Hillary Clinton's to lose. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/hillary_is_still_the_strong_fa.html
Clinton begins the long campaign as the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination, according to a nationwide Washington Post-ABC News poll http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/20/AR2007012000426.html
Hillary Clinton, Giuliani Early Favorites A look at the next presidential election
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14053/hillary-clinton-giuliani-early-favorites-2008.aspx
Hillary Clinton is favorite of Democrats
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Hillary-Clinton-is-favorite-of-Democrats-for-2008-1966567.php
Majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-26-hillary-poll_x.htm?csp=34
Hillary Clinton Easily Paces Democratic Field
Two-thirds of Americans rate her as a strong leader
http://www.gallup.com/poll/17773/hillary-clinton-easily-paces-democratic-field.aspx
Can She Be Stopped?: Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001G7RCFC
Whoops, that was all about 2008, before she began to campaign. To be fair, she did run that year.
Did anyone get it right - early in that race?
G M
Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 12:51:04 AM »
It's so far off, it's hard to say how it'll all unfold, but I will say that Obama is the front runner for the nomination, if not the presidency.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1141.msg9028#msg9028
-
"The Presidential table was set for her far better in 2008 than it is in 2016. Bush finally leaving instead of Obama finally leaving."
I agree with statement. She is already preparing to distance herself as the tough moderate. As one who can reach across the aisle ("like her husband did", if you believe the rewriting of history).
The support she has of the left, who have no better candidate so far, is unbelievable. A small portion of it is ideology, such as the girly movement, but most seems to me to be from those who hope to profit handsomely from her Presidency.
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/349787.php
-
It is always a pleasure to see Hillary squirm about her lying.
Yet, sadly half the country could care less about lying with the ubiquitous come back,
"they all do it". Ever point out her lying to a lib. When boxed in with logic this is ALWAYS the comeback.
In my view lying should automatically cancel one out for any public office.
-
It is always a pleasure to see Hillary squirm about her lying.
Yet, sadly half the country could care less about lying with the ubiquitous come back,
"they all do it". Ever point out her lying to a lib. When boxed in with logic this is ALWAYS the comeback.
In my view lying should automatically cancel one out for any public office.
I didn't listen to the exchange but lying was only one of the character defects exposed. Maybe people will get tired of the lying or maybe it is something else about her that will end this charade. Her temper, her arrogance, her record of failure, her lack of people skills, lack of professional management skills, and especially her inability to admit she is wrong - all come to mind.
Most importantly, whether the name is Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, whether it is the first half-black or the first woman President, people should be tired of having their country led in the wrong direction. People are being lied to everytime they hear that these policies bring economic recovery, prosperity, world peace or a strong America. After trying these policies, everyone should now recognize failure.
-
That will require someone else making a better and clearer case.
-
That will require someone else making a better and clearer case.
Yes it does!
(previously) " the Rep field is strikingly weak"
Doesn't that always appear to be the case before a real leader emerges? It is darkest before sunrise? I would say instead that the Republican field is strikingly wide and deep. Each looks small right now, some with no foreign policy experience, like Reagan, some with no executive experience, like Lincoln, but we need one person to rise to a level of greatness in leadership that we haven't seen in a long time. It is easy to be pessimistic after a long stretch of weak and flawed candidates, but if there is not one person left in this country who can connect with energy and emotion to the ideas of freedom and strength, then we deserve the demise that is otherwise coming.
-
Chelsea Clinton received a whopping $600,000 annual salary from NBC for her (almost negligible) work there.
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2014/06/13/chelsea-clinton-earned-whopping-annually-from-nbc/INBD3FSLf8HeoyzmuhAs3I/story.html
They are just like us, student debt, etc. How much does your kid make for doing "almost negligible work"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary is sinking like a stone. (Who knew?) It's almost too late for her to step out gracefully while she is still on top:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-13/clinton-s-popularity-drops-to-52-as-2016-edge-shrinks.html
Clinton’s Popularity Drops to 52% as 2016 Edge Shrinks
Hillary Clinton’s popularity continues to slide as she takes on a more political posture and Republicans raise questions about the deadly 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya on her watch.
Fifty-two percent of Americans view the former secretary of state favorably, down from 56 percent in March and 70 percent in December 2012, according to the Bloomberg National Poll.
The decline means Clinton wouldn’t enter a possible 2016 race as a prohibitive favorite over key Republican rivals. While she still bests them in head-to-head matchups, she doesn’t have majority support against any of them.
She doesn't have very much further to fall to be under 50% favorable, down from 18 time most admired woman.
After Hickenlooper wins reelection in Nov, I wouldn't expect HRC to be Dem front runner for very long. :wink:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0#t=14
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/2008-obama-beat-hillary-dick-morris-tv-history-video/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/06/16/unearthed-audio-hillary-discussed-defending-child-rapist-n1852068?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm
-
Famous people reading the forum? The number of people in the world who now believe Hillary Won't Run has doubled to two! (It was getting lonely over here.)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/17/5_reasons_hillary_wont_run_123015.html
5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run
By Tom Bevan - June 17, 2014
Hillary Clinton's minions are hard at work assembling a political machine and fine tuning it for another go at the White House. Mrs. Clinton is doing her part preparing for a run as well, churning out a bland memoir about the "hard choices" she faced as secretary of state and coyly positioning herself (again) as the inevitable nominee of the party. But after the troubled beginning to her book tour, we're beginning to see the reasons why Hillary may eventually decide to pull the plug on a 2016 presidential run. Here are five:
1) She's just not that good at campaigning. If the last two gaffe-prone weeks have reminded us of anything about Hillary, it’s that she’s a mediocre politician at best. Her shortcomings are significant: she can be stiff and wooden in public; she lacks the aura of a natural politician; she’s not a great public speaker, and she can come across as politically flat-footed and tone deaf -- as she did with her “dead broke” response to a rather benign question about relating to the financial challenges of the average voter. People still seem to believe that the Clinton name is synonymous with political skill, but that assumption is only half-true: If Hillary possessed even half of Bill’s political talent and acumen, she wouldn’t have lost to Barack Obama in 2008.
2) The “fire in the belly”question. Certainly, Mrs. Clinton shares her husband’s seemingly limitless ambition. It’s been the driving force behind their existence as individuals and as a couple for more than four decades. But I’m with Mike McCurry on this one: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be 67 years old on October 26. Does she really want to spend her golden years working 16 hours a day shaking hands at high school gyms in Dubuque, Iowa, and rubbing elbows at diners in Manchester, New Hampshire? Especially when she can burnish her legacy with meaningful work through the Clinton Global Foundation -- while making millions a year at $200,000 a pop for 45-minute speeches -- and spend time with her soon-to-be born grandchild.
3) It ain’t gonna be a coronation. HRC must have been taken aback last week when two members of the traveling sisterhood – Diane Sawyer of ABC News and Terry Gross of NPR – actually pressed her with uncomfortable questions about Benghazi and gay marriage, respectively. Hillary didn’t respond well in either situation, and the ensuing coverage was instructive. If she can’t count on favorable press coverage during the choreographed rollout of a self-reverential memoir, what does that tell us about how she’d do in debates against a determined opponent? And does Clinton really want to face the scrutiny, not to mention the slings and arrows, that come with any campaign?
4) Obama is leaving a mess. President Obama’s second term is complicating matters significantly for Hillary. His foreign policy, which Clinton helped direct for four years – is adrift. The situation has unraveled dangerously in Syria and now Iraq. The infamous “reset” with Russia is a joke. Obama’s job approval rating is on the slide, and not only on foreign policy. He’s struggling to stay relevant in Washington or to move any sort of domestic agenda forward, which will be made even more difficult if Republicans take the Senate in November. It’s hard to see how any of these dynamics change for the better in the next two years -- and they may get worse. Hillary will not want to be seen as running for Obama’s third term, yet she won’t be able to distance herself too far from his record. That will be a tough needle to thread politically (see point #1).
5) The country wants real change. America was mesmerized by Obama’s call for change in 2008. It was one of the narratives that propelled him over Hillary in the first place. Eight years later, Obama has failed to deliver much of what he promised on uniting the country and changing business as usual in Washington. As a result an even stronger populist, anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fervor is coursing through the electorate. That does not bode well for Hillary Clinton, who embodies the elite establishment -- and the past. If the famed Clinton political acumen still exists in that family, Hillary will figure this out and take a pass on 2016.
Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics
-
Hillary went to Canada, took questions and has no opinion on Keystone Pipeline!
Let's see. It's our closest ally. It's their biggest product. We are their biggest customer. It is the safest way by far to ship the stuff. It is a State Department issue. And she doesn't have an opinion.
Do you believe that? I don't believe that.
Of course we should build the pipeline. (Unless she is a NAFTA supporter who opposes cross-border trade.)
But if and when she says that:
a) She loses support from her wacky base.
b) Her approval numbers go down further
c) She guarantees herself a challenge from the left.
So... The whole charade is more popular, more profitable, more successful and more fun if she does NOT run or make "Hard Choices".
-
I'm thinking Doug has nailed it.
-
From his lips to God's ears!
But I think her ambition and vanity will win out. Imagine the tsunami of flattery that will come her way if she decides not to run! Without her, the Dems have NO ONE. She will use that tsunami to humbly submit to the people's will, the aspirations of women everywhere, blah blah.
-
I'm thinking Doug has nailed it.
Bringing this forward:
Did anyone get it right last time, this early in that race?
G M
Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 12:51:04 AM »
It's so far off, it's hard to say how it'll all unfold, but I will say that Obama is the front runner for the nomination, if not the presidency.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1141.msg9028#msg9028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understood that it is a long shot that a front runner won't run and she most certainly is playing the part of candidate running right now.
Everyone wants their portrait to hang in the halls of glory as President of the United States. Surely no one on her staff is telling her she is a lousy candidate, lousy campaigner, lousy manage and lousy person.
The job itself is very hard. We need someone who wants to DO THE JOB, which is to lead the greatest nation in the world. Current occupant wanted to be President, like the title loves the perks, but does not want to do the job:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/barack-obama-golfs-while-the-middle-east-burns/article/2549799
Middle East burns while Barack Obama played his 175th and 176th (18 hole) rounds of golf as president.
Couple hundred thousand per speech, or get questioned about Keystone, Benghazi, ISIS, Crimea.
Crafty: "Without her, the Dems have NO ONE."
(They have NO One with her! ) In 1992, the Dems had no one, if Mario Cuomo did not run. Just a few small fish out there, the Governor of Arkansas, etc. The Dems had no one in 2012 (a failed incumbent) and still won.
In the last 2 weeks, every half-prominent Dem is asking themselves, is this my time, especially if she suddenly announces herself out. She can't drop out until book sales peter out. Whoops, maybe now:
http://nypost.com/2014/06/17/sluggish-sales-for-hillarys-new-book/
https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/publishing-source-hillary-book-bomb_795079.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660071/Weak-sales-Hillary-Clintons-book.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flashback:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/huge_increase_in_hillarys_nega.html
April 19, 2007
Huge Increase in Hillary's Negatives Changing Presidential Race
There has been a sudden and highly significant shift in the Democratic Presidential race: Hillary Clinton is rapidly losing her frontrunner position to Barack Obama as her negative ratings climb.
According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don't like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.
Hillary isn't wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.
In February, Hillary had a 19 point lead over Obama. He is now only 5 points behind her.
-
Doesn't Hillary Clinton Know the Law?
She says she didn't make security decisions on Benghazi. But that's the secretary of state's job.
By Victoria Toensing
June 17, 2014 7:22 p.m. ET
In her interview with ABC's ABCA.FR -0.19% Diane Sawyer last week, Hillary Clinton said "I was not making security decisions" about Benghazi, claiming "it would be a mistake" for "a secretary of state" to "go through all 270 posts" and "decide what should be done." And at a January 2013 Senate hearing, Mrs. Clinton said that security requests "did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them."
Does the former secretary of state not know the law? By statute, she was required to make specific security decisions for defenseless consulates like Benghazi, and was not permitted to delegate them to anyone else.
The Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or Secca, was passed in response to the near-simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998. Over 220 people were killed, including 12 Americans. Thousands were injured.
Bill Clinton was president. Patrick Kennedy, now the undersecretary of state for management, was then acting assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Susan Rice, now the national security adviser, was then assistant secretary of state for African affairs.
As with the Benghazi terrorist attacks, an Accountability Review Board was convened for each bombing. Their reports, in January 1999, called attention to "two interconnected issues: 1) the inadequacy of resources to provide security against terrorist attacks, and 2) the relative low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. government."
Just as U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens did in 2012, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell, had made repeated requests for security upgrades in 1997 and 1998. All were denied.
Because the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been existing office structures, neither met the State Department's security standard for a minimum 100 foot setback zone. A "general exception" was made. The two review boards faulted the fact that "no one person or office is accountable for decisions on security policies, procedures and resources."
To ensure accountability in the future, the review boards recommended "[f]irst and foremost, the Secretary . . . should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad" and "should personally review the security situation of embassy chanceries and other official premises." And for new embassy buildings abroad, "all U.S. government agencies, with rare exceptions, should be located in the same compound."
Congress quickly agreed and passed Secca, a law implementing these (and other) recommendations. It mandated that the secretary of state make a personal security waiver under two circumstances: when the facility could not house all the personnel in one place and when there was not a 100-foot setback. The law also required that the secretary "may not delegate" the waiver decision.
Benghazi did not house all U.S. personnel in one building. There was the consulate and an annex, one of the two situations requiring a non-delegable security waiver by the secretary of state.
In October 2012 the Benghazi Accountability Review Board convened, co-chaired by Amb. Thomas Pickering (Ms. Rice's supervisor in 1998) and Adm. Michael Mullen. It failed even to question Mrs. Clinton for its report about the attacks. It also obfuscated the issue of her personal responsibility for key security decisions by using a word other than "waiver," the passive voice, and no names. Recognizing that the Benghazi consulate (like the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies) was a previously nongovernmental building, the Benghazi review board reported that this "resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted [my emphasis] from office facility standards and accountability under" Secca. No Hillary fingerprints revealed there.
Mrs. Clinton either personally waived these security provisions as required by law or she violated the law by delegating the waiver to someone else. If it was the latter, she shirked the responsibility she now disclaims: to be personally knowledgeable about and responsible for the security in a consulate as vulnerable as Benghazi.
Ms. Toensing was chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.
-
More disciplined than Bill Clinton, more hands-on than Barack Obama, this article goes through her strengths and weaknesses as a candidate and policy maker with serious analysis.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/a-unified-theory-of-hillary-20140618
Lacking the author's same interest in balance, I pick out this:
The so-called smartest woman in the world started her law career by failing the Washington DC Bar Exam in 1973. 2/3rds of the test takers that year passed the exam.
-
The Economist has an article this week on how Hildabeasts book is basically a talking points directive to her mafia army to hit the airwaves with. Who would ever have guessed?
And of course we are seeing the other obvious and totally predictable moves to separate herself from Brock. The Benghazi deception was of course, not her idea. She was serving the President. Of course we can count her as being in agreement with Obama on every point he polls well on (probably few), and in disagreement (from day one) on every thing he polls poorly on. Setting the illusion that she is not him, would not govern like him, and of course would be much "smarter" and effective.
I am glad her book is selling very poorly. Perhaps there is hope that the Clintons cannot simply bribe their way to another top job in the world. Like we were dead broke and Bill and I struggled to find the money for houses and college tuition. :roll: :wink: :-P
http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/
-
Above was told to me yesterday by a VA doctor.This was rejected once by a national referendum.
-
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/06/16/unearthed-audio-hillary-discussed-defending-child-rapist-n1852068?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm
And the story was not that had to defend evil as part of her chosen profession, but laughed about his guilt. She violated his right to attorney client privilege, not just our sense of decency.
Does anyone think a tea party Senate candidate could get away with this?
-
THERE’S ONLY ONE POLITICAL GENIUS IN THE CLINTON FAMILY, AND HE ISN’T RUNNING
JUNE 23, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/theres-only-one-political-genius-in-the-clinton-family-and-he-isnt-running.php
Tone deaf material from Chelsea as well as Hillary at the link. He concludes with:
"Here is a prediction: I have no idea who will be elected president in 2016, but it won’t be Hillary Clinton."
Breakfast in America! http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg81532#msg81532
-
A Glimpse of Hillary as President
It is hard to imagine Margaret Thatcher complaining, as Mrs. Clinton did, that 'it was all about my hair.'
By
Dorothy Rabinowitz
connect
June 23, 2014 6:50 p.m. ET
The past few weeks of Hillary Clinton's book tour have given Americans more than a modest whiff of what a future Clinton presidency would bring. Nothing has brought home with more immediacy the role we can expect gender to play in that administration—or more to the point, the focus on anti-women bias about which we would evidently be fated to hear a great deal.
That would come as a change, after what will by then have been eight years of a different ruling focus in the White House—that being, of course, the president's race. Years in which Obama administration staff members, congressional allies and advocates in the political culture regularly nurtured the view—when they weren't making outright accusations—that vociferous opposition to this president, and his policies, was largely fueled by white racism. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) just last month declared that opposition to ObamaCare came from people who don't like the president "because maybe he's the wrong color."
Attorney General Eric Holder in turn delivered himself of bitter complaints to Al Sharpton's National Action Network in April about the lack of respect accorded him by a House committee. "What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?" Barack Obama had barely taken office, which he could not have won without the vote of white America, when his attorney general charged that the American people were "a nation of cowards" in their dealings with race. Mr. Holder would go on to attack states attempting to curtail voter fraud, to refuse prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party who had menaced white voters at a Philadelphia polling place, and to become, in all, the most racially polarizing attorney general in the nation's history.
Enlarge Image
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a public appearance at the Long Center in Austin, Texas, June 20. Getty Images
A Hillary Clinton administration would bring change, yes, but much about the change would feel familiar. We were given a small foretaste last week in a statement by Lanny Davis, former special counsel to Bill Clinton and indefatigable Hillary supporter. Mr. Davis had taken offense at the press description of Mrs. Clinton's performance on a National Public Radio program—one that had not gone smoothly for her. He was offended at certain language that had been used to describe Mrs. Clinton's reactions when the NPR interviewer questioned the consistency of her support for gay marriage. Reporters had described her as "testy," "contentious" and "annoyed." Mr. Davis opined that "had it been a man, the words 'testy' and 'annoyed' would not have been used."
Mr. Davis's reflexive discovery of insult to Mrs. Clinton—to women—in those words comes as no surprise. The idea that certain words are demeaning to women, because they're deemed unlikely to be used about men, is by now deep-rooted political faith. Many people were doubtless unaware, until Mr. Davis brought the odd news, that testy is a word not used for men—that hitherto standard descriptive words and phrases might now be subjected to close examination and be rendered illegitimate on the grounds of their potential offensiveness to women.
None of this would come as a shock to anyone with experience of the speech codes and all similar products of the ideological fervor on the nation's campuses today—institutions of learning where any text, any class reference, can be considered harassment or gender bias, should any student raise a claim of discomfort. That ideological fervor wasn't going to be confined to universities and colleges, and it hasn't been. Determining the words that may or may not be used to describe a woman candidate for the presidency is only its bare reflection—the beginning. We will be seeing that fervor full-blown should Mrs. Clinton win election to the White House.
In her conversation with Diane Sawyer on ABC, Mrs. Clinton herself recalled the unwelcome attention to her appearance during her travels as secretary of state. People mentioned her hair, the scrunchie she wore to keep it in place. Try as one may, it's impossible to imagine Margaret Thatcher complaining to an interviewer, as Mrs. Clinton did, that "it was all about my hair."
There are other signs that the tone of a Hillary Clinton presidency would bear strong resemblance to that of Mr. Obama's. Under questioning during her recent media interviews, the former secretary of state deflected all challenging questions—when any were put—with her characteristic unyielding aplomb. Whether queried on al Qaeda's triumphant march to power despite the administration's long-continued assurances that al Qaeda was a spent force—or about disaster in Bashar Assad's Syria, or her own role in the Benghazi catastrophe in Libya—she exuded a serene assurance. And with it, the faintest hint of amazement that such queries should actually be put to her—a cheery puzzlement that anyone should think she had anything to do with what might have gone wrong.
"Let's talk about what was accomplished," she briskly instructed Diane Sawyer, who had asked about Syria and al Qaeda and Benghazi.
Mrs. Clinton could not at that moment have sounded more like the current resident of the White House. Or more like a future one who would be, much like her predecessor, a leader of boundless self-confidence. One also inclined, when presented with the evidence of catastrophic policies of her own making, to wonder what any of that had to do with her.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBHvLTqllgE
-
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/06/Hillary-Fees-copy.jpg)
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/06/Hillary-Bankrupt-copy.jpg)
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/06/Hillary-on-Is-copy.jpg)
(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/06/Hillary-Dead-Broke-copy.jpg)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/the-week-in-pictures-video-edition.php
-
Given her silent tolerance of Bill's many affairs, the irony here is biting http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/28/raise-your-hand-if-you-think-this-is-the-last-billboard-hillary-clinton-wants-her-face-plastered-on/
-
Given her silent tolerance of Bill's many affairs, the irony here is biting http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/28/raise-your-hand-if-you-think-this-is-the-last-billboard-hillary-clinton-wants-her-face-plastered-on/
Is there any chance that she has not already called the IRS commissioner's boss to get this company stopped?
I wonder if Bill envisions only marital fidelity when he thinks about the title of her book.
-
Only one poll but most people still find Hildabeast can still "relate" to the ordinary "folk" (you know the little people):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/poll-majority-believe-hillary-clinton-121327741.html
I wonder if the new book about the ongoing feud is just part of the strategy to separate Clinton from the Obamas. The faux premise that she is much more moderate and can work with the other side. We all know she is just as radical as Obama.
Clinton only worked with the other side when his popularity sank and he got his tush handed to him in 1994.
Doug, I am not that expensive when it comes to dinner. I hope I lose the lunch or at least the breakfast. I don't mind paying for eggs benedict and champagne. I would drink much myself if we could be finally rid of the two grifters.
-
Popularity falling with no one else running.
Approval below 50%.
Book sales disappoint.
Book tour a disaster.
She is not very good at politics.
Questionable fire in belly.
Doesn't want to clean up O' messes.
People want real change.
People don't want more Clinton Bush.
Wash Times, Wes Pruden, today
Not to mention age and health issues x 2.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-goldman-sachs-money-grab-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Let me ask the question. How in the world can Hillary be even passed a "uniter" when every word out of her mouth pits one half of the country against the other half? That is women against men! She divides the electorate and pits one group against another from the starting gates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/v/blog_banner/blog_banner_logo.png
-
This is back in the news because the NY Times took a month to get to it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/08clinton.html
Also because liberals are out trying to defend her on this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2014/07/08/testy-joan-walsh-defends-hillary-clinton-rapist-defense-hardball
Joan Walsh, Salon: "I'm sure she would take that laughter back." Ya think?
The laughter is real, she is laughing about the whole thing, getting him off on time served, ha ha, even though she believes he was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl and destroying the rest of her life, ha ha. She was asked to take the case and took it. She was confronted with the story; she brought it up in the interview - bragging about her past work!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
While the laughter is real, the Arkansas accent is soooo phony. She is from Chicago, lived later in Washington and got elected as Senator from New York. Is this accent something you can turn on and off? In her case, yes! More recently:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&feature=kp[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&feature=kp
-
Just another battle of the dem's war on women.
-
Hillary's Favorite Charity: Herself
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 9, 2014
After an uproar about the exorbitant college speaking fees paid to Hillary Clinton -- $225,000 and up for each speech -- she suddenly announced that all of these fees "have been donated to the Clinton Foundation."
So in other words, she's donated the over-the top $1.8 million in fees to her favorite charity -- herself. Is there really much difference between a fee paid directly to Hillary and one to the Bill Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation? That's like moving money from one hand to the other. It's not like Hillary's giving it away and losing control over it. Because, without a doubt, she and her husband control the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation. Is there anyone at all there who would ever say no to them?
No, they're calling the shots.
Hillary's generosity to the Foundation is a little different than other gifts. Generally, when one makes a charitable contribution, it goes to an independent organization that spends it as it sees fit -- within the guidelines of the institution's goals. Sometimes, a gift is earmarked for a certain project of the recipient. But that doesn't mean that the donor controls staff hiring, spending, and other expenses, such as travel and entertainment.
That's not the case at the Clinton Foundation, which is now the epicenter of Hillary's professional life and the launching pad for her likely presidential campaign. In addition, the Foundation is one giant spoke in the many wheels of the Clintons' political and philanthropic fund-raising from overlapping donors. The Foundation is a highly useful perch for Hillary. She's installed her top former staff people and campaign aides on the foundation payroll, working on issues and scheduling her public speeches, recently estimated at hauling in $5 million since she left the State Department.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Clintons have raised between $2-3 billion in the past two decades, including $1 billion from American corporations. The donations were to Bill and Hillary's political campaigns, various political advocacy organizations they support, the Clinton Presidential Library, and, of course, almost a billion dollars in contributions to the Foundation.
The Foundation provides other useful perks: It gives them the largesse to fund elaborate travel and parties for donor/friends, including one event where they reportedly purchased a first class plane ticket for Natalie Portman and her dog. In 2012, the latest year available, the Foundation's travel expenses were $11,569,213 -- up about 10% from the $9,666,273 in 2011. From 2000 - 2011, the Foundation spent over $50 million on travel!
Bill Clinton's travel alone was over a million dollars and accounted for more than 11% of the total.
And that didn't include the free travel that Bill and Hillary use most of the time, frequently asking for a donor to the Foundation for the free use of corporate jets, like supermarket billionaire John Catsimatidis, who frequently lends one of his fleet as an in-kind charitable contribution.
The Foundation also maintains the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, which includes a luxurious penthouse apartment for the exclusive use of Bill Clinton and family. The apartment has rooms that are the exact replicas of the Oval Office, the State Dining Room, and the Oval Sitting Room. It's where Bill frequently entertains -- on the Foundation.
That's not all. The Foundation sponsors elaborate conferences and glamorous dinners that allow donors to hobnob with celebrities and rub elbows with Bill and Hillary. Recently donors were invited to a week-end in London that included a musical and a special dinner with the Clintons. All of this create a nice list of rich donors for a presidential candidate.
When Bill and Chelsea went to Africa for a week long trip in both 2012 and 2013, their entourage included VIP donors to The Foundation and a planeload of friendly journalists who dutifully reported gushing stories about the amazing Clintons.
It's a good way to develop a brand -- and its free!
The Foundation also spent over $26 million for meetings and conferences in 2011 and 2012. Those, of course, are the perfect venue for Hillary to mingle with potential supporters and donors and showcase the policy positions and programs developed by the Foundation. And it gives the donors a chance to get chummy with a possible presidential candidate.
So it's a win-win situation for everyone.
Except for possible campaign opponents, who don't have the same ability and opportunity to raise billions of tax free dollars and leverage it to advance their campaigns.
So, when you're thinking about Hillary's generosity, remember where she's donating -- to herself!
But back to the student speaking fees. Hillary, with her famous tin ear, actually claimed that the students at the University of Las Vegas who demanded that she return the $225,000 fee were not concerned about her fee!
Here's Hillary:
"They're not worried about my speaking or my household, they're worried about their own. And that's the kind of debate I think I'm furthering as I go around the country speaking," she said of her critics."
Really?
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/26/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326
-
I saw Hillary making a politically astute move the other day. She spoke in terms of being proud of America and that we have a great story to tell and that we just have to tell it. Great way to appeal to every one who was offended by the Apology Tour and to subtly begin to separate herself from Obama's foreign policy. Yes, yes I know it really was hers in great part and she stayed on board for it, but politically the theme looks to work well for her.
-
"She spoke in terms of being proud of America and that we have a great story to tell and that we just have to tell it. "
And of course who better to tell it than her..... Sarcasm to the 10th degree!
I guess she has been listening to Glen Beck (the one of old), Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Marc Levin, Michael Savage, and many others on the right who have preached this throughout the progressive holocaust assault on America that has taken control of most of our media, Universities, unionized schools, and the entire Democrat party.
This is *classic* Clinton. Steal the correct theme from the Right and act and promote it as though she discovered it and have her mafia organization now go all over the place promoting what they claim is her theme and the loving media will let her get away with it. This is the classic Clinton way of infuriating us who know better. (sadly it works for them)
The Right must NOT let her get away with this. ( However I know the Republican leadership does not have the savvy to do this) She is a phony and a fraud. All of us on this board know it. Half the nation knows it. Most on the left will always vote for her no matter what anyway. Again it comes down to the minority who fall into the "some who can be fooled all of the time" (Lincoln of course).
-
http://pagesix.com/2014/07/21/the-secret-mistress-for-bill-that-agents-have-named-energizer/
-
"When smart diplomacy became a punchline."
http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/07/26/as-libya-implodes-smart-diplomacy-becoming-a-punch-line/
-
"When smart diplomacy became a punchline."
http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/07/26/as-libya-implodes-smart-diplomacy-becoming-a-punch-line/
Perhaps they just need a reset button...
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/01/clinton-takes-aim-at-romneys-remarks-on-russia/?iref=allsearch
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/charge-clintons-turned-the-state-department-into-a-racket-to-line-their-own-pockets/article/2551448
Bill and Hillary Clinton are coming under fire today after State Department documents showed that officials rubber-stamped the former president’s expansive and sometimes high-priced overseas speaking engagements while his wife was in charge of foreign policy with many of those nations.
“These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch and the Washington Examiner teamed to seek and publish those documents today.
“How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind,” said Fitton, adding, “That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage."
The Examiner reported that the former president gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while Hillary Clinton was at State.
The joint investigation also found Foggy Bottom didn’t object to a single proposed speech.
The duo’s income has become an issue in her burgeoning presidential campaign. They have a net worth of an estimated $80 million, with much of their bank account built on speech fees collected by Bill Clinton from venues around the world.
Said Judicial Watch:
Mr. Clinton’s speeches included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands. Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions — Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others — as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media. Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.
Editor's note: Judicial Watch is representing the Washington Examiner in the newspaper's federal lawsuit seeking access to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau records under FOIA.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.
-
The Libs and Progs are going to have trouble with this , , , (see e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/opinion/maureen-dowd-its-the-loyalty-stupid.html?emc=edit_th_20140813&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193 )
The Message From That Hillary Interview
She would be the best-prepared president on foreign policy since George H.W. Bush.
By William A. Galston
Aug. 12, 2014 6:57 p.m. ET
Jeffrey Goldberg's interview in the Atlantic magazine with Hillary Clinton has made headlines, with good reason. Her critique of President Obama's Syria policy was pointed and persuasive, as was her assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood's missteps in Egypt.
But what lay beneath the headlines is far more important. The interview revealed a public servant instructed but not chastened by experience, with a clear view of America's role in the world and of the means needed to play that role successfully. If she entered the race and won, she would be better prepared to deal with foreign policy and national defense than any president since George H.W. Bush, whose judgment and experience helped end the Cold War and reunify Germany without a shot being fired.
Although Mrs. Clinton's tart remark that " 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle" has evoked reams of commentary, the words that preceded it are far more important: "Great nations need organizing principles." The former secretary of state expressed enthusiasm for the role the U.S. played in defeating communism and fascism. The question since 1991 has been, what now?
During Bill Clinton's administration, the answer seemed clear enough: Build prosperity by incorporating the workers of Asia, Central Europe and the former Soviet Union into the global economy. The rising tide would create an expanding middle class, which would bolster new democracies and move authoritarian governments toward democracy. So the U.S. should take the lead in promoting open trade and peacefully advocating open government. The winds of history were in our sails.
Mrs. Clinton has thought hard about this, and here is what she told Mr. Goldberg: "The big mistake was thinking" that "the end of history has come upon us, after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was never true, history never stops and nationalisms were going to assert themselves, and then other variations on ideologies were going to claim their space." She cites jihadi Islamism and Vladimir Putin's vision of restored Russian greatness as prime examples. She might well have added China's distinctive combination of political authoritarianism and pell-mell economic growth ("market-Leninism"), which is seen elsewhere as an orderly alternative to democratic messiness.
The rise of violently aggressive anti-democratic ideologies was one rebuttal of the end-of-history theory. Another was the global economic crisis, discrediting the so-called Washington consensus that had dominated world affairs since the early 1990s. Central bankers, it turned out, were not wise enough to eliminate financial panics. Although too much regulation could stifle growth, too little could open the door to reckless risk-taking.
George W. Bush's response to jihadi Islam—global democracy-building backed by American might—came to grief in the sands of Iraq. But a policy built on avoiding that failure, says Mrs. Clinton in the Atlantic, runs risks of its own: "Part of the challenge is that our government too often has a tendency to swing between these extremes" of intervention and non-intervention. She adds: "When you're down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you're not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward." If Mr. Bush's porridge was too hot, Mr. Obama's is too cold.
But moderation is a means to ends, not an end in itself. So what would be the ends, the animating purposes of Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy? Her interview suggests, first, that we must take the fight to jihadi Islamism, which is inherently expansionist. In that connection, she says, she is thinking a lot about "containment, deterrence, and defeat." When unarmed diplomacy cannot succeed, she adds, we should not be afraid to back "the hard men with guns."
Second, we should drive a tough deal with Iran, or none at all. "I've always been in the camp," Mrs. Clinton says, "that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich."
Third, we should distinguish clearly between groups we can work with and those we can't. For example, Mrs. Clinton would exclude Hamas on the grounds that it is virulently anti-Semitic and dedicated to Israel's destruction. She does not believe that Hamas "should in any way be treated as a legitimate interlocutor." Her commitment to Israel's defense is unswerving, including a willingness to call the rise of European anti-Semitism by its rightful name.
Fourth, the U.S. should vigorously advance the cause of women's rights around the world, not only because justice demands it, but also because the empowerment of women promotes economic growth and social progress.
And finally, because many American values "also happen to be universal values," we should take pride in ourselves and make our case to the world. Today, Mrs. Clinton says, "we don't even tell our story very well." As president, clearly, she would do her best to change that.
-
"Mrs. Clinton has thought hard about this, and here is what she told Mr. Goldberg: "The big mistake was thinking" that "the end of history has come upon us, after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was never true, history never stops and nationalisms were going to assert themselves, and then other variations on ideologies were going to claim their space." She cites jihadi Islamism and Vladimir Putin's vision of restored Russian greatness as prime examples"
Does anyone who has a brain and who is old enough to know better really believe she is some kind of great thinker?
She is spoon fed all this stuff by liberal professors and other foreign policy experts who are hanging on for windfall.
Yes while trouble is increasing around the world the left who gave Bamster a free ride now will switch gears as Rush pointed out recently and the focus will shift to Hillary.
The Narcissistic one (not Bill or Hillary) the other one, will get increasingly indignant and bitter now that he will slowly fade from the limelight of those who put him on the pedestal.
-
As I have been hammering for several years now, the Reps are utterly divided on foreign affairs and much of the core attitude that used to underlie Rep political strength on foreign affairs is gone. With good reason the American people do not trust the competence of either party to lead this nation in war. Which is a real big fg problem because it sure looks like a big war is coming!
Looked at through a political lens, Hillary's strategy is very interesting, potentially quite dangerous for us.
Riddle me this: How will the Reps respond to it? More hawkish? More Dovish? How will each of the potential Rep nominees respond to it? The American voter? Given the American voter's well-earned distrust and looming war, is he/she likely to go for untested neophytes like Cruz or Paul? or Rubio? or?
(Oh and by the way, how does it square with what each of us thinks is best for American and the world? This probably would be better answered in the Foreign Policy thread where I also posted it.)
Tangent: I wonder why no one seems to note that Hillary's recent distancing from Baraq by pointing out that she, Petraeus, and Sec Def Paneta also supported arming the FSA in the early days of Syria, is also exactly what Sen. John McCain and Lindsay Graham advocated , , ,
-
Bottom line, we are fcuked.
-
As I have been hammering for several years now, the Reps are utterly divided on foreign affairs and much of the core attitude that used to underlie Rep political strength on foreign affairs is gone. With good reason the American people do not trust the competence of either party to lead this nation in war. Which is a real big fg problem because it sure looks like a big war is coming!
Looked at through a political lens, Hillary's strategy is very interesting, potentially quite dangerous for us.
Riddle me this: How will the Reps respond to it? More hawkish? More Dovish? How will each of the potential Rep nominees respond to it? The American voter? Given the American voter's well-earned distrust and looming war, is he/she likely to go for untested neophytes like Cruz or Paul? or Rubio? or?
(Oh and by the way, how does it square with what each of us thinks is best for American and the world? This probably would be better answered in the Foreign Policy thread where I also posted it.)
Tangent: I wonder why no one seems to note that Hillary's recent distancing from Baraq by pointing out that she, Petraeus, and Sec Def Paneta also supported arming the FSA in the early days of Syria, is also exactly what Sen. John McCain and Lindsay Graham advocated , , ,
She chose to serve BHO and carry out his vacuous foreign policy. Now, assuming she's running, she needs to both distance herself from him - on foreign policy - while still getting 100% support from him and his staff, loyalists and band of campaign outlaws. So she gave an interview ripping him, then immediately called him to "clarify". Got ripped back badly by Axelrod, and still failed to distance herself. (And WE are the ones screwed?)
Republicans will have the same heart wrenching debate over foreign policy that Americans are having with themselves. Marco Rubio is hawkish. Rand Paul is dovish. Mike Pence is busy exercising his executive experience. This will play out. The hawks need to demonstrate they aren't warmongers and the doves need to convince people they aren't pushovers. The key will be to keep the debates positive and substantive. In the end, we need to strengthen America from within and they all agree on that.
It is the Dems who can't run on abstractions. They had their chance and they blew it.
Forgotten about Hillary Clinton's empty foreign policy experience is that her victorious rival named a special envoy to all the difficult areas, 24 in all, leaving her free to take unlimited trips to nowhere.
http://www.usip.org/publications/us-special-envoys-flexible-tool
Obama administration’s 24 special envoys represent an unprecedented expansion of this mechanism
-
While it appears to all observers (including myself) that I am losing my bet that she won't run, won't win the nomination if she does run and won't win the Presidency if she does run, today a couple of articles today seem to show the tides may be turning:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/19/hillary-clinton-summer-slide/2pc6mTziecszWDGeZ34jUL/story.html
Hillary Clinton's SUmmer Slide, Hillary is inevitable no longer
By Tom Keane, Boston Globe Columnist August 19, 2014
Clinton’s numbers have dropped by 10 or more points
(Not much new here except that someone besides us is saying it.)
Hillary Clinton Not Campaigning Much for her Party in 2014
By Michael Barone - August 19, 2014
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-not-campaigning-much-for-her-party-in-2014-unlike-richard-nixon-in-1966/article/2552070
Just about everyone noticed Hillary Clinton's scathing comments on President Obama's foreign policy in her interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. But almost no one has noticed where Clinton hasn't been seen. That's on the campaign trail or at fundraisers for Democrats running for the Senate.
-----------------------------------
Why isn't she out campaigning for Democrats?
a) This is going to be a lousy year for Dems.
b) The candidates don't want her there.
c) She isn't very good at campaigning.
d) She doesn't like doing it.
e) She doesn't want to face the difficult questions that come with being out there:
Barone: "That might force her to weigh in on Obamacare, illegal border crossings and fracking."
In other words, maybe she isn't running after all. )
-
She is making serious money from her speaking events. Whoops! I mean the Clinton Foundation is making serious money from her speaking events.
-
She does not need to be doing the rubber chicken circuit. The nomination is hers for the asking. The Dems have absolutely NO ONE to run if she does not. Biden? :lol: :lol: :lol: Warren is not stupid but is not presidential in the slightest. The outcry for her to run should she hesitate is such a sure thing that it would not surprise me that should would do a bit of a Hamlet should-I-shouln't-I routine to elicit it.
To top it off, it is not like the Rep offerings are looking all that daunting politically.
You think she'd be scared of Cruz?
As for Rand Paul, I remind everyone of the recent and current discussion of her Atlantic interview on the Foreign Affairs thread. Anyone here bet on Rand Paul to win that exchange?
-
I believe the point of stumping for others is to create loyalties and political indetedness . I can think of only one scenario where she won't ever need that.
-
With no opposition, she has need for neither.
My dad, who was a conservative Democrat businessman (such things did used to exist) was quite unhappy with McGovern in 1972 and wound up being Co-Chairman of Democrats for Nixon for the state of Pennsylvania. (He was on the City Committee for the Dem Party for Philadelphia and active in local politics). In that context he got to meet with President Nixon (I have a photo of the two shaking hands at some function) and John Connally (former Gov of and Senator for TX, Sec of Treasury under Nixon and perhaps his campaign manager). My dad said he was shocked at how little they cared about the other Rep candidates for other positions.
-
I love the personal story. It's hard to say what we can learn from Nixon. He was both a fool and a political genius. He won 49 states that year.
Hill doesn't just need loyalty, she is obsessed, with it. Something is amiss here IMHO.
What greater loss did O have than losing the House? And now the Senate.
-
POTH tries to explain the unexplainable:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/us/politics/in-midterm-elections-a-miss-for-obama-could-be-a-hit-for-clinton.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&referrer=
But if her election is already a certainty, why lose the Senate. Those are 6 year terms!
-
Speaking of Cruz' view on foreign policy, what is HRC's view on Ferguson ? ? ?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/potential-2016-candidates-cautious-ferguson-25088527
Not ready for prime time.
-
Well, my position is we should wait for the facts. Given that I am hard put to fault Hillary for keeping her mouth shut.
-
Well, my position is we should wait for the facts. Given that I am hard put to fault Hillary for keeping her mouth shut.
I agree, but we are not in her targeted constituencies. And I think she didn't say wait and see, she said run and hide.
-
Silence to violence is not leadership. Is the looting of private stores right? Wrong? Or check with our focus group guy. Dearest leader Hillary says the latter.
In contrast, Dr. Carson said something about personal responsibility and can back it up with specific policies.
-
Hillary Joins the Ferguson Lynch Mob
Posted By Matthew Vadum On August 29, 2014
Breaking her calculated silence on the issue, Hillary Clinton said young Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., the latest in a long line of helpless black victims mowed down by racist cops who are part of America’s corrupt criminal justice system.
It’s just more left-wing sloganeering, staples of which are knee-jerk cop hatred and making excuses for black criminals.
Clinton, wife of the man some used to call America’s “first black president,” has a long history of race-baiting and race-based pandering. She patronized black Americans in her insultingly awful mock African-American accent when she gave her infamous “I don’t feel no ways tired” speech.
The all-but-declared candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president’s media-hyped public epiphany about Ferguson and Michael Brown comes days after 18-year-old Brown was laid to rest following a grotesque political rally led by the abominable racial arsonist Al Sharpton.
The former U.S. secretary of state embraces the politically correct lie that a helpless 6’4″ 292-lbs. Brown was shot in cold blood, arms raised while attempting to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, instead of the less convenient truth that Brown was trying to crush the decorated cop’s skull with his bare hands and reaching for the man’s handgun. Left-wingers like Clinton also prefer to ignore that fact that minutes before he attacked Wilson, Brown was captured on video bullying a much smaller East Indian shopkeeper during a robbery, an act that some might consider a hate crime. And the public is still waiting for Brown’s not-yet-released postmortem toxicology report.
The myth that Brown was a gentle giant won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama and his fellow radicals, won’t let it go. They need rampant racial tension and cop-hatred to persist in order to motivate their political base if Democrats are to have any hope of maintaining control of the U.S. Senate after the November congressional elections.
Clinton, the Benghazi bungler whose studied nonfeasance on Sept. 11, 2012, got four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, killed by Muslim terrorists, told a San Francisco audience:
“This summer, the eyes of our country and indeed the world have been focused on one community in the middle of the American heartland, Ferguson, Missouri. Watching the recent funeral for Michael Brown, as a mother, as a human being, my heart just broke for his family, because losing a child is every parent’s greatest fear and an unimaginable loss.
But I also grieve for that community and for many like it across our country. Behind the dramatic, terrible pictures on television, are deep challenges that will be with them and with us long after the cameras move on. This is what happens when the bonds of trust and respect that hold any community together fray. Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America. We are better than that.”
Although black violence is a persistent problem in America, Clinton, as always, has nothing to say about anything that might actually help black communities. They are always victims in the leftist narrative. She and her comrades have done everything in their power for the last half century since the War on Poverty was launched to weaken black families, yet they are always calling for more government programs and social engineering to cure the problems that they themselves have created.
Clinton spoke of the violence in Ferguson as if it had materialized in response to some kind of injustice, ignoring the role of what police called “outside agitators” played in driving the nightly street battles with police. She continued:
“We saw our country’s true character in the community leaders that came out to protest peacefully and worked to restrain violence. The young people who insisted on having their voices heard and in the many decent and respectful law enforcement officers who showed what quality law enforcement looks like. Men and women who serve and protect their communities with courage and professionalism, who inspire trust, rather than fear. We need more of that, because we can do better.”
Apart from her perfunctory praise of law enforcement officials and denunciation of violence, Clinton’s wording implies that Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Brown in self-defense, is not one of the “many decent and respectful law enforcement officers.” According to Clinton’s reasoning, Wilson must be a racist villain who is part of the problem.
Then Clinton began to sound like Barack Obama and other believers in the kooky legal philosophy known as Critical Race Theory, pretending that violent crimes in this country are not disproportionately committed by blacks. She ignores the fact that in some communities blacks receive heightened scrutiny from police because they seem to fit the profile of wanted suspects. If black crime were not prevalent in a specific area, chances are blacks would not receive much attention from police. But logic is not something left-wingers are often blessed with. They prefer to explain social ills by blaming white people.
Clinton continued:
“We can’t ignore the inequities that persist in our justice system that undermine our most deeply held values of fairness and equality. Imagine what we would feel and what we would do if white drivers were three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop as black drivers. Instead of the other way around; if white offenders received prison sentences 10 percent longer than black offenders for the same crimes; if a third of all white men, just look at this room and take one-third, went to prison during their lifetime. Imagine that. That is the reality in the lives of so many of our fellow Americans and so many of the communities in which they live.”
Whether the specific statistics Clinton cites are valid is an arguable point, but what is not arguable is that violent black crime in America is far more prevalent that violent crime committed by whites. The statistics for young black males are particularly horrifying.
As liberal Democrat academic John McWhorter, a black American, wrote last year:
“[Y]oung black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the U.S. … Hardly uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13-year-old with gasoline and lit him on fire, saying “You get what you deserve, white boy’ (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up white Matthew Owens on his porch ‘for Trayvon’ (Mobile, Ala.) … t’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them.”
But Hillary Clinton would never beat up a key political constituency. She’s too busy inflaming black voters, making them feel good about their dysfunctional communities, and reinforcing the worst pathologies of inner cities.
Of course Clinton is completely supportive of Eric Holder’s witch hunt in Ferguson, where Justice Department and FBI officials have been busy gathering evidence to use in what promises to be a high-profile trumped-up civil rights prosecution against Officer Wilson. Clinton said:
“I applaud President Obama for sending the attorney general to Ferguson and demanding a thorough and speedy investigation, to find out what happened, to see that justice is done, to help this community begin healing itself. We should all add our voices to those that have come together in recent days to work for peace, justice and reconciliation in Ferguson, and beyond, to stand against violence and for the values that we cherish. We can do better.
We can work to rebuild the bonds of trust from the ground up. It starts within families and communities. It was 51 years ago today that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr called us to live out true meaning of our creed, to make the dream real for all Americans. That mission is as fiercely urgent today as when he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the hot August sun all those years ago.”
Except that Clinton, a Saul Alinsky adherent just like Barack Obama, has no interest in rebuilding bonds of trust. Like Obama, she wants to tear down America in order to rebuild it and replace it with a socialist state. Talk of “equality” and “healing” are merely arrows in her rhetorical quiver.
Clinton’s attempt to stoke the flames of racial resentment came as up-and-coming independent investigative journalist Charles C. Johnson announced he has filed a lawsuit after two law enforcement sources told him Michael Brown’s juvenile criminal record is under seal in a St. Louis court. Johnson also wonders why the so-called gentle giant opted to attend the most violent high school in the St. Louis area when he could have easily gone elsewhere.
Meanwhile, black leftists are plotting further unrest to ensure the survival and flourishing of their narrative of cop-hatred.
At a Washington, D.C. branch of Busboys and Poets, owned by celebrated radical leftist Andy Shallal, an NAACP official and other neo-communist radicals like Hugo Chavez-loving actor Danny Glover vowed to escalate their activities.
The town hall-style meeting was titled, “Ferguson and Beyond – The Way Forward: A Town Hall Meeting on Police Killings of Black Men.”
Dr. Ron Daniels, former executive director of the Marxist public interest law firm, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been essential in the Left’s long-running drive to dismantle the Global War on Terror, seemed to sum up the feelings of participants.
“We need to get ungovernable,” Daniels said. “We’ve been too tame.”
Hillary Clinton, who is determined to carry on Barack Obama’s agenda of racial antagonism, wholeheartedly agrees.
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/09/hillary-clintons-approval-numbers-return-to-earth-wsjnbc-poll/
Hillary Clinton’s Approval Numbers Return to Earth — WSJ/NBC Poll
Hillary;s approval/disapproval numbers have slid from +37 and +31 down to +2, 43 approve, 41 disapprove.
(Those will slide further as we re-acquaint ourselves with her character, personality and record.)
Inevitable that she will run, win the nomination, and win the general election? I don't think so. )
-
This is really a Clinton story. The Clintonites are turning the screws to BamBam to clear the stage for their new exalted chosen one: Hillary.
********NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief: Obama 'Ignored' Iraq, Is 'Ignorant of Reality'
by Jordan Schachtel 10 Sep 2014 430 post a comment
Tim Arango, Baghdad Bureau Chief of the New York Times, lit up President Obama’s Middle East policies in a recent “Ask Me Anything” Q & A session with users of the online forum Reddit.
One user asked, “How do you rate the Obama administration’s actions in Iraq? What did they do right? What did they get wrong?
The Baghdad Bureau Chief responded by bluntly stating that the Obama administration since 2011 has “basically ignored the country [Iraq].”
He continued, “when [US] officials spoke about what was happening there they were often ignorant of the reality.”
The NYT correspondent said that Obama officials stubbornly refused to see the realities on the ground, “because it conflicted with their narrative.”
He then took a jab at Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken, known as one of the President’s trusted advisers on foreign policy.
“In 2012, as violence was escalating I wrote a story, citing UN statistics, that showed how civilian deaths from attacks were rising,” Arango added. “Tony Blinken, who was then Biden’s national security guy and a top Iraq official, pushed back, even wrote a letter to the editor, saying that violence was near historic lows. That was not true.”
Blinken is now Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama. After obtaining his JD Columbia Law School, he went straight into Democratic politics -- fundraising for the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis. Blinken then joined the Clinton administration under the assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian affairs. In 2008, he worked on Joe Biden’s failed campaign for President but was then appointed by President Obama to be his Deputy National Security Advisor in January of 2013.
VP Biden has previously referred to Blinken as his “go-to-guy” on Iraq -- known for helping to facilitate the US withdrawal from Baghdad -- a plan marred by the administration's failure to secure a status-of-forces agreement.
Even when the Islamic State was marching across Iraq unchecked, Obama officials ignored the jihadi group’s rise because it wasn’t politically expedient to tackle such issues, according to the NYT journalist.
Arango concluded: “Even after falluja fell to ISIS at the end of last year, the administration would push back on stories about Maliki’s sectarian tendencies saying they didn’t see it that way. So there was a concerted effort by the administration not to acknowledge the obvious until it became apparent -- with the fall of Mosul -- that Iraq was collapsing.”
-
Doug writes:
"Inevitable that she will run, win the nomination, and win the general election? I don't think so. )"
I hope your right. But they have such a mafia like mob behind them and so many careers, opportunities, money at stake for so many who have influence, money and power and want more of the same that t she is a formidable force even though flawed when she tries to think and speak unprepared as well as everything else we know about here.
-
This is really a Clinton story. The Clintonites are turning the screws to BamBam to clear the stage for their new exalted chosen one: Hillary.
********NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief: Obama 'Ignored' Iraq, Is 'Ignorant of Reality' ...
That's right. They want her (or someone) to represent all of the hope and change, but without the incompetence and glibness. Liberalism is not the problem,they mistakenly argue, it is the flawed messenger. Obama kept a tee time 5 minutes after his 5 minutes of vacation interrupting outrage over a beheading video. Hillary traveled some record number of miles willing to accomplish nothing just to prove her unending commitment to work endlessly.
If not ignorance or inexperience, Hllary has her own problems. She was for, against, and now for the Iraq war? Her healthcare passage and rollout would have been different. Really? Her competence and readiness for the 3am phone call was on display during the warnings prior, the 13 hours during, and the aftermath cover-up of the Benghazi attacks? Not so.
She needs 3 things to win and succeed. The first two are mutually exclusive and the third is impossible:
1. A nearly complete break with the Obama administration, calling him out on his errors and failures.
2. The full backing and support of the Obama political machine that won two presidential elections.
3. To be a candidate with a gift for politics and communication on a par with Bill Clinton, Obama and Reagan.
she has done all the ground work to be ready to launch a campaign. Taking the Sec State job, quitting after one term, writing the book, working the book tour, and obviously her previous efforts getting elected and serving in the Senate. She has test marketed her product and I say it failed. Next should be to take her message nationwide in support of Dem candidates across the country. To be the de facto national leader of her party as Obama implodes. We are well into Sept with a month and a half to go and, for whatever reasons, she has not done that.
Very shortly after the midterms she needs to announce her decision one way or the other. She can bring her flawed product to market and finish her career very likely as a two time loser. Or as many smart people do, exit the scene while still perceived to be on top. If she chooses the latter, she better do it soon; her polling trend looks like that is the last right side up one already happened.
Once she announces she is out, her polling numbers and the value of her opinion and endorsements will go up. Look at her husband's numbers. The Dem party will be forced to scramble, same as the Republicans are doing now. The next year will be interesting.
-
Note that in his interview with Chris Wallace, Romney laid the black hole that Libya has become at her feet-- and correctly so. While Baraq went on vacation to Brazil, Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername crafted the "Lead from behind strategy" for Libya. Presumably the presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too. Now Libya is an anarchic wasteland of Islamo-fascism-- just what we went to Afpakia to prevent.
-
Note that in his interview with Chris Wallace, Romney laid the black hole that Libya has become at her feet-- and correctly so. While Baraq went on vacation to Brazil, Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername crafted the "Lead from behind strategy" for Libya. Presumably the presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too. Now Libya is an anarchic wasteland of Islamo-fascism-- just what we went to Afpakia to prevent.
"Presumably the presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too."
The gun running out of Bengazi doesn't seem to be backed up with evidence, at least yet, so we still have no idea what the mission was. The rest of that statement rings 100% true without the missing piece.
"Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername" - Susan Rice and Cass Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, lol. Oddly, President Obama opposed his own policy in Libya, a difficult point to argue after the fact. Ask Michelle about her entourage booking 60 rooms at a Spanish villa during the economic collapse and flying the family dog on a separate jet to Nantucket, he doesn't know how to stand up to strong women.
-
The discussion on the Benghazi thread is worth noting here.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2362.msg83741#msg83741
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary is not popular anymore
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/10/hillary-isnt-popular-anymore-and-the-campaign-hasnt-even-begun/
"a staggering decline in favorability"
Worse yet her strong approval / disapproval is now in negative territory.
The story ends with a good point, that the Republican nominee is the one who can still improve his/her standing, still make a good first impression. Hillary cannot.
-
Liberal journalist John Dickerson from Slate covers the trip:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/09/hillary_clinton_visits_iowa_former_secretary_of_state_attended_the_tom_harkin.html
One observer: based on what he’d heard, that she was running for president. “It's obvious she is. I mean, unless you're really, really dumb.”
More correctly she is "obviously" testing the waters, failing, and now we will see if SHE is "really, really dumb”. :wink:
"The conventional complaint among Democratic campaign veterans and strategists who are not in the Clinton camp is that she has not developed a message and a rationale for her candidacy. She’s running on the fact that it’s her turn. Inevitability is deadly for candidates."
(Dickerson goes on, unpersuasively, to disagree with that view.)
I asked a man passing by what he thought of the afternoon. “She’s no Bill,” he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubt in my mind that she hates campaigning, hates being questioned, and above all, hates losing. Dickerson argues she is working to fix her problems. But they can't all be fixed. The only way she wins is in a hold-your-nose election where everybody hates all of the candidates.
-
Loaded with links and extremely well documented. These are not small issues that will go away easily.
http://conservativeamerican.org/top-50-hillary-clinton-benghazi-lies/
-
:cry:
Doug,
That Hillary Clinton is a serial liar and outright criminal is clear.
Sadly, many people just don't care or will look the other way.
We can minimize her with negative stuff like this (and we should continue to press on about it) but this will not defeat her.
75% of people in this country are reportedly living from pay check to pay check. Until Republicans can come up with policies and messages that can resonate to some of these 75% Republicans will always struggle in MHO.
Once again the Clintons show they "get it":. How to reach the masses and to re-ignite the American Dream without demonizing the rich.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756751/Hillary-spent-summer-Hamptons-crafting-presidential-message-based-job-creation-friends-say.html
Republicans need to do the same thing but without more government, more regulations, more taxes, and more welfare. I am not sure if they will or even can. They just don't seem to be as clever. And some are clearly corrupt.
See how the Clintons can continue to stay in the game no matter how vile they are? They know how to message and sometimes come up with the policies that resonates with many people.
The Republicans can't (or won't). :x :cry:
-
It takes a village - the state, the employer and everyone other than the mother and father to raise a child. What single mother is going to hear this and think of course she should get paid time off to pick up her child in minus 30 degree weather?
**********Hillary Clinton Blames Republicans for 'Egregious' Policies Toward Women
ABC News By Liz Kreutz
During a panel at the Center for American Progress today, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's message was clear: Equal pay for women, access to affordable, quality childcare, paid sick leave, and the full participation by women in the U.S. labor force will lead to a stronger economy (even a 10% increase in the GDP, she argued).
But Clinton also made clear she believes politicians on "the other side of the aisle" are preventing any such policy changes from passing through.
"Congress increasingly, despite the best efforts of my friends and others, is living in an evidence-free zone where what the reality is in the lives of Americans is so far from the minds of too many who don't place the highest priority on … family-centered economics," Clinton said.
"We could all tell stories of people we know who had really egregiously been impacted by the failure of our political leadership on the other side of the aisle to recognize the importance of making sure that people who work hard, play by the rules, have a chance to get into the middle class and certainly a chance to stay in the middle class," she added.
I'm Baa-aack! Clintons Give Hillary's 2016 Efforts An Unofficial Start in Iowa
Everything You Need to Know About the Iowa Steak Fry
In Las Vegas, Hillary Clinton Pushes For Energy Efficient Casinos
Today's panel in Washington, D.C., which also included Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., focused on women's economic security and finding solutions to what Gillibrand dubbed as "Mad Men" era policies that she believes still exists in the United States today.
One featured guest, a student and single mother from Chicago, described how she was laid off from her job at Whole Foods after she took a day off to pick up her son after his school cancelled classes in -30 degree weather.
Gillibrand said that lack of paid leave makes her "the angriest," arguing that even Pakistan and Afghanistan have more paid leave than the United States. She said stories like this Chicago mother's were "outrageous."
The overall message among all the panelists was the notion that "the number one" thing the U.S. could do to make its economy stronger would be to tap into the full potential of women in the workplace. Without this support, Gillibrand argued, "we are providing an artificial drag on the economy."
Clinton, however, was the most vocal of the women to slam Republicans for their resistance to change.
"I think the other side will hang on for all they're worth - Nancy [Pelosi] knows that better than anybody. But I think if voters, if citizens speak up for themselves, for their families and their futures, we will see the kind of changes we're all advocating for," Clinton said to audience applause.
While the panelists engaged in an amiable conversation about an issue they are all passionate about, the end took a bit of a competitive turn.
Pelosi teasingly called out Clinton (former Senator of New York) for "bragging" that New York had the first women's rights conventions at Seneca Falls in 1848. Pelosi reminded everyone that her state - California - had just celebrated its 10 th anniversary with paid leave.
DeLauro then chimed in to defend her state too. "I just don't want to pre-empt New York or California, but quite frankly Connecticut was the first state to have paid sick leave and to increase its minimum wage," she quipped.
Clinton simmered down the group: "Competition is good on this one!" Clinton yelled out, with a smile.
-
I don't follow how they made the leap from a business not firing her for caring for her son to having the government force the business to pay her whether she comes to work or not. Since they are arguing policy with anecdotal stories, Whole Foods is already under a squeeze right now with competition coming at them from all sides. Paying the people who don't work already took down the airline and automaking industries. Let's take down your local store next and you can drive further with no car to a Soviet style supply outlet with its empty shelves.
What about the consumer? There are women in that role too. They worked hard all day but can't buy fresh fruits and vegetables for their little ones because their preferred store is no longer has one checkout lane open with the workers out on paid leave. Unintended consequences of liberal activist policies are not that hard to imagine. What we can't see are all the business competing for workers that never started because the all rules are just too complicated, costly and constraining.
Showing a little compassion is good for a business in the eyes of their customers, community and in their competition for good workers. Having the rules for those businesses all same-sized and set in Washington takes away competitive differences and advantages, increases the costs, cuts out competition, worsens the service and raises the prices. That is a women's issue too.
Women are faring TERRIBLY in the Obama era economy. Thom Tillis, Sen candidate in NC, was just making that point, but no one is shouting it nationwide from the rooftops.
The Clinton administration (of the 90s) started a lot of this with the big push for "family leave". They said it was limited to larger companies and it was unpaid leave. How can we be against that? Well, for one thing it is the federal government setting local, private establish rules, and secondly we know that mandated unpaid leave leads to mandated paid leave, which is one more way of paying people to not work.
Paid leave is what Adrian Peterson is receiving, by union rules and government subsidy from our far-left Governor. $700,000 a week for beating up children with no wear and tear on your knees is not bad pay, and with the money committed to Peterson, the team can leave that position vacant, lose games, money and viewership. What could possibly go wrong with feminist and activists running our formerly private sector.
How about if we leave welfare programs to the government, and allow businesses employ workers in privately negotiated agreements between consenting adults.
-
Doug,
I couldn't agree with you more.
We will have to listen to 2 more years of the Hillary propaganda. Hopefully not 10.
OTOH there are always more ready to pick up where she leaves off.
-
"...there are always more ready to pick up where she leaves off."
Yes. It is so easy to pick on the personal flaws of Pres. Obama or Hillary Clinton, but the more lasting hit is to expose the flaws and fallacies of that governing philosophy to everyone.
Obamacare (or HillaryCare) did not fail because of who was President or because of website or a bad roll-out. It failed because it is a bad idea. The economy isn't stalled because Obama plays golf. It is stalled because that is the best case, economic effect of all these policies. Hillary is dishonest, in bed with wall street and has no management skills, but the reason I don't want her to be President is because she would lead us further in the wrong direction.
If we succeed in knocking HRC out of her political captain's chair, some clone with better communication skills and less baggage will emerge with an even better sounding version of the same old liberalism/socialism - like what happened in 2008.
We probably would be better off pulling for her to win the nomination, and then lose.
But I agree with Bigdog who once mentioned Jim Webb, or some other moderate Democrat. America would be better off if both parties looked for candidates with some common sense and required a high level of integrity in their leaders. It would be nice if the country didn't completely fall off the deep end every time Republicans put up a losing candidate.
-
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/09/Inevitabillary-copy.jpg)
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/09/Clintons-in-Iowa-copy.jpg)
-
Some over the top content, but some real goodies too. This could turn into a really good resource:
http://thehillarydaily.com/
-
second post of day
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/22/new-written-correspondence-revealed-between-hillary-clinton-and-america-hating-marxist-saul-alinsky/
-
Hillary Clinton is all but running for president, boasting about her reset diplomacy while secretary of state during Obama’s first term. But it is hard to find a single example of inspired diplomacy during her tenure. Canceling missile-defense cooperation with the Czechs and Poles while resetting relations with Vladimir Putin was not wise. Nor was leading from behind in Libya (“We came, we saw, and he died”). Nor was her emphasis on climate change as a global threat or her pressure on Israel to grant concessions supposedly to ensure Middle East peace. Nor was welcoming the election of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Nor was ignoring requests for beefed-up security at the consulate in Benghazi. Nor was claiming that the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi were due to a spontaneous riot over a video (“What difference at this point does it make?”). Nor was pulling all troops out of Iraq. Nor was lifting the embargos and trade sanctions against Iran. Nor was much of anything except an impressive near million miles of traveling while secretary, an astonishing feat for someone in her sixties and often in poor health.
-
Panetta: he and the Hill were right!!!
I am not sure what he means by arming Syrian rebels. Aren't many of them now ISIS? Aren't many of them now using our weapons from Iraq.
From the guy touted as having no political "axe to grind" though if you ask me he is clearly setting up Hillary to look courageous and insightful while lobbying for a job with her after she wins 2016 this is so self serving.
The building up of Hillary as a geopolitical stalwart continues. At the same time using her grandparent hood to woo the babes hearts.
********Leon Panetta: Obama Ignored Panetta and Clinton's Advice
Friday, 03 Oct 2014 09:14 AM
By Melissa Clyne
President Barack Obama regularly ignored the advice of former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and instead made foreign policy decisions based on the opinions of his insular White House staff, Panetta writes in his new book "Worthy Choices," scheduled for release on Oct. 7, according to The Daily Beast reports.
Despite warning Syria that the use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line," Obama did nothing when the Syrian military killed some 1,400 with them. Panetta writes that the president had initially decided to strike, but "abruptly reversed himself — without consulting his national-security Cabinet members."
"The result, I felt, was a blow to American credibility," Panetta said. "When the president as commander in chief draws a red line, it is critical that act if the line is crossed. The power of the United States rests on its word. [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's action clearly defied President Obama's warning; by failing to respond, it sent the wrong message to the world."
The president also overruled Panetta and Clinton and when deciding not to arm the Syrian rebels in 2012, resulting in the current mess and emboldening the Islamic State (ISIS), according to Panetta. The U.S. waited too long to get involved in Syria and left Iraq too soon, said Panetta who appeared last month on CBS News "60 Minutes."
"Hesitation and half steps have consequences as well — and those remain to be determined," he writes in his book.
Panetta and those who agreed with him "viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he wrote.
Panetta's fears have been realized about what might happen in Iraq without the stability of residual U.S. forces.
"It was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together" he writes. "My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we'd seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq's stability was not only in Iraq's interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq's military."
Speaking publicly was a no-no in the Obama White House.
Panetta says he was "chastised" if he dealt directly with Congress or the media without prior White House approval.
Another conflict arose during the 2012 discussions of the swap of kidnapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five members of the Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to Panetta. Obama and his inner circle ignored the recommendation of Panetta, Clinton, and others on the national security team that it was a bad idea.
"I opposed the swap for several reasons," he wrote. "First, I did not believe the Taliban were sincere in their efforts to reconcile with the Afghan government; they were, after all, attacking our forces on the field of battle. Second, I did not believe it was fair to trade five for one," Panetta wrote. "Secretary Clinton and I — and others — did not think we could proceed, and as much as we wanted to bring Sergeant Bergdahl home and reunite him with his family, the deal evaporated."
While that deal fell through, another was struck this year that still included a five-for-one exchange. Panetta writes that U.S. law "had to be changed to weaken the assurances given by the Qatari government that the Taliban would be kept out of the fight going forward," according to The Daily Beast.
"The bigger issue is: Is this a good deal for the security interests of the United States? That depends entirely on the assurance that we received and whether in fact these five very bad men are prevented from returning to the fight," Panetta wrote.
He remains concerned that Iraq — which "U.S. forces had fought and died to secure" — will become al-Qaida's next safe haven.
"That is exactly what it had in Afghanistan pre-9/11," he wrote. "After all we have done to decimate al-Qaida's senior leadership and its core, those efforts will be for naught if we allow it to rebuild a base of operations in the Middle East."
-
"From the guy touted as having no political "axe to grind" though if you ask me he is clearly setting up Hillary to look courageous and insightful while lobbying for a job with her after she wins 2016 this is so self serving."
EXACTLY so!!!
I've seen the two of them interviewed together-- quite the mutual admiration society.
-
Hillary's fan club is gearing up with this hard hitting piece in the MSM: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gail-sheehy-hillary-hamlet-moment-article-1.1962563
"Hillary has waited for more than 50 years to make her dream come true. As a little girl, she spent hours dancing in the sun and, as she wrote from Wellesley College to a former high school classmate, she imagined the sunlight was intended for her — beamed down by God, with heavenly movie cameras watching my every move.”
Still they don't know if she is running:
"will she or won’t she? Should she or shouldn’t she?"
I am more than a little nervous about my bet with ccp. There is no doubt she is running trial balloons about running. And there is no doubt those trial balloons are failing. On the other hand, being liberal and being delusional go hand in hand. And there is by definition no one in her upper, inner circle who is not a yes ma'am. What we know for certain is the timing, that her party needs to know URGENTLY after the mid-term elections if she is NOT running. If she runs, (as Dick Morris puts it) that puts her in the semi-finals, and she has a one in four chance of winning.
-
There is NO other Democrat who can run. She WANTS to run. She WILL run.
-
"There is NO other Democrat who can run."
First, that's not her problem. ) But if so, then there is no ready made running mate, ready to step in on a moments notice.
You may mean - no one who can run without the machine behind them, but if she doesn't run, the Clintons will still most certainly be involved with power brokering, fundraising, etc. Maybe it is irrelevant, but who is his Obama's hand picked successor? It wouldn't honestly be Hillary or Biden. Maybe they can run Valerie Jarrett for a third term.
"She WANTS to run."
I think you mean she wants her name in the record books as first woman President and wants some of the parts of being President. But she doesn't like campaigning. She doesn't like dealing with little people. She can't work a room like the masters of politics do. She hates criticism and hates being questioned. I'm sure she hates the unflattering pictures of her running posted around the internet, and is starting to see those every day in the mirror - to put it as nicely as I can.
"She WILL run."
Maybe so, but there are some very real, personal and political issues that will guide that. It is a 10 year commitment unless you start thinking one term. It's physical and it's on your feet. If it was a one term plan then we are back to the lightweight running mate issue. She will be of record age, and in medium health and condition, best case. She has no magical connection with young people, or blacks, or gays, or Hispanics, or males of any kind. Clintons are the masters of polling. She still holds the big lead but they see the trend line downward throughout the trial balloon period and it must be troubling. The more she runs, the less popular she gets. The only question is whether she is smart and objective enough to see that. (Most think she isn't.)
Being President is a cut in pay and a curtailment of her freedoms. Losing twice, and losing ugly isn't the best way to start off in retirement, nor to build the Foundation. Can't she do more for the women of the world there, make the Grandmother excuse, and never face scrutiny again?
They survived more scandals than anyone in history, but if she is really so confident, in private, that they will sail through every mis-step and scandal without damage, including Bill's, why throw the lamps around the living quarters?
Who would want to follow Obama running or serving on the left? The left is already turning on him. Thye media is turning. What Dem wants to be President with a Republican House and Senate, preside over budget fights, healthcare cutbacks and debt ceiling hike fights? Her agenda would be meaningless with a Republican congress. She would have a divided country at best, with little room for triangulation. The mid-term wave, if it happens, will shape events. If Republicans can hit 53 Senators, the next Dem is in for a struggle.
-
Doug wrote, "I am more than a little nervous about my bet with ccp."
Doug I wish I am wrong. There is no question she is running and will run. Read this shit spewing from her phony mouth. Her grandchild should grow up and do anything a boy can. The same opportunity. The same wages etc etc etc. Sickening. don't underestimate how this will make many of the babes swoon. Their female hormones will be swirling with pride and energy to vote for the FIRST GIRL. Not all but many. Many of the young ones. Nearly all the single mothers. Probably most if not nearly all of the minority babes - Latino, Black and definitely the Asian ones. The MSM will be googoo freakin gagga. The CNN babes will be blushing from here to the moon. Huffington Post will be wall to wall girly power. The entire Crat machine will rally behind her. The lib Jewish crowd from Hollywood to the Big Bankers to the billionaires Soros Fuckerberg and the more will be out in force along with Chucky Schumer to Debbie the crazy Schultz to the other crazy Schultz on MSLSD. The Wall street crowd will be funding the Clinton Foundation till their coffiers overflow with gold, silver, and stock options pennies on the dollar the rest of us pay, as will Chelsea have million dollar board room offers. The mobster army from McAullife to Panetta, to Carville to hundreds others will be lining the halls showered gifts of support on the Clintons while slipping *remember me* notes into the Hill's pants suits pockets.
Read this. Caution this is so obscene I would rate this triple XXX in its shameless and raw vulgarity:
*********Hillary Clinton has "grandmother glow" after Charlotte's birth
As she weighs another bid for the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday she has a "grandmother glow" that's fueling her campaign for female empowerment and gender equality around the world.
Speaking to a national convention of female real estate professionals, the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential contender called on business and political leaders to close the gap in wages and leadership positions between men and women.
Will new grandma Hillary Clinton run for president in 2016?
A woman in the audience complimented Clinton, telling her she looked "beautiful," and Clinton responded, "I think it is a grandmother glow."
Clinton's first grandchild, Charlotte, was born to her daughter Chelsea and son-in law Marc Mezvinsky last Friday.
During her speech, Clinton said she wanted all women to grow up in a world of "full participation and shared prosperity."
"I think my granddaughter has just as much God-given potential as a boy who was born in that hospital on the same day," she said. "I just believe that. That's the way I was raised."
Some have speculated that Clinton's granddaughter might make her more likely to launch a presidential bid. "Let's be serious. She is running for president," said Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation." "She does not want to be explaining to 10-year-old Charlotte that grandma could have been president but decided to stay home and change diapers."
Drawing heavily on her own professional and personal experiences - including several references to her bruising presidential campaign in 2008 - Clinton said in her speech on Thursday that women face double standards in business and politics and that governments should work to enact policies that break down barriers to equal opportunity. The crowd offered several standing ovations in response.
"These ceilings I'm describing don't just keep down women, they hold back entire economies and countries," she said, "because no country can truly thrive by denying the contributions of half of its people."
It's a familiar message for Clinton, who's repeatedly hit those themes as she travels the campaign trail to help Democrats in the midterm elections. On Thursday, she said the U.S. should eliminate what she called the "motherhood penalty" by requiring paid leave for new mothers. The measure, she said, would pave the way for more women to participate in the workforce.
"Laws matter," Clinton said. "I believe 100 percent in women being able to make responsible choices, but it's hardly a choice if you're working at a low-wage job, you get no leave and you can't even afford to bond with your baby because you have to get back to work."
Though Clinton's 2008 presidential bid downplayed talk of gender politics, many expect Clinton to lean more heavily on a message of women's empowerment if she runs again in 2016. She's frequently invoked former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt's quip that women in public life need to have "skin as thick as the hide of a rhinoceros" in public appearances, and she's dwelt at length on the double standards faced by men and women in the professional world.
Clinton was also in South Florida to promote her book about her tenure as the nation's top diplomat and to help Democrat Charlie Crist raise money for his gubernatorial campaign. Crist, a former Republican governor, is locked in a tight race with Repubican Gov. Rick Scott, who has outspent the Democratic nominee by a 2-1 margin in television advertising. The two are currently neck and neck in public polling - Scott was up 46 to 44 percent in a Quinnipiac poll released in September, but other recent surveys have shown the Democrat ahead.
Clinton has said she expects to make a decision on a White House bid by the beginning of next year. The appearances help increase her exposure to voters in the nation's largest swing-voting state and allow her to reconnect with some of the same big-money donors who supported her and her husband's past political campaigns.
Polls have shown Clinton dominating the Democratic primary if she decides to run. They've also shown her in a competitive position against many of her prospective Republican challengers.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/isis-war-endangers-hillary-candidacy-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Panetta's Book Is A Contract Hit On Obama By Hillary
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on October 9, 2014
Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff who was appointed with Hillary's blessing, has written a book with one clear motive: To bolster Hillary's narrative that the failures of the foreign policy that she designed were simply not her fault.
Everything was Obama's fault, not Hillary's and, of course, not Panetta's.
In the former Secretary of State's book Hard Choices, she criticized Obama's lack of strategic vision saying "not doing stupid stuff" is not an overarching foreign policy organizing principle.
Now Panetta echoes this criticism in his own book, Worthy Fights, describing a president who "avoids the battle, complains and misses opportunities." He accuses Obama of "coordinating negotiations" to allow our troops to stay in Iraq to guard against an ISIS resurgence without "really leading them."
According to Panetta, the White House "seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one" to keep our troops in Iraq, But, Panetta points out that without Obama's personal involvement, it became impossible to convince Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki to reverse his position and agree to let a garrison of American troops remain. And Obama did not make the effort to persuade him.
Panetta amplifies the impact of the failure to leave troops there saying "To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al Qaeda's resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country."
He said Obama had "kind of lost his way" and famously noted that the president too often "relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader."
Panetta's comments come as Hillary wrestles with a central threat to her candidacy. She was Secretary of State for four years yet the foreign policy crafted then has proven to be an unprecedented failure. Everything that she worked on has blown up in our face. The Arab Spring has become a nightmare.
We are on the verge of signing a phony deal with Iran that will let them enrich uranium far into the future so they can make a bomb anytime they want.
The reset button with Russia is a joke and we have made zero progress on human rights or fair trade with China.
Hillary realizes that this is not a record on which to predicate a presidential campaign. So if the foreign policy she helped to craft is a fiasco, she has to blame someone else -- the president.
Panetta stepped into help frame the issue. A Clintonista above all, he legitimized Hillary's efforts to distance herself from the president on foreign policy without having to attack him herself. Now the negative points for disloyalty will accrue to Panetta not to Hillary.
The former defense secretary underscores the extent to which Obama's failure to act against Syria when it crossed the "red line" he had drawn against the use of chemical weapons. He said "It was damaging." Obama "sent a mixed message, not only to the Syrians, but to the world. And that is something you do not want to establish in the world: an issue with regard to the credibility of the United States to stand by what we say we're gonna do."
As our involvement in Iraq and Syria escalates into a full blown war -- as it must now that our airstrikes are failing to do the job -- the blame game will grow with it. Panetta's comments are an attempt to swat the blame away from Hillary Clinton.
He will get his reward. Just wait.
-
Hi Crafty. Morris points out pretty much what we said here a few days ago.
Certainly he knows the Clintons.
This is why I put Panetta into the "snake" category. And we must never forget this guy does not believe in the United States as a sovereign country. He is for one world government in his heart. The rest is all stage play.
-
An Affair to Remember
As Hillary gears up to run, look for attempts to rewrite 1990s history.
Hillary and Bill Clinton in New York in 1998 ENLARGE
Hillary and Bill Clinton in New York in 1998 Getty Images
Oct. 22, 2014 7:00 p.m. ET
630 COMMENTS
As Hillary and Bill Clinton prepare for another White House ramble, the country is fated to endure more than a few 1990s flashbacks, often including attempts to whitewash the real history. The latest character to re-emerge is Monica Lewinsky, the former intern who is doffing her beret to reinvent herself as an anti-cyberbullying activist.
In a speech this week at a Forbes magazine conference that went viral on the Web, Ms. Lewinsky describes herself as a “survivor” of online abuse—she became “the creature from the media lagoon.” As the worst abusers, she cited Matt Drudge and the New York Post, which gave Ms. Lewinsky a term of tabloid endearment as “the portly pepperpot.” Another culprit was “a politically motivated independent prosecutor,” or Ken Starr.
The problem is that Ms. Lewinsky was actually the victim of the Clinton lagoon, as White House operatives tried to destroy her reputation when the scandal broke. The real bullies weren’t online but in the West Wing.
On Jan. 21, 1998, Mr. Clinton told his aide Sidney Blumenthal that Ms. Lewinsky “came on to me and made a sexual demand on me,” according to Mr. Blumenthal’s deposition to Mr. Starr. Mr. Clinton added that he “rebuffed her” and then she “threatened him. She said that she would tell people they’d had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn’t be the stalker any more.”
Mr. Blumenthal then repeated this tale to anyone in the press corps who would listen, and the “stalker” smear soon made it into multiple media reports under the authority of “a White House source.” Mrs. Clinton for her part described Ms. Lewinsky as “a narcissistic loony toon,” as the first lady’s friend Diane Blair recounted in the personal papers archive opened in 2010 by the University of Arkansas library.
Meanwhile, Mr. Clinton fanned out across the talk shows to deny that he had any romantic or otherwise improper relationship, which he continued to insist until he was forced to admit his lies by the blue DNA dress. Then the Clintons flipped to attacking the respected jurist Mr. Starr as a rabid partisan. Mr. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and lying under oath, and he later was stripped of his law license.
We correct the record not least to point out that the Clintons weren’t above falsely smearing a young woman not much older than their daughter as an oversexed psycho blackmailer. Since Ms. Lewinsky brought it up, we also wonder what the modern feminists applauding her address think about men in positions of power publicly shaming a female subordinate without her consent.
But the story is especially instructive for what it reveals about the Clinton family mores of saying or doing whatever it takes to win. Mr. Blumenthal and the rest of the Clinton menagerie are rested and ready for another run at political power. As the 2016 election nears, Americans should be prepared for more attempts to rewrite 1990s history.
-
link.theblaze.com/52d10b9f0f365bf272f1d1cd1xl73.9klm/VE0NaMPoaWc60owGA336f
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/25/hillary-clinton-dont-let-anybody-tell-you-that-its-corporations-and-businesses-that-create-jobs/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%2010-26-14%20FINAL
-
link.theblaze.com/52d10b9f0f365bf272f1d1cd1xl73.9klm/VE0NaMPoaWc60owGA336f
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/25/hillary-clinton-dont-let-anybody-tell-you-that-its-corporations-and-businesses-that-create-jobs/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%2010-26-14%20FINAL
What is the cartoon bubble over Hillary saying right now? 'Elizabeth Warren said it. Obama said it. No problem. So I said it and the shit hits the fan! What's up with that?!'
Now she says entrepreneurs do create jobs. [No they don't - if you tax them and regulate them to death.]
The twitter world is abuzz at the "gaffe" and "correction" from Hillary Clinton: http://twitchy.com/2014/10/27/too-late-grandma-hillary-clinton-flip-flops-now-says-that-entrepreneurs-create-jobs/ "Too late Grandma". "How is "businesses don't create jobs" a shorthand for "businesses create jobs"?" You don't understand jobs, or you're a pandering,l double speaking flip-flopper, or both.
The double standard of being held accountable for what you say and what you believe is sooo unfair ... when Barack was not at this point in his candidacy!
Guess what Hillary, this is not 2007-2008. You are not a shining, innocent face from the great unknown. And America is not looking for a 5th straight President that doesn't understand economics.
Becoming a stay at home Grandma ought to look pretty good to her right now. I expect her announcement within the next 2-3 weeks.
-
This woman took it in front of the country as her serial humper of a husband did his thing over the years across the country.
She does not embarass easily. Her will to power is extraordinary and she has the entire progressive-liberal-Democratic machine and its running dogs in the Pravdas at her beck and command. She is running. Period.
-
This woman took it in front of the country as her serial humper of a husband did his thing over the years across the country.
She does not embarass easily. Her will to power is extraordinary and she has the entire progressive-liberal-Democratic machine and its running dogs in the Pravdas at her beck and command. She is running. Period.
Hard for her (or anyone) to take back words spoken anywhere in this day and age, and she has NONE of the agility of Bill or Barack. What was she saying in that quote? I have read it, heard it and viewed it and it sounds to me more like senility than ignorance. The point was a cheap copy of Elizabeth Warren's angry, anti-capitalism rant followed by the punchline that her husband brought arithmetic to Washington, which is the punchline to a different joke. And this script came from a teleprompter! Besides the non-sense, how many times in how many speeches over the next two years will she be able to say, "what my husband" said or did. I'll tell her what her husband said and did. He presided over two years of failed, lethargic, Obama-like growth and then lost historically in his first mid-terms. He responded by firing the First Lady as head of Healthcare, and she was never again given a public, policy role. He scrapped Hillary-care completely, gave the finger to the left wing of his party, passed Reagan's hemisphere-wide free trade agreement with majority Republican support and against majority Dem opposition. Bill Clinton cut capital gains tax rates - on the wealthiest among us, and he ended "welfare as we know it." By 1996 he was perhaps more Republican than Bob Dole. Does anyone think Hillary has the ability to pivot like that -without political consequence?
No one can stop her from running if that is her choice. But she is not capable of running with the magic of her husband or a 2008 Barack Obama who pitched a perfect campaign, and she will not get a free ride in the press. (IMHO) She just has WAY too much baggage. As for the formidable political machine, she had that last time too; it was her turn. She had no one to beat of any stature then as well. The emerging popularity of the new guy was accelerated by the weaknesses seen in the formidable front runner.
For 2016, she can either run against Obama's policies and the record of the far left, or she can adopt the slogan, "Four More Years!" We can see that she doesn't flip flop easily between these two, opposing strategies.
-
(http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr102914-hillary-IBD-COLOR-FINAL-147.gif.cms)
-
IBD Editorials
Hillary's Backtracking Balderdash About Jobs
"Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs," Hillary Clinton said at a campaign rally for Martha Coakley...
[Boston Globe has Coakley trailing the Republican in Mass. Governor race by 9 points! http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/23/baker-pulling-away-from-coakley-new-poll/t1UAIVNm4FWE9i31bf6YTM/story.html]
Politics: In case you haven't heard: Hillary Clinton wants to retract the statement she made at a campaign rally last Friday in front of adoring fans that businesses and corporations don't create jobs.
Never mind that it's all on camera and that she certainly looked like she was in full command of her faculties and having a grand old time ripping the nation's job creators.
After becoming a national laughingstock, she now says she meant to say: "Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America, and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas."
That's right: She really loves businesses, always has.
This is the same Hillary whose first contribution to public policy was 20 years ago, when she foisted the wildly unpopular HillaryCare on the nation. When informed then that it would drive many businesses into bankruptcy, she haughtily replied: "I can't go out and save every undercapitalized entrepreneur in America."
Yes, she's a real champion of the nation's employers.
But almost equally absurd is her new spin that what she's really against is "tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs" and the "trickle-down economics" that has "failed spectacularly."
Oh really? We're losing iconic American companies and "good-paying jobs here" because of our highest-in-the-world corporate tax rate, which she has opposed cutting. Her line about "trickle-down economics" is the liberal fairy tale that refuses to go away.
Under Reaganomics, which the left disparages as trickle-down, the economy expanded at 4%, and middle-class and black incomes went up.
Under Hillary's old boss, the economy has grown at barely 2%, middle-class incomes have lost ground to inflation, and black incomes have seen their fastest decline. Under Obama, nothing has trickled down, and poverty rates remain near record levels.
If supply-side economics was such a failure, why did Clinton's husband sign into law a capital gains tax cut? Why did he agree to welfare legislation that replaced government handouts with work?
Hillary originally wanted to run in 2016 as her husband did two decades ago — as a centrist, pro-business "new Democrat." Alas, hers isn't the party of moderation any longer. To be pro-business, it believes, is to be an enemy of the people.
Hillary Clinton has been exposed. Her radical beliefs about how a modern economy works were on display for the world to see last weekend. It was her Howard Dean moment, and it won't go away soon.
Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102814-723862-hillary-clinton-backtracks-into-balderdash-about-businesses-and-jobs.htm#ixzz3HVLSlmYt
-
Missing from the statement is exactly what or who does create jobs if businesses don't.
I hazard to assume she meant big government. In hers and Obama's world she is to a limited degree correct. Expand big government wildly and yes we now have many more jobs. Just that those people are now paid for by taxpayers.
But lest never take our eye off the ball when speaking of the Clintons. Remember when Bill said the "era of big government is over"? And his approval ratings went from somewhere in the 40+% to well over 50%? Myself along with Rush were astonished at this. One darn speech is all it took.
-
Missing from the statement is exactly what or who does create jobs if businesses don't.
I hazard to assume she meant big government. In hers and Obama's world she is to a limited degree correct. Expand big government wildly and yes we now have many more jobs. Just that those people are now paid for by taxpayers.
But lest never take our eye off the ball when speaking of the Clintons. Remember when Bill said the "era of big government is over"? And his approval ratings went from somewhere in the 40+% to well over 50%? Myself along with Rush were astonished at this. One darn speech is all it took.
Their economics comes out of focus groups testing what Dem constituents like to hear. So Hillary mumbles something about trickling from the ground up and the middle out as a fictional alternative to their fictional construction of trickle down. How about we just recognize the positive qualities in an economy required for healthy economic growth and run that direction. If you want jobs, you need investment. If you want investment, stop punishing it. If you want more people to work and fell like they are contributing, don't pay them more to do the opposite. If you want people to rise freely up the income ladder, don't chop off the lower rungs.
-
If only we had a population that could grasp these concepts.
-
Reality check for the Clintons. Bill Clinton put it all on the line for Alison Lundegren Grimes. ANd Grimes called herself a "Bill Clinton Democrat".
Grimes spent $20 million and lost by 16 points.
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/3ad58c441ff04c1e1b04ea2d53bad1f176c4942c/c=29-0-4282-3197&r=x513&c=680x510/local/-/media/Louisville/Louisville/2014/08/06/1407370291025-140806-clintonGrimesJP-026.jpg)
For Hillary, she put it all on the line for who? Kay Hagan of North Carolina. The more Hillary went there, the more we knew Hagan's lead would evaporate.
Hagan and backers spent $48 million and lost by 2 points.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_908w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/10/25/National-Politics/Images/US_Senate_North_Carolina_Hillary_Clinton-0ebe5.jpg&w=1484)
HILLARY PRACTICES FOR 2016 AT RALLY FOR KAY HAGAN
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/25/Hillary-Practices-for-2016-at-Rally-for-Hagan
Hillary Clinton — politician and grandmom — plays to Kay Hagan’s base in North Carolina
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/10/26/hillary-clinton-politician-and-grandmom-plays-to-kay-hagans-base-in-north-carolina/
Hillary Clinton, Kay Hagan make appeal to women during Charlotte rally
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/10/25/5266798/clinton-hagan-make-appeal-to-women.html#.VFoMIFOJW-J
The Clinton magic never did transfer over to anyone but Bill Clinton.
Another election observation is that 28 of the 60 Senators who voted for Obamacare are now out.
-
Twisting, contorting, illogical "logic", stretching the truth, word games (what is is?) should make this guy a great candidate for a job with the Clintons:
http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html?amp
-
It's nice when George Will expresses my view for me since he gets paid for it and I don't.
Hillary will be the next President if people want an Obama third term, a nearly unimaginable scenario.
http://www.nationalrevcom/article/392246/rethinking-hillary-2016-george-will
Rethinking Hillary 2016
Her candidacy makes sense only if voters will be in the mood for a third Obama term.
By George Will
Now that two of the last three Democratic presidencies have been emphatically judged to have been failures, the world’s oldest political party — the primary architect of this nation’s administrative state — has some thinking to do. The accumulating evidence that the Democratic party is an exhausted volcano includes its fixation with stale ideas, such as the supreme importance of a 23rd increase in the minimum wage. Can this party be so blinkered by the modest success of its third most recent presidency, Bill Clinton’s, that it will sleepwalk into the next election behind Hillary Clinton?
In 2016, she will have won just two elections in her 69 years, the last one ten years previously. Ronald Reagan went ten years from his second election to his presidential victory at age 69, but do Democrats want to wager their most precious possession, the presidential nomination, on the proposition that Clinton has political talents akin to Reagan’s?
Advertisement
In October, Clinton was campaigning, with characteristic futility, for Martha Coakley, the losing candidate for Massachusetts governor, when she said: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” Watch her on YouTube. When saying this, she glances down, not at a text but at notes, and proceeds with the hesitancy of someone gathering her thoughts. She is not reading a speechwriter’s blunder. When she said those 13 words she actually was thinking.
You may be wondering, to use eight other Clinton words that will reverberate for a long time: “What difference at this point does it make?” This difference: Although she says her 13 words “short-handed” her thinking, what weird thinking can they be shorthand for?
Yuval Levin, whose sharp thinking was honed at the University of Chicago’s Committee on Social Thought, is editor of the National Affairs quarterly and author of two books on science and public policy and, most recently, of The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left. He is one of conservatism’s most sophisticated and measured explicators, so his biting assessment of Clinton is especially notable:
She is smart, tough and savvy and has a capacity to learn from failure and adjust. But . . . people are bored of her and feel like she has been talking at them forever. . . . She is a dull, grating, inauthentic, over-eager, insipid elitist with ideological blinders yet no particular vision and is likely to be reduced to running on a dubious promise of experience and competence while faking idealism and hope — a very common type of presidential contender in both parties, but one that almost always loses.
Her husband promised “a bridge to the 21st century.” She promises a bridge back to the 1990s. Or perhaps to 1988 and the “competence” candidacy of Michael Dukakis, which at least did not radiate, as hers will, a cloying aura of entitlement.
The energy in her party — in its nominating electorate — is well to her left, as will be the center of political gravity in the smaller and more liberal Democratic Senate caucus that will gather in January. There is, however, evidence that the Left is too untethered from reality to engage in effective politics. For example:
Billionaire Tom Steyer’s environmental angst is implausibly focused on the supposed planetary menace of the Keystone XL pipeline. His NextGen Climate super PAC disbursed more than $60 million to candidates who shared — or pretended to in order to get his money — his obsession. The result? The gavel of the Environment and Public Works Committee is coming into the hands of Oklahoma’s Jim Inhofe, the Senate’s most implacable skeptic about large-scale and predictable climate change driven by human behavior.
Is Clinton the person to maintain her party’s hold on young voters? Democrats, in their misplaced confidence in their voter-mobilization magic, targeted what have been called “basement grads.” These are some of the one-third of millennials (ages 18–31) who, because of the economy’s sluggishness in the sixth year of recovery, are living with their parents. Why did Democrats think they would be helped by luring anxious and disappointed young people out of basements and into voting booths?
The last time voters awarded a party a third consecutive presidential term was 1988, when George Herbert Walker Bush’s candidacy could be construed as promising something like a third Reagan term. A Clinton candidacy make sense if, but only if, in 24 months voters will be thinking: Let’s have a third Obama term.
— George Will is a Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post
-
"A Clinton candidacy make sense if, but only if, in 24 months voters will be thinking: Let’s have a third Obama term."
Having served as SoS may have not been a smart move in retrospect for her. While it was supposed to give her the additional line on her resume that gives her more of a "dubious promise of experience and competence" it will closely tie her to Obama. This may have been a strategic political gamble that now looks like a huge blunder.
Suppose she sat out the last 6 and next 2 years. She could have been the ambassador for the Clinton Foundation instead (also dubious as to it's real intent) and she would have been able to avoid being tied to Obama.
Will sometimes has some great writings. I used to agree with him maybe 80% of the time but now I think somewhat less. I like this article too but I am a bit confused by it and not entirely clear what he means
I am not sure what he says about Hillary's liberalism on the political spectrum meter. Is he saying she is not as liberal as Obama and the far left
base of the party? I think she certainly is but she knows that is a political loser so she like Bill feint to a more "moderate" position more to towards the center.
If she is not liberal enough (again I think she is) than why would she be an Obama 3rd term? Not that I disagree with him but just there is a bit of inconsistency in what he is saying.
In any case she is already desperately trying to separate herself from the one on foreign policy. So far I don't think she has even tried on domestic policy.
-
The SoS gig will be used to present her as "presidential". She has plenty of establishment heavyweights sucking up to her on this point already and her agents are busy planting/spreading the word about how she disagreed with the decision not to leave troops in Iraq.
IMHO, a good and sound strategy for us is to paint her with Libya and the lead from behind overthrow of Kaddaffy that has led to a black hold of AQ anarchy. Baraq jetted off to Brazil and Hillary, aided and abetted by Samantha Powers and Susan Rice put the whole thing together.
-
Excellent points on the specifics which can be used to prove the more general point, but it is the general point that is crucial. Her candidacy will be perceived as the third term of Obama, and that just got poll tested and failed miserably.
She ran in 2008 with the exact same positions as Obama on the exact same issues. There wasn't a micron of distance between them. She wanted the same healthcare plan and supported his. She supported all the Fannie Mae, CRAp of government particpation and interference in housing finance and everything else. She ran in support of the tax rate increases that triggered the collapse. She and Obama were both the co- de facto Senate and Congressional Leaders of the country from the peak to the meltdown, down it went, and she favored everything that went wrong. She ran the commercials against Obama that questioned who was ready for the 3 am phone call. She got that call at 5 pm - and did NOTHING. She never even explained or apologized. What difference does it make. She has her fingerprints and DNA all over his failed foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Russia, China, North Korea, ISIS and the setup for whatever goes wrong next. To the extent that she wasn't in charge of negotiating things like the non-existent Status of Forces Agreement or anything else, it was because he never did trust her and instead relied on 24 special envoys who reported to the White House, to Pres. Obama or Valerie Jarrett maybe, but not to Hillary Clinton. http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg83023#msg83023
As ccp suggests, she is trial ballooning a little distance between herself and Obama and it is not going well. She must choose between two opposites and both are career ending. She is his third term, or she can run against the policies she supported and the incompetencies she was part of. She supported nearly all of it so running against is phony, won't convince anyone, AND it will piss off the Obama machine that just won the last two Presidential elections. They own the big voter ID, data mining, and get-out the-vote operations that are tied to the inner cities and expanding social spending roles of identified, government-dependent persons. You don't piss off the (other) powers that be and then expect them to go all out for you. It doesn't work that way.
As George Will suggests, she was elected twice in 69 years, none in the last 10, and all in a totally, uncontested, 'blue' state. The first time was with all the sympathies and popularity of being the First Lady and humiliated spouse, and the other was as an unchallenged incumbent in totally Democratic environment. When she was tested, she failed.
She doesn't own the 98% black vote that Obama got. They don't own the Hispanic vote anymore, it is slipping away at the margins. At 69 and running on a return to the 90s, she doesn't own the young vote that already turned on them. With gay marriage a fact, gays who happen to be enterprising and seek liberty are free to start voting pocketbook and economic issues. She doesn't have a positive economic record. She voted against the policies that succeeded earlier in her time in the Senate. She tried foreign policy and failed badly.
A resume is a list of capabilities and accomplishments, not a list of past work addresses.
Electing her as a presidential and national failure is not an advancement for women. They are losing married women (and all men) by double digits.
She can't count on paybacks from Alison Grimes, or Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Begich, Michelle Nunn or Sen. Udall, Gov. Crist ... or Pres. Obama, Axelrod or Joe Biden.
There are SO many fundamentals running against her right now. If the Clintons are so smart and shrewd, then they know all of this.
On the other hand, with as little as a friendly softball press conference bombshell, she can walk away from this and never face an unpleasant reporter or question, ever again. I know everyone else says she's in, including herself talking to herself, but the other choice has got to look tempting.
Don't get me wrong. Our side might be better off with her in and running against a known, failed candidate instead of seeing one more newcomer step forward and re-package the same old big government BS as if it is new and exciting again.
-
No intent to obsess on her, just saying that I am not the only one saying this...
"Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose." - Willie Brown, SF Chronicle, 11/7/2014.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Don-t-say-Obama-s-blocking-caused-5879675.php
-
No intent to obsess on her, just saying that I am not the only one saying this...
"Hillary Rodham Clinton must be wondering whether she really wants to run for president. Unless there are some serious readjustments to the Democratic operation, she is going to lose." - Willie Brown, SF Chronicle, 11/7/2014.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Don-t-say-Obama-s-blocking-caused-5879675.php
Doug's prediction looks better every day.
-
http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-biggest-loser/
-
"I was hopeful that the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would spur the House of Representatives to act, but they refused even to advance an alternative. Their abdication of responsibility paved the way for this executive action, which follows established precedent from presidents of both parties going back many decades."
- Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Not exactly putting a lot of distance between herself and the failed President.
Friends and supporters of Hillary say she will make and announce her decision in mid January. If she is out, people will need to know. If she is in, that is too early. As a candidate people might expect her to have a view on the issues. The one above she come to regret. On Keystone XL pipeline? 6 years of study and still no opinion. Can a candidate for President really not have a position on something that very simply needs just a yes or a no?
Everything she is doing now looks like she is preparing to run. And every piece of news and feedback that comes back to her says don't do it.
-
Sec Clinton: I want to say a few words about the events unfolding in the world today. We are closely watching what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere, and we certainly hope and expect that there will be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence. I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries." http://nicaragua.usembassy.gov/sp_120914_secstate_on_video_that_has_caused_violence.html
WSJ reported on her remarks at 11:34 am ET, Sep 13, 2012, Saturday morning.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/13/hillary-clinton-denounces-the-video-and-the-violence/
The barrage of Susan Rice appearances occurred Sunday, Sept 14, 2012. Those talking points were given to Rice on Saturday afternoon, Sept 13, 2014. Rice was asked late in the day Friday to be the White House mouthpiece. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/04/29/white-house-email-reinforces-benghazi-talking-points/
-
Ummm , , , wouldn't this be legit with regard to events in countries other than Libya?
-
Ummm , , , wouldn't this be legit with regard to events in countries other than Libya?
Interesting point. Are you saying that makes it legit, or that it gives her cover?
The topic of the day, on that day, IMHO was Benghazi.
Pres Obama made an address with HRC at his side on Sept 12.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
No mention of a video. No mention of Yemen. etc.
By Sat. am with HRC speaking, we were back to the video.
Sunday, I watched Susan Rice to find out what happened in Benghazi, not various other protests. Same with the questioners on the various shows.
Here is wikipedia on the "video" protests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims
It was a big deal across many nations, however... In Cairo, the leader/organizer didn't know the name of the video. Egypt's prime minister Hesham Kandil said "a number" of protesters later confessed to getting paid to participate. None had seen the video; organizers were trying to show protesters the trailer. Yemen was a copycat and most of the others followed that.. Benghazi was an organized terror attack. My point is that this video did NOT cause these protests. The video trailer was a pretense to protest.
Back to Hillary. My point is that she and/or her people likely wrote the 'blame the video' script. But let's take it the other way around; take her at her word. The video IS to blame. This is the prequel to empathy for the terrorists. It is something WE are doing that makes them want to kill us. In the Sept 13 remarks and when she met the deceased families, she vowed to get the video maker, not the terrorists. That view is not a political winner. Take down free speech; leave terrorists in place. Seems to me these views or her sloppy expressions leave her politically culpable.
-
I'm saying that your quote of her is in reference to Yemen and other countries.
SOMEONE got the idea that this meme could be blended into the Benghazi cover up, but this quote, as best as I can tell, proves nothing with regard to whom that may have been.
-
I'm saying that your quote of her is in reference to Yemen and other countries.
SOMEONE got the idea that this meme could be blended into the Benghazi cover up, but this quote, as best as I can tell, proves nothing with regard to whom that may have been.
Fair enough. Same thing here, HRC speaking at the Benghazi killings memorial:
...video of the memorial service
Clinton comments occur from 16:25-17:45:
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with."
Crafty, her separation of these events is technically valid, but her effort to merge them is pathological IMHO. It took me multiple readings of this to see that separation as she stood over the caskets from Benghazi.
She reportedly told the victims families, we will get the people responsible for this video. No separation there. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/25/Fallen-Seals-Father-Hillary-Told-M-Dont-Worry-Were-Going-To-Arrest-The-Man-That-Did-This
If this isn't smoking gun material, it is at least a peak into a character flaw you wouldn't want (again) in a President. Unlike Susan Rice, she can't say they gave me the talking points.
-
"Crafty, her separation of these events is technically valid"
How , , , Clintonesque of her :lol:
"but her effort to merge them is pathological IMHO."
I would say it is amorally purposeful.
"It took me multiple readings of this to see that separation as she stood over the caskets from Benghazi."
Precisely her intention I suspect.
"She reportedly told the victims families, we will get the people responsible for this video. No separation there."
EXACLTY SO!!! I have hammered this point for quite some time now.
-This
"If this isn't smoking gun material,"
It is.
"it is at least a peak into a character flaw you wouldn't want (again) in a President."
EXACTLY SO. For me, this is the ideal point o the spear to use on her with regard to Benghazi.
-
I wonder if the Clinon's want the Bill Cosby story to continue to rise throughout the campaign? The Statute of Limitations does not prevent one's public image from being destroyed. If they go through with this, it's hard to say which Clinton scandal or weakness will finally catch up with them.
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608033126013338350&w=311&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0)
http://dailycaller.com/2014/12/15/why-hillary-is-not-inevitable-bills-sordid-past/
Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable: Bill’s Sordid Past
The new public scrutiny of Bill Cosby is problematic for Bill Clinton. I am not talking about consensual sex but, in some cases accusations of sexual assault, torn clothing, and at least three victims who say he bit their lips as a disarming move and to get them to remain silent. In short, Bill Clinton has a Bill Cosby problem.
Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.
Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.
Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly, the rationale for the Hillary Clinton campaign is empowerment of women. People's tolerance of all this, especially Hillary's, is abominable.
-
If you have a D next to your name, it isn't really rape.
-
I can't blame Bill for straying, after all, look at Hillary (and Huma Abedin). As the joke goes, Bill and Hillary met when they were dating the same girl in law school.
That said, the examples listed are far from complete; missing are some of the most sordid:
a) Paula Jones, a state employee brought to Governor Clinton's presence by a state trooper;
b) I forget her name (Juanita Broderick or something like that) but she was a big fundraiser and her husband worked for Bill. Something had happened and she was afraid for her husband's job and she came to the White House to plead for it. Working from memory, she has formally stated that Clinton pushed her up against the wall and forcefully groped her. Turns out that while she was there, her husband was commiting suicide.
c) there's plenty more.
-
"I forget her name... but she was a big fundraiser and her husband worked for Bill. Something had happened and she was afraid for her husband's job and she came to the White House to plead for it. Working from memory, she has formally stated that Clinton pushed her up against the wall and forcefully groped her. Turns out that while she was there, her husband was commiting suicide."
Kathleen Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, on March 15, 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her on November 29, 1993, during his first term as President. Willey's second husband, Edward E. Willey Jr., committed suicide on November 29, 1993 — the day she claimed Clinton's sexual misconduct took place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey
Who knows the veracity of that story or any one encounter. The point with the analogy to Bill Cosby is that there is too many unrelated incidents in a pattern to just shrug it off. The point with Hillary Clinton is that she knew or she should have known. Juanita Broaddrick alleged very strongly that Hillary knew. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Juanita.htm
NBC News held the Lisa Myers Juanita Broaddrick interview for 35 days, played it opposite the Grammys - after the Senate had acquitted Clinton in his impeachment trial. http://observer.com/1999/04/nbcs-vetting-of-juanita-broaddrick-clintons-accuser-discusses-agonizing-weeks-as-nbc-dragged-it-out/
There was Whitewater, the FBI files scandal, travelgate, and the hurried removal of documents from Vince Foster's office. There was the failure of her healthcare task force and of all their own policies before adopting the success of the Gingrich initiatives. But none of it matters.
-
Thanks for finding the info on Kathleen Wiley.
Also, amongst our long and still very incomplete list is the $97,000 made from $3,000 in commodities futures matter. There was a very long and very serious piece on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal written by the man who was the IRS's attorney for tax fraud in commodities futures at the time. I WOULD TRULY LOVE TO GET MY HAND'S ON THIS PIECE. IT IS VERY POWERFUL.
Working from memory, the gist of it was this:
It occurred while Hillary's husband was running for governor of Arkansas. This was the late 70s and the top tax rate was 70%. In this environment it made sense to play lots of games to minimize taxes. One of them was called a "straddle" which meant that the high income earner bought both buy and sell futures. Why? Wouldn't the gain on one offset the loss on the other? Yes, BUT the losing trade would be taken in December (offsetting income tax to be paid by the following April 15, whereas the gain would be taken in January, with the tax thereon not to be paid by the April 15th of the following year. In other words the 70% that was to be paid in taxes was availble from making money for 15 months.
This is the sort of nonsense to which the Regan tax rate cuts effectively put an end.
In Hillary's case in went like this:
She purchased her initial contracts (i.e.made her initial bets) in chicken feed grain without actually meeting SEC requirements for this high risk sort of investment at a brokerage firm that also represented Tyson Foods, the largest employer in the state of Arkansas. Her bets were in very short term trades (30 days or less). Coincidentally, the reporting requirements for this sort of trade were essentially non-existant and the federal commission in charge of this sort of things was notorious for usually being asleep at the switch anyway. However, in a rare moment of being awake, the commission had charged the brokerage firm in question with allocating winning and losing contracts at the end of the day. In the course of a few months Hillary, an attorney (focused at servicing banks IIRC) had miraculously profited in trading short term chicken feed contracts (an area of obvious expertise for Tyson Foods) over 3,000% (double check my math here!). Her miraculous run came to an end shortly before Bill was elected governor.
Translating this into ordinary English:
Tyson Foods, the largest employer in the State of Arkansas, funnelled $97,000 (laundered too!) into the pocket of the wife of the next governor via winning and losing trades that were allocated at the end of the day by a small brokerage firm that was not likely to turn down this request from its largest client.
-
It's coming down to crunch time for my bet with ccp:
She won't run. If she runs, she won't win the endorsement. If endorsed, she won't win.
Odd that she is such a shoe-in yet more than 20 Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against her!
Coverage is starting to slip the other way. She had better jump in quickly to reverse that!
Gail Collins, liberal writer at the NY Times, in "Hillary versus History":
"Do you think she contemplates the fact that no Democrat has been elected to succeed another Democrat since James Buchanan in 1856?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/gail-collins-hillary-versus-history.html?_r=0
"Did I mention that Buchanan (160 years prior to 2016) was also the last former secretary of state elected president?"
Many speculating now that Hillary won't run, will lose, or fail liberals, would be better off on the Supreme Court...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/17/5_reasons_hillary_wont_run_123015.html (posted previously)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/08/14/how_hillary_will_fail_liberals_123657.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/12/16/hillary_clinton_for_supreme_court_justice_124965.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/28/bill_maher_to_hillary_clinton_just_go_away_or_youre_going_to_blow_this.html
http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-drops-2016-presidential-race-103050046.html;_ylt=A0LEViQizKpUrAsAoR8PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybnV2cXQwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, "I'm not convinced she's going to run"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/04/van_susteren_im_not_convinced_hillary_is_going_to_run_omalley_the_big_sleeper_candidate.html
The fact is that Hillary Clinton learned so many lessons from her surprising 2008 defeat that she’s repeating each of them all over again. Once more she is running as the overconfident, inevitable nominee with safe speeches filled with mush and a bloated campaign staff that already is leaking against each other in the press.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/republicans-2015-ready-for-hillary-113956.html#.VKrPg3sizQM
Ten other Democrats wait to see if Hillary runs for president – but who would benefit most if she decides to stay out?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2894160/Who-benefit-Clinton-decides-not-run.html#ixzz3NyKcaUrQ
CBS News on New Years Day: What if Hillary Clinton doesn't run for president? "Is it possible?" OMG, LOL.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-if-hillary-clinton-doesnt-run-for-president/
The real determinants will be health, and beauty - so to speak. It will come down to health issues we don't know about as well as her view of how long and how well the latest cosmetic surgery efforts will hold up. She will not be out of the public eye for extended periods again for ten painful years - unless she says out now.
http://celebrityfacelift.blogspot.com/2012/12/hillary-clinton-facelift-before-and.html
I do not mean to be critical of the look of a young woman approaching 70; it is just quite clear that SHE is not comfortable with her look as she continually changes it. I have never seen a serious and successful candidate for President put on weight just before entering a grueling 1.5 year campaign and taking the toughest job in the world. Again, not critical, just reporting what I see.
-
The potential for Bill being connected to another scandal doesn't help either.
-
This could turn into something fun , , , http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2015/01/05/democrats-should-beware-national-enquirer/?singlepage=true
-
https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1004841_440565419409975_1071170480_n.jpg?oh=dcf35b663ccd7de8a07099ca69f9ebb9&oe=5525C7BC
-
Latest news in the Hillary drama, they have hired the North American marketing manager of CocaCola to join the campaign.
What are they planning to sell??
http://www.wsj.com/articles/coca-cola-marketing-exec-wendy-clark-expected-to-advise-hillary-clinton-1420848130?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_management
Maybe it was Bill that hired her:
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/Av8XEoPCIAAlqod_0.preview.jpg)
-
Clinton's Paris Blunder
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on January 13, 2015
The minute that she heard about the march against terrorism in Paris, Hillary Clinton should have hopped on one of her Wall Street friends' private jets and rushed to France.
Think of the photo op and its political meaning. The former secretary of State and, perhaps, future president of the United States marching arm in arm with world leaders to protest the vicious attacks in the city of light. Not President Obama. Not Secretary of State John Kerry. Not Vice President Biden. But Clinton -- on her own.
Her presence would have made her the star of the show, particularly once it became apparent she was there as a private citizen, not at the instruction -- and without the approval -- of the president. It would have marked her debut in a new role on the world stage. The optics of her marching in solidarity with the victims of terror would have been a defining one for her candidacy.
Without differing from Obama on hard issues of policy and without staking out hawkish ground in the third Iraq War, Clinton would have sent a clear message to the world, saying "I am tough on terror."
Many, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have traced the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria to Obama's (and Clinton's) failure to leave a residual garrison of troops in Iraq after our withdrawal there. This accusation makes Clinton vulnerable on the terrorism issue. What better way to put that liability behind her than to show up while her much-criticized former boss stayed home?
Female candidates for president are always being questioned on their capacity to be adequate commanders in chief. Recognizing this danger, Clinton alertly secured a seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee right after 9/11. This realization likely led to her vote for the Iraq War and her continued support of the conflict right up to the primaries of 2008.
Paris was a chance for Clinton to show toughness without alienating the left. A way to demonstrate that she would go the extra mile -- literally -- to fight terror that would not get her in trouble with her party's liberal wing.
And she blew it.
The question is, why didn't she go?
The most likely explanation is that she didn't really think it through. Political inertia may have set in. She needed to be acted on by an outside force.
What about Bill Clinton? We know that he would have gone to Paris in a heartbeat were he still president. But he was in LA with his Hollywood pals. There are reports that he's in the dog house after stories of his dalliances with Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, Hillary Clinton may be giving him the silent treatment, as is her wont when she gets angry over his indiscretions.
Without her husband, Hillary Clinton is a bureaucratic thinker. Surrounded only by her old State Department cronies, all wedded to the status quo of American diplomacy and unwilling to violate protocol by upstaging the president, there is no thinking outside the box. The fact is that none of her advisers, with the exception of Bill Clinton, had the heft to get her to reconsider her plans and take a detour to Paris. There is nobody on her staff with that kind of clout or independence of thought. Hillary Clinton is so burdened down with insider staff and stuff, she can't move with dexterity. She is not nimble any more.
And then there was the Obama problem. Reluctant to break with the president and used to the habit of obedience and playing with the team, Clinton didn't dare strike out on her own. She acted like she was still subject to his discipline. If she is to run for president, she'd better get over it.
What an opportunity she missed! And what a flaw in her thinking and staffing it reveals!
-
Obama's Left-Wing Trap
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on January 20, 2015
The next time you run into Hillary Clinton, ask her how she feels about President Obama's tax proposals in his State of the Union speech. Does she want to raise the capital gains tax to 28 percent? How about the fee on financial institutions?
And, while she's in the mood to answer questions, try asking about the bill to raise the definition of full-time work under ObamaCare to 40 hours. Or the Keystone XL pipeline? Or cutting off aid to the Palestinians if they go after Israel in the International Criminal Court? Or new sanctions on Iran? Or, for that matter, his amnesty for illegal immigrants?
The uncommon burst of post-election activity (i.e., leftist liberation) that has come over Obama since he presided over the annihilation of the Democrats' Senate majority is putting Clinton in a tough spot. Unless she opts out pretty quickly and pretty often, she will find that her 2016 platform has been written for her ... and that it's way too far to the left to run on.
We can expect Obama to spend whatever time he devotes to the presidency in his remaining two years focused on selling his new radical left-wing agenda to America. He won't succeed, but he will be able to sell it to the left. Liberals will be agog over his class warfare and his "damn Congress, full speed ahead" attitude. Finally, they are getting the kind of presidential leadership they have pined for since he was elected.
He is not just making proposals. Obama is staking out a left-wing agenda that will play in our politics for decades hence. The liberal wish list has scarcely been updated since the days of Johnson or even Truman. Now, Obama is carrying income redistribution to a whole new level, articulating a vision that will set liberal hearts aflutter for years hence.
That poses a big problem for Clinton. If she embraces this agenda, she types herself as way too far left of center. But if she rejects it, she will turn off liberals and encourage them to sit it out in 2016.
Clinton, for her part, seems to have taken a Trappist vow of silence, as she remains holed up and inaccessible while avoiding saying much of anything. That formula would serve her well if the president could keep his mouth shut. But with his constant new proposals and his regulatory agencies running amok with new regulations, Clinton's silence can and will be read as assent, trapping her in an ultra-left agenda of which the vast bulk of the voters strongly disapprove.
Clinton's 19th century-style, front-porch campaign, where she rarely ventures forth to answer questions, is also leaving her out of the action. She looks irrelevant and, as Obama stirs passions with his regulations and proposals, she seems to lack conviction by her silence.
Surrogates for lame-duck presidents have always had a tough time when they run on their own. Remember how Hubert Humphrey embraced President Lyndon Johnson's bombing pause in 1968 only to be left high and dry when it failed to bring Hanoi to the negotiating table? Candidate George H.W. Bush kept tripping over Ronald Reagan's changing explanations of his role in Iran-Contra, and Al Gore tore his hair out over his boss' shifting stories about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Obama's activist agenda is not making Clinton's life any easier.
-
Morris is wrong, again. The Clinton machine will come roaring out of the gates. I am not saying she will win the in '16 since that is a long time from now and who knows what will happen. Just that they know what Morris knows and of course they will be ready.
My guess is she will avoid comparisons to Brockster and his policies and focus on her own version of radicalism.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/
BTW, Rand Paul made a point the other night worth noting. Kadaffy gave up his nuke program to us and look what happened to him. Why would Iran trust us now?
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/
BTW, Rand Paul made a point the other night worth noting. Kadaffy gave up his nuke program to us and look what happened to him. Why would Iran trust us now?
No one will. Because of the dems, we are a weak enemy and a treacherous ally.
-
How many times did we abandon the Kurds?
-
I still doubt most care about political ideology and worse yet more and more think Communism or some form of it is a good thing but:
http://news.yahoo.com/communist-party-usa-chairman-vows-cooperation-democratic-party-141019868.html
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/
BTW, Rand Paul made a point the other night worth noting. Kadaffy gave up his nuke program to us and look what happened to him. Why would Iran trust us now?
No one will. Because of the dems, we are a weak enemy and a treacherous ally.
President Obama is Iran's greatest ally, stopping the two countries that would attack their nuclear facilities from doing so.
-
Hugh Hewitt, who I like, is sure that Hillary is running and is the Dem nominee and says the R candidate needs to study and be an expert on the records of both Bill and Hillary Clinton (long, sordid, and often criminal history) in order to win. (The DB forum could be offered up as a resource.) Hewitt takes liberal and media guests on his radio show and in particular likes to pin them down on what are her accomplishments. On the release of a most recent Hillary biography, the author could not name a positive accomplishment of hers at State.
Hewitt: "...the GOP nominee should be the individual best positioned to beat her, which means first knowing her history and especially her record at State and her time as the architect of Obamacare 1.0 from 1993-1994. It means knowing her endorsement of the president's immigration executive order and her Twitter applause of the president's State of the Union including its doomed plan to tax 529 plans.
Yes, it means even reading her ghastly and grindingly dull memoirs. And it means preparing, memorizing and delivering a concise recollection of the Bill Clinton years, one that always ends as his tenure did with the name Marc Rich.
To be the GOP nominee coming out of Cleveland should require knowing everything about Hillary and Bill and being able to effortlessly detail her almost unbelievable record of failing upwards over her twenty-five years in the Beltway."
I love his summation of her career, "failing upwards".
Hewitt, continued: "It is a huge advantage for the GOP to know their opponent this far out." ... "Every great coach --Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, yes, even Belichick-- would kill for a year and a half to prepare a game plan for one opponent on whom the tape in the vault is endless."
http://townhall.com/columnists/hughhewitt/2015/01/29/draft-n1949979
-
YES!!!
-
"Every great coach --Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, yes, even Belichick-- would kill for a year and a half to prepare a game plan for one opponent on whom the tape in the vault is endless."
OK but we have already witnessed how negatives alone will not and cannot defeat the Clintons. Remember when Rush gave Bill the ultimate compliment when he said we only get a politician like Bill once every century after he came up roses despite all his BS?
One speech, a few messages that resonate with the right voters is all it takes to erase, wash away, obliterate all the past BS. It seems many voters (swingers at least) simply do not care about ideology, or "personal" lives, integrity, honesty or lying or just plain wrong policies. As long as their heart and purse strings are tugged just a tad......
http://conservativereport.org/hillary-clinton-unbeatable-unelectable/
Did anyone else read the Bill Cosby fan who after his show said he didn't care about all the allegations against the comedian because that was his "personal life".
Like I said Bill Clinton is by far one of the wrost President's in history in my view because of the way he dumbed down any sense of integrity, honor, honesty.
So I guess if Hitler was funny than so who should care about his personal life. Just go see his show and laugh.
How Cosby got away with this for so long is extraordinarily an injustice. He belongs in jail for the remainder of his life.
There is no way this guy didn't do much of what is claimed against him.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-trapped-iran-sanctions-issue-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.westernjournalism.com/washington-times-bombshell-tapes-confirm-citizen-commissions-findings-benghazi/#Ve3Urcd3IXM6B1HE.97
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all#pagebreak
-
1)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/
2)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro and Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times - Updated: 7:29 p.m. on Monday, February 2, 2015
The chairman of a special House committee created to investigate the 2012 Benghazi tragedy on Monday instructed his staff to review secretly recorded tapes and intelligence reports that detail Hillary Rodham Clinton’s role in advocating and executing the war in Libya, opening the door for a possible expansion of his probe.
Rep. Trey Gowdy’s decision to seek a review of the materials, first highlighted in a series of Washington Times stories last week, carries consequences for the 2016 election in which Mrs. Clinton is expected to seek the presidency. It could also move the committee to examine the strained relationship between the State Department and Pentagon, which sharply disagreed over the 2011 war in Libya and the response to the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi a year later.
The Times reported last week that U.S. intelligence did not support Mrs. Clinton’s story of an impending genocide in Libya that she used to sell the war against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. The newspaper also unveiled secretly recorded tapes from Libya that showed that the Pentagon and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich so distrusted her stewardship of the war that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime.
SEE ALSO: Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war
The tapes included candid conversations and allegations that Mrs. Clinton took the U.S. to war on false pretenses and was not listening to the advice of military commanders or career intelligence officers.
“Chairman Gowdy and the committee are aware of the details reported by The Washington Times, and we are reviewing them as part of the committee’s inquiry into Benghazi,” Benghazi Committee spokesman Jamal Ware announced Monday.
The emergence of the tapes and a new line of inquiry immediately had repercussions, especially on the political front where the 2016 president race has heated up.
SEE ALSO: Hillary Clinton’s ‘WMD’ moment: U.S. intelligence saw false narrative in Libya
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a 2016 GOP hopeful who has been intensely critical of Mrs. Clinton’s handling of the 2011 Libya intervention, said the stories demonstrate she is not the right person to lead the country or the nation’s military.
“Hillary’s judgment has to be questioned – her eagerness for war in Libya should preclude her from being considered the next Commander in Chief,” said Sen. Paul, who opposed the Libyan intervention at the onset.
“We want someone in that office with wisdom and better judgment… We created chaos in Libya – as a result many arms have gone to Syria which are now aiding jihadi terrorists. I couldn’t fathom how Hillary Clinton could become Commander and Chief after this,” he added.
Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman have declined any comment about the tapes.
The Times reported that on one of the tapes, a Pentagon liaison told a Gadhafi aide that Army Gen. Charles Jacoby, a top aide to Adm. Mullen, “does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there’s nothing he can do about it,” the Pentagon liaison said, offering a candid assessment of tensions within the Obama administration.
“I can tell you that the President is not getting accurate information so at some point someone has to get accurate information to him… I think about a way through former Secretary Gates or maybe to Admiral Mullen to get him information.”
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, chairman of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, said the Pentagon’s actions were “highly unusual,” but said that it would make sense for the Pentagon to want to make sure their Commander in Chief was getting accurate information.
“I think it’s unusual to have the military say wait a minute, that’s not true,” Mr. Poe said in a telephone interview with the Times. “You have a false report from the Secretary of State, and then the military holding a completely different view of what’s taking place.
“They wanted [the president] to have facts – facts as opposed to what Secretary Clinton was hoping the facts would be; that Moammar Gadhafi was killing innocent women and children. That was was a false narrative. So, it would make sense that they would want to get that information straight to the president and not go through the Secretary of State,” he added
Story Continues →
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/#ixzz3QdcKxIhq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
========================
Continued from page 1
In reaction to the Times final installment of the series on Monday, which revealed secret Libyan intelligence reports that linked NATO supported rebels to al-Qaeda, Rep. Louie Gohmert said the news was not a complete surprise.
“During the Obama-Clinton hunger to enter a bombing war in Libya, some of us knew the rebels included al-Qaeda but we did not know the full extent of their involvement,” he said. “So we pleaded for U.S. restraint. With bombing in their heart and radical Islamists whispering in their ears, the Obama-Clinton team would not even entertain offers of a ceasefire and peaceful transition of power. While acting under U.N. approval to prevent atrocities, it appears the Obama-Clinton bombing barrages caused atrocities that sent a country into chaos which is continuing today.”
The Times series about the Libyan intervention was also picked up across Atlantic.
Britain’s Daily Mail described the story as “stunning” declaring that, “[Sec.] Clinton will face tough questions about her march to war against Moammar Gadhafi if she runs for president.”
Mr. Poe said that he believes the series will prompt new questions, especially with the current state of military and political affairs in Libya.
“As far as I’m concerned Benghazi is not going away,” Mr. Poe said. “That the U.S. would give in and arm rebels and criminals to overthrow Col. Gadhafi, and then mislead the world on that is shameful. We now have chaos in Libya… it’s the U.S.’ undoing of a country. Gadhafi was no saint, but what we have now are gangsters and jihadists running the country. We have chaos because the US intervened in a deceitful way.
“Unfortunately, the administration is making more of an effort to protect Hillary Clinton’s involvement than they are in finding out the truth about what was really behind the overthrow of Gaddafi by the U.S.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/?page=2
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/2/hillary-clinton-libya-tapes-set-house-benghazi-com/?page=2#ixzz3QdiGF3eG
-
Unfavorables already surpass favorables.
Nowhere to go from here, but - further down!
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/30/ppp-hillary-falls-within-moe-of-top-gop-candidates/
http://images.politico.com/global/2015/01/29/ppp_hrc-vulnerabilities_012015.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-poll-hillary-clinton-2016-election-114754.html
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/11386210/Meet-the-183-year-old-tortoise-who-is-the-worlds-oldest-living-land-creature.html
For a second, I thought this was about Hillary.
-
http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/04/will-brian-williams-get-away-with-misrem
-
Look at her eyes. They are not conjugate. This could be from a cranial nerve defect from a stroke:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/official-or-not-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-is-already-well-underway/2015/02/06/a78fc358-ac8d-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html
-
Two items:
The leftist-spun vaccine debacle brought presumed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton out of the shadows. Taking a stab at "anti-science" conservatives, she tweeted, "The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids." Like any good two-faced leftist, Hillary was singing a different tune in 2008 when she promised to "make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines." That might explain Team Clinton's choice for family practitioner, who agreed with the old Hillary but not the new. The Daily Caller reveals, "A doctor who was profiled by The New York Times for his close personal and professional relationship with Bill and Hillary Clinton has expressed skepticism about vaccines and touted research that found a link between childhood vaccinations and autism." Dr. Mark Hyman, together with co-author Robert Kennedy Jr., expounded on this suspicion in "Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak." According to the Caller, "In the book and in a recent TV appearance on 'Dr. Oz,' Hyman and Kennedy expressed concern that the mercury in thimerosal, a preservative used in some vaccines, is associated with autism, developmental delays and certain illnesses." As we previously noted, parents should research the issue and be as knowledgeable as possible. That includes finding a trustworthy doctor. The Clintons don't seem to have done so. But remember: This is a Republican problem
====================
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/04/clinton-family-doctor-is-a-vaccination-skeptic/
-
While I think everyone should be vaccinated I don't like the idea that people are forced to be vaccinated or else the children cannot go to school etc.
OTOH many colleges already REQUIRE proof of immunity or getting a booster vaccine to be able to attend.
Why don't liberals outlaw cigarettes? Far, far more dangerous?
-
ccp, previously: "Look at her eyes. They are not conjugate. This could be from a cranial nerve defect from a stroke:"
I wish her all the best of health, but it is a real possibility that she is not up to this.
---------------------
Article below could have been lifted from the forum... :wink:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/might_hillary_stay_out.html
Sure, she is hiring staff and is allegedly gearing up. But her history is that she only picks easy, safe contests. This race will be anything but easy.
From the article: "Republicans will not say that; the camera, however, will. Appearances mean everything in American politics, and Hillary will be the most unappealing presidential nominee since William Howard Taft more than a century ago."
By comparing her (favorably) with Taft, he removes the gender aspect of the observation. She is the one obsessed with her looks, not that it is relevant to governing. She always had the changing hair styles, the press conference in pink, etc. Whether it is botched plastic surgery or makeup )see same photo), I wonder what percent of American televisions are now high-def? And now she needs an ever so slightly roomier pantsuit. Most successful candidates condition physically for this brutal race and the job that follows if successful as a candidate. But Hillary Clinton has become comfortable with the lifestyle of already winning her battles rather than preparing for the biggest one.
Another thought, if Brian Williams is unfit to read news, how is Hillary credible as Commander in Chief, caught in the same crime? We think all Clinton's can ride out all scandals, but we have not seen all the scandals yet. As former Clinton adviser David Geffen said, Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it is troubling." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/21dowd.html?_r=0
---------------------
Back to the American Thinker this past week:
February 4, 2015
Might Hillary Stay Out?
By Bruce Walker
Democrats have a pathetic bench. While the GOP can look at young and bright faces like Walker, Cruz, Rand, Rubio, Jindal, Martinez, Haley, and Pence, which Democrats besides Hillary have a realistic shot at winning the White House?
Elizabeth Warren is an Ivy-League leftist who has won precisely one election, in Massachusetts. She is almost as old as Hillary, and although, at only about $14 million, she is not nearly as rich as Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton, Warren still looks utterly disconnected from the vast majority of America.
Joe Biden? He is a walking gaffe machine whose principal political asset is that he seems utterly hapless and confused. Biden in the presidential debates would almost certainly make several absurd and damaging slips. America will be sick to death of Obama by 2016, and his principal stooge, Biden, will inherit all this national nausea.
Whom else can Democrats turn to as their champion? Jerry Brown is ancient, and he has held just about every elective office possible in California. He looks and acts just like a tired career politician born into a political dynasty. Andrew Cuomo is also a dynastic heir who offers nothing at all to the America outside the Northeast.
The reality for Democrats is that decades of playing safe, enforcing a sort of crushing ideological conformity, and avoiding real fights like the Mafia avoids public spats have left them with a limited number of potential nominees for the presidency.
Democrats need Hillary, but does she need them? Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton has always lusted for power, for wealth, and for influence – that is why she stayed in a loveless marriage to a despicable cad like Bill so long – but there is another aspect to this vain, shallow creature.
Hillary abhors personal risk. It was Bill, not Hillary, who ran for Congress, for Arkansas attorney general, and for governor in Arkansas. Hillary was safely perched in the Rose Law Firm, gaining money and position at minimal personal risk. Hillary has been involved as a candidate in only three contests: New York Senate race in 2000, New York Senate re-election in 2006, and the Democrat nomination race of 2008. She always picked the easiest, safest contests.
So in 2000, Hillary, an Illinois native and an Arkansas expatriate who had never really lived in New York, decided to run for office from this safest of Democrat strongholds. She was, of course, still first lady as well. She shoved aside a real New Yorker, Nita Lowery, and faced a relatively weak Rick Lazio in the general election. And the 2006 midterm was a Democrat year, so Clinton faced no real battles for re-election to the Senate, either.
The 2008 presidential race was supposed to be her turn, but she hamstrung herself with a lame performance, against which not even all the powers of a past two-term president and all the fawning exposure the leftist media had given her could prevail.
Why might Hillary decide against running next year?
First, the country will be sicker of Obama than even in 2014, which means that she would have to run away from him to shake that unpopularity. There is no safe way for her to do that without potentially turning off millions of black voters, which would cost Democrats across the board in 2016.
Second, however tired folks are of Republicans, they are even more tired of Democrats. Not since FDR and the New Deal have Democrats been viewed so negatively by voters. At every level of government, state and congressional, except the White House, Democrats are a distinct minority.
Third, she will be almost 70 in 2016. She is as familiar to Americans as a tattered house slipper. Republicans will not say that; the camera, however, will. Appearances mean everything in American politics, and Hillary will be the most unappealing presidential nominee since William Howard Taft more than a century ago.
What this means is that Hillary may not choose to run in 2016. If she runs and fails, then her political life and all the easy money she gets from dull speeches could be over. Leftists like Hillary, of course, care only about themselves. They have no grand principles at all. So the only real question is this: can Hillary, personally, profit more from jumping into the 2016 presidential race or “magnanimously” stepping aside? Don’t be surprised if she decides that she is better off with the latter.
-
See my post under political rants. I read Doug's post after that post.
"As former Clinton adviser David Geffen said, Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it is troubling."
Is it really true that ALL politicians lie? The only possible lie Reagan may have told is about the Iran Contra mess. Oliver North said, " he knew". I admit I lament this if true but truthfully I am not aware of ANY OTHER hint that he ever lied.
Obama lies with even more chutzpah than Clinton. And more sinisterly. Yet as long he tows the liberal Democrat line it is no biggie.
There has to be some way to move the ethics and honor and culture back to lying is NOT tolerable. If we cannot know our leaders are telling us the truth than I don't get how we can have country.
-
See my post under political rants. I read Doug's post after that post.
"As former Clinton adviser David Geffen said, Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it is troubling."
Is it really true that ALL politicians lie? ...
That perspective comes from a former Clinton adviser. I think he meant all liberal politicians have to lie and deceive to make sense of liberalism.
Reagan claimed he never colored his hair at 80, meaning none of your damn business. But when he said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall, he meant it. It's not that anyone is perfect, but that these politicians have different levels of authenticity, not always easy to detect at first. Reagan was authentic.
When people in the real world lie to me, I often assume its the truth because I am honest and don't think to doubt them. (Obama will be a uniter.) But once I see they are dishonest, I can usually go back and recognize the other lies that have accumulated. Since we know Hillary is a liar, we know there are other lies out there and more to come that will unravel if held to scrutiny.
Enter Tray Gowdy, if not the watchdog media.
-
Also in 2016 Presidential, Clinton mistakes already made becoming more relevant:
Bringing this forward, Hillary, "I remember landing under sniper fire", "ran with our heads down". "That was just sleep deprivation, or something."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c
Funny thing is that the CBS reporter exposing her falsehood is Cheryl Attkisson!
Funnier yet, here is Brian Williams covering it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkNEDXvjP18
The flap...over the non-existent sniper fire...
-
Where is she, by the way. The next President doesn't do public appearances, comment on events, take a stand on issues? I understand the need to give us all a break from Hillary fatigue, but how does she do that later as President?
I assume she is either getting warranty service on 'work done', or addressing a health issue. Either way, if she prefers to be out of the limelight, she should know - we like her best off the public stage too.
-
It is amazing that the following attack on HRC from the left was printed today, top, front, center of the Minneapolis StarTribune, Sunday Opinion section. The region's largest newspaper is never more the a quarter note out of step with the NYT and the DNC.
Excerpting the anti-Hillary part;
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/291914841.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue
Top of the ticket to ya, Sen. Warren
Article by: BONNIE BLODGETT Minneapolis StarTribune, February 13, 2015
Why I support Elizabeth Warren for president (with Hillary Clinton as running mate).
...
Unlike our current president, Warren has plenty of experience playing hardball on behalf of the average American. She’s 65 years old. Her youthful appearance is one reason why she should be at the top of a Warren-Clinton ticket. Looks matter. I have no idea if Warren lifts weights or runs marathons, but Hillary Clinton, while remarkably well-preserved for a woman pushing the big 7-0, looks exhausted.
And besides, Clinton had her chance six years ago, a chance she blew when Barack Obama made her cry on national TV.
Call me coldhearted, but I soured on Mrs. Clinton long before she showed she had feelings. The honeymoon was over for me when she flouted custom and joined her husband’s inner circle of White House policy advisers. She was apparently not content to be the kind of low-profile sounding board that Rosalynn Carter and Nancy Reagan had been for their spouses. Eleanor Roosevelt wasn’t shy about sharing her opinions with FDR, but she never presented herself publicly as an adjunct Cabinet member.
I was amazed at the public’s nonresponse when President Bill Clinton named his wife the nation’s first health care czar. The job wasn’t in the party platform. It didn’t show up in any of her husband’s stump speeches. Nor did Mrs. Clinton’s knowledge of health care run deep. A quick study, she picked up just enough to run more savvy reformers’ hopes off a cliff.
Hillary seemed to have made a devil’s bargain with Bill: I’ll keep quiet about Gennifer Flowers (and all the others) if you remember that your wife has worked just as hard as you have to further your career. It’s payback time.
Monica Lewinsky turned out to be Bill Clinton’s most precious gift to his goal-oriented missus. Hillary’s forbearance gave her a lock on the women’s vote. Jews admired her, too, and called her a mensch. (She already had her eye on the New York Senate seat.) Southerners will always stand by a woman who stands by her man.
She was idolized overseas. I remember dining at a Paris restaurant during the height of the impeachment ordeal. A stylish sixty-something couple (she was his mistress) seated next to me found out that I was American and proceeded to wax rhapsodic about “your wonderful first lady” while heaping contempt on Americans’ hypocrisy in matters of love.
I have no quarrel with a woman who chooses to stay married to a philandering husband. What really bothers me is the way Clinton abandoned her political principles in order to stay in the game. After Bill left office, she chose to represent a state she’d never lived in and ran a hawkish, pro-business campaign.
I support Warren for president because — let’s face it — Clinton has baggage. Does anyone even know what Warren’s husband looks like?
Clinton wasn’t wrong to believe our health care system sucked. She was wrong to believe she could craft an alternative including for-profit insurers that would also be efficient and fair. Unlike Eleanor Roosevelt, whom FDR himself described as his conscience and goad, Clinton uttered not a word of protest against her husband’s abrupt rightward shift midway through his first term. She then capitalized on it when she needed Wall Street’s approval in her run for Senate. NAFTA and other trade agreements that sacrificed millions of American manufacturing jobs are as much her legacy as his. So is the now-infamous decision to dismantle Roosevelt-era curbs on banking, including Glass-Steagall, the regulation prohibiting big commercial banks like Wells Fargo from operating like investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to name two of the most notorious, thus setting in motion the mortgage crisis.
It was also on the Clintons’ watch that auto and oil companies persuaded Congress that precious jobs would be lost if light trucks were not excluded from stringent fuel-efficiency (CAFE) standards passed in 1975. Enter the era of the gas-guzzling SUV. The 1995 exemption came up again five years later. Buoyed by a close vote in the Republican-held Senate, environmentalists asked the president for a veto. They didn’t get it.
“In the end,” wrote a reporter at the time, “political considerations of the most narrow kind trumped whatever environmental arguments the White House may have had with respect to lifting the freeze on CAFE standards. SUVs, minivans, and pickups now account for 50 percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S., a figure expected to rise in the years to come.”
Warren is willing to veto the Keystone pipeline because … it’s the planet, stupid.
“We are on the cusp of a climate crisis — a point of no return that will threaten our health, our economy, and our world,” she wrote to members of the League of Conservation Voters. “But we are also at a moment of great opportunity, where investment, smart regulations, and real commitment could move us boldly into the future. Over the next ten years, oil and gas companies will suck down $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies. We know they’re going to fight tooth and nail to protect — or even expand — those special breaks.”
Warren is willing to take positions that Obama apparently couldn’t because he was the first black president. She barely seems aware of her gender difference, much less that she has a shot — albeit long — at becoming the first woman president. She’s too busy exposing unfair subsidies, demanding corporate transparency and beefing up Dodd-Frank.
What else would a President Warren do? She would tell working people why the wealth gap is killing the American dream. She would tell them that companies like Medtronic and Walgreens are giving up their U.S. citizenship because, after all, these days they have customers and workers aplenty overseas and evading the IRS is way too much trouble. It’s cheaper to just move. New NAFTA-style trade agreements like the Transpacific Partnership wouldn’t be hush-hush with Warren in the White House. Neither would drone attacks, CIA surveillance techniques, and sweetheart deals between corporations and the Justice Department.
Could candidate Warren be bought? That’s always possible, but one thing I’m sure of is that Hillary Clinton sold out a long time ago. ...
-
http://theantimedia.org/crony-hillary-clinton/
-
Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise
Donations raise ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up expected 2016 bid
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton address the Clinton Global Initiative in New York in September 2014. ENLARGE
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton address the Clinton Global Initiative in New York in September 2014. Photo: European Pressphoto Agency
By
James V. Grimaldi And
Rebecca Ballhaus
Updated Feb. 17, 2015 11:05 p.m. ET
95 COMMENTS
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.
Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.
Read More on Capital Journal
Who Will Call the Plays in Obama’s Fourth Quarter?
Unease Grows as Clinton Stays on Sidelines (Feb. 11)
On Twitter, 2016 Rivals Let the Jabs Fly
In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad.
The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.
The donations come as Mrs. Clinton prepares for an expected run for the Democratic nomination for president, and they raise many of the same ethical quandaries. Since leaving the State Department in early 2013, Mrs. Clinton officially joined the foundation, which changed its name to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and has become a prodigious fundraiser as the foundation launched a $250 million endowment campaign, officials said.
A representative for Hillary Clinton referred all questions to the Clinton Foundation.
A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to raise money for its many projects, which aim to do such things as improve education, health care and the environment around the world. He also said that donors go through a vigorous vetting process.
One of the 2014 donations comes from a Canadian agency promoting the proposed Keystone pipeline, which is favored by Republicans and under review by the Obama administration. The Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development agency of Canada, a first-time donor, gave between $250,000 and $500,000. The donations, which are disclosed voluntarily by the foundation, are given only in ranges.
One of the agency’s priorities for 2014-2015 was to promote Keystone XL “as a stable and secure source of energy and energy technology,” according to the agency’s website. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department was involved in approving the U.S. government’s initial environmental-impact statement. Since leaving State, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly declined to comment on Keystone.
The Canadian donation originated from an agency office separate from the one that advocates for Keystone XL, a Foundation spokesman said.
While the Canadian donation didn’t appear in a Clinton Foundation online database of donors until recently, the donation of about $480,000 was announced in June in Cartagena, Colombia, where the program provides job training for youths.
Kirk Hanson, director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California, said the Clintons should immediately reimpose the ban, for the same reasons it was in place while Mrs. Clinton led U.S. foreign policy.
“Now that she is gearing up to run for president, the same potential exists for foreign governments to curry favor with her as a potential president of the United States,” he said.
If she becomes president and deals with these nations, “she can’t recuse herself,” added James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. “Whether it influences her decision making is questionable, but it is a legitimate thing to focus on by her political opposition.”
The donations weren’t announced by the foundation and were discovered by The Wall Street Journal during a search of donations of more than $50,000 posted on the foundation’s online database. Exactly when the website was updated isn’t clear. The foundation typically updates its website with the previous year’s donations near the beginning of the year. All 2014 donations were noted with asterisks.
At least four foreign countries gave to the foundation in 2013—Norway, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands—a fact that has garnered little attention. The number of governments contributing in 2014 appears to have doubled from the previous year. Since its founding, the foundation has raised at least $48 million from overseas governments, according to a Journal tally.
United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.
A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.
The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.
Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.
Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.
The Clinton Foundation has set a goal of creating a $250 million endowment, an official said. One purpose was secure the future of the foundation’s programs without having to rely so much on the former president’s personal fundraising efforts, the official said.
The Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Oman donations went to the endowment drive.
Write to James V. Grimaldi at James.Grimaldi@wsj.com
-
Wash Post: The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help re-imagine Clinton brand
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-making-of-hillary-50-marketing-wizards-help-reimagine-clinton-brand/2015/02/21/bfb01120-b919-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html?hpid=z1
Powerlineblog: They should have added, “Not a parody.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/the-re-branding-of-hillary-clinton.php
-
Many of the possible campaign themes have already been used so Hillary advisers are scrambling to meet her planned April announcement plan.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-seen-launching-presidential-bid-in-april-1425254392
Nixon 1972 had, Now more than ever. Reagan 1984, Morning Again in America. Bill Clinton 1996, Building a bridge to the twenty-first century and don't, stop, thinking about tomorrow. Barack Obama, Yes we can, Forward, and now Hillary Clinton 2016, Double Down on Failure!
-
http://patriotpost.us/articles/33533
===============================
Judicial Watch confirmed Thursday what many Americans already knew: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's attempt to blame the attacks in Benghazi on an "offensive video" was a bald-faced lie. As the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Judicial Watch obtained a series of critical emails that not only reveal State Department officials knew immediately the American compound in Benghazi was under attack but that the attack was perpetrated by assailants tied to a terrorist group. And despite the infamous exasperated question from the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, the truth does make a big difference at this point.
The first email was sent Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. It was forwarded by former Clinton Special Assistant Maria Sand to Clinton's former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jacob Sullivan, former Executive Assistant Joseph McManus, and a host of other Special Assistants in Clinton's office. It read as follows:
"The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four COM [Chief of Mission] personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."
Another email arrived at 4:38 p.m. It was sent by the former director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Scott Bultrowicz, who was fired following the report issued by the Advisory Review Board (ARB) citing "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department" responsible for security in Benghazi. That would be the same ARB that refused to interview Hillary Clinton as part of its investigation. State Department Foreign Officer Lawrence Randolph forwarded Mills, Sullivan and McManus the email from Bultrowicz with the subject line "Attack on Benghazi 90112012":
"DSCC received a phone call from [REDACTED] in Benghazi, Libya initially stating that 15 armed individuals were attacking the compound and trying to gain entrance. The Ambassador is present in Benghazi and currently is barricaded within the compound. There are no injuries at this time and it is unknown what the intent of the attackers is. At approximately 1600 DSCC received word from Benghazi that individuals had entered the compound. At 1614 RSO advised the Libyans had set fire to various buildings in the area, possibly the building that houses the Ambassador [REDACTED] is responding and taking fire."
At 12:04 a.m. Randolph updated Mills, Sullivan and McManus with another email with the subject line "FW: Update 3: Benghazi Shelter Location Also Under Attack":
"I just called Ops and they said the DS command center is reporting that the compound is under attack again. I am about to reach out to the DS Command Center."
Contained in that email is a series of equally damning updates:
4:54 p.m.: "Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi has stopped and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site to locate COM personnel."
6:06 p.m.: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack (SBU): (SBU) Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and call for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
11:57 p.m.: "(SBU) DS Command reports the current shelter location for COM personnel in Benghazi is under mortar fire. There are reports of injuries to COM staff."
And finally, at 3:22 a.m., Sept. 12, Senior Watch Officer Andrew Veprek forwarded an email to numerous State Department officials, later forwarded to Mills and McManus. The subject line? "Death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi":
"Embassy Tripoli confirms the death of Ambassador John C. (Chris) Stevens in Benghazi. His body has been recovered and is at the airport in Benghazi."
Two hours later, McManus forwarded the news of Stevens' death to the State Department Legislative Affairs office -- with instructions not to "forward to anyone at this point."
Hillary Clinton's response? An official statement calling the attack "a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."
As for her other, earlier response, blatantly ignored by the mainstream media? A 10 p.m. phone call between Clinton and Obama, completely contradicting the previous assertion by the White House that Obama made no phone calls the night of the attack. As National Review's Andrew McCarthy sarcastically asked, "Gee, what do you suppose Obama and Clinton talked about in that 10 p.m. call?"
The rest of the orchestrated disinformation campaign -- sending former UN ambassador, current National Security Advisor and reliable propagandist Susan Rice on network news shows to maintain the despicable lie, Obama's assertion of same on the David Letterman Show and at the UN, the spending of $70,000 for a Pakistani ad campaign showing Obama and Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video, and a host of other insults to the public's intelligence -- can no longer be obscured.
America twice elected an inveterate liar as commander in chief. And the very same corrupt media that ran interference for Obama's lies are gearing up to do the same thing for an equally inveterate liar. And make no mistake: All of Clinton's critics will be characterized as perpetrating a war on women whenever the subject of her horrendous track record of prevarication arises -- one that included another blatant lie about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.
And that's if those questions arise at all. Here are two separate Google Searches related to the revelations presented by Judicial Watch. Note that not a single mainstream media source has even filed a report, much less made this the kind of headline story, followed by a relentless series of updates, that would have attended any Republican caught doing exactly the same thing. An equal amount of calculated disinterest attends the scandalous conflict of interest surrounding the Clinton Foundation, which received millions of dollars from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to a U.S. political candidate. Funneling those contributions through the Clinton Foundation allows Hillary to skirt such restrictions.
On Benghazi, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton gets it exactly right: "These emails leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton's closest advisers knew the truth about the Benghazi attack from almost the moment it happened. And it is inescapable that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she planted the false story about 'inflammatory material being posted on the Internet.' The contempt for the public's right to know is evidenced not only in these documents but also in the fact that we had to file a lawsuit in federal court to obtain them. The Obama gang's cover-up continues to unravel, despite its unlawful secrecy and continued slow-rolling of information. Congress, if it ever decides to do its job, cannot act soon enough to put Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and every other official in these emails under oath."
Whether Congress is up to the job or not, one thing is crystal clear: Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to lead this nation. Her election to the Oval Office would be a continuation of the lawlessness and lying this nation has endured for the past six years. Judicial Watch has produced the smoking gun. The voting public ignores it at the nation's peril.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?emc=edit_na_20150302&nlid=49641193&_r=0
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?emc=edit_na_20150302&nlid=49641193&_r=0
"Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so."
It was not until two months ago, nearly two years after Clinton had resigned from the State Department that her aides, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. They eventually turned over 55,000 pages of emails.
Only the Clinton aides know how many emails involving official business they did not turn over. And even these aides probably don’t know whether or to what extent Clinton’s emails previously were purged.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/the-prebranding-of-hillary-clinton.php
-
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/03/the-new-york-times-deceptive-suggestion-that-hi/202726
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-state-department-officials-explain-152110637.html
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/03/trey-gowdy-says-hes-going-after-hillary-clintons-personal-emails-on-benghazi/
Also see http://conservativetribune.com/hillary-benghazi-notes/ In asking for her notes they may be overreaching a bit, but overall it looks like the pressure is building.
-
"A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them."
Here we go again. More sleaze.
-
The Clinton Rules
Foreign donors and private email show how Bill and Hillary work.
March 3, 2015 7:29 p.m. ET
WSJ:
Hillary Clinton hasn’t even begun her expected presidential candidacy, but already Americans are being reminded of the political entertainment they can expect. To wit, the normal rules of government ethics and transparency apply to everyone except Bill and Hillary.
Last week we learned that the Clinton Foundation had accepted donations from foreign governments despite having made a public display of not doing so. The Family Clinton had agreed not to accept such donations while Mrs. Clinton was serving as Secretary of State, with rare exceptions approved by State’s ethics shop.
But, lo, the foundation quietly began accepting such gifts from the likes of Qatar and Algeria after she left the State Department—though everyone in the world knew she was likely to run for President in 2016. The foundation didn’t announce the donations, which our Journal colleagues discovered in a search of the foundation’s online data base.
Then Monday the New York Times reported that Mrs. Clinton used a personal email account for official business as Secretary of State, despite a federal transparency law that requires officials to maintain emails on government servers. A former long-time litigation director at the National Archives & Records Administration told the paper he could “recall no instance” when a high-ranking official had solely used a personal email address for government business.
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill says this is no big deal because Team Clinton is following “the letter and the spirit of rules” and has turned over to State some 55,000 emails in response to a formal request. Put another way, Mrs. Clinton is controlling which emails are divulged, and everyone should trust her judgment. We doubt Congress’s Benghazi investigators will be reassured. You also have to wonder about the judgment of America’s top diplomat exposing her official business on personal email to cyber hacking from China or Iran.
The real story here is that none of this is a surprise. This is how the Clintons roll. They’re a political version of the old Peanuts cartoon character who was always surrounded by a cloud of dirt. Ethical shortcuts and controversies are standard operating procedure. A brief 1990s roll call: The Riadys, Johnny Chung, Travelgate, the vanishing Rose billing records, a killing in cattle futures, the Marc Rich pardon.
The Clintons and Democrats want Americans to forget all of that. But as the email and foundation discoveries show, the Clintons haven’t changed. They still think they can do what they please and get away with it.
Popular on WSJ
-
second post
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/04/hillary-clinton-email-server-traced-to-internet-service-registered-to-ny-home/
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/house-benghazi-committee-subpoenas-clintons-personal-emails-n317576
-
What Might Have Motivated Hillary Clinton To Use Personal Email"
Share:
facebook icon twitter icon
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton checks her mobile phone after her address to the Security Council at United Nations headquarters, Monday, March 12, 2012. The bloody conflict in Syria is likely to dominate public and private talks Monday as key ministers meet at the United Nations on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and challenges from the Arab Spring.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton checks her mobile phone after her address to the Security Council at United Nations headquarters.
CREDIT: AP Photo/Richard Drew
I love this story from the New York Times about Hillary Clinton using her personal email account for official Secretary of State business because it points to a serious fracture in transparency’s goals, its implementations and IT policy in Government. Take this choice quote from Thomas Blanton, the Director of the National Security Archive:
“Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”
Are you serious? Let’s be clear, that personal email was probably far more secure than her state.gov email account. The State Department’s email system has been compromised for months. It’s highly likely that it’s been compromised since forever: remember, during her tenure, Wikileaks released the State Department’s classified communications.
A better question is: why would she use the State Department’s email system to conduct official business? In fact, if it’s demonstrably insecure, does she not have a responsibility not to use it? It’s probably the case that if Hillary Clinton was focusing solely on security, using her personal email with 2 Factor Authentication was probably way more secure than using the honeypot mess of IT that is the State Department’s email servers.
But more importantly, let’s talk about records. As the former director of Sunlight Labs at the Sunlight Foundation, it’s a cause I care about. That’s the important bit. I don’t believe Hillary Clinton was actively working to hide her communication from the public. I think she was looking for the easiest way to do her job. The one thing you have to understand about people in public service is people down to the lowest levels of public service understand open records laws, and they all know one thing: if you don’t want something on the record, don’t use email. Pick up the phone. Hillary Clinton knows that, too.
Hillary Clinton was trying to use what she wanted to use in order to do her job. As a former fed, I’m empathetic. When you start at the Federal Government, it’s often like stepping in a time machine. You’re handed technology from years ago and (especially at her level) you’re expected to do tomorrow’s work. Often faced with a choice: do I do the job I was hired to do, or do I uphold and obey the archiving laws. And usually (thankfully) “do the job” wins.
This is because the way our Federal IT shops tend to implement IT policy isn’t through service, it’s through the prescription of antiquated technology. Rather than investing in cloud managed solutions, the feds prefer you to carry around a laptop that can log into a virtual desktop computer that’s often located inside of the basement of an agency. Then, if you’re not in the office, as the Secretary of State often isn’t, you can crank up Outlook, and check your mail. Maybe. If you’ve got the right authentication token with you.
And so you sit there and go “golly, this person needs to hear from me right now, before I go into my next meeting,” and more often than not, you just pop open your gmail, and bang out your quick email because it’s easier and you need to get the job done. Often times, our political leaders are not kind enough to save them and turn them over to the public record as Hillary Clinton did. Sometimes they just delete the messages.
I hope as a result of this, a crackdown doesn’t happen (but it will). The right solution here isn’t to get more stringent on the archiving stuff, it’s to make the archiving and sunlight stuff in service to the job. The IT department should be saying “what tools do you need in order to do your job in the best way that you see fit” and working backwards from that in order to prevent this sort of thing from becoming as common as it actually is.
Instead of forcing people to use a 2010 blackberry and lotus notes to check their email through a VNC firewall that takes 10 minutes to log into (that, by the way, is demonstrably insecure anyway, compromising not only national security, but also the integrity of the archives in the first place), why not fix that policy, make it easy for people to use the tools they need to use in order to do their jobs, and use some archiving technology from, say, 2010 in order to handle it. The trick here isn’t “make people comply with strong authority,” it’s “make compliance easier, and of service to the people that need to do a job other than recordkeeping”
One final thought: I’d imagine Secretary Clinton at some point emailed the White House. I made the mistake of emailing the White House from my personal account once (!) during my term, and managed to get back a nastygram from Counsel about it. How or why didn’t the White House tell Hillary to use her official .gov email account?
It could be that they knew the entire classified and unclassified email system was compromised and decided that the smartest thing to do was for her to use her personal email instead.
Clay Johnson is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the author of The Information Diet. This post originally appeared on Medium.
-
second post
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/state-dept-cant-definitively-hillary-email-didnt-contain-classified-info_874965.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
-
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a self-described mining company that in 2012 received one of only two “gold exploitation permits” from the Haitian government—the first issued in over 50 years.
The tiny North Carolina company, VCS Mining, also included on its board Bill Clinton’s co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), former Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.
The Rodham gold mine revelation is just one of dozens featured in a forthcoming bombshell investigative book by three-time New York Times bestselling author Peter Schweizer, according to a Thursday statement from publishing giant HarperCollins. The publisher says the book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, is the culmination of an exhaustive one-year deep dive investigation into the nexus between the Clintons’ $100+ million personal wealth, the Clinton Foundation, and the decisions Hillary made as Secretary of State that benefited foreign donors, governments, and companies.
VCS’s coveted gold mining exploitation permit was apparently such a sweetheart deal that it outraged the Haitian senate, since royalties to be paid to the Haitian government were only 2.5%, a sum mining experts say is at least half the standard rate. Moreover, the mining project in Morne Bossa came with a generous ability to renew the project for up to 25 years. Nevertheless, the fledgling company proudly touted its luck in landing the deal.
“This is one of two permits issued today, the first permit of their kind issued in over five decades,” reads the only press release under VCS’s “news” tab on its scant website.
According to USAID, $3.1 billion have been dispersed since the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
Clinton Cash is said to contain “seismic” and “game-changing” revelations that far eclipse anything presently reported on the Clinton Foundation’s violation of its agreement not to accept foreign government money during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state.
In 2011, Schweizer’s book Throw Them All Out exposed insider trading by members of Congress and became the subject of an award-winning CBS 60 Minutes story and “started the STOCK [Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge] Act stampede,” according to Slate.
“Bestselling author Peter Schweizer coins a new term to describe the unique way in which Bill and Hillary tend to mingle their political, personal and philanthropic interests: the ‘Clinton Blur,’” says HarperCollins editor Adam Bellow. “Schweizer’s scrupulously sourced and exhaustively researched book raises serious questions about the sources of the Clintons’ sudden wealth, their ethical judgment, and Hillary’s fitness for high public office.”
The book is slated to hit bookshelves nationwide May 5th.
-
Third post of the day
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/secret-service-guarding-hillarys-home-email-server_874861.html
-
4th post of the day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DCwmYHr-_M
-
5th post
To see the visuals that are part of the piece, best to go to:
http://gawker.com/how-unsafe-was-hillary-clintons-secret-staff-email-syst-1689393042#
When Hillary Clinton ditched government email in favor of a secret, personal address, it wasn't just an affront to Obama's vaunted transparency agenda—security experts consulted by Gawker have laid out a litany of potential threats that may have exposed her email conversations to potential interception by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies.
"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.
Within the instant classic "ClintonEmail.com" domain, it appears there are three separate servers. The domain's blank landing page is hosted by Confluence Networks, a web firm in the British Virgin Islands, known for monetizing expired domain names and spam.
But the real worry comes from two other public-facing ClintonEmail.com subdomains, which can allow anyone with the right URL to try to sign in.
One is sslvpn.clintonemail.com, which provides a login page that apparently uses an SSL VPN—a protocol that allows your web browser to create an encrypted connection to a local network from any internet connection—to users to access their email. That sounds secure, and under the right circumstances, for regular users, it can be. But there are two huge problems with using it for the Secretary of State's communications with her staff and others.
How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?
First: Anyone in the world with that URL can attempt to log in. It's unclear what exactly lies on the other side of this login page, but the fact that you could log into anything tied to the Secretary of State's email is, simply, bad. If the page above is directly connected to Clinton's email server, a login there could be disastrous, according to Robert Hansen, VP of security firm WhiteHat Labs:
It might be the administrative console interface to the Windows machine or a backup. In that case, all mail could have been copied.
What's more troubling is the fact that, at least as of yesterday, the server at sslvpn has an invalid SSL certificate. Digital certificates are used to "sign" the encryption keys that servers and browsers use to establish encrypted communications. (The reason that hackers can't just vacuum the internet traffic between your browser and Google's Gmail servers and read your email is that your browser is encrypting the data to a public encryption key. The reason that you know that you are encrypting to Google's key and not to, say, the People's Liberation Army's, is that the Gmail servers have a digital certificate from a trusted third-party confirming that the key is theirs.)
When you attempt to access sslvpn.clintonemail.com using Google's Chrome browser, this is what you see:
How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?
The apparent reason for that message is that the certificate used by Clinton's server is self-signed—verified by the authority that issued it, but not by a trusted third party—and therefore regarded by Google's Chrome browser as prima facie invalid. The government typically uses military-grade certificates and encryption schemes for its internal communications that designed with spying from foreign intelligence agencies in mind. But the ClintonEmail.com setup? "If you're buying jam online," says Hansen, "you're fine." But for anything beyond consumer-grade browsing, it's a shoddy arrangement.
Security researcher Dave Kennedy of TrustedSec agrees: "It was done hastily and not locked down." Mediocre encryption from Clinton's outbox to a recipient (or vice versa) would leave all of her messages open to bulk collection by a foreign government or military. Or, if someone were able to copy the security certificate Clinton used, they could execute what's called a "man in the middle" attack, invisible eavesdropping on data. "It's highly likely that another person could simply extract the certificate and man in the middle any user of the system without any warnings whatsoever," Hansen said.
The invalid certificate would have also likely left Clinton vulnerable to widespread internet bugs like "Heartbleed," which was only discovered last spring, and may have let hackers copy the entire contents of the Clinton servers' memory. Inside that memory? Who knows: "It could very well have been a bunch of garbage," said Hansen, or "it could have been her full emails, passwords, and cookies." Heartbleed existed unnoticed for years. A little social engineering, Hansen said, could give attackers access to Clinton's DNS information, letting them route and reroute data to their own computers without anyone realizing. "It's a fairly small group of people who know how to do that," Hansen noted, but "it's not hard—it's just a lot of steps."
"It was done hastily and not locked down."
We don't know, of course, if the current state of Clinton's servers is representative of the security precautions that were in place while she was using it as Secretary of State. The system could have previously been hardened against attack, and left to get weedy and vulnerable after she left government. We don't know. But that's part of the problem—at the Department of State, there is accountability for the security of email systems. If we learned that State's email servers had been hacked or left needlessly vulnerable, there would be investigations and consequences. With Clinton's off-the-books scheme, there are only questions.
The final address behind ClintonEmail is a mail host, mail.clintonemail.com, which will kick back an error message when visited directly:
How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?
But if you plug in a different URL with the same mail server, you're presented with a user-friendly, familiar Outlook webmail login:
How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?
This is basically no more secure than the way you'd log into AOL, Facebook, or any other website. There's no evidence that Clinton (or her staffers) used this web interface to check their emails, as opposed to logging in through a smartphone or other email software. But its mere existence is troubling enough: there have been five separate security vulnerabilities identified with Outlook Web Access since ClintonEmail.com was registered in 2009. These security bugs include doozies like "a flaw that may lead to an unauthorized information disclosure" (2010) and "a remote attacker can gain access to arbitrary files" (2014).
But even without exploiting software bugs, Hansen says leaving a public login page for something that's meant to be private is "pretty much the worst thing you can do." Clinton's Outlook form could've been susceptible to a brute force attack—where random combinations of words and characters are tried until one of them works—or an old fashioned denial of service assault. "Even if she had a particularly strong password," Hansen said, a brute force attack will "either work eventually—foreign militaries are very good at trying a lot—or it'll fail and block her from accessing her own email."
If Clinton had been using a government account, Hansen explained, her messages with colleagues would all be held within one relatively tidy system, monitored by the federal government. It's the difference between doing your laundry at home and dropping it off. But with a private account, you're introducing many separate points of failure; every single company in this custom system is a place to pry and attack. "Any joe hacker" could get inside with enough knowledge and time, according to Hansen.
"Pretty much the worst thing you can do."
Cubrilovic echoed Hansen's concern: "When you are a staffer in a government department, internal email never leaves the network that the department has physical control over," he told me. But "with externally hosted email every one of those messages would go out onto the internet," where they're subject to snooping.
Security researcher Kenn White agrees that private internet access stirs up too many dangerous variables while emails bounced from person to person:
I think the bigger security concern here is the complete lack of visibility into who has been administering, backing up, maintaining, and accessing the Secretary's email. If classified documents were exchanged, who viewed them? Were they forwarded? Where multiple devices (ie, mobile phones and tablets) configured to access the account? Was encryption required or optional for remote access?
Cubrilovic agreed that opting out of the government's system is an awful idea for someone with a hacker bullseye on her back: "having a high profile target host their own email is a nightmare for information security staff working for the government," he told me, "since it can undo all of the other work they've done to secure their network." The kind of off-the-shelf email service it appears Clinton used comes with a lot of inherent risk, especially since a pillar of her job is overseas travel:
With your own email hosting you're almost certainly going to be vulnerable to Chinese government style spearphishing attacks—which government departments have enough trouble stopping—but the task would be near impossible for an IT naive self-hosted setup.
While some of these hacking scenarios may sound outlandish or far-fetched, keep in mind that Clinton's emails would have been a prime target for some of the globe's most sophisticated state-sponsored cyberwarriors—the Chinese, the Israelis, the Iranians. The very existence of Clinton's private account was revealed by the hacker Guccifer, an unemployed Romanian taxi driver who managed to gain access to former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account with relative ease. The Hillary account was reported by Gawker in 2013, and White House spokesman Eric Schultz used that story to argue that the Clinton email story was old news: "This was public years ago," he told Business Insider, linking to the 2013 Gawker story.
Which is another way of saying that foreign intelligence agencies have had two years to work on the target.
Photo: Getty
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/jeb-bush-owned-personal-email-server-he-used-governor-n317286
-
second post
Email Scandal Won't Doom Hillary, but Supporters Should Feel Uneasy
Jonah Goldberg | Mar 06, 2015
Historically, the Clintons have proved to be politically indestructible. To paraphrase the movie "Aliens," to truly destroy the Clinton Industrial Complex, you'd have to nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Given that alone, I doubt that the unfolding controversy over Hillary's email schemes spells her doom.
The basic details are as follows: In 2009, a week before she started her job as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had a personal Internet server registered at her home address. She then used her own domain name, "clintonemail.com," to conduct all of her business -- for the State Department, but also presumably the Clinton Foundation and other matters, be they nefarious or high-minded.
The server was registered under the name Eric Hoteman -- someone who doesn't exist. But it's almost surely Eric Hothem, a Washington financial adviser and former aide to Clinton who, according to the Associated Press, has been a technology adviser to the family. Tony Soprano would be envious.
This system allowed Clinton to maintain control over her email correspondence. No third-party copies would be stored on, say, government or Google hard drives. Matt Devost, a security expert, succinctly explained to Bloomberg News the point of having your own private email server: "You erase it and everything's gone."
Depending on whom you ask, this was a violation of Obama administration policy, long-established State Department rules, the Federal Records Act or all of the above. Moreover, outside the ranks of Clinton Industrial Complex employees, contractors and supplicants, there's a rare bipartisan consensus that it was, to use a technical term, really, really shady.
Team Clinton's initial response was as expected: send out oleaginous flacks to shoot the messenger and befog the issue. That failed. Even normally reliable resellers of Clinton spin at MSNBC balked at the prospect of keeping a straight face as David Brock, a prominent Clinton remora, tried to demand an apology from The New York Times for breaking the story.
Then Mrs. Clinton weighed in to somewhat greater effect. She tweeted, "I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."
This was a reference to the "55,000 pages" of emails Clinton handed over to the State Department in response to a request. It's also a classic bit of misdirection. Among the swirling issues at play is whether Clinton handed over all of her official business emails as required. (The State Department offers no clarity on this.) The whole point of having your own private server is that no one can check to make sure you didn't selectively delete or withhold emails.
The number of pages is also meaningless. First, if you've ever printed out email, you know that "pages" and "emails" are not synonymous terms. But even if they were, so what? I could release 99.99 percent of all my emails, and you'd see little more than boring work product, press releases, spam and appeals from Nigerian oil ministers. My incriminating stuff could remain invisible -- valuable snowflakes held back from a blizzard of chaff. If you don't think the Clintons are capable of such legerdemain, I refer you to the Clinton-inspired debate over billing records and the meaning of "is."
This points to another reason why I think Clinton will survive this mess. If there's a damning email out there, it's been deleted, and the relevant hard drive would be harder to find than Jimmy Hoffa's body. So critics are probably left with the task of proving a negative.
The real significance of this moment -- and a partial explanation of the media firestorm over it -- is that time is running out to stop the Clinton freight train.
Nothing in this story is surprising: not the desire for secrecy, nor the flouting of legal norms, nor the cynical attempts to shoot the messengers -- and certainly not the staggering hypocrisy. (In 2007, then-Sen. Clinton denounced the Bush White House's far more defensible use of "secret" Republican National Committee email addresses for campaign business as proof that "our Constitution is being shredded.") It's all vintage Clinton.
At some point down the tracks, when yet another fetid cloud of Clintonism erupts into plain view, many smart liberals will look back at this moment as the time when they should have pulled the emergency brake and gotten off the Hillary train.
The unease they feel now will be nothing compared to the buyer's remorse to come.
-
Third post
By Peggy Noonan
March 5, 2015 6:31 p.m. ET
WSJ
Doesn’t the latest Hillary Clinton scandal make you want to throw up your hands and say: Do we really have to do this again? Do we have to go back there? People assume she is our next president. We are defining political deviancy down.
The scandal this week is that we have belatedly found out, more than two years after she left the office of secretary of state, that throughout Mrs. Clinton’s four-year tenure she did not conduct official business through the State Department email system. She had her own private email addresses and her own private Internet domain, on her own private server at one of her own private homes, in Chappaqua, N.Y. Which means she had, and has, complete control of the emails. If a journalist filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking to see emails of the secretary of state, the State Department had nothing to show. If Congress asked to see them, State could say there was nothing to see. (Two months ago, on the request of State, Mrs. Clinton turned over a reported 55,000 pages of her emails. She and her private aides apparently got to pick which ones.)
Is it too much to imagine that Mrs. Clinton wanted to conceal the record of her communications as America’s top diplomat because she might have been doing a great deal of interesting work in those emails, not only with respect to immediate and unfolding international events but with respect to those who would like to make a positive impression on the American secretary of state by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which not only funds many noble causes but is the seat of operations of Clinton Inc. and its numerous offices, operatives, hangers-on and campaign-in-waiting?
What a low and embarrassing question. It is prompted by last week’s scandal—that the Clinton Foundation accepted foreign contributions during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. It is uncomfortable to ask such questions, but that’s the thing with the Clintons, they always make you go there.
The mainstream press is all over the story now that it has blown. It’s odd that it took so long. Everyone at State, the White House, and the rest of the government who received an email from the secretary of state would have seen where it was coming from—a nongovernmental address. You’d think someone would have noticed.
With the exception of the moment Wednesday when a hardy reporter from TMZ actually went to an airport and shouted a query at Mrs. Clinton—it was just like the old days of journalism, with a stakeout and shouted queries—Mrs. Clinton hasn’t been subjected to any questions from the press. She’s slide, she’ll glide, she’ll skate. (With TMZ she just walked on, smiling.)
Opinion Journal Video
Best of the Web Today Columnist James Taranto on the news that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account to conduct State Department business. Photo credit: Getty Images.
Why would she ignore regulations to opt out of the State email system? We probably see the answer in a video clip posted this week on Buzzfeed. Mrs. Clinton, chatting with a supporter at a fundraiser for her 2000 Senate campaign, said: “As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I . . . ever want to do email?”
But when you’re secretary of state you have to. So she did it her way, with complete control. It will make it harder, if not impossible, for investigators.
The press is painting all this as a story about how Mrs. Clinton, in her love for secrecy and control, has given ammunition to her enemies. But that’s not the story. The story is that this is what she does, and always has. The rules apply to others, not her. She’s special, entitled, exempt from the rules—the rules under which, as the Federalist reports, the State Department in 2012 forced the resignation of a U.S. ambassador, “in part for setting up an unsanctioned private e-mail system.”
Why doesn’t the legacy press swarm her on this? Because she is political royalty. They are used to seeing her as a regal, queenly figure. They’ve been habituated to understand that Mrs. Clinton is not to be harried, not to be subjected to gotcha questions or impertinent grilling. She is a Democrat, a star, not some grubby Republican governor from nowhere. And they don’t want to be muscled by her spokesmen. The wildly belligerent Philippe Reines sends reporters insulting, demeaning emails if they get out of line. He did it again this week. It is effective in two ways. One is that it diverts attention from his boss, makes Mr. Reines the story, and in the process makes her look comparatively sane. The other is that reporters don’t want a hissing match with someone who implies he will damage them. They can’t afford to be frozen out. She’s probably the next president: Their careers depend on access.
But how will such smash-mouth tactics play the next four, five years?
Back to the questions at the top of the column.
Sixteen years ago, when she was first running for the Senate, I wrote a book called “The Case Against Hillary Clinton.” I waded through it all—cattle futures, Travelgate, the lost Rose law firm records, women slimed as bimbos, foreign campaign cash, the stealth and secrecy that marked the creation of the health-care plan, Monica, the vast right-wing conspiracy. As I researched I remembered why, four years into the Clinton administration, the New York Times columnist William Safire called Hillary “a congenital liar . . . compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”
Do we have to go through all that again?
In 1992 the Clintons were new and golden. Now, so many years later, their reputation for rule breaking and corruption is so deep, so assumed, that it really has become old news. And old news isn’t news.
An aspect of the story goes beyond criticism of Mrs. Clinton and gets to criticism of us. A generation or two ago, a person so encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a possible presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is inevitable.
What happened? Why is her party so in her thrall?
She’s famous? The run itself makes you famous. America didn’t know who Jack Kennedy was in 1959; in 1961 he was king of the world. The same for Obama in ’08.
Money? Sure she’s the superblitz shock-and-awe queen of fundraising, but pretty much any Democrat in a 50/50 country would be able to raise what needs to be raised.
She’s a woman? There are other women in the Democratic Party.
She’s inevitable? She was inevitable in 2008. Then, suddenly, she was evitable.
Her talent is for survival. This on its own terms is admirable and takes grit. But others have grit. As for leadership, she has a sharp tactical sense but no vision, no overall strategic sense of where we are and where we must go.
What is freezing the Democrats is her mystique. But mystique can be broken. A nobody called Obama broke hers in 2008.
Do we really have to return to Scandal Land? It’s what she brings wherever she goes. And it’s not going to stop.
Popular on WSJ
-
Now there are more daggers coming out to connect the dots. As reported by Examiner.com, “The media feeding frenzy over the alleged unlawful use by Hillary Clinton of a non-government email system is having an impact on other allegations against the potential Democrat party presidential candidate.”
“This week Tuesday, a former Department of Justice prosecuting attorney said that he believes then Secretary of State — probably using her unofficial and illegal email system — was complicit in the leaking of classified intelligence regarding military operation plans formulated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
As well, “In a Washington Post front page news story on March 2, 2015, reporter Anne Gearan intimated that the likely reason for the release of Israel’s plans to a New York Times reporter was intended to hurt the Israeli’s war plans, since President Barack Obama and his staff — including his top advisor Valerie Jarrett, herself born in Iran — believed Israel was willing and had the technical and strategic expertise to launch a preemptive sneak attack on Iran in order to eliminate their nuclear threat.”
Ms. Gearan wrote: “Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private e-mail account for her official government business when she was secretary of state and did not routinely preserve and turn over those e-mails for government records collection, the State Department said Monday.” She also wrote: “It was not clear why Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, created the private account. But the practice appears to bolster long-standing criticism that Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have not been transparent.”
As of Thursday the Associated Press and Judicial Watch announced they’re considering bringing lawsuits against Hillary Clinton. And late last night Clinton decided to release a tweet that only exacerbated the issue, seemingly conveying her disdain for the intellect of the American people. Her message was that she has consented to the State Department release of her emails — well, these are the emails Clinton has already provided to the State Department, since they have no access to her personal account. It appears that this U.S. Code addresses “willful and unlawful concealment” of records.
-
"The Associated Press
and Judicial Watch announced they’re considering bringing lawsuits"
Judicial Watch probably will. Thank God for them but
does anyone really think for one second the *AP* will sue Hillary?
I don't.
-
On what basis?
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/guess-who-else-was-on-clintons-private-at-home-server.html/
Guess who else was on Clinton’s private at-home server
Current Affairs
21 Comments
Screen Shot 2015-03-06 at 12.36.35 PM
There is no denying what Hillary Clinton did.
FOX: Hillary Clinton’s State Department for years was telling underlings not to use personal email — even ousting an ambassador, the ex-diplomat says, in part over his Gmail habits — despite the secretary of state herself ignoring that advice. The disconnect is now raising questions of a double standard during her tenure.
An internal 2011 State Department cable, obtained by Fox News, shows Clinton’s office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons.
A year later, then-U.S. ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration resigned amid a series of clashes with the department, including over email.
She deliberately sought to hide her email correspondence from the public – shielding her skulduggery, failures and treason perhaps. No one installs a server in their home for their emails just because. The motive is malevolent and the American people should be outraged.
Further, the server should have been seized before Clinton could destroy what is obviously damning and indictable.
Further, it is striking that Huma Abedin was the only non-family member to have her own account on Clinton’s server. Atlas readers are long familiar with Abedin. I was one of the first to report back in 2007 on the rumors that were rampant of a very close, sexual relationship between the two which was even more disturbing considering Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood ties.
Seize the server.
Huma Abedin:
Daughter of Saleha Mahmood Abedin, a pro-Sharia sociologist with ties to numerous Islamist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood
Longtime former employee of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which shares the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of establishing Islamic supremacy and Sharia Law worldwide
Anthony Wiener was/is a beard, pure theater When Wiener was caught tweeting his pecker it caused nary a blip in the “marriage”. But the ruse was necessary for Clinton’s presidential run.
huma_hillary_7_ap_605_605
Chelsea Clinton’s secret identity: ‘Diane Reynolds’, By Nick Gass, Politico, 3/5/15
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/chelsea-clinton-diane-reynolds-secret-email-115786.html#ixzz3TcxEUVlo
Chelsea Clinton also had an account on the homemade website domain that Hillary Clinton used exclusively for emails during her time as secretary of state, The New York Times reports. The domain name had a server linked to the family’s Chappaqua, New York, residence. But her real name is absent from the email address.
She used her clintonemail.com account under the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds,” which the Times reports she often used when checking into hotels.
Longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin also had a clintonemail.com account, according to the report, an apparent prized symbol of status within Clinton’s vast network of advisers, well-wishers, and hangers-on.
According to Philippe Reines, another close Clinton aide and former State Department official, Abedin was the only department official other than the secretary to use a clintonemail.com account.
Clinton tweeted late Wednesday that she wants the public to see emails from the 55,000 pages she handed over to the State Department.
- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/guess-who-else-was-on-clintons-private-at-home-server.html/#sthash.oMn6H050.dpuf
====================================
Who is Huma Abedin?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2556
Daughter of Saleha Mahmood Abedin, a pro-Sharia sociologist with ties to numerous Islamist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood
Longtime assistant to Hillary Clinton
Wife of former congressman Anthony Weiner
Longtime former employee of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which shares the Muslim Brotherhood's goal of establishing Islamic supremacy and Sharia Law worldwide
See also: Saleha Abedin Hassan Abedin Anthony Weiner
Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs Hillary Clinton
Huma Abedin was born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father, Syed Abedin (1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who had worked as a visiting professor at Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz University in the early Seventies.
Huma's mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood's division for women), Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This pro-Hamas entity is part of the Union of Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
When Huma was two, the Abedin family relocated from Michigan to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This move took place when Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who served as vice president of Abdulaziz University (AU), recruited his former AU colleague, Syed Abedin, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank that Naseef was preparing to launch. A number of years later, Naseef would develop close ties to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group al Qaeda. Naseef also spent time (beginning in the early 1980s) as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, which, as journalist Andrew C. McCarthy points out, "has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology."
It is vital to note that IMMA's "Muslim Minority Affairs" agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, designed, as Andrew C. McCarthy explains, "to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West." For details about this agenda, click here.
At age 18, Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. to attend George Washington University. In 1996 she began working as an intern in the Bill Clinton White House, where she was assigned to then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Abedin was eventually hired as an aide to Mrs. Clinton and has worked for her ever since, through Clinton's successful Senate runs (in 2000 and 2006) and her failed presidential bid in 2008.
From 1997 until sometime before early 1999, Abedin, while still interning at the White House, was an executive board member of George Washington University's (GWU) Muslim Students Association (MSA), heading the organization's “Social Committee.”
It is noteworthy that in 2001-02, soon after Abedin left that executive board, the chaplain and "spritual guide" of GWU's MSA was Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda operative who ministered to some of the men who were among the 9/11 hijackers. Another chaplain at GWU's MSA (from at least October 1999 through April 2002) was Mohamed Omeish, who headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda. Omeish’s brother, Esam, headed the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Brotherhood’s quasi-official branch in the United States. Both Omeish brothers were closely associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi, who would later be convicted and incarcerated on terrorism charges.
From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef's active presence at IMMA. Abedin's last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board.
Throughout her years with IMMA, Abedin remained a close aide to Hillary Clinton. During Mrs. Clinton's 2008 presidential primary campaign, a New York Observer profile of Abedin described her as "a trusted advisor to Mrs. Clinton, especially on issues pertaining to the Middle East, according to a number of Clinton associates." "At meetings on the region," continued the profile, "... Ms. Abedin’s perspective is always sought out."
When Mrs. Clinton was appointed as President Barack Obama's Secretary of State in 2009, Abedin became her deputy chief of staff. At approximately that same point in time, Abedin's name was removed from the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs' masthead.
Apart from their working relationship, Abedin and Mrs. Clinton have also developed a close personal bond over their years together, as reflected in Clinton's 2010 assertion that: “I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would [be] Huma.” In 2011, Secretary Clinton paid a friendly visit to Abedin's mother, Saleha, in Saudi Arabia. On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton publicly described her aide's position as “very important and sensitive.”
On July 10, 2010, Huma Abedin, a practicing Muslim, married then-congressman Anthony Weiner in a ceremony officiated by former president Bill Clinton. A number of analysts have noted that it is extremely rare for Islamic women—particularly those whose families have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—to marry non-Muslims like Weiner, who is Jewish. Indeed, Dr. Anwar Shoeb, the highest-ranking faculty authority at the prestigious College of Sharia and Islamic Studies in Kuwait, formally declared that Abedin's marriage to Weiner was “null and void” under the dictates of Sharia Law, which explicitly forbids matrimony between a Muslim woman and an "infidel"; in fact, Shoeb classified the Abedin-Weiner union as a form of “adultery.”
Abedin went on maternity leave after giving birth to a baby boy in early December 2011. When she returned to work in June 2012, the State Department granted her an arrangement that allowed her to do outside consulting work as a “special government employee,” even as she remained a top advisor in the Department. Abedin did not disclose on her financial report either the arrangement or the $135,000 she earned from it, in violation of a law mandating that public officials disclose significant sources of income. Abedin's outside clients included the U.S. State Department, Hillary Clinton, the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation, and Teneo (a firm co-founded by Doug Band, a former counselor for Bill Clinton). Good-government groups warned of the potential conflict-of-interest inherent in an arangement where a government employee maintains private clients.
In June 2012, five Republican lawmakers (most prominently, Michele Bachmann) sent letters to the inspectors general at the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, asking that they investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence over U.S. government officials. One letter, noting that Huma Abedin's position with Hillary Clinton "affords her routine access to the secretary [of state] and to policymaking," expressed concern over the fact that Abedin “has three family members—her late father, mother and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations.” Some other prominent Republicans such as John McCain and John Boehner disavowed the concerns articulated in the letters.
On February 1, 2013—Hillary Clinton's final day as Secretary of State—Abedin resigned her post as Mrs. Clinton's deputy chief of staff. Yet she would continue to serve as a close aide to Clinton.
On March 1, 2013, Abedin was tapped to run Clinton’s post-State Department transition team, comprised of a six-person “transition office” located in Washington.
Huma Abedin's brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center's board included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.
Huma's sister, Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA, where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter's departure.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gowdy-gaps-months-and-months-and-months-hillarys-emails_879804.html#
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gowdy-gaps-months-and-months-and-months-hillarys-emails_879804.html#
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/bulletins/2013/2013-03.html
-
To be precise, didn't that come after Hillary left office?
-
To be precise, didn't that come after Hillary left office?
The federal laws cited in the bulletin well predate Hillary's tenure at state. I had training on the same thing working for the federal government in 2002.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414835/did-hillary-commit-felony-shannen-coffin
-
This fact has been posted here previously but there may be some additional intel in this one:
http://patdollard.com/2013/05/flashback-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation-for-lying-unethical-behavior-conspiracy-to-violate-the-constitution/
-
Paper Tigress
Mrs. Clinton turned over printouts, not emails.
By
James Taranto
March 9, 2015 3:58 p.m. ET
98 COMMENTS
If you were following the revelations about Hillary Clinton’s private State Department IT operation last week, you probably heard that, as the initial New York Times story put it, “55,000 pages of emails were given to the department” in December after being selected by a private aide to the former secretary. You might have wondered: What does that mean, 55,000 “pages”? Or maybe you just read it, as the crack fact-check team over at PolitiFact did just last night, as 55,000 emails.
It turns out the reference is to literal physical pages. From Friday’s Times: “Finally, in December, dozens of boxes filled with 50,000 pages of printed emails from Mrs. Clinton’s personal account were delivered to the State Department.”
Email, Clinton style ENLARGE
Email, Clinton style Photo: Getty Images
Why did Mrs. Clinton have her staff go through the trouble of printing out, boxing and shipping 50,000 or 55,000 pages instead of just sending a copy of the electronic record? One can only speculate, but there is an obvious advantage: Printed files are less informative and far harder to search than the electronic originals.
Because State has only printouts of emails, department personnel responding to a Freedom of Information Act request have to go through the whole haystack rather than type “needle” into a search engine. At best, that would mean long delays in FOIA compliance.
Likewise, printouts are not subject to electronic discovery in the event of investigation or lawsuit. The Times reports that department lawyers responding to a request from the House Select Committee on Benghazi took two months to find “roughly 900 pages pertaining to the Benghazi attacks.” And printouts do not include electronic “metadata,” which can provide crucial forensic evidence.
Just what was Mrs. Clinton trying to hide? She set up the private domain even before her confirmation as secretary of state and never even had an official email address, so the answer at the outset would have been “Whatever.” In the event, possible specific answers include information about Benghazi and about the Clinton Foundation.
The New York Post reports that Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, chairman of the Benghazi committee, yesterday “said there are ‘huge gaps’ in the Hillary Clinton emails turned over to his panel”:
“We don’t have all of them,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Included in the gaps are emails from Oct. 18, 2011, the date of the well-known photo of then-Secretary of State Clinton wearing sunglasses and gripping her BlackBerry while on a plane to Libya.
In fact, there were no emails released to the committee from that entire trip, Gowdy said.
Even though Clinton was famously seen checking her BlackBerry on Oct. 18, 2011, no emails from that day were turned over to the House Benghazi committee.
“It strains credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy, that there’s not a single document that’s been turned over to Congress,” said Gowdy, who issued subpoenas last week for Clinton’s Libya emails.
There is no way of knowing if the missing emails were withheld by Mrs. Clinton from the State Department, withheld by the department from the committee, or overlooked by the department’s lawyers as they went through box after box. (To be sure, it is also possible that no such emails exist. Although it strains credulity, it does not defy logic to observe that perhaps the secretary was merely playing Brick Breaker.)
National Journal’s Ron Fournier, meanwhile, wonders “what the emails might reveal about any nexus between Clinton’s work at State and donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from U.S. corporations and foreign nations”:
One of [Bill Clinton’s] longest-serving advisers, a person who had worked directly for the foundation, told me the “longtime whispers of pay-to-play are going to become shouts.”
This person, a Clinton loyalist and credible source, has no evidence of wrongdoing but said the media’s suspicions are warranted. “The emails are a related but secondary scandal,” the source said. “Follow the foundation money.” . . .
Without those emails, we may never be able to follow the money. Could that be why she hasn’t coughed up the server?
The Atlantic’s Hanna Rosin—in a piece titled “Among the Hillary Haters” and published before the email scandal became public—suggests that the foundation’s sleaze could undermine one of Mrs. Clinton’s biggest political assets:
One criticism of [Mrs.] Clinton that Burning Glass [a Republican consultancy] has found to resonate with women is an attack [Barack] Obama used successfully against her in 2008: that she is “more politically motivated” than the average politician. In general, people tend to view women as political outsiders. They assume that their motives are more pure than those of their male counterparts, and that they are in it not just for themselves but for some greater good.
In its focus groups, however, Burning Glass has found strategies that, over time, can take this asset away from Clinton, and convince women that she is more political than the average candidate. One is to suggest inappropriate overlap between her work at the State Department and at the Clinton Foundation. The firm points out that one of Secretary Clinton’s aides was also consulting at the foundation, which might have created a conflict of interest. The aim is not to uncover a scandal, but rather to show that Clinton operates just like the boys: she works the system and stacks it with cronies, making them all rich in the process. It’s an approach that Burning Glass has found can make respondents “significantly less likely to support” Clinton in 2016.
Amy Chozick, who covers Mrs. Clinton for the New York Times, offers another angle:
The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei—all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.
The department’s 2011 human rights report on Saudi Arabia, the last such yearly review prepared during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, tersely faulted the kingdom for “a lack of equal rights for women and children,” and said violence against women, human trafficking and gender discrimination, among other abuses, were all “common” there.
Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.
At a Clinton Foundation event in Miami Saturday, Bill Clinton “defended the charity’s acceptance of foreign donations, pointing to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia in particular. . . . ‘You’ve got to decide when you do this work whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country.’ ”
Politico quotes one of Mr. Clinton’s examples, to hilarious effect: “For example, the UAE gave us money. Do we agree with everything [they] do? No. But they help us fight ISIS.” We don’t doubt that it is sometimes necessary or useful for the U.S. government to form alliances with unsavory regimes. But look how Mr. Clinton describes the trade: The UAE helps “us” (meaning the U.S.) fight ISIS. In return, they give “us” (meaning the Clintons) money.
You could call that a win-win, but what exactly is in it for the Emiratis? The problem for the Clintons is that that’s not a rhetorical question.
-
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4101929858001/gowdy-on-why-state-dept-should-probe-into-hillarys-emails/?#sp=show-clips
-
Welcome back to the Clinton baggage years.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/lanny-davis-returns.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/ready-for-jimmy.php
Clinton's problem is based on right wing talking points? Again? Still?
Even Carville's main point is that it's never going to change and predicts a bigger scandal coming. I predict that also. People like this have more problems out there than we know. Even MSNBC thinks HRC broke an important promise - to not take foreign money into the foundation while serving as Secretary of State. What say she about THAT?!
Rich Lowry pegs the Clinton contribution scandal. "There is a reason that so many of Hillary’s political donors also give to the family foundation, and it’s not because they have never heard of the Red Cross." (It is to buy favor.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415131/clinton-foreign-fundraising-machine-rich-lowry
Why did Obama knowingly tolerate her personal email use?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415145/why-did-obama-tolerate-hillarys-use-secret-e-mail-andrew-c-mccarthy
Why do the defenders think she did nothing wrong or illegal? The laws cited don't apply to her? Why not? It just took us years to find Lois Lerner emails. Bad timing for Hillary that people are sick of all the dodging. She is going to stall this off past the election? And win? Like Obama did with an election coming 2 months after Benghazi. I don't think that will fly here. Carville gives us every reason to move on past Hillary. Is there really no one with ANY integrity they can put forward?
Why don't we trust Hillary to cherry pick her own emails and tell us which ones are relevant? Either committees have access to her body of work or they don't. Either there is oversight or there isn't. She took an oath and claimed to be a public servant, not a private plotter. Either Dems promised greater transparency or they didn't. I know we are sick of the Clintons, and distrustful of them. When will the left admit they are sick of them and distrustful of them too? Dems jumped at the first sign of a credible alternative in 2008. What will they do now? Judging by the reactions of Andrea Mirchell of MSNBC and Diane Feinstein, senior statesman of the Dems in the US Senate, maybe not just stick their heads in the sand.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/11/it-expert-hillarys-email-server-traced-to-manhattan-government-building-video/
-
second post
It Isn't the E-Mails, It's the Corruption: Congress Has to Find All the Facts
Hillary Clinton held her first press conference in years yesterday to address a few of the questions everyone wants to ask about her emails. But the focus on Clinton’s emails misses the larger and more dangerous scandal, of which the private server is only a symptom.
The poorly-defended personal server in her closet, her use of a personal email account for all of her official business, her unilateral decision to erase more than 30,000 emails, her narrow definition of "official" as emails sent to U.S. federal government addresses (when several of her top aides also used personal email accounts) – are all outrageous, yes. But none of these go to the heart of the Clinton scandal.
The key fact is that a former president of the United States and his wife, a U.S. senator, then Secretary of State and always a possible future president, have raised nearly $2 billion dollars--a significant part of it from foreign governments--for their family foundation.
That figure actually understates the total amount of money flowing through the Clinton empire since they left the White House. There have been extraordinarily highly paid speeches and consulting gigs. There have been extraordinarily large book advances (the most recent of which almost certainly did not earn back the advance). There have been expensive trips on private planes and yachts to stay at private mansions.
The IRS has investigated churches and Tea Party groups run by grandmothers to determine the extent of their political activities. The FBI has investigated Republican governors for corruption or abuse of office on the most tenuous grounds.
Yet apparently neither has any interest in the $2 billion raised for the personal foundation of America’s most prominent political family.
Given the national security issues at stake--and the national security consequences that may already have occurred--Congress needs to look at questions much larger than Hillary’s email. It needs to look at the Clinton Foundation’s income and expenditures. Because the Clintons didn't just raise $2 billion. They also spent $2 billion.
Who gave the money is one question.
Who got the money is another question.
Whom did they favor with their largesse? What personal business transactions occurred parallel to foundation activities?
You may think that these questions are grasping at straws. But consider Breitbart’s report about Peter Schweizer’s new book, which will be published in May. Schweizer spent a year investigating the Clinton empire. Among his findings, according to Breitbart:
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a self-described mining company that in 2012 received one of only two ‘gold exploitation permits’ from the Haitian government—the first issued in over 50 years.
The tiny North Carolina company, VCS Mining, also included on its board Bill Clinton’s co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), former Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.
...VCS’s coveted gold mining exploitation permit was apparently such a sweetheart deal that it outraged the Haitian senate, since royalties to be paid to the Haitian government were only 2.5%, a sum mining experts say is at least half the standard rate.
The State Department directed billions of dollars in aid to Haiti while Hillary was secretary. The Clinton Foundation directed many millions more. Bill Clinton also co-founded the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund which directed an additional half-billion dollars of donations to Haiti. Bill Clinton was also named the U.N. special envoy to Haiti.
It is a surpassing coincidence that Hillary’s brother suddenly decided to enter the mining business in Haiti and that the company on whose board he sat received a very favorable mining deal from the Haitian government.
Schweizer wrote me that this "gold mine is a minor revelation." He further wrote that the scale of Clinton corruption "is scary stuff."
Of course, we know that many foreign countries have given the Clinton Foundation millions of dollars directly, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Algeria, Australia, Germany, and Norway, among others. As the San Diego Union-Tribune put it in a recent editorial:
This may be legal, but it reeks. It could not be more obvious that foreign governments are attempting to buy favor with former President Bill Clinton and possible future President Hillary Clinton. The Clintons can’t make the stench go away with their assurances that the de facto bribes were used to help worthy causes.
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should undertake comprehensive investigations.
We need to know when meetings were held, when money in every form (speech, consulting, book, gift, travel, foundation, campaign) came in, what the various interlocking interests of the donors were, how the money was spent, and what side deals went on between the donors, the beneficiaries and the various members of the Clinton world.
When people can see the chart and timeline (and it will be enormous because raising and spending $2 billion requires a lot of relationships and activities) they will begin to see the scale of dishonesty, self-dealing, and corruption that is sure to be at the heart of the Clinton empire.
In addition to understanding the Clintons, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees need to write new laws updating and enforcing the Constitutional prohibition on foreign governments giving money to federal officials.
This explosion of foreign money into our political system is a dangerous threat to American independence and to the self-government of the American people. It must be investigated and stopped.
Your Friend,
Newt
Marc Denny No doubt our friends who are so excited about the Citizens United case will be exponentially more so with regard to this matter and will have no more to do with Hillary Clinton.
-
Judge Nepolitano basically said on the Kelly file last night there is nothing that we can do to compel her to turn over this server.
Which to me is astounding. How is that possible? A government (of the people for the people and by the people) official conducts business from her own computer and can tell us to go take a hike when we demand to know what she was doing while supposedly representing the United States. The outrageousness of it all.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpPrhkmV_rA
-
Now Breitbart reports that almost no State Department officials used government email.
What the heck is going on? These people are supposed to working for us and what they do is public record.
This is a joke. A slap in our faces. And what the heck are all these people using email all day long for personal use while on the job anyway.
How many other government agencies are so corrupt. I thought it was just Copyright and Patent Offices.
For God's sake we need people to start oversight and minding the store.
As for Hillary, she will run. And her mafia mob will ram her ahead.
The news of corruption just gets worse every darn day.
-
WASHINGTON (AP) — How Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statements about her exclusive use of private email instead of a government account as secretary of state compare with the known facts:
CLINTON: “Others had done it.”
THE FACTS: Although email practices varied among her predecessors, Clinton is the only secretary of state known to have conducted all official unclassified government business on a private email address. Years earlier, when emailing was not the ubiquitous practice it is now among high officials, Colin Powell used both a government and a private account. It’s a striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely exclusively on private email for official business.
—
CLINTON: “I fully complied with every rule I was governed by.”
THE FACTS: At the very least, Clinton appears to have violated what the White House has called “very specific guidance” that officials should use government email to conduct business.
Clinton provided no details about whether she had initially consulted with the department or other government officials before using the private email system. She did not answer several questions about whether she sought any clearances before she began relying exclusively on private emails for government business.
Federal officials are allowed to communicate on private email and are generally allowed to conduct government business in those exchanges, but that ability is constrained, both by federal regulations and by their supervisors.
Federal law during Clinton’s tenure called for the archiving of such private email records when used for government work, but did not set out clear rules or punishments for violations until rules were tightened in November. In 2011, when Clinton was secretary, a cable from her office sent to all employees advised them to avoid conducting any official business on their private email accounts because of targeting by unspecified “online adversaries.”
—
CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”
THE FACTS: The assertion fits with the facts as known but skirts the issue of exchanging information in a private account that, while falling below the level of classified, is still sensitive.
The State Department and other national security agencies have specified rules for the handling of such sensitive material, which could affect national security, diplomatic and privacy concerns, and may include material such as personnel, medical and law enforcement data. In reviewing the 30,000 emails she turned over to the State Department, officials are looking for any security lapses concerning sensitive but unclassified material that may have been disclosed.
—
CLINTON: “It had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”
THE FACTS: While Clinton’s server was physically guarded by the Secret Service, she provided no evidence it hadn’t been compromised by hackers or foreign adversaries. She also didn’t detail who administered the email system, if it received appropriate software security updates, or if it was monitored routinely for unauthorized access.
Clinton also didn’t answer whether the homebrew computer system on her property had the same level of safeguards provided at professional data facilities, such as regulated temperatures, offsite backups, generators in case of power outages and fire-suppression systems. It was unclear what, if any, encryption software Clinton’s server may have used to communicate with U.S. government email accounts.
Recent high-profile breaches, including at Sony Pictures Entertainment, have raised scrutiny on how well corporations and private individuals protect their computer networks from attack.
—
CLINTON: “When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.”
THE FACTS: If multiple devices were an inconvenience in the past, they may be something of an obsession now. Clinton told an event in California’s Silicon Valley last month that she has an iPad, a mini-iPad, an iPhone and a BlackBerry. “I’m like two steps short of a hoarder,” she said. She suggested she started out in Washington with a BlackBerry but her devices grew in number.
Smartphones were capable of multiple emails when she became secretary; it’s not clear whether the particular phone she used then was permitted to do so under State Department rules.
Breitbart
-
If Hillary Clinton thinks the scandal will end when she turns all of her email over — it won't.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi will soon move to obtain private emails from as many as 10 of her top aides from her time as secretary of state.
"That's great when you email other people on the .gov it would be captured by the .gov server, but if you're talking to people private to private that will never be captured," Rep. Trey Gowdy, the committee chairman, said.
"We are going to seek any private email that relates to official business, and I don't care about wedding cakes, but any work that could have been done on private-to-private accounts for those State Department employees we know had private accounts," the South Carolina Republican told CNN on Tuesday.
The committee will seek emails related to official government business from people like Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, then-deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan and longtime aide Huma Aberdin, according to Gowdy.
"She said she went through and produced all public information — and I am not in the habit of accusing people of being untruthful unless I have evidence to the contrary — but she's essentially asking us to take her word for it," Gowdy said.
According to Gowdy, it is too early to tell if a subpoena will be needed.
Gowdy, who has already said publicly gaps of months and months exist in her emails, reconfirmed this to CNN.
For example, the Benghazi committee received no emails from the Clinton camp about her October 2011 trip to Libya — despite the well-known photo of her en route, sitting on a plane with her Blackberry in hand and sunglasses on.
"It wouldn't be reasonable that she was on her way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy and there are no emails from that trip," Gowdy said, explaining the Benghazi committee only has jurisdiction over emails regarding Libya.
"With respect to materials that the select committee has requested, the department has stated that just under 300 emails related to Libya were provided by the department to the select committee in response to a November 2014 letter, which contained a broader request for materials than prior requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee," a statement released Tuesday by Clinton's office said.
"Given Secretary Clinton¹s practice of emailing department officials on their state.gov addresses, the department already had, and had already provided, the select committee with emails from Secretary Clinton in August 2014 — prior to requesting and receiving printed copies of her emails," the statement said.
==================
Some inferences as to what those email might contain:
Emails obtained through a federal lawsuit show that two top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were running interference internally during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.
The aides were Philippe Reines, widely described as Clinton’s principal gate-keeper, and Cheryl Mills, who has been at Clinton's side for decades.
The emails show that while receiving updates about the assault as it happened, Mills told then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to stop answering reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was missing and later found dead.
Also littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group. A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.
The effort to stop Nuland from answering reporter questions also may have contributed to confusion over the nature of the attack. Clinton that night had put out the first statement wrongly linking the attack to a supposed protest sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video – but that was never updated that night.
"Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
Judicial Watch obtained the State Department emails through legal action. "What's notable thus far is we received no emails from or to [Hillary Clinton],” he said. “You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about Benghazi attack."
The emails emerged as Clinton fields criticism over revelations that she used personal email during her tenure as secretary. She is now asking the department to make public thousands of emails she has turned over.
On Friday, the State Department spokeswoman was pushed to explain how they will review the Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and what will be made public.
"We will use FOIA standards for the review," spokeswoman Marie Harf said. "What we determine is appropriate under those FOIA standards will be public."
Harf also was questioned on a State Department unclassified cable, obtained exclusively by Fox News. The cable shows in 2011, Clinton's office told employees not to use personal email for government business, citing security reasons -- while she carried out government business exclusively on private accounts.
"This isn't her best practice guidance,” Harf said. “Her name is at the bottom of the cable, as is practiced for cables coming from Washington … some think she wrote it, which is not accurate."
Nevertheless, cables sent under Clinton's electronic signature carry her authority.
Mills, meanwhile, is a focus of the select congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. During congressional testimony, retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who helped lead the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attacks, confirmed under cross-examination that he personally warned Mills that a witness would be damaging to the department.
Critics say it is more evidence the Accountability Review Board, or ARB, was deeply flawed.
Fox News' Pamela Browne contributed to this report
-
Good work covering this!
"Who gave the money is one question. Who got the money is another question."
This points out that is what the foundation is all about - moving money, power and influence around the globe. If you or I set up a family foundation, no money would move; we don't have power or influence But when the Clintons do it, billions move. Why? As Rich Lowry pointed out, not because donors don't know about the Reds Cross. You give to Clintons to buy influence - with Clintons. The Clintons chooses who receives based on what advances their mostly corrupt interests. Follow the money on both sides!
Nothing classified was sent. But was anything classified received? If there is no issue with security, why all the bragging about secret service guarding the service? What experience do armed guards outside the house have with security breaches over the internet? What a joke.
She did this for "convenience" reasons. NO, she did this to not let anyone see what she doesn't want us to see, namely her corrupt entanglement of personal interests and government influence. She knew she would have to stand up some day and tell these lies to the camera with a straight face. Whatever corruption she planned made all of this worth it to her.
She didn't know when she set this up that there would be a Benghazi scandal and investigation. She didn't know 'mainstream' 'journalists' and some Democrats would stand up against her. It's got to remind her of 2008 when the tide shifted against her without anything else really going wrong.
Keeping your secret life secret is great, but then don't choose to work in "public service" in "the most transparent administration ever". There are plenty more shoes still to drop. She knows what some of them, but other troubles will come from Bill having his own unscrutinized private life. She knows she can do this routine over and over. Ignore facts for a while, answer them by standing there and not answering, then let time pass and say that is all old news.
But is this what she wants to be doing? The private life of retirement, making speeches, writing books, running a foundation and disappearing off the public stage for months at a time is quite easy, powerful and profitable, without all this scrutiny. Weigh that against the excitement of kicking off a campaign theme that will be called 'more of the same'. Getting her name in the record books forever as first female President is pretty exciting, but she knows somewhere down deep that the voters turned against her last time.
She faces an easy choice. Run and lose, or step aside gracefully.
-
"(S)tep aside gracefully"?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Well this not coincidently timed scandal just before she and her mob were ready to seize the throne does allow her challenges from the left.
I don't think Warren is so worrisome. O'Malley is more of a concern to me. If he picks up steam she will not be coronated. If he doesn't we all know the LEFT will rally around her with pitchforks long nails, and growls. The scandal will be brushed aside.
-
People are going to want someone of whom they have already heard, and who the hell is O'Malley?
Not only is she a woman, but Warren is the darling of the Dem-Progressive base. They will work hard for her.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/12/no-one-read-hillarys-emails-before-deleting-them/
-
People are going to want someone of whom they have already heard, and who the hell is O'Malley?
Not only is she a woman, but Warren is the darling of the Dem-Progressive base. They will work hard for her.
I miss the good old days when admitting you're a militant, far left, extremist meant you couldn't get elected to national office.
Crafty doesn't think O'Malley's story about the Maryland Miracle, with unemployment 50% above the national average, will fly?
Speaking of NE Liberal Governors with unemployment rates higher than the national average, what about Patrick Deval and Andrew Cuomo?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/11/30/gov-deval-patrick-won-running-for-president/6cpEEXlIGgUh0XrrpkMLzL/story.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/26/andrew-cuomo-2016-president-democratic-nomination/2063919/
We should hope the more known, flawed, Democratic candidate, Hillary Problem Clinton is the nominee.
-
First, Chris Wallace this morning on radio called the move to keep (incriminating) emails on a private server a "genius", "politically genius" (meaning evil genius) move. She served on the Watergate committee and learned from Nixon's mistakes. Nixon could have destroyed his own incriminating evidence and didn't. She faces about a month-long uproar now, a year and a half before the election, but then nothing jumps out later to take her down.
I disagree. This has lasting hurt. She isn't as smart as she thinks she is or as smooth an operator as her slippery husband. If she thought she was protected, she may have been sloppy with what shouldn't have been put in writing. Those emails and other skeletons will come back to haunt her.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Famous people caught reading the forum (?), or in this case can we humbly say great minds think alike. Charles Krauthammer writes with great clarity the same points all of us are making about the HRC email scandal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/early-onset-clinton-fatigue/2015/03/12/5801a542-c8d8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html
Early Onset Clinton Fatigue
By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer, Washington Post (today)
She burned the tapes.
Had Richard Nixon burned his tapes, he would have survived Watergate. Sure, there would have been a major firestorm, but no smoking gun. Hillary Rodham was a young staffer on the House Judiciary Committee investigating Nixon. She saw. She learned.
Today you don’t burn tapes. You delete e-mails. Hillary Clinton deleted 30,000, dismissing their destruction with the brilliantly casual: “I didn’t see any reason to keep them.” After all, they were private and personal, she assured everyone.
How do we know that? She says so. Were, say, Clinton Foundation contributions considered personal? No one asked. It’s unlikely we’ll ever know. We have to trust her.
That’s not easy. Not just because of her history — William Safire wrote in 1996 that “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady . . . is a congenital liar” — but because of what she said in her emergency news conference on Tuesday. Among the things she listed as private were “personal communications from my husband and me.” Except that, as the Wall Street Journal reported the very same day, Bill Clinton’s spokesman said the former president has sent exactly two e-mails in his life, one to John Glenn, the other to U.S. troops in the Adriatic.
Mrs. Clinton’s other major declaration was that the server containing the e-mails — owned, controlled and housed by her — “will remain private.” Meaning: No one will get near them.
This she learned not from Watergate but from Whitewater. Her husband acquiesced to the appointment of a Whitewater special prosecutor. Hillary objected strenuously. Her fear was that once someone is empowered to search, the searcher can roam freely. In the Clintons’ case, it led to impeachment because when the Lewinsky scandal broke, the special prosecutor added that to his portfolio.
Hillary was determined never to permit another open-ended investigation. Which is why she decided even before being confirmed as secretary of state that only she would control her e-mail.
Her pretense for keeping just a single private e-mail account was “convenience.” She doesn’t like to carry around two devices.
But two weeks ago she said she now carries two phones and a total of four devices. Moreover, it takes about a minute to create two accounts on one device. Ray LaHood, while transportation secretary, did exactly that.
Her answers are farcical. Everyone knows she kept the e-mail private for purposes of concealment and, above all, control. For other State Department employees, their e-mails belong to the government. The records officers decide to return to you what’s personal. For Hillary Clinton, she decides.
The point of regulations is to ensure government transparency. The point of owning the server is to ensure opacity. Because she holds the e-mails, all document requests by Congress, by subpoena, by Freedom of Information Act inquiries have ultimately to go through her lawyers, who will stonewall until the end of time — or Election Day 2016, whichever comes first.
It’s a smart political calculation. Taking a few weeks of heat now — it’s only March 2015 — is far less risky than being blown up by some future e-mail discovery. Moreover, around April 1, the Clinton apologists will begin dismissing the whole story as “old news.”
But even if nothing further is found, the damage is done. After all, what is Hillary running on? Her experience and record, say her supporters.
What record? She’s had three major jobs. Secretary of state: Can you name a single achievement in four years? U.S. senator: Can you name a single achievement in eight years? First lady: her one achievement in eight years? Hillarycare, a shipwreck.
In reality, Hillary Clinton is running on two things: gender and name. Gender is not to be underestimated. It will make her the Democratic nominee. The name is equally valuable. It evokes the warm memory of the golden 1990s, a decade of peace and prosperity during our holiday from history.
Now breaking through, however, is a stark reminder of the underside of that Clinton decade: the chicanery, the sleaze, the dodging, the parsing, the wordplay. It’s a dual legacy that Hillary Clinton cannot escape and that will be a permanent drag on her candidacy.
You can feel it. It’s a recurrence of an old ailment. It was bound to set in, but not this soon. What you’re feeling now is Early Onset Clinton Fatigue. The CDC is recommending elaborate precautions. Forget it. The only known cure is Elizabeth Warren.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Noonan says she looks tired, not hungry. On the other issue no one else will mention, I have wondered if Hillary's occasional disappearances had anything to do with so-called plastic surgery facial work being done. Maybe that sounds sexist to ask, but it was fair for the media to ask Reagan if he colored his hair and use his denial as proof of dishonesty. Below is the photo that ran with the Krauthammer column. If she had work done, I think we can all agree it wasn't successful. (Nothing personal against her, I am removing mirrors from my own home as aging sets in.) Besides sexist, this sounds trivial, but a woman's aversion to photos like this being published, criticisms like this, and the efforts with makeup etc it takes to fight this might become the last straw as to why she doesn't run.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_400w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/03/11/National-Politics/Images/DEM_2016_Clinton-0ba50-3641.jpg?uuid=LQEECMghEeShmWy15jgZ0g)
-
March 13, 2015
Hey, Virginia Republicans, were you looking forward to voting in the 2016 presidential primary? Eh, we may not have one. Read all about the big decision facing the Old Dominion GOP.
Yup. Hillary Chose to Delete Consequential E-Mails
A lot of folks in Right-world think this is an extremely consequential revelation about the Clintons:
The Clintons play by their own set of rules. And in this case, the former Secretary of State explained, those rules bless her decision to erase some 30,000 emails from the family server despite knowing that the emails had become a subject of intense interest to congressional investigators. These were merely “private personal emails,” Clinton averred, “emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.” After she finished taking questions, Clinton’s staff disclosed that no one actually read through those 30,000-odd documents before she “chose not to keep” them.
As for why this might “seem like an issue,” the answer is not complicated. All federal employees have a legal obligation to preserve their work-related email–and the White House advises appointees to accomplish this by using official government addresses. Email sent to and from .gov accounts is generally archived. In this way, a consistent level of security is maintained. The nation’s history is preserved. Open-records laws are honored. And transparency gets a leg up on “Trust me.”
All this once made sense to Clinton. As a candidate for President in 2008, she included “secret White House email accounts” as part of her critique of the Bush Administration’s “stunning record of secrecy and corruption.” Now, however, Clinton is leaning heavily on “Trust me.” For more than a year after she left office in 2013, she did not transfer work-related email from her private account to the State Department. She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department–spurred by the congressional investigation–asked her to do so. And this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache–31,830 emails–did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”
This strikes experts as a haphazard way of analyzing documents. Jason R. Baron, a former lawyer at the National Archives and Records Administration who is now an attorney in the Washington office of Drinker Biddle & Reath, says, “I would question why lawyers for Secretary Clinton would use keyword searching, a method known to be fraught with limitations, to determine which of the emails with a non-.gov address pertained to government business. Any and all State Department activities–not just communications involving the keywords Benghazi or Libya–would potentially make an email a federal record. Given the high stakes involved, I would have imagined staff could have simply conducted a manual review of every document. Using keywords as a shortcut unfortunately leaves the process open to being second-guessed.”
Wait, there’s more, as Allahpundit explains:
Until last year, if you wanted to access State Department e-mail remotely, you needed a secure Blackberry issued by State for that purpose. And that Blackberry only handled department e-mail, i.e. State e-mail accounts actually did require a dedicated device. Apparently Hillary was right in thinking that, if she wanted to read private e-mail too, she really would have had to carry a second device.
But rather than do that and endure the hardship of fitting two four-ounce smartphones in her purse instead of one, she chose to defy security protocols and conduct all of her business, work and personal, from her unsecured private device. She didn’t care enough about security to have an official State e-mail account created for her in the first place so why would she care enough to read sensitive messages on an official, secured State Blackberry?
That adds a whole new level of risk to her e-mail habits, actually, since she was presumably using her personal Blackberry for work during overseas trips, when she was at
greater risk from foreign surveillance. Between that and the fact that State IT techs warned her about the vulnerability of her private server, there’s really no question that she knowingly, willingly created a major hole in national security simply because her selfish political desire to keep her messages away from the voting public was more important to her.
Yes, this blatantly violates the legal requirements.
I want to believe this will have serious consequences. But I don’t.
Who will run a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton over this? Our incoming attorney general? The confirmation vote is next week. Has any GOP senator even questioned Loretta Lynch whether she thinks this is a serious violation of the law and if, or how, the Department of Justice would investigate?
Do you think there’s a single U.S. Attorney -- all of whom were appointed by President Obama -- who wants to prosecute the Democratic presidential frontrunner?
Do you think there’s a jury that would convict her?
-
1)
http://www.teaparty.org/16-year-old-girl-claims-former-president-bill-clinton-father-88728/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=16-year-old-girl-claims-former-president-bill-clinton-father
2)
Is Bill Chelsea's dad?
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/06/26/bill-clinton-chelseas-biological-father/
-
By
Peggy Noonan
Updated March 13, 2015 6:30 p.m. ET
1369 COMMENTS
Maybe we’re not stuck in Scandal Land.
For a while I’ve assumed Hillary Clinton would run for her party’s nomination and be a formidable candidate in the general election. After Tuesday’s news conference I’m not so sure.
Did she seem to you a happy, hungry warrior? She couldn’t make eye contact with her questioners, and when she did she couldn’t sustain it. She looked at the ceiling and down at notes, trying, it seemed, to stick to or remember scripted arguments. She was shaky. She couldn’t fake good cheer and confidence. It is seven years since she ran for office. You could see it.
Her claims—she stayed off the State Department email system for “convenience,” she thought “it would be easier to carry just one device,” her server “contains personal communications from my husband and me”—were so transparent, so quickly disprovable. Minutes later journalists were posting earlier statements in which she said she carries two devices, and The Wall Street Journal’s report saying Bill has sent only two emails in his life.
This wasn’t high-class spin. These were not respectable dodges. They didn’t make you grudgingly tip your hat at a gift for duplicity. I could almost feel an army of oppo people of both parties saying, “You can do better than that, Hillary!”
This wasn’t the work of a national, high-grade political-response team, it was the thrown-together mess of someone who knew she was guilty of self-serving actions, who didn’t herself believe what she was saying, who didn’t think the press would swallow it, and who didn’t appear to care.
She didn’t look hungry for the battle, she looked tired of the battle.
Everyone knows what the scandal is. She didn’t want a paper trail of her decisions and actions as secretary of state. She didn’t want to be questioned about them, ever. So she didn’t join the government’s paper-trail system, in this case the State Department’s official email system, which retains and archives records. She built her own private system and got to keep complete control of everything she’d done or written. She no doubt assumed no one outside would ask and no one inside would insist—she’s Hillary, don’t mess with her.
She knew the story might blow but maybe it wouldn’t, worth the chance considering the payoff: secrecy. If what she did became public she’d deal with it then. When this week she was forced to, she stonewalled: “The server will remain private.”
Is it outrageous? Of course. Those are U.S. government documents she concealed and destroyed. The press is not covering for her and hard questions are being asked because everyone knows what the story is. It speaks of who she is and how she will govern. Everyone knows it.
She knows it too.
At the news conference she seemed like a 20th-century figure in a 21st-century world. Her critics complain it’s the 1990s returning but it isn’t, it’s only the dark side of the ’90s without the era’s peace and prosperity.
Mrs. Clinton is said to be preparing to announce her candidacy for the presidency in three to four weeks. But did that look like the news conference of a candidate about to announce? It lacked any air of confidence or certitude. For a year the press has been writing about the burgeoning Clinton Shadow Campaign. Where’s the real one?
Defenses of Mrs. Clinton were ad hoc, improvised, flat-footed. It all looks disorderly, as if no one’s in charge, no one has drawn clear lines of responsibility or authority. We hear about loyalists, intimates, allies, pals, hangers-on, Friends of Hill. People buzz around her like bees on random paths to the queen.
In 2008 Barack Obama had impressive, disciplined people around him—David Axelrod,Robert Gibbs,David Plouffe. I remember thinking at the time that they were something unusual in politics: normal. Hillary has people like David Brock, a right-wing hit man who became a left-wing hit man. Who’s he supposed to do outreach to, the other weirdos?
Is this thing really happening? Is the much-vaunted campaign coming together?
After the news conference I thought what I never expected to think: Maybe she doesn’t really want this. Maybe that’s what this incompetence is meant to be signaling.
Here I will speculate, but imagine being Hillary Clinton right now:
Her mother, the rock of her life, died in 2011. In the past years she’s had health issues. She’s tired, having worked at the highest levels of American life the past 25 years. She’s in the middle of a scandal and, being Hillary, knows that others might pop along the way.
Add this: Maybe she thought her ideological hunger, which was real, would sustain her throughout her life, and it hasn’t.
Maybe what happened to her, in part, is the homes of her Manhattan mega-donors. She’s been in the grand townhouses and Park Avenue apartments since 1992. She’d go in and be met and she saw what they had. Beauty. Ease. Fine art of a particular, modern sort, the kind that is ugly, that reminds its owners that just because they’re rich doesn’t mean they don’t understand that life is hard, painful, incoherent. It is protective, cautionary, abstract and costs $20 million a picture.
But what lives they have! Grace and comfort and they don’t have to worry about the press, they don’t have to feel on the run, they don’t have to press the flesh with nobodies.
She’d like those things! But she went into “public service” and had to live on some bum-squat-Egypt Southern governor’s salary.
She wanted what they have. They’re her friends, no more talented than she. But they went to Wall Street and are oozing in dough. She stayed in the lane she was in. And she figures she missed out on the prosperity her husband presided over.
She has her causes—women’s rights, income inequality. But she can advance them in other ways.
Maybe she isn’t really hungry enough for the presidency anymore. And maybe she doesn’t have illusions anymore. She’s funded by Wall Street. Her opponent will be funded by Wall Street.
Maybe she’s of two minds about what she wants. But it’s not really hunger that’s propelling her now, its Newton’s law of inertia: Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.
Maybe she thinks about another line of work, a surprising fourth act. She likes to be served, be admired, be taken care of by staff. But you can get those things without being president. If you are wealthy, and she is now—and maybe that was the purpose of all those six-figure speeches—you can get those things easily.
Maybe she doesn’t, really, want to run. Maybe she’s not sure she can. Or maybe she’ll go for it: It’s what she’s been going toward all her life.
Maybe Democrats who saw that news conference will sense an opening and jump in. There’s the myth of the empty bench, but it won’t be empty if she leaves it. That’s another law of physics: Nature abhors a vacuum.
We all talk so much about the presidency and who’s got the best chance. Maybe it’s not Hillary. Maybe that’s over and no one knows, even her.
Popular on WSJ
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-15/clintons-furious-obama-after-valerie-jarrett-linked-email-leak
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-15/clintons-furious-obama-after-valerie-jarrett-linked-email-leak
White House non-denial denial:
... he answered with just two words: “Utter baloney.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/utter-baloney-wh-shoots-down-valerie-jarrett-hillary-email-leak-story/
-
Apparently Pravda on the Hudson is backstroking; the article was "not without fault" , , , :roll:
-
1)
http://www.teaparty.org/16-year-old-girl-claims-former-president-bill-clinton-father-88728/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=16-year-old-girl-claims-former-president-bill-clinton-father
2)
Is Bill Chelsea's dad?
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/06/26/bill-clinton-chelseas-biological-father/
+ 3) Valerie Jarrett leaked the HRC Clinton email info.
1) Yes, the cute, blonde 16 year old looks like Bill, sounds totally possible and at least a little bit credible if a court is at least willing to hear the arguments (but they aren't). A DNA test is either ordered or agreed to, paternity or not is determined quickly. If this was true, then what happens? Hillary is the victim which is how she broke out of the doldrums in the first place. The new girl becomes a star. Bill takes responsibility and lectures us about how we all need to do that, year of the woman, etc. In other words, this would not be a political winner if true. In any case, that story disappeared from that link and SNopes says "fiction". http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/clintonchild.asp. We need to be careful what we spread...
2) Yes, if these photos are actual, she is a spitting image of Webb. But... it can't be proven, they'll never admit to it, it's totally off-limits politically, and it doesn't amount to anything even if true. If Arkansas is at all like state law here, the married husband is the legal father of the child no matter the actual DNA. Hillary would be seen as justified, plus Chelsea is 35 now, and a mother. It can only turn back on the meddling accusers.
3) Yes, someone like Jarrett and the Obama machine might be one source of some of Hillary's problems. The author of 'Blood Feud' is just as credible as either the Clintons or the Obamas, which is not saying much. Again, it won't be admitted to or proven. NYT isn't giving up sources. The two camps are bound to split apart if they haven't already. But our interest IMHO is to paint them both with the same political brush, just as Obama in 2008 was always running against George Bush.
It is important that we defeat these people directly on their failed political ideology, and not get tempted with all the shiny objects that come floating by, Obama's birth certificate and these stories, etc. Distractions don't change these facts: we are badly over-taxed, over-regulated and are in the process of letting our constitution, sovereignty, national security, fiscal integrity, monetary system, work ethic and culture go to hell if we don't change course pretty soon.
-
Hey, I was just having a moment of fun :-)
Anyway, here is today's Dick Morris:
http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-throws-hillary-under-the-bus-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
second post
She’s weighed down with negatives, but do the Democrats have a choice?
by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online
466520736-676x450Hillary Clinton will not run in 2016 on the slogan of continuing the hope-and-change policies of Barack Obama. The president has not enjoyed a 50 percent approval rating since a brief period after his reelection. And he is no friend of the Clintons.
Abroad, chaos in the Middle East, failed reset with Russia, leading from behind in Libya, and the deaths in Benghazi are no more winning issues than are, at home, the Obamacare fiasco, $9 trillion in new debt, and the alphabet soup of the AP, IRS, NSA, and VA scandals.
The Democratic party has also radically changed in just the six years Barack Obama has been in the White House, as it suffered the greatest losses in Congress since the 1920s. Other than hoping for a serious Republican scandal, the Democrats can only cling to two assumptions. One is historic voter turnout by minorities. The second is bloc voting on the basis of racial and gender solidarity.
If there is insufficient turnout, or if groups do not vote in lockstep on the basis of their racial or sexual identities, then — witness the 2010 and 2014 elections — Democratic candidates can get walloped.
Why?
A paradox arose in Obama’s efforts at encouraging bloc voting. To galvanize groups on the basis of their race, tribe, or gender, the Obama cadre has resorted to divisive language — “punish our enemies,” “nation of cowards,” “my people” — that turns off independent voters and even some liberal white voters. When the president weighed in during the trial of the “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman by telling the nation that if he had had a son, that boy would have looked like Trayvon Martin, such an eerie tribal appeal bothered at least as many Americans as it may have stirred. Blacks and Latinos may appreciate Eric Holder’s constant sermonizing about white prejudice or Obama’s riffs on Skip Gates and Ferguson, but just as many other Americans do not believe that Gates was singled out on the basis of race and do not see how the thuggish Michael Brown, who had robbed a store and rushed a police officer, could conceivably become a civil-rights hero.
More importantly, there is no indication that Obama’s knack for firing up minority voters is transferrable in the same measure to other Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton. Once one appeals to tribal identity on the basis of race and appearance, one lives or dies with such superficial affinities. Hillary, in other words, is not Latino or black, and her winning 60 percent of the former or 85 percent of the latter would simply not be good enough under the formulaic racial bloc voting that Obama has bequeathed to Democrats. In addition, Obama seems to bestow voter resentment, as much as he does enthusiasm, on other Democrats. In 2014, it seemed that Obama harmed Democratic candidates a lot more than he helped them, especially when he reminded the electorate that his own policies were de facto on the ballot.
Nor are Obama’s bread-and-circuses issues catching on. Most Americans believe that the era of adolescence is over, and the next president will have to be an adult who puts away the golf clubs and ESPN monitors to clean up what will be $20 trillion in debt and a collapsed foreign policy. The public seems to accept that taxes can’t go much higher. No one thinks that borrowing trillions was a sign of government austerity. Too many, not too few, Americans appear to be hooked on entitlements. The borders are too porous, not too well guarded. Spiking the stock market was not the same as creating well-paying middle-class jobs. More gas and oil came despite, not because of, Obama.
What, then, is Hillary Clinton’s strategy for 2016?
Once again, mostly symbolism. Apart from Hillary and the idea of the first female president, the Democrats have little to turn to — which explains why Hillary may well be nominated even if her health and inclinations — and her disastrous performances — lean against it.
What won Barack Obama the presidency in 2008 was public anger over the Iraq war, fear following the 2008 Wall Street meltdown — and his own iconic status as potentially the first African-American president. Had the surge in Iraq succeeded a year earlier, or had the financial markets not crashed, or had the Democrats nominated a Joe Biden or a Howard Dean, then they probably would have lost the presidency.
Unfortunately for them, however, in 2016 there will be no incumbent Republican administration to scapegoat. “Bush did it” is now stale after six years. Blaming the Tea Party or the Republican House is likewise old hat. There is no success story to bandy about — no desire to bring on another Libya or expand Obamacare or borrow another $9 trillion.
There is only the war-on-women mantra that it is past time for a female president and Hillary has the best shot at making it. She is counting on the idea that blacks and Latinos will turn out for her as an icon of oppressed minorities in the manner they did for Obama, and that white working-class voters will forget the Democratic racial and gender pandering that is so often implicitly aimed against them.
On the face of it, the idea of Hillary Clinton as a feminist trailblazer should be ludicrous. Forty-four women have already served in the Senate since the first one did 93 years ago. When Hillary took over as secretary of state in 2009, there had not been a white male secretary since 1997.
Unlike national female politicians like Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina, Hillary Clinton gained public exposure only by virtue of marriage to the powerbroker governor and then president Bill Clinton. Implicit in her messaging is a return to Bill Clinton’s economic good times of the 1990s and the implication that he might well be running half the show — a subliminal and quite sexist message.
Take away the Clinton name, and Hillary Rodham would be no more likely to become president than would Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. In her own public and private life Hillary Clinton has had few feminist credentials beyond her self-promotion. She never insisted on pay equity for her female staffers while senator. She did not object much when her husband’s political operatives sought to destroy the reputations of the women with whom he had liaisons — Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey — some of whom made powerful cases that they had been coerced into sexual encounters and then sullied and derided when they complained. For Hillary, if it was a question of believing that her husband had inappropriately solicited sex with a female subordinate or an otherwise vulnerable woman, or ensuring that her own meal ticket was secure, the choice was always a no-brainer.
Hillary has never been a very inspiring candidate. She is petulant when pressed, and appears at once bored and angry when cross-examined. Her stump speeches can be best characterized as high-pitched and punctuated with shrillness.
She does not so much habitually lie, as habitually see no problem with lying, as if she either cannot distinguish untruth from veracity, or simply believes that normal expectations of conduct should not apply to herself. Her mea culpas about the e-mail scandal were historic in that not a single declaration that she made could possibly be true: One does not need two smartphones to have two e-mail accounts; Ms. Clinton uses not just one but, by her own admission, four smart communication devices. The physical presence of security guards does not ensure a server’s security from cyber attacks. Bill Clinton does not use e-mail, and thus Hillary could not have communicated with him by that means as she claimed.
She seems unaware that no one has the right to decide when or if to comply with federal regulations when leaving office. No one has the right to be sole auditor of her own compliance with federal law. No other major Cabinet secretary in the Obama administration failed to have a .gov account. And on and on and on.
In sum, the Democrats have neither a winning agenda nor someone to blame this time around. They are stuck with only symbols and icons — and this time shaky ones at that. In 2016, choosing any candidate other than the potential first woman president would be as futile as running Joe Biden in 2008 instead of Barack Obama as the potential first African-American president. There would be no icon, not even a small chance of massive minority turnout, and certainly less bloc voting on the basis of tribe. In other words, for the Democrats, 2016 would hinge on just defending the Obama record and the principles of liberal theology — and thereby probably falling short on election day. It is either the worn-out idea of Hillary, warts and all, as both victim and trailblazer — or bust.
-
Victor Davis Hanson: "...Clinton will not run in 2016 on the slogan of continuing the hope-and-change policies of Barack Obama.
That's right. They're having trouble coming up with a winning theme.
Previously, here: "...[lack of] excitement of kicking off a campaign theme called 'more of the same'. http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg86635#msg86635
-
Hey, I was just having a moment of fun :-)
Anyway, here is today's Dick Morris:
http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-throws-hillary-under-the-bus-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
I enjoyed it too. I have been wondering about the credibility of Blood Feud author Ed Klein, once of Newsweek and referenced by Dick Morris. Here he was ripped pretty badly for accuracy and sourcing by liberal radio on his 2005 Hillary book. They are a little unfair to him, but mostly make the point he is willing to just repeat juicy things, unverified, to make a buck.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-ed-klein-author-clinton-obama-smear-books-met-joe-conason-al-franken/
False but true, the overall point stands; there is a divide between the Clinton and Obama camps and it will get worse when she has to define how she is different.
-
One more liberal pundit, Washington Post's David Ignatius, "I'm still not certain she's going to be a candidate."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/17/ignatius_on_hillary_clinton_im_not_certain_shes_going_to_be_a_candidate.html
Me neither. :wink:
-
http://freebeacon.com/blog/7-years-ago-today-hillary-said-she-came-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia-was-called-out-by-sinbad/
-
Secretary of the Treasury isn't really a position of slouch. The position, high in the order of succession to the Presidency, was held by many distinguished Americans including Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Mellon, George Schultz. Now enter Jack Lew of the most transparent administration. Did he notice Hillary used an email address not of the state.gov variety. He was, after all, Undersecretary of State reporting to her. He isn't able to even say the words, I don't recall.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/jack-lew-clams-up.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One other point on Clinton emails. The system was set up by "President Clinton", is guarded 24/7 by Secret Service, is used presumably to take care of his official duties as former President among other things. If so, then most likely it was paid for in full or in part with federal dollars, which makes it a public asset subject to oversight by Congress. No?
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-clintons-personally-made-millions-from-quid-pro-quo-with-u-a-e-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-clintons-personally-made-millions-from-quid-pro-quo-with-u-a-e-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
It's hard to fathom the scale of the Clinton misdeeds, but remember the other William Jefferson - the Louisiana Congressman who got caught with $90,000 CASH in his freezer. It is quite a vivid kickback that people can visualize and remember. This allegation is to line up 222 of those stocked freezers throughout the Clinton household when the Feds come in to search. Instead of sneaking in, it is done by wire transfer right under the Feds' watch.
Maybe the new Attorney General will open an investigation. Lol.
-
Did Foreign Governments Buy Influence With Hillary?
(http://patriotpost.us/posts/34031)
Hillary Clinton may be too mired in international connections to be an
unbiased president -- or hold any other public office for that matter. While
the Clintons couldn't accept donations from foreign governments to the Clinton
Foundation (http://patriotpost.us/articles/33399) while Hillary was secretary
of state, it didn't stop politicians in high positions in the Ukrainian,
Chinese and Saudi Arabian governments from giving millions. The Wall Street
Journal
(http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-friends-1426818602)
reports, "All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their
foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the
years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively
giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some
donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the
foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million." While every donor WSJ
spoke with claimed they were only giving to a charity they believed in, they
also had the potential to buy Clinton's attention. The Clintons certainly know
how to play this shadowy political game, as Hillary just happened to stall on
disclosing the donors
(http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/19/hillary-clintons-scandal-is-blowing-up-in-the-press-no-the-other-one/)
to her charity.
-
My first search to find Hillary commodity trading scandal background information brought up this thread as a top ten search result! I've looked through some WSJ material from the 1990s but found neither the article Crafty referenced nor the editorial that I remember. One interesting point at the start is that it was the NYT that first brought forward the story. Her earliest explanation was that she got her information from the WSJ. In response, the editors said we're flattered but no, it doesn't work that way.
In fact, the odds of doing what she did without cheating the system are one in 31 trillion against her, best case. Assuming that the return is made in the most efficient way possible, this probability falls to approximately 1.5×10−16.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02920493
As the joke goes, so you're sayin' I got a shot!
What really was going on?
The person feeding her information and hand placing her trades with hindsight was chief counsel to one of the state's most powerful companies as her husband was Attorney General and leading candidate for Governor. In crony corruption language, quid pro quo is the exchange of goods or services where one transfer is contingent upon the other. "During Mr. Clinton's tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards." (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/30/us/hillary-clinton-turned-1000-into-99540-white-house-says.html)
Politico, March 10, 2015
A few days after Hubbell’s resignation [Hillary's law partner who plead guilty for bilking clients], the New York Times ran a lengthy story about Hillary’s commodity trades. Her aides and lawyers had finally provided financial records to the Times, but only after the newspaper made clear that it was preparing to publish a detailed account of her trading profits.
Initially, senior aides to the Clintons said in March 1994 that Hillary “based her trades on information in the Wall Street Journal.” That explanation was subsequently dropped. An aide to Hillary then said she had withdrawn from the market in the fall of 1979 because she had found trading too nerve-racking in the final months of her pregnancy. But another White House aide quickly declared that excuse “inoperative” after it was disclosed in April 1994 that Hillary made $6,500 in a commodities-trading venture in 1980 but failed to report that profit to the IRS.
Shortly after that, Hillary took responsibility—in her standard combination of singular acknowledgment and plural blame—for her aides’ confusing answers to reporters, saying they stemmed from her being away, working on other issues. “I probably did not spend enough time, get as precise,” she explained, “so I think that the confusion was our responsibility.”
[No criminal investigation was made because the statute of limitations had long expired before the tax returns were made available.]
They note the similarity to the private email scandal press conference and a similar one in 1994:
By mid-April [1994], Hillary’s approval ratings had dropped from 56 percent the year before to 44 percent, a historically low mark for a First Lady. Aides knew that Hillary’s stubborn reluctance to speak with the press was one of the sources of the public’s displeasure with her. For weeks, her aides and friends had urged her to con- front the negative reports and innuendos in an open, candid way. It was one thing to stay in the background, but by not providing Americans with an example different from her initially off-putting public appearance, she was leaving it to her political enemies to define her.
In late April, Hillary told her chief of staff, Maggie Williams, “I want to do it. Let’s call a press conference.”
“You know you’ll have to answer all questions, no matter what they throw at you,” Williams responded.
“I know. I’m ready.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-pink-press-conferences-115952_Page2.html#ixzz3VDuOabvg
-
Nice work Doug!
"My first search to find Hillary commodity trading scandal background information brought up this thread as a top ten search result!"
Well done gentlemen!
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
Very good article, though I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ. Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search. What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles".
-
Mrs. Clinton traded with Mr. Bone[known crook], the chief broker in 1978 at the Springdale, Ark., offices of Ray E. Friedman & Co., or Refco. In 1981, Mr. Bone was fined $100,000 and barred from trading for three years after an investigation of allegations that he had been allocating winning positions to favored clients.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/27/us/new-records-outline-favor-for-hillary-clinton-on-trades.html
Crafty: "...I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ. Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search. What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles". "
My subscription-based searching powers have expired but I will try with library resources when time permits.
-
Excellent find on the NYT article. Email me about researching the WSJ for that article.
-
Hillary Can't Type: Look To Huma's and Cheryl's Emails; See 2016 Buzz
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheDailyHillary.com on March 23, 2015
Don't expect a gold mine of emails on Hillary's private account. Why not? Because
she doesn't know how to type. That's right. She writes everything out in longhand.
Really. Anyone who has spent time in meetings with her knows about her endless
yellow pads.
So her emails will most likely turn out to be very short and quick. She wouldn't
spend a lot of time pecking out long letters. No way. That's why the Benghazi
Committee needs to also look very closely at the emails on private accounts that
Hillary's closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, maintained. Anything more
than a few lines were most likely written by someone else on her behalf. There's a
reason why Hillary set up and used private emails with them for official business:
all the important emails were likely written by her staff. Without access to them,
we won't know what was going on.
The Clintons never used the White House computer for their own work. Hillary even
wrote (or copied) her book manuscripts in long hand. Although ghost writer Barbara
Fineman was paid $120,000 for writing It Takes A Village, she proudly waved hundreds
of hand-written pages on yellow legal pads to pretend she wrote it all herself. She
never acknowledged Fineman's work.
Bill can't type either. When I wrote his 1995 State of the Union Speech, I typed it
on an IBM Selectric that the White House dug up from the basement. He told me that
he didn't want me to put it in the official computer system, because then his staff
would see it.
So, he carefully copied every word in his distinctive left hand penmanship. I still
have a copy of it. Then he pretended that he had written it himself.
The Clintons have figured out every which way to avoid disclosure of what they want
to keep private. So don't expect a smoking gun in Hillary's emails.
Look, instead, to Huma, Cheryl, Jake Sullivan, and Philippe Reines -- if they still
exist.
Here's Exactly Why Hillary Kept Secret Email Accounts In Her House: See How Justice
Dept. Defends In Court
HERE'S EXACTLY WHY HILLARY KEPT SECRET EMAIL ACCOUNTS IN HER HOUSE: SEE HOW JUSTICE
DEPT. DEFENDS IN COURT
By EILEEN MCGANN
If there is actually anyone on the planet who has any doubts about why Hillary kept
a secret email server in her Chappaqua house, guarded by the Secret Service, a quick
look at the Justice Department's response to Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information
request for Hillary's emails will clear things up. You can read it here:
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/687253/613051/7757/2/
Judicial Watch wants emails related to the Iran sanctions. In defending the State
Department for failing to produce and records and not disposing Hillary's secret
emails, the Justice Department makes the case that any documents that are not under
their control are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act and, therefore, the
State Department has no obligation to search them. Since Hillary -- and not the
State Department -- controlled them, they have no obligation to do anything with
them.
The government relied on a U.S. Supreme Court case against Hillary's newest pal,
Henry Kissinger. Kissinger had his secretaries listen in to all of his phone calls
and take notes.
Hillary knew that would be their response and that's precisely why she went to the
trouble and expense of creating her own server. The notoriously cheap Clintons,
used to the government and rich friends paying their tabs, made a point of leaking
that President Clinton paid for the server. That's a first. But it's important
because, presumably, if the Government paid for it, they could assert control.
Hillary and her lawyers thought of everything. And now the Justice Department is
following the script that Hillary anticipated when she set up the secret system in
2009 just before she was sworn in as Secretary of State. She wasn't taking any
chances that some government document could undermine her anticipated presidential
campaign.
And so far, it's working. Here's what the Justice Department argued to the court:
"FOIA creates no obligation for an agency to search for and produce records that it
does not possess and control. See Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the
Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152, 154-55 (1980); Nat'l Sec. Archive v. Archivist of the
U.S., 909 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office
of Science and Technology Policy, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2015 WL 967549, at *4-5
(D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2015). It certainly provides no basis for a court to issue a
subpoena for such documents." (Emphasis added.)
That's what Hillary is counting on.
But now the State Department has the emails that Hillary hand-picked to turn over.
So, it's hard to argue that they don't have to search at least those documents.
Instead, they want to be able to post them all on a web site. Why? That way we
will be the ones who have to search through 55,000 pages, not them. If they were
required to comply with FOI, they would have to identify the responsive documents.
Oh, and by the way, Hillary's decision to hand over hard copies, instead of
electronic files was another ploy to make searching the documents more difficult.
There's no way to do a word search on manual documents. She's not going to make
this one easy. It's typical Hillary -- hide, obfuscate, delay, stretch the legal
boundaries while screaming about the rights to keep private emails about your
mother's funeral.
The government's reliance on the Kissinger case is interesting. Although the
Supreme Court recognized that transcripts of Kissinger's phone calls were official
records that were wrongfully removed, it found that only government agencies -- and
not the press or individuals -- could sue for their return. Kissinger had taken the
transcripts from the State Department and placed them in a safe on the estate of
Nelson Rockefeller. (Conspiracy theorists, take note). Eventually, he gave them to
the Library of Congress, which is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. He
signed an agreement barring public access until either 25 years after the donation
or 5 years after his death -- whatever is later. But just recently, Kissinger
agreed that the transcripts and other papers of his can be made public. Even
Kissinger finally came around to recognize the public's right to documents created
in the course of official government business. Hillary should follow in his
footsteps.
Things are definitely heating up, but it's just the beginning. Judicial Watch also
requested access to Hillary's server. Last week, the Benghazi Committee subpoenaed
the server. There are multiple pending Freedom of Information requests for her
emails, And the Benghazi Committee is looking at other people's emails, too -- like
Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin. Stay tuned.
-
Hillary’s Record: Free of Accomplishments, Full of Setbacks
by Thomas Sowell
March 24, 2015 12:00 AM
The case for her in 2016 boils down to demographic symbolism. It is amazing how a simple question can cause a complex lie to collapse like a house of cards. The simple question was asked by Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel, and it was addressed to two Democrats. He asked what has Hillary Clinton ever accomplished. The two Democrats immediately sidestepped the question and started reciting their talking points in favor of Hillary. But O’Reilly kept coming back to the fact that nothing they were talking about was an accomplishment. For someone who has spent her entire adult life in politics, including being a senator and then a secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has nothing to show for all those years — no significant legislation of hers that she got passed in the Senate, and only an unbroken series of international setbacks for the United States during her time as secretary of state. Before Barack Obama entered the White House and appointed Mrs. Clinton secretary of state, al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq had notified their higher-ups, stationed in Pakistan, that their cause was lost in Iraq and that there was no point sending more men there. Hosni Mubarak was in charge in Egypt. He posed no threat to American or Western interests in the Middle East or to Christians within Egypt or to Israel. But the Obama administration threw its weight behind the Muslim Brotherhood, which took over and began terrorizing Christians in Egypt and promoting hostility to Israel. In Libya next door, the Qaddafi regime had already given up its weapons of mass destruction, after they saw what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But President Obama’s foreign policy, carried out by Secretary of State Clinton, got Qaddafi removed, after which Libya became a terrorist haven where an American ambassador was killed, for the first time in decades. The rationale for getting rid of Middle East leaders who posed no threat to American interests was that they were undemocratic and their people were restless. But there are no democracies in the Middle East, except for Israel. Moreover, the people were restless in Iran and Syria, and the Obama-Clinton foreign policy did nothing to support those who were trying to overthrow these regimes. It would be only fair to balance this picture with foreign-policy triumphs of the Obama-Clinton team. But there are none. Not in the Middle East, not in Europe, where the Russians have invaded the Crimea, and not in Asia, where both China and North Korea are building up threatening military forces, while the Obama administration has been cutting back on American military forces. Hillary Clinton became an iconic figure by feeding the media and the Left the kind of rhetoric they love. Barack Obama did the same and became president. Neither had any concrete accomplishments beforehand besides rhetoric, and both have had the opposite of accomplishments after taking office. They have something else in common. They attract the votes of those people who vote for demographic symbolism — “the first black president” to be followed by “the first woman president” — and neither is to be criticized, lest you be denounced for racism or sexism. It is staggering that there are sane adults who can vote for someone to be president of the United States as if they are in school, just voting for “most popular boy” or “most popular girl” — or, worse yet, voting for someone who will give them free stuff. Whoever holds that office makes decisions involving the life and death of Americans and — especially if Iran gets a nuclear arsenal — the life and death of this nation. It took just two nuclear bombs — neither of them as powerful as those available today — to get a very tough nation like Japan to surrender. Anyone familiar with World War II battles in the Pacific knows that it was not unusual for 90 percent of the Japanese troops defending Iwo Jima or other islands to fight to the death, even after it was clear that American troops had them beaten. When people like that surrender after two nuclear bombs, do not imagine that today’s soft Americans — led by the likes of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton — will fight on after New York and Chicago have been reduced to radioactive ashes. Meanwhile, ISIS and other terrorists are giving us a free demonstration of what surrender would mean. But perhaps we can kick the can down the road, and leave that as a legacy to our children and grandchildren, along with the national debt. — Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is http://www.tsowell.com. © 2015 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415855/hillarys-record-free-accomplishments-full-setbacks-thomas-sowell
-
http://conservativetribune.com/gowdy-threatens-hillary-arrest/
-
... I would LOVE to find that article that I remember in the WSJ. Now thanks to this article here we have a much more narrowly defined time range to define our search. What I remember of the article was that it appeared on the editorial page and was written by the man who had been the IRS attorney in charge of prosecuting tax frauds manipulating "commodity straddles".
Emailed to me this morning by James Taranto, Deputy Editor of the WSJ. )
The Mystery of Hillary's Trades
By David L. Brandon
1724 words
7 April 1994
The Wall Street Journal
J
PAGE A14
English
(Copyright (c) 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)
As former head of the IRS chief counsel's Commodities Industry Specialization Team in the mid-1980s, I have followed with great interest the media stories on Hillary Clinton's excellent adventures in the commodities markets. As a proud capitalist and free market proponent (and an avid beef eater), I would be the first in line to salute this woman's success with cattle futures. But based on my years of experience with these markets, her story just doesn't add up. In fact, the chances of someone making almost $100,000 in the futures markets on her first try are about as great as walking into a casino in Las Vegas, hitting the million-dollar jackpot on your first try at the slots, then walking out never to play again. It just doesn't happen that way.
For those unfamiliar with the details of Mrs. Clinton's remarkable venture into the commodities markets, she allegedly made more than $99,000 in cattle futures (and other commodities) in late 1978 and 1979, withdrawing from trading just before the markets went bust. No explanation has been offered of how Mrs. Clinton managed to satisfy state laws that require futures investors to demonstrate a minimum net income and net worth, nor how a novice could have such uncanny timing.
There is, in fact, a much more probable explanation for Mrs. Clinton's good fortune. The media have already suggested that trades may have been moved to Mrs. Clinton's account after gains had been realized. However, the stories thus far have not clearly focused on a common trading strategy called a "straddle" that was very much in vogue at the time.
Straddles have the unique ability to produce exactly equal and offsetting gains and losses that can be transferred or used by the straddle trader for a variety of purposes. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, straddles were used for all kinds of illegal activities, ranging from tax evasion to money-laundering and bribes. In fact, this activity prompted a number of legal and regulatory changes by the Reagan administration to curb the abuses.
Although it sounds somewhat esoteric, a commodities straddle is a relatively simple trading device.
A commodities futures contract is nothing more than an agreement between two parties to buy or sell a certain type of commodity (in Mrs. Clinton's case, cattle) for a stated price on some date in the future. If the price of the commodity goes up before the contract delivery date, the individual who agreed to buy the commodity will realize a gain equal to the difference between the current price and the contract price. The individual who agreed to sell will realize a loss in an equal amount. Conversely, if the price goes down, the buyer will lose and the seller will gain.
A straddle is created when an investor enters into contracts to both buy and sell the same commodity. In this case, any gain on one contract will be exactly offset by a loss on the opposite contract. While straddle trading today is used in a variety of legitimate ways, these transactions lend themselves to all sorts of abuses as well. Before regulatory changes in the 1980s, it was common to enter into straddles to wipe out large capital gains for tax purposes. For example, an investor who realized a $100,000 capital gain in the stock market might enter into a large straddle in the commodities market. When the commodity price moved, the investor would close the loss leg of the straddle and realize a $100,000 loss, which offset his gain in the stock market. The investor was not required to report the unrealized $100,000 gain in the opposite leg of the straddle until that leg was closed in the following year. Typically, the investor entered into another straddle in the following year, thereby indefinitely rolling over the capital gain into subsequent years.
Another ploy common during that time required the assistance of a friendly broker. An investor could create a straddle using two separate investment accounts with his broker. After the straddle had moved, so that a gain and an offsetting loss had been created, the friendly broker simply wrote in the name of the investor's tax-exempt retirement fund on the account that held the gain leg of the straddle. The result was that a loss was realized that was reported on the investor's tax return, while the gain went unreported in the tax-exempt retirement account.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the IRS began noticing large numbers of individual tax returns that curiously showed commodities losses just big enough to wipe out unrelated capital gains; no corresponding commodities gains, which would suggest a straddle, ever appeared on subsequent returns. Even more curiously, the profile of these investors always had one thing in common, which was limited experience or no prior experience in commodities trading. In the early 1980s, an IRS agent in Chicago thought to look into one taxpayer's retirement fund and, of course, found the hidden gain leg of the straddle.
After that experience, the IRS redoubled its efforts to seek out thousands of missing straddle gains. It found them in retirement accounts, in London, in the Cayman Islands -- almost anywhere a taxpayer thought he might hide them from the IRS. With respect to these thousands of mysterious, isolated commodities transactions that showed up on tax returns, the IRS uncovered some form of questionable trading in virtually 100% of the cases it investigated. Well before the close of the 1980s, the IRS had assessed more than $7 billion in delinquent taxes and penalties attributable to these transactions and eventually settled these cases out of court for approximately $3.5 billion.
While most of the IRS's efforts were directed at finding hidden gains of the ubiquitous straddle, the trading device could just as easily be used to openly transfer gains while hiding the offsetting loss. If someone desired to make an illicit payment to another party, a straddle could be used to accomplish this purpose with no incriminating or suspicious-looking bank withdrawals or deposits. In fact, the IRS found numerous incidents of straddles being used for money-laundering purposes.
Does Mrs. Clinton's trading activity fit the profile of the illegitimate straddle trader? She was a novice in the commodities markets who, against all odds, realized large gains. Although she intermittently realized losses, it does not appear that she ever had to risk her own capital beyond her initial $1,000 deposit, which itself may have been insufficient to cover even her first transaction (which netted her $5,300). According to the trading records released by the White House, most of Mrs. Clinton's gains were recorded as intra-month transactions. This means that these records include no information regarding key elements of the trade, such as the type and quantity of the contracts, acquisition dates, acquisition prices, etc. Such information is needed to determine whether trades were part of a prearranged straddle.
It also appears that Mrs. Clinton's broker, Robert L. "Red" Bone, was no stranger to the spicier practices of commodities trading, according to The Wall Street Journal's front-page article last Friday.
It seems more than coincidental that Mr. Bone was a former employee of Tyson Foods and that Mrs. Clinton's investment adviser, James Blair, was the company's legal counsel. Tyson, the poultry concern, is one of the largest employers in the state of Arkansas. The fact that the Clintons withheld disclosing only those tax returns that included their commodities gains until the transactions were reported by the New York Times in February also appears quite suspicious. From my standpoint as a former government staff attorney with extensive experience in these matters, Mrs. Clinton's windfall in the late 1970s has all the trappings of pre-arranged trades.
How would a straddle have been used in Mrs. Clinton's case? The Journal has already reported that gains theoretically could have been transferred to Mrs. Clinton's account, while "others" may have absorbed losses. Such a transaction could be accomplished with a straddle.
A party desiring to transfer cash to another's personal account for legal or illegal purposes could enter into a straddle in a particularly volatile commodity, such as cattle futures in the late 1970s. After gains and losses were generated in the opposite sides of the straddle, the gain side would be marked to the beneficiary's account, while the loss side would remain in the account of the contributor. The contributor might even be entitled to use the loss to offset other gains. Such a transaction would be not only well-hidden from government authorities but potentially tax-deductible.
No direct evidence of wrongdoing has been produced in the case of Mrs. Clinton's trading activity. In fact, no conclusive evidence of anything has been produced. In order to settle the legitimate questions surrounding her trades, a satisfactory explanation is needed for her apparently low initial margin deposit and whether the requirements relating to an investor's minimum net income and net worth were satisfied. In addition, the details of her numerous intra-month trades should be provided, as well as the details of the trades of persons who may have had a special interest in how well she did. If it is discovered that certain interested parties happened to realize losses in cattle futures at the same time, and they were comparable in size to the gains reported by Mrs. Clinton, this would amount to a "smoking gun."
This is not a matter of partisan politics. Even if the public had never heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the circumstances surrounding her unusual good fortune would still appear suspicious to anyone awake to abuses of the commodities markets. In this writer's experience, the normal trading world just doesn't work that way.
---
Mr. Brandon was a career attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service from 1983 to 1989. During that time he also served as head of that department's Commodity Industry Specialization Team, which was responsible for coordinating and developing the IRS's legal positions on tax issues arising in connection with commodities transactions.
Dow Jones & Company
Document j000000020011029dq470095u
-
None of this stuff will stop the Clinton machine. No matter what we hear the first response is, "no laws were broken". Every single time and the machine rolls ahead.
The MSM fawns and the opposition just twists and wrings our hands in frustration.
-
None of this stuff will stop the Clinton machine. No matter what we hear the first response is, "no laws were broken". Every single time and the machine rolls ahead.
The MSM fawns and the opposition just twists and wrings our hands in frustration.
Yes, but laws WERE broken.
That was Politico and NYTimes bringing it up again.
The Clinton machine was impotent in 2007-2008. Their last national win was in 1996 when the youngest voters of 2016 were -2 years old. Even then, with Bill's magic and a very weak opponent, they never won 50% of the vote.
And she doesn't have his skills.
-
Answer:
Nothing. Clinton has obstructed justice for decades. Now she is the Democrat Party's premiere candidate. Unless we have an O'Malley/Warren ticket challenge.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/benghazi-chairman-clinton-wiped-private-email-server-%e2%80%98clean%e2%80%99/ar-AAa7d9t
Could anyone imagine if a lower level government employee did this?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/did-hillary-clinton-destroy-evidence-wiping-clean-her-204359982.html
Did Hillary Clinton destroy evidence in 'wiping clean' her email server? [Yes.]
Friday was the deadline for Hillary Clinton to respond to a congressional subpoena for emails and documents related to the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. She provided nothing since her email server had been wiped clean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Her server is not the only place where her emails resided. Deletion alone doesn't destroy all the information. The steps they took to go further than that like demagnetization or dropping it into the Hudson River in the middle of the night are bound to look bad politically. I share ccp's concern, but don't believe this goes away just because she is a Clinton. I saw one of her hacks on Meet the depressed tell us to move on and talk about issues that are important, but I did not see even the mainstreamers buying it.
If we are being outsmarted here by the Clintons, it can only be that they manufactured this scandal intentionally to distract from larger ones still hidden.
This is only one of her problems. She lacks the political skills of Bill, Barack, Reagan, Rubio, etc. Her policies don't work. She lacks separation from Obama. They hid their records and stole from the White House last time they were leaving. We still don't know what Bill was doing on Pedaphilia Island or where Hillary was help was not sent to Benghazi. She has resume, but lacks accomplishments. Not just as Secretary of State, but her policy debut as First Lady, and her experience when they took majority in the Senate. Everything they did made things worse. Her Russian reset didn't work. Her Libyan overthrow didn't work. Her economic ideas failed. Her health care debut blew up. Even the commodities straddles remain unanswered. She won't be able to say anything like the most transparent administration ever is coming without even her own supporters breaking out in laughter. Not exactly a dream come true for America in 2016.
All she can honestly is what an aide said about them, they lie with such ease.
-
I should add that Bill doesn't have the political skills of the Bill that we remember anymore either.
George Will piles on and remember his Washington Post columns extend out further than what right wing sites can reach. He politely concludes with "voters will make an informed choice".
When she announces she isn't running (and leaves the scene gracefully) we can finally let all this Clinton ugliness rest. George Will is kind to say Bill looks grandfatherly. The photo with it makes him look great-grandfatherly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/remembrance-of-clintons-past/2015/03/27/839f5d3a-d3db-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html
An abscess of anger seems to gnaw at Hillary Clinton, but the reasons for her resentments remain unclear. The world’s oldest party, which governed the nation during two world wars and is the primary architect of America’s regulatory and redistributive state, is eager to give her its presidential nomination, in recognition of . . . what?
The party, adrift in identity politics, clings, as shipwrecked sailors do to floating debris, to this odd feminist heroine. Wafted into the upper reaches of American politics by stolid participation in her eventful marriage to a serial philanderer, her performance in governance has been defined by three failures.
Her husband, having assured the 1992 electorate that voting for him meant getting “two for the price of one,” entrusted to her the project that he, in a harbinger of the next Democratic president’s mistake, made his immediate priority — health-care reform. Then-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) urged him to begin with welfare reform, just as wise Democrats wanted President Obama to devote 2009 to economic recovery rather than health care, perhaps sparing the nation six years and counting of economic sluggishness.
Hillary Clinton enveloped her health-care deliberations in secrecy, assembling behind closed doors battalions of the best and the brightest — think of many Jonathan Grubers weaving complexities for the good of, but beyond the comprehension of, the public. When their handiwork was unveiled, it was so baroque that neither house of a Congress controlled by her party would even vote on it. This was one reason that in 1994 Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years — a harbinger of 2010, when Obamacare helped end Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as the first female speaker.
Clinton’s Senate interlude was an uneventful prelude to her 2008 presidential quest, which earned her, as a consolation prize, the State Department. There her tenure was defined by the “reset” with Russia and by regime-change-by-bombers in Libya.
Russia has responded by violently dismembering a European nation. Libya was the object of “humanitarian intervention,” an echo of Bill Clinton’s engagement in the Balkans that appealed to progressives because it was connected only tenuously, if at all, to U.S. national interests. Today, Libya is a humanitarian calamity, a failed state convulsed by civil war and exporting jihadists.
These episodes supposedly recommend a re-immersion in Clintonism, a phenomenon that in 2001 moved The Post to say, more in anger than in sorrow, that “the Clintons’ defining characteristic” is that “they have no capacity for embarrassment.” This judgment was rendered as two episodes were demonstrating that the Clintons in power were defined by their manner of leaving it.
Bill Clinton punctuated his presidency by pardoning the late Marc Rich, a fugitive who 17 years earlier had been indicted for tax evasion, fraud and racketeering. Rich also traded with Libya and South Africa in contravention of embargos and traded with Iran during the hostage crisis. His former wife reportedly contributed more than $1 million to assorted Democratic causes, $450,000 for Clinton’s presidential library and $10,000 to the legal defense fund necessitated by Clinton’s glandular life that led to the Supreme Court effectively disbarring him from practicing before it.
A year before the Clintons decamped from Washington to begin planning their return to it, they began trucking away from the White House $190,000 worth of furnishings. Perhaps exigencies dictated this; the couple was, Hillary Clinton says, “dead broke.” The furnishings became, as things often do with the Clintons, another occasion for an “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” tiptoe along the ledge of illegality. The White House chief usher thought many of the items were government property donated in 1993 to a redecoration project. Several donors of items said they were told this. Although the Clintons said that all the removed furnishings were personal gifts, they returned $28,000 worth of them.
As Hillary Clinton begins her campaign to again reside with the White House furnishings, remember an episode perhaps pertinent to the family penchant for secrecy and to her personal e-mail server. Sandy Berger, who had been President Clinton’s national security adviser, was his designated representative to the commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks that occurred less than nine months after Clinton left office. While representing Clinton, Berger frequented the National Archives. Later, he was fined $50,000 for surreptitiously taking highly classified documents from the Archives and destroying some of them.
Another Clinton presidency probably would include a reprise of the couple’s well-known patterns of behavior. Voters will make an informed choice.
-
While we are remembering Hillary, remember her task force. George Will said, think of a room full of Grubers. They had all the secrecy they later accused Cheney's energy task force of. The public hated the plan. Dems lost Congress because of it, and Hillary was banned from policy assignments be her own husband. Now she runs on her record?! She led and they created a bureaucratic flow chart where people in a hundred agencies, believed to be smarter than all of us combined making individual choices, make our decisions for us. A version of this is now called Obamacare.
(http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/07/ChartHealth771-thumb-410x313.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=410%2C313)
-
Pasting Obj.'s post in Islam in America here
Revived Questions about Huma Abedin
Posted By Matthew Vadum On March 31, 2015 @ frontpagemag.com
Republican lawmakers are probing why Hillary Clinton’s longtime Islamist aide Huma Abedin was allowed to work at the State Department under a special, part-time status while simultaneously working at a politically-connected consulting firm.
Demands for information are coming from Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) after the public learned both women used Clinton’s private Internet server and email accounts for Department of State correspondence.
But that’s only part of the endless sleaze and intrigue surrounding Clinton.
The media has also reported that Sidney Blumenthal, the Clinton administration damage-control expert known for his relentless attacks on Clinton family enemies and for being the father of Israel-hating pseudo-journalist Max Blumenthal, was apparently doing freelance work for Mrs. Clinton. Clinton tried to hire the elder Blumenthal at State but the Obama White House nixed the appointment because of Blumenthal’s aggressively slimy attacks on Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.
After Blumenthal’s email was hacked in 2013, it was revealed that “starting weeks before” the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, “Blumenthal supplied intelligence” to then-Secretary Clinton that was “gathered by a secret network that included a former CIA clandestine service officer.”
Reports got some of the details wrong, according to the Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto.
“The reporters asked the most obvious question and got a partial answer: ‘A Clinton spokesman told Gawker and ProPublica . . . that she has turned over’—meaning to the State Department—’all the emails Blumenthal sent to [Mrs.] Clinton,'” he writes.
That is incorrect, Taranto notes. “n reality she turned over no emails, only printouts,” which are of limited value as evidence.
Meanwhile, as evidence continues to accumulate that Clinton’s cavalier approach to state secrets put U.S. national security in jeopardy, the shady background of Abedin, who has known ties to the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, is barely acknowledged on Capitol Hill.
Instead of examining Abedin’s disturbing family ties that make her employment by the U.S. government a threat to national security, Grassley is honing in on the sweetheart arrangement that allowed the operative to get on the public payroll while raking in money from private consulting.
Well, it’s a start, at least.
Grassley complains that many previous requests to the Department of State for information have gone unanswered, so now he is sending requests to the agency’s inspector general and to Clinton’s successor, Secretary of State John Kerry.
It was about two years ago that Grassley demanded information about Abedin after she moved from being a full-time deputy chief of staff for Clinton to part-time status and then began working at Teneo, a politically connected consulting firm that claims to bring “together the disciplines of government and public affairs.”
In a July 2013 letter the State Department indicated Abedin was employed full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also indicated she did not disclose outside employment when ending her full-time status. The department kept her on as an adviser-expert, apparently at the hourly rate of $74.51 with maximum pay of $155,500 per year.
“A number of conflict-of-interest concerns arise when a government employee is simultaneously being paid by a private company, especially when that company (is) Teneo,” Grassley wrote in a March 19 letter to Kerry.
Grassley asked in the letter “what steps the department took to ensure that … Abedin’s outside employment with a political-intelligence and corporate-advisory firm did not conflict with her simultaneous employment at the State Department.”
“She converted from a full-time employee … with seemingly little difference in her job description or responsibilities,” he wrote. In essence Abedin retained the same job and was later hired by Teneo and the Clinton Global Initiative.
“It is unclear what special knowledge or skills Ms. Abedin possessed that the government could not have easily obtained otherwise from regular government employees,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley’s questions also come after the House Benghazi Select Committee learned that the former secretary of state deleted all the emails investigators were interesting in looking at.
On Friday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement, “We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary [Hillary] Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server.”
Destroying the electronic correspondence could be a federal crime since the documents were under congressional subpoena. As Byron York writes in the Washington Examiner,
“There’s no doubt Clinton withheld information that Congress demanded she turn over, and some Republicans believe the documents she destroyed were covered under a subpoena as well. But a look at the story behind the subpoena and other document requests from congressional Benghazi investigators is a tale of obstruction, delay and frustration that underscores the limits of Congress’ power to investigate Benghazi. Clinton and her aides had the means to make life very difficult for Republicans trying to learn the full story of the attacks in Libya, and they did just that.”
Disturbingly, Republicans have yet to focus on Abedin’s ties to the world of Islamic terrorism.
Born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abedin’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood run deep. (She is also reportedly just as haughty and unpleasant to deal with as Clinton herself.)
Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin, widow of the late Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Abdulaziz University in the early 1970s. The year after Huma was born, Mrs. Abedin received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania.
In 1978 the Abedins moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Abdullah Omar Naseef, then-vice president of Abdulaziz University, hired Mr. Abedin, a former colleague of his at the university, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank Naseef was then in the process of establishing. Mr. and Mrs. Abedin became members of the editorial board of IMMA’s publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. According to Andrew C. McCarthy, IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”
Naseef himself was a Muslim extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden. Mrs. Abedin became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA’s director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal.
Mrs. Abedin is also a member of the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR), which has long been banned in Israel because it has ties to Hamas. (In Arabic, dawah, or dawa, means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.) She also runs the Amman, Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), a Muslim World League affiliate that self-identifies as part of the IICDR. The league, according to McCarthy, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” IICWC promotes strict Sharia Law and advocates the rescission of Egyptian laws that forbid female genital mutilation, child marriage, and marital rape.
Mrs. Abedin is a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a pro-Sharia organization consisting of the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood. Egyptian opposition newspaper Al-Liwa Al-Arabi has reported that Muslim Sisterhood members: “smuggle secret documents”; “spread the Brotherhood’s ideology by infiltrating universities, schools and homes”; “fulfill the interests of the Brotherhood”; and “organiz[e] projects which will penetrate [the Brotherhood’s] prohibited ideology into the decision-making in the West … under the guise of ‘general needs of women.’” Nagla Ali Mahmoud, wife of Mohammed Morsi, the Islamist who was elected president of Egypt in June 2012, is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood.
When Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. and was an intern in the Clinton White House between 1997 and some time in 1999, she was a member of the executive board of George Washington University’s radical Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA had extensive ties to al-Qaeda.
From 1996 to 2008, Abedin was employed by IMMA as assistant editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Her brother, Hassan Abedin, an associate editor at the journal, was at one time a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies. During his fellowship, the Center’s board included such Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef. Huma’s sister, Heba Abedin, is an assistant editor with the journal.
Someone with Abedin’s background shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington.
Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then erased their electronic correspondence.
What are these two women hiding?
-
Doug!!!
You are AWESOME!!! THAT IS THE ARTICLE!!! How did you pull off finding it? How did you get all the way up the food chain to James Taranto? I am impressed!
-
Third post
Notable & Quotable: Bill Clinton on Religious Freedom
‘Government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion.’
March 30, 2015 7:33 p.m. ET
13 COMMENTS
From President Bill Clinton’s remarks at the signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the White House South Lawn on Nov. 16, 1993:
The free exercise of religion has been called the first freedom, that which originally sparked the development of the full range of the Bill of Rights. Our Founders cared a lot about religion. And one of the reasons they worked so hard to get the First Amendment into the Bill of Rights at the head of the class is that they well understood what could happen to this country, how both religion and government could be perverted if there were not some space created and some protection provided. They knew that religion helps to give our people a character without which a democracy cannot survive. They knew that there needed to be a space of freedom between government and people of faith that otherwise government might usurp.
They have seen now, all of us, that religion and religious institutions have brought forth faith and discipline, community and responsibility over two centuries for ourselves and enabled us to live together in ways that I believe would not have been possible. We are, after all, the oldest democracy now in history and probably the most truly multi-ethnic society on the face of the Earth. And I am convinced that neither one of those things would be true today had it not been for the importance of the First Amendment and the fact that we have kept faith with it for 200 years.
What this law basically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion. This judgment is shared by the people of the United States as well as by the Congress. We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work.
Popular on WSJ
-
Hillary Obstructs Congress
She erased emails after the Benghazi probe wanted to see them.
March 31, 2015 8:02 p.m. ET
WSJ
If the House panel investigating Benghazi really wants to get a look at Hillary Clinton’s emails, perhaps it should subpoena the Chinese military. Beijing—which may have hacked the private server she used to send official email as Secretary of State—is likely to be more cooperative than are Mrs. Clinton and her stonewall specialists now reprising their roles from the 1990s.
On Friday Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, disclosed that he couldn’t cooperate with the Benghazi committee’s request that she turn over her private server to an independent third party for examination. Why not? Well, the former first diplomat had already wiped the computer clean.
Of course she had. What else would she do?
The timing of the deletions isn’t entirely clear. Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy says they appear to have been deleted after Oct. 28, 2014, when State asked Mrs. Clinton to return her public records to the department. That could qualify as obstruction of Congress, as lawyer Ronald Rotunda recently argued on these pages.
The deletions certainly violate Mrs. Clinton’s promise to Congress on Oct. 2, 2012, when the Benghazi probe was getting under way. “We look forward to working with the Congress and your Committee as you proceed with your own review,” she told the Oversight Committee. “We are committed to a process that is as transparent as possible, respecting the needs and integrity of the investigations underway. We will move as quickly as we can without forsaking accuracy.”
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kendall say the vanishing emails don’t matter because State and the committee already have all the relevant documents and emails they’ve asked for. But State and the committee don’t have the actual emails, only the printed copies she provided to State.
And State had previously assured the committee it had everything it had asked for before Mrs. Clinton coughed up 850 pages of email copies from her private server this month—emails State couldn’t turn over before because she hadn’t provided them despite clear State Department policy that she and other officials do so.
Mrs. Clinton’s real message to Congress: You’ll see those emails over my dead body.
Mrs. Clinton is a student of history. In the 1970s she served as a lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee that investigated Watergate. There she saw how Richard Nixon’s release of his tape-recorded conversations led to his resignation from the Oval Office. It appears she absorbed the lesson that Nixon should have burned, er, wiped clean, the tapes. (MARC: She was also fired from the committee by her supervising attorney for dishonesty in court filings.)
Two decades later, Mrs. Clinton was First Lady and her billing records from her days at the Rose Law Firm in Arkansas were under federal subpoena. For two years no one could find them.
Then in January 1996, the same Mr. Kendall who now assures us Mrs. Clinton has turned over all relevant emails revealed how Hillary’s lost Rose Law files had miraculously been discovered on a table in the first family’s private quarters in the White House. No one could say how they got there. The woman who discovered them said they had not been on the table a week or two earlier, when she had last been in the room.
In a dispatch reporting on the discovery, the New York Times put it this way: “The release of the records is the latest of several instances in which the Clinton White House has declared a document search to be exhaustive, only to later stumble on important material.” She’s doing it again.
The question now is what Congress can do, if anything, to retrieve those “wiped” emails. In theory, the House could subpoena Mrs. Clinton’s emails and take her to court. But Mr. Gowdy concedes that going this route would take “years and years.” Meantime, Mrs. Clinton would make Lois Lerner of IRS infamy look like a model of cooperation.
Eric Holder’s Justice Department isn’t about to investigate, so the sanction will have to be political. Team Hillary and her media palace guard think the email story will fade, and they’ll help by calling it “old news” within a fortnight.
Democrats could provide one check on her stonewalling if anyone runs against her in the presidential primaries. Then her Nixonian character would become an issue. But so far the only Democrats who might run are second-stringers who are bidding to be Vice President and so wouldn’t want to speak truth to Mrs. Clinton’s power. Thus her Democratic coronation proceeds apace. It’s going to be fascinating to see if the voters are as eager as Democrats to be governed again by Clinton-Nixon mores.
Popular on WSJ
-
"Her story just doesn't add up." "Mrs. Clinton's windfall in the late 1970s has all the trappings of pre-arranged trades." "The normal trading world just doesn't work that way."
- Former chief prosecutor of the IRS Commodity Industry Specialization Team
Doug!!!
You are AWESOME!!! THAT IS THE ARTICLE!!! How did you pull off finding it? How did you get all the way up the food chain to James Taranto? I am impressed!
Thanks Crafty. I felt he owed me a favor. ) In reality, he has great staff who actually read and research what comes in for the purpose of building their own column content. A combination of good things came together, with your memory you hit the keyword phrase exactly, we were able to narrow the time frame to a couple of months and they have unique and complete access to the source. This article is from 1994 while the WSJ online was launched in 1996; only an internal wsj pdf search was going to find this in any digital format. Since we were clear about our purpose and it came directly from wsj, that gives us permission to re-print with copyright noted, as we did. Now run our link past all your Hillary supporting lefties for comment, lol.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg86824#msg86824
Please keep an eye on Taranto's future columns to see if he uses the material. This is a key piece to the case that the Clintons are forever crooks. This information about this corrupt, criminal practice combines with the mathematical fact that there is less than a one in 31 trillion chance that her story of just due diligence and good luck is what really happened.
The Clintons' rise to the governor's mansion of Arkansas was made possible by their participation in this ring of organized crime and corruption. They didn't declare the income in 1980 and they hid their tax returns from scrutiny until the statute of limitations expired. Why shouldn't she answer for that now if a (pretend) vetting process is about to occur. The underlying crime was a felony and the pile of money they received looks exactly like the cash found in the freezer of the disgraced Louisiana congressman. Bill wouldn't have been President if not having been Governor, and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be under consideration for President now if not for Bill's rise back then. The quid pro quo components of this are detailed in this thread. The truth of what happened then is most relevant now.
The 1 in 31 trillion chance that she really is that lucky is not even that, demonstrated by the fact that she knew to stop when her criminal source dried up. No gambler that lucky can stop on a dime and never try again!
This was a long time ago? Good, then show us your current records. Money coming in, money going out, official favors arranged or disbursed, and all the related correspondence. Oops, that's been destroyed.
It's okay, we know the pattern.
--------------------------------------
The Mystery of Hillary's Trades
By David L. Brandon
7 April 1994
The Wall Street Journal
PAGE A14
(Copyright (c) 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)
As former head of the IRS chief counsel's Commodities Industry Specialization Team in the mid-1980s, I have followed with great interest the media stories on Hillary Clinton's excellent adventures in the commodities markets. As a proud capitalist and free market proponent (and an avid beef eater), I would be the first in line to salute this woman's success with cattle futures. But based on my years of experience with these markets, her story just doesn't add up. In fact, the chances of someone making almost $100,000 in the futures markets on her first try are about as great as walking into a casino in Las Vegas, hitting the million-dollar jackpot on your first try at the slots, then walking out never to play again. It just doesn't happen that way.
For those unfamiliar with the details of Mrs. Clinton's remarkable venture into the commodities markets, she allegedly made more than $99,000 in cattle futures (and other commodities) in late 1978 and 1979, withdrawing from trading just before the markets went bust. No explanation has been offered of how Mrs. Clinton managed to satisfy state laws that require futures investors to demonstrate a minimum net income and net worth, nor how a novice could have such uncanny timing.
There is, in fact, a much more probable explanation for Mrs. Clinton's good fortune. The media have already suggested that trades may have been moved to Mrs. Clinton's account after gains had been realized. However, the stories thus far have not clearly focused on a common trading strategy called a "straddle" that was very much in vogue at the time.
Straddles have the unique ability to produce exactly equal and offsetting gains and losses that can be transferred or used by the straddle trader for a variety of purposes. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, straddles were used for all kinds of illegal activities, ranging from tax evasion to money-laundering and bribes. In fact, this activity prompted a number of legal and regulatory changes by the Reagan administration to curb the abuses.
Although it sounds somewhat esoteric, a commodities straddle is a relatively simple trading device.
A commodities futures contract is nothing more than an agreement between two parties to buy or sell a certain type of commodity (in Mrs. Clinton's case, cattle) for a stated price on some date in the future. If the price of the commodity goes up before the contract delivery date, the individual who agreed to buy the commodity will realize a gain equal to the difference between the current price and the contract price. The individual who agreed to sell will realize a loss in an equal amount. Conversely, if the price goes down, the buyer will lose and the seller will gain.
A straddle is created when an investor enters into contracts to both buy and sell the same commodity. In this case, any gain on one contract will be exactly offset by a loss on the opposite contract. While straddle trading today is used in a variety of legitimate ways, these transactions lend themselves to all sorts of abuses as well. Before regulatory changes in the 1980s, it was common to enter into straddles to wipe out large capital gains for tax purposes. For example, an investor who realized a $100,000 capital gain in the stock market might enter into a large straddle in the commodities market. When the commodity price moved, the investor would close the loss leg of the straddle and realize a $100,000 loss, which offset his gain in the stock market. The investor was not required to report the unrealized $100,000 gain in the opposite leg of the straddle until that leg was closed in the following year. Typically, the investor entered into another straddle in the following year, thereby indefinitely rolling over the capital gain into subsequent years.
Another ploy common during that time required the assistance of a friendly broker. An investor could create a straddle using two separate investment accounts with his broker. After the straddle had moved, so that a gain and an offsetting loss had been created, the friendly broker simply wrote in the name of the investor's tax-exempt retirement fund on the account that held the gain leg of the straddle. The result was that a loss was realized that was reported on the investor's tax return, while the gain went unreported in the tax-exempt retirement account.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the IRS began noticing large numbers of individual tax returns that curiously showed commodities losses just big enough to wipe out unrelated capital gains; no corresponding commodities gains, which would suggest a straddle, ever appeared on subsequent returns. Even more curiously, the profile of these investors always had one thing in common, which was limited experience or no prior experience in commodities trading. In the early 1980s, an IRS agent in Chicago thought to look into one taxpayer's retirement fund and, of course, found the hidden gain leg of the straddle.
After that experience, the IRS redoubled its efforts to seek out thousands of missing straddle gains. It found them in retirement accounts, in London, in the Cayman Islands -- almost anywhere a taxpayer thought he might hide them from the IRS. With respect to these thousands of mysterious, isolated commodities transactions that showed up on tax returns, the IRS uncovered some form of questionable trading in virtually 100% of the cases it investigated. Well before the close of the 1980s, the IRS had assessed more than $7 billion in delinquent taxes and penalties attributable to these transactions and eventually settled these cases out of court for approximately $3.5 billion.
While most of the IRS's efforts were directed at finding hidden gains of the ubiquitous straddle, the trading device could just as easily be used to openly transfer gains while hiding the offsetting loss. If someone desired to make an illicit payment to another party, a straddle could be used to accomplish this purpose with no incriminating or suspicious-looking bank withdrawals or deposits. In fact, the IRS found numerous incidents of straddles being used for money-laundering purposes.
Does Mrs. Clinton's trading activity fit the profile of the illegitimate straddle trader? She was a novice in the commodities markets who, against all odds, realized large gains. Although she intermittently realized losses, it does not appear that she ever had to risk her own capital beyond her initial $1,000 deposit, which itself may have been insufficient to cover even her first transaction (which netted her $5,300). According to the trading records released by the White House, most of Mrs. Clinton's gains were recorded as intra-month transactions. This means that these records include no information regarding key elements of the trade, such as the type and quantity of the contracts, acquisition dates, acquisition prices, etc. Such information is needed to determine whether trades were part of a prearranged straddle.
It also appears that Mrs. Clinton's broker, Robert L. "Red" Bone, was no stranger to the spicier practices of commodities trading, according to The Wall Street Journal's front-page article last Friday.
It seems more than coincidental that Mr. Bone was a former employee of Tyson Foods and that Mrs. Clinton's investment adviser, James Blair, was the company's legal counsel. Tyson, the poultry concern, is one of the largest employers in the state of Arkansas. The fact that the Clintons withheld disclosing only those tax returns that included their commodities gains until the transactions were reported by the New York Times in February also appears quite suspicious. From my standpoint as a former government staff attorney with extensive experience in these matters, Mrs. Clinton's windfall in the late 1970s has all the trappings of pre-arranged trades.
How would a straddle have been used in Mrs. Clinton's case? The Journal has already reported that gains theoretically could have been transferred to Mrs. Clinton's account, while "others" may have absorbed losses. Such a transaction could be accomplished with a straddle.
A party desiring to transfer cash to another's personal account for legal or illegal purposes could enter into a straddle in a particularly volatile commodity, such as cattle futures in the late 1970s. After gains and losses were generated in the opposite sides of the straddle, the gain side would be marked to the beneficiary's account, while the loss side would remain in the account of the contributor. The contributor might even be entitled to use the loss to offset other gains. Such a transaction would be not only well-hidden from government authorities but potentially tax-deductible.
No direct evidence of wrongdoing has been produced in the case of Mrs. Clinton's trading activity. In fact, no conclusive evidence of anything has been produced. In order to settle the legitimate questions surrounding her trades, a satisfactory explanation is needed for her apparently low initial margin deposit and whether the requirements relating to an investor's minimum net income and net worth were satisfied. In addition, the details of her numerous intra-month trades should be provided, as well as the details of the trades of persons who may have had a special interest in how well she did. If it is discovered that certain interested parties happened to realize losses in cattle futures at the same time, and they were comparable in size to the gains reported by Mrs. Clinton, this would amount to a "smoking gun."
This is not a matter of partisan politics. Even if the public had never heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the circumstances surrounding her unusual good fortune would still appear suspicious to anyone awake to abuses of the commodities markets. In this writer's experience, the normal trading world just doesn't work that way.
---
Mr. Brandon was a career attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service from 1983 to 1989. During that time he also served as head of that department's Commodity Industry Specialization Team, which was responsible for coordinating and developing the IRS's legal positions on tax issues arising in connection with commodities transactions.
Dow Jones & Company
Document j000000020011029dq470095u
-
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
Has anyone here read "John Adams" or other great biographies of past Presidents or founding fathers? Did Eleanor Roosevelt destroy her emails, er personal letters, memories, notes, photos? Just to cover up some kind of scandal? I kind of doubt it.
But Hillary says she did this. Why? Convenience reasons? Doesn't pass the smell test.
Ann Althouse writes:
I’ve been fixated on Hillary’s statement she destroyed her personal email, which I noticed she slipped in at the beginning of her press conference. Did she really mean that? Why would a woman who values her friends and family—and who has written 2 memoirs of her life—not want to preserve personal correspondence? . . .
Now, maybe it’s just a lie. She didn’t really destroy these records and is only claiming that she destroyed them so that we won’t attempt to gain access to them. But if she really did destroy them, why would she sacrifice so much? It could be that everything she cares about went to Chelsea and a few others who she knows will keep all of her email. Thus, it’s retrievable. Maybe it’s not such a huge sacrifice. But 31,830 private records destroyed? That sounds quite drastic, and it stokes the suspicion that she did shunt damaging work-related email into the “personal” category, then destroyed it all so that no one could ever check her work.
-
Wiping the hard drives so they cannot be forensically recovered pretty much means physically destroying them. Far from easy or convenient.
-
Wiping the hard drives so they cannot be forensically recovered pretty much means physically destroying them. Far from easy or convenient.
http://m.wikihow.com/Destroy-a-Hard-Drive
Melt it, hammer it to pieces, dispose of the pieces separately, attach a heavy weight to it and drop it into the Hudson or Potomac. Better yet, salt water. When we hear the details of the extreme measures they took to destroy, we will have an idea of how incriminating the evidence is.
The recipient's side of some of these emails still exist. Who deletes an incriminating or embarrassing email from the Clintons? It's like saving a blue dress just in case no one ever believes you.
-
Roger Clinton Told FBI That He Accepted Foreign Cash For President Bill Clinton
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on April 3, 2015
Raking in foreign cash is nothing new to the Clinton family. Bill Clinton's brother, Roger, told FBI agents that he "received money for President Clinton from foreign governments" during Bill's presidency.
Roger claimed that, after the first few times he brought back money for the President, either Bill or his staff told him that the President could not accept money from foreign governments and that he should send the money back.
Now, that's a good one, isn't it? What are the odds that Roger Clinton packed up wads of cash and sent it back to where it came from? And what about the first few times? What happened to that money?
In 2002, the House Committee on Government Reform issued a scathing report on the Clinton Presidential Pardons with disturbing findings about the President's brother:
"Roger Clinton engaged in a systematic effort to trade on his brother's name during the Clinton Administration."
The section on Roger went well beyond just pardons and included a number of his other schemes to trade on his relationship to the President. His combined take was $700,000 -- and that's just what he deposited in his bank account and could be traced. It seems likely that he pocketed or spent at least some additional cash. Roger insisted that his brother was aware of his activities and approved of them.
Roger admitted to receiving $335,000 in cash and travelers checks from foreign sources such as South Korea, Venezuela, and Taiwan that were deposited into his account during Bill's presidency. Roger refused to tell the Committee why he had received the checks, but apparently told the FBI that a lot of it was for overseas "concerts" by his band. The Committee noted that the fact that the travelers checks were provided in blank "suggests that the funds were intentionally provided to Clinton in a manner calculated to conceal their origin." All of the travelers checks were purchased overseas and brought to the U.S. by Roger Clinton, who did not disclose them to Customs officials as required by federal law.
The Committee also noted that it was likely that there were more travelers checks and case that was not deposited into his account.
The House Committee uncovered these checks in Roger Clinton's bank account:
CASH OR TRAVELERS CHECKS PAYMENTS TO ROGER CLINTON
Date Deposited Type of Check Origin Purchaser Name Amount
November 30, 1998 American Express Unknown Chen Jianxing $1,000
December 1, 1998 American Express Taiwan Huang Xian Wen $15,000
December 8, 1998 American Express Taiwan Huang Xian Wen $23,000
December 15, 1998 Citicorp Taiwan Unknown $90,000
December 15, 1998 Unknown Unknown Unknown $29,000
December 15, 1998 Visa-Sumitomo Taiwan Lin Mei Guang $4,000
December 15, 1998 American Express Taiwan Huang Xian Wen $2,000
July 12, 1999 American Express Unknown Unknown $20,000
July 12, 1999 Citicorp South Korea Sook-Eun Jang $5,000
November 30, 1999 Citicorp Taiwan Unknown $3,000
November 30, 1999 Citicorp Taiwan Unknown $10,000
November 30, 1999 Citicorp Taiwan Unknown $5,000
November 30, 1999 Visa Taiwan Unknown $1,000
November 30, 1999 Visa Taiwan Xu Jingsheng $3,000
November 30, 1999 Citicorp Venezuela Pedro Jose Garboza Matos $38,000
November 30, 1999 Unknown Unknown Unknown $40,000
February 22, 2000 American Express Taiwan Qu Guang Yin $7,000
March 24, 2000 Citicorp Venezuela Pedro Jose Garboza Matos $3,000
April 5, 2000 American Express Taiwan Mou Chuanxue $4,000
April 17, 2000 American Express Taiwan Qu Guang Yin $13,000
April 17, 2000 American Express Unknown Suk Eun Chang $5,000
May 15, 2000 American Express Unknown Unknown $5,000
July 13, 2000 Citicorp South Korea Seung-Chul Ham $1,000
July 27, 2000 Citicorp South Korea Seung-Chul Ham $2,000
July 31, 2000 Citicorp South Korea Seung-Chul Ham $4,000
August 2, 2000 American Express Unknown Unknown $1,000
August 11, 2000 American Express Unknown Unknown $1,000
Total $335,000
TOTAL PAYMENTS RECEIVED = $335,000
In addition to the $335,000 listed above, Roger also deposited $85,000 in cash in his personal bank account between January and November 1998. In December 1999, he deposited a $70,000 travelers check from "Suk Eun Chang" as well as a $10,000 travelers check from the same source. Clinton refused to disclose the source of these funds, saying only that he got some of the money for performing in foreign countries with his band. The Committee was unable to find Suk Eun Chang to set any further information.
Roger also said that his foreign hosts gave him gifts such as rugs and vases, paid for his transportation and provided a presidential security guard in the host country. They were particularly generous -- they even added money to pay for the taxes on the money they paid.
Wow. Wonder whether the Beatles got such a deal?
Roger Clinton also got funds allegedly for his musical appearances form Edvard Akopyan who paid the president's brother $61,100 in 1999 when he was acting "as a middleman in scheduling Roger's appearance at a musical concert in Kazakhstan." Does anyone really believe that Roger's talents were in such demand? These funds, are sure to heighten the controversy surrounding payments to the Clintons from foreign sources during Hillary's service as Secretary of State. That they were sometimes intended for the president himself and that President Clinton encouraged the practice, adds a new dimension to the corrupt payments to the Clinton family.
In addition, the Cuba Travel Services company engaged Roger for $30,000 to lobby his brother to lift travel restrictions to Cuba. He was never registered as a lobbyist or agent of a foreign government as required, but provided evidence that he spoke to his brother about the issue.
Although he lied to the FBI about it, Roger also accepted $50,000 from the Gambino crime family to lobby for executive clemency for Rosario Gambino, a mob leader serving a 45 year sentence for drug trafficking. Although he was unsuccessful in this effort, he deposited the funds nonetheless.
(He also accepted $43,500 for his unsuccessful attempt to secure a pardon for Garland Lincenium, whose family sold their life savings to pay Roger Clinton and his agents.)
Roger solicited several other people in his pay-for-pardon scheme, but they didn't fall for it.
So think about it. Can you think of any legitimate reason that foreign governments would pay Roger Clinton?
It was the beginning of the amazing Clinton family foreign money boondoggle.
The 2016 Buzz -- All The Latest News on the Candidates and Issues.
-
http://conservativetribune.com/gowdy-threatens-hillary-arrest/
-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
Jump to navigation
Cornell University Law SchoolSearch Cornell
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 73 › § 1519
18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
-
Heh, heh, heh.
:evil:
-
Heh, heh, heh.
:evil:
If you or me had done this, this is what we would face. However, Hillary has nothing to worry about. Even Nixon wasn't willing to destroy the tapes.
-
"No controlling legal authority"
Worst case for her is she is disbarred.
No biggy. She would still be qualified to run for the highest office on the planet.
-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519
Jump to navigation
Cornell University Law SchoolSearch Cornell
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 73 › § 1519
18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Even if no crimes are charged, it is good to know serious laws with serious consequences govern this. You don't just wipe out your emails that are under investigation. The committee even offered the State Dept as a third party to review them, not Republican partisans.
I doubt that Hillary was writing blatantly incriminating emails even if she knew she would later delete her end of the emails and destroy the server. Still, the statute is clear and there is plenty of reason to believe the alleged destruction of the server included correspondence under federal investigation. We don't know she was the one to order the destruction of the server. She said it was originally set up as Bill's server. Maybe she was the victim again, and now is just standing by her man!
We also don't know the server was really destroyed; that sounded to me like a trial balloon put into the public airwaves by a surrogate. I don't believe it was destroyed. They hid it over by the Rose Law Firm records knowing no one will ever come up with a search warrant.
Mainstream journalist Mark Halperin of Bloomberg News believes the email scandal may be more damaging to her than now thought and made a key point often made here, she does not have anywhere near the level of political skill to dodge these things that her husband had.
Halperin said Hillary Clinton “may end up meeting her match” in Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC). Clinton has a history of being a good witness for herself on Capitol Hill, ...Gowdy “may have tougher and better prepared questions for her than she’s ever faced as a witness on the Hill and that could spell a lot of political trouble for her.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/31/halperin-hillary-may-end-up-meeting-her-match-in-gowdy/
------------------------
At Real Clear Politics they say that their leasing of office space means she is in. I am not feeling very good about my bet with ccp (that she won't run) right now. I should have gone breakfast, lunch and then dinner and gone for better than even odds. All the facts are coming together that the right answer for her is to not run. Unfortunately, she may be the only person in the world who doesn't know that.
-
Investor’s Business Daily published a long article on Tuesday night, collecting the opinions of current and former intelligence officials about the national security threat posed by Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
It feels like a floodgate bursting open. These experts are absolutely beside themselves over Clinton’s irresponsible conduct as Secretary of State. Former NSA officer John Schindler called it “a counterintelligence disaster of truly epic proportions.”
“She may have deleted 30,000 emails before turning her files over to the State Department,” observed former U.S. National Counterintelligence Executive Michelle Van Cleave, “but that doesn’t mean that the Russians and the Chinese don’t have them.”
Ever since Clinton began destroying subpoenaed evidence and refusing to hand her server over for analysis, it’s been a running joke among Internet wags that if Congress wants to see her email, they should ask the Russians and Chinese for copies.
But that’s not really a joke. The intelligence community has to assume, based on the weak security of Clinton’s secret server — slipshod even by private corporate standards — that every piece of sensitive information she ever handled has been compromised. Her server was called “clintonemail.com” — it was easy to find. Her email was completely unencrypted for three months after she became Secretary of State.
“It’s a disaster for U.S. policy. It’s a huge boon for the former KGB and the Iranians,” said a veteran intelligence officer who spoke to IBD anonymously. The officer found Clinton’s claims that she never handled classified information through her private server laughable — “how the hell could she do her job without it?”
Also, as Schindler pointed out to IBD, we have to assume there was “bleed-over” into her private email as well, since we’ve discovered instances of Clinton mistakenly replying to official messages as if they were personal correspondence.
The IBD piece was most likely put together before news broke about Russian hackers penetrating White House systems; one suspects these intelligence experts are even more apprehensive about the risks Clinton took in light of those developments. There is some discussion in the Investors’ Business Daily piece about how foreign spies might have used Clinton’s vulnerable server as a launching pad for attacks on other government systems. The sort of “spear phishing” attack used to get into the White House system would be especially potent if malware-laced emails were ostensibly coming from the Secretary of State.
“It would be possible for a hostile service to use the server as a platform to deliver other malware to other targets of their choosing, based on their knowledge of whom the former secretary and president were communicating with,” said Paul Joyal, the former director of security for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
A senior former Defense Department official seconded that notion: “If they’re getting into her server, they’re not just extracting stuff. They’re going to do things that could be planted from other sources.”
Most of these experts called for the sort of extensive independent analysis of her server that Clinton has adamantly refused to allow — in fact, she’s still tampering with the machine, as it became known last week that she deleted everything she didn’t decide to turn over to the State Department. Given her manipulation of the data, it might already be impossible to learn everything counterintelligence experts need to assess the possible penetration of the system. (You can bet she did a lot more to destroy the emails she doesn’t want security experts, Congress, or the American people to see than merely click the “Delete” buttons in her email program.)
“Why Clinton hasn’t offered to turn over the server to the FBI, or why the FBI has not seized it to assess the damage to national security, is unclear,” IBD writes.
Is it? There are a lot of questions swirling around this debacle, including the extent to which Hillary Clinton jeopardized national security, but her motivation really isn’t one of them. There’s nothing mysterious or unprecedented about the Obama Administration’s belief that Democrat royalty is above the law, either. Did anyone seriously expect agents of this politicized Justice Department to raid Hillary’s mansion in Chappaqua and seize that computer?
-
a more complete version
http://news.investors.com/politics/040715-746883-hillary-clinton-email-server-vulnerable-to-china-russia-iran.htm?p=full
Hillary Clinton's private email server was a spy magnet for the Russian, Chinese, Iranian and other intelligence services, say current and former intelligence officials.
As secretary of state, Clinton routed all her government-related email through the server, based in her house in Chappaqua, New York. She reportedly hired a Cablevision (NYSE:CVC) subsidiary to run the server, with antivirus protection from Intel's (NASDAQ:INTC) McAfee. And she registered her domain name, clintonmail.com, through Network Solutions.
Intelligence professionals fear that the use of the privately installed server, free of certified government defenses against foreign interception, has been a boon to foreign cyberspies.
"By using her own private server with email — which we now know was wholly unencrypted for the first three months of Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state — she left this easily interceptable by any decent 21st century SIGINT service," said John Schindler, a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer. SIGINT is shorthand for signals intelligence, or electronic spying.
"The name Clinton right on the email handle meant this was not a difficult find," Schindler said. "We should assume Russians, Chinese and others were seeing this."
'Epic' Counterintelligence Disaster
"In all, this is a counterintelligence disaster of truly epic proportions, not to mention that, since Clinton admitted she did not use higher-classification email systems at all" — systems like SIPR and JWICS, Schindler said — "we have to assume some bleed-over into her unsecured private email too, which makes this even worse."
SIPR is the Secret Internet Protocol Router network that the Department of Defense runs to ensure secret communications for the U.S. military, other agencies and certain allies. JWICS is the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System for top-secret government communication. Both provide secure communications for the State Department and secretary of state. Clinton's private server was not protected by the Department of Homeland Security's Einstein intrusion detection system, which relies on NSA systems, for official State Department emails.
"She may have deleted 30,000 e-mails before turning her files over to the State Department, but that doesn't mean that the Russians and the Chinese don't have them," said Michelle Van Cleave, former U.S. National Counterintelligence Executive.
Others say that the potential damage to U.S. national security is so grave that the FBI should seize the server and conduct a forensic analysis to determine the extent of foreign penetration. That analysis would be part of what is called a damage assessment, which is routine after any suspected security breach.
FBI Forensic Analysis
However, the FBI might not find anything now, according to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of a House investigative panel, who says that Clinton had the server wiped clean. Still, the forensic analysis by trained personnel could yield valuable clues about foreign spies gaining access to America's most fiercely guarded secrets. Gowdy has called on Clinton to appear before his committee for what he called a "transcribed interview regarding her use of private email and a personal server for official State Department business."
Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., a former prosecutor, said that the FBI should conduct a forensic analysis of any attempted foreign penetrations, to determine which foreign intelligence services might have hacked into Clinton's email server.
"Denying a legitimate request by the Bureau to examine her computer would certainly suggest that America's security is not Clinton's highest priority," Buck said.
"The FBI investigated a sitting CIA director for intentionally disclosing classified information. The Bureau can certainly investigate whether a former secretary of state unintentionally disclosed classified information," Buck said. "The motive may be different, but the potential damage to national security is similar."
Why Clinton hasn't offered to turn over the server to the FBI, or why the FBI has not seized it to assess the damage to national security, is unclear. A Clinton spokesperson declined to comment.
In a question-and-answer sheet provided to reporters, Clinton did not address the issue. The FBI won't say whether or not it made a request or took possession of the server. The Bureau does not have the device, according to a highly placed FBI source. That source is not cleared to speak to the press and could not speak on the record.
The lure of reading a secretary of state's emails would exert a pull on any foreign spy, intelligence officials say.
Where, on a scale of one to 10, would any sitting secretary of state rank as a target of foreign spies? "10, of course," said Van Cleave. "That being the case, all of her e-mails would have been potentially of interest to any number of foreign parties."
"A target like this would be at least a 10, maybe 10-plus if the enemy knew the email address and server," said Robert W. Stephan, a former counterintelligence analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency who also served 19 years in the CIA. "If a foreign intelligence service determines that it is indeed the secretary of state's private communications/e-mail/server and even given the security measures that were set up, it would still be a top target for some sophisticated services," Stephan said. "Obviously Chinese, Russian, and Cuban, and possibly Iranians and North Koreans."
That statement presumes that the server was strongly protected against outside penetration, which does not seem to be the case. News reports indicate that the server's security configurations were done improperly, protecting Clinton's personal privacy and not national security, and that, even if everything was done by the book, that type of server and software package remains vulnerable to a good hacker.
"A 16-year-old can break into a server, and certainly a government sophisticated enough to break into the Sony (NYSE:SNE) system can break into Hillary Clinton's system," said Rep. Buck. "That's a no-brainer."
How would adversary spy services exploit this intelligence? "The positions, the interests, the communications between the secretary of state and her staff are of great interest to any foreign intelligence service, whether hostile or friendly," said Paul Joyal, former director of security of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
"The American secretary of state using an open, unprotected server? That's an invitation to a party," said a veteran intelligence officer who asked for anonymity because he still holds active clearances. "All of her private musings. There's no secretary of state who doesn't communicate with classified information. How the hell could she do her job without it?"
Gateway To Government Systems?
"From a counterintelligence perspective, (for) anyone with any responsibility for intelligence, counterintelligence and security, this thing is a monumental disaster," the longtime senior intelligence officer said. "It's a disaster for U.S. policy. It's a huge boon for the former KGB and the Iranians."
Some experts are concerned that foreign spies could have penetrated the server as a gateway to breaking into other government systems, including classified communications.
"The real question is, what if any intelligence collection was being done on a private server somewhere?" Joyal said. "The only way to know is for the proper federal authorities to impound the server and do a forensic analysis."
"It would be possible for a hostile service to use the server as a platform to deliver other malware to other targets of their choosing, based on their knowledge of whom the former secretary and president were communicating with," Joyal said.
'Vast Deception Potential'
Foreign spies could use their access to Clinton's server to warp or distort information that government officials rely on. "If they're getting into her server, they're not just extracting stuff," said a senior former Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They're going to do things that could be planted from other sources."
"The denial and deception potential here is vast," said John Schindler, referring to intelligence tradecraft in which a spy service denies or conceals information, and seeks to deceive other countries. "Not to mention that any shady games played" by the Obama Administration "would be known to Moscow and Beijing — but not to the American public."
"It could affect a number of people within the U.S. government and, for that matter, people around the world," Joyal said. "It would behoove the federal government to conduct a forensic analysis of the server itself."
Until such a forensic analysis is done, he said, authorities simply will not know the answer.
"This should not be politicized," said Joyal. "It should be done with hard-nosed national security interests driving the forensic analysis."
• Waller is a senior reporter at the American Media Institute, a nonprofit news service.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics/040715-746883-hillary-clinton-email-server-vulnerable-to-china-russia-iran.htm#ixzz3Wjj4n2YJ
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
-
Yes. Either she was easily hacked by all the world's hackers in this post-Snowden age, or else they all suffer from a deplorable lack of curiosity. Wouldn't the hacks include the repeated requests for additional security from the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens? We never hear that angle in the story. Were the militants in Benghazi reading the pleas for help that Hillary didn't have time for?
The lie that there was no security breach because the building was guarded might be her biggest blunder ever. That kind of buffoonery is the most persuasive evidence yet that she is not capable of holding higher trust or responsibility.
Note that she said that she SENT nothing CLASSIFIED through her private, unsecured server. There are (at least) two big flaws in that claim. RECEIVING classified material is an equally serious breach. Given the way she worded it and that she is a Clinton, we can assume that happened. Secondly, security experts use the word SENSITIVE information rather than the narrower term 'classified'. Everything a Secretary of State sends and receives through emails that is not immediately made public is sensitive information, including her travel schedules, agenda, results of meetings and all correspondence.
Who did she correspond with? Her department, the President, his chief of staff, the Defense Secretary, CIA, the DIA, Secret Service, foreign leaders, their staffs? Doesn't the easy hack into her email help the hacker get into the other parties' systems too? Including the secure system she was supposed to be using?!
The only, sad consolation is that since we know they weren't doing anything over her tenure to enhance our nation's security, more likely the hacks will expose her own wrongdoing in the Clinton money operation.
-
yup. There are low level federal employees who were terminated and prosecuted for much lesser things involving classified materials.
-
Not to mention David Petraeus too.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-irancontra-scandal-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
REPORT: HILLARY CHANGED STANCE ON TRADE DEAL AFTER DONATIONS TO CLINTON FOUNDATION
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/report-hillary-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to-clinton-foundation.php
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238313-clinton-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to
http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464
------------------------------------------------
No problem with another scandal to her, reports say Hillary will enter the race anyway tomorrow via twitter. Is it steak dinner on Doug for the ccp family? We probably should celebrate this. If we can't find one of 16 or 20 qualified candidates who can beat this known, flawed, dishonest candidate of failed poicies and energize behind them, then I suppose we will deserve the disgusting, corrupt, socialist, dismal future that is coming to us, our children and our country.
-
*****If we can't find one of 16 or 20 qualified candidates who can beat this known, flawed, dishonest candidate of failed poicies and energize behind them, then I suppose we will deserve the disgusting, corrupt, socialist, dismal future that is coming to us, our children and our country*******
Doug, I couldn't agree more. Indeed.
That was more or less my exact thoughts when I get on the internet tonight and one of the first things I see is this:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/celebrity/chelsea-clinton-stuns-on-cover-of-elle-talks-perfect-baby-daughter-and-coincidence-importance-of-having-a-female-president/ar-AAaJup6
Here we go. Another makeover. Getting to know you, getting to know you, people who know you say you are so nice blah blah blah.
Usually I stay away from being critical of pols' family members but if they throw up their kids and use them as props as the Clintons do, well, all I can say is this girl is just so F'ing ugly she couldn't possibly "stun" anyone.
We are supposed to live in a nation of laws. But with the Clintons we live in a nation of lawyers. Think about that.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKi1ePbpi4c
-
http://stophillarypac.org/articles/top-hillary-aide-under-investigation
-
... Hillary will not yell out at stadium crowds, “If you liked the last eight years, I promise eight more years just like them!”
Will she amplify or ignore her own Obama administration tenure as secretary of State? Will Americans hear that the plastic reset button with Vladimir Putin was a good or bad thing?
Will Clinton replay in her campaign commercials her boast over the deposed and murdered Khadafy (“We came, we saw, he died”) or her statement about the dead at Benghazi (“What difference does it make?”)? Or will she fear that the Republicans will use her own words against her?
Will reneging on missile defense with the Poles and Czechs and ending George W. Bush’s mild ostracisms of Russia for snatching Ossetia become a neat campaign talking point? Will she brag that we got all U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011, or that she helped set the foundations for the current Iranian negotiations? Were her Arab Spring policies smart diplomacy as evidenced by the current state of affairs in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen? Will she say she had a hand in Obama’s “special relationship” with the Ottomanist Recep Erdogan of Turkey?
Perhaps she can point to her continual jawboning of Israel as the font for our current distancing from the Jewish state. Will she remind us that “al Qaeda is on the run”? Will she dare say radical Islam or will she stick to “overseas contingency operations,” “workplace violence,” and “man-caused disasters”?
A Domestic Record to Be Proud Of?
Of course, Mrs. Clinton will not run on her own foreign policy initiatives, such as they were, or her boss’s. Perhaps, then, she will turn to the generic Obama domestic record of 2009-16. But then will she praise or promise to reform the IRS, VA, NSA and Secret Service? Was the massive borrowing of the last administration — greater than all previous administrations’ red ink combined — a good or bad thing?
Maybe someone will object that Hillary Clinton is her own person and has no need either to support or distance herself from the administration that she so loyally served and aided.
What, then, is her agenda, in terms of economic and foreign policy? More borrowing, more social spending, more defense cuts, higher taxes still, more restrictions on fracking on public land, more promises to table the Keystone pipeline? Will she go full bore to promote cap and trade?
The point is that Mrs. Clinton has neither a past record that she is proud to run on nor support for an Obama administration tenure that she will promise to continue. She is not a good speaker and has a disturbing habit of switching accents in amateurish attempts to mimic regional or racial authenticity. She accentuates her points by screaming in shrill outbursts, and dismisses serious questions by chortling for far too long. She is deaf to human cordiality, has a bad temper, and treats subordinates with haughty disdain.
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/why-is-hillary-clinton-even-running/#ixzz3XCTVUY5c
-
Some hyperventilating in here, but a first look gives the impression that some juicy particulars are to be found:
http://stophillarypac.org/articles/top-hillary-aide-under-investigation
Note the one about the oil company in Colombia and its relations with the Clinton Foundation
http://nypost.com/2015/04/12/hillary-clinton-faces-scandal-amid-expectant-presidential-run/
-
Starting a list the others aren't asking in case she comes onto the board to take questions.
If you still needed money, why quit commodity trading?
Name one accomplishment made as Secretary of State?
Name one friend you have that is not tied to money, position or power and tell us the last time you called him or her.
How many genders are there? (An impossible questionable to answer if you are both center and left.)
to be continued
-
Clinton Campaign Kicks Off as Huma Abedin Probe Begins
Posted By Matthew Vadum On April 14, 2015
At long last the Department of State is investigating why a top Hillary Clinton aide with generational ties to Islamic terrorism was allowed to work in a sensitive government position while simultaneously working for a Clinton-connected private sector consulting firm.
Hillary Clinton and the senior aide, Huma Abedin, apparently conspired to keep the sweetheart working arrangement that the Muslim Brotherhood-linked employee had at Foggy Bottom a secret. Because it involves a Clinton, the story is, of necessity, complex and convoluted. And it’s classic Hillary as she tiptoes through a minefield of ethics violations, conflicts of interests, and potential national security-related breaches.
News of the probe came two days before the Benghazi bungler finally launched her long-awaited coronation parade campaign Sunday on YouTube [1].
“I’m running for president,” Mrs. Clinton said in the video. “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times. But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion.”
Yes, Clinton is a champion — of Islamic expansionism. She let four Americans die in 2012 so President Obama, in the midst of his reelection fight, wouldn’t have to reconcile the terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya with his dishonest boast that al-Qaeda was on the run under his leadership. That she hired someone of questionable loyalty to the United States shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Until Sunday the Clinton Foundation had served as a de facto campaign headquarters and international shakedown machine for Mrs. Clinton. With her campaign now officially on, the foundation will probably continue functioning as what the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel calls “The Clinton Foundation Super PAC.”
“Most family charities exist to allow self-made Americans to disperse their good fortune to philanthropic causes,” Strassel wrote in a recent column. “The Clinton Foundation exists to allow the nation’s most powerful couple to use their not-so-subtle persuasion to exact global tribute for a fund that promotes the Clintons.”
Abedin herself is a Muslim who is married to disgraced former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). Bill and Hillary Clinton are reportedly so close to her that they have called her their surrogate daughter. Abedin, who almost certainly played some kind of a role in the Obama administration’s myriad catastrophic foreign policy failures, currently works at Mrs. Clinton’s personal office in New York City — or at least she worked there as of last week before Hillary launched her campaign.
Very few Republican lawmakers who are critical of Abedin’s working arrangement have raised the alarm about the threat she poses to national security. Some may have been scared away after the grandstanding stunt pulled three years ago by know-nothing Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). He bristled with indignation when then-Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and a handful of House lawmakers raised legitimate concerns about Abedin working in such a sensitive government post. McCain thundered: Abedin’s “character, reputation, and patriotism” were unjustly attacked and “these attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit, and they need to stop now.”
State Department Inspector General Steve Linick sent a letter [2] to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) Thursday advising that the inner workings of the “Special Government Employee Program” at the department are now the subject of a preliminary inquiry by Linick’s office. (The document is available here [3].)
“This program is meant to be used in a limited way to give the government special expertise it can’t get otherwise,” Grassley said in a statement Friday. “Is the program working the way it’s intended at the State Department or has it been turned on its head?”
Amazingly enough, the Obama-loving media establishment has been on this case of ethical gymnastics and the potential compromise of U.S. national security for a while.
As the New York Times [4] reported two years ago, under Clinton the Department of State “created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department.”
On her mandatory financial disclosure form, Abedin failed to disclose the setup or how much she was paid. “[T]he picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider.”
In a July 2013 letter the State Department indicated Abedin was employed full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also indicated she did not disclose outside employment when ending her full-time status. The department kept her on as an adviser-expert at the hourly rate of $74.51 with maximum pay of $155,500 per year.
When Abedin returned from maternity leave in mid-2012, her role as deputy chief of staff to Secretary Clinton ended and she became what’s called a special government employee, or consultant. A State Department official told the Old Gray Lady “that change freed her from the requirement that she disclose her private earnings for the rest of the year on her financial disclosure forms. Still, during that period, she continued to be identified publicly in news reports as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.”
It goes without saying that the Clintons have long believed that rules and laws are for the little people, not them. They live by the maxim that it is better to ask for forgiveness after the fact than seek permission before doing something awful.
In the second half of 2012 while working at State as a consultant, Abedin also worked for Teneo, a high-flying consultancy established by Doug Band, who was an adviser to President Clinton. Teneo advised MF Global, the failed brokerage of Democrat Jon Corzine, former governor of New Jersey and former U.S. senator.
“At the same time, Ms. Abedin served as a consultant to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and worked in a personal capacity for Mrs. Clinton as she prepared to transition out of her job as secretary of state,” the newspaper reported. (The foundation has since changed its name to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.)
The head of the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) at the time, Melanie Sloane, engaged in Monty Pythonesque understatement when she described Abedin’s special working arrangement as merely unusual. “If she was being held out as a deputy chief of staff, it would be highly unusual for her to be a part-time employee or a consultant,” Sloane said. “Being a deputy chief of staff at the State Department is generally considered more than a full-time job.”
So Abedin was double- or even triple-dipping, working on sensitive issues in the Obama administration while at the same time working as a consultant at Teneo and the Clinton Foundation.
Political commentators might be more outraged over the Abedin affair but for the fact that the Clintons have always been shady operators. It’s scandal fatigue.
Pick a scandal, any scandal. There’s Whitewater, Juanita Broaddrick, Troopergate, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Elizabeth Gracen, Monica Lewinsky, Bill lying under oath and being disbarred for doing so, Filegate, the senseless slaughter of religious non-conformists at Waco, Texas, and many, many others.
There are so many Clinton scandals that Wikipedia had to create an index page [5] to list them all. Clinton-watching is an exhausting hobby that will turn into a full-time job for multitudes of talking heads, journalists, columnists, and activists should the Clintons take up residence in the White House again.
In the meantime we are left to wonder what role Abedin played in a long list of irregularities, mishaps, scandals, and America-weakening events while serving at the Department of State.
What role, if any, did Abedin play in:
*the Benghazi massacre and the coverup of it
*the State Department’s accountability review board failing to blame Clinton for Benghazi
*the failure of the Obama administration to disclose the cause of death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens who was reportedly tortured and sodomized to death by Muslim terrorists
*the Obama’s administration’s perverse embrace of America’s longtime enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran whose leaders can’t go a day without screaming “Death to America” (and “Death to Israel”)
*Iran’s conquest of its neighbors
*the ousting of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi
*the rise of Islamic State
*the removal of longstanding ally Hosni Mubarak as president of Egypt followed by the installation of Muslim Brotherhood favorite Mohamed Morsi in the position
*the conversion of NASA into a Muslim outreach agency
*the odious, lie-strewn “A New Beginning” speech President Obama gave at Cairo University in 2009
All these things that happened on then-Secretary Clinton’s watch. And they happened while the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation reportedly raked in millions of dollars in donations from the governments of Muslim countries including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Algeria.
Call them anticipatory bribes thrown over the transom in case Mrs. Clinton secures the presidency. (Statistics wiz Nate Silver says [6] Clinton is a virtual shoo-in for her party’s nomination but gives her roughly a 50/50 chance of winning the general election.)
As Hillary was screwing up America’s foreign policy, Bill was giving highly remunerative speeches in the Islamic nations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Turkey, according to Judicial Watch.
For what it’s worth, President Obama’s Cairo speech came on the heels of his worldwide apology tour in which he begged forgiveness from the countries of the world supposedly oppressed for so long by the U.S.
The oration was a major propaganda victory for Islamism that has emboldened fanatics and terrorists worldwide. It was also jam-packed with falsehoods, according to academics Mary Grabar and Brian Birdnow [7].
The address, of course, is a breathtaking work of fiction [8] that whitewashes the blood-drenched history of Islam and falsely attributes accomplishments such as printing, navigation, and medicine to the Islamic world.
Obama gave Islam credit for un-Islamic things such as the Enlightenment and religious tolerance. Islam “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for European Renaissance and Enlightenment,” and “has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality,” Obama said.
Grabar and Birdnow counter that in fact “the intellectual Renaissance began when Byzantine scholars, mostly Greek, fled the advancing Turks in the 14th century and settled in Italy. The Enlightenment was openly anti-theistic and would have been anathema to most practicing Muslims.”
Moreover, they add, “Muslims wiped out Zoroastrianism, they battled Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries, and they levied a special tax on Christians and Jews in their domains.”
The lies in the Obama speech would no doubt be embraced by Abedin’s family. Born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Abedin’s connections [9] to the Muslim Brotherhood run deep.
Her mother is Saleha Mahmood Abedin [10], widow of the late Zyed Abedin, an academic who taught at Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Abdulaziz University in the early 1970s. The year after Huma was born, Mrs. Abedin received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania. She is a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a pro-Sharia organization consisting of the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood.
In 1978 Mr. Abedin was hired by Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank created by Abdullah Omar Naseef. Naseef was a Muslim extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. In 1983 he became secretary-general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a militant organization with links to Osama bin Laden.
The elder Abedins both became members of the editorial board of IMMA’s publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. According to Andrew C. McCarthy, IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda is “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”
Mrs. Abedin became an official representative of MWL in the 1990s. When her husband died in 1994, Mrs. Abedin became the IMMA’s director. She currently serves as editor-in-chief of its journal.
Mrs. Abedin is also a member of the board of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief (IICDR), which has long been banned in Israel because it has ties to Hamas. (In Arabic, dawah, or dawa, means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam.) She also runs the Amman, Jordan-based International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), a Muslim World League affiliate that self-identifies as part of the IICDR. The league, according to Andrew C. McCarthy, “has long been the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal vehicle for the international propagation of Islamic supremacist ideology.” Huma Abedin was an intern in the Clinton White House between 1997 and some time in 1999, she was a member of the executive board of George Washington University’s radical Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA has extensive ties to al-Qaeda. From 1996 to 2008, she was employed by IMMA as assistant editor of its Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.
Someone with Abedin’s background shouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power in Washington. Yet Hillary Clinton trusted her with vital secrets of state and then surreptitiously deleted their electronic correspondence.
Were Secretary Clinton’s dealings with the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton Foundation discussed in the emails that she deleted from her now-infamous private email server? We may never know.
There is, nonetheless, some reason for hope. Yes, it is depressing that even as evidence continues to accumulate that Mrs. Clinton’s cavalier approach to state secrets put U.S. national security in jeopardy, the shady background of Abedin is barely acknowledged on Capitol Hill.
Republican lawmakers seem for the most part unaware of Abedin’s ties to the world of Islamic terrorism, or like John McCain, remain stubbornly in denial.
But with the State Department Inspector General’s investigation set in motion, there is at least a possibility something will be discovered about Abedin that will spark the interest of the party whose elected officials now dominate both chambers of Congress.
The exposure of Huma Abedin is vitally important to the national security of the United States.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here [11].
Subscribe [12] to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, on YouTube [12] and LIKE [13] it on Facebook. [13]
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/matthew-vadum/clinton-campaign-kicks-off-as-huma-abedin-probe-begins/
URLs in this post:
[1] YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=0uY7gLZDmn4
[2] sent a letter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/10/program-that-benefited-clinton-aide-under-review-by-inspector-general/
[3] here: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/Response%20Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Grassley%20Ltr%20on%20State%20Email%20-SGE%204-8-15%20Sign....pdf
[4] New York Times: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-while-a-state-dept-aide.html?referrer=&_r=0
[5] an index page: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies
[6] says: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/
[7] Mary Grabar and Brian Birdnow: http://www.amazon.com/New-Beginning-Revised-Past-Barack/dp/0986018309
[8] a breathtaking work of fiction: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/obamas-benghazi-propagandist/
[9] Abedin’s connections: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2556
[10] Saleha Mahmood Abedin: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2557
[11] Click here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=david+horowitz&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&qid=1316459840&rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&sort=daterank
[12] Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFMPMG/featured
[13] LIKE: https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang
-
Interesting details in that one Obj.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/04/13/hillarys-server-its-not-just-about-her-hiding-things-from-the-american-people/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign
-
In the Business World, We'd Call Bill Clinton's Wife an Empty Suit
Posted by Herman Cain - 04-13-2015
Lots of talk. Not much to back it up.
If you spend much time in business, you'll meet one of them. They're not hard to spot. They may have gotten a position by way of nepotism. Or maybe they gave a very impressive interview, but once hired it became painfully clear they didn't have what it took to do the job on a day-to-day basis. They had learned how to speak some of the language of business, but actually getting things done and done well was an entirely different story.
We call them empty suits.
I suppose a lot of them might be attracted to politics because all you have to do in politics is appear to be getting things done. Like Dr. Stantz said in Ghostbusters, "In the private sector, they expect results!" And those who can't deliver tend not to last very long. They might have a resume that lists a lot of jobs that look impressive, but there's a reason they list so many. They don't stick around anywhere very long because it quickly becomes obvious that they either don't have what it takes, or they won't do the work that's required.
And that brings us to Bill Clinton's Wife, who thinks she should now get a turn as president. Democrats will point to her resume. Eight years as a U.S. senator. Four years as Secretary of State. Pretty impressive, no?
Actually, no. Because it's not just the positions you held. It's what you did in them. And in her case, it's why you had the jobs in the first place. What significant accomplishment can she point to during her years as New York's junior senator? What major piece of legislation did she sponsor and successfully push through to implementation, only to see it work well for the American people? What important problem did she help to solve?
You don't remember any? That's because there weren't any.
What have been the results of her tenure as Secretary of State? Are you kidding me? The Russian reset button gimmick was lame and naive, but not as bad as the actual results in terms of our relations with Russia, which is more hostile toward us (and fears us less) than ever. The Middle East is completely out of control. Iran is close to getting the bomb. Syria is in chaos. And relations everywhere from Great Britain to Israel to Egypt to Turkey to even Canada are worse than they were back in the days when, according to Democrats, George W. Bush was "shredding our alliances." (Remember that one? Seems pretty preposterous given the current state of affairs, doesn't it?)
Oh, and let's not forget her decision to deny extra security in Benghazi, only to tell the victims of the attack there not to worry because she'd make sure a guy who made a YouTube video was "brought to justice".
At least she knew how to make decisions about trade deals. She would just check and see who donated to the Clinton Foundation and then take a position. These Clintons do have a way of doing things, don't they?
And let's not forget: Everyone knew before she ever became a senator, and before she ever became Secretary of State, that she wanted to be president and thought she should be president. She only pursued those jobs to make herself look more qualified for the job she wished she could just move right into. This is classic empty suit stuff! And once she had those jobs, her only purpose in doing them was to make herself look more qualified for the presidency.
I'm honestly baffled as to why so many people support such an empty suit. I know why the political consultant class supports her. They think her name recognition gives her a great chance of being elected and they see her as a meal ticket for another four years. And I know that while she often infuriates the liberal media with her secrecy (you can treat everyone else badly, but not them), they will still cover for her if she wins the Democrat nomination - lying by omission as they ignore the many scandals and other storylines that demonstrate her lack of preparation and qualification for the Oval Office.
But what's with normal, everyday people who are telling pollsters they want her to be president? I guess an empty suit can pretty easily fool people who only pay very limited attention. In fact, that's what they count on. It sounds good to them when she says she wants to be their "champion," but if they were really to think that statement through, they might ask, "Champion of what?" And when have the Clintons ever been champions of anything except themselves and their own interests?
There's a reason we refer to her around here as Bill Clinton's Wife. It's because she has only ever gotten anywhere in politics because of who she's married to. She is only taken seriously as a candidate for president because of who she's married to. Anyone else with her unimpressive track record would be laughed off the stage. Not only does she have no impressive accomplishments in her career, but she hasn't even offered any compelling policy ideas, or even any serious priorities or goals.
She just commands lots of attention, without so much as a hint of why she deserves any of it. It's hard for me to believe that as she goes through the rigors of a campaign, where serious opponents will challenge her on substance, that she can continue the illusion. That's usually when empty suits, shall we say, fold like a cheap suit.
-
Hillary's Income Inequality Platform Problem
While Hillary Clinton established her campaign on reducing income inequality, she has not practiced what she preached. "Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top," Clinton said in the video announcing her presidential campaign "Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion." Sure, Clinton can talk all she wants, but her platform places her between the idealistic Left and her salary. Progressives are beginning to say a $15-an-hour wage is the only wage they will support, probably to the chagrin of Seattle small businesses that have to close because of the city's $15-an-hour wage experiment. And Hillary has acted precisely like the CEOs and one-percenters she lambasts. Her $200,000-an-hour speaking gigs place her firmly in the filthy rich category. Furthermore, she directs all her salary through her foundation, so she avoids paying taxes. The income deck is, indeed, stacked in her favor. More...
Meanwhile, she also wants "unaccountable money" out of politics. After she raises $2.5 billion, of course.
-
second post
http://www.darrellissa.com/view/?u=12165
-
Yes, Levin says, you heard that right. Are you a Genitalian? Are you someone who makes their decision about who should be the next president based on their genitalia category?
Here's one who says she is:
Nancy Pelosi says "it is important to elect the first woman President".
Does that mean if reversed, still true? What if it turns out to be Mark O'Malley against Carly Fiorina?
Suddenly it is not so important.
-
http://www.darrellissa.com/view/?u=12165
This is important. This was an official inquiry from the Chairman of the appropriate Congressional oversight committee, and it was made long before the alleged destruction of the emails and server in question. They received no answer to this specific question, asked in 2012:
“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Issa wrote Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”
Asked but never answered. Here is the other question, also asked in 2012:
“Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?”
This is what they finally received back after she had left the department:
[Any State employee] “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”
That's the rule governing the security of State department communications at the highest level?? They "should"??!
Everyone in Washington who knew how to reach her knew she used a private email address. We're talking about a hundred thousand pages of email to and from someone. This no doubt included all her favorite media people and committee members. She is running for President (?) and has, in fact, declared for all to hear that she has absolutely no intention of ever being subject to any congressional oversight whatsoever over anything that she does! Unbelievable.
Another link, NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?_r=0
-
"She is running for President (?) and has, in fact, declared for all to hear that she has absolutely no intention of ever being subject to any congressional oversight whatsoever over anything that she does! Unbelievable."
Yup. "No controlling legal authority". No one can (Republicans) or no one will (Democrats) do anything about it. Thumb her nose at the law and move on.
Dick Morris take on why she made it official. For legal reasons. So she can pay her mob:
http://www.dickmorris.com/why-did-hillary-announce/#more-15393
-
...
Dick Morris take on why she made it official. For legal reasons. So she can pay her mob:
http://www.dickmorris.com/why-did-hillary-announce/#more-15393
Yes. She made an obligatory announcement for legal reasons, to be able to pay people and lease space.
Cheap surrogate, Sen. Claire McCaskill just gave the other big reason. By declaring candidacy she can now allege that the congressional subpoenas to testify are all politically motivated.
To her question, by the way,
"Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?"
...the answer is that we would like to know what happened and how to keep it from happening again. Separately, note that this congenital liar prefaces with a false choice. It wasn't either of those, because of a protest OR because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. It was a terror attack, by al Qaida affiliates "on the run", against Americans.
The question that follows: How do we keep our officials from lying to us? (Vote for someone else.)
One more question for my 'ask Hillary list': Do the Clintons both lie to each other constantly or just both lie to us? Will Bob Schieffer ask her that?
(http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Journalism/2013/01/23/untitled.png)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/01/23/hillary-what-difference-does-it-make/
-
Hat tip to Obj, pasting it here.
www.frontpagemag.com/2015/frontpagemag-com/video-robert-spencer-on-hillary-clintons-war-on-free-speech/
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-the-bible-is-my-biggest-influence/
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/plugnplay/
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/classic-2/
-
The Clinton Connection to Russia’s Claims on Uranium
As Russia’s atomic energy agency gradually took charge of a company that controls one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States, a stream of cash made its way to former President Bill Clinton’s charitable organization. Whether the donations played any role in the United States government’s approval of the uranium deal is unknown, but the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?emc=edit_na_20150423
-
Second post
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-corruption-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/#commentblock?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
WHAT “CLINTON CASH” TELLS US ABOUT HILLARY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH BILL
Powerline 4/24/15
Liberal pundit Jonathan Chait concludes from the emerging “Clinton cash” scandal that, at a minimum, the Clintons have been “disorganized and greedy.” Of the greed, there can be no doubt. But whether the Clintons have been disorganized depends on what they were trying, primarily, to accomplish through their Foundation.
From Bill Clinton’s perspective, I gather, the Foundation was intended to raise huge amounts of money and to serve as a vehicle through which he would remain an important international player. Clinton plainly wanted an enormously lucrative and conspicuously consequential post-presidency. The Clinton Foundation would enable him to meet these aspirations.
And so it has. From Bill’s perspective, then, the Clinton Foundation is a raging success, brilliantly conceived and executed, and sufficiently well-organized to achieve its purposes.
This point appears to be lost on Chait. He says, with surprise, that “Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative.”
Well, yeah. Having Hillary running the State Department clearly maximized the Foundation’s ability to raise huge amounts of money and to project Bill into major deals all over the world.
As one Clintonista told Ryan Lizza, “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State; it worked out very well for him.”
But how has it worked out for Hillary Clinton? We don’t know yet. Surely, she is delighted to see her family massively enriched through the Foundation. And while a part of her may not love seeing her husband flying so high, it’s unlikely that she begrudges him a place on the world stage.
Her primary mission, though, is to become president of the United States. It remains to be seen whether the “Clinton cash” scandal will derail her quest. But she must believe that it has created more risk of derailment than is worth the incremental income Bill’s more aggressive plays has accrued. The scandal probably seem to her, as it does to Chait, like an unforced error — one that, left to her own devices, she would have avoided.
In sum, the Foundation has operated the way Bill wanted it to, but probably not quite as Hillary, with her focus on the presidency, wished.
If so, this tells us that Bill Clinton remains the dominant force in the family. When their interests diverged, Bill’s carried the day.
Lizza’s reporting tends to confirm that this was the case. He writes:
More than anyone, [Bill] pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.”
The husband’s pushy advocacy was the “tie-breaking” reason why the wife made the momentous decision to take an all-consuming job? In which version of feminism are things supposed to work like this?
I hope America’s first female president will be a woman who is not under the sway of her husband and who would not permit the family enterprise to be commandeered by a husband notorious for having no sense of proportion or propriety. Hillary Clinton is not that woman.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/what-clinton-cash-tells-us-about-hillarys-relationship-with-bill.php
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/liberal-columnist-rips-into-the-clintons-disorganized-and-greedy-a-fiasco/
-
I think I may have found a missing piece of the puzzle in this scandal that never seems to get mentioned. First, this is what we know for sure.
We know that as a Senator Hillary in 2005 publicly and vehemently opposed foreign takeover of critical American assets that ended in the cancellation of the Dubai Ports deal.
In a relatively abrupt about face, we know she was critically involved in the approval of the Russian - Uranium One deal, where the State Department was one of the agencies that had the full power and responsibility to stop the transfer of US Uranium assets to the Russians, if it was not in America's best interest.
We know that more than a dozen Russian individuals and organizations associated with the Uranium One deal gave millions upon millions to the Clinton Foundation.
We know that Bill Clinton's speaking fees in Russia TRIPLED during the period that the time that deal was before the State Department.
The innocent explanation for speaking fees tripling is that the speeches, in Russia, suddenly got that much better over the time, even though the aging ex-President who was aging was drifting further and further from power.
The opposite conclusion is that the speech income, which goes to both Clintons, was actually buying an expectation of influence with the United States Secretary of State.
Speaking fees go directly into the power couple's pocket, like a bribe or kickback, not into the Foundation to feed the poor, etc.
Here's what I don't get about the innocent, coincidental explanation of taking a half million bucks for a short speech in Russia:
The man does not speak Russian!
-
A point Team Hillary is making is that State was one of some 9 agencies that reviewed and approved the deal. While some/most may have no national security considerations as part of their evaluating criteria, others, e.g. the Pentagon clearly did.
How do we explain this?
-
A point Team Hillary is making is that State was one of some 9 agencies that reviewed and approved the deal. While some/most may have no national security considerations as part of their evaluating criteria, others, e.g. the Pentagon clearly did.
How do we explain this?
a) It had to be unanimous so her vote was the decider, not just one of nine. Her Dept's approval was the most crucial. Why would Sec of Interior see this as a threat if State did not, for example. These other Secretaries are all Obama-ites by definition and all have close ties to the Clintons. Could have been influenced also and likely were if the policy otherwise doesn't make sense. b) We don't know anything about behind the scenes communications, the pulling of other agencies or even her own, but the pattern of facts bears further investigation. There isn't a shred of evidence maybe because evidence was withheld and destroyed. c) The timing of these bribery payments to Bill, Hillary and the Foundation was keyed on this deal. d) The Bill Clinton speaking fee tripled, yet his voice is shakier. He has drifted further and further from power EXCEPT for his influence over State and other Departments. e) She was a big opponent of this kind of security risk very recently as a Senator, very outspoken opposing foreign control of our ports. This is similar but MUCH worse security risk/failure. Dubai is not a threat to our security on par with Moscow. f) If the policy decision is wrong, doesn't that disqualify her for higher office regardless of the corruption? g) This wasn't the only occurrence of Clinton money affecting US policy and contracts. h) Many politicians went to jail for crimes FAR smaller than this. Didn't a Speaker of the House fall over a bunch of phony book sales that were really just disguised payments? (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/23/opinion/what-to-call-mr-wright-s-royalties.html) In all cases, prosecution starts an investigation following signs like we see here of wrongdoing.
As one pundit put it earlier, people don't give to the Clinton Foundation because they didn't know about the Red Cross. 100% of the speaking fees go directly into their personal account and the vast majority of Foundation goes to pay family and friends, not to direct aid. (I will post that separately.)
I wonder what the new Attorney General will do about this, lol.
-
These are not just partisan allegations.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/11-explosive-clinton-cash-facts-mainstream-media-confirm-are-accurate/
Perhaps the most surprising thing about the forthcoming book rocking Washington right now is the number of stunning facts liberal media outlets have already confirmed and verified are accurate.
Here, then, are 11 facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration
The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.
As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.
CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank
The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.
“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the liberal publication.
CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti
The Washington Post confirms the accuracy of Clinton Cash’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative “gold exploitation permit” in Haiti as then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were doling out billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.
According to the Post, Rodham’s mining company “won one of the first two gold-mining permits the Haitian government had issued in more than 50 years,” just as Clinton Cash reveals.
CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration
The Wall Street Journal confirms the book’s revelation that another foreign donation, one by Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels, made a hidden donation of two million shares in Polo Resources that the Clinton Foundation chose not to disclose in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding the Clintons signed with the Obama administration.
“About two months later, the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh pushed the energy adviser to that nation’s prime minister to allow ‘open pit mining,’ including in Phulbari Mines, where Polo Resources has a stake,” reports the Journal.
CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.
The New York Times confirms, “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”
The Times also verifies the book’s reporting that Hillary’s uranium transfer to Russia represented, at the time, a projected 50% of all U.S. uranium output.
CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary’s State Dept.
Bloomberg has confirmed that, as reported in Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton was paid by “Laureate International Universities, part of Laureate Education, Inc,” a position he abruptly resigned from on Friday.
Bloomberg’s examination confirms that “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”
The company nor the Clintons will release the exact amounts Bill received for working for the controversial for-profit education company.
CONFIRMED: The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation Returns
Reuters has confirmed that “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns” as “the foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny.”
CONFIRMED: At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors
The Washington Post has confirmed in an article based on Clinton Cash that, according to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”
Of that, reports the Post, “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”
CONFIRMED: Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, is Currently Conducting a Deep Dive Investigative Report on Republican Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush’s Financial Dealings
CBS News has confirmed that author Peter Schweizer is working on a similar investigation into GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s financial records and relationships.
“The wide-ranging examination will appraise the possible 2016 contender’s involvement in Florida real estate deals, an airport deal that involved state funds while Bush was Florida’s chief executive, and Chinese investments in Bush’s private equity funds,” reports CBS News.
CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Delivered Numerous Speeches Paid for By Individuals and Corporations with Pending Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.
ABC News has confirmed Clinton Cash’s reporting that myriad businesses and individuals paid Bill Clinton to deliver speeches even as their companies had business on Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s desk.
“Records supported the premise that former President Clinton accepted speaking fees from numerous companies and individuals with interests pending before the State Department,” reported ABC News.
ABC News noted it found “an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated,” but that Clinton Cash’s essential “premise” is “supported by records” ABC News independently analyzed.
CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Lied about Hosting a Meeting with Frank Giustra and Kazakh Nuclear Officials at Clinton’s Home in Chappaqua, New York
New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jo Becker confirmed in a one-hour Fox News television special on Clinton Cash that Bill Clinton lied when questioned about whether Clinton, Giustra, and executives from the Kazakh-owned nuclear company Kazatomprom ever met in Clintons’ home.
“When I first contacted both the Clinton Foundation—Mr. Clinton’s spokesman—and Mr. Giustra, they denied any such meeting ever took place,” said Becker.
“And then when we told them, ‘Well we already talked to the head of Kazatomprom, who not only told us all about the meeting, but actually has a picture of him and Bill at the home in Chappaqua, and that he proudly displayed it on his office wall.’ They then acknowledged that yes, the meeting had taken place.”
The Hillary Clinton campaign continues to struggle in its efforts to spin and distract from the growing pile of Clinton Cash facts mainstream media outlets have already confirmed and verified are correct.
As Politico concludes, “Hillary’s Clinton Cash dismissal is dead in the water.”
-
You would think they're first defense would be to point to all the good they are doing around the globe. Not so much.
-------------------------------------
In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants
Hillary Clinton's non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
-------------------------------------
(http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Clinton-Global-Initiative-Graph-400x310.png)
http://www.independentsentinel.com/holy-shnikeys-new-chart-o-the-day-how-the-clinton-foundation-spent-its-money-in-2013/
-
And not only this. The Clinton machine is *boasting" how it plans to raise 2 to 2.5 BILLION more yet.
50 million immigrants in 8 years according to Drudge. They vast majority are not going to be Republicans. I wonder how many of them will vote. Legal or not.
Tabloid says she had 2 strokes. Remember I posted a picture of her cross eyed and questioned this.
Still she will run . Still her identity politics groups will vote for her.
-
ccp: "The Clinton machine is *boasting" how it plans to raise 2 to 2.5 BILLION more yet."
Bozo at NYT (Dana Milbank) writes today about Republicans having big money backers. I hope so!
"Tabloid says she had 2 strokes. Remember I (ccp) posted a picture of her cross eyed and questioned this."
Yes, something happened. I wonder if she ever has to release medical records. Plus I think she hides at times to cover up the healing of 'work done' on her face. Are those in the medical records? Maybe they can tuck in some other problem areas as well. I lost a Carly post to a computer re-boot but it would be nice if our first woman President was at least a little bit feminine. (Sexist I'm sure to comment on any of that. But not when it is to comment about men, good looking, overweight, old, young, etc.)
"Still she will run."
If she bows out, a partial health disclosure would give her a face saving excuse and maybe slow down the call for investigations.
-
"Bozo at NYT (Dana Milbank)"
Doug thanks for clarifying who you were referring to. A lot of Bozos on that side.
-
"Bozo at NYT (Dana Milbank)"
Doug thanks for clarifying who you were referring to. A lot of Bozos on that side.
Very funny ccp. I meant to say, one clown among many over there. Meanwhile at the NYT, the master of straw man arguments, Paul Krugman who won't argue with anyone but a straw man had a column today titled "Nobody Said That". Really? It took willpower to not click on his drivel. I used to read and answer the nonsense. But like the ratings of MSNBC, they won't go away until no one is watching or reading them anymore.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-took-millions-from-keystone-groups-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/#commentblock?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Q:What do you get when you cross a slimy lawyer and a crooked politician?
A: Chelsea.
The Clinton Family’s Proud Tradition of Shamelessly Lying
Everybody has a particular figure in the news who drives them a little bonkers. You may recall that for some reason, media hosannas for Chelsea Clinton stick in my craw. I’m perfectly happy to see Chelsea Clinton go off and live a happy life as a mom or doing whatever she likes away from the public spotlight. But I’m tired of the media telling us she’s remarkably accomplished in her own right, her keynote addresses to conferences like SXSW, treating her like she’s an A-list celebrity and fascinating figure, the “Woman of the Year” and “Mom of the Year” awards, her widely-panned, $600,000-per-year, part-time work as an increasingly infrequent NBC News correspondent, and her assistant-vice-provost position at New York University, taken at age 30, before finishing her dissertation.
Now there’s a new angle to Chelsea Clinton’s public profile: She’s as shameless a liar as both of her parents:
“What the Clinton foundation has said is that we will be kind of even more transparent,” said the former first daughter, now vice chairman of the foundation, at an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. “Even though Transparency International and others have said we’re among the most transparent foundations, we’ll disclose donors on a quarterly basis, not just an annual basis.”
The problem with that, though, is Transparency International never cited the Clinton foundation. It did award Hillary Clinton its 2012 TI-USA Integrity Award when Clinton was secretary of state for “recognizing her contributions as secretary of state in raising the importance of transparency and anticorruption as elements of U.S. policy,” Claudia Dumas, president of Transparency International, told NPR. (The organization put out a fuller statement Monday.)
It’s a false statement, but it also looks like Freudian slip. Transparency International gives the U.S. State Department an award, and Chelsea thinks it went to the Clinton Foundation. It’s hard to shake the feeling that for the Clintons, the U.S. State Department and the Clinton Foundation were intertwined and interchangeable.
-
By
Donald F. McGahn II
May 5, 2015 7:22 p.m. ET
123 COMMENTS
Progressivism’s ever-tightening grip on the Democratic Party is on full display in Hillary Clinton’s presidential platform. Starting with her kickoff speech in Iowa, and in subsequent venues across the country, she spoke of her campaign’s “four fights,” one of which is a constitutional amendment on campaign finance. This marks Mrs. Clinton as an adherent to one of the newest and most fervently held tenets of modern progressive teaching: Citizens United v. FEC is an evil that must be destroyed at any cost.
Yet it’s worth dwelling on that cost. Recent history demonstrates that the anti-Citizens United campaign quickly devolves into an assault on the First Amendment and a free and fair electoral system.
In a sense, it’s fitting that Mrs. Clinton supports efforts to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that dealt with the right to buy television ads for a movie that criticized her. The constitutional amendment she wants could return American elections to where they were in 2008, when her opponents and critics were often muzzled in the public square.
Despite the hyperbole surrounding Citizens United, the justices were actually debating a simple issue: Whether a movie critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton could be aired on pay-per-view television. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, such activity was banned within 30 days of a primary election. The justices struck down this prohibition, ruling that “the First Amendment protects political speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts was even more blunt, arguing that such bans subvert “the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
There was a time when most Americans agreed with this logic. The American Founding was partially triggered by the Stamp Act, which squelched speech by mandating that publications possess a stamp purchased from the British government. Following the Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution, the first Congress wisely passed the First Amendment to prevent politicians from banning speech that criticizes officeholders. Throughout American history, this constitutional guarantee of free speech has been the bulwark of the country’s experiment in self-government.
Yet this consensus disappeared following Citizens United. The Democratic Party’s leadership, fearing the electoral losses that ultimately came to pass, called for a crusade to undo the Supreme Court’s decision. Their holy war found its fullest expression in the demand for a constitutional amendment that would, in essence, repeal the First Amendment.
Hillary Clinton is now on board this campaign, based on her recent pledge to “fix” our political system “even if that takes a constitutional amendment.” For a hint of what her proposed amendment might look like, consider the measure then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) brought to the Senate floor last year. The so-called Udall Amendment—introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.), co-sponsored by 48 other Democratic senators, and ultimately supported by 54 senators, but no Republicans—was designed to reverse Citizens United.
The amendment—which was filibustered in the Senate in September—promises to “advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all” and “protect the integrity of the legislative electoral process.” In reality, it would give politicians unlimited authority to stifle the speech of their political opponents.
As with most campaign-finance reform measures, the Udall Amendment’s goal is to get money out of politics. It seeks to accomplish this by allowing Congress to regulate and limit how “candidates and others” raise and spend money.
Yet free speech is toothless without money—especially when it concerns elections and public policy. It is necessary to print campaign mailers, organize phone banks, air television and radio ads, build websites and pay for a thousand other things.
By giving legislators authority to regulate the money that finances this speech, politicians would only succeed in making it harder for Americans to make their voices heard in the political process. The American Civil Liberties Union argued in a 2014 letter to Congress that the Udall Amendment would “lead directly to government censorship of political speech.” The ACLU also warned that it would “fundamentally ‘break’ the constitution and endanger civil rights and civil liberties for generations.”
It isn’t hard to see how. The Obama administration admitted in 2010 that its position in Citizens United would empower the government to ban books, ads and anything else that contains a political message that regulators and politicians don’t like. The only limit the Udall Amendment placed on Congress is that any campaign-finance law must be “reasonable.” This led Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) to remark in a 2014 Senate subcommittee hearing on the amendment that “I am not content to have . . . free speech rights protected by the reasonableness of members of Congress, Republicans or Democrats.”
No one, left or right, should be comfortable with giving politicians such power. When elected officials are able to handicap and silence their electoral opponents, they will rarely refrain from doing so. This is true whether it’s the man or woman in the White House, representatives and senators in Congress, state legislators and governors, or even the members of the local PTA. A constitutional amendment on campaign finance can’t change human nature.
Before she goes down in history as the first presidential candidate to make gutting the First Amendment a central part of her platform, Mrs. Clinton might want to remember the liberal heroes of yesteryear who defended free speech. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was right when he declared in 1919 that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”
Justice Louis Brandeis was also right in 1927 when he called for “more speech, not enforced silence” in America’s political debates. And so was Sen. Ted Kennedy, who 80 years later declared that “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start.”
It’s a shame that the Democratic Party’s de facto presidential candidate has abandoned this wisdom.
Mr. McGahn is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
-
Hillary brags she would "go further" than Obama on immigration, on EPA regulation of CO2 in defiance of Congress, and more generally - in just ripping up what's left of the constitution.
Can we also assume she would go further than Obama on using the IRS power to stop political opposition? Wars without declarations from Congress? What else?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-i-would-go-even-further-than-obama-on-immigration/article/2564050?custom_click=rss
-
If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement.
-
If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement.
Good thinking. I don't want to say it but if anyone wants to start looking at lakeshore in Canada - let me know.
It is time to put half our money into candidates like Ted Cruz and Rubio and the rest toward a backup plan.
-
If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement.
Good thinking. I don't want to say it but if anyone wants to start looking at lakeshore in Canada - let me know.
It is time to put half our money into candidates like Ted Cruz and Rubio and the rest toward a backup plan.
I am looking at Singapore myself. I will watch the downward spiral from a distance.
-
Her pandering to illegals is just one more example of how she will sell out the country and citizens of the US to pander for votes for her own personal power. It is not about serving us, it is about her. Always has been.
Then again some of the Republicans are pandering for votes too in a similar way.
Who would have ever dreamed that we would have a President and Presidential candidates pandering to people here ILLegally for votes?
Just outrageous. What about us? What about citizens?
:x
"If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement."
I don't blame you. If we get another marxist you would probably get a good job working for them as a brown shirt or a red military police officer suppressing the rest of us. :wink:
-
Her pandering to illegals is just one more example of how she will sell out the country and citizens of the US to pander for votes for her own personal power. It is not about serving us, it is about her. Always has been.
Then again some of the Republicans are pandering for votes too in a similar way.
Who would have ever dreamed that we would have a President and Presidential candidates pandering to people here ILLegally for votes?
Just outrageous. What about us? What about citizens?
:x
"If we get another marxist in the white house, I am getting out of law enforcement."
I don't blame you. If we get another marxist you would probably get a good job working for them as a brown shirt or a red military police officer suppressing the rest of us. :wink:
The good news, as John Podhoretz lays out, is that with Hillary going all-in on leftism and opposing the rule of law, Americans will have a clear choice on the ballot.
Strange that while she runs seemingly unopposed for the nomination, she sees the biggest threat to her as coming from the left. But that is where she lost last time.
Elizabeth Warren and Bill deBlasio penned a piece for the Washington Post today called "How to revive the American Dream". Funny that they are still not endorsing her; just moving ahead with their own campaign. Odd to see Democrats opposing cronyism and a rigged game - looks like a direct attack on the Clintons. The American Dream, in their view, is bigger and more intrusive government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-to-revive-the-american-dream/2015/05/06/a583c94c-f323-11e4-b2f3-af5479e6bbdd_story.html
-
"The good news, as John Podhoretz lays out, is that with Hillary going all-in on leftism and opposing the rule of law, Americans will have a clear choice on the ballot."
Doug we have been dealing with these grifters for decades now.
There is no good news with them till they are GONE once and for all.
Till then we have to suffer.
As for clear choice I have to say I don't know what you mean. The choice is the same. Those who want government to pay for them and those who pay.
She along with the rest of the Dems are doing everything they can to expand the first group. Of the 50 million new people from other countries most will vote for her irregardless of concepts about Constitution, rule of law etc.
-
CCP,
I have raised my right hand multiple times and sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. That constitution means nothing to those in power now. I believed in the inherent wisdom and goodness of the American people. I seriously question that now.
The rule of law and the constitution lie in tatters and the public seems to be more interested in Bruce Jenner's gender crisis. And what better metaphor for America than the Bruce Jenner of my childhood on a Wheaties box as an American Olympic hero and the Bruce Jenner of today preparing to have his smeckle surgically turned into a vajayjay. America today is just as unimaginable and unrecognizable.
We have alleged americans cheering for the jihadists targeting a brave American standing for core American freedoms. Our president does nothing to protect her from the enemies he has allowed to fester in our midst.
This is becoming a country not worth bleeding for, much less dying for. I am not renouncing my country, it is renouncing me and everything I have spent my adult life defending. If we continue down this path, then I am done. I went into law enforcement because I saw it as a sacred calling. I used to encourage talented people to consider it as a career or volunteer opportunity. I no longer do so.
So, what's on TV?
-
I'd be lying if I didn't say there aren't days when I feel the very same thing.
On the other hand, we can fight to preserve our Republic. Defeating Hillary, perhaps by Rubio, would be a good start. Continuing the good fight on this forum (check out the reads/posts ratios!) has its merits too.
-
To clarify the clear choice comment, recall that Bill Clinton first ran as a centrist. Once elected he started left, but by the time of his reelection his accomplishments were Republican policies, including free trade and welfare reform. By the time he left office he was taking credit for Republican capital gains cuts, economic growth and balanced budgets. Obama as a candidate played down far left and talked in cliches and euphemisms; he rarely spoke honestly about specific policy intentions.
Hillary is a technocrat more than a visionary. As she lays down leftist stands, she pins herself down. That isn't what got the others to the White House.
(ccp) "The choice is the same. Those who want government to pay for them and those who pay."
Among those receiving public support are the elderly, veterans, retired federal workers, disabled, etc. It is not logical for them to want the country that supports them to collapse and implode. It is not their dream that their children grow up forever dependent on government. It comes down to a contest of which vision grows prosperity better.
Yes, she will win some of these groups, but the margin and turnout will determine the outcome A charismatic and persuasive Republican can make significant inroads and she doesn't have the skills of those who won previously.
For people who believe government is a big part of the answer, the best way to finance is to support a vibrant and dynamic private sector. Their side can sell on emotion, but not prevail on logic. Emotion fizzles when people see that their view leads to failure.
To support having top earners pay for all the rest is to hope top earners keep making all the money. In a twisted sort of way, that is the Obama economy. The Dow is up 11,000 points and the rest of us have 0.02% growth. Her agenda so far is for more of the same.
For all the fights we have lost, we can look back and see that our side made glaring unforced political errors. We've picked the wrong candidate with the wrong message at the wrong time plenty of times. Even when we pick well, they often let us down.
Meanwhile, we have been winning some battles too. Look at all these great Governors, Senators now, and the GOP controls 70% of state legislative chambers, 68 out of 98! Conservatives are winning elsewhere too, Britain, Israel, Canada, Australia. Even Sweden is scrambling to reform the welfare state, and the number one issue in Britain was immigration. Socialists have backed down on some of their policies in France.
This time around Hillary and the Dems are making plenty of unforced errors and we are in the process of vetting some very good candidates. With the electoral college the way it is and such a small percentage of the votes truly in play, our side will need to play a near perfect hand all the way through to win. If we do, the upside potential is tremendous.
-
YES.
-
"This is becoming a country not worth bleeding for, much less dying for. I am not renouncing my country, it is renouncing me and everything I have spent my adult life defending. If we continue down this path, then I am done. I went into law enforcement because I saw it as a sacred calling. I used to encourage talented people to consider it as a career or volunteer opportunity. I no longer do so."
I too am demoralized by Obama - the first Black President and what does he do - screw us all over.
I have been demoralized by what has and still is happening with the organized crime in the entertainment business and how nearly everyone can be bought to participate in robbing us with little apparent qualm
I have been further demoralized by the politicians so many of whom are outright corrupt. Going all the way to the top. I was not brought up to be dishonest. Now even all my conceptions of people and the world and our country are being shattered.
To have such liars and shameless people at the top of our government is just so sad. I just don't know if anything can be done till the economy collapses. Only then will people see the forest for the trees (chump change bribes).
:cry:
-
By
Peggy Noonan
May 7, 2015 5:48 p.m. ET
1035 COMMENTS
I have read the Peter Schweizer book “ Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” It is something. Because it is heavily researched and reported and soberly analyzed, it is a highly effective takedown. Because its tone is modest—Mr. Schweizer doesn’t pretend to more than he has, or take wild interpretive leaps—it is believable.
By the end I was certain of two things. A formal investigation, from Congress or the Justice Department, is needed to determine if Hillary Clinton’s State Department functioned, at least to some degree and in some cases, as a pay-for-play operation and whether the Clinton Foundation has functioned, at least in part, as a kind of high-class philanthropic slush fund.
I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive such a book. I suspect she can because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s not news anymore. They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial, and they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you always following us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. “That’s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why should I?”
Mr. Schweizer announces upfront that he cannot prove wrongdoing, only patterns of behavior. There is no memo that says, “To all staff: If we deal this week with any issues regarding Country A, I want you to know country A just gave my husband $750,000 for a speech, so give them what they want.” Even if Mrs. Clinton hadn’t destroyed her emails, no such memo would be found. (Though patterns, dates and dynamics might be discerned.)
Mr. Schweizer writes of “the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation . . . from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers.” It is illegal for foreign nationals to give to U.S. political campaigns, but foreign money, given as donations to the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts: “No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.” The speaking fees Bill commands are “enormous and unprecedented,” as high as $750,000 a speech. On occasion they have been paid by nations or entities that had “matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk” when she was at State.
From 2001 through 2012 Bill collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of millions for the foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she saw no conflict. President Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.” Revealingly, they amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes of the developed world.” Their “most lucrative transactions” did not involve countries like Germany and Britain, where modern ethical rules and procedures are in force, but emerging nations, where regulations are lax.
How did it work? “Bill flew around the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by ‘close friends’ or associates who happened to have business interests pending in these countries.” Introductions were made, conversations had. “Meanwhile, bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of state.”
Mr. Schweizer tells a story with national-security implications. Kazakhstan has rich uranium deposits, coveted by those who’d make or sell nuclear reactors or bombs. In 2006 Bill Clinton meets publicly and privately with Kazakhstan’s dictator, an unsavory character in need of respectability. Bill brings along a friend, a Canadian mining tycoon named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra wanted some mines. Then the deal was held up. A Kazakh official later said Sen. Clinton became involved. Mr. Giustra got what he wanted.
Soon after, he gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million. A year later Mr. Giustra’s company merged with a South African concern called Uranium One. Shareholders later wrote millions of dollars in checks to the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Giustra announced a commitment of $100 million to a joint venture, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative.
It doesn’t end there. When Hillary was secretary of state, Russia moved for a bigger piece of the world uranium market. The Russians wanted to acquire Uranium One, which had significant holdings in the U.S. That meant the acquisition would require federal approval. Many had reservations: Would Russian control of so much U.S. uranium be in America’s interests? The State Department was among the agencies that had to sign off. Money from interested parties rolled into the foundation. The deal was approved. The result? “Half of projected American uranium production” was “transferred to a private company controlled” by Russia, which soon owned it outright.
What would a man like Vladimir Putin think when he finds out he can work the U.S. system like this? He’d think it deeply decadent. He’d think it weak. Is that why he laughs when we lecture him on morals?
Mr. Schweizer offers a tough view of the Clinton Foundation itself. It is not a “traditional charity,” in that there is a problem “delineating where the Clinton political machines and moneymaking ventures end and where their charity begins.” The causes it promotes—preventing obesity, alleviating AIDS suffering—are worthy, and it does some good, but mostly it functions as a middleman. The foundation’s website shows the Clintons holding sick children in Africa, but unlike Doctors Without Borders and Samaritan’s Purse, the foundation does “little hands-on humanitarian work.” It employs longtime Clinton associates and aides, providing jobs “to those who served the Clintons when in power and who may serve them again.” The Better Business Bureau in 2013 said it failed to meet minimum standards of accountability and transparency. Mr. Schweizer notes that “at least four Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged or convicted of financial crimes including bribery and fraud.”
There’s more. Mrs. Clinton has yet to address any of it.
If the book is true—if it’s half-true—it is a dirty story.
It would be good if the public, the Democratic Party and the Washington political class would register some horror, or at least dismay.
I write on the eve of the 70th anniversary of V-E Day, May 8, 1945. America had just saved the world. The leaders of the world respected us—a great people led by tough men. What do they think now? Scary to think, isn’t it?
-
The heavyset 60-year-old man who walked with a cane seemed an unlikely speaker at the glamorous launch party for a cosmetics company held in Santa Monica, Calif., in March.
But Tony Rodham appeared at ease among the special guests and well-heeled investors, offering them encouragement as well as an invitation.
“If there’s anything I can ever do for any of you, let me know,” Mr. Rodham said. “I’ll be more than happy to do it.”
A promotional video of the party that the cosmetics company later released identified the speaker as “the youngest brother of former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton,” a relationship that has been Mr. Rodham’s calling card since the days of the Clinton White House.
On and off for two decades, the affable Mr. Rodham has tried to use his connections with his sister and his brother-in-law, former President Bill Clinton, to further a business career that has seen more failures than successes. The connections to the Clintons have given Mr. Rodham, a self-described “facilitator,” a unique appeal and a range of opportunities, like addressing Chinese investor conferences and joining an advisory board of a company seeking permission to mine for gold in Haiti.
But his business dealings have often invited public scrutiny and uncomfortable questions for the Clintons as Mr. Rodham has cycled through a variety of ventures, leveraging his ties to them and sometimes directly seeking their help.
When Mr. Clinton worked as a co-chairman of Haiti’s earthquake recovery commission, Mr. Rodham and his partners sought a $22 million deal to rebuild homes in the country. In court proceedings three years ago in an unrelated lawsuit, Mr. Rodham explained how “a guy in Haiti” had “donated” 10,000 acres of land to him and described how he had leaned on Mr. Clinton to get the rebuilding project funded amid bureaucratic delays.
“I deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials,” Mr. Rodham said, according to a transcript of his testimony. “I hound my brother-in-law, because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.
“And he keeps telling me, ‘Oh, it’s going to happen tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.’ Well, tomorrow hasn’t come yet.”
Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project never did happen. The Clinton Foundation said in a statement that it was not aware of Mr. Rodham’s Haiti project and had no involvement in it. Mr. Clinton’s office said he had not been involved in any of Mr. Rodham’s pursuits in Haiti.
But Mr. Rodham was able to prevail on the former president for help in other ways.
When Mr. Rodham was short on cash in 2010, Mr. Clinton helped get him a job for $72,000 a year raising investments in GreenTech Automotive, an electric car company then owned by Terry McAuliffe, an old friend of Mr. Clinton’s and now the governor of Virginia.
“I was complaining to my brother-in-law I didn’t have any money. And he asked McAuliffe to give me a job,” Mr. Rodham said during the court proceedings, which were the result of a lawsuit over unpaid legal bills filed by his lawyer in a child support case.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
A brother down on his luck seeking help from more successful siblings is a familiar story, and presidents and their families have hardly been immune from that sometimes uncomfortable situation. For the Clintons, Tony Rodham has not been the only source of embarrassment.
Mrs. Clinton’s other brother, Hugh Rodham, stumbled through an unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in Florida during Mr. Clinton’s first term. Roger Clinton, the former president’s brother, served a year in federal prison on a cocaine distribution charge. And all three were involved in lobbying Mr. Clinton for pardons for their associates as he left office, prompting a congressional inquiry.
“They’re all colorful,” Rahm Emanuel, a former Clinton aide who later became mayor of Chicago, said in an interview in 2001. “They’re all living large.”
As Mrs. Clinton began her 2016 campaign for the presidency, Hugh Rodham and Roger Clinton had faded from public view, but Tony Rodham emerged as a controversial figure. A government investigation in March found that GreenTech, which sought green cards for its Chinese investors through an American government program, had received special treatment in the handling of its visa applications. The report described instances when Mr. McAuliffe and Mr. Rodham contacted an official from the Department of Homeland Security to complain about the pace of the visa process.
Mr. Rodham’s unsuccessful pursuit of housing contracts in Haiti, which has not previously been reported, raised new questions.
As Mrs. Clinton campaigns, she speaks fondly of her brothers. At a stop in Iowa, she recalled them working together at her father’s drapery business. Her official campaign biography prominently mentions them.
“She loves her family more than anything,” said Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “Her brothers have always been there for her, and she will always be there for them. Each, though, have their own lives, their own jobs, their own ups and downs.”
Continue reading the main story
Poll Shows Lack of Excitement Over Presidential Hopefuls 09:00 AM ET
Today in Politics: Trade Fight Intensifies as Vote Looms 06:51 AM ET
Rand Paul Plays Down Comments on Military Exercise After Mockery 3:31 PM ET
As the youngest of three children, Tony Rodham has lived in the shadow of his sister. He never finished college, and he worked at a variety of jobs — as a prison guard, private detective and at the Democratic National Committee — until after the Clintons were in the White House, when he became a consultant and deal broker. He was once married to Nicole Boxer, the daughter of Senator Barbara Boxer of California.
He lives with his second wife, Megan, and two young children in a large house on a hill in Vienna, Va., a suburb of Washington. He declined to speak to a reporter who went to his door one afternoon in April, and he did not respond to other messages seeking comment for this article.
But in a statement from Mr. Rodham passed on by the Clinton campaign, he said that he wanted to protect his family’s privacy and that he would not engage in disputing claims about him, which he said he considered to be political attacks.
His wife said the family was excited about Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for president.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
“The kids love their Aunt Hillary,” she said. “We are supportive, and we are excited.”
Mr. Rodham described his dire financial situation during the court proceedings in 2012. As a result of a series of failed business deals — including some in oil and gas, water, housing, tutoring and pharmaceuticals — he said he had not made a mortgage payment in 10 months and was fighting home foreclosure.
The Clintons, he said, had been generous, even paying for his son’s schooling, but they were not going to give him more money. “Hillary and Bill are done,” he said. “I mean, look at what they’ve done for me. They’ve given me money all the time.”
Mr. Clinton’s willingness to assist in getting him work with Mr. McAuliffe was helpful, Mr. Rodham said, but at $6,000 a month, it was not enough. “It’s kind of like the job he got me a long time ago when I worked in the prison,” he said.
Even more important, according to Mr. Rodham, was what he said was going to be Mr. Clinton’s help on his Haiti rebuilding project. That project came about when Sheldon Drobny, an old friend, contacted Mr. Rodham about making a connection for a Chicago-area contractor, who wanted to become involved in building houses in Haiti.
“We were trying to help. Period,” Mr. Drobny, a co-founder of Air America Radio, the former liberal talk network, said in a phone interview. He called the effort “humanitarian.”
Mr. Drobny said he had connected with Mr. Rodham because of what he believed were his ties to the Clinton Foundation, which was playing a central role in the rebuilding efforts. Ultimately, he said, nothing happened “because the Haiti government was not cooperative.”
The Clinton Foundation said in its statement that aside from supporting a housing exposition in Haiti, it had not been directly involved with any housing projects. The foundation also said Mr. Rodham’s project had not been among the more than 300 submitted for consideration at the expo.
Mr. Rodham projected that he could make $1 million on the Haiti deal if it came to pass — enough money, he said in his court testimony, to take his family to Disney World and cover his debts, including his legal bills and his long overdue federal taxes.
Mr. Rodham eventually settled his bill with his former lawyer, Gwendolyn Jo M. Carlberg. Ms. Carlberg said in a phone interview that, despite her lawsuit, she did not have a negative view of Mr. Rodham. “I found a lot of good in Tony,” she said.
He is still sought after for deals and personal appearances.
That was the case in March when Mr. Rodham attended the celebration of Wynn Beauty & Health in Santa Monica, which included a performance from an “American Idol” contestant. In addition to appearing in the promotional video, Mr. Rodham posed for at least a dozen photos.
But after a reporter contacted Wynn Beauty & Health, Mr. Rodham was removed from the video and photos of him disappeared from the company’s Facebook page. In an email, the company said that Mr. Rodham was not involved in the business and that he had appeared at the celebration only as a longtime friend offering congratulations.
-
Has everyone seen the Hillary Clinton Air Fresheners that are hung out as signs to greet her?
These apparently help with the stench of corruption that accompany her visits.
http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/05/Hillary-LA-4-copy.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=480%2C600
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/a-warm-welcome-for-hillary-in-la.php
___________________________________________
Hillary has taken no questions from the press in 21 days? I am not trying escape my bet loss with ccp but this is hardly what we used to call running for President.
-
She is waiting for the various scandals to age out so she can deflect questions about them as old news.
-
The banks are too big to fail. Hillary is too big to jail.
-
May I please recommend that anyone/everyone that would like to be informed on this subject take the time and listen to this commercial-free radio-like interview.
If a liberal tells you that there's nothing there, nothing wrong, not a shred of evidence as they are trained to say, you should be able to refute that with concise facts and make the case that this nothing short of corruption.
For the commodities scandal, the soundbite I took from it is that mathematically there is a one in 34 trillion chance her gains happened on her own as she alleged. What is the simplest, most persuasive story within Clinton Cash that demonstrates this to be influence peddling at the highest level?
THE POWER LINE SHOW, EPISODE 16: CLINTON CASH, WITH PETER SCHWEIZER
Podcast is down the page at this link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/the-power-line-show-episode-16-clinton-cash-with-peter-schweizer-2.php
https://ricochet.com/podcasts/the-stories-inside-clinton-cash/
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Powerline_Ep15.mp3
Powerline's John Hinderaker starts the interview saying: "I read Clinton Cash cover to cover this afternoon and my conclusion is that the Clintons are a criminal syndicate."
Schweitzer tells how he reached out to journalists at the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC News to follow his trail, verify his facts and help bring this story out with the release of this book.
The first 36 minutes are the interview and the rest is other discussion.
-
Listening to it now; I've posted it on my FB page.
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/hillary-wants-the-power-to-ban-books-and-movies-that-criticize-her.php
Beneath her.
-
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money
-
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/#.VVKoBUZWlFo.facebook
:x
-
(From Benghazi)
A smoking gun about what we already know happened.
Nonetheless 45% of the country will ignore this: So she lied. So what......... they all do....... just right wing loons making a stink over a non scandal.......
we just need to know the real Hillary..... what a really nice person she is.......
yadda yadda.
Two decades of Democrats ignoring sliminess. Only worse now. Not better.
You're about right with that 45% number, about the number who allegedly still approve of Obama now despite all that has happened. Still, they have to hold their nose with that support. General polls don't tell is how many will turn out. Obama won at the level of his poll numbers with magical (or criminal) turnout. How excited are young people about HRC, running on a platform of more of the same, while home ownership hits a quarter century low and college grads live unemployed in their parents' home. How excited are blacks and other minorities to see an old, white, privileged woman win the Presidency?
The only excitement comes from a shot at getting some of her big campaign money to come your way. That, too, only goes to the powerful and connected.
What they have left is the usual fear factor - the scary Republicans are going to take away all your free stuff. That message has been losing lately in 70% of the state legislative chambers.
The table is set for a Republican with charisma and skill to inspire people to do better than this.
-
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8501643/Clinton-foundation-donors-State
181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied the State Department WHEN HILLARY RAN THE PLACE.
Liberal source. Read the list.
"Not a shred of evidence"
-
Why Was The Clinton Foundation Paying Sidney Blumenthal While Hillary Was Secretary Of State?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 19, 2015
Foundation Claims Hillary Hitman Helped Plan "Commemorative Events"
The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton received more than thirty detailed "intelligence briefings" from long-time Clinton lieutenant Sidney Blumenthal about Libya and Syria while she was Secretary of State. The memos did not disclose Blumenthal's business ties to parties in Libya.
While a casual reader might have laughed at them, Hillary circulated the memos to her top staff and even asked for comments.
And, at the same time that he was churning out the "intelligence reports" to Hillary, Blumenthal was being paid by the Clinton Foundation. For what?
A Clinton Foundation spokesman told the Times that "Blumenthal would help with research, "message guidance" and the planning of commemorative events, according to foundation officials."
Oh, right, Sidney was an event planner? Are they kidding? What did he do -- look for the caterers and decide on the font size for the invitations? And, by the way, the only "commemorative event" on the Foundation schedule was the "10th Anniversary of the Clinton Library" which was celebrated on November 14, 2014. So it's doubtful that he was working on the hors d'oeuvres three years earlier. No, he was doing something else.
As for research, the Clinton Foundation employs thousands of people who are familiar with their programs and really didn't need Sidney's talents. His forte is negative research, character assassination, hit jobs to destroy any Clinton opponents.
As for "message guidance," whose message are we talking about here? Hillary's or the Foundation's?
So what was he doing for the Foundation? Did Hillary use the "charitable" Clinton Foundation to pay for advice to her? Political advice? And did she pay Sidney for the "intelligence reports" through the Foundation?
And maybe for advice on how to finesse the Benghazi mess after she left the State Department?
What's going on here?
Blumenthal has always been one of Hillary's closest confidants feeding her innate paranoia. It was Sidney who originated Hillary's favorite phrase "the vast right wing conspiracy." During the impeachment process he was also the source of a false media campaign (at Hillary's behest) accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a "stalker" of an innocent President who was only trying to "minister" to her. That earned him big points with Hillary.
Sidney is no foreign policy expert. He has absolutely no experience in that realm. And, the White House had refused to allow Hillary to hire him.
So why did Hillary get the Foundation to hire Blumenthal? Was she using the Foundation as her secret political arm - putting Blumenthal on the payroll to advise her on her presidential campaign and on how to spin Benghazi? Was that part of a pattern?
Remember that Huma Abedin was also paid by the Foundation while she worked at the State Department and at Teneo. Was anyone else?
With Hillary in hiding and the Foundation in panic mode, we're not likely to see answers anytime soon.
-
second post
-
Blame Hillary For Email Delay
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 19, 2015
Hillary Deliberately Caused Delay Of Email Release By Submitting Only Paper Copies
Hillary Clinton ended her 37-day boycott of the press today when she spent a few minutes claiming she wants her emails released by the State Department ASAP.
But here's the thing: the only reason that there's been such a long delay is that Hillary deliberately delivered the 550,000 emails in hard copies, instead of in electronic files.
Why does that make a difference?
Because that meant every single one of the 550,000 pages has to be manually scanned. And, to make it even harder, Hillary made sure that some of the documents were copies on both sides. That took 5 weeks of 12 people working full time to complete.
And Hillary knew that would create just one more obstacle and cause an enormous delay.
She also knew that the paper files couldn't be searched like electronic files. And she didn't want to make it easy to connect the dots.
So her fervent wish for the release of the documents is as phone as her claims that she did nothing wrong when she set up her home-brew server and use it for her official State Department documents.
She thinks we are all stupid and that we don't get it. But we do: Hillary set up her home server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, she did just that, and once caught, she wiped her server clean and got rid of everything she didn't want us to see.
We get it Hillary.
The 2016 Buzz -- All The Latest News on the Candidates and Issues.
Click Here to view the 2016 Buzz!
-
"... the only reason that there's been such a long delay is that Hillary deliberately delivered the 550,000 emails in hard copies, instead of in electronic ... She knew that the paper files couldn't be searched like electronic files. ...
She thinks we are all stupid and that we don't get it. But we do: Hillary set up her home server to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, she did just that, and once caught, she wiped her server clean and got rid of everything she didn't want us to see."
[/quote]
Too bad to live in a world where Dick Morris can make this most obvious observation that none of the so-called mainstream networks or newspapers can.
Rush L had a long montage of msm reporting on how Hillary finally answered questions.
No she didn't.
-
"Rush L had a long montage of msm reporting on how Hillary finally answered questions"
I heard part of it too.
She spoke and her supporters in the media had a crumb with which they could say, "see she answered all questions" without adding now we can move on with a sigh of relief.
She's their girl. That's it. Nothing else will matter. Interesting the Mika on Morning Joe said that Republicans will not vote for a less than conservative candidate while liberals will vote for one who (pretends) to be too far to the right.
While some Repubs will stay home as I might the libs will vote for their gal no matter what.
Some of the Dems interviewed state how the "alleged" email or Benghazi scandal sort of bothers them there are simply more important things going on. First they absolutely hate to criticize her for any reason then rationalize even in the face of the obvious that it just isn't important enough. It is always the big government crowd too.
-
The State Department on Friday published about 848 of the some 55,000 pages of emails that Hillary Clinton personally decided were relevant before erasing the rest of her private server. Yet even this twice cherry-picked dossier—with a focus on the 2011-2012 Libya crisis—is revealing about the kind of operation she was running at Foggy Bottom. All that’s missing is the shoe phone from the “Get Smart” spy farce.
Opinion Journal Video
Assistant Editorial Page Editor James Freeman on the unanswered questions about the Clinton Foundation and the former President’s speaking fees. Photo credit: Getty Images.
In the pre-Memorial Day weekend news dump, long-time Clinton plumber Sidney Blumenthal plays Maxwell Smart, passing along intel on Benghazi from half a world away. Secret Agent Blumenthal apparently derived this wisdom from his new business associates who were attempting to win contracts from Libyan nationals. Mrs. Clinton often circulates the memos among her top diplomats with comments like “useful insight” and “very interesting,” and they would often then push them down the chain of command, without identifying the source.
Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of State, for heaven’s sake, one of the five most powerful national security positions in the U.S. government. She had the entire State Department intelligence division at her disposal, known as the Bureau of Intelligence and Research or INR, and presumably had access to the 16 other U.S. agencies that make up the intelligence community.
Yet she’s consuming and taking seriously information from an “analyst” who knows nothing about the subject. Mr. Blumenthal’s expertise is in political wet work and monetizing his connections to the Clintons. The imprimatur that Mrs. Clinton’s office put on Mr. Blumenthal’s outside improv offered him a way to influence policy even after the Obama White House had barred Mrs. Clinton from formally hiring him.
Somehow we doubt the distinguished likes of Dean Acheson or George Shultz were taking the measure of Moscow on the counsel of amateur stringers dabbling in Kremlinology and sending hearsay over the transom.
Mrs. Clinton now wants to be an American President. Will we have Sid set up his own parallel intelligence service from Blair House? What other Clinton henchmen will be reprising their roles from the 1990s, only this time with a national-security portfolio?
Mr. Blumenthal even does a cameo on the terrorist assaults on the Benghazi diplomatic mission and CIA annex that killed four Americans including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. On Sept. 12, 2012, Mr. Blumenthal reports to Mrs. Clinton—based on “Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services”—that the attack was merely a mob inspired by what they viewed as a “sacrilegious internet video.”
The Administration went with that narrative, with National Security Adviser Susan Rice repeatedly claiming that “it was a spontaneous, not a premeditated response.” The goal was to blame YouTube, not the Administration’s foreign policy failures.
Yet the next day, citing “sensitive sources,” Mr. Blumenthal recanted and explained that the attack had been orchestrated by al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. “We should get this around asap,” Mrs. Clinton told Jake Sullivan, who did work at State. No wonder she couldn’t get her Benghazi story straight for so long.
Notably, and intriguingly, there are also selective omissions in the State disclosures that do not appear in the batch of emails obtained by the New York Times, about a third of the Libya trove. On April 8, 2011, for example, Mrs. Clinton (“hrod17@clintonemail.com”) suggests that “The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.” This line was redacted by State.
Mrs. Clinton also seems to have had sensitive, if not classified, information on her email like the location and travel schedules of U.S. security officials. They could have been compromised if foreign enemies hacked her unsecured personal email account, which is why there are supposed to be protocols to protect high-level communications.
The larger question isn’t Mr. Blumenthal’s faux life of danger. It’s why a potential Commander in Chief invested so much trust in such a figure. The Southern Gothic novel that is Clinton family political history—with its melodrama, betrayals and paranoia—has left them dependent on insular loyalists like Mr. Blumenthal whose opinions are never second-guessed. Voters should know they’d not only be electing Hillary, and Bill, and Chelsea, but this entire menagerie.
Popular on WSJ
Want Great Longevity and Health? It Takes a Village
Want Great Longevity and Health? It Takes a Village
The Trigger-Happy Generation
Opinion: The Trigger-Happy Generation
Better Than Raising the Minimum Wage
Opinion: Better Than Raising the Minimum Wage
U.S. Strategy Against Islamic State Under Scrutiny
U.S. Strategy Against Islamic State Under Scrutiny
School’s Out Forever
School’s Out Forever
Videos
[http://m.wsj.net/video/20150522/052215sdemails/052215sdemails_167x94.jpg]
Clinton's Emails: Why Releasing Them All Takes So Long
[http://m.wsj.net/video/20150522/052215gradspeech/052215gradspeech_167x94.jpg]
The Funniest Commencement Speeches of 2015
[http://m.wsj.net/video/20150522/052215ukabuse/052215ukabuse_167x94.jpg]
Whistleblower's Account of Mass Child Abuse in England
[http://m.wsj.net/video/20150521/052115nysubway/052115nysubway_167x94.jpg]
Update From Underground: NYC's Second Avenue Subway
[http://m.wsj.net/video/20150521/052115palmyraunesco/052115palmyraunesco_167x94.jpg]
Islamic State Gains Strategic and Cultural Treasure
Set your profile to public to comment
There are 198 comments.
All comments will display your real name. Read our commenting rules.
NewestOldestReader Recommended
Foster Nickerson
Foster Nickerson 15 minutes ago
What these emails demonstrate is that Madam Secretary knew that her employes were in an exposed and dangerous place, refused their request for protection and then attempted to coverup her malfeasance / misfeasance, when they were attacked and overrun.
Flag ButtonShare
TOM PAINTER
TOM PAINTER 28 minutes ago
Billary and Blumenthal; one hand washing the other, on the tax payers dime.
Flag ButtonShare
1
David Rosenberg
David Rosenberg 52 minutes ago
Sounds to me that we would be better off if more folks had listened to his intelligence.
Flag ButtonShare
-
Old old email joke updated slightly.
Dear Abby,
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning, and when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows that the cheats on me. It is so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job more than 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and shoot the bull with his buddies, while I work to pay the bills.
Ever since our daughter went away to college he doesn't even pretend to like me, even hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Clueless in New York
Dear Clueless in New York, Grow up and dump him. Good grief woman! You don't need him anymore! You're running for President of the United States. Act like one.
Abby
-
When supporters say they can't think of an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, they are missing an obvious one. The disaster in Libya is her accomplishment.
HILLARY’S REAL BENGHAZI PROBLEM (John Hinderaker, Powerline)
Yesterday the State Department released a handful of Hillary Clinton’s emails relating to Benghazi. They have been selected at least twice for release to the public, once by Hillary’s minions and once by the Department, so on one expected any bombshells. Nevertheless, I find them surprisingly interesting. This post addresses what I think is the most important point. I will cover a few smaller matters in a future post. This batch of emails, in their entirety, are at the bottom of this post, so you can read them for yourself.
In my opinion, Hillary’s biggest problem isn’t Benghazi per se, it is the broader issue of Libya. Why were Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans murdered? Because by September 2012, Libya was a terrorist playground. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Libya has become a failed state, a 21st century source of boat people, as refugees from ubiquitous violence stream across the Mediterranean. Libya is now a haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups; it was on the Libyan coast that ISIS beheaded 30 Christians. Some of the “refugees” now making their way into Europe are, in fact, ISIS agents. In short, Libya is a disaster.
Whose disaster? Hillary Clinton’s. It was Hillary who, more than anyone else, pushed to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi. Why? No compelling reason. Qaddafi had been tame ever since the Iraq war, which he interpreted as a threat to his rule. Almost incredibly, Clinton and her cohorts in NATO overthrew Qaddafi (who was subsequently murdered by a mob) without having a plan for what would come next.
Who says Hillary Clinton is responsible for the Libya fiasco? She does. In fact, at one point she was poised to claim Libya as the notable accomplishment of her term as Secretary of State. In August 2011, Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s deputy chief of staff, wrote an email in which he summarized “Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya.” He sent to it henchwoman Cheryl Mills and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who passed it on to Hillary. Sullivan’s email begins:
this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S’ [Secretary Clinton's] leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s libya policy from start to finish. let me know what you think.
The email continues, with bold print in the original:
Secretary Clinton’s leadership on Libya
HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings–as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.
Sullivan goes on to itemize, day by day, how Clinton drove the Libya policy not just in the U.S., but in NATO as well. This is a screen shot of the first page of the email; it goes on and on thereafter, showing how Hillary “owned” and was “the public face of,” our Libya policy, “from start to finish.” Click to enlarge:
Screen Shot
http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/05/Screen-Shot-2015-05-23-at-11.32.04-AM.png?zoom=1.5&resize=580%2C459
Hillary’s problem is not primarily the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, outrageous as those murders were. Rather, her real problem is that she bears primary responsibility for a policy that was not just a failure, but a disaster. Further, it was a policy that, as you can see from Sullivan’s email, she intended to be a crown jewel of her years as Secretary of State and, no doubt, a chief credential in her run for the presidency. Instead, it blew up in her face–worse, in ours–like an exploding cigar.
The Benghazi murders are of course important. But it is critical to recognize that they resulted not just from a lack of adequate security or other misjudgments that may have been made at the time. Rather, the fact that terrorists were largely in control of Benghazi by September 2012 was the direct result of Hillary’s bad judgment in leading the overthrow of Qaddafi while having no plan for what would come after, and no ability to influence events on the ground. It is that poor judgment that disqualifies her as a candidate for the presidency.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/hillarys-real-benghazi-problem.php
https://www.scribd.com/doc/266359920/266273670-Hillary-Clinton-s-Libya-Emails
-
BTW, I'm needing a good definitive description of:
a) What happened the night Vince Foster died, especially with regard to Hillary removing papers from his office;
b) the billing issues with Hillary's law firm, including Webster Hubbell taking the fall and getting a $700k contract from the Riady family of Indonesia (and front for the Red Chinese) upon his release from prison, and the billing papers that mysteriously showed up in Hillary's quarters in the White House.
-
BTW, I'm needing a good definitive description of:
a) What happened the night Vince Foster died, especially with regard to Hillary removing papers from his office;
b) the billing issues with Hillary's law firm, including Webster Hubbell taking the fall and getting a $700k contract from the Riady family of Indonesia (and front for the Red Chinese) upon his release from prison, and the billing papers that mysteriously showed up in Hillary's quarters in the White House.
Isn't it perfectly normal to ransack a lawyer's office after a suicide, before the police arrive?
"In an account directly at odds with the White House, a Secret Service officer testified Wednesday that he saw Hillary Rodham Clinton's top aide leave Vincent Foster's office area with a stack of documents the night of Foster's death. The aide denied doing so. Margaret Williams, the first lady's chief of staff, "was carrying, in her arms and her hands, what I would describe as file folders," Secret Service officer Henry P. O'Neill told the Senate Whitewater Committee. "She walked past me . . . and started to enter her office, and she had to brace the folders on her arms against a cabinet," he said. "She came out a few moments later and locked her office." "I took nothing from Vince's office," Williams insisted in an opening statement shortly before the panel took a lunch break."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-07-26/news/9507270254_1_henry-p-o-neill-vincent-foster-aide
Other accounts/sources:
The Night Foster Died
http://www.newsweek.com/night-foster-died-184870
The Special Committee's Whitewater Report
FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WW/white6.html
The Riadys' Persistent Pursuit of Influence
By Sharon LaFraniere, John Pomfret and Lena H. Sun
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 27, 1997; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf052797.htm
The Riadys also promoted Hubbell at Suharto's presidential palace as someone "influential with Bill Clinton," said another Indonesian official. After Hubbell resigned from the Justice Department amid allegations of fraud, James Riady arranged for him to tour Indonesia.
...
James Riady masterminded a giving campaign of Lippo executives to the Democratic Party, beginning in 1988. Federal Election Commission records indicate Riady, Lippo executives and business executives contributed more than $700,000 to the Democratic National Committee since 1991.
Hubbell Got $700,000 for Little or No Work, House Probe Shows
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/hubbell042498.htm
See if your Clinton sympathizing friends can explain all of THIS:
(http://prorev.com/arkflow.JPG)
http://prorev.com/connex.htm
-
"where the country is only benefiting from the scrappy fighters on the Republican side...Mrs. Clinton and her party lack that “oomph.” They must keep in mind that inevitability is hardly a winning strategy."
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article21640572.html#storylink=cpy
-
From Friday's slow news day news dump:
HRC: "all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately."
- In fact, none of it was, except maybe wedding planning etc. Even that should have had better security.
As early as April 2011, Clinton was forwarded a message sent to her staff that the situation in the country had worsened to the point "where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi," The email was marked "Importance: High."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/24/sliver_of_clinton_emails_hint_at_lingering_political_trouble_126712.html
Enemies and Snowden type hackers all knew or could have known the whereabouts of our soon to be murdered Ambassador along with his admitted lack of security.
There ought to be a department or administration rule against exposing that.
-
Doug:
Thank your for running down the info which I requested.
-
Doug:
Thank your for running down the info which I requested.
You're welcome. Look forward to learning what comes from it. Sounds like you may be in a discussion where someone denies suspicious behavior by the Clintons...
Not only was it Hillary's assistant seen by a credible Secret Service source with the files before the police could seal it off, but we know she received an urgent, off-hours communication from Hillary immediately preceding that act.
Regarding Riady and Hubbell, the trading of money for favors with the Clintons is so common, persistent and well-known that each instance of it doesn't seem newsworthy. Others like the VA Governor and NJ Senator face prosecution for less.
The patterns in these are like those in the commodities trades where there is a 1 in 34 trillion chance that what we were told by the Clintons is true, that these events happened just the way they did without wrongdoing.
Maybe Maggie Williams already had an armload of files before she entered the dead man's office and just wanted to turn his light off when she was the first one there to know he wasn't coming back that night. Maybe a maid brought the missing Whitewater file from Vince Foster's office to the closet of the Clinton living quarters - thinking that legal documents in folders were actually Hillary's shoes. And maybe Hillary's page sent to Williams immediately upon learning of her close friend's death was regarding the next day's lunch plans. There are so many innocent explanations; people will believe what they will.
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/more-on-hillarys-benghazi-emails.php
Commentary with images of actual emails. From the start it was presetned to her as an "attack by mortar fire"
Hinderaker: "Demonstrators and protesters don't use mortars."
Interesting progression on the word spontaneous. They are pleased that Susan Rice has advanced "our view" and then frantic when that story failed to find out whether Hillary had expressly said that. Odd that NPR is their source that THERE WAS NO PROTEST IN BENGHAZI. Does she not have better intel than that?
-
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Jolt&utm_campaign=Jolt05272015
http://thehill.com/regulation/international/243089-hillary-clinton-facing-criticism-over-international-weapons-deals
========================
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/26/shock-report-the-clintons-operated-a-shell-company-to-funnel-payments-to-bill-clinton/
-
In 2003, Restrictionist Hillary told conservative radio host John Grambling that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants” and that “we’ve got to do more at our borders.”
In 2006, while serving in the Senate, Restrictionist Hillary told the New York Daily News that she supported more fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border because “a country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations.” That same year, she voted for the Secure Fence Act, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing.
In 2008, during a presidential debate with Barack Obama, Restrictionist Hillary tried to woo organized labor by blaming lost jobs on “employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages.” She mentioned an African-American man who had told her: “I used to have a lot of construction jobs, and now it just seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation.”
During that debate, Clinton also said that she didn’t agree with “deporting people, rounding them up.” Yet, while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, Restrictionist Hillary was part of an administration that turned that into an art form.
And in 2014, as more than 60,000 refugees from Central America – most of them unaccompanied children – crossed the U.S.-Mexico border, Restrictionist Hillary said coldly during a CNN town hall that the kids “should be sent back” because “we have to send a clear message: Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.”
...
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/24/ruben-navarrette-on-immigration-hillary-vs-hillary/
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-hit-with-racketeering-lawsuit/article/2565069?utm_campaign=Fox%20News&utm_source=foxnews.com&utm_medium=feed
-
second post
Nepotism Queen Chelsea Doesn't See Jobs As Challenge For Young
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 27, 2015
Nepotism Princess Chelsea Clinton To Write Book For Young People On Most Important Issues; No Mention Of Jobs And Student Loans Debt
Chelsea Clinton is writing a book to teach young people about the biggest challenges in the world today -- as she sees it. Those include "climate change, gender equality, and non-communicable diseases."
Hasn't even one of Chelsea's many hard-working handlers ever mentioned to her that perhaps the most important challenge for young people today is FINDING A JOB! And, right after that, PAYING BACK STUDENT LOANS! Those challenges don't seem to be on Chelsea's radar. Like the rest of her family, she lives in a bubble and has no clue about what's going on in the real world.
Does she really think that "non-communicable diseases" is what's on young people's list of the most important challenges in their life?
It's obvious that Chelsea Clinton has no understanding about what a real challenge is. How about desperately trying to find a job -- any kind of job -- to pay for basics like food and housing and student loans? Has she not even read about the millions of college graduates who cannot find work after working so hard to build an economically secure life? Is she unaware of the unemployment rate among young people that is only slightly down from a high of 15%? Or the incomprehensible amount of student debt? Anyone ever bring that issue up at any of the lavish parties of the Clinton Foundation?
Seems not. Instead, Chelsea's focus is on the issues constantly bantered about at the Clinton Global Initiative -- the buzz words that she repeats over and over -- gender equality, climate change, same-sex marriage. Oh, and then there's her big concern about elephant poaching. Those are the things that are important to Chelsea. Not jobs and economic security for those who should be the newest members of our work force.
It's not surprising. Unlike the rest of the world, Chelsea has never had to look for a job. They've all been handed to her because of her family name and not because of any special -- or even not so special -- talents. She's the Princess of Nepotism. One of her mother's biggest donors hired her at Avenue Capital, where she didn't exactly wow the financial community. She left after three years, once she realized that she just "couldn't ... care about money."
How touching and insightful. No need to care about money when it's just there for you. No need to worry about student loans when you have degrees from Stanford, Colombia, and Oxford (2) and you didn't need any student loans. No need to worry about money when your parents help your husband's career and their donors invest in his hedge fund, even though it's not too successful. No need to worry about housing when you live in a $10 million apartment in New York. No need to worry about a job when you're given one, regardless of your qualifications (or lack of them).
Really, who needs money?
Certainly not Chelsea. After she left Wall Street, she pursued an academic career, using her family contacts. In 2010, NYU President John Sexton, Friend of Bill, appointed her as Assistant Vice-Provost of the Global Network University at N.Y.U., bringing together Muslims and Jews in New York and around the globe. Not clear what her qualifications were, other than daughter of Bill and Hillary.
When asked about this role, she told Time magazine that she was passionate about: "Trying to really figure out what the right pedagogy should be in multifaith and interfaith education and leadership."
Sounds fascinating. And typical Chelsea Clinton blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.
In 2013, she co-founded and chaired the NYU multifaith "Of Many Institute." She insisted that her interfaith marriage qualified her for this position, since she lives an interfaith life with her Jewish husband. That's a good one.
But when evidence of brutal treatment of workers and violations of basic human rights were lodged against NYU's construction workers at the new campus of the Global Network University in Abu Dhabi, Ms. Clinton was silent about the abuses to her new Muslim constituency.
That's not her department.
Chelsea's next job was as a Special Correspondent for NBC TV. That was a bust, but a lucrative bust. She had a contract for $600,000 a year, although in 2014, she only appeared on four very boring segments, including an interview with the Geico Gecko. So bad was she on camera that she usually does a voice over segment with very actual live time -- if any -- on camera. Even NBC relayed how bad she was and dumped her.
Apparently, Ms. Clinton received very special treatment at NBC. Agents hired by her parents basically came in and convinced the idiots at the network that she would be an asset. They were dead wrong. And she insisted on being treated like a prima donna. NBC staff were told not to approach her, but to go through her producers. The few interviews she did were painful to watch.
She's also paid $300,000 for sitting on the Board of a Barry Diller company. No telling what that's about. Barry and his wife Diane von Furstenberg are big fans and supporters of Bill and Hillary. It's lucrative to have the Clinton last name.
So it's easy to understand why unemployment isn't Chelsea's specialty. Maybe she could get a briefing from a few of the 300 economists her mother is consulting with over an economic policy.
Now Chelsea is Vice-Chairman of the Clinton Foundation, another position she seems to be over her head. She merits one more staff person than her father. He only gets 5, while she gets 6. Bus she has so many important things to do!!! And, although not an inspiring speaker, she goes out to speak on behalf of the organization -- at least five organizations have actually paid to hear her speak. That's hard to believe because she's awkward in front of a microphone, even though she's been practicing it for years. Her speeches are littered with the same canned lines, time after time.
Apparently Chelsea's leadership and management talents are not really appreciated at the Foundation. Since she became involved, lots of folks have left, claiming she was "unpleasant" to deal with. Of course, she's had no management experience.
Chelsea has no experience as an author. But yet the Clinton-friendly publishing house reached out to her anyway. She'll figure it out -- with help from aides, ghosts, etc. And, once again, she'll trade on the Clinton name.
That's what she does. Any advice she has is certainly irrelevant.
Here's what Chelsea has to say about her new book:
"In It's Your World, I try to explain what I think are some of the biggest challenges facing our world today, particularly for young people," said Clinton. "I also explore some of the solutions to those challenges and share stories of inspiring kids and teenagers doing amazing work to help people and our planet have brighter and healthier futures. My hope is that the book will inspire readers to realize that they can start making a difference now, in their own way, for their family, their community, and our world."
Thanks, Chelsea. We can't wait to read it.
-
Clinton Foundation Used By Hillary To Secretly Pay Political Hitman And Amateur Spy, Sid Blumenthal
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 28, 2015
What was Sidney Blumenthal hired to do for his $120,000 a year full-time salary at the Clinton Foundation during the four years that Hillary was Secretary of State? Was he hired to provide off-the-shelf intelligence to Hillary? And to trash her critics and possible opponents?
That's what it looks like.
Blumenthal has always been Hillary's expert on the vast right wing conspiracy and he is superb at stoking her paranoia and investigating and attacking anyone who threatens the Clinton orbit. He's the one that spread the groundless rumor, conceived by Hillary, that Monica Lewinsky was an unwelcome and unstable stalker of an innocent president. Anything for Hillary.
We know that Sidney sent 20 dense emails chock full of cloak and dagger "intel" about Libya and Algeria to the Secretary of State. We also know that Hillary took Sid's information and advice seriously and circulated his emails to her top aides in the State Department (after scrubbing Sid's name).
There's something else we know: Sidney had absolutely no experience in foreign affairs and the source of his information was, in part, a party with a financial interest in Libya.
What we didn't know was that shortly after the Obama Administration refused to allow Hillary to hire Sidney, he landed on the Clinton Foundation payroll -- as a full-time employee with a big salary and benefits. After Hillary left the State Department, Sidney was demoted to a consultant -- he kept his salary but the benefits were cut. It was only a few months ago -- in March -- that he left the Clinton Foundation. Right about the time that his emails surfaced.
At the same time that he worked full-time at the Foundation, Sidney also worked for Media Matters -- the aggressive pro-Hillary group headed by the wacky David Brock. In addition, Sidney was a consultant to a pro-Hillary PAC. He was a busy man -- consumed with defending Hillary.
So Sidney was at Hillary's full disposal while she was Secretary of State. Sidney's claims that he sent the emails as a "private citizen" don't sound too good. He may have been a private citizen, but he was paid by the Clintons.
So maybe his "unsolicited" advice on Libya wasn't so unsolicited after all.
When Hillary was asked about Sidney's emails, she never mentioned his employment at the Clinton Foundation. Here's what she said: "We've been friends for a long time," said Clinton during an event in Iowa. "He sent me emails I passed on in some instances. That's part of the give and take...I'm going to keep talking to my old friends, whoever they are."
Once again, Clinton is skirting the truth. Initially, when Blumenthal's connection to the Clinton Foundation was made public, a spokesman said that he helped with "research" and "planning a commemorative event."
Now that we know that he was a full-time employee, the Clinton Foundation is now saying that Sidney worked on President Clinton's "legacy."
It's now obvious that Sidney was there to help Hillary in her political work. That's not what the Clinton Foundation is supposed to be doing.
Blumenthal has been subpoenaed by the Benghazi Committee. Here's one question it should ask: Did Sidney Blumenthal do any work -- with Media Matters, for example, -- to counter criticisms of Hillary's role in Benghazi?
ONE MORE QUESTION: What other political activities were funded by the Clinton Foundation?
-
My wish is to defeat her on ideology, rather than corruption and character, but while we wait for her trade position, Keysone decision, tax plan and budget, we can take a look at her team.
Meet Cody Shearer, the Strangest Character in Hillary’s Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy
BY BRENDAN BORDELON, National Review (link below)
And you thought Sidney Blumenthal was shady. Few people have heard of Cody Shearer, the unsanctioned diplomat, private eye, and Clinton flunky whose name surfaced in connection with the so-called intelligence reports Sidney Blumenthal was channeling to Hillary Clinton during her time at the State Department. But this shadowy fixture of the Clinton machine was everywhere in the 1990s — including war-torn Bosnia, where he became the subject of a State Department investigation after he represented himself as an agent of the U.S. government and took cash from a genocidal warlord.
Now evidence suggests Shearer, working with his partner Blumenthal, was up to something similar during the 2011 revolution in Libya. And like in the 1990s, the Clintons were lurking on the margins. Much of the intelligence contained in memos fed to the Clinton State Department by Blumenthal was not just self-serving — it was provided by someone with a history of misleading foreign sources, misrepresenting himself as an agent of the U.S. government, and creating trouble for both himself and the United States abroad. Much of the intelligence contained in memos fed to the Clinton State Department by Blumenthal was not just self-serving — it was provided by someone with a history of misrepresenting himself as an agent of the U.S. government.
Though often described as a journalist, Shearer hasn’t written much since the 1980s. His work, like that of his father, Lloyd Shearer, the former editor of Parade magazine, was often gossipy and reputation-ruining. A series of columns the younger Shearer wrote on the sexual proclivities of former Texas senator John Tower sank his nomination for defense secretary in 1989. RELATED: Did Sidney Blumenthal Violate Foreign-Lobbying Laws?
Shearer’s career took a strange turn when the Clintons entered the White House in 1992. His entrée into the first family’s orbit was Strobe Talbott, Shearer’s brother-in-law, who had been a friend of Bill Clinton since the president’s days at Oxford. Talbott served as a deputy secretary in Bill Clinton’s State Department; his brother-in-law took a different route, allegedly working with Clinton enforcer Terry Lenzner to investigate and, at times, intimidate women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.
But Shearer’s political intrigues in the ’90s extended beyond U.S. shores. In the middle of the decade, for reasons that remain unclear, he traveled to Europe to negotiate with associates of Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian-Serb president known to have orchestrated the mass killings of Bosnian Muslims — including the Srebrenica genocide — during the brutal Yugoslav Wars. Representing himself as an agent of the State Department, Shearer told his Serbian contacts, which included members of Karadzic’s family, that he could reduce the severity of impending war-crimes charges if Karadzic surrendered. He claimed he was in contact not only with his brother-in-law, but also with then-secretary of state Madeleine Albright and even with President Clinton himself.
“He said, ‘If you can show to my friends, meaning his brother-in-law and the president, that you can offer a serious line of negotiation, military action to capture Karadzic would not happen,’” the Serbian associate said, according to a 1999 Wall Street Journal article. A subsequent State Department investigation found that the Serbs paid Shearer at least $25,000 for his efforts, though the Serbs themselves claim he was paid much more.
Although Shearer’s negotiations on behalf of the U.S. government were unauthorized, the Wall Street Journal reported that Strobe Talbott knew of his brother-in-law’s activities at least one year before the State Department did and asked him to stop. He only felt compelled to do so, according to the Journal, because Shearer was erroneously informing his Serbian contacts that the U.S. supported a plan to partition Bosnia, not because he was conducting shadow diplomacy with a genocidal warlord.
David Bossie, now the president of the conservative political-action committee Citizens United, first uncovered Shearer’s role in the Bosnia negotiations as a GOP researcher on the House Oversight Committee in the 1990s. The State Department’s inspector general opened an investigation into Shearer’s actions in 1999, but it was never publicly released. “It was just one of those things that fell by the wayside,” says Bossie. “And then the Clintons leave office and it’s all forgotten.” Citizens United is now asking the State Department to release the investigation’s results.
Fast-forward 14 years and, in early 2011, as a State Department-sanctioned revolution against the Qaddafi regime in Libya was picking up steam, longtime Clinton consigliere Sidney Blumenthal was sending “confidential” intelligence memos to Hillary Clinton. He was touting leaders of the Libyan rebel movement with whom he had business dealings and pushing for the hire of private military contractors while working as an adviser to Osprey Global Solutions, a contracting company seeking to do business in Libya.
Shearer was aiding Blumenthal in these “intelligence-gathering” efforts. In one e-mail message from May 2001, first published by Gawker in March, Shearer appears to be serving as the liaison between Blumenthal and “Grange,” the former Army general and CEO of Osprey, as they attempt to organize a small team of contractors to conduct an unspecified mission to the Libyan border from Tunisia. He is also in frequent contact with “K,” a Libyan named Khalifa al Sherif who seems to be feeding Shearer intelligence reports from inside the Libyan revolutionary council.
It’s not clear to what extent Clinton knew she was involving herself with Shearer — National Review was unable to contact Shearer, and the Clinton campaign did not reply to a request for comment. Bossie says the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been notified of Shearer’s past indiscretions in Bosnia and believes that history will prove instructive as to what he was up to in Libya — and on whose behalf.
- Brendan Bordelon is a political reporter for National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419131/meet-cody-shearer-strangest-character-hillarys-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-brendan
-
Is this the point where I have officially lost (again) Phase I of my bet with ccp, that she won't run, won't win the nomination, and won't be elected President?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillarys-first-2016-rally-set-for-june-13-118190.html
Her first attempt, posting a video and a couple of pretend appearances, looked pretty lame. She wasn't really launching yet; she just needed to jump through some legal, financial hoops. You know how the Clintons want to comply with not only the letter but the spirit of the law. Soon she be up to her 2007 pace, announcing her willingness to accept the coronation.
I hope some junior Senator (other than Rubio or Cruz) doesn't step in and mess it up for her,
I bumped into an old friend yesterday, medium lefty, who I enjoy some political banter with. He asked who I was supporting. I said Rubio. He seemed shocked, no response. I asked him who he was supporting and he said Hillary without hesitation. I asked if he liked her for her honesty? No response. I think he likes her now because that's who he wanted last time. That should give her at least as good of a chance to be President as our second place finisher, Rick Santorum. )
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/clinton-foundations-sweden-fundraising-arm-cashed-/
-
"Is this the point where I have officially lost (again) Phase I of my bet with ccp, that she won't run, won't win the nomination, and won't be elected President?"
Doug,
This is one bet a don't like winning.
We've seen before how not only the Clinton mob will NOT TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER but how gullible so many voters are that they can be bought with chump change and emotional politics. We have also seen that honesty , integrity, means so little to so many people as long as they get their tax payer benefits.
That is all the soak the rich crowd care about.
MarK Levin keeps pointing out how Reagan, the last real conservative, won two landslide elections.
The electorate is not the same as then. At least 50 million people in this country not born here and 80% of those are Democrats. I do not feel confident we can win them over when going up against tax for cash for vote politicians.
I guess I sound like a broken record at this point.
Maybe one of the Repubs will break through. Jeb is NOT the guy. For the fourth time. After H we got Clinton. After W we got a Obama. Jeb is not different then them no matter what they say.
WE don't need a "grown-up". If I hear Bush and his crowd say this once more. We need a conservative leader who believes in America. Not one world government.
I am also tired of Perrino on Fox. What a self serving phoney she is. I don't trust any Bush people except (ironically) W, Cheney and a few others.
-
Breitbart:
Below we chronicle just 21 of the myriad Clinton Cash-related revelations that have emerged since the book’s publication—all of which have been confirmed and verified as accurate by national media organizations.
Huffington Post: Clintons Bagged at Least $3.4 Million for 18 Speeches Funded by Keystone Pipeline Banks
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and TD Bank—two of the Keystone XL pipeline’s largest investors—fully or partially bankrolled eight Hillary Clinton speeches that “put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate’s pocket,” reports the Huffington Post.
Moreover, according to Clinton Cash, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State, Bill Clinton delivered 10 speeches from Nov. 2008 to mid-2011 totaling $1.8 million paid for by TD Bank, which held a $1.6 billion investment in the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Clintons’ speaking fees windfall, which has infuriated environmental groups, have yet to be addressed by Hillary Clinton.
New York Times: Clinton Foundation Shook Down a Tiny Tsunami Relief Nonprofit for a $500,000 Speaking Fee
Bill Clinton refused to give a speech for a tiny nonprofit seeking to raise money for tsunami victims until the group agreed to pay a $500,000 speaking fee to the Clinton Foundation. The Times reported that the Clinton Foundation “sent the charity an invoice,” which “amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds—enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.”
New York Magazine: Clinton Foundation “Strong-Armed” Charity Watchdog Group
When “the Clinton Foundation wound up on a ‘watch list’ maintained by the Charity Navigator, dubbed the ‘most prominent’ nonprofit watchdog,” reported New York Magazine writer Gabriel Sherman, “the Foundation attempted to strong-arm them by calling a Navigator board member.”
International Business Times: Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Gave Clinton Foundation Donors Weapons Deals
“Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data,” reports IBT. “That figure—derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012)—represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.”
Salon, MotherJones, HuffingtonPost, Slate, and several other liberal publications reported on IBT’s findings.
Washington Post: Clintons Hid 1,100 Foreign Donor Names in Violation of Ethics Agreement with Obama Admin.
Clinton Cash revealed five hidden foreign donations. On the heels of the book’s publication, the Washington Post uncovered another 1,100 foreign donor names hidden in the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—a Clinton Foundation initiative Bill Clinton erected with controversial billionaire mining executive Frank Giustra.
“A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration,” reports the Washington Post. “The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.”
In a follow-up story, the Post reports that only 21 of Frank Giustra and Bill Clinton’s secret 1,100 foreign donors have subsequently been revealed. If and when the other 1,079 hidden donors names will be revealed is presently unclear—and will be the subject of forthcoming investigative reports by Breitbart News.
Vox: At Least 181 Clinton Foundation Donors Lobbied Hillary’s State Dept.
“Public records alone reveal a nearly limitless supply of cozy relationships between the Clintons and companies with interests before the government,” reports Vox. “There’s a household name at the nexus of the foundation and the State Department for every letter of the alphabet but “X” (often more than one): Anheuser-Busch, Boeing, Chevron, (John) Deere, Eli Lilly, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, HBO, Intel, JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Monsanto, NBC Universal, Oracle, Procter & Gamble, Qualcomm, Rotary International, Siemens, Target, Unilever, Verizon, Walmart, Yahoo, and Ze-gen.”
BuzzFeed: Two of Hillary Clinton’s Top Donors Were Major Felons
When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, two of her biggest fundraisers were conducting massive Ponzi schemes. One was Hsu, who posed as a garment tycoon, and is now serving a 24-year sentence in federal prison in Milan, Michigan. The other, Hassan Nemazee, is serving a 12-year sentence in Otisville, New York, for bank fraud. He used fake documents and nonexistent loans to trick bankers into extending him more credit,” reports Ben Smith of BuzFeed. “Those two convictions cast light on a central perplexity of the 2016 presidential cycle, and its ‘Clinton Cash‘ phase: Why are shady people with murky interests always hanging around political superstars, and particularly Bill and Hillary Clinton?”
Daily Beast: Clintons’ Charity Scored Millions from Qatar and Donations from Corrupt FIFA Soccer Organization
“The Clinton global charity has received between $50,000 and $100,000 from soccer’s governing body and has partnered with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association on several occasions, according to donor listings on the foundation’s website,” reports The Daily Beast. “Qatar 2022 committee gave the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014 and the State of Qatar gave between $1 million and $5 million in previous, unspecified years.”
Associated Press: The Clintons’ Have a Secret “Pass-Through” Company—WJC, LLC
“The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family’s finances,” reported the AP. “The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president’s finances on the record, said the entity was a ‘pass-through’ company designed to channel payments to the former president.”
Hillary Clinton has yet to release the names and amounts of the payments that flowed through the hidden WJC, LLC, company.
New York Times: Hillary Funneled $10K Monthly Payments to Sidney Blumenthal Through Clinton Foundation
“An examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years,” reports the Times. “While advising Mrs. Clinton on Libya, Mr. Blumenthal, who had been barred from a State Department job by aides to President Obama, was also employed by her family’s philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation…and worked on and off as a paid consultant to Media Matters and American Bridge, organizations that helped lay the groundwork for Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign.”
New Yorker: Bill Clinton Scored a $500,000 Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-backed Bank
The New Yorker confirms Clinton Cash’s reporting that Bill Clinton bagged $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin.”
“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the New Yorker. To date, Hillary Clinton nor her campaign have answered that question.
Washington Post: Hillary Clinton’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Co. that Received a Coveted Haitian “Gold Exploitation Permit” that Has Only Twice Been Awarded in 50 Years. Rodham Met the Mining Executive in Charge of the Company at a Clinton Foundation Event.
“In interviews with The Washington Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative—an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation that critics have long alleged invites a blurring of its charitable mission with the business interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their corporate donors.”
“Asked whether he attends CGI meetings to explore personal business opportunities, Rodham responded, ‘No, I go to see old friends. But you never know what can happen.’”
New York Times: Court Proceedings Reveal Hillary’s Brother Claimed Admits Clinton Foundation and the Clintons Are Key to His Haiti Connections
“I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Tony Rodham said according to a transcript of his testimony obtained by The Times. “That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials. I hound my brother-in-law [Bill Clinton], because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.”
Wall Street Journal: Clinton Foundation Violated Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Admin. By Keeping Secret a Foreign Donation of Two Million Shares of Stock from a Foreign Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.
Clinton Cash revealed that Canadian mining tycoon Stephen Dattels scored an “open pit mining” concession at the Phulbari Mines in Bangladesh where his Polo Resources had investments. The coveted perk came just two months after Polo Resources gave the Clinton Foundation 2,000,000 shares of stock—a donation the Clinton Foundation kept hidden.
New York Times: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Claims She Had No Idea Her State Dept. Was Considering Approving the Transfer of 20% of U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.—Even as the Clinton Foundation Bagged $145 Million in Donations from Investors in the Deal
In a 4,000-word front-page New York Times investigation, the Times confirmed in granular detail Clinton Cash’s reporting that Hillary’s State Dept. was one of nine agencies approving the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government. “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States,” reports the Times.
The Times then published a detailed table and infographic cataloging the $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation made by uranium executives involved in the Russian transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium.
Bloomberg: A For-Profit University Put Bill Clinton on Its Payroll and Scored a Jump in Funding from Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. When Clinton Cash Revealed the Scheme, Bill Clinton Quickly Resigned.
Even as Hillary Clinton and Democrats continue to blast for-profit colleges and universities, Hillary Clinton’s campaign continues to stonewall questions about how much Bill Clinton was paid by Laureate International Universities, one of the largest for-profit education companies in the world—and an organization that has underwritten Clinton Foundation events. As soon as Clinton Cash revealed Bill Clinton spent years on Laureate’s payroll, the former president quickly resigned.
According to an analysis by Bloomberg: “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”
Hillary Clinton has refused to answer questions about the Clintons’ income from the for-profit education company.
New York Times: The Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company Ian Telfer Made Secret Donations Totaling $2.35 Million to the Clinton Foundation—as Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Approved the Transfer of 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russians
Ian Telfer, the former head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, funneled $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation—donations that were never revealed until Clinton Cash reported them and the New York Times confirmed them.
Hillary Clinton has yet to answer a single question about Uranium One.
Washington Post: Bill and Hillary Clinton Have Made at Least $26 Million in Speaking Fees from Entities Who Are Top Clinton Foundation Donors
According to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”
The Post added: “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”
Washington Free Beacon: Former Clinton Campaign Operative-Turned-ABC News Host George Stephanopoulos Failed to Disclose His $75,000 Donation and Deep Involvement in the Clinton Foundation Before Launching an Attack Interview Against Clinton Cash Author
Clinton political operative-turned-ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos infamously hid his $75,000 Clinton Foundation donation from ABC News viewers before launching a partisan attack “interview” with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer.
Roundly condemned by numerous journalists, Stephanopoulos apologized and received zero punishment from ABC News. Hillary Clinton’s campaign then used footage from the Stephanopoulos’ attack “interview” with Schweizer in its political campaign videos.
“It was outrageous,” said former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson.
Hillary Clinton has yet to answer whether her campaign coordinated with Clinton Foundation donor George Stephanopoulos.
CNBC: Clinton Foundation Mega Donor Frank Holmes Claimed He Sold Uranium One Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. Approved the Russian Transfer—Despite His Company’s Own SEC Filings Proving Otherwise
In a highly embarrassing CNBC grilling, Clinton mega donor and uranium executive Frank Holmes claimed he sold his Uranium One stock well before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. greenlit the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to the Russian government in 2010.
However, according to his company’s, U.S. Global Investors, own 2011 SEC filing, Holmes’ company did, in fact, still hold Uranium One stock, a point he later conceded.
Politico: Hillary’s Foundation Accepted $1 Million from Human Rights Violator Morocco for a Lavish Event
“The event is being funded largely by a contribution of at least $1 million from OCP, a phosphate exporter owned by Morocco’s constitutional monarchy, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the event,” reports Politico. “But in 2011, Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of ‘arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.’”
ABC News similarly confirmed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of the unseemly funds.
-
The Mobsters' reply has gone from a laughable "not one shred of evidence" to "no smoking gun".
The evidence is already beyond a reasonable doubt. Just no controlling legal authority willing to take this mob to task.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/02/exclusive-house-committee-knows-of-hillary-email-server-whistleblower/
-
By
Kimberley A. Strassel
June 4, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET
340 COMMENTS
The scandal of the century at the IRS was that agency’s secret targeting of conservative nonprofits. Perhaps a close second is the scandal of what the IRS hasn’t been investigating: the Clinton Foundation.
The media’s focus is on Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, and whether she took official actions to benefit her family’s global charity. But the mistake is starting from the premise that the Clinton Foundation is a “charity.” What’s clear by now is that this family enterprise was set up as a global shakedown operation, designed to finance and nurture the Clintons’ continued political ambitions. It’s a Hillary super PAC that throws in the occasional good deed.
That much is made obvious by looking at the foundation’s employment rolls. Most charities are staffed by folks who have spent a lifetime in nonprofits, writing grants or doing overseas field work. The Clinton Foundation is staffed by political operatives. It has been basically a parking lot for Clinton campaign workers—a comfy place to draw a big check as they geared up for Hillary’s presidential run.
The revolving door is spinning quickly these days. There’s Dennis Cheng, a finance director for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 bid, who went to the Clinton Foundation as its chief development officer. There he built a giant donor file, which he earlier this year took with him to head up fundraising for the Clinton 2016 campaign. There’s Katie Dowd, who raised $100 million as Mrs. Clinton’s new media director in 2008, then went to a Clinton PAC, then to the State Department, then to the foundation as a “tech adviser.” She’s now at Clinton 2016 as digital director.
Some operatives don’t even bother feigning separation. Longtime aide Cheryl Mills served as general counsel to Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign, then worked at State. She then joined the board of directors of the foundation and remains on it still, even as she works on Clinton 2016. Nick Merrill, an aide to Mrs. Clinton at State, has continued on as her press liaison. Last year his name popped up on a news release as a contact person for the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Merrill will be a campaign spokesman for Clinton 2016.
Maura Pally was until recently the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation. Her training for this important job was working as a lawyer in the Clinton White House, as a counsel to Hillary 2008, and in cultural affairs at the State Department. Valerie Alexander is the foundation’s chief marketing officer, and the woman responsible for turning the outfit into a Clinton PR machine. She worked as a senior communications adviser for Hillary 2008.
Amitabh Desai is the foundation’s foreign policy director. He was a legislative aide to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Craig Minassian is the foundation’s chief communications officer. He worked on Hillary 2008. Ira Magaziner is CEO of the Clinton Health Care Access Initiative. He is one of the Clintons’ oldest advisers. Bari Lurie, chief of staff to Chelsea Clinton, worked on Hillary’s Senate campaign and her 2008 run, and for her PAC. Erika Gudmundson is the foundation’s deputy director of communications initiatives. She was a press aide for Hillary 2008. You get the point.
The question isn’t how or whether these folks will help with Clinton 2016, but when and in what capacity. Ditto more than a dozen other staffers at the foundation who lack long histories with Clinton but who came straight out of politics—either working for the Democratic National Committee, other politicians or super PACS.
The other question is how many more operatives are cashing foundation checks that we don’t know about—as “consultants” for the group. We now know longtime Clinton pal Sid Blumenthal drew $10,000 a month. For what?
Then there’s Mrs. Clinton’s longtime aide, Huma Abedin, who worked as traveling chief of staff during the 2008 campaign, then went to State. There she was granted a special arrangement to continue earning money as a private-sector consultant. Among those she consulted for? The Clinton Foundation. Ms. Abedin has transitioned back as vice chairman of Mrs. Clinton 2016 campaign. There are surely more.
This is typically Clinton, which means it is typically on the edge of legal. The foundation operates as a nonprofit, raising hundreds of millions as a “charity.” We know from foundation tax filings that it spends an extraordinary portion of its funds on travel and staff. How many donors are unaware that their money is going to keep Clinton friends in full employment? How many are aware and give precisely for that reason—to help elect a new president, one who will gratefully remember their help?
Lucky for the Clintons, nobody looks. As a charity (and unlike a super PAC), the foundation is subject to almost no oversight. The IRS in the past has stripped charities of their tax-exempt status when they are shown to be operating for a purpose other than benevolence. The agency has shown no real interest in the Clinton Foundation. Go figure.
Clinton allies are insisting to all who listen that the foundation exists to do good. It does. It exists to do very good things for Hillary and Bill and all their longtime allies. And in that, it has succeeded beautifully.
Write to kim@wsj.com
-
That's right! How did the IRS non-profit group shut down tea party groups for years for doing nothing wrong and then give the Clinton Family Crime Foundation who directs almost none of its money to charity a free pass. You would think they would have to at least fake an investigation.
-
Doug,
Your right.
Anyone see a pattern. Any Republican is a fair target (Hastert for withdrawing his own money for a personal reason), Rubio because he has four traffic tickets in 18 years, or a Democrat who doesn't toe the Obama line (Menendez) while the Democrats who do toe the line (Sharpton, Clintons, etc.) are given passes.
The Clinton foundation is a nice example of what is the tip of the ice berg in white collar crime.
-
Sid Blumenthal’s Email Discovery
The slow roll of Libya-related communication continues.
June 17, 2015 7:20 p.m. ET
Hillary Clinton says she turned over to the State Department “all” of the emails from her private email account related to her work as Secretary of State. And State has reassured Congress that it turned over “every” Clinton email demanded as part of the House investigation into the Benghazi attack. This must depend on the definition of “all” and “every.”
The House Select Committee on Benghazi recently sent subpoenas to Sidney Blumenthal, the longtime Clinton political hit man who was in steady contact with Mrs. Clinton (via her private email) while she was the top U.S. diplomat. Emails show Mr. Blumenthal was advising two U.S. companies seeking Libyan contracts at the same time he was secretly advising Secretary of State Clinton about Libya. Mr. Blumenthal’s attorney says his client had no financial interest in the two companies—though no one is denying that the friends of Mr. Blumenthal who ran the companies were looking for business.
So imagine Congress’s surprise on Friday when Mr. Blumenthal responded to a subpoena by turning over 60 more Libya-related communications with Mrs. Clinton—some 120 pages. Politico reports that Members of Congress still aren’t sure whether Mrs. Clinton failed to give the emails to State, or State failed to give the emails to Congress, which is likely to release the new emails in the coming days.
State’s excuse for the omission is that it thought the subpoena was only for Mrs. Clinton’s Benghazi-related email (not broader Libya correspondence). This is hard to believe given that Congress’s initial early-December request—to State and Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer—begins: “Please provide, as soon as possible but no later than Dec. 31, 2014, any and all documents and communications referring or relating to a.) Libya (including but not limited to Benghazi and Tripoli) . . .” There’s that “all” word again.
There’s a reason Mrs. Clinton kept control over her server, and deleted an unknown number of emails, and it’s the same reason she now won’t let an outside party review her records. She wants the public to see as little as possible so she can have an accountability-free pass to the White House.
(That and she wants to avoid felony charges that would/should lead to jail time-- Marc)
-
http://1776channel.com/2015/02/tom-cruise-is-cias-barry-seal-in-mena-movie-could-derail-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush/
-
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-21-at-9.29.18-AM.png
Historic
-
Hillary’s Abysmal Record as Secretary of State Alone... BY THOMAS SOWELL
There are no sure things in politics, but Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to a sure thing to become the Democrats’ candidate for president in 2016. This is one of the painful but inescapable signs of our time. There is nothing in her history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her. What is even more painful is that none of that matters politically. Many people simply want “a woman” to be president, and Hillary is the best-known woman in politics, though by no means the best qualified. What is Hillary’s history? In the most important job she has ever held — secretary of state — American foreign policy has had one setback after another, punctuated by disasters.
U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, led to Islamic extremists’ taking over in Egypt and terrorist chaos in Libya, where the American ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans. Fortunately, the Egyptian military has gotten rid of that country’s extremist government that was persecuting Christians, threatening Israel, and aligning itself with our enemies. But that was in spite of American foreign policy. In Europe, as in the Middle East, our foreign policy during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state was to undermine our friends and cater to our enemies. In the most important job she has ever held — secretary of state — American foreign policy has had one setback after another.
The famous “reset” in our foreign policy with Russia began with the Obama administration’s reneging on a pre-existing American commitment to supply defensive technology to shield Poland and the Czech Republic from missile attacks. This left both countries vulnerable to pressures and threats from Russia — and left other countries elsewhere wondering how much they could rely on American promises. Even after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Obama administration refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons with which to defend themselves. This was especially ironic since Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate, was one of those urging Ukraine to not only give up the nuclear weapons it had inherited from its days as a member of the Soviet Union, but to also reduce conventional military arms.
President Obama, like other presidents, has made his own foreign policy. But Hillary Clinton, like other secretaries of state, had the option of resigning if she did not agree with it. In reality, she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama’s when they were both in the Senate. Both of them opposed the military “surge” in Iraq, under General David Petraeus, that defeated the terrorists there. Even after the surge succeeded, Hillary Clinton was among those who fiercely denied initially that it had succeeded, and sought to discredit General Petraeus, though eventually the evidence of the surge’s success became undeniable, even among those who had opposed it. The truly historic catastrophe of American foreign policy — not only failing to stop Iran from going nuclear, but making it more difficult for Israel to stop them — was also something that happened on Hillary Clinton’s watch as secretary of state. What the administration’s protracted and repeatedly extended negotiations with Iran accomplished was to allow Iran time to multiply, bury, and reinforce its nuclear facilities, to the point where it was uncertain whether Israel still had the military capacity to destroy those facilities.
There are no offsetting foreign-policy triumphs under Secretary of State Clinton. Syria, China and North Korea are other scenes of similar setbacks. The fact that many people are still prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States, in times made incredibly dangerous by the foreign-policy disasters on her watch as secretary of state, raises painful questions about this country. A president of the United States — any president — has the lives of more than 300 million Americans in his or her hands, and the future of Western civilization. If the debacles and disasters of the Obama administration have still not demonstrated the irresponsibility of choosing a president on the basis of demographic characteristics, it is hard to imagine what could. With our enemies around the world arming while we are disarming, such self-indulgent choices for president can leave our children and grandchildren a future that will be grim, if not catastrophic.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is www.tsowell.com
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420152/hillary-clinton-secretary-state-foreign-policy-disaster
-
"The timing doesn't work", she said about the contributions related to the Russian takeover of Uranium One, that the money was given to the foundation before she was Secretary of State. - FALSE
More than $100 million came in from people who benefited from the transaction WHILE she was Secretary of State.
Hillary was secure in her knowledge that neither the interviewer nor most of the audience had read Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/hillary-tries-to-rebut-clinton-cash-fails.php
Clinton: “I think part of the interesting twist to this is most foundations, charities do not publish all of their contributors. The Clinton Foundation does.”
But one of Schweizer’s revelations in Clinton Cash is that the Clinton Foundation does not, in fact, disclose all of its donors. Hillary is well aware of this, but apparently calculates that she can get away with more false claims.
-
"The timing doesn't work", she said about the contributions related to the Russian takeover of Uranium One, that the money was given to the foundation before she was Secretary of State. - FALSE
More than $100 million came in from people who benefited from the transaction WHILE she was Secretary of State.
Hillary was secure in her knowledge that neither the interviewer nor most of the audience had read Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/hillary-tries-to-rebut-clinton-cash-fails.php
Clinton: “I think part of the interesting twist to this is most foundations, charities do not publish all of their contributors. The Clinton Foundation does.”
But one of Schweizer’s revelations in Clinton Cash is that the Clinton Foundation does not, in fact, disclose all of its donors. Hillary is well aware of this, but apparently calculates that she can get away with more false claims.
Who is going to vett her claims, the media?
-
"The timing doesn't work", she said about the contributions related to the Russian takeover of Uranium One, that the money was given to the foundation before she was Secretary of State. - FALSE
More than $100 million came in from people who benefited from the transaction WHILE she was Secretary of State.
Hillary was secure in her knowledge that neither the interviewer nor most of the audience had read Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/hillary-tries-to-rebut-clinton-cash-fails.php
Clinton: “I think part of the interesting twist to this is most foundations, charities do not publish all of their contributors. The Clinton Foundation does.”
But one of Schweizer’s revelations in Clinton Cash is that the Clinton Foundation does not, in fact, disclose all of its donors. Hillary is well aware of this, but apparently calculates that she can get away with more false claims.
Who is going to vett her claims, the media?
http://www.wmur.com/politics/hillary-clinton-facing-questions-over-involvement-in-uranium-one-sale/33737328
-
Hillary And Sid's War
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 23, 2015
Did Sidney Blumenthal encourage then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to back military action against Moammar Gadhafi in Libya? Did he do so because it was in the financial interest of his friends and sources? Did Clinton listen to him to the virtual exclusion of professional intelligence sources? And was the information about which Clinton relied false?
These questions emerge from a review of the emails from Blumenthal to Clinton that have been released over the past year.
Libya was Clinton's war. It was she who badgered the national security team to approve a no-fly zone and to ratchet up our military involvement in toppling Gadhafi. In 2011, she told the United Nations Human Rights Council that "it is time for Gadhafi to go," and she condemned Russian reluctance to intervene as "despicable."
Her intel suggested genocide was happening in Libya. As Clinton told ABC News: "Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered ... and we were sitting here. The cries would be, 'Why did the United States not do anything?' "
The Washington Times reported this year that Clinton "ultimately became the most powerful advocate for using U.S. military force to dethrone Gadhafi, both in her closed-door meetings with Mr. Obama, who ultimately made the decision, and in public with allies and the news media."
Now, emails have been released suggesting it was Blumenthal that stoked her desire to intervene and helped heighten her resolution to act. "This is an historic moment," he portentously told the secretary of State on Aug. 22, 2011, "and you will be credited for realizing it. When Qaddafi is finally removed, you should of course make a public statement before the cameras. ... You must establish yourself in the historical record at that moment."
Sidney Blumental, with no military or intelligence experience or credentials, advised that "Qaddafi's army's morale and cohesion might be conclusively shattered by another round or two of ferocious bombing."
But he was wrong. There was no genocide. The concerns of senior military leaders, including Robert Gates, then Defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were, according to The Washington Times "repeatedly cast aside."
One official from the Defense Intelligence Agency tactfully called the move to intervene in Libya "an intelligence-light decision." The Times reported that "the intelligence community gathered no specific evidence of an impending genocide in Libya in spring 2011, undercutting [Clinton's] primary argument for using the U.S. military to remove Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power."
Why did Blumenthal continue to press the point?
Investigative reporting by veteran journalist Jeff Gerth at ProPublica gives some insight into a possible reason: It may have been an attempt to help his friends get contracts from a new Libyan government.
Blumenthal was working closely with David L. Grange, a retired Army major general who ran a secret Pentagon special operations unit before retiring in 1999. Gerth reported that "Grange subsequently founded Osprey Global Solutions, a consulting firm and government contractor that offers logistics, intelligence security training, armament sales and other services." On Aug. 24, 2011, Osprey signed a memorandum of understanding with the Libyan National Transition Council -- the entity that took control in the wake of Gadhafi's execution -- agreeing that Osprey would contract with the council to "assist in the resumption of access to its assets and operations in country and train Libyan forces."
The prospect of having an in with the government of an oil-rich nation like Libya must have been enticing to Blumenthal's friends.
At the very least, this episode highlights Clinton's tendency to rely on gurus often to her detriment. In 1993 she leaned on Ira Magaziner, and healthcare reform crashed and burned. In 2008 she looked to Mark Penn and lost the election. In 2011, she relied on Blumenthal, and we entered a war we never should have fought.
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/for-sale-on-ebay-hillary-clinton-2008-confederate-flag-pins/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/22/hillary-clintons-history-with-the-confederate-flag/
-
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/day-history-hillary-clinton-discovers-constitutional-right-same-sex-marriage_920321.html
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/records-show-clinton-withheld-emails-about-oil-terrorism/article/2567169
Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.
Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.
For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were "well aware" of which "major oil companies and international banks" supported them during the rebellion, information they would "factor into decisions" about about who would be given access to the country's rich oil reserves.
The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.
Sign Up for the Watchdog newsletter!
She thanked Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide and author of dozens of informal intelligence memos, for the tip, which she called "useful," and informed him she was preparing to hold a meeting with Libyan leaders in Paris in an exchange that suggests the flow of information went both ways.
State Department officials admitted Clinton had withheld all of nine emails and parts of six others after Blumenthal provided 60 emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that the agency had failed to submit earlier this year.
Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., immediately demanded to know whether State or Clinton herself withheld the records. The agency's admission Thursday that it couldn't find 15 of the new emails in its records indicated both had played a role in keeping the emails away from Congress.
An undisclosed memo sent in February 2012 contains details about how new Libyan leaders were forging business relationships with private firms. Blumenthal told Clinton his sources were concerned about the focus of international interest on Libya's oil sector, playing up the importance of other "private firms" that could provide "medical assistance."
By his own admission, Blumenthal had a personal financial interest in Libya involving medical assistance.
The fact that Clinton held the email back raises questions about whether she was aware of the conflict of interest at play in Blumenthal's advocacy.
Clinton also declined to hand over a memo in which Blumenthal relayed the complaints of Libyan rebels who felt NATO wasn't going far enough in its assistance in their struggle against Gaddafi.
"[R]ebel military commanders are extremely frustrated by the performance of NATO air forces over the weekend of April 22 [2011]," Blumenthal said.
"At the same time, these commanders believe that the small number of tactical advisers sent by Great Britain and France, under their NATO mandate, is not equipped to deal with the scope of the challenge facing the rebels," he added.
Blumenthal said his sources believed the U.S. could better support the rebels by sending traditional aircraft, such as A-10 "Warthogs," to combat the regime instead of the Predator drones it deployed after NATO took the lead in the mission.
The reason why Clinton withheld that particular memo is unclear, but it demonstrates that she knew the coalition's efforts were falling flat — and that they could have been boosted if she pushed for the use of a less politically popular aircraft.
Clinton withheld an email sent March 22, 2011 that described the French government's alleged involvement in forming the transitional government as the uprising against Gaddafi raged.
In the email, Blumenthal claimed the French had "provided money and guidance to assist" with the emerging Libyan council.
"In return for this assistance, [French government] officers indicated that they expected the government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya," Blumenthal wrote.
An email in which Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to consider the same "shock-and-awe" tactics former President George W. Bush employed in Iraq was also not included among the emails Clinton provided to State.
Blumenthal openly pressed for an increase in U.S. funding in another email that Clinton refused to turn over.
"My own view is that they desperately need professional military trainers, preferably Americans," Blumenthal said.
"Some of the funds released should go to that end," Blumenthal added, referring to the creation of a "more professional military" in the aftermath of the Gaddafi regime.
In the same memo, Blumenthal assured Clinton that representatives of the country's transitional government were "very, very happy," about a meeting with the secretary of state in May of 2011.
The subject of the same email refers to a "memo on OBL photos," likely referring to photographs of slain terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was killed days before Blumenthal sent the memo. A controversy over whether the government should release graphic pictures of bin Laden continues to this day.
In the subject, Blumenthal said there was "more to come soon on Libya," but he did not send another email until the following month. The gap raises additional questions about whether Blumenthal provided Congress with all the emails he and Clinton exchanged.
Clinton selectively edited other portions of emails she declined to provide to the State Department.
For example, in July 2012, Clinton removed paragraphs from a Blumenthal memo that warned "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy." Blumenthal also wrote — in sections that Clinton deleted before providing the document to State — that the government would likely be "founded on Sharia," or Islamic laws.
The group advocating to implement Sharia, Ansar al-Sharia, is a designated terrorist group that played a role in the Benghazi attacks.
But Clinton hid how much she knew about that development.
Clinton withheld another email that showed she informed Blumenthal of a "very good call" she had with the new Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf. She deleted another, in which she called a memo about Magariaf's intention and history "a keeper."
Clinton did not include in the batch published by the State Department last month an exchange in which she prompted Blumenthal to provide her with "more intel" about French and British involvement with Libyan leaders.
She told Blumenthal the memo "strains credulity" in a message she withheld from State. Clinton posed the same question to a top aide, Jake Sullivan, when she forwarded him the memo, according to the records released by the agency.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420573/hillarys-private-e-mail-server-whitehouse-knew-since-2009?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NR5PM&utm_campaign=Wednesday%20Email%207%2F1%2F15
-
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/07/dinesh-dsouza/hillary-clinton-confederate-battle-flag-nope-old-i/
-
So 6 out of 10 polled do not think her trustworthy. The 4 out of 10 who call her trustworthy are obviously the die hard Democrats who don't and won't care about her honesty. If she were a Republican these same 4 out of 10 would call her dishonest and would be calling for accountability.
Of the 6 who think she is dishonest 2 of those will vote for her in a heartbeat anyway, if she tugs at their identities and pocketbooks.
-
Hillary's 5 Top Lies On CNN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on July 8, 2015
A defiant Hillary Clinton granted CNN her first national interview since the release of her book, Hard Choices, more than a year ago. Throughout the interview, Hillary was defensive, and seemed annoyed that she would be questioned about her emails and her trustworthiness.
So what did she do? Lie continuously.
Here's a list of her top 5 lies in the CNN interview:
1. "I Never Had A Subpoena" (for her emails)
Benghazi Committee Chairman Gowdy issued the following statement immediately after the interview, contradicting Mrs. Clinton:
"Secretary Clinton...was personally subpoenaed the moment the Benghazi Committee became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server..."
The subpoena was issued on March 4, 2015. In fact, Hillary's lawyer, David Kendall, acknowledged the subpoena in a letter to Chairman Gowdy asking for an extension of time until March 27, 2015. Gowdy granted the extension of time in a letter dated March 19, 2015.
Click Here to read more.
On March 27, 2015, Kendall responded to the subpoena and told the Committee that Clinton had turned over all relevant meal's to the State Department and "wiped her server clean."
Her statement was a big lie.
2. "I Had One Device" (for convenience)
The emails released by the State Dept. clearly show that Clinton used two devices -- both a Blackberry and an iPad for her emails. Several of the emails indicate "Sent from my iPad."
Click Here to read more.
So the "convenience" story just doesn't fly. Another lie.
3. "Colin Powell Admitted He Did The Same Thing"
Colin Powell did not have a personal email server in his house. And he certainly never admitted that he did. No way.
Another Hillary whopper!
4. "I Didn't Have To Turn Over Anything"
She certainly did.
The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2009, "the National Archives and Records Administration issued regulations that said agencies allowing employees to do official business on unofficial email accounts had to ensure that any records sent on private email systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system."
This covered Hillary Clinton. She claims that because she sent emails to people in the government email system, all is preserved. But we don't know who she sent mail to. And, as we have seen from the released emails, she sent plenty to people outside the government, like the ubiquitous Sidney Blumenthal.
The records showed that she didn't turn over at least 15 emails to Blumenthal that showed that she asked him to continue sending information to her.
5. "People Should And Do Trust Me"
They don't and they shouldn't.
A recent CNN poll showed that 57% of the voters believe that Hillary is not honest and trustworthy.
And her obvious and continuous lies keep feeding that perception.
She says it's all the fault of the Republicans. Just like the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Hillary, we have your number -- and we definitely don't trust you.
The 2016 Buzz -- All The Latest News on the Candidates and Issues.
-
I liked Mark Levin's line:
"she should be in an orange jumpsuit not a pants suit".
Amazing. And to here the wildly liberal Carl Bernstein make excuses for her as though her long list of crimes are not worse than Nixon's.
Watching the Democrats point fingers at everyone else on cable concerning who is to blame for the illegal killing the girl in San Francisco I could not recall one single Democrat EVER take responsibility for any crime or screw up ever. Rarely they may say they take responsibility but then continue on as though nothing ever happened.
Just disgusting.
-
Received in the email from a friend who is a former Democrat. Humor grounded in truth.
Things I trust more than Hillary:
Mexican tap water.
A rattlesnake with a "pet me" sign.
OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection.
A fart when I have diarrhea.
An elevator ride with Ray Rice.
Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby.
Michael Jackson's Doctor.
An Obama Nuclear deal with Iran.
A Palestinian on a motorcycle.
Gas station Sushi.
A Jimmy Carter economic plan.
Brian Williams news reports.
Loch Ness monster sightings.
Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton.
Playing Russian Roulette with a semi-auto pistol.
Emails from Nigerian princes.
The Heimlich Maneuver from Barney Frank.
A condom made in China.
A prostate exam from Captain Hook.
And finally....
Bill Clinton at a Girl Scout convention.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5
-
The thought of another year and half of this stuff and maybe 9 and a half - with our side having to read all this stuff, and the liberals just ignoring it - it makes one want to go to a remote mountain in Montana and cut oneself off from the news.
If only we had a brilliant candidate that could articulate the likes of Mark Levin with the temperament of a Bobby Jindal or Jeb Bush or Santorum; I really think Hillary would lose.
But......I just don't know if any of the candidates will rise to the occasion.
-
The thought of another year and half of this stuff and maybe 9 and a half - with our side having to read all this stuff, and the liberals just ignoring it - it makes one want to go to a remote mountain in Montana and cut oneself off from the news.
If only we had a brilliant candidate that could articulate the likes of Mark Levin with the temperament of a Bobby Jindal or Jeb Bush or Santorum; I really think Hillary would lose.
But......I just don't know if any of the candidates will rise to the occasion.
A remote mountain in Montana is a good place to be, given what is coming.
-
I hear it gets real nippy there for much of the year , , ,
-
I hear it gets real nippy there for much of the year , , ,
It's a four season climate. Winter, winter, mud and deer.
-
http://ace.mu.nu/Windows-Live-Writer/Overnight-Open-Thread-7-19-2015_10634/hillCHqu-LUUEAArD_k_2.jpg
(http://ace.mu.nu/Windows-Live-Writer/Overnight-Open-Thread-7-19-2015_10634/hillCHqu-LUUEAArD_k_2.jpg)
-
She was happier then. Should not have run - or done the Bruce Jenner surgeries.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/21/have-it-by-next-weekdo-you-hear-me-judge-has-absolutely-had-it-with-the-state-dept-over-hillary-records/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test&utm_campaign=Firewire%20Morning%20Edition%20Recurring%20v2%202015-07-22
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-blatant-haiti-conflict-of-interest-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Seems like the Democratic ambulance chasers are shifting the public "dialogue" from corruption and criminal to simply incompetence or mistakes were made and the blame is being diverted to the State Department and away from their very wealthy powerful client.
Republicans must NOT let them do this. The media however will probably tag along with the talking points.
-
Some useful summary here by Dick:
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-latest-lie-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
July 26, 2015 6:13 p.m. ET
371 COMMENTS
Hillary Clinton’s march to the left continues, hitting a new milestone on Friday when she proposed to nearly double the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 43.4% from 23.8%—or the highest rate in decades.
Mrs. Clinton says she wants to overthrow “quarterly capitalism,” the supposed tendency of companies to be preoccupied with earnings reports and stock prices at the expense of investment that pays off over time. Yet her plan would undermine short-run shareholder goals and long-range economic growth.
***
Under current tax policy, capital income is taxed as ordinary income if an investor has held an asset for less than a year. But after 365 days the top rate of 20% on long-term gains applies, plus the 3.8% ObamaCare surtax on so-called unearned income. The one-year cutoff for short-term gains became part of U.S. tax law under FDR.
Mrs. Clinton now wants to apply the normal top income tax rate of 39.6% plus the 3.8% surtax to investments that are sold in less than two years. This 82.3% increase in the top rate is unprecedented.
The nearby chart shows the recent five-decade history of the top long-term capital gains rate, which was 25% for decades until it began to climb in 1968 into the Carter years. The Steiger Amendment of 1978 dropped the rate to 28% from 40%, and it fell to 20% in 1981. The rate bounced back to 28% in 1987 as part of the Reagan tax reform that also cut the top income-tax rate to 28%.
In 1997 Bill Clinton the New Democrat agreed to a 20% rate, not least based on economic literature suggesting the lower rate would yield more tax revenue. It did. George W. Bush’s 2003 tax cut shaved five percentage points, which President Obama repealed in 2012 for couples earning more than $484,851 a year ($413,201 for individuals). Keep in mind that this is a double tax on capital because corporate profits are already taxed once at the 35% corporate rate.
Mrs. Clinton would raise the rate above what it was in the 1970s and even during the New Deal. She wants to create a sliding scale of higher tax rates that gradually decline depending on how long investors wait to realize a capital gain. For two years the rate would rise to 43.4%, falling to 39.8% for year three and 35.8% in year four. Investments would have to be held for more than six years to qualify for the 23.8% rate (20% plus the 3.8-percentage-point Obama surcharge).
Mrs. Clinton invokes “everyday Americans” to justify the plan, but if she were honest she would say she wants to cut their incomes. Higher taxes mean a lower return on capital, which reduces the capital stock available to invest in technology, factories, equipment, buildings, etc. More costly capital means less to invest to raise labor productivity, which means slower economic growth and income gains.
A high and sliding tax-rate scale also harms the efficient allocation of capital by expanding what economists call the “lock-in effect.” If owners of capital must wait years to pay a lower tax rate, many will decline to realize their gains solely for tax purposes. This artificially reduces the mobility of capital.
Economic growth is enhanced when capital is able to efficiently find its highest return. “Buy and hold” often works well for individual investors in specific stocks. But no economic theory says one- or two-year investments are worse than 10-year, and sometimes they’re better.
Consider a Facebook investor sitting on a capital gain. Under current law he might sell some of his gain and use the proceeds to fund a new venture. For the overall economy, it makes sense if that Facebook investor can sell the shares to someone who wants to hold them, while cashing out himself to invest in the new venture.
But if he has to hold that Facebook stock for years or pay a higher tax rate, that money may stay locked into those Facebook shares. So there is less Facebook stock available to “everyday Americans” who want to buy into a growth company, and the new venture might never be funded.
The dividends and corporate share buybacks that Mrs. Clinton also assails serve the same larger economic purpose. If a mature business can’t find a suitable investment for its cash, then it makes sense to return those dollars to shareholders to invest elsewhere. Think of the many years Microsoft refused to pay a dividend while spending its cash on ideas that failed.
Locking in capital will harm entrepreneurship and risk-taking, preventing the economy from exploiting the best growth opportunities. As for short-termism, Mrs. Clinton assumes that millions of investors and corporate managers are irrationally passing up lucrative lasting returns for a temporary profits high. Who is the economic clairvoyant who told her that?
***
In Mrs. Clinton’s famous 2008 debate on ABC with Mr. Obama, he promised to raise investment taxes in the name of “fairness” even if capital gains rates higher than 15% raised less revenue. But she averred that “I wouldn’t raise it above the 20% if I raised it at all.”
Yet now she is blowing past Mr. Obama on the left to borrow the sliding-scale idea that goes back to that lost economic decade known as the New Deal. A 1934 law allowed people to exclude from taxes a rising share of capital gains based on how long an investment was held. The sliding scale was eventually dropped because of the widely recognized damage from the lock-in effect.
Mrs. Clinton’s Wall Street fan club keeps telling itself that she’d provide relief from the anti-growth Obama years. On the growing evidence of her policies, she’d be worse.
-
Anatomy Of Hillary's Latest Email Lie
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 28, 2015
Hillary Clinton's latest lie is her claim that the only reason for the flap over whether she emailed classified documents was her "desire to have transparency and make everything public." Except for her insistence on disclosure, "we would not be having this conversation."
Seriously? It's hard to even use the words Hillary and transparency in the same sentence - because she's anything but transparent; she's secretive and paranoid. And she thinks she can outsmart us. That's what started this problem in the first place.
Why did she lie? As always, Hillary's lie has two motivations:
ALERT: The Currency that May Replace the USD in Just 3 Months
Barack Just Lost It with Alan Greenspan's Warning for Owning Gold (Bombshell)
IRS Tax "Loophole": Move Your IRA or 401(k) to Gold – Get this FREE Info Kit
a. to kindle a debate that distracts from the basic question of whether or not she sent classified information on her private server; and
b. to try to show how she is the victim of her own good intentions and integrity.
Start with the first point. Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails that contained classified material over her private server in violation of federal law. This is the charge made by the two inspectors general for the State Department in their referral to the Justice Department and the FBI. But Hillary defiantly claims that she never sent any email containing classified information.
To her, it's just some bureaucratic squabble. "What I'm hearing from the discussion that's going on is that something that wasn't classified should have been or maybe now should be," she said. "That's a very different issue." The inspectors general disagreed and noted that the material in question "was classified then [when Hillary emailed it] and is classified now."
So it boils down to a question of trust. Two presidentially appointed professional civil service inspectors general vs. Hillary. So which one should be trusted? That one's not too hard to call.
And on the second point, to distract and redirect the debate, Hillary claims that she was transparent to a fault and that this caused the current scandal.
Incredibly, she says:
"If I just turned it [the emails] over, we would not be having this conversation. But when I said, 'Hey, I want it to be public,' it has to go through the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] process. That's what's going on here. And I am going to continue to say that I want it to be made public as soon as it possibly can. And we will do whatever we can to try to get the process to move along."
What a whopper!
Hillary didn't just wake up one day and decide to turn over her emails. She spent five years hiding them on her secret Chappaqua server - for the sole purpose of thwarting the Freedom of Information Act.
And she succeeded.
Indeed, throughout her tenure as secretary of state, dozens of FOIA requests for emails from Hillary and her top aides were consistently turned down because the State Department found no relevant emails. Of course they didn't - they were safely concealed in her home, where no one could access them. Now, after the discovery that her emails were never searched in response to FOIA requests, most of those cases have been re-opened, and numerous federal judges have ordered the State Department to respond to the requests. That's why her emails are going through the FOIA process now. It is despite Hillary that the documents are being made public, not because of her.
For Hillary to claim now that she is the one who insisted that her emails had to "go through the Freedom of Information process" is a flat out lie. She would have kept them secret forever, but the State Department requested their return. She had no choice. So, in one last arrogant step, she decided herself what to turn over and deleted the rest.
Hillary had no role in subjecting her emails to the FOIA process. They were public records that were automatically subject to review for FOIA requests. Once she stopped hiding them, the automatically went through the process. That is a far cry from her statement, "When I said, 'Hey, I want it [her emails] to be public,' it has to go through the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] process. That's what's going on here."
And this scandal is a gift that will keep on giving. Each month, the courts have ordered the State Department to turn over another batch of Hillary's e mails. And each month, the inspectors general, the Justice Department and the FBI will have to report any that concern classified material.
Can we trust them to do their jobs and determine if Hillary broke the law and prosecute her if she did?
Certainly, we can trust the inspectors general. By their actions in referring four emails to Justice and the FBI, they have shown their integrity and independence.
How about Justice and the FBI? Under former Attorney General Eric Holder, the answer is obvious: The Justice Department would join in the cover-up and instruct the FBI to do likewise.
But how about under the new Attorney General Loretta Lynch? As the new kid on the block, she may be anxious to enhance her reputation for integrity and actually do her job.
But what will President Obama do? If he lets the process unfold, he will likely severely hurt Hillary, perhaps knocking her out of the presidential race. But if he intervenes, he risks disclosure and even possible grounds for impeachment.
Remember that the Obamas don't always like the Clintons. Despite her huge lead in the polls, Obama has refused to endorse Hillary. In fact, an argument can be made that the entire email scandal stems from leaks from an unfriendly White House.
Is Obama determined to get a Democratic nominee who will be committed to pursuing his agenda and will not be tempted to move to the center as the Clintons have often done?
Now Obama can achieve this objective by doing nothing and just letting the process run its course.
And that may be just what he will do.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html
Strange. How could that happen?
-
More Missing Hillary Emails?; See 2016 Buzz
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on July 30, 2015
More State Department business on private servers?
State Department officials told a federal judge that they could not produce all of the emails requested by the AP in a Freedom of Information lawsuit because they are still waiting for emails requested from private accounts used by Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan -- Hillary Clinton's top aides.
Philippe Reines, the acerbic smart aleck former press aide to Clinton, just delivered 20 boxes of emails to the State Department. Twenty boxes!!! According to Politico, the judge specifically asked whether Reines had been asked to produce federal records from his private email accounts. The State Department confirmed that he was.
The AP is seeking information about Huma Abedin's employment as a special employee who worked for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo -- the consulting firm formed by former Clinton associate Doug Band.
So the question is why are the other aides not responding to the State Department?
We know that Huma used a private email account from Hillary's private server. Did Mills and Sullivan use the private server too?
Gawker.com claimed several years ago that Reines used a private email account. Reines went berserk and responded with a scathing attack.
When Gawker.com filed an FOI request for Reines' well-publicized vulgar email response to journalist Michael Hastings, the State Department responded that there were no such documents. Other State Department employees had been copied on the exchange, as were other journalists. Several months ago, the emails were finally released with a trove of emails sent to the Benghazi Committee.
So what's going on here and what is holding up the production of other emails?
Looks like more of the same -- and more headaches for Hillary when they are finally produced.
-
second post
By
Kimberley A. Strassel
Updated July 30, 2015 8:19 p.m. ET
6 COMMENTS
‘Friends of Bill” was a 1990s Washington catchphrase, shorthand for President Clinton’s favored inner circle. His wife, it turns out, has a far bigger fan club. “Friends of Hillary”—the people looking out for her welfare, and benefiting in turn—seem to occupy the highest echelons of government and business.
That’s one way of synthesizing this week’s slew of disparate Clinton revelations. The Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee is grappling with a range of scandals, from her use of a private email server while secretary of state, to actions she took while in office that look to have financially benefited her family’s foundation. But what ties all these stories together is the extraordinary number of people who continue to run cover for Mrs. Clinton’s ambitions.
First there is that menagerie of longtime aides who follow her from post to post. At a federal court hearing on Wednesday, a State Department official dropped a new bomb regarding the email scandal, suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides also might have been using private email accounts. This came out because the State Department attempted to excuse its failure to produce documents by noting that top Clinton aides—including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan—had not yet turned over their work-related emails. Had those aides used government servers, State presumably would already have their emails. Politico noted that only this week, Mrs. Clinton’s former spokesman, Philippe Reines, “turned over 20 boxes of work-related emails taken in part from a personal email account.”
The Associated Press requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act while seeking details about how Ms. Abedin was given special permission to work with outside clients while still at the State Department. The news organization filed that request four years ago; Mrs. Clinton resigned as secretary of state more than two years ago. And yet her aides, to this day, are sitting on that paper. That’s highly helpful to Mrs. Clinton, who doesn’t want any more embarrassing exchanges made public.
Then there are Mrs. Clinton’s pals still in government. At Wednesday’s hearing, the second in two weeks on the AP request, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon bluntly voiced what everybody has known for a long time, accusing the State Department of, as Politico put it, “dragging out responses to FOIA requests to protect Clinton.” The agency has in fact spent the past nine months doing little else—ignoring congressional subpoenas, slow-walking responses, omitting key documents.
State Department officials initially said they wouldn’t release any of Mrs. Clinton’s emails until the end of this year, a deadline that surely and conveniently would have slipped past the 2016 election. They are only producing those emails now under court order. And they’re doing back bends to excuse away the fact that Mrs. Clinton emailed classified information through her private server. Why all this effort? Barack Obama may not love Hillary, but he needs another Democrat in 2016 to protect his legacy.
Mrs. Clinton has additional friends in law enforcement. Last week news broke that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton mishandled sensitive information. Team Clinton has attempted to fuzzy up the story by suggesting the information wasn’t classified at the time she sent it. Utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that sensitive information flowed through a home-brew email system because Mrs. Clinton had evaded all the rules. Any lesser figure (say, David Petraeus) would be in hot water. Yet the New York Times reports that the Justice Department “hasn’t decided if it will open an investigation.” Ah, friends.
Finally, Mrs. Clinton has very good friends in the corporate world. This newspaper reported Thursday that while serving as secretary of state, she took the unusual step of intervening to fix a problem that Swiss banking titan UBS was having with the IRS. In the years that followed, UBS donated $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation, anted up another $32 million in loans via foundation programs, and dropped $1.5 million on Bill for a series of speaking events. Both sides deny any quid pro quo. But the pattern is clear: More than 60 major firms that lobbied the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure also donated some $26 million to her family’s foundation.
Those in the business and financial world, after all, understand how the Clintons operate: pure Arkansas, purely transactional. You scratch my family foundation; I’ll scratch your government problem. They’ve spent a lot of money getting on Mrs. Clinton’s right side (and they certainly don’t want to be on her wrong side) so expect the corporate cash to now flow toward her election effort. Yes, Mrs. Clinton has, and will continue to have, lots of amigos in the private sector.
Left out in the cold, of course, are all those Americans who would like the straight story on Mrs. Clinton’s emails and her foundation before they have to make a decision about whom to vote for next year. Problem is, unlike Hillary, they don’t have friends in high places who can force those answers into the light of day.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/30/hillary-clinton-emails-us-intelligence-preparing-m/
By John Solomon and S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Thursday, July 30, 2015
The U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account contains hundreds of revelations of classified information from spy agencies and is taking steps to contain any damage to national security, according to documents and interviews Thursday.
The top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committee have been notified in recent days that the extent of classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s private email server was likely far more extensive than the four emails publicly acknowledged last week as containing some sensitive spy agency secrets.
A U.S. official directly familiar with the notification, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said the notification of possibly hundreds of additional emails with classified secrets came from the State Department Freedom of Information Act office to the Office of Inspector General for the Director of National Intelligence.
________________________________________
________________________________________
The inspector general, the chief oversight watchdog for the entire U.S. intelligence community, subsequently sent a letter to the Republican chairmen and ranking Democrats of the Senate and House intelligence committees, the official said.
“We were informed by State FOIA officials that there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the 30,000 provided for former Secretary Clinton,” DNI Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III late last week wrote Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat; Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican; and Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat.
“We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked and transmitted via a secure server,” Mr. McCullough wrote the four lawmakers.
________________________________________
________________________________________
The U.S. official said the intelligence community has been informed that secret information had been contained in some of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails that originated from the FBI, the DNI and the CIA as well as a spy satellite agency. It is believed the 30,000 emails remain on a thumb drive in the possession of Mrs. Clinton’s private attorney, David Kendall.
The official said the intelligence community’s first response was to take steps to secure the handling of remaining 30,000 emails and make sure they were handled on top-secret servers to avoid any further breaches, and then to assess any damage to national security from the insecure handling and release of information already in some of the publicly disseminated emails.
“Containment first, then a damage assessment is how this must be handled,” the official said.
The official said the intelligence community was already concerned, for instance, that some classified information was inadvertently disclosed by the State Department in recent weeks when one of Mrs. Clinton’s emails about Libya was publicly released.
The inspector general’s notification to Capitol Hill and the Justice Department also opens possible legal exposure for Mrs. Clinton about improper handling of classified materials, something her attorney knows much about.Mr. Kendall represented former CIA Director David H. Petraeus last year when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling national secrets because he gave some classified information to his mistress and biographer and stored a classified book of information in his home in an insecure manner.
Separately, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey asking him to explain what the bureau was doing to keep secure the classified information within 30,000 Clinton emails known to be on Mr. Kendall’s thumb drive.
“It’s a serious breach of national security if the United States government fails to secure classified material in the hands of people not authorized to possess it, no matter who they are. There are fundamental questions as to what the FBI is doing to securing these classified emails and why the State Department is not fully cooperating with the inspectors general at the State Department and the Intelligence Community to ensure that all of the appropriate emails are identified,” Mr. Grassley wrote.
Mr. Grassley also sent a letter to Secretary of State John F. Kerry inquiring about the delay in sending the 30,000 emails to intelligence community inspectors general.
Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, fended off the new questions about the email scandal and suspicious foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, distracting from her effort to wrangle support from union bosses at the AFL-CIO’s annual summer meeting.
The former secretary of state’s email woes deepened when a federal judge scolded the State Department for delays in releasing the documents, as the agency revealed that Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and top officials during her tenure at the agency — Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan — also used private email accounts and all of their message have not been turned over to the State Department.
“I think we have been proceeding in a timely fashion, and indeed the vast majority of the emails that I turned over and that are being turned over by others were already in the State Department system,” Mrs. Clinton said at a press conference at the union meeting in the Washington suburb of Silver Spring, Maryland.
Her response to reporters was the same explanation she gave in March, when it came to light that she had used a private email account exclusively for official business as America’s top diplomat, shielding her correspondence from probes by Congress and requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
It remains unclear how much of her email was captured by the State Department system during exchanges with other agency employees, especially since other high-ranking officials at the agency also were using private email accounts.
Mrs. Clinton batted questions about the email back at the agency.
“This is really a question for the State Department,” she said at the union press conference. “They are the ones that are bearing the responsibility to sort through these thousands and thousands of emails and determine at what pace they can be released, and I really hope that it will be as quickly as possible.”
Mrs. Clinton has insisted that she followed the rules and used a private email account because it was more convenient for her than juggling two smartphones. But nearly two years after she left office and after a congressional probe learned about her private email account, she turned over about 30,000 messages to the State Department and erased another 32,000 messages that she deemed personal.
At some point, she wiped clean the email server kept in her home in Chappaqua, New York, preventing any of the messages from being recovered.
Questions about her email setup and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state, which potentially posed conflicts of interest, have dogged Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. The controversies have hit her in the polls, with a majority of voters nationwide saying they don’t think she is honest and trustworthy.
The former first lady, senator and top diplomat also had to tamp down reports about increased donations to the Clinton Foundation from Swiss bank USB after she intervened to settle IRS charges that the bank had helped thousands of Americans use secret accounts to avoid U.S. taxes.
Coinciding with Mrs. Clinton’s involvement, the bank’s donations to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 in 2008 to roughly $600,000 by the end of 2014. The bank also paid Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, $1.5 million for participating in a series of corporate events, The Wall Street Journal reported.
In June, The Washington Times reported that Mr. Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Mrs. Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.
The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.
As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was expanding its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.
Mrs. Clinton said any implication of wrongdoing was “categorically false.”
“I worked hard as our nation’s first diplomat to solve problems, to work with my colleagues in government,” she said. “I remember the governmentwide efforts to try to pursue America’s interest with respect to Swiss banks and there was a resolution to that, and it continued to be the subject of diplomacy and law enforcement interest.”
She dismissed the report as routine campaign politics.
“You know, this is just the kind of unfortunate claim or charge that you see in campaigns,” Mrs. Clinton said.
The press conference demonstrated that her answers have not settled the matters and the scandals will continue to overshadow her campaign.
At the AFL-CIO meeting, Mrs. Clinton met with the union leaders behind closed doors to woo support with her pledge to fight for higher wages and for laws that would make it easier to unionize workplaces.
“I asked for their support going forward. I asked them to be my partner in making sure that we stand against those powerful forces on the other side that don’t agree with the [union] agenda,” she said.
Union insiders say the leadership prefers more aggressively pro-union candidates such as Sen. Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent and avowed socialist who has emerged as the chief rival to Mrs. Clinton.
But Mr. Sanders trails by a wide margin and is widely viewed as unable to win.
That leaves the unions stuck with Mrs. Clinton, the all-but-inevitable nominee who has refused to take a position on the Keytsone XL oil pipeline or the pending trade deal with Pacific Rim countries — issues that are top priorities for unions.
“That’s what we’re waiting for — for her to take a stand,” said an official from a union local at the meeting.
-
Good coverage Crafty of all these issues and good article here. ccp and others might say say the Clintons always get away with this and I partly feel that way, but this is different. It is was intentional, not something they backed into, setting up their own server, their own foundation, their own overlapping contacts, soliciting big money while knowing they were running for President.
One thing they didn't see coming was Benghazi. They thought the Sec State job was all PR and setup to be the successor; Obama and Jarrett had special envoys reporting to them for all the trouble spots. But the Libya collapse was Hillary's doing, not fitting at all with Obama's (lack of a) foreign policy. She steered away from the plan and deposed a guy who gave up his nuclear ambitions and replaced him with al Qaeda. If it wasn't obvious then, in hindsight it was kind of dumb.
Of course she had classified info going in and out or else how was she communicating? If Ambassador Stevens was not emailing his whereabouts, mission and plans, then did she not even know his whereabouts, mission and plans? Maybe she didn't; she was writing books about herself. Was the attempt to keep classified off of this why he couldn't reach her in his warning cries for help?
Now she is at war with the NY Times and the AP among others. not Drudge and the vast right wing conspiracy. A catchy phrase and a tear from drop-trow Bill isn't going to make this go away.
As soon as Obama turns on her, it's over.
My fear is that while we succeed at exposing Hillary's defective moral character, we are failing to challenge the eventual nominee on the issues, Warren or whoever.
-
$221,139,516: Clintons Income Since 2001
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on August 1, 2015
In the 14 years since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in January 2001, they have reported a total gross income of $221,139, 516 -- a review of their tax returns for those years' shows.
In 2001, the year that Hillary claimed they were "dead broke," the couple earned a whopping $16,165,110!!!
Wouldn't we all like to be that dead broke!!!
Leaving the White House opened a gravy train that has moved the Clintons to the highest percentage of all U.S. earners. Their annual income puts them in the top 1/2 of 1%. So they are at the very top of the 1%-ers that Hillary often disparages.
It was a big change from the earlier years of their marriage. The year before they left the White House, in 2000, the Clintons gross income was only $357,629. After taxes of $53,000 that year, while they were "dead broke", they bought a second home in Washington for $3.7 million, in addition to their $2 million Chappaqua home. On an income of $357,629, their total mortgage and real estate tax payments were over $100,000, almost 1/3 of their take home income. Maybe that's why Hillary felt like she was dead broke.
But don't feel sorry for her. Here's a breakdown of their income from 2000 to 2014:
• 2000 = $357,629
• 2001 = $16,165,110
• 2002 = $9,556,550
• 2003 = $8,033,374
• 2004 = $20,264,179
• 2005 = $18,056,395
• 2006 = $16,063, 908
• 2007 = $21,199,212
• 2008 = $5,573,351
• 2009 = $10,223,318
• 2010 = $13,244,484
• 2011 = $14,899,484
• 2012 = $19,993,299
• 2013 = $27,093,859
• 2014 = $28,336,212
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/all-clinton-records/
-
"In 2001, the year that Hillary claimed they were "dead broke," the couple earned a whopping $16,165,110!!!
Wouldn't we all like to be that dead broke!!!"
Morris nails this. What value do they Clintons provide economically, outside of their elected jobs? What product or service were they selling? Who was buying? Why were they buying?
There isn't an answer to this outside of corruption and the peddling of influence.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-sandy-berger-problem/2015/08/03/b08466f0-39d5-11e5-9c2d-ed991d848c48_story.html
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html
-
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/former-intel-officials-call-for-revocation-of-clintons-security-privileges/
A group of former special operations forces and intelligence community members are calling on the State Department to revoke “any and all security clearances” still held by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her confidants in the wake of revelations Clinton used a private email server to transfer classified information.
OPSEC, an advocacy group comprised of former intelligence and security officials, petitioned Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday to revoke classified privileges for Clinton, as well as her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, her former deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, and her top adviser Huma Abedin, according to a copy of the letter.
The group maintains that Clinton and her allies should have their clearances revoked until government agencies can determine whether they broke the law by exchanging emails on a private email server outside of the State Department’s jurisdiction.
At least two inspectors general at the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) have come forward to say that classified information had been mishandled during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
“These four very senior officials, … while still employed by the Department, violated a plethora of department directives and Title 18 U.S. Code by their involvement with a privately owned and operated email server and domain to send and receive official emails, some of which contained” classified and secret information, OPSEC writes in its letter.
Clinton may have violated at least four laws governing the exchange of sensitive information, according to OPSEC.
The violations include removing information, some of it classified, and storing it in an “unauthorized location.” The law also forbids the disclosure of Foreign Government Information (FGI), whether it is classified or not, according to OPSEC.
Clinton and her allies may have also violated laws pertaining to Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) materials, Personally Identifying Information (PII), and Critical Infrastructure Information (CII), OPSEC says.
“There is ample evidence that this private server was inadequately protected from foreign intelligence penetration and malicious ‘hacking,’” OPSEC writes in its letter to Kerry. “Indeed, the existence of this server and its use by senior State Department officials to send and receive official emails was first disclosed publicly by a hacker from Romania.”
The State Department should adhere to normal protocol by revoking all security clearances for Clinton and her former advisers, the group writes.
“The Department of State should exercise its administrative authority to suspend any existing security clearances of these four individuals and those of any and all other individuals currently or formerly in the employ of the United States Government who may have used in any form the clintonemail.com service, pending final adjudication,” they letter states.
Scott Taylor, president of OPSEC, said in a statement that the State Department should not play political games when national security secrets are at stake.
“The American people must be assured that the Departments of State and Justice and the relevant congressional oversight committees are committed to ensuring that the laws and policies governing handling of classified materials are efficiently and consistently enforced to protect the national security of this country and its citizens,” Taylor said. “Hence, we call on Secretary Kerry to take immediately the first and essential step in fulfilling that obligation.”
A State Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a Washington Free Beacon request for comment on OPSEC’s letter and the claims made by the group.
-
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/29/lawmakers-petition-obama-investigate-marine-officers-dismissal/30837301/
-
"Contrast to treatment of Hillary."
The Clinton legal mafia is intent on shifting the focus subtly to "incompetence". Not of her's of course but of others.
Nothing criminal nothing corrupt just screw ups. "No" crimes committed. "No" laws broken. Just a lot of "questions" circulating.
And there is no controlling legal authority that will go after her while bRock is with us.
Just think him, with his personality, the chance he has to exact a price from her to keep the wolves at bay.
He must be thrilled.
And as always, in the end the Dem party will rally around their gal.
-
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/
-
Well I agree with Levin. What is the probe? Isn't it obvious there is enough to indict her?
This I will predict on. The FBI probe will find multiple deficiencies and problems but I predict nothing more.
Hillary will be absolved of any wrongdoing. Except maybe a mistake or two in trusting others who of course will be the ones who made mistakes.
When will we learn how this works?
-
Why Did Taxpayers Foot The Bill For Maintaining Hillary's Private Server?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on August 10, 2015
Hillary Clinton chose to use a private email system that she installed in her Chappaqua home, instead of using the official State Department system that was used by the rest of the more than 15,000 employees at State.
And taxpayers footed the bill for maintaining the data on both her personal and official email.
According to Hillary, her private emails server contained over 30,000 personal emails that she sent and received while Secretary of State. Hillary described them as covering her daughter's wedding, mother's funeral, family vacations, and yoga tips. She says they had absolutely nothing to do with State Department business.
So why did the State Department hire a former member of her political staff to maintain the server? Why were taxpayers charged for her private business?
The server also held an additional 30,000 emails that were official public records that she deliberately kept out of the State Department email system.
Again, why were taxpayers forced to foot the bill for her personal server that was set up for one reason -- to thwart the Freedom of Information process by keeping all of her emails, including public documents, -- out of the reach of the State Department? Should taxpayers pay the tab for her desire to frustrate federal laws about public records?
This was no accidental circumstance; it was deliberately orchestrated. Hillary apparently set up the system on the very day that she began her Senate confirmation hearings in early 2009. According to The New York Times, Justin Cooper a researcher on Bill Clinton's staff with "limited computer experience" and "no security clearance", arranged for the system.
Although Hillary publicly claimed that the server was originally installed for President Clinton's use and had many safeguards; that was not the case. The server was actually purchased by her political action committee during the 2008 campaign and installed in her house. The PAC continued to control it. Bryan Pagliano, formerly the IT specialist for Hillary's campaign, was given responsibility for maintaining the PAC's server.
Hillary's leadership PAC paid Pagliano for his work during the first four months that Hillary was Secretary of State. He obviously had no security clearance at that time, either. After April 2009, Pagliano was hired by the State Department and was responsible for the server.
So, for several months, all of the Secretary of State's official emails were processed through a server in her house that was paid for and maintained by her political organization. Is this a legitimate expenditure for a Congressional PAC? Looks like someone belatedly figured it out and foisted the cost on the American people.
So why should the taxpayers bear the brunt of her secret server?
They shouldn't.
-
"taxpayers footed the bill for maintaining the data on both her personal and official email."
Interesting twist. I had that same thought, that congress has (additional) oversight powers and responsibilities because of the taxpayer money involved. Then I thought we heard that it was all on private money. Now Morris says there it was taxpayer money running it.
We are entitled to her work product anyway, but this removes the gray area on the line between private and public business. We own the 30,000 minute gap on her email tape.
BTW, what century does she live in to think a subpoena for email should be replied with printed pages. What part of the "e" in "email" doesn't she understand?
-
A U2 concert with fellow conspirators is a business expense, right? Er, I mean taxpayer expense. Who would think to take their after tax earned income from the taxpayer to pay for personal travel when you "own" your own state-owned aircraft. A concert with the Clintons is official business. These people made him Governor. And U2 is a corporate sponsor.
Terry McAuliffe Faces Scrutiny for Air Travel to U2 Concert with Bill, Hillary Clinton
http://freebeacon.com/politics/terry-mcauliffe-faces-scrutiny-for-air-travel-to-u2-concert-with-bill-hillary-clinton/
Did they even pay with their own money for a ticket?
-
Hillary Finally Turns Over Scrubbed Server
By Nate Jackson
"As president, I would do my very best to model the kind of behavior that I would hope all of our citizens would have," Hillary Clinton told a New Hampshire audience Tuesday. So what kind of behavior would that be? Using a private email server instead of a government one to conduct (classified) business as secretary of state, and then taking years to scrub it of anything inconvenient before releasing it in a phony show of "transparency." The difference is few other citizens could get away with such a thing.
By now, everyone knows the story of her majesty's secret server. Everyone knows she dumped 55,000 printed pages on the State Department to reprocess — after she deleted more than 30,000 emails she called "personal." In March, she insisted the server “will remain private.” That's because it took a village to scrub her server of anything that might implicate her in cases like the Benghazi narrative, and her geek squad needed time to erase the most damaging stuff not just to and from her, but from staff who also used the server.
Of course, most Democrat voters won't care about any of this when they arrive at the voting booth next November, though it is notable that Bernie Sanders now leads the polls by seven points in New Hampshire. When the scandal broke, Hillary led by 37 points. Perhaps she evitable.
On Tuesday, Clinton announced she would turn over her server to the FBI, though we're pretty sure that's more a case of seizure than voluntary transparency. If it had been the latter, we might have been treated to a network news exclusive interview with her touting her "above and beyond" efforts to placate the vast right-wing conspiracy.
But what difference, at this point, does it make? We'll see what the techs at the FBI are able to uncover — it all depends on how thoroughly her server was scrubbed.
Already, Justice Department Inspector General I. Charles McCullough found emails on the server that contained "top secret" information, the highest level of classification. He warned of "potentially hundreds of classified emails" on the private server.
Just last month, Clinton told us, “I am confident that I never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.” She went on, “The facts are pretty clear: I did not send or receive anything that was classified at the time.”
Her weasel words weren't good enough. According to an IG statement last month, “These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”
Classified information isn't the only problem. Many things are sensitive if not classified, and Hillary could hardly perform her duties as secretary of state without communicating these things by email.
As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy explains, "Mrs. Clinton’s emphasis on classified documents diverts attention from another significant problem: Most sensitive information in government is not classified, but government officials are still not allowed to communicate, transmit or store it outside government communications channels and filing systems. And quite apart from any criminal liability in this regard, this point goes to Mrs. Clinton’s fitness for high office — since she not only flouted laws, regulations and guidelines; she was head of the State Department at the time and was thus obligated to enforce these laws, regulations and guidelines."
Meanwhile, Hillary signed an affidavit Monday saying, under penalty of perjury, that she had turned over all copies of government records from her tenure at State. Clintons and perjury just keep running into each other.
One of Clinton's defenses is that the State Department's email system was also compromised. But that doesn't excuse her own behavior, and she conveniently left out the fact that she oversaw that system for four years.
Now, back to the quote at the beginning: "As president, I would do my very best to model the kind of behavior that I would hope all of our citizens would have." Hillary and her husband are secretive, hypocritical, serial liars. They operate without any moral code beyond what benefits them. And they want to take the reins once again. Perish the thought.
-
I am trying not to get my expectations up just to have them dashed, again, by the sleezy Clinton mafia and media but the Drudge headlines today are so pleasing. A 25 year wait.
Hopefully they will get these grifters finally.
-
I am trying not to get my expectations up just to have them dashed, again, by the sleezy Clinton mafia and media but the Drudge headlines today are so pleasing. A 25 year wait.
Hopefully they will get these grifters finally.
FBI seizes drives, etc.
Let's see, this means either a) the Obama political machine is now turning on her, opening the door for someone else, or b) big head fake set up to "clear" her, or c) it means nothing political at all, law enforcement professionals are doing their job and justice will run its course.
I think we can rule out c).
Bernie leading her is NH is probably what is causing a) above to be true. Also having the top 4 Republicans lead her in crucial states puts the party back to the drawing board. It would be easier to repeal the 22nd amendment (that limits Obama to two terms) than to elect her.
In her attack yesterday on Marco Rubio, she had a very good, Democrat point to make, and yet her delivery would not put her in the top ten of the Republicans.
Look for Valerie Jarrett to usher in Elizabeth Warren or whoever their new choice is shortly. I was hoping Dems would choose a moderate governor, but that also wouldn't sit well with the ruling regime. Very hard to believe it will be Biden. I see him as a head fake too. They can take him down even easier than Hillary if they need to.
-
I continue to entertain the notion that Bill Clinton's phone call to Trump the week before he announced may indicate a truly nefarious plot by the Clintons for Trump to play Ross Perot and by so doing tip the election to Hillary , , , if she isn't on trial or in jail , , ,
-
Did Bill Clinton's Aides Access Hillary's Server?
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on August 12, 2015
State Dept. Inspector General Looking At Top Clinton Aides And Associates
How about Bill and his aides?
It's not just Hillary's email practices that are under serious investigation. The Inspector General for the State Department has confirmed that Hillary's top aides are also being scrutinized for how they used emails.
"Our review is not just focused on Secretary Clinton," the Inspector General's office said. "We will follow the facts wherever they lead, to include former aides and associates, as appropriate."
Although no specific aides were disclosed, the review likely includes Hillary diehards Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, and Philippe Reines.
The IG's office also mentioned "associates." Now who could they be? Sandy Berger? Sidney Blumenthal? Wesley Clark? Strobe Talbott? Those are a few of her email pals who communicated with her about policy.
What about Bill and his staff?
One more issue for the IG: Did Bill Clinton's staff have access to the server? Because Hillary has publicly stated that it housed communications from her and her husband. Since Bill doesn't ever send emails, his staff handles those communications for him. So did Bill's associates -- like Doug Band -- have access to the server and its classified contents? If not, how did Bill's communications get there?
Looks like there's lots more to come.
-
I continue to entertain the notion that Bill Clinton's phone call to Trump the week before he announced may indicate a truly nefarious plot by the Clintons for Trump to play Ross Perot and by so doing tip the election to Hillary , , , if she isn't on trial or in jail , , ,
Who knows the truth but Trump was clarifying that on radio yesterday. The phone call he says (a week before he announced) came after he decided to run. Clinton didn't encourage or discourage him to run and it wouldn't have mattered, he said. Didn't really say what they did talk about. Most likely Bill Clinton was asking him for money (just by calling up to schmooze), and didn't know yet that Trump was a candidate.
As better evidence against conspiracy, Trump maintains that he has been the hardest on Hillary which may be true. He was first (besides me) to openly doubt that she will be the nominee.
-
"The phone call he says (a week before he announced) came after he decided to run."
Well, now that we have The Donald's word on that I feel better.
-
“If Hillary Clinton goes to prison, will the Secret Service protect her there?”
-
"The phone call he says (a week before he announced) came after he decided to run."
Well, now that we have The Donald's word on that I feel better.
:-) If not his word, watch his actions. A week before the announcement, were they already out hiring supporters?
Donald Trump reportedly paid actors $50 to cheer for him at his 2016 announcement
http://www.businessinsider.com/paid-actors-at-donald-trump-announcement-2015-6
Team Trump: No, we didn’t hire actors for the launch
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/team-trump-no-we-didnt-hire-actors-the-launch
-
REP. TREY GOWDY: Every explanation Secretary Clinton has provided about a week later was proven to be demonstrably false. this is just the latest one of those assertions that there was no classified info. i saw the clip this morning. she was very definitive – she neither sent or received classified information. Well, that is patently false. hat I’m primarily concerned with is whether or not I’m going to have access to records that i need to do the job that the House asked me to do...
If she were interested in cooperation she wouldn't have done any of the things she's done to date. This was not about cooperation, and Bill, frankly, it's not about convenience, it's about control. she wanted to control access to the public record, and she almost got away with it but she didn't.
-
There Is ‘No Doubt’ Hillary Violated Federal Law on Classified Information
Maybe Hillary Clinton doesn’t skate after all. To hear former NSA officer John R. Schindler tell it, the facts of her wrongdoing aren’t really in dispute anymore:
What, then, does all this means for Hillary? There is no doubt that she, or someone on her State Department staff, violated federal law by putting TOP SECRET//SI information on an unclassified system. That it was Hillary’s private, offsite server makes the case even worse from a security viewpoint. Claims that they “didn’t know” such information was highly classified do not hold water and are irrelevant. It strains belief that anybody with clearances didn’t recognize that NSA information, which is loaded with classification markings, was signals intelligence, or SIGINT. It’s possible that the classified information found in Clinton’s email trove wasn’t marked as such. But if that classification notice was omitted, it wasn’t the U.S. intelligence community that took such markings away. Moreover, anybody holding security clearances has already assumed the responsibility for handling it properly.
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had no authority to disseminate IC information on her own, neither could she make it less highly classified (a process termed “downgrading” in the spy trade) without asking IC permission first.
We’re now getting an open admission that government business was done from private accounts:
The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal judge that Abedin — long considered her boss’s keeper and even dubbed her “shadow” — had her own email account on Clinton’s now infamous home-brewed server, “which was used at times for government business,” Clinton acknowledged. That’s an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State Department.
Abedin had been granted “special government employee” status, allowing her to work both for Clinton and the private sector — and it’s unclear if she continued using the server that appears to have held classified information following her departure from her full-time State gig.
Abedin’s “special government employee” status, enabling her to function both as Clinton’s right-hand woman at State and as a consultant to private firm Teneo Holdings seems like one the biggest, loudest, flashing-neon-sign conflicts of interest in the history of government. Why did she get that special status? Other than the fact that she and Hillary really wanted her to have it.
Our Brendan Bordelon has more on Abedin’s troubles -- for example, I had completely missed this:
On July 31, Grassley exposed the State Department inspector general’s finding that Abedin owed $9,858 to the government for unauthorized vacations and leaves of absence. Abedin’s lawyers dispute the claim, saying she was working even while on vacation in Italy and during her maternity leave. The probe, which Grassley says may be criminal in nature, is ongoing.
Here’s Slate’s Jamelle Bouie:
Among Democrats? She’ll be fine. But if some start to rethink her electability, I won’t blame them. The press distrusts Clinton and holds her to a different standard than other politicians, while Republicans just despise her. Given that, she should have used her official email account, as a way to prepare for the worst and avoid undue scrutiny. Put differently, the choice to use a private email account was an obvious blunder with consequences that have marred her campaign, even if they don’t ever end it.
Finally, our Charlie Cooke asks, why are so many people greeting a prosecution of Hillary Clinton for this as utterly unthinkable? Doesn’t that attitude an effective endorsement of the idea that she’s above the law?
-
From Jeb Bush's foreign policy speech at the Reagan Liibrary:
“In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly once,”
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/12/jeb-bush-attacks-hillary-iraq/
Iraq went from won, "Obama's greatest accomplishment" to lost, ISIS' greatest accomplishment, under the watch of our most traveled Secretary of State ever, Hillary Clinton. Or was it under her watch? During all this time and all of these travels, Hillary visited Iraq "exactly once".
How is this possible?
The truth is that Hillary was NEVER in the foreign policy decision making circle of the Obama administration. Pres. Obama appointed envoys to crucial areas who reported directly to the White House, not to Hillary Clinton. This puts Hillary in a box. Hillary can say the foreign failures of the Obama administration are not her failures, or she can say she has vast amounts of foreign policy decision making experience, but she cannot claim both.
-
The Libya War was her doing, along with Susan Rice and Samantha Powers.
==================
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-email-probe-turns-to-huma-121314.html
Hillary Clinton email probe turns to Huma
Clinton's top aide is likely to face more questions, not least from congressional investigators, about her access to Clinton’s system.
By Rachael Bade
8/13/15 5:05 AM EDT
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 10: Huma Abedin, the Muslim wife of disgraced U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), and who works as a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, listens to President Barack Obama during an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan in the State Dining Room of the White House August 10, 2012 in Washington, DC. The invited guests include elected officials, religious and grassroots leaders in the Muslim American community, leaders of diverse faiths and members of the diplomatic corps
Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s most trusted confidante, is increasingly becoming a central figure in the email scandal that’s haunting her boss on the campaign trail, as Republicans and federal judges seek information about Clinton’s communications while she was running the State Department.
The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal judge that Abedin — long considered her boss’s keeper and even dubbed her “shadow” — had her own email account on Clinton’s now infamous home-brewed server, “which was used at times for government business,” Clinton acknowledged. That’s an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State Department.
Abedin has hired a team of lawyers, one of whom is a former Clinton aide, who are responding to information requests from the courts and State. They’ve denied any wrongdoing on the part of their client and said Abedin is cooperating with requests for official emails in her possession, aiming to turn over all her correspondence by the end of August.
But her lawyers — Karen Dunn and Miguel Rodriguez — didn’t respond to questions about emails on Clinton’s separate server. Dunn is a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and she served as a senior advisor to Clinton when she was in the Senate.
EXETER, NH - AUGUST 10: Hillary Clinton held a town meeting event at Exeter High School in Exeter, N.H. on Aug. 10, 2015. (Photo by Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
Also on POLITICO
Poll: Clinton leads in Iowa, but majority not firmly decided
ELIZA COLLINS
After an inspector general found that Clinton had at least two “top secret” emails stored on her unsecured computer network, Abedin is likely to face more questions from congressional investigators, and perhaps others, about her access to Clinton’s system.
Abedin had been granted “special government employee” status, allowing her to work both for Clinton and the private sector — and it’s unclear if she continued using the server that appears to have held classified information following her departure from her full-time State gig.
On Wednesday, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill waved off questions about how the two issues — the email server and Abedin’s unusual work arrangement — may or may not have overlapped, accusing the right of playing politics with this line of inquiry.
“It’s election season, and congressional Republicans are running the same series of plays, just on a different field,” Merrill said in an email, later adding that Abedin maintained her security clearance while she worked as a State contractor.
But Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ project on government secrecy, said Abedin’s potential access to secret materials could be a problem.
“What happens if [a former government employee] still retains access through a prior server, to information that was justified by a previous position? That’s not supposed to happen — and that’s one of the anomalies that are created by the private server,” Aftergood said.
Classified materials with national security implications are supposed to be stored in a place where no one can gain access to them unless they have special clearance.
The FBI is currently probing Clinton’s email arrangement, whereby the former secretary of state used her own technology based out of her New York home instead of an official government address that is required by transparency rules. A State inspector general, who is also looking at the matter, said top Clinton aides would likely also be questioned, though he wouldn’t say who exactly.
Also on POLITICO
Clinton lawyer details server surrender as aides vow not to delete emails
JOSH GERSTEIN
At the same time, powerful congressional Republicans are probing Abedin’s “special government employee status,” while suggesting that she may have had a “conflict of interest.” The Senate Judiciary Committee claims to have a well-informed but unnamed tipster who says Abedin is or has been investigated for criminal misconduct by the State Department inspector general regarding this very issue.
The government watchdog wouldn’t comment on the accusations. And Abedin’s legal team — which is separate from Clinton’s — says it knows of no investigative reports that suggest such misconduct.
“We are aware only of an IG report focused on her maternity leave and vacation and we responded with a letter disputing the report’s conclusions, which we gave to members of the media who requested it,” her lawyers said in a statement. “Obviously, if the report covered other things, our letter would have as well. The IG will have to respond as to his investigations.”
The latest revelations come just as Abedin, the vice chairwoman of Hillary for America, is projected to be taking on more responsibilities for the campaign, heading up fundraisers and speaking to donors on Clinton’s behalf.
Beyond allegations of conflict of interest, Senate Republicans in recent weeks leaked findings by the State Department inspector general that Abedin was overpaid nearly $10,000 for “unused” time off that she actually took but did not record while working at State — a finding her lawyers are currently challenging.
Abedin, who’s been with Clinton for about two decades, started working for Clinton as a 19-year-old intern in the former first lady’s office.
At State and during the 2008 campaign she was considered Clinton’s “body woman,” never far from Clinton’s side and often seen watching her boss intently, ready to scramble to her aid at any minute. Top politicians, and even Bill Clinton, would phone her to reach Hillary, and emails released in recent months showed she enjoyed access to Clinton at her private home, too, dropping items off on her counter and instructing her how to dress and keeping her schedule.
In 2013, news broke that Abedin had been given a special government employee status, allowing her to be simultaneously on the payroll for the philanthropic Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm founded by former Clinton White House adviser Doug Band. She previously had not disclosed the dual employment.
Abedin has said she stepped back from government work and became a contractor so she could be with her family and her newborn son. But since then, critics have questioned her about whether she had a conflict of interest while working at State and alongside close friends of the Clinton family.
For two years now, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a bullish Iowa Republican who’s very active in a number of mundane executive branch oversight issues, has been asking for more details about her employment situation but has received little in the way of answers.
MANCHESTER, NH - AUGUST 10: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hosts a grassroots organizing event at McIntyre Ski Area August 10, 2015 in Manchester, New Hampshire. Clinton is on a two day swing through the first in the nation primary state, where she unveiled a college affordability plan. (Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)
Also on POLITICO
Clinton campaign mounts counter-attack over email scandal
GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI
He’s recently escalated his demands for more information after a source told the panel that the State Department inspector general had probed Abedin not only for overpayment issues but also over a potential conflict of interest. The source was able to specify that Abedin and Band were on more than 7,000 emails together while she worked at State and detailed an apparent October 2013 letter to the FBI that clarified that the watchdog’s probe was looking at potential criminal misconduct.
Huma Abedin goes over notes with Clinton during her visit to the newly opened University Teaching Hospital Pediatric Centre of Excellence, in Lusaka, Zambia, June 11, 2011. | AP Photo
Grassley has asked the FBI, State inspector general and State Department for more information about this probe — including whether it even exists.
He has also asked Abedin’s lawyers about the matter but has not heard back.
“Much of the information sought by Senator Grassley’s letter will need to be produced by the State Department and we have been in touch with State,” Dunn said in an email.
Clinton on Monday declared under penalty of perjury that she handed over all her work emails to the State Department for record-keeping purposes; Abedin declined a judge’s request to do the same.
Dunn said Abedin, who was among 10 State Department officials asked by their former agency to hand over any work-related messages on personal emails, expects to turn over all her official correspondence to the State Department by Aug. 28. On Wednesday, Dunn declined to say whether Abedin will then do the same as Clinton and swear under penalty of perjury that she has handed over all official records.
It is unclear whether all her official emails on Clinton’s server were saved.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-email-probe-turns-to-huma-121314.html#ixzz3iiaTYTVu
-
Will Huma Abedin Survive the Clinton Scandal Vortex? fullscreen (Kevin Hagen/Dreamstime) Share article on Facebookshare Tweet articletweet Plus one article on Google Plus+1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Brendan Bordelon August 13, 2015 4:00 AM @brendanbordelon It was probably inevitable that the woman always at Hillary Clinton’s side would one day be sucked into the vortex of suspicion and scandal surrounding the Democratic presidential frontrunner. For top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that day seems to have arrived. Though rumors of impropriety have swirled around Abedin for over two years, in the past two weeks they’ve snowballed into concrete allegations. Last week, the State Department inspector general claimed that the trusted Clinton confidant owes the government nearly $10,000 for violating rules regarding vacation and sick leave. And in court on Monday, Hillary Clinton admitted Abedin had an e-mail account on the now-infamous private server run out of Clinton’s house while she was secretary of state, and that the account “was used at times for government business.” State Department investigators say they’ve now expanded a probe into Clinton’s use of private e-mail to include “top aides,” meaning Abedin is almost certainly under federal investigation for the possible exchange of unsecured, classified data. Despite a glacial government response time, multiple investigations into Abedin’s simultaneous employment at the State Department and a consulting firm tied to the Clintons are also approaching their peak. Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has already accused Abedin of leveraging her dual public and private roles to “deliver favors” for key Clinton Foundation donors. Is Abedin the new Doug Band, the longtime Bill Clinton aide who eventually became a liability for the former first family’s political ambitions? And will Abedin’s escalating scandals compel the Clintons to cut her loose, just as they jettisoned Band? Band began his career as a lowly “body man” for then-President Clinton in the mid 90s, but soon morphed into a key aide in Clinton’s post-White House life. He was the gatekeeper to the former president and one of the chief architects of the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative. Many described him as the son Clinton never had. EDITORIAL: As the FBI Seizes Clinton’s Servers, Her E-Mail Scandal Enters a More Serious Phase A 2013 article in The New Republic detailed how Band’s decision to found private consulting firm Teneo Holdings in 2010 caused a rift in the Clintons’ inner circle. The former aide aggressively touted his relationship with the Clintons to prospective clients, and the Clintons worried about their ostensible connection to scandals such as the one surrounding Teneo patron and disgraced MF Global CEO Jon Corzine. Band’s relentless push to capitalize on his Clinton connections brought his loyalty into question, and the relationship soured before he left his position at the Clinton Foundation in May of this year. Like Band, Abedin worked her way up in the Clinton political machine. From her start as Hillary Clinton’s White House intern, she rose to become the former first lady’s right-hand woman at both the Clinton Foundation and the State Department. She is said to carefully control access to Clinton, and the two are extremely close — at Abedin’s wedding, Clinton described her as “a second daughter.” Abedin’s behavior may soon become a drag on her boss’s presidential prospects. But much like Band’s ultimately did, Abedin’s behavior may soon become a drag on her boss’s presidential prospects. On July 31, Grassley exposed the State Department inspector general’s finding that Abedin owed $9,858 to the government for unauthorized vacations and leaves of absence. Abedin’s lawyers dispute the claim, saying she was working even while on vacation in Italy and during her maternity leave. The probe, which Grassley says may be criminal in nature, is ongoing. This isn’t Grassley’s first look into Abedin’s time at the State Department. For over two years, he has sought answers on her simultaneous employment as a consultant at Teneo — Doug Band’s firm — and as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff at Foggy Bottom. Between June 2012 and February 2013, Abedin was granted “special government employee” status, enabling her to function both as Clinton’s right-hand woman at State and as a consultant to Teneo. Concerned that Abedin may have leveraged her high-level government position to benefit Teneo’s clients, in August 2013 Grassley requested that the State Department turn over all official communications between Abedin and Band. Get Free Exclusive NR Content That request remains unfulfilled, despite the Judiciary Committee chairman’s numerous inquiries over the past two years. Last week, the senator said the department wouldn’t even return his staff’s phone calls. Allan Blutstein, a former government FOIA attorney, says that the State Department’s delay “seems unusual,” since documents requested by the chairperson of a congressional committee are generally released expeditiously, absent claims of executive privilege. “Most agencies, to maintain effective relations, will process those requests as quickly as practicable,” he says. “Two years is a long time not to respond to a committee chair’s request.” Nevertheless, Grassley appears to have gained some knowledge of Abedin’s Teneo-related communications without State’s help. A letter released by his office on July 30 claims there are over 7,300 e-mails between Abedin and Band on her official government account. In one, Band allegedly urges Abedin to ask Hillary Clinton to intercede with President Obama on behalf of one of his clients, Judith Rodin, who was seeking a White House job. As president of the Rockefeller Foundation, Rodin had steered hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation — something Band reportedly noted in the e-mail. RELATED: Is Hillary Above the Law? Last week, Grassley accused the State Department of “a pattern of conduct that clearly demonstrates a lack of cooperation and bad faith.” On August 5, he placed a Senate hold on the department’s nomination of an important assistant secretary. The next day, he announced his intention to place holds on 20 more State nominees. “The department must recognize that it has an obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner,” he said in a press release. (The State Department did not respond to NR’s request for comment.) Clinton’s enemies are confident that they can prove the link between Abedin’s alleged misdeeds and Clinton herself. Other officials have also expressed frustration over the State Department’s delay in producing Abedin’s communications. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, presiding over an Associated Press lawsuit, slammed the department for its slow response on July 20 and ordered expedited processing of the e-mails. “It appears they didn’t get anything done for two years,” Leon said. With pressure building on multiple fronts, the documents detailing Abedin’s relationship with Teneo are likely to be released soon. If those documents prove damaging, the Clintons may have to decide whether she is too much of a liability to keep around. Still, it would be surprising if the Clintons cut ties with Abedin the way they did with Band. The State Department’s approval of her request for the special status needed to work at Teneo suggests she joined the consulting firm with Hillary Clinton’s blessing. The scandal now engulfing Abedin over her use of a private e-mail account is the same one that’s already swallowed her boss. And unlike Band’s, Abedin’s loyalty to the Clintons has never been questioned. More Hillary Clinton Handicapping the 2016 Field, Round Three Why Hillary’s Wiping Her E-mail Server Clean Matters More than It Might Seem Hillary Clinton and the Pain of Being a Peon “Huma Abedin has spent nearly two decades in public service, and is widely known to be one of the hardest-working people in government,” says Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill. “She is smart, loyal, compassionate, and she is an invaluable part of the team. Period.” Some political analysts doubt that an Abedin scandal, or a series of scandals, would damage the Clinton campaign. “The average person has no idea who Huma Abedin is, and I expect that to be the case throughout the campaign,” says Nathan Gonzales, co-founder of the Rothenberg and Gonzales Political Report. “If someone is taking issue with any of her actions, they probably weren’t going to vote for Clinton anyway.” But Clinton’s enemies are confident that they can prove the link between Abedin’s alleged misdeeds and Clinton herself. “The motivations of why Huma is doing these things for the Clinton Foundation and for Teneo are important,” says David Bossie, a perennial Clinton foe whose organization Citizens United is pursuing its own lawsuit for Abedin’s records. “All roads lead back to Bill and Hillary Clinton.” — Brendan Bordelon is a political reporter at National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422475/hillary-clinton-scandals-huma-abedin
-
Sad the server was not seized immediately as it should have been. I would think any reasonable law enforcement people would have known to do this. Do not understand why not done.
If Drudge report is correct that the server was wiped clean by professionals than her lawyers who allowed this, the IT people who did this and her staff and she should be up for obstruction of justice.
We would need a Republican in the House to pursue this and not let her get away with it.
Jeb will pardon her as would Kasich and the other wimps IMHO.
-
The Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed
Now Hillary finally hands over her server—after it's been professionally wiped clean By Sidney Powell | 08/13/15
After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled.
Myriad criminal offenses apply to this conduct. Anyone with knowledge of government workings has known from inception that Hillary’s communications necessarily would contain classified and national security related information. Thanks to the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, it is now beyond dispute that she had ultra-Top Secret information and more that should never have left the State Department.
Equal to Ms. Clinton’s outrageous misconduct is that of the entire federal law enforcement community. It has long chosen to be deliberately blind to these flagrant infractions of laws designed to protect national security—laws for which other people, even reporters, have endured atrocious investigations, prosecutions, and some served years in prison for comparatively minor infractions. During the same years that Hillary was communicating about national security and world affairs off the grid, the Department of Justice has had no qualms threatening news reporters and prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act.
It’s high time for a special prosecutor to be named to conduct a full investigation into Ms. Clinton’s likely commission of multiple felonies, including a conspiracy with Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and possibly others, to violate multiple laws. While the FBI and Department of Justice have willfully ignored Hillary Clinton’s outrageous conduct, they didn’t hesitate a minute to investigate and prosecute former CIA Director and national hero, General Petraeus. He was just tarred, feathered and ridden out of the CIA on a rail for sharing some information (his own notebook) with his biographer who was both in the military and had a top secret clearance.
Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no “leak.”
But that’s not all. During the same years that Hillary was communicating about national security and world affairs off the grid, the Department of Justice has had no qualms threatening news reporters and prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act. To hell with the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, even the New York Times reported that this administration prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers for “espionage” than all prior administrations put together.
Remember Fox news reporter James Rosen? The Holder Justice Department not only seized his emails immediately and without his knowledge, they suggested he was a criminal “co-conspirator” in a leak case—under the Espionage Act—which carries a ten-year term of imprisonment. And they quickly indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senator Menendez on extremely stretched or tortured views of vague criminal statutes and factual allegations of conduct that may well not be criminal.
Senator Menendez can’t vacation with his best friend but Hillary Clinton and her “Foundation” can accept millions of dollars from foreign governments seeking to curry her favor. Yet there’s been no criminal investigation of Ms. Clinton and her cabal? They couldn’t seize her server months ago while it contained all the emails? They couldn’t put a stop to it from the beginning?
Oh right, I forgot. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Ms. Clinton had declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight. And oh yes, her name is Clinton, and she has long deemed herself above the law. The rules only apply to everyone else.
But wait, there’s still more. The current Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Leslie Caldwell, and her Chief of the Corporate Fraud Section, Andrew Weissmann, destroyed Arthur Andersen and its 85,000 jobs on unfounded charges of obstruction of justice for destroying documents the Supreme Court said it had no legal obligation to keep.
The laws governing Ms. Clinton’s obligations are clear. Nonetheless, they haven’t even convened a grand jury to look into Ms. Clinton’s longstanding assertion that she wiped her server clean—of documents she was legally required to keep? On top of that, there can be little doubt that Eric Holder and other high-ranking FBI and DOJ officials themselves wrote Ms. Clinton at Clintonemail.com—not to mention countless communications with the President and “All His Muses”—Counter-terrrorism advisor Lisa Monaco, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and then White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler (not to mention Valerie Jarrett)—about Benghazi and all other top secret and classified issues. The DOJ hasn’t subpoenaed the emails from any of the recipients—or the internet service providers? Or looked for them on the backup government servers of the accounts of all the recipients?
And the State Department still today is making statements defending her? Not only did Ms. Clinton deliberately demonstrate disdain for the Federal Records Act and nullify the protections of the Freedom of Information Act, she violated the Espionage Act by having information relating to the national defense on her server at all. And her deliberate disregard for national security made the job of all hackers that much easier.
As Andy McCarthy explained it in the National Review: In fact, the espionage act—which regulates the handling of intelligence by government officials — does not refer to classified information; it refers to information relating to the national defense. Moreover, it does not prohibit solely the transmission of such information; it criminalizes the communication, delivery, or transmission of that information; causing communication, delivery, or transmission of that information; permitting the removal of that information from its proper place of custody through gross negligence; permitting that information to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed through gross negligence; or, failing to make a prompt report to superiors in the government when an official knows that the information has been removed from its proper place of custody, communicated to someone not authorized to have it, lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.
See also Title 18 United States Code Section 2071 (prohibiting destruction of records). The Inspector General for the Intelligence Community has advised Congress that even in the few emails he has reviewed, there was top secret information—in the form of digital satellite imagery and signals intelligence. Regardless of how it was marked, and no doubt Ms. Clinton will blame others, even a neophyte would have known that such information was of the highest secrecy.
Not surprisingly, the first seeds of Ms. Clinton’s deflecting the blame to underlings were sown by her protectors in the State Department itself last night. Aside from that, her knowledge and intent do not matter under some of these statutes and are indefensible under others. General Petraeus certainly had no criminal intent, and neither did any of the reporters. Ms. Clinton, however, established her entire system to avoid the law and in violation of the Espionage Act—as she and her co-conspirators removed all records from the State Department from its inception. Compounding her crimes, she knowingly and willfully destroyed whatever she wanted to destroy—despite or more likely because of—the incriminating information it contained and in the face of the Benghazi investigation.
There’s still more. The countless false statements are crimes under 18 United States Code Section 1001—both by Ms. Clinton to Congress (“no classified information”) and in writing by Cheryl Mills to the State Department and just filed with Judge Sullivan—in which she states: “On matters pertaining to the conduct of government business, it was her practice to use the officials’ government email accounts.”
We already know that Ms. Clinton used her personal server exclusively. Title 18 United States Code Section 1001 makes it a crime for anyone to “knowingly and willfully” falsify, conceal, or cover up “a material fact,” or make “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or misrepresentation,” etc. Countless people are convicted felons under this statute—some for offenses that would never occur to anyone even to be a crime. And these are just a few of the possible statutes that it would appear to any federal prosecutor that she and her corrupt cabal violated.
As Lt. Col. Ralph Peters had the guts to say last night on FoxNews, “Hillary Clinton is a criminal.” Military heroes who have risked their lives for this country have gone to prison for less. The Department of Justice’s selective prosecutions have been well-documented. Its favoritism and targeting practices must end.
As discussed on NewsMaxTV’s Hardline last night, it’s time for a national outcry for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and indict Ms. Clinton’s flagrant violations of some of our most important laws. Anyone else would have been arrested by now.
Until there is a massive change in this country, justice is a game.
-
"Sad the server was not seized immediately as it should have been. I would think any reasonable law enforcement people would have known to do this. Do not understand why not done.
If Drudge report is correct that the server was wiped clean by professionals than her lawyers who allowed this, the IT people who did this and her staff and she should be up for obstruction of justice."
----------------------------
It will be interesting to find out someday what role Obama-Clinton politics played in the delay and decision to seize the server. There was a time to let them turn over voluntarily. That time is long past. The more they scrubbed it, the more guilty they are. And those emails will come back around some other way. Likewise, it is fun to watch them squirm; they deserve this. LA Times editorial today calls it a self-inflicted wound. That is obvious but it was not obvious that the left and even their own supporters would pick up on the seriousness of it.
Rush L has it right. Hillary can't drop out because she already promised vast amounts of political favors, corruption, appointments, funding, etc. based on committing to run for President and win. She cannot pay back that money without power. Everything to do with the Clinton Crime Family foundation is based on her power to return favors on a very large scale.
When this ship goes down, the whole operation goes down. And when it goes down, the rats on it will have nothing left to sell except their own stories about Clinton family crimes and mis-deeds.
Meanwhile, we are all once again distracted by the latest shiny object. The problem with America isn't that Barack Obama is a hypocritical narcissist or that Bill and Hillary are dishonest and corrupt. The problem is the massive advance of statism over our founding principles of individual freedom and responsibility.
We need to take down and cleanse out lying and corrupt politicians from time to time in either party, but our focus needs to stay on defeating the expansion of government and promoting the elevation of the people. i.e. 'the right to rise' as one candidate calls it.
-
"Meanwhile, we are all once again distracted by the latest shiny object. The problem with America isn't that Barack Obama is a hypocritical narcissist or that Bill and Hillary are dishonest and corrupt. The problem is the massive advance of statism over our founding principles of individual freedom and responsibility.
We need to take down and cleanse out lying and corrupt politicians from time to time in either party, but our focus needs to stay on defeating the expansion of government and promoting the elevation of the people. i.e. 'the right to rise' as one candidate calls it."
Well said. But taking down Obama and the Clintons, the fronts for the massive socialist movement is a first step.
Taking down their myths is part of the second step.
I don't know who can step up and be the "front" for this new birth of freedom at this time.
-
After Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton cleaned the server she used during her tenure as Secretary of State and handed it over to the FBI, a federal judge made an order that the Justice Department and the FBI gain access to the 32,000 emails Clinton did not turn over because she classified them as “personal.”
Before releasing the server, along with three thumb drives containing a redacted list of emails, Clinton released 55,000 pages comprised of 30,000 emails that she deemed “work-related” to the State Department last year, and then claimed that she deleted over 30,000 emails that she had deemed “personal.”
[RELATED: Hillary Clinton Deletes All Emails, Wipes Server Clean]
Out of the 30,000 emails the State Department has access to, it has released 40 to I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community. On Tuesday, he classified two of those emails as “top secret,” containing the highest classification of government intelligence information.
After it was revealed that at least two messages had been upgraded to classified, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered the Justice Department work with the FBI to gain access to the trove of “personal” emails Clinton claimed she deleted.
[RELATED: Breaking The Law? Hillary Clinton Used Private Email As Secretary of State]
Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), a member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said that the Committee is now aware that they “didn’t get all the relevant documents from that server and the American people are entitled to them.”
The Washington Times noted that while one judge is “trying to decide how the government is going about determining what classified information is included” in Clinton’s emails, another judge is “exploring the email practices” of Clinton’s top aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
Although Clinton insisted that her server did not contain any classified information, McCullough’s “top secret” findings add to the list of false claims she has made about her email use as Secretary of State.
[RELATED: Fact Check: Holes In Hillary’s Email Story]
Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News, noted that while Clinton’s server contained “top secret,” or the highest level of information that could potentially cause “grave harm” to national security, General David Petraeus had access to classified information, which is at the lowest level, and he was “indicted, prosecuted and convicted” for having the materials “in a desk drawer in his house.”
Prior to the revelation that Clinton’s email account contained “top secret” information, two inspectors general requested that the State Department conduct a criminal investigation into Clinton’s email practices after a memo was released, which stated that Clinton’s private email account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.”
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/tick_tick_tick_following_the_email_trails_leading_to_and_from_hillarys_scrubbed_server.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
-
Bill and Brock playing golf. Next up. Case against the obvious felons will become a dead end.
-
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?referrer&_r=2
A liberal calls for getting ready to jump ship:
http://theweek.com/articles/571567/hillary-clinton-democratic-partys-ticking-time-bomb
-
Clinton Defies the Law and Common Sense
The question of whether Hillary Clinton’s emails were marked top secret isn’t legally relevant. Any cabinet member should know that.
By
Michael B. Mukasey
Aug. 14, 2015 6:49 p.m. ET
Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct public business while serving as secretary of state, followed by the deletion of information on that server and the transfer to her lawyer of a thumb drive containing heretofore unexplored data, engages several issues of criminal law—but the overriding issue is one of plain common sense.
Let’s consider the potentially applicable criminal laws in order of severity.
It is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than a year to keep “documents or materials containing classified information . . . at an unauthorized location.” Note that it is the information that is protected; the issue doesn’t turn on whether the document or materials bear a classified marking. This is the statute under which David Petraeus—former Army general and Central Intelligence Agency director—was prosecuted for keeping classified information at home. Mrs. Clinton’s holding of classified information on a personal server was a violation of that law. So is transferring that information on a thumb drive to David Kendall, her lawyer.
Moving up the scale, the law relating to public records generally makes it a felony for anyone having custody of a “record or other thing” that is “deposited with . . . a public officer” to “remove” or “destroy” it, with a maximum penalty of three years. Emails are records, and the secretary of state is a public officer and by statute their custodian.
The Espionage Act defines as a felony, punishable by up to 10 years, the grossly negligent loss or destruction of “information relating to the national defense.” Note that at least one of the emails from the small random sample taken by the inspector general for the intelligence community contained signals intelligence and was classified top secret.
To be sure, this particular email was turned over, but on paper rather than in its original electronic form, without the metadata that went with it. If other emails of like sensitivity are among the 30,000 Mrs. Clinton erased, that is yet more problematic. The server is now in the hands of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose forensic skills in recovering data in situations like this are unexcelled.
The highest step in this ascending scale of criminal penalties—20 years maximum—is reached by anyone who destroys “any record, document or tangible object with intent to impede, obstruct or influence the proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States . . . or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter.”
So, for example, if Mrs. Clinton caused to be wiped out emails that might have been anticipated to be of interest to a congressional committee, such conduct would come within the sweep of the statute. That, by the way, is the obstruction-of-justice statute, as revised by the Sarbanes-Oxley law, passed by Congress in 2002 while Mrs. Clinton served as a senator, and for which she voted.
All of this is not to suggest that Mrs. Clinton is in real danger of going to jail any time soon. All of these laws require at least knowing conduct, and the obstruction statute requires specific intent to impede at least a contemplated proceeding. It is not helpful to Mrs. Clinton’s cause that the emails finally turned over to the State Department were in paper rather than electronic form, which makes it impossible to search them—and easier to alter them—and would thus tend to impede rather than advance a congressional investigation.
Further, we won’t know whether permanent damage was done by the email erasure unless someone manages to examine the thumb drive in the possession of Mr. Kendall. The actual erasure of material appears to have been done by one or more of Mrs. Clinton’s aides, and we can certainly expect some or all of them to dive, if not be thrown, under the bus. Nonetheless, these statutes serve at least to measure the severity with which the law views the conduct here.
The common-sense issues in this matter are more problematic than the criminal ones. Anyone who enters the Situation Room at the White House, where Mrs. Clinton was photographed during the Osama bin Laden raid, is required to place any personal electronic device in a receptacle outside the room, lest it be activated involuntarily and confidential communications disclosed.
Mrs. Clinton herself, in a now famous email, cautioned State Department employees not to conduct official business on personal email accounts. The current secretary of state, John Kerry, testified that he assumes that his emails have been the object of surveillance by hostile foreign powers. It is inconceivable that the nation’s senior foreign-relations official was unaware of the risk that communications about this country’s relationships with foreign governments would be of particular interest to those governments, and to others.
It is no answer to say, as Mrs. Clinton did at one time, that emails were not marked classified when sent or received. Of course they were not; there is no little creature sitting on the shoulders of public officials classifying words as they are uttered and sent. But the laws are concerned with the sensitivity of information, not the sensitivity of the markings on whatever may contain the information.
The culture in Washington, particularly among senior-executive officials, is pervasively risk-averse, and has been for some time. When I took office as U.S. attorney general in 2007, members of my staff saw to it that I stopped carrying a BlackBerry, lest I inadvertently send confidential information over an insecure network or lest it be activated, without my knowledge, and my communications monitored.
When I attended my first briefing in a secure facility, and brought a pad to take notes, my chief of staff leaned over and wrote in bold capital letters at the top of the first page, “TS/SCI,” meaning Top Secret, Secure Compartmentalized Information—which is to say, information that may be looked at only in what is known as a SCIF, a Secure, Compartmentalized Information Facility. My office was considered a SCIF; my apartment was not.
The point he was making by doing that—and this is just the point that seems to have eluded the former secretary of state—is one of common sense: Once you assume a public office, your communications about anything having to do with your job are not your personal business or property. They are the public’s business and the public’s property, and are to be treated as no different from communications of like sensitivity.
That something so obvious could have eluded Mrs. Clinton raises questions about her suitability both for the office she held and for the office she seeks.
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general (2007-09) and as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York (1988-2006).
Popular on WSJ
This latest scam of the Clintons makes their 90s WH quid pro quo look like–if you’ll pardon the oxymoron–penny ante treason.
While the missus was SoS, the couple pocketed billions. The multifarious vectors of transaction &the massive, disproportionate Clinton gains are prima facie evidence of the crime. Why else would so many pay so much for so little?
The clintons' appetite for money&power is insatiable. Like laboratory rats, put enough of the goodies in front of these 2&they will gorge themselves to death.
The Clintons have a long history of selling out America to the enemy, often in plain sight. For 8yrs, they methodically, seditiously& w/ impunity auctioned off our security, sovereignty&economy to the highest foreign bidder…&they are selling us out in plain sight today…which explains why Mrs Clinton chose to scrub the server & risk being charged w/ obstruction. The alternative is a capital offense.
-
Opinion
Review & Outlook
All the Secretary’s Women
The Clinton email cover up keeps unraveling, thanks to the courts.
Aug. 13, 2015 7:37 p.m. ET
Hillary Clinton has made a career of stiff-arming Congress, inspectors general and the press. So it looks like it’s up to the courts and law enforcement to get to the bottom of her email scandal.
That’s the real meaning of this week’s news in the email case, as the Clinton stonewall becomes harder to sustain. Mrs. Clinton is turning over to the FBI the private server she used to conduct government business while Secretary of State, as well as three thumb drives containing her government-related email. The Clinton campaign won’t say she did this voluntarily, or in response to an FBI demand. And the FBI won’t say why it sought the server. But the handover follows news that top-secret information traveled across her private system, despite her previous denials.
Meanwhile, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan has now verified that Mrs. Clinton will not certify that she has handed over to the State Department all of her work-related records. Two of her closest aides are also dodging Judge Sullivan’s request to hand over their work-related documents to State, and we now know that one of Mrs. Clinton’s aides was using the unsecured Clinton system for government work.
Judge Sullivan is overseeing a Freedom of Information Act case brought in 2013 by Judicial Watch. The watchdog group sought documents relating to the employment of Huma Abedin, who was allowed to work outside the government even as she served as a top Clinton State Department aide. State told Judicial Watch in 2014 it had turned over everything relevant, and the group then dropped its lawsuit.
But the news of previously undisclosed Clinton emails convinced Judge Sullivan in June to take the rare step of reopening the Abedin case. To ascertain whether State was finally searching through every record, he ordered State on July 31 to request that Mrs. Clinton and two of her aides—Ms. Abedin and Cheryl Mills—confirm under penalty of perjury that they had produced all government records in their possession, and that they describe their use of Mrs. Clinton’s server for government business. That response deadline was last Friday.
Mrs. Clinton’s reaction to the deadline was a classic. “While I do not know what information may be ‘responsive’ for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody, that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done,” she wrote in a declaration submitted to the court. Translation: If everything wasn’t turned over, it’s not her fault.
But her declaration to the court did disclose that Mrs. Abedin had an “account” on Mrs. Clinton’s server “which was used at times for government business.” The admission that her aides were also using her server demolishes Mrs. Clinton’s previous claim that she used this server for personal “convenience.” She was really running a parallel mini-State email operation.
Both aides were also supposed to submit declarations that they had turned over all government records to the State Department. Instead, they blew off Judge Sullivan and directed their attorneys to explain that they are still searching their private records and in time will get around to supplying them. This is remarkable given that State first requested they turn over any work-related records in March.
Mrs. Clinton and her lawyers have been careful to never use the word “delete” regarding her emails. Mrs. Clinton said that she “chose not to keep” her yoga diary and the rest. Her lawyer, David Kendall, has said emails no longer exist on the server. But do those emails still exist in another location—on a hard drive or thumb drive—or in someone else’s possession? The FBI has the forensic ability to retrieve the emails if they still exist, assuming that the agency isn’t merely going through the pro-forma motions.
Keep in mind that none of this would have happened without Judge Sullivan enforcing the freedom-of-information law. Credit as well goes to federal Judge Rudolph Contreras for ordering the State Department to start producing the Clinton records, and to federal Judge Richard Leon for rapping State over its delays producing the emails. Congressman Trey Gowdy’s House committee on Benghazi has also been indispensable in pressing the server issue.
***
The Clinton campaign released two memos to its supporters this week, telling them to calm down, the email storm is merely the Republican attack machine at work, and Mrs. Clinton is still beating GOP candidates head to head in the polls. If they can tough it out until Election Day, they think they’ll win.
But the federal judiciary isn’t partisan, and the real lesson from the email fiasco is that this is how the Clintons act when they’re in power. They play by their own rules, and when they’re caught they stonewall and obfuscate and blame it all on partisanship. Maybe her sinking poll numbers mean that voters are finally catching on.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/16/abcs-karl-highly-likely-theres-a-backup-server-with-hillary-clintons-emails/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/16/abcs-karl-highly-likely-theres-a-backup-server-with-hillary-clintons-emails/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
The IT company is in trouble too. They have a lot of motivation to cooperate with the investigation.
-
Exactly!
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-spy-on-clinton-you-and-i-would-get-fired-jailed/article/2570291
Yup.
-
For those not familiar with the name Robert Baer, under Bill Clinton he headed for the CIA the team hunting Osama Bin Laden and is the author of a couple of books well worth the reading.
He has been a regular expert guest on FOX, often taking lines of analysis quite sideways to conventional Republican wisdom.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/17/list-clintons-emails-flagged-for-classified-data-hits-60/
-
A ‘Formal Criminal Investigation’ of Hillary’s E-mails Is ‘Under Consideration’
Either the FBI is going to take Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server and the classified information in e-mails extremely seriously . . . or a whole bunch of former FBI agents are going to be disappointed with their former employer.
For now, federal authorities characterize the Justice Department inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s private email server as a security situation: a simple matter of finding out whether classified information leaked out during her tenure as secretary of state, and where it went.
Except, former government officials said, that’s not going to be so simple.
“I think that the FBI will be moving with all deliberate speed to determine whether there were serious breaches of national security here,” said Ron Hosko, who used to lead the FBI’s criminal investigative division.
He said agents will direct their questions not just at Clinton, but also her close associates at the State Department and beyond.
“I would want to know how did this occur to begin with, who knew, who approved,” Hosko said.
Authorities are asking whether Clinton or her aides mishandled secrets about the Benghazi attacks and other subjects by corresponding about them in emails.
For her part, Clinton said she did not use that email account to send or receive anything marked classified.
“Whether it was a personal account or a government account, I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified which is the way you know whether something is,” she said Tuesday in a question-and-answer session with reporters.
Why is Clinton emphasizing the idea that none of those messages were marked? Because what she knew — her intent — matters a lot under the law. If the Justice Department and FBI inquiry turns into a formal criminal investigation.
Are we really to believe that when she’s reading about -- you name it, drone strikes, satellite images, evacuation plans for staffers in Benghazi -- that Hillary Clinton never thought that any of that information was classified?
The inspector general’s report said that the classification labels had been removed . . .
“We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included [intelligence community]-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network,” wrote McCullough, the inspector general for the intelligence community, who described his review as incomplete.
A spokeswoman for McCullough, Andrea Williams, said Friday that there are at least four emails of concern, which have yet to be released by the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act. “They were not marked at all but contained classified information,” she wrote in an email to TIME Friday.
. . . which suggests some staffers were taking off the classified label and then sending it to Hillary.
Here’s the bombshell:
Two lawyers familiar with the inquiry told NPR that a formal criminal investigation is under consideration and could happen soon -- although they caution that Clinton herself may not be the target.
In other words, look out, staffers.
Here’s Michael Hayden -- former director of the NSA, and former director of the CIA -- declaring that the e-mail system would be “a very juicy target” and “not very difficult if you have the resources and talented people to go after it. The NSA does this all the time against, I would suggest, better defended targets.”
-
Mika and Joe on MSLSD this AM when reviewing her famous "wipe the drive with a cloth" interview claimed she has no good options on what to say.
I disagree. She should say,
"I am withdrawing from running for elected office and my public life is over while I confront my legal issues as private citizen. I don't think it is fair to the people of the United States to have to experience the burden of this legal issue going forward. It is not fair to my party the country women who look up to me."
"It was an honor to serve in a the public sector for so many years."
That is what she should say and is her only option.
Unless of course Obama agrees to the fix.
-
Classified or Not? Explaining the Clinton Email Controversy
Article
Comments (20)
2016
Election 2016
emails
hillary clinton
33
12
By
Byron Tau
CONNECT
Hillary Clinton earlier this week
John Locher/Associated Press
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s campaign acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that her email archive contains material that is now classified—but downplayed its admission by saying the material had been retroactively classified out of an abundance of caution by U.S. intelligence agencies. Further, she said she has done nothing illegal.
“She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, on Wednesday.
Here is a rundown of the key issues in the fight over whether classified information was improperly sent or received by her private email address, which has become the focus of the controversy surrounding her email setup.
First, remind me how the email controversy got started.
When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to early 2013, she used a private setup for her email. In late 2014, Mrs. Clinton turned over her work-related emails at the request of the State Department. In March 2015, Mrs. Clinton gave her first comments on why she used a private system, saying the setup was for convenience. (See a timeline of events leading up to these remarks.) She also said she wanted all her work emails to be made public. These emails are being reviewed and released in batches by the State Department this year. Aside from public interest in the contents of the emails, there were also concerns about the level of security protecting her emails, since they resided outside government control.
So, what then kicked off the classification review?
The State Department told a federal court in May that it would be reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails for any sensitive information in consultation with other government agencies before releasing them. Such precautions are a routine part of the Freedom of Information Act process. However, a few months later two inspectors general — independent, internal government watchdogs — raised concerns about the thoroughness of that process as part of an independent audit. Specifically, the two IGs warned that classified information had already been released publicly by the State Department and recommended that other intelligence agencies be more involved in the screening. The intelligence community inspector general found four emails in Mrs. Clinton’s email trove that appeared to be classified when they were sent. Since then, reviewers from five intelligence agencies have identified 305 emails out of about 6,000 that have been designed for further scrutiny to ensure they contain no classified material.
Explain the classification system. That’s like “Confidential” or “Secret”?
Yes. The classification system is laid out by executive order and aims to protect national security information. Generally, classified information is designated either “Confidential,” “Secret” or “Top Secret.” All three require various levels of security clearances and secure computer systems or access procedures designed protect the information. As head of the State Department, Mrs. Clinton had some power to determine what information her department considered classified. But she was also obligated to protect the classified information shared with her by other agencies.
How does that relate to the FBI probe?
Once the two inspectors general discovered that classified information was on a server not in the government’s possession, they made a referral to the FBI about the situation. The IGs “did not make a criminal referral,” they said in a July statement. “It was a security referral made for counter intelligence purposes. The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information” to appropriate officials. Department of Justice officials have said Mrs. Clinton herself is not a target of the investigation.
What are some of the emails under scrutiny?
As mentioned earlier in this Q&A, the inspector general for the intelligence community said earlier this year he found four emails containing material that was classified at the time they were written. The State Department and the Clinton campaign now disagree with that assessment. Two of the four emails were identified by Fox News on Wednesday as two emails flagged by the inspector general as part of its referral to the FBI. Both were already released publicly as part of an investigation into the death of the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, Libya. The two emails in question were written by lower-ranking State Department officials and forwarded to Mrs. Clinton by top aides Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, who both now work for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. (Here is the 2011 email forwarded by Ms. Abedin to Mrs. Clinton, and here is the 2012 email from Mr.Sullivan to Mrs. Clinton.)
How can I see more of her her emails?
You can see the full archive in the WSJ.com email archive tool. They are first posted at the State Department’s FOIA site.
What happened to the email server after Mrs. Clinton left office?
The server was at one point run out of Mrs. Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., according to reports. However, Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer said in a letter this month that a private IT firm called Platte River Networks was hired to manage it sometime in 2013 — the same year Mrs. Clinton left her State Department post. That firm has now turned over her server to the FBI. The details about what was on the server when Platte River Networks took control of it are not clear.
What are these thumb drives belonging to David Kendall?
The Intelligence Community inspector general announced last month that it had uncovered that Mrs. Clinton’s personal attorney David Kendall was in possession of a thumb drive containing an archive of her work email. Mr. Kendall acknowledged in a letter that he possessed two other copies of that thumb drive. State Department officials noted that Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys had a security clearance and said they had provided adequate security precautions to allow Mr. Kendall’s firm to store those thumb drives, despite the fact that they were now deemed to have contained classified information. Mr. Kendall turned all of his thumb drives over to the FBI.
Was the server ever wiped?
Mrs. Clinton said in March that she “chose not to keep my private personal emails — emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.” Mr. Kendall, her lawyer, further affirmed that no emails were left on the server in a March letter to Congress. After a review to identify potential work-related emails, Mrs. Clinton asked that her server be set to only keep 60 days worth of email. Mr. Kendall said in the same letter that no emails from Mrs. Clinton’s time in office remained on the server as of March.
So did she, or did she not, send or receive classified info on her private email?
The State Department and the inspectors general are at odds over this fact. The State Department has said repeatedly that that while some information has been retroactively classified, Mrs. Clinton’s emails did not contain anything classified at the time as far as they were aware. Other intelligence agencies disagree, saying that her email contains information that was classified at the time and should have been submitted over a secure email system. Because the fight is essentially a bureaucratic turf war over complicated issues of classification, it’s difficult to say at this point without a more complete report.
On Wednesday, campaign spokesman Fallon said: “When it comes to classified information, the standards are not at all black and white.”
What has Mrs. Clinton’s said about it?
In March, Mrs. Clinton said definitively: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”
After the inspectors general report, Mrs. Clinton started to emphasize that the information was not identified as classified — something that the inspectors general also attest to. “I did not send classified material and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified — which is the way you know whether something is,” Mrs. Clinton said Tuesday.
On Wednesday, her campaign finally acknowledged the presence of now-classified material but said that such material was only retroactively classified as part of the routine turf war between agencies.
“That’s why we are so confident that this review will remain a security-related review. We think that furthermore this matter is mostly just shining a spotlight on a culture of classification that exists within certain corners of the government, especially the intelligence community,” he said.
______________________________________________________
Politics Alerts: Get email alerts on breaking news and big scoops. (NEW!)
Capital Journal Daybreak Newsletter: Sign up to get the latest on politics, policy and defense delivered to your inbox every morning.
For the latest Washington news,
For outside analysis,
Recommended post
x
Rand Paul, Amid Setbacks, Looks to the Ron Paul Playbook
2016
Election 2016
gop
rand paul
Ron Paul
previousSilicon Valley Group Hits Back at Trump’s Immigration Plan
nextCapital Journal Daybreak: Clinton’s Emails, Trump, Bush Duel at Competing Events, More
Washington Wire HOME PAGE
33
12
previousSilicon Valley Group Hits Back at Trump’s Immigration Plan
nextCapital Journal Daybreak: Clinton’s Emails, Trump, Bush Duel at Competing Events, More
-
Apparently the WaPo had a major article on Huma Abedin a few days ago. Would someone please find it and post it here?
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-huma-abedin-operated-at-the-center-of-the-clinton-universe/2015/08/27/cd099eee-4b32-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html
-
Thank you :-)
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-huma-abedin-operated-at-the-center-of-the-clinton-universe/2015/08/27/cd099eee-4b32-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html
Hillary goes nowhere without Huma. We were told they are secretly lesbian lovers. Huma's family has ties to CAIR and to radical Islam. Some thought Huma calls the shots. BUt reading the emails it turns out Huma's relationship revolves around clerical support. "Huma, please print."
Hillary's sycophantic Inner Circle
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423015/hillary-clinton-emails-inner-circle-yes-men
-
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-received-plan-impeach-clarence-thomas_1023239.html
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423366/hillary-clinton-emails-born-classified-info
by Joel Gehrke September 1, 2015 11:05 AM @Joelmentum Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to have instructed a United States envoy to send information obtained from foreign government officials, which is “born classified” under government rules, to her personal e-mail account.
The messages, which undermine Clinton’s claims that she did not knowingly receive classified information on the private, unsecured e-mail account she used to conduct all of her government business, were released by the State Department on Tuesday. “Here’s my personal e-mail,” Clinton writes in the subject of a July 25, 2010 message to former Senator George Mitchell, the special envoy for Middle East Peace. “Pls use this for reply.”
In the ensuing messages, Mitchell describes conversations that he had with “Moratinos” and “Frattini,” apparent references to then-Spanish foreign minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos and then-Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini. Sections of both messages are redacted and marked classified. The classification markings signify that the messages contain “foreign government information” and information about “foreign relations and confidential human sources,” according to a State Department classification guide issued in January of 2005.
State Department officials insist that all classified information released in the latest batch of e-mails was classified retroactively, but the nature of these messages challenges that claim. “It’s born classified,” J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) told Reuters last month. “If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession.”
Independent government watchdogs investigating Clinton’s use of the e-mail server have disputed previous State Department claims that various e-mails were classified only retroactively. “These e-mails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to [intelligence community] classification officials, the information remains classified today,” State Department inspector general Steve Linick and Intelligence Community inspector general I. Charles McCullough said in a joint statement on July 24.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423366/hillary-clinton-emails-born-classified-info
-
Corruption on clear display for the world to see with most in the media as accomplices. Rush is probably right. The Clintons will slither like snakes out of this too. Why because the media lets them.
Fix is in. Notice we see mucho references to Jewish cuisine on yahoo news recently. Brock likes poppy seed bagels with cream cheese but not so much lox.
Now Hillary is excited about gefilte fish. Must of us are not that stupid but their choir will eat this up. I can just here the liberal Jewish retirees in Florida adoring this crap:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/that-time-hillary-clinton-emailed-about-gefilte-128113780461.html
-
I'm not so sure about that , , ,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423371/hillary-clinton-emails-tony-blair-classified-information
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/01/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-stunned-by-hillary-clintons-response-to-staffer-who-told-her-he-couldnt-send-her-classified-email/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%209-1-15%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/01/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-stunned-by-hillary-clintons-response-to-staffer-who-told-her-he-couldnt-send-her-classified-email/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%209-1-15%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire
Special order, cankle cut.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/1/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-spy-satellite-dat/
By John Solomon - The Washington Times - Updated: 9:55 p.m. on Tuesday, September 1, 2015
One of the most serious potential breaches of national security identified so far by the intelligence community inside Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private emails involves the relaying of classified information concerning the movement of North Korean nuclear assets, which was obtained from spy satellites.
Multiple intelligence sources who spoke to The Washington Times, solely on the condition of anonymity, said concerns about the movement of the North Korean information through Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured server are twofold.
First, spy satellite information is frequently classified at the top-secret level and handled within a special compartment called Talent-Keyhole. This means it is one of the most sensitive forms of intelligence gathered by the U.S.
SEE ALSO: Emails show Clinton Foundation shaped policy
Second, the North Koreans have assembled a massive cyberhacking army under an elite military spy program known as Bureau 121, which is increasingly aggressive in targeting systems for hacking, especially vulnerable private systems. The North Koreans, for instance, have been blamed by the U.S. for the hack of Sony movie studios.
Allowing sensitive U.S. intelligence about North Korea to seep into a more insecure private email server has upset the intelligence community because it threatens to expose its methods and assets for gathering intelligence on the secretive communist nation.
“While everyone talks about the U.S. being aware of the high threat of hacking and foreign spying, there was a certain nonchalance at Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in protecting sensitive data that alarms the intel community,” one source familiar with the email review told The Times. “We’re supposed to be making it harder, not easier, for our enemies to intercept us.”
SEE ALSO: Obama administration overwhelmed by courts forcing transparency on Clinton emails
State Department spokesman Mark C. Toner told The Times on Tuesday evening he couldn’t discuss the email because of ongoing probes by the FBI and the inspector general community. “There are reviews and investigations under way on these matters generally so it would not be appropriate to comment at this time,” he said.
The email in question was initially flagged by the inspector general of the intelligence community in July as potentially containing information derived from highly classified satellite and mapping system of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. That email was later confirmed to contain classified information by Freedom of Information Act officials within the intelligence community.
The revelation, still under review by the FBI and intelligence analysts, has created the most heartburn to date about a lax email system inside the State Department that allowed official business and — in at least 188 emails reviewed so far — classified secrets to flow to Mrs. Clinton via an unsecured private email server hosted at her home in Chappaqua, New York.
The email does not appear to have been copied directly from the classified email system and crossed what is known as the “air gap” to nonclassified computers, the sources said.
Rather, the intelligence community believes a State Department employee received the information through classified channels and then summarized it when that employee got to a nonclassified State Department computer. The email chain went through Mrs. Clinton’s most senior aides and eventually to Mrs. Clinton’s personal email, the sources said.
The compromised information did not include maps or images, but rather information that could have been derived only from spy satellite intelligence.
It was not marked as classified, but whoever viewed the original source reports would have readily seen the markings and it should have been recognized clearly by a trained employee who received the information subsequently as sensitive, nonpublic information. Intelligence community professionals are trained to carry forward these markings and, if needed, request that the information be sanitized before being transmitted via non-secure means.
The discovery could affect the FBI investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email, putting the originator of the email chain into legal jeopardy and allowing agents to pressure the employee to cooperate as they try to determine how classified information flowed so freely into Mrs. Clinton’s account and what senior officials knew about the lax system that allowed such transmissions.
As the investigation has advanced, the intelligence community has debunked many of Mrs. Clinton’s and the State Department’s original claims about the private email system.
Story Continues →
===========================
For instance, the department initially claimed that it had no idea Mrs. Clinton was conducting government business on an insecure private email account.
But the intelligence community uncovered evidence early on that her private email account was used to coordinate sensitive overseas calls through the department’s operations center, which arranges communication on weekends and after hours on weekdays.
The coordination of secure communications on an insecure break with protocol would give foreign intelligence agencies an opportunity to learn about a call early, then target and intercept the call, U.S. officials told The Times.
The concern is in full display in emails that Mrs. Clinton originated and that the department has already released under the Freedom of Information Act.
“As soon as I’m off call now. Tell ops to set it up now,” Mrs. Clinton wrote from her personal email account on Oct. 3, 2009, to top State Department aide Huma Abedin on Oct. 3, 2009, seeking the department’s operations center to set up a high-level Saturday morning call with two assistant secretaries of state and a foreign ambassador.
The email thread even indicated where Mrs. Clinton wanted to receive the call, at her home, giving a potential intercept target.
Similarly, the very next day, Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin coordinated another call over insecure email with her ambassador to Afghanistan, former Army Gen. Karl Eikenberry. The two clearly understood the potential sensitive nature of the Sunday morning call even as they discussed its coordination on an unprotected email system.
“OK. Does Eikenberry need to be secure?” Mrs. Clinton asked, referring to the need for a secure phone line to receive the call. State officials said Mrs. Clinton had a secure phone line installed at her home to facilitate such calls, which is common for Cabinet-level officials.
Mr. Toner, the State Department spokesman, told the daily press briefing on Tuesday he did not know who approved Mrs. Clinton having a private email server to conduct official business but that it was obvious from the emails now released that many people knew inside State, including some in high places.
“People understood that she had a private server,” he told reporters. “…You’ve seen from the emails. You have an understanding of people who were communicating with her, at what level they were communicating at.”
-
Yeah, Hillary will likely skate on the email issue, and even the Foundation.
As I have found out discussing the email issue and classified information with people, those who have never dealt with Classified Info cannot understand the severity of the issue. It is too "complex" to understand, so they ignore it.
The Foundation issues, if properly presented, could serve to undermine some support, but for most of her supporters, it will mean nothing. Especially if it means the difference between a "normal" Republican candidate and her being President.
The only way to get rid of Hillary is to drive a stake in her, sprinkle her with holy water, shoot her with a silver bullet, bathe her in garlic, and then drage her into the sunlight. Even then, her ashes should be gathered, shot into space, and directly into the Sun.
-
I am more hopeful than that. FWIW my sense of things is that the legal process, e.g. serious FBI teams, are on this. They DO have the IQ to understand what is going on here. FWIW I think it more likely than not that this is going to bring her down.
-
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-03/fbi-scours-clinton-server-for-evidence-of-spying
Also:
Hillary’s Classified Falsehoods
Is anything she has said about her private emails true?
WSJ
Hillary Clinton has tried to confuse the public about the definition of “classified,” but some in the press corps are cutting though the fog. We’re learning, in particular, that Mrs. Clinton’s self-serving decision to use a private email server for official communications may have resulted in far greater mishandling of classified information.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Mrs. Clinton wrote and sent on her private server at least six emails that contained classified information. This destroys Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she never sent any classified information. It also blows up her campaign’s diversionary argument that nothing she sent or received was “marked” as classified.
Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State, with greater knowledge than anyone in her operation about national security secrets, and with a duty to protect such information. Whether the classified material she was sending or receiving was marked as such makes no difference to an official’s obligation. Mrs. Clinton knew this.
Meanwhile, Fox News reports that State Department lawyers have been hiding the extent to which Mrs. Clinton handled classified material on her server. According to the Fox account, career State employees initially marked four Clinton emails as classified. State Department lawyers then stepped in to recategorize the emails as “deliberative.” This meant they couldn’t be viewed by investigators from Congress.
Fox reports that State Department sources told intelligence officials that they believe this was done to hide the extent to which Mrs. Clinton was sending and receiving classified material. The Fox dispatch also says that one of the State Department lawyers involved in the email review was Catherine Duval, who once worked in the same law firm as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. The State Department told Fox there was no conflict and that its lawyers “perform to the highest professional and ethical standards.”
This week’s batch of Clinton emails—released by State on a timetable imposed by a federal judge fed up with delays—also includes hundreds of exchanges with legendary political hit man Sidney Blumenthal. Mrs. Clinton has previously said she didn’t solicit emails from Mr. Blumenthal, who was being paid by the Clinton Foundation. But in one email Mrs. Clinton tells the specialist in political smears to “keep ’em coming” and that “Bill”—presumably her husband—had dubbed them “brilliant!” Is anything Mrs. Clinton has said about her emails true?
Keep in mind that the Obama Administration barred Mr. Blumenthal from serving as a Clinton aide at State. But it’s clear from the emails that he served as an unofficial Clinton adviser throughout her tenure as America’s top diplomat. If she makes it back to the White House, nothing can stop her from bringing him into a position of real power.
Mrs. Clinton and her defenders say the email story is a sideshow, but the reason it’s important is because it is revealing so much about how she would govern.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-wanted-to-channel-haiti-relief-to-cheryl-mills-husband-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
second post:
22
1
Opinion
Letters
Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’ on Security
In her book “Hard Choices” Mrs. Clinton emphasizes, in detail, the rigorous security measures she was subject to as secretary of state.
September 5, 2015
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s “Clinton Defies the Law and Common Sense” (op-ed, Aug. 15) details the applicable law, but none of the Aug. 22 letters in response nor commentators who report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of her personal computer/server for State Department business have, to my knowledge, focused on the admissions she makes in her book “Hard Choices.” Mrs. Clinton emphasizes, in detail, the rigorous security measures she was subject to as secretary of state: the sensitive compartmented information facility where no outside electronic devices were allowed, the constant vigilance of the department to conduct business “under strict security precautions,” measures to prevent hackers from breaking into cellphone networks and email accounts. She acknowledges that the State Department was “frequently the target of cyberattacks.” Mrs. Clinton relates that when in a hotel room she would read “protected material” under a secured “opaque tent.” She specifically acknowledges security breaches of home computers by hackers. She writes that “people of good faith understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communications to protect . . . the national interest.” When discussing her State Department Boeing 757 aircraft, she brags that she was able to prepare and send classified cables in flight. She forcefully condemns the illegal disclosure of classified material by third parties, e.g., WikiLeaks.
“Hard Choices” is a road map to bring Mrs. Clinton to justice by her own hand, but will the Obama Justice Department prosecute? That is the question.
John J. Ruprecht
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/22/bolton-released-emails-prove-hillary-responsible-for-murder-of-americans-in-benghazi/
-
By
Jay Solomon and
Laura Meckler
Updated Sept. 8, 2015 10:33 p.m. ET
299 COMMENTS
WASHINGTON—Hillary Clinton, in her last months as secretary of state, helped open the door to a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Iran: an acceptance that Tehran would maintain at least some capacity to produce nuclear fuel, according to current and former U.S. officials.
In July 2012, Mrs. Clinton’s closest foreign-policy aide, Jake Sullivan, met in secret with Iranian diplomats in Oman, but made no progress in ending the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. In a string of high-level meetings here over the next six months, the secretary of state and White House concluded that they might have to let Iran continue to enrich uranium at small levels, if the diplomacy had any hope of succeeding.
“She recognized the difficulty of reaching a solution with zero enrichment,” said Mr. Sullivan, who now serves as Mrs. Clinton’s top campaign adviser on both domestic issues and foreign policy.
Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in early 2013. Later that year, in the midst of international talks, the Obama administration agreed publicly that Iran could continue to enrich uranium, completing the shift in policy that had been set in motion before Mrs. Clinton left her post.
Mrs. Clinton’s role in this critical early debate hasn’t been previously reported and shows that the Democratic presidential front-runner and her top aide, Mr. Sullivan, were key players in the Iran deal. Given united Republican opposition to the deal, the issue is likely to be central in the 2016 election.
Mrs. Clinton on Wednesday will deliver a major address on the Iran agreement and will voice support for President Barack Obama’s signature foreign-policy initiative, which has gained sufficient support from Democratic senators in recent days to take effect.
She will also seek to assuage skeptics of the deal, which include the majority of Congress and many American Jews, by stressing that as president she would vigorously guard against Tehran cheating on the agreement and would increasingly challenge Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East.
This will include maintaining financial pressure on Tehran, potentially through additional sanctions on Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to her aides. She also referred to possible military action, telling NBC News last Friday that “no options were off the table” for confronting Tehran, if it is found to cheat on the nuclear deal.
“I think the American people are going to want a president who supports diplomacy…but who will also get up every day and enforce the agreement,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Republicans believe Mrs. Clinton’s deep role in the Iran diplomacy will make her vulnerable in the coming campaign. They note that successive U.S. administrations, including Mr. Obama’s initially, opposed Iran enriching uranium, on the grounds that the nuclear fuel can be used for both civilian and military purposes.
“The cave on enrichment wasn’t just any concession,” said former Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday.
Mrs. Clinton has taken a hawkish stance toward Iran throughout her career. In the 2008 presidential campaign, she called Mr. Obama “naive” for believing he could directly negotiate with Iran’s theocratic regime.
But after she became Mr. Obama’s secretary of state in 2009, Mrs. Clinton and top aides worked to hold direct talks with Iran in Kabul on the future of Afghanistan, according to Clinton aides. In 2010, after a Tehran request, the State Department sanctioned a Pakistan-based militant group, Jundullah, for terrorist attacks against Iran. A year later, Mrs. Clinton promoted an increase of visas issued to Iranian students, another step sought by Tehran.
In 2012, Mrs. Clinton dispatched Mr. Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff, to Muscat to lead the first one-on-one talks with Iran on the nuclear issue. Iranian diplomats expressed disappointment that July with the initial progress, according to attendees. Mr. Sullivan, just 35 years old at the time, seemed too young to the Iranians to spearhead a serious effort to end the decadelong standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. also wasn’t yet prepared to concede that Iran would be allowed to maintain thousands of centrifuge machines it had installed to enrich uranium.
After this first round stalled, the Obama administration reviewed its position, according to current and former U.S. officials involved in the process.
The issue of allowing uranium enrichment in Iran had bedeviled the Obama and George W. Bush administrations. Both were of the view that Iran shouldn’t be allowed to deploy any centrifuge machines.
The United Nations Security Council demanded in six resolutions starting in 2006 that Tehran suspend its enrichment program, citing violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But in high-level gatherings held after the first Muscat meeting, Obama administration officials concluded the diplomacy likely wouldn’t succeed without enrichment on the table. Mrs. Clinton hated the idea of allowing Iran that capacity, said her aides, but became open to a change in policy if Tehran agreed to serious restrictions on its nuclear program. But she hadn’t committed to the shift or to enrichment on a large scale, they said.
“By the time she left, her position was: ‘I’m not an absolute firm hard ‘no’ on enrichment.…Let’s see how it unfolds and reserve judgment on whether we’d accept enrichment until a later date,’ ” said a Clinton campaign foreign-affairs adviser.
After Mrs. Clinton left the State Department, Mr. Sullivan became Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser at the White House. From there, he continued negotiating with the Iranians for another two years. He is credited, along with former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, with developing much of the framework for the nuclear agreement eventually reached in Vienna this July.
Under the final deal, Iran’s centrifuge program would be reduced to 5,000 machines from nearly 20,000. But Iran is allowed to expand this capacity to an industrial scale after a decade.
After leaving the State Department, Mrs. Clinton said in an interview with Atlantic Media that she preferred Iran have no enrichment capacity.
Mrs. Clinton has thrown her support behind the Iran deal since it was forged on July 14, though with caveats. On the day it was announced, Mrs. Clinton was on Capitol Hill meeting with congressional Democrats. In those sessions, she spoke favorably of the agreement, but didn’t offer a full-throated endorsement, according to lawmakers who met with her.
It wasn’t until late into the evening on July 14 that she issued a public statement of support. Even then, she highlighted her concerns, including the need for strict enforcement, and suggested she would try to defuse tensions between the Obama White House and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Mrs. Clinton and her campaign team—including Mr. Sullivan and campaign chairman John Podesta—have regularly reached out to opponents of the Iran deal in recent weeks, including American Jewish leaders.
Mrs. Clinton has said she would stress the need to challenge Iran, in part by strengthening military support for Israel and the U.S.’s Persian Gulf allies. She is also focused on keeping financial pressure on Tehran.
In conversations with Jewish allies who oppose the deal, the campaign’s high command has emphasized these concerns and how she would address them as president.
“She is absolutely insistent that all of us, starting with her, understand and acknowledge the concerns, recognize them as legitimate, underscore that we get it,” the senior aide said.
The outreach to the Jewish community appears to be working. A number of Jewish leaders said they remained deeply concerned about the agreement, but said Mrs. Clinton wasn’t facing the same type of criticism as Mr. Obama. They credited her low profile since the deal was announced; a sense that she doesn’t fully approve of the deal, even though she is backing it; a belief that she would take a tough line against Iran if elected president; and her long relationship with Jewish leaders.
“Her history and her personal relationships give her credibility and the benefit of the doubt that the president just doesn’t get,” said Jarrod Bernstein, who managed relations with the Jewish community for Mr. Obama’s White House and who, with his wife, recently hosted a Clinton fundraiser at his home.
Still, even her supporters say she will be politically targeted. “In the general election, this is going to be the Obama-Clinton Iran deal,” said Greg Rosenbaum, who heads the National Jewish Democratic Council. “They’re going to need to be prepared at every stop to defend the Iran deal.”
Wednesday’s speech will go into detail about how she thinks concerns with Iran and with the nuclear deal can be mitigated, and how the deal can be enforced and “embedded in a broader regional strategy,” an aide said.
“It is a rigorous and robust and clear-eyed strategy that does not proceed from the premise that this is going to change Iran’s orientation,” the aide said. “We need to confront [Iran] outside the nuclear context on all these other issues.”
Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com and Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ
Set your profile to public to comment
There are 299 comments.
All comments will display your real name. Read our commenting rules.
NewestOldestReader Recommended
Brian Stephens
Brian Stephens 9 minutes ago
IF TRUE, this would at least put something on Hillary's resume though I doubt this will help her as 60% of the nation is against this deal. She even failed to bring our prisoners home, for crying out loud.
This is just a smokescreen for the even bigger story: HER APOLOGY.
Flag ButtonShare
HOWARD BURKONS
HOWARD BURKONS 26 minutes ago
From today's NYT: "Iranians must not forget that the United States is the “Great Satan,” Ayatollah Khamenei warned, criticizing those calling for better relations. “Some want to show this Satan as an angel, but the Iranian nation has pushed this Satan out. We should not allow it to sneak back in through the window.”
Great work on the "reset" Lady Macbeth has nothing on Hillofbeans.
Flag ButtonShare
Otto Lichius
Otto Lichius 28 minutes ago
The Iran deal is portrayed as if it were about Israel and Jewish people. It is a deal about America and its geopolitical shift.
Flag ButtonShare
-
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/09/09/good-news-kerry-selects-maxedout-hillary-donor-to-oversee-hillarys-emails-n2049703?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=
-
"Somebody high up in the intelligence community leaked that story. " Meaning she has pissed off the intelligence brass.
"the spy agencies must conduct a full-scale damage assessment" Meaning this goes on and on.
"whoever removed the classification markings on incoming satellite data faces years in jail. The FBI will be in a strong position to encourage them to speak “fully and frankly,” as they say in the State Department."
"If her legal troubles keep piling up, she’s going to wish the next president was Gerald Ford."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/09/senior_intelligence_officials_said_128022.html
-
"Somebody high up in the intelligence community leaked that story. " Meaning she has pissed off the intelligence brass.
"the spy agencies must conduct a full-scale damage assessment" Meaning this goes on and on.
"whoever removed the classification markings on incoming satellite data faces years in jail. The FBI will be in a strong position to encourage them to speak “fully and frankly,” as they say in the State Department."
"If her legal troubles keep piling up, she’s going to wish the next president was Gerald Ford."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/09/senior_intelligence_officials_said_128022.html
If Hillaryends up doing the perp walk, I am buying some champagne!
-
Here is something for all Hillary lovers (Crafty Dog, you dog!)
Huma was criminally investigated for embezzlement and it was referred to a federal prosecutor for charges. Maybe they will use this to get her to spill the beans on Hillary, but maybe not. Fort Marcy Park awaits.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/huma-abedin-formally-investigated-embezzlement/?page=all#pagebreak (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/9/huma-abedin-formally-investigated-embezzlement/?page=all#pagebreak)
-
Missed the part where the Federal Prosecutor declined to prosecute.
-
Hillary’s Email Defense Demands Proof
She says a private server was ‘allowed’—but by whom? Produce the lawyers who signed off.
Karl Rove
Sept. 9, 2015 7:38 p.m. ET
WSJ
On Tuesday Hillary Clinton finally admitted to ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir that using a private server for her emails as secretary of state “was a mistake.” The rest of us have known that since the story broke in March.
This belated concession won’t end the controversy. A half-year of misleading and inaccurate statements has demolished her credibility.
Mrs. Clinton continues to insist that her use of a private server was permitted. “What I did was allowed,” she told the Associated Press the day before her ABC interview. “It was allowed by the State Department.”
Mrs. Clinton used similar words last Friday, when NBC’s Andrea Mitchell pressed her on warnings about personal email accounts in the State Department’s operating manual and the U.S. code. “It was allowed,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I chose to do it, as others who had been in high official positions had, as well.”
Even the liberal-leaning Ms. Mitchell wasn’t buying this. “I don’t think there’s any precedent for anyone just relying on a personal email system at your level of government,” she replied. Ms. Mitchell went on to ask: “Did anyone in your inner circle say, ‘This isn’t such a good idea. Let’s not do this’?” Mrs. Clinton’s response: “I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done.”
Translation: She was so buried with her new job, she didn’t think about the consequences of abandoning the department’s email system and setting up an unsecured private server in her basement for herself and her top staff.
Yet at least one question remains. Did anyone ask the State Department Office of the Legal Adviser for permission for her jury-rigged email arrangement? Or did she simply decide its legality on her own?
On Saturday the Washington Post revealed that a State Department tech staffer, Bryan Pagliano, was hired to set up and maintain her private server. Since her husband and daughter also used the server, Mr. Pagliano was paid directly by the family, the Clinton Foundation or another related entity. Government employees must report this outside income, which cannot exceed 15% of their annual salaries. Yet Mr. Pagliano did not list these payments on his annual financial disclosures for the years 2009 to 2013, which would violate the law.
Did Mrs. Clinton or her people consult either the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser or the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to receive permission for this highly unusual arrangement?
Then there is Huma Abedin, who in June 2012 was granted “special government employee” status. The Office of Government Ethics says Congress created this designation in 1962 to allow “experts, consultants and other advisers” to be temporarily brought into government without having to “forego their private professional lives as a condition of temporary service.” A special government employee may serve “for not more than 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days.”
So while Ms. Abedin was a State Department employee making $135,000 a year, she was also employed by Teneo, an international consultancy founded by President Bill Clinton’s former adviser Doug Band. The firm’s website proclaims that “we sit at the center of information and networks, offering unparalleled execution to capture opportunities and solve complex problems.”
In addition, Ms. Abedin was a contractor to the Clinton Foundation and at some point was also paid by Mrs. Clinton personally, drawing as many as four paychecks.
When Ms. Mitchell asked about this arrangement, Mrs. Clinton distanced herself. “I was not directly involved in that,” she said, which is hard to believe since she was both Ms. Abedin’s boss and paying her personally. Then Mrs. Clinton offered her stock defense of Ms. Abedin, saying, “Everything that she did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.”
The same question arises: Did Mrs. Clinton or her office ask the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser for approval? Was Ms. Abedin’s unusual arrangement blessed by the department’s ethics officials, as the U.S. Office of Government Ethics recommends?
For months, Mrs. Clinton has made statements about her email server that have turned out to be misleading or false. The claim that everything was allowed looks to be the latest. The burden rests on Team Clinton: Produce the lawyers who approved these shenanigans.
Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is the author of “The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the 1896 Election Still Matters,” out in November from Simon & Schuster.
-
"Produce the lawyers who approved these shenanigans"
Liars for hire should go the way of F Lee Bailey.
It is such a pleasure to watch her and her mafia organiztion unravel.
I can't wait to read Drudge each AM now. The highlight of my day. It would smack so much of Karma if she was to go out in disgrace just like she and her lib friends did to Nixon.
Like an old ex- Iraqi military veteren told me when I asked him what he thought about the invasion and capture of Saddam said to me:
"There is a God"
(Now if only my wife could get even a smithering of justice)
-
More evidence that the DOJ will not go after Hillary, unless this is a feint on the part of the Obama's and the DOJ while stabbing her in the back.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/10/justice-department-rules-hillary-clinton-followed-/
-
If the standards are consistently enforced. . . .
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/senior-intelligence-officials-said
-
If the standards are consistently enforced. . . .
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/senior-intelligence-officials-said
Orange jumpsuit, special cankle cut.
-
Hillary's Self-Inflicted Drama
Hillary’s E-Mail Lapse ... Mistake ... Responsibility ... er, 'Apology'
By Edward Morrissey
September 10, 2015
In the novel Love Story by Erich Segal, the doomed Jenny says, “Love means you never have to say you’re sorry.” The film version of the novel turned that line into the theme song. In American politics this week, we discovered something different, and a bit more cynical. Power means you never have to really be sorry, even if you might have to offer an apology after several months of evasions and deceptions.Almost seven months ago, The New York Times broke the story that Hillary Clinton had exclusively used a secret, private e-mail server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The House Select Committee on Benghazi had stumbled across the truth while trying to track communications at State that would normally have been archived in accordance with the Federal Records Act. The discovery came more than a year after Clinton left the State Department, and after a number of FOIA requests, to which in response, State claimed to find no communications from its top official.
Related: If Clinton Loses Her Security Clearance, Could She Still Be President?
After getting caught, Clinton claimed in March to have done nothing wrong, and refused to apologize – or to allow a third party to inspect the server. She also claimed that no classified information went through or was stored in the server, that the use of a private server for official business was authorized, and that her team had wiped the server clean to secure it after deleting more than half of the e-mails in the system. Those 31,000-plus e-mails, Clinton claimed, were personal e-mails relating to her daughter’s wedding and notes to her husband.
One by one, these claims were debunked by emerging information. President Barack Obama and the White House had made clear at the beginning of his term that while occasional use of a private e-mail account might be acceptable for informal business-related communications, members of his administration were expected to conduct official business over official e-mail systems, in part to provide the transparency Obama promised in 2008. Hillary Clinton never even bothered to get an official State Department e-mail account.
The Benghazi committee found fifteen e-mails between Clinton and longtime crony Sidney Blumenthal that Clinton never turned over to State, raising more questions about the 31,000 e-mails that were deleted. Most critically, subsequent inspections and audits turned up hundreds of incidents where classified information was transmitted through and stored in Clinton’s secret server.
By July, Clinton had no choice but to turn over her server to the FBI, which has opened a probe into the exposure of classified intelligence in this system. Yet she still refused to apologize, insisting that she did nothing wrong while shifting the blame for national-security damage to “overclassification.” She briefly tried using jokes on the campaign trail to belittle concerns over her e-mail system, but all that did was make Democrats panic and start getting Joe Biden warmed up in the 2016 bullpen.
Related: Democrats Are Openly Speculating About An Election Without Hillary Clinton
Last week, Clinton began sneaking up on an apology. At first, all she would say is that she was “sorry for the confusion” caused by the private server, in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. That was followed by a flat-out insistence that Clinton would never apologizeover the weekend because a private e-mail server was “allowed.” By Tuesday, Clinton had reversed course again and offered an apology for the server to ABC’s David Muir . However, in an appearance the same day on Ellen DeGeneres’ eponymous show, Clinton again only apologized for creating “confusion.”
These shifting apologies seem less than sincere and authentic, perhaps in large part because Clinton frames them – in their most expansive forms – for the “mistake” of having a private server. She talks about it as if it was an oversight or an inconsequential momentary lapse in judgment – for which one would have expected an apology seven months ago. But this was no momentary failure; the Clintons paid an IT tech out of their own pocket for years to build and maintain this system, allowing the State Department to deceive courts on FOIA requests and block Congress from their legitimate oversight into her official actions.
The insincerity of the apologies reflects the sudden decision to start offering them. Clinton only changed course, The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman reports, only after focus group testing informed the campaign that Clinton’s arrogant denials of reality were burying her politically. Ironically, Clinton decided to make the shift to some kind of apology just as her campaign decided that she needed to change her approach to demonstrate more spontaneity and authenticity . And nothing says spontaneity and authenticity like a series of focus-group-driven inconsistent apologies.
Related: Clinton’s Email Problems Aren’t Going Away Anytime Soon
Neither strategy has succeeded, at least not at the moment. Mark Halperin couldn’t keep a straight face on Morning Joe when discussing the planned spontaneity campaign on Tuesday morning. An incredulous David Axelrod tweeted that the plan sounded like something from The Onion. After the apology dance, National Journal’s Ron Fournier demanded to know what Clinton was apologizing for, but also argued that apologies don’t actually address the issues.
“By any objective measure, the Democratic presidential front-runner has responded to her email scandal with deflection and deception, shredding her credibility while giving a skeptical public another reason not to trust the institutions of politics and government,” he wrote. “An apology doesn’t fix that. An apology also doesn’t answer the scandal’s most important questions.”
All true. But Team Hillary hopes that apologies might distract from Clinton’s actions, credibility, and the important questions raised by her conduct. Power means you may have to apologize, but it doesn’t mean you have to be sorry when you do. Call this the Self-Love Story.
-
You can't make this stuff up. Why Hillary will never be indicted....
EXCLUSIVE: STATE DEPARTMENT ‘EMAIL CZAR’ RECEIVED CLASSIFIED HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS
The “email czar” hired by the State Department to handle the agency’s response to the Hillary Clinton email scandal has a second hidden conflict of interest: she received some of the same classified emails that were also sent to Hillary Clinton via her private email system, Breitbart News has learned.
Secretary of State John Kerry appointed Janice L. Jacobs this week to serve as a non-partisan, non-political “transparency coordinator.” The recently retired bureaucrat will lead the State Department’s political response to the various Clinton email investigations in Congress and the various civil lawsuits filed by transparency groups.
Jacobs, who served as the State Department’s assistant secretary for Consular Affairs from 2008 to 2014 has two big conflicts of interest.
First, she donated the maximum $2,700 to Clinton’s current presidential campaign.
Second, sources have revealed to Breitbart that Jacobs was cc’ed on at least three emails that were sent to Clinton and which the State Department have classified in retrospect.
That puts her in a similar legal predicament as her former boss, who is also the likely 2016 Democratic candidate.
The shared emails discussed sensitive topics involving the North Korean regime’s relations with China and the urgent political situation in Haiti.
Jacobs was copied on an email dated February 8, 2010, in which top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills asked various government officials for help on the issue of a status of forces agreement (SOFA) in Haiti and other Haitian issues involving that country’s then-Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.
Mills sent an email to Jacobs and others with the subject line “Re: PM Bellerive on Donors’ Conference, SOFA, adoptions, migrants, political dilemma and more.”
“Can you explain more on his goals for a SOFA given our joint communique,” Mills wrote to her colleagues in a partially redacted email that she forwarded to Hillary Clinton a few hours later.
Jacobs was copied on two other classified emails that Clinton received on the issue of North Korean border detentions.
Additionally, Jacobs was copied on a May 20, 2009, email that State Department staffer Kurt Tong sent to colleagues with the subject line “DPRK: AMCIT BORDER DETENTIONS UPDATE #47.” Mills forwarded that email to Hillary Clinton.
The State Department classified that email on June 30, 2015, and marked it “CONFIDENTIAL.” It is set to be declassified on May 20, 2030.
Jacobs was also copied on an April 1, 2009, email that diplomat Chris Bishop sent to colleagues with the subject line “DPRK/CHINA: AMCIT BORDER DETENTIONS UPDATE #13.”
That email–which is almost completely redacted by the State Department–was forwarded by Mills to Clinton, as well. It is also now classified and marked “CONFIDENTIAL.”
-
"The “email czar” hired by the State Department to handle the agency’s response to the Hillary Clinton email scandal has a second hidden conflict of interest: she received some of the same classified emails that were also sent to Hillary Clinton via her private email system, Breitbart News has learned."
I am ready to explode with rage. Since everyone is listening to him, Trump should start going aftedr the MSM for not doing their job and attacking this corruption.
He should go after Hillary and the MSM since both are complicit and indeed throw in "Obama's" Justice Department.
-
CCP,
Tell us how you really feel.
BTW,
DOJ covering for Hillary. She had the right to delete personal emails. (Notice how they obfuscate the issue)
“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” write the Justice Department attorneys, representing the State Department in the brief.
The lawyers add that under policies issued by the State Department and by NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration, government employees “are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/stunning_justice_department_lawyers_argue_hillary_clinton_had_the_right_to_delete_any_emails_she_chose.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/stunning_justice_department_lawyers_argue_hillary_clinton_had_the_right_to_delete_any_emails_she_chose.html)
-
Ummm , , , weren't there already under subpoena by Trey Gowdy's committee? And thus their deletion a felony?
-
Ummm , , , weren't there already under subpoena by Trey Gowdy's committee? And thus their deletion a felony?
Those laws are for the little people.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/14/five-months-of-gaps-in-hillary-clinton-email-disclosures/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
This really takes chutzpah. The woman has no shame and thinks her constituents are idiots. Kathleen Willey is rightly outraged. Let's not forget that the FBI concluded that Juanita Broaderick's accusation that Bill Clinton raped her during his time as Governor in Arkansas was "highly credible." The statute of limitations had passed by the time she spoke up.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/exclusive-kathleen-willey-doubts-hillarys-new-sex-assault-survivors-ad/
-
I heard the State Dept is now saying there is no five month gap?!?
-
https://www.facebook.com/absoluterights/videos/848592535225883/
-
Steve Rattner on Hillary..........
Open the kimono!
No, please don't! I will vote for you if you promise not to open the kimono!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2015/09/16/steve-rattners-interesting-advice-hillary-open-kimono#sthash.dy5if8qF.dpuf (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2015/09/16/steve-rattners-interesting-advice-hillary-open-kimono#sthash.dy5if8qF.dpuf)
-
A SPECIAL SPOT IN HELL FOR HILLARY CLINTON
How Hillary helps powerful men abuse women.
September 17, 2015 Daniel Greenfield
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton told a cheering Silicon Valley audience, “There is a special spot in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
If there is such a place in hell, Hillary has reserved parking there. It’s hard to think of any other politician who has done as much to exploit women while doing so little for them. Except maybe her husband.
While Hillary pontificated about the glass ceiling, the tabloids were filled with new allegations of sexual abuse about Clinton pal Jeffrey Epstein by one of his former “slaves”. Bill Clinton had taken frequent rides on Epstein’s private jet which had been nicknamed the “Lolita Express” because of its transportation of underage girls for the use of Epstein and some of his friends and associates.
Hillary Clinton was lecturing on feminism while new allegations were coming out about the former slave’s meeting with Bill Clinton on the “Lolita Express” and the favors that Bill owed Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein was good at cashing in his favors. Despite buying girls as young as twelve, he served a year in the private wing of a Palm Beach prison with “work release” for six days a week and sixteen hours a day which he used to fly the Lolita Express back to his private island.
That island was a special place in hell for some little girls, but not one that Hillary Clinton was interested in doing anything about.
Now Hillary has decided that she stands with rape victims.
“I want to send a message to all of the survivors,” she said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.”
But the right to be believed didn’t extend to the twelve-year-old Arkansas girl who was beaten into a coma and raped.
Hillary Clinton defended her rapist by hurling false accusations at the little girl, claiming that she was mentally ill and sought out older men. She accused the girl, who had been beaten into a coma, of romanticizing “her sexual experiences”.
On tape, Hillary Clinton can be heard laughing about her client failing a lie detector test. She had known all along that it was the rapist who was lying.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said."You are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
If there’s a special spot in hell, Hillary belongs there.
Hillary’s right for rape victims to be believed doesn’t apply once she is being paid to lie about them. And she still continues to break new ground for her special spot in hell by covering up her donors’ rapes.
When one of her donors, Howard Gutman, was made ambassador to Belgium in exchange for his generous donations and fundraising for Hillary and Obama, whistleblowers who reported that he had escaped his security detail to “solicit sexual favors from minor children” were targeted.
Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, oversaw a cover-up of the Gutman case, just as she had on Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton stood with the abuser as she had always done in her personal life and her political life.
Kathleen Willey, one of her husband's victims, responded to Hillary's “Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault," ad by saying, “She believed what happened for sure. She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”
“She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”
Hillary didn’t stand with victims then. Instead she ran a “war room” targeting the women her husband had harassed in a repulsive political cleanup operation. But for her, the agenda has always come first. And women have come last. When Senator Bob Packwood was facing sexual harassment charges, Hillary told a friend that she was “tired of all those whiney women” because she needed HillaryCare to pass.
To Hillary Clinton, victimized women are just “whiney”. That’s the way it was. That’s the way it is.
Hillary Clinton is trying to win back the female voters abandoning her sinking campaign by promising to fight for women the way she claims to have done as Secretary of State. But if there’s a special hell for women, it’s Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia was Hillary’s own special spot in hell.
Hillary Clinton traveled to a lot of countries, but one of her favorite destinations was Saudi Arabia. The Saudis weren’t just allies; they had donated as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation which Hillary would be using to help launch her presidential campaign.
The constant visits to Saudi Arabia, a country where little girls are married off, gang rape victims go to jail and women can’t travel without permission from their male guardians, were in sharp contrast to the image of an advocate for women that the Clinton Foundation was buying for her using Saudi money.
A kingdom where women can’t even drive was helping fund Hillary Clinton’s fake image as a feminist.
But Saudi rape problems didn’t just stay in Saudi Arabia. When Hillary Clinton visited Saudi Arabia in 2012, a rape trial against a member of the entourage of a Saudi prince had just wrapped up in New York. The victim, who had been drugged and raped, later sued the prince claiming that the rapist had been hired to lure women to the hotel.
The Plaza Hotel, where the assault took place, was more concerned for the rapist than his victim. But then it was owned by yet another Saudi prince who had also had a rape accusation leveled against him.
In 2010, Saleha Abedin, the mother of close Hillary aide Huma whose organization supported child marriage, female genital mutilation and marital rape, welcomed Hillary Clinton to her college in Saudi Arabia. Abedin assured Hillary that “no goats or sheep or camels will be offered for the lovely hand of your daughter, Chelsea”.
Hillary responded by praising Abedin and the Saudi king for recognizing “the fundamental importance of the education of women.” Then Hillary blamed the “American media” for its “unidimensional view of Saudi women.” Instead of challenging the Saudi king, Hillary Clinton blamed America.
And that is what she always does.
Whether it’s Bill Clinton or the Saudi King, Howard Gutman or some Arkansas rapist, Hillary Clinton panders to male abusers at the expense of the women and girls they hurt. It’s what she has always done to take her career to the next level.
Hillary Clinton is not here because of her talents. She’s here because she helped powerful men cover up their crimes, from her husband to the Saudi royal family. She has only gotten power by serving power and sacrificing other women to its demands.
She isn’t here to help women, men or children. Not unless they can get her closer to what she wants. Hillary is no philanthropist. She doesn’t do anything without a reason. Every move is calculated to get her a check or a favor owed.
What Hillary Clinton wants most of all is power. And like the men she has served, she will do anything and hurt anyone to get it.
-
Opinion
Review & Outlook
Letting Clinton Off the Hook
A special prosecutor for Clinton’s emails is a dumb idea.
Sept. 18, 2015 6:37 p.m. ET
6 COMMENTS
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell likes to say there’s no education in the second kick of a mule. Maybe not, but Mr. McConnell might want to kick his deputy John Cornyn anyway for asking Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s email transgressions.
Mr. Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas and number two in the Republican leadership, says that Justice’s political appointees can’t fairly investigate President Obama’s former Secretary of State. But as dumb political ideas go, a special prosecutor exceeds even Washington expectations. It would let the Administration and Mrs. Clinton off the hook through the 2016 election.
A special counsel would let FBI Director James Comey pass the buck, relieving pressure on his G-men to subject Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified information to the same standards they have other officials.
Opinion Journal Video
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton on a new twist in the former Secretary of State's private server scandal. Photo credit: Associated Press.
That includes former CIA directors David Petraeus and John Deutch, who copped misdemeanor pleas, and former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who snuck classified material out of the National Archives. None of them used a personal email server to willfully dodge the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
A special prosecutor would also let Mrs. Clinton bury the scandal until well after next year’s Democratic primaries and November election. The Clinton team is desperate to change the subject to anything but the emails, and what better way than to say it’s all being investigated.
Meanwhile, the courts and watchdog groups are forcing more email disclosures each week. Last week former Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who set up and maintained her server—and was paid personally by Mrs. Clinton to do so even as he worked at the State Department—took the Fifth in response to a Senate summons.
The court-ordered release of her emails is the reason we now know that her account contained classified information, and that several aides were also conducting business outside of official state computers. A recent Politico review of emails that have now been made public “shows that at least 55 messages now deemed to include classified information appears to have been sent to or from private accounts other than Clinton’s.”
Mrs. Clinton’s email abuses deserve public political accountability so voters can see how she’d operate with all of the government’s power at her disposal. And voters are catching on. A mere 35% of voters now consider her to be “honest” and “trustworthy” in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll. A special prosecutor would let her hide this political character from public view.
-
To be read with care:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-dept-asked-hillary-clinton-attorney-to-delete-copies-of-classified-benghazi-email/
-
Apparently Hillary's spontaneity campaign has moved her 5% in some polls?!? :roll: We are so fuct :cry:
-
Opinion
Best of the Web
Server Farm
Mrs. Clinton’s emails are concealed in a bureaucratic silo.
By
James Taranto
Sept. 22, 2015 2:34 p.m. ET
Server Farm
You may recall that last month, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s campaign said that the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee had agreed to turn over her illicit private email server to the federal government. Earlier this month came the news, reported by the Washington Post Sept. 12, that Platte River Networks, the company that managed the server, “said it has ‘no knowledge of the server being wiped,’ the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered”:
[Mrs.] Clinton and her advisers have said for months that she deleted her personal correspondence from her time as secretary of state, creating the impression that 31,000 e-mails were gone forever. . . .
“Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped,” company spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post. “All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped.”
[Mrs.] Clinton and her staff have avoided directly answering whether the server was ever wiped.
In a memorable exchange at a campaign event in Las Vegas last month, Clinton turned aside a question about whether the server had been wiped with a joke: “Like what, with a cloth?” she said, adding, “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
Wouldn’t it be funny if it turned out they did use a cloth? Or with a paper product, given DailyMail.com’s August report that the server was housed in what Mrs. Clinton might call a “convenience.”
Anyway, you might think this is all good news for the public’s right to know—that now, any official emails her lawyers deleted will be recovered for the public record.
Alas, you’d be wrong. At least for now, Mrs. Clinton’s emails are being held in a bureaucratic silo, concealed from public view and even from the State Department. That’s the upshot of this report from the Washington Times:
The FBI refused to cooperate Monday with a court-ordered inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email server, telling the State Department that they won’t even confirm they are investigating the matter themselves, much less [be] willing to tell the rest of the government what’s going on.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had ordered the State Department to talk with the FBI and see what sort of information could be recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s email server, which her lawyer has said she turned over to the Justice Department over the summer.
The FBI general counsel described the refusal to cooperate as “consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy,” and no doubt that is true—although it has been widely reported, based on information that unnamed officials unofficially provided, that the FBI is conducting a national-security investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton or others mishandled classified information and possibly whether the server was vulnerable to foreign hackers or actually hacked.
Judge Sullivan is overseeing a lawsuit against the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act, and the plaintiff is understandably unhappy:
“We still do not know whether the FBI—or any other government agency for that matter—has possession of the email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and [top aide Huma] Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department,” Judicial Watch said.
“We also do not know whether the server purportedly in the possession of the FBI—an assumption based on unsworn statements by third parties—is the actual email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department or whether it is a copy of such an email server. Nor do we know whether any copies of the email server or copies of the records from the email server exist,” the group said in its own court filing Monday afternoon.
And we probably won’t know for some time. The national-security questions the FBI is investigating are separate from the public-records issue the Judicial Watch lawsuit and others raise. The FBI is not a party to the FOIA lawsuit, and even if it were, it’s unlikely the bureau would release information collected as part of an investigation still under way.
Thus by giving her server to the FBI, Mrs. Clinton appears to have ensured that the public, the State Department and congressional investigators won’t see what’s on it anytime soon. No wonder she’s laughing.
Some will no doubt see this all as (to coin a phrase) a vast conspiracy. This Sept. 12 Washington Examiner report—which also concerns the Judicial Watch lawsuit—will fuel such thinking:
Hillary Clinton’s defense in the email scandal received a boost this week when the Justice Department—the same Justice Department that is investigating the email affair—told a court it has no reason to suspect [Mrs.] Clinton either deleted or failed to produce any emails under request by congressional or public-interest investigators. “The evidence, if anything, demonstrates that the former secretary’s production was over-inclusive, not under-inclusive,” top Justice Department lawyers Benjamin Mizer and Elizabeth Shapiro wrote in papers filed in federal court last Wednesday.
Taken as a whole, Mizer and Shapiro’s brief was so pro-Clinton, so without even a hint of suspicion that she has been anything less than totally forthcoming, that it might as well have come from the Clinton campaign media team.
Clinton has produced everything, Mizer and Shapiro wrote, including some personal emails she was not obligated to produce. In addition, Mizer and Shapiro argued that State Department officials like Clinton “are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record” and “may delete messages they deem in their own discretion to be personal.” That judgment is beyond question, the lawyers argue, unless there is some evidence to suggest the official acted in bad faith. And in Clinton’s case, they declared flatly, there is no such evidence.
Our own inclination is to apply Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Even Mrs. Clinton now acknowledges it was foolish to set up her own email server. If it is true that the server wasn’t wiped, it would mean her legal team attempted a coverup that it lacked the basic technical knowledge to execute.
And various parts of the bureaucracy—the State Department, the FBI, the Justice Department lawyers who represent the State Department in Judge Sullivan’s courtroom—are each behaving according to their own bureaucratic imperatives. One wishes they were coordinated, so that (say) the attorney general would order the FBI to copy the server for the State Department. But what’s maddening is the lack of such cooperation—the inability to mount a “conspiracy” in the service of governmental transparency.
Luck sometimes compensates for stupidity; to some extent, all this is having the effect of protecting Mrs. Clinton. But only to some extent. Last week, as Townhall’s Cortney O’Brien noted, a Rasmussen Reports survey found that 59% of likely voters “think it’s likely [Mrs.] Clinton broke the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server,” while just 34% think it unlikely. “Even among her fellow Democrats, 37% think it’s likely Clinton broke the law.”
Meanwhile, USA Today’s Dave Mastio reports that the Clinton family business is suffering:
Six giants of the corporate world are bailing out on the Clinton Global Initiative. . . . USA Today has confirmed that sponsors from 2014 that have backed out for this year include electronics company Samsung, oil giant ExxonMobil, global financial firms Deutsche Bank and HSBC, and accounting firm PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). Hewlett-Packard, which just announced major layoffs, will be an in-kind donor instead of a cash contributor, and the agri-chem firm Monsanto has cut back its donation. Dow’s name is missing from the donor list as well, but the chemical company’s exit is not confirmed.
Government officials, both American and foreign, are staying away too. Last year eight heads of state or government appeared, including the president of the U.S. and the prime minister of Japan. “This year, only leaders from Colombia and Liberia are currently on the program.” Last year’s conference featured three other top Obama administration officials; this year’s not a one.
“Unless there is a sudden surge in high-profile corporate support in the coming days, the exodus of well-recognized brands could represent a setback for the Clinton campaign’s effort to maintain an aura of inevitability,” Mastio observes. Possibly he’s reversing cause and effect and the aura’s dimming is reducing the value of the entire Clinton enterprise.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-state-department-turns-on-hillary-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09/25/theres-now-proof-hillary-clinton-didnt-turn-over-all-work-related-emails-from-her-private-email-account/
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/359180.php
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/hillary-clinton-signed-deal-let-huma-abedin-double/
-
http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/
==================================================
ROGER STONE: ‘PETS KILLED, TIRES SLASHED, LATE NIGHT PHONE CALLS’ TO SILENCE BILL CLINTON’S SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS
by ROBERT WILDE 27 Sep 2015
Long time political operative and strategist Roger Stone appeared on Breitbart News Sunday, broadcast on SiriusXM patriot radio channel 125, with Breitbart’s senior investigative political reporter Matt Boyle.
Stone who cut his political teeth working for Richard Nixon’s infamous Committee to Re-elect the President, later campaigned for Ronald Reagan, and until recently worked for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, shared a few nuggets from his new book The Clintons’ War on Women, which he co-wrote with Robert Morrow.
Stone told Boyle that Hillary Clinton promoting herself as an advocate for women and children is hypocrisy. The author reminded Breitbart News Sunday listeners that as recently as last week Hillary spoke about the rape issue and that raped victims should be believed.
“Unfortunately, this doesn’t match her own history,” Stone pointed out. “She has been an enabler of rape. She has been the person to enable the serial rape and sexual assaults by her husband Bill Clinton. Some of which are known publicly: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.”
Stone stated that there were “many, many others who were not known publicly.” He charges that the main stream media is protective of the Clintons and supressed the other incidents to the public.
In The Clintons’ War on Women, Stone told Boyle that “We have laid out Hillary’s real record on women.”
Stone accused Bill Clinton of violating the women physically and that Hillary came to his rescue and hired detectives, to gather information on the women. She then used the information to “run a terror campaign to intimidate Bill’s victims into silence.”
According to Stone, Hillary’s motivation is clear. She does not want anything to get in the way of growing their power and wealth.
Stone added that the book includes not only the serial rapes committed by Bill Clinton and Hillary’s cover up, but the “horiffic things” that were done to his victims. “Pets Killed. Tires slashed. Windshields Smashed in and bullets left in the front seat of cars. Late night phone calls: We know where you’re children go to school,” all of these threats were part of the Clintons intimidation tactics.
“This is very sick stuff. It is the psychological abuse of women and Hillary is responsible for it. Women voters need to know her real record,” the political firebrand asserted.
Ironically, Stone observes, that Hillary advocates for equal pay, but that “in no job where she was the boss did women make as much as the men.”
“Hillary is really not a friend to women,” he insists. “That is really what this book is about.”
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
-
Clinton Indicates Indictment Might Be Imminent
After learning that the FBI was able to recover some of the emails that she deleted, Hillary Clinton launched into damage control, explaining that she didn't determine which emails were public and which were private. Instead, she claims, she let her lawyers sift through the tens of thousands of emails to weed out any reference to yoga class. "I didn't look at them," Clinton now says. "I wanted them to be as clear in their process as possible. I didn't want to be looking over their shoulder. If they thought it was work-related, it would go to the State Department. If not, then it would not." But knowing Clinton's track record in telling the truth regarding this scandal, this statement could be disproven before long. After all, what reason do we have to trust her ever-changing story? Self-preservation is on her brain. As Judge Andrew Napolitano said Monday, "Her most recent troubles show that when she certified under oath, 'under penalty of perjury,' to a federal judge that she had surrendered all her emails to the State Department, in fact she had not." As a result, Napolitano believes the FBI will recommend indicting Clinton over her email use to the State Department. For the first time, Clinton is very clearly saying, "Hey, I was just a bystander here and my lawyers did all of it." This is a huge shift, the kind of shift you see when she's really concerned about a felony indictment — and not just for perjury. We can't see how she avoids an indictment at this point, other than to lay it all on her attorneys. How willing are the Clinton lackeys to fall on a sword for their crumbling political machine?
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/
Amazing story. The IRS is usually looking for the opposite, having more money left over than was reported for income. Where did all this Clinton money go? "Professional journalists" will get to the bottom of this...
We will see if $50 million of purchased friends is enough for her to stay out of jail. That only buys the $100,000 of freezer cash (Rep. Jefferson D-LA) 500 times over.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424927/hillary-clinton-secret-service-treatment-abuse?bQVmpksKVgAWh0fz.01
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424927/hillary-clinton-secret-service-treatment-abuse?bQVmpksKVgAWh0fz.01
Gore also outed as a douche by the USSS.
-
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Oct. 1, 2015 6:46 p.m. ET
27 COMMENTS
Hillary Clinton hopes you are busy. Hillary Clinton hopes you are confused. Hillary Clinton hopes the endless stories about her private email server—and her endless, fabulist explanations—will make your head hurt, make your eyes cross, make you give up trying to figure it out.
All you really need to know at this point is this: Pretty much every claim Mrs. Clinton made at her initial March news conference, and since then, is false. In the spirit of keeping it simple, here’s the Complete Busy Person’s Guide to the Clinton Email Scandal. Stick it on the fridge.
Why she kept a private server.
Clinton: It was for “convenience.” “I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”
Truth: Mrs. Clinton’s team acknowledged in July that she traveled with both a BlackBerry and an iPad while secretary of state, and that she had her private email set up on both.
Why she finally gave her emails to the State Department.
Clinton: “What happened . . . is that the State Department sent a letter to former secretaries of state, not just to me, asking for some assistance in providing any work-related emails that might be on the personal email.” In other words, this was a routine records request.
Truth: In late September, State Department spokesman John Kirby said that “in the process of responding to [Congress’s Benghazi investigation], State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton.” So they contacted her “during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.” Only then did the department realize that it was also missing emails from other secretaries. It didn’t contact them until October 2014.
What she turned over.
Clinton: “I . . . provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related.”
Truth: In June Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal turned over to Congress his own store of Clinton correspondence, which included emails she hadn’t provided to the State Department. Last week the government found by its own means emails she had sent to Gen. David Petraeus, which Mrs. Clinton also hadn’t surrendered. Her campaign now admits that there is a two-month gap from the beginning of her tenure as secretary of state, when she was using her private email address but not her personal server. All the emails from that time period are missing, and the Clinton team says it has no idea where they are.
What is in State Department records.
Clinton: “It was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their .gov accounts so those emails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet record-keeping requirements.”
Truth: Mrs. Clinton’s top aides, including her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin, had private email addresses, which she used to correspond with them. Ms. Abedin’s email was also housed on the Clinton server. The State Department release on Wednesday of 6,300 pages of Clinton correspondence features one email in which she specifically asks an aide, not Ms. Abedin, for her Gmail address. In another 2011 email, an aide wrote to Mrs. Clinton expressing concern about the State Department’s outdated technology and just how many employees use private email: “NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly.” Mrs. Clinton—from her private email—agrees that it is a problem.
Classified information.
Clinton: “There is no classified material” on the private server.
Truth: The latest State Department document dump now brings to more than 400 the number of Clinton emails that contain classified information. They touch on everything from spy satellites, to drone strikes to Iranian nuclear discussions. The Clinton team contends that these emails were not stamped classified until after the fact. But intelligence experts note many were “born” classified—that is, the nature of the information required that they be handled as classified from the start.
Security.
Clinton: The server “had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”
Truth: The Clinton emails released this week show that her server was attacked at least five times by hackers linked to Russia. It is unclear whether she clicked on any email attachments and put her account at risk. Mrs. Clinton’s server meanwhile sat for many months in a private data center in New Jersey, accessible to people who lacked security clearances. Thumb-drive copies of her email were also unsecured for months, while in the possession of her lawyer, David Kendall. And classified email she sent to aides on their private accounts is now sitting on Google and AOL servers.
Transparency.
Clinton (on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sept. 27): “I think I have done all that I can . . . to be as transparent as possible.”
Truth: Give her marks for this one. Mrs. Clinton is undoubtedly being as transparent as Mrs. Clinton can possibly be.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
-
From The NYT, January 5th, 1996
After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's.
The newly discovered documents are copies of billing records from the Rose firm, where Mrs. Clinton helped represent Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan run by James B. McDougal, the Clintons' business partner in the Whitewater land venture. The originals are still missing. Investigators have been seeking the documents to determine the role Mrs. Clinton played in the firm's representation of the savings and loan.
-
This thread has now hit 100,000 reads!
Nice work gentlemen!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
". This committee was set up, as they have admitted, for the purpose of making a partisan political issue out of the deaths of four Americans. I would have never done that, and if I were president and there were Republicans or Democrats who were thinking about that, I would have done everything to shut it down."
The Executive has power to shut down a legislative committee?
Under whose constitution??
Is a candidate who says that or even thinks that way qualified to be President?
Hillary was asked (on NBC), "if the tables were turned and it was Dick Cheney or Karl Rove who had a private email account and a private server on which they conducted all their government business, would you be as understanding?"
Well... ?
-
Like making a partisan political issue of a mass shooting at a Oregon Community College?
". This committee was set up, as they have admitted, for the purpose of making a partisan political issue out of the deaths of four Americans. I would have never done that, and if I were president and there were Republicans or Democrats who were thinking about that, I would have done everything to shut it down."
The Executive has power to shut down a legislative committee?
Under whose constitution??
Is a candidate who says that or even thinks that way qualified to be President?
Hillary was asked (on NBC), "if the tables were turned and it was Dick Cheney or Karl Rove who had a private email account and a private server on which they conducted all their government business, would you be as understanding?"
Well... ?
-
The Dem machine is ALL over the place playing this up. McCarthy is reported to be apologizing but he gave them a front to rally behind even though we all know Hillary is a lying corrupt selfish person.
Frankly it will not matter if she is indicted. She and her mob will not go away.
She will still run, the party will still rally behind her, and make endless bogus excuses.
Rush was right. Despite scandal after scandal they will snake their way through this because her own party simply will not do the right thing. Ethics, laws it makes no difference.
What a "f" n dope McCarthy is. I don't have the faintest clue why on Earth he even gave this as an answer to Hannity's question which was basically what have those in the Houses done for the Republican Party. You mean this is the only thing he could come up with?
What a dope. He is even more stupid than Boehner.
I want Cruz, or Jindal, or Trump or maybe Carson. We have lost with anyone else.
-
If Hillary gets elected President, McCarthy's flamboyant stupidity may well be a major contributing factor.
-
If Hillary gets elected President, McCarthy's flamboyant stupidity may well be a major contributing factor.
Yes. And if she doesn't get elected, this world class gaffe may have forced Republicans to actually explain what the concern about Benghazi really is.
She is the one that ran the famous 3am telephone call ad. This was the call. She received it. He received it. Now we would like to everything they said and did minute by minute in the hours that they failed to respond to it.
I would also like to know exactly what emails went between Ambassador Stevens and Hillary Clinton on her private, unsecured server that a) were ignored requests for additional security, b) pleas for help, and c) indicators of schedule and location that allowed known terrorists to plan a successful attack.
Is she going to answer that, or just scream: "At this point [between 3 false options], WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"
-
Doug writes,
"may have forced Republicans to actually explain what the concern about Benghazi really is"
Doug I agree but I must ask at this point when, oh when have the hapless Republicans ever been able to make a case that can convince anyone?
In addition with a media that is mostly hostile to Republicans I have no confidence this will ever happen.
Why is it the Crats and the Clintons in particular always have attack dogs ALL over ALL the airwaves but not us?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/fbi-examining-online-cloud-backups-hillary-clintons-email/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
https://www.facebook.com/FoxBusiness/videos/10153631502330238/
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/10/07/benghazi-rep-trey-gowdy-editorials-debates/73548846/
-
Cheryl Mills, of fame for ransacking Vince Foster's office while his body was still warm in the park, was paid large amounts at her other job NYU to negotiate with Abu Dhabi over the placement of a campus there while serving as de facto Chief of Staff for Hillary in the State Department.
Not surprising since Huma was also selling her services outside the Department, as was Hillary with her split loyalties between serving her country and trading favors for the Clintont Crime Family Foundation.
This is the Wash Post telling the story, not just some right wing outlet...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-at-state-clinton-chief-of-staff-held-job-negotiating-with-abu-dhabi/2015/10/12/e847b3be-6863-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html
While at State, Clinton chief of staff held job negotiating with Abu Dhabi
By Rosalind S. Helderman October 12 at 2:22 PM
For the four years that Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state, her longtime friend and adviser Cheryl D. Mills served next to her as chief of staff. Clinton has said Mills helped her run the State Department’s sprawling bureaucracy; oversaw key priorities such as food safety, global health policy and LGBT rights; and acted as “my principal liaison to the White House on sensitive matters.”
During her first four months at the State Department, Mills also held another high-profile job: She worked part time at New York University, negotiating with officials in Abu Dhabi to build a campus in that Persian Gulf city.
At the State Department, she was unpaid in those first months, officially designated as a temporary expert-consultant — a status that allowed her to continue to collect outside income while serving as chief of staff. She reported that NYU paid her $198,000 in 2009, when her university work overlapped with her time at the State Department, and that she collected an additional $330,000 in vacation and severance payments when she left the school’s payroll in May 2009.
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/359496.php
World's smartest woman!
Marc: Adding this http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/ap-clinton-server-ran-software-risked-hacking-34435250 a source more reassuring to some , , ,
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-cash-scandal-news/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20%2823%29&utm_content=#anc1
-
second post
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-wall-street-frenemies/article/2573750
-
Does anyone now doubt my assertion that even in the unlikely event Hillary gets indicted that it will matter one cent? The party will still rally around her and she will still be the nominee.
Just pathetic.
-
Does anyone now doubt my assertion that even in the unlikely event Hillary gets indicted that it will matter one cent? The party will still rally around her and she will still be the nominee.
Just pathetic.
We live in the post-modern, post-moral USSA.
-
A room stacked with a highly partisan audience is not much of an indicator as it may feel to be while one is watching the debate. The stupidities of McCarthy and the RINOs may not matter if the legal process continues to move forward.
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/14/hillarys_sysadmin_next_to_the_pillory/
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-courts-latinos-with-julian-castros-backing.html?ref=politics&_r=0
Young, Spanish speaking Latino. I wonder who we could put at the top of the ticket to counter that bold move...
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-national-archives-to-obtain-draft-indictments-of-hillary-clinton/
-
We heard her practice answer on Stevens' please for security, and that falls flat.
What else she should she be asked?
Tell us Madam Secretary everything you said and did, who you talked with, who you met with, during the time between when you first learned of the crisis and when it was over.
Is it true that you went home for the evening?
Did you send or receive emails over your private server during the attack, about the attack? Did any other emails during that time?
Did you speak with the Defense Secretary, Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs or any other military leader during that time?
Who concocted the false video explanation for the attack? When? We did you perpetuate that falsehood - to the public and to the families of the fallen?
Did the arrest of one person constitute full justice to the victims' families and the perpetrators, a painful enough retaliation to prevent another attack, or should we expect something more?
Where did Ambassador Stevens' emails go after they reached your email? Was this handled by you or by staff?
What more would you or could you have done if you had been President at the time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Famous people caught reading the forum?
Doug, yesterday: Gowdy can't say it, but is that going to be her method of governing as President, 'well we have professionals who handle that and it's not my job to override their decisions...
John Bolton, this morning: Politics has no place in the committee hearing on Thursday, save for a question that many Americans may be asking: Is this how we want our country led? (WSJ)
-
For Crafty who thinks that Hillary is "HOT"! :evil: :evil:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR2rnmOXAAAGfiD.jpg)
-
I would like to see her asked if she now regrets wrongfully blaming the youtube video and having it's producer arrested.
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/NOTHINGPERSONAL.png
(http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/NOTHINGPERSONAL.png)
-
WSJ
By James Freeman
Oct. 21, 2015 7:24 a.m. ET
9 COMMENTS
Why did Secretary Hillary Clinton leave the State Department on September 11, 2012 while U.S. diplomats were under attack in Libya? As Mrs. Clinton prepares to testify Thursday before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, John Bolton notes that on the fateful day when a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were murdered, Mrs. Clinton went home for the evening.
He adds that “she reportedly spoke exactly once, at 10 p.m., with the president when he called her to discuss the State Department news release that first floated the fantasy that Muslim outrage over a blasphemous video about Muhammad sparked the attack. Incredibly, Mrs. Clinton never spoke at all to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta or Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey, according to their congressional testimony.” And Mr. Bolton raises another question: “Was Mrs. Clinton using her private email server while her State Department desk stood vacant? If so, where are those emails?”
-
Hillary's responses could be;
1) What difference does it make?
2) None of your Republican business!
3) We were looking to replace the ambassador anyway with a woman.
4) I've already answered every question, been more forthright, turned over more documents and emails than anyone in history, and cooperated fully with multiple unprecedented investigations.
5) We did the best we could with the intelligence we had and acted appropriately. Yes some mistakes, in retrospect, were made and yes we will learn from them to avoid similar events in the future (when I am President)
6) I take full responsibility. (So lets move on)
-
Does anyone believe the crap going on with this committee hearing with Hillary?
The Dem politicians are the most corrupt and lying bastards..............doing everything to obstruct finding out about Her Royal Highness actions.
Just name Hillary President for Life and get it over with................. :cry:
-
PP,
Sadly your right. The Crats are already just waiting to burst the airwaves with just look at how Presidential she looked, answered every question, and ran circles around the boobs.
And or how they are on a "witch hunt" to get her about "nothing".
:cry: :x
-
Running transcript:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/22/transcript-clinton-testifies-before-house-committee-on-benghazi/
-
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-statements.html
-
second post
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-approved-illegal-government-job/#anc3
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/22/revealed-hillary-told-egyptian-pm-day-after-benghazi-attack-that-mohammed-movie-had-nothing-to-do-with-it/
-
https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10153779366851336/?pnref=story
-
(http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/HILLARYCRUISE.jpg)
-
Oct. 22, 2015 7:32 p.m. ET
136 COMMENTS
Thanks to Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony on Thursday, we now understand why the former secretary of state never wanted anyone to see her emails and why the State Department sat on documents. Turns out those emails and papers show that the Obama administration deliberately misled the nation about the deadly events in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.
Don’t forget how we came to this point. Mrs. Clinton complained in her testimony on Capitol Hill that past Congresses had never made the overseas deaths of U.S. officials a “partisan” issue. That’s because those past deaths had never inspired an administration to concoct a wild excuse for their occurrence, in an apparent attempt to avoid blame for a terror attack in a presidential re-election year.
The early hints that this is exactly what happened after the murder of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans cast doubt on every White House-issued “fact” about the fiasco and led to the establishment of Rep. Trey Gowdy’s select committee.
Opinion Journal Video
Main Street Columnist Bill McGurn on Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Photo credit: Getty Images.
What that House committee did Thursday was finally expose the initial deception. To understand the willful depth of that trickery, let’s briefly recall the history.
In early September 2012, at the Democratic National Convention, Vice President Joe Biden summarized to thunderous applause the administration’s re-election pitch: “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.” Translation: The president had revived the economy, even as he had put “al Qaeda on the run,” as Mr. Obama put it. Five days later, four Americans in Benghazi were dead. It appeared the White House had slept through a terror attack on the anniversary of 9/11.
The administration instead immediately presented the attack as a spontaneous mob backlash to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. At 10:30 on the night of the attack, Mrs. Clinton issued a statement about the violence, blaming the video. She repeated the charge in a speech the next day. President Obama gave his own speech that day, referring to the video and refusing to use the word “terrorism.”
The next day, Mrs. Clinton mentioned the video twice more. The day after that, Press Secretary Jay Carney said: “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” Mrs. Clinton promised the father of one of the victims that the administration would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” In his weekly address, Mr. Obama talked about the video. When the Libyan president said there was evidence the attack was planned months in advance, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice contradicted him. She instead told five Sunday talk shows—five days after the attack—that “based on the best information we have to date,” the attack “began spontaneously” in response to “this hateful video.” Mr. Obama for two full weeks continued to talk about YouTube.
Here’s what the Benghazi committee found in Thursday’s hearing. Two hours into Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan referred to an email Mrs. Clinton sent to her daughter, Chelsea, at 11:12 the night of the attack, or 45 minutes after the secretary of state had issued a statement blaming YouTube-inflamed mobs. Her email reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.” Mrs. Clinton doesn’t hedge in the email; no “it seems” or “it appears.” She tells her daughter that on the anniversary of 9/11 an al Qaeda group assassinated four Americans.
That same evening, Mrs. Clinton spoke on the phone with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, around 8 p.m. The notes from that conversation, in a State Department email, describe her as saying: “We have asked for the Libyan government to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.” Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s affiliate on the Arabian Peninsula. So several hours into the attack, Mrs. Clinton already believed that al Qaeda was attacking U.S. facilities.
The next afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had a call with the Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil. The notes from it are absolutely damning. The secretary of state tells him: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.” And yet Mrs. Clinton, and Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama for days and days continued to spin the video lie.
In other news Thursday, Judicial Watch unveiled a new cable, sent the day after the attack, from the Defense Intelligence Agency to the State Department Command Center. It explains that the attack was carried out by a “Salafi terrorism group” in “retaliation for the killing of an Al Qaeda operative.”
The cable says “the attack was an organized operation with specific information that the U.S. Ambassador was present.” The cable included details about the group’s movements and the weapons it used in the assault.
Count on the Obama administration to again resort to blaming “confusing” and “conflicting” information at the time for its two-week spin. That was Mrs. Clinton’s flimsy excuse at the hearing. But her own conversations prove she was in no doubt about what happened—while it was still happening.
Democrats on the committee spent most of the hearing complaining that it was a waste of time and money. Quite the opposite. It was invaluable, for the clarity provided by those three emails alone.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
-
We all here knew this. The evidence is clear.
That said the left will not abandon their gal. She is all they have for '16.
They fight in war like fashion. Just no guns but in every other way they leave a scorched Earth policy.
Bribe, threaten, break all laws and deny it (especially with no controlling legal authority or one that is pro Democrat Party), cover up, lie more, make up stories, twist the truth or spin it backwards, primp her up in suits, and an inch thick of makeup, have her sit upright and act proper and above it all, hit the airways lying right along with her, the media almost entirely willing to go along (my first revulsion is that scumbag Carl Bernstein who shows how his going after Nixon was nothing more than partisanship now defending this crum), and she agrees to take responsibility but then has NO accountability beyond that empty statement and she still is a candidate for the Dem nomination.
What a freaking mob!
Time to look into Levin state conventions remedy.
-
Yep, the 2016 Election is over. Hillary won it yesterday with her appearance. The country does not care whether she is a psychopath or sociopath. Just give them their goodies.
The GOPe cannot put up a candidate that can beat her. They will run Rubio, Jeb or in a pinch, Cruz. Each will lose.
Carson will lose if he runs, because he is too nice and with his previous stands on issues, very vulnerable.
Trump would have a hard time, but he could probably win. But the GOPe will not let him be the nominee.
-
And anyone who thinks that even an indictment will make a difference should certainly reconsider that now.
She will still run, spend five times more millions on lawyers to make up stories and throw down war tacks in front of every avenue the legal process will go, and than proceed to tell us how taxpayers are wasting millions on partisan investigations and the rats will be marching right behind her to the WH.
And don't think many illegals will not be voting for her.
I am not so sure that some of the Repub candidates couldn't beat her, but it is sure hard to compete with taxpayer cash bribes: "free" college, "free" health care, "free" borders, and the rest.
-
Yes, she knew all along. Well put. Proven by the evidence in this hearing.
Conservative media did a nice job of putting together the clips quickly that prove this case.
The consulate made 600 attempts that year to plea for more security. None of them got through to her.
Sid Blumenthal, too seedy to be employed by the Obama administration but employed by the foundation, made 150 attempts and got through every time.
She knew while it happened it was a terror attack. She told family and Libya and Egypt it was a terror attack. Simultaneously told the American public it was a video.
It was Sept 11, but it was also less than 60 days to Obama's reelection. The mantra was that GM is alive, Bin Laden is dead, Libya is a success and al Qaida is on the run. They wouldn't put a fortress in Benghazi because it went against there political strategy of light footprint. And they wouldn't tell us straight what happened in Benghazi because it turned that story on its head.
5 days later, instead of Hillary stepping forward, flunkie Susan Rice went on 5 national shows and lied about security and lied about the attack, at the direction of Clinton and Obama.
You'd think the lied to media would be livid to find out about being used as stooges in the deception. Just the opposite. Washington Post today is filled with 'news' and opinion stories about how Hillary prevailed because she kept her cool and answered their questions. Really? (CCP has been right about this all along.)
Underlying all of this is something perverted about the relationship between Clinton and Obama. This is his failure. He picked her. He authorized the war. He's accountable for security. He told the lie himself, to the UN among others, and his 'folks' wrote the script that Susan Rice delivered with confidence to hold this back until at least after the election. And for that, he promoted her.
Hillary knows that. She's got plenty on him and is the type of gal not afraid to threaten to tell all. Suddenly when her candidacy looked bleak, Bernie Sanders backed off, the FBI was told to back off and Joe Biden backed off.
Hillary showed in the debate that she could stand up this kind of questioning and reply with non-answers, nonsense and misdirection. She went into the debate and did it. Now all the opponents have are clips of the questioners making the case against her . But that they do.
I've been afraid to say all along that I am more troubled by the lying than with the 4 dead Americans. What happened to them was tragic. What happened to them was no doubt avoidable. What happened to them was most likely Clinton and Obama's fault. The lax security was part of the failed strategy. All that said, people die in war and by traveling to dangerous places and doing dangerous things. How many died in Beirut? In Pearl Harbor? In the Twin Towers? We question what we could have done differently without pinning blame on our decision makers.
But lying to the country, to the world, and to the families of the victims for political gain is something truly evil.
That she could sit there and continue to justify it is taking the lying to another level. It was not a white lie, a gray lie, a black lie, a political lie or a criminal lie. It's a pathological lie. This one covers all of the Clinton crime family and Obama White House, they lie with such ease.
Clinton supporter David Geffen, 2007: "Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease it’s troubling,”
http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/22/cx_tj_0222varietybiz.html
-
Doug,
Welcome to the new Amerika. Socialism won.
The only thing that can prevent further erosion of the country is an action that will destroy the country. That is for the more conservative side to resort to civil actions of rebellion against DC and the politicians on both sides. But this type of action would at some point lead to armed response by the government, and a full civil war would erupt.
Sometime in the next 5 to 8 years, the next financial crisis and/or general war will occur. This will be the key event that triggers the 4th Turning and a complete societal shift in the US. And the results that ensue will be totally unpredictable and unexpected.
I fear for my grandkids and the country.............
-
Doug,
Welcome to the new Amerika. Socialism won.
The only thing that can prevent further erosion of the country is an action that will destroy the country. That is for the more conservative side to resort to civil actions of rebellion against DC and the politicians on both sides. But this type of action would at some point lead to armed response by the government, and a full civil war would erupt.
Sometime in the next 5 to 8 years, the next financial crisis and/or general war will occur. This will be the key event that triggers the 4th Turning and a complete societal shift in the US. And the results that ensue will be totally unpredictable and unexpected.
I fear for my grandkids and the country.............
Everyone is telling me that we're already defeated and maybe you're all right. My parents (and grandparents) fought against liberalism since Woodrow Wilson and lost. WHat they warned of in the 60s has all happened. Both parents died shortly after Obama was reelected, leaving their 4 grandchildren in a country on a path to a hellhole.
Life is so short that I don't care about it for me anymore. I will get through wherever this heads. Even my daughter can survive 'democratic socialism', the upcoming crashes and everything else. It is the opportunity cost that hurts. We could have done SO MUCH BETTER.
Reagan was a compromiser. He came to conservatism somewhere about midstream in his journey, came to supply side economics barely a minute before the election, had hardly a chance of winning at this point in the campaign, had already lost twice. Was keynote speaker for Barry Goldwater who had the biggest loss in his time. He wasn't so perfect, tripped over a few things, but through all of that somehow emerged as a leader. He barely got his message through to the people in time to win 44 states in a 3 way contest with a moderate Republican and an incumbent President running against him. He barely got his agenda passed through a Dem House and far less than 60 in the Senate. Gave away enough domestic spending in return to almost sank his agenda. The congress delayed the tax cuts while Fed went ahead with historic tightening. He barely got through a really deep recession and into robust growth in time to beat a past vice president - winning 49 states. And he barely prevailed in negotiations that resulted in the fall of the entire Soviet empire. All he really had was a deeply held confidence in the American spirit, intuitive-level conservatism and a very exceptional ability to communicate directly to the people. The result of that good vision, good skill, good luck and good timing was about 25 years of peace and prosperity, now all squandered.
It's been 36 years since "Miracle", when a bunch of college kids went to Lake Placid and beat the Soviet Union that had just beat all the top NHL teams, and since Ronald Reagan took back his microphone and defeated the do nothing right wimps in both parties. Aren't we due and deserving right now for something better than stagnation and pathological lying?
-
Funny that you mention the Reagan first election and also Miracle. I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters at the time. We could only follow the election from the perspective of the Stars and Stripes daily paper and the British media. And how their media went after Reagan and Thatcher both.
Thatcher began as PM while I was there and was demonized for the actions she took. It set the economy back for years, but the end results were well worth it, just like with Reagan. And the work of both have been totally squandered.
The US has lost the "work ethnic" that we had in the 50's and 60's. It has been replaced with such an entitlement attitude that there can be no hope for a reset without a Depression type of event. But even here in the US, that will only trigger more demand for government services. (My own belief is that 2008-2009, we had the same type event, but only social programs got us through it. it won't happen again.)
Thomas Jefferson was right.................."the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and traitors" every so often. That point is coming fast.....
-
Some of us are too ready to give up methinks.
UNDER OATH the Dowager Empress made many statements yesterday which, in the hands of the FBI, may well come back to haunt her.
The Gowdy Committee will be questioning Gen. Petraeus and others of high interest.
This is far from over.
-
The 'under oath' aspect is interesting for a pathological liar. She seemed to say nothing but who knows. I hope the FBI is a more serious operation than whoever investigated Fast and Furious. In one sense, the top of the department at the direction of the White House can direct resources, but in another sense the rule of law types you might find in career FBI roles may not roll over silently.
Yes she lied to us, but the criminal question has to do with the handling of national secrets, marked classified or not.
If there was an organized system discovered for unmarking classified material, heads will roll.
The other test under the law is gross negligence as it applies to the entire operation of setting up and using the server. It is easy to argue that happened but will come down to the judgment and discretion of the prosecutor, which in effect is the Obama White House.
Back to the point of her having the goods on him, and vice versa. In the end I think this will need to be settled in the political arena.
Crafty: "This is far from over."
Also being discovered in the emails is more accumulating evidence of the corrupt money for favors program that existed between the Clinton crime family Foundation and the Clinton unsecured Secretary of State office. Unfortunately, this is also to be settled in the political arena...
-
And anyone expects the DOJ to prosecute?
-
Hillary: I Didn't Blame Benghazi On The YouTube Video
Four pinocchios for the pantsuit.
October 23, 2015
Matthew Vadum
Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony yesterday before the congressional committee formed to investigate the deadly Benghazi debacle that she allowed to happen and then tried to cover up can be summed up in two words: she lied.
Boiled down: Despite mountains of email evidence to the contrary, Clinton denied that she previously blamed the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack that took four American lives on an at-the-time unwatched anti-Islam YouTube video. She denied that left-wing slime merchant and Clinton groupie Sidney Blumenthal was her advisor. She even denied having a computer on her desk at the State Department. (The Washington Post has what appears to be a largely accurate complete transcript of the hearing.)
Hillary wants Americans to believe that her official government emails, sometimes containing top-secret classified information, that she sent around the globe through the insecure, hacker-friendly private email server created to facilitate anticipatory bribes for the would-be U.S. president funneled through the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, don't say what your lying eyes tell you they say.
Republicans made the case yesterday that foreign policy neophyte Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton crony with business interests in Libya, had easy access to Clinton while her own ambassador struggled heroically to reach her. The many requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens for extra security measures fell upon deaf ears.
Hillary effectively blamed Stevens for getting himself killed, saying he was supposed to take care of his own security. “We were really counting on Chris to guide us and give us information on the ground,” Clinton said when questioned methodically by Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.).
Clinton denied Blumenthal was an advisor of hers even though he regularly barraged her with emails and their relationship goes back decades. "He was not advising me, and I have no reason to have ever mentioned that or know that the president knew that."
It's still a complete and utter mystery to Clinton why American facilities were targeted in Benghazi, Libya. Really. She said that.
"None of us can speak to the individual motivations of those terrorists who overran our compound and who attacked our CIA annex," she told the Benghazi Select Committee on Thursday. "There were probably a number of different motivations." So it's a little bit of this, and a little bit of that.
None of this comes as a surprise to Clinton watchers.
New York Times columnist William Safire famously dubbed her "a congenital liar," and that very same left-wing newspaper now admits that “Hillary Rodham Clinton’s explanations about her use of a personal email account as secretary of state have evolved over time.” Evolved? That's one way of putting it.
With the acquiescence -- and at times, complicity -- of a perennially incurious media, Hillary's verbal jousting skills have saved her many times over her decades of political wheeling and dealing. Now that Clinton is campaigning to succeed President Obama, she was much more polished and composed this week than during her previous, now-infamous congressional testimony on the Benghazi saga. That was in 2013 she when she donned Coke bottle eyeglasses chosen perhaps to elicit sympathy related to her reportedly significant health problems.
Her attitude on that day two years ago could be distilled to one word: whatever.
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," she shouted. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"
During the televised proceedings yesterday, Clinton, one of America’s most accomplished sociopaths, alternated largely between looking thoughtful or bored. Her pulse probably never got above 85, even at the height of the richly deserved tongue-lashing she received from Republican lawmakers. Like another famous sociopath whose surname she shares, Hillary simply adores arguing and lawyering.
She lives for it and has at least since she was fired from the House Judiciary Committee during its investigation of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Hillary’s then-supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, said he canned the 27-year-old attorney “because she was a liar … an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
No lie is too big or too small for Hillary, whether it’s a concocted tale of being under enemy fire at an airport in Bosnia, the existence of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her husband’s presidency, that she was named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary even though he rocketed to fame by accomplishing the feat when she was a six-year-old, or that the Clintons were “dead broke” when they exited the White House.
Meanwhile, at the Thursday hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demolished Clinton's apparently fresh assertion at the hearing that she didn't actually claim an obscure anti-Islam movie trailer posted on YouTube prompted the terrorist assault in Benghazi on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. She now takes a more nuanced, twisted-like-a-pretzel position in which maybe some non-terrorist Muslims were suddenly stirred to violence in Libya by the video, but really at the same time it was a terrorist attack, something she testified Thursday has been her position the whole time. She talked about the video publicly not to point fingers but as a warning, she testified, to those who might attack U.S. interests in the region. In other words, like a good defense lawyer, Hillary was trying to confuse the issues and muddy the waters.
Clinton, who seems able to function just fine with what must be chronic cognitive dissonance, said minutes before Jordan's question:
I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks.
Jordan fired back:
We want to know the truth. The statement you sent out was a statement on Benghazi and you say vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material on the Internet. If that's not pointing as the motive of being a video, I don't know what is. And that's certainly what -- and that's certainly how the American people saw it.
While she was informing the American public that the anti-Islam video was what caused the attack, at the same time she emailed her daughter Chelsea and the governments of Libya and Egypt to pin the blame on Muslim militants, Jordan explained. Around the same time the White House, in the closing weeks of a heated presidential election campaign, was pushing the line that what transpired in Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration turned violent, but terrorism was not a factor.
"We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film," Clinton wrote Egypt's prime minister the night of the attack. "It was a planned attack, not a protest." But in public Clinton continued to blame the "offensive" video. The U.S. government acquired $80,000 worth of commercial airtime in Pakistan to apologize for the YouTube clip.
Jordan pointed out that there was no video-inspired protest over in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, but there was one in Cairo, Egypt. The same day State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said "Benghazi has been attacked by militants. In Cairo, police have removed demonstrators."
So, in "Benghazi, you got weapons and explosions," he said. In "Cairo, you got spray paint and rocks." The congressman continued:
One hour before the attack in Benghazi, Chris Stevens walks a diplomat to the front gate. The ambassador didn't report a demonstration. He didn't report it because it never happened. An eyewitness in the command center that night on the ground said no protest, no demonstration; two intelligence reports that day, no protest, no demonstration.
The Benghazi attack, Jordan said, began at 3:42 p.m. Eastern time and ended around 11:40 p.m. that evening. He continued:
At 4:06, an ops alert goes out across the State Department. It says this, "Mission under attack, armed men, shots fired, explosions heard." No mention of video, no mention of a protest, no mention of a demonstration. But the best evidence is Greg Hicks, the number two guy in Libya, the guy who worked side by side with Ambassador Stevens. He was asked, if there had been a protest, would the ambassador have reported it? Mr. Hicks's response, "Absolutely." For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable ... and if it had been reported, he would have been out the back door within minutes and there was a back gate.
"Everything," Jordan said, "points to a terrorist attack ... and yet five days later Susan Rice goes on five TV shows and she says this, 'Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a video,' a statement we all know is false." Rice was "off the reservation," according to State Department experts in the agency's Near Eastern Affairs bureau.
"So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madam Secretary," he said. At 10:08 p.m. while the attack was still in progress, Clinton released a statement insinuating that a video inspired the assault. "Some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," it read.
Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) tried to drive home the point that interest in the Benghazi saga has long been a bipartisan affair in the U.S. Congress. “The House of Representatives, including some Democrats I hasten to add, asked this committee to write the final accounting of what happened in Benghazi.”
But previous congressional investigations, he added, were a joke.
Gowdy stressed that his committee is the “first committee” to go through more than 50,000 pages of documents, “to thoroughly and individually interview scores of other witnesses, many of them for the first time,” “to demand access to relevant documents from the CIA, the FBI, the Department Of Defense and even the White House,” and “to demand access to the emails to and from Ambassador Chris Stevens.”
He added, “How could an investigation possibly be considered serious without reviewing the emails of the person most knowledgeable about Libya?”
The committee was the “first” and “only” panel “to uncover the fact that Secretary Clinton exclusively used personal email on her own personal server for official business and kept the public record, including e-mails about Benghazi and Libya, in her own custody and control for almost two years after she left office.”
Gowdy impugned the motives of the Accountability Review Board that began studying the Benghazi debacle soon after it happened, noting that Clinton name-dropped the panel an astonishing 70 times in previous congressional testimony. That sham investigation was headed by former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, a useful idiot for Islam who is spending his twilight years crusading against the so-called Islamophobia that infects the ignorant bigots and rubes across the fruited plain who irrationally fear the benign Muslim religion.
Noting that the members of the ARB were “hand-picked” by State Department leadership, Gowdy said:
The ARB never interviewed Secretary Clinton. The ARB never reviewed her emails. And Secretary Clinton's top adviser was allowed to review and suggest changes to the ARB before the public ever saw it. There's no transcript of ARB interviews. So, it's impossible to know whether all relevant questions were asked and answered. Because there's no transcript, it is also impossible to cite the ARB interviews with any particularity at all.
The ARB’s work is “not independent” and not an example of accountability, he said. It is “not a serious investigation.” And if “previous congressional investigations were really serious and thorough, how did they miss Ambassador Stevens' emails?” and “why did they fail to interview dozens of key State Department witnesses, including agents on the ground who experienced the attacks firsthand?”
On the eve of the Thursday hearing, Democratic members of the Select Committee released a so-called full transcript from an official interview with Cheryl Mills, who served as counselor and Chief of Staff to Clinton at the Department of State. Democrats claimed they acted at "to correct the public record after numerous out-of-context and misleading Republican leaks.” Democrats must have calculated that the testimony of a longtime Clinton crony would somehow have an exculpatory effect from which her presidential campaign would benefit.
But not all of the Democratic Party's press release writers -- outside the mainstream media, that is -- are gifted, antisocial, Alinskyite liars of Hillary's caliber. Clinton usually can at least keep the lies more or less straight in her head, and like her husband, treats parsing as bloodsport, while engaging in at times brutally effective misdirection and superficially plausible semantic contortions.
The press release accompanying the 307-page document boasts that it is a “full transcript of the Select Committee’s interview with former State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills,” but is it really? It contradicts itself a few sentences later, describing the document as mere “excerpts of Ranking Member Cummings questioning Ms. Mills[.]” This wording suggests that only one lawmaker – a grandstanding, media-savvy, hyper-partisan Democrat on a Republican-controlled panel – questioned Mills at the hearing. It is very hard to believe not even one Republican wanted to take a shot at Mills.
But it is much easier to believe that Democratic congressional staffers aimed to score political points for releasing Mills's entire testimony when it reality they cherry-picked only the parts that put Clinton in the most favorable light.
The press release claims that the transcript provides “significant evidence that Secretary Clinton was deeply engaged during and after the attacks and took action to ensure the safety and security of U.S. personnel, even as intelligence assessments of the attacks changed more than once during this period.”
“Republicans are spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan campaign to damage Secretary Clinton’s bid for president,” Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) was quoted as saying.
No doubt he was referring to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Ca.) uber-gaffe earlier this month that ended his run to replace outgoing Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio). Many drew an inference from McCarthy’s comments that congressional Republicans were trying to torpedo Clinton’s presidential campaign at the expense of the truth. "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable," McCarthy told Sean Hannity. "But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping."
In the end, conservative commentator Erick Erickson shrugged, calling the Benghazi hearing "a waste of time because everything about it is politicized and nothing is going to happen. There will be no scalp collection."
He continued: "Mrs. Clinton is far too bright to be trapped in this or any questions." Although she has gotten flustered under questioning, such incidents will "make her a martyr to her own side ... Democratic voters are not going to reject Mrs. Clinton even if she were to admit that she had flown to Benghazi and joined Al Qaeda in the attack."
Given the Hillary mania that grips so much of the Democratic Party and some leftists' positively morbid craving to put a woman in the Oval Office at all costs, Erickson may have a bit of a point.
And if Republican congressional leadership continues with the same old lackadaisical, self-sabotaging approach in which the white flag is waved before the first shot has been fired, the Benghazi committee won't accomplish much apart from generating revenue for fundraising consultants on both sides of the aisle.
The disturbing likelihood that Hillary Clinton will get away with her crimes remains, regardless of how noble, inspiring, and determined to get at the truth Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy may be.
-
quote author=objectivist1
Four pinocchios for the pantsuit.
"We know that the attack in Libya
had nothing to do with the film,"
Clinton wrote Egypt's prime minister the night of the attack.
"It was a planned attack, not a protest."
Unbelievable.
Most specific is what Susan Rice said at the direction of Obama and Clinton teams, 5 DAYS LATER:
ABC, This Week:
it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo.
In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken
in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
CBS, Face the Nation:
sparked by this hateful video
Fox News Sunday:
"it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo
as a consequence of the video"
NBC, Meet the Press:
"what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo,
almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo,
which were prompted, of course, by the video
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/
Obama on CBS Letterman regarding Benghazi attack:
Here's what happened. ... You had a video that was released
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/30/what_the_president_said_about_benghazi_116299.html#ixzz3pPxz9CDh
Clinton blames the video, watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BQGMzmzcd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d__S8nEqW0
The video that Hillary and Obama blamed had 300 views at the time.
(https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HBh2aHR0cDovL21lZGlhLnRvd25oYWxsLmNvbS90b3duaGFsbC9yZXUvaGEvMjAxMlwyNzZcMjAxMi0xMC0wM1QwMTM4MjhaXzRfQ0JSRTg5MTFMRFowMF9SVFJPUFRQXzNfVVNBLUxJQllBLVNFQ1VSSVRZLkpQRxSSChSmBRwUhAYUlAMAABYAEgA&s=yrIfJ82Xc7cAQrG4MQkC_V1s4upfP3wKWa68j60Puo4)
Chris, Just tell us if you need more security...
-
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/hannity-plays-montage-of-obama-administration-members-falsely-blaming-video-for-benghazi-attack/
quote author=objectivist1
Four pinocchios for the pantsuit.
"We know that the attack in Libya
had nothing to do with the film,"
Clinton wrote Egypt's prime minister the night of the attack.
"It was a planned attack, not a protest."
Unbelievable.
Most specific is what Susan Rice said at the direction of Obama and Clinton teams, 5 DAYS LATER:
ABC, This Week:
it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo.
In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken
in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
CBS, Face the Nation:
sparked by this hateful video
Fox News Sunday:
"it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo
as a consequence of the video"
NBC, Meet the Press:
"what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo,
almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo,
which were prompted, of course, by the video
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/
-
https://www.facebook.com/CSPAN/videos/10153910084875579/
-
"If there was an organized system discovered for unmarking classified material, heads will roll"
Maybe but it won't be hers. The fix is in.
Biden out. IRS investigation ended with "no evidence" of criminal wrongdoing and announced Friday evening.
Just like the Copyright office. No evidence of any criminal wrong doing. Just mistakes or incompetence. And advice from one of my attorneys to be careful what I say about Federal Officials.
And I agree with Doug. It is all about the lying more than anything else. She never seems to have to pay a price for lying. Just keep promising those checks and smile and everything is hunky dory. All in one day.
-
Just one additional thought. When ever she gets herself into trouble she may as well simply come out and tell the electorate not to worry. Just elect her and the checks will keep coming and women will all get raises and promotions the very first day of her office. (the first true thing she will probably ever say) But add the lie that if she doesn't get elected everyone will be on bread lines because of the evil American Nazis - the Republicans.
-
Just 1 more additional thought :-D
At this point the Republicans should hit the airways with guns blazing and exclaim your damn right we needed to grill HC and expose her dishonesty. The Benghazi committee did it's duty (while the media does not) in holding a Sec of St and representing the WH accountable for lying about an attack on Americans just before an election.
Fight back! Stop being wishy washy and grudgingly agree with the leftist media with "well we didn't learn anything new".
-
The Republican Party leadership is too damn scared of "media backlash" if they attack any Democrat - Hillary and Obama included. These kind of punch-backs will ONLY occur if a candidate willing to speak plainly gets the Rep. nomination - a.k.a. Trump or Cruz - maybe Carson. They certainly won't get any backup from the party leadership. They will have to go it alone and lead by example. I believe that if the candidate does this - he/she will crush Hillary at the polls.
-
The Republican Party leadership is too damn scared of "media backlash" if they attack any Democrat - Hillary and Obama included. These kind of punch-backs will ONLY occur if a candidate willing to speak plainly gets the Rep. nomination - a.k.a. Trump or Cruz - maybe Carson. They certainly won't get any backup from the party leadership. They will have to go it alone and lead by example. I believe that if the candidate does this - he/she will crush Hillary at the polls.
It should not only be partisan Republicans who are offended by the dishonesty and corruption of elected Democrats..
-
The Republican Party leadership is too damn scared of "media backlash" if they attack any Democrat - Hillary and Obama included. These kind of punch-backs will ONLY occur if a candidate willing to speak plainly gets the Rep. nomination - a.k.a. Trump or Cruz - maybe Carson. They certainly won't get any backup from the party leadership. They will have to go it alone and lead by example. I believe that if the candidate does this - he/she will crush Hillary at the polls.
It should not only be partisan Republicans who are offended by the dishonesty and corruption of elected Democrats..
But it is.
-
Exactly. Democrats simply don't care - which they are proving in the polls. There really isn't any such thing as a "conservative Democrat" anymore. There are damn few conservative Republicans, but at least they exist.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426004/hillary-clinton-benghazi-hearing
-
second post
https://www.facebook.com/nohillaryin2016/videos/1092672604079045/?pnref=story
-
Slate:
"Hillary Clinton takes a well-deserved post-Benghazi victory lap at the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum"
Jame Taranto: "Chris Stevens could not be reached for comment"
-
"well-deserved" my ass.
The feminists seem to have major control over many of the media outlets. Every female on CNN with the smirks anytime they have a Republican guest and subtle nods of agreement every time they have someone on with the left wing propaganda.
-
"well-deserved" my ass.
The feminists seem to have major control over many of the media outlets. Every female on CNN with the smirks anytime they have a Republican guest and subtle nods of agreement every time they have someone on with the left wing propaganda.
The answer to the charge made by mainstream media personalities and partisan Democrats (I repeat myself) - that nothing new was learned after x million spent and x years wasted in the Benghazi hearings is this:
Are you saying we already knew she is a pathological liar?
-
Yes, precisely - in the same manner that we knew Ted Kennedy committed manslaughter and got away with it, and the press didn't seem to care. Hillary was fired by a life-long Democrat from the Watergate investigation committee for lying and trying to subvert rules. He called her "explicitly dishonest." That was when she was 27.
As Rush Limbaugh likes to say: "Scandals and illicit affairs are 'resume enhancements' for Democrats in the media's eyes." Republicans are crucified for the same offenses.
No where is this more evident than in Bob Woodward's disgusting appearance on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, in which he maintained that notwithstanding the fact that Hillary lied, "there is no criminal activity here, and frankly, she got away with all this and Democrats don't care." He said this with a wry smile, as if to say "So fuck you, Republican Party. We have our double-standard, and we'll continue to enforce it. It matters not a whit that Richard Nixon was forced from office for something that pales in comparison to the Clinton's scandals."
-
objectivist,
" Bob Woodward's disgusting appearance on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, in which he maintained that notwithstanding the fact that Hillary lied, "there is no criminal activity here, and frankly, she got away with all this and Democrats don't care."
Really? Are you sure it was Bob Woodward and not the far worse one Carl Bernstein?
I am very surprised that Woodward would state there is no criminal activity with her destruction of evidence (emails) and obstruction of justice that any reasonable jury member could agree with.
-
CCP - I know what I saw and heard.
Here is the transcript:
WALLACE: Are you surprised that not a single Democrat on that committee had a single pointed question for Clinton about the very real issue about what happened in Benghazi?
WOODWARD: Well, Watergate was about a series of crimes, well established. And so, it was the Republicans who eventually turned on Nixon, and it was a bipartisan inquiry. Here, it’s not. It clearly is partisan. And, you know, look—
WALLACE: But the death of those four Americans isn’t partisan.
WOODWARD: No—and there are legitimate questions here.
WALLACE: But they didn’t ask them.
WOODWARD: Yes. Well, but here’s the issue. You have inconsistencies. But there—this is a tragedy. And it should be investigated. You’re right. And she should answer. And, you know, she did or attempted to answer all of those questions. But there’s no crime here on her part. And to try to criminalize this or suggest, as some people have said, oh, she’ll be in jail. There’s no evidence of a crime. There is evidence of inconsistency. I mean, my God, this is our business, our lives. People saying one thing privately and saying something different publicly.
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/bob_woodward_smacks_down_fox_news_benghazi_is_watergate_meme_102615#YQUEpQSZgisyDssR.99
-
I thought he was above this. Lying to the public just before an election may not be a crime. Is it not a crime to lie to a Congressional Committee? She is not under oath so maybe not.
Nonetheless he is a Democrat after all. Just like the rest.
-
Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Defense Is Straight Out of ’90s Playbook. (I will try to fix format problem)
by THOMAS SOWELL October 27, 2015
Many people may share Senator Bernie Sanders’s complaint that he was tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. But the controversy is about issues far bigger than e-mails.
One issue is the utter disaster created by the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Libya, carried out by Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
An even bigger issue is whether high officials of government can ignore the law and refuse to produce evidence when it is subpoenaed. If they can, then the whole separation of powers — the checks and balances in the Constitution — gives way to arbitrary government by corrupt officials who are accountable to no one.
This is not the first time Hillary Clinton has defied the law to cover up what she had done. When Bill Clinton was president, back in the 1990s, both he and Hillary developed the strategy of responding to charges of illegal actions on their part by stalling and stonewalling when either courts or Congress tried to get them to produce documents related to these charges.
Hillary claimed then, as now, that key documents had disappeared. Her more recent claim that many of her e-mails had been deleted was just Hillary 2.0. Only after three years of stalling and stonewalling on her part has the fact finally come out this year that those e-mails could be recovered, and now have been. By this time, however, Hillary and her supporters used another tactic that both Clintons used back in the 1990s — namely, saying that this was old news, stuff that had already been investigated too long, that it was time to “move on.” That was Hillary 1.0. More recently Hillary 2.0 said, melodramatically, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
One of the things that the former secretary of state was now trying to cover up was the utter disaster of the Obama administration’s foreign policy that she carried out in Libya. Having intervened in Libya to help overthrow the government of Moammar Qaddafi, who was no threat to America’s interests in the Middle East, the Obama administration was confronted with the fact that Qaddafi’s ouster simply threw the country into such chaos that Islamic terrorists were now able to operate freely in Libya.
RELATED: The Benghazi Hearings Confirm Yet Again What a Brazen Liar Hillary Is Just how freely was shown in September 2012, when terrorists stormed the compound in Benghazi where the American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, was staying. They murdered him and three other Americans who tried to defend him. Moreover, the terrorists did not even have to go into hiding afterwards, and at least one of them was interviewed by journalists. That’s how chaotic Libya had become. Meanwhile, there was an American presidential election campaign in 2012, and Barack Obama was presenting himself to the voters as someone who had defeated al-Qaeda and suppressed the terrorist threat in the Middle East. Obviously the truth about this attack could have totally undermined the image that Obama was trying to project during the election campaign, and perhaps cost him the White House. So a lie was concocted instead. The lie was that the attack was not by terrorists — who supposedly had been suppressed by Obama — but was a spontaneous protest demonstration against an American video insulting Islam, and that protest just got out of control.
Now that Hillary Clinton’s e-mails have finally been recovered and revealed, after three years of stalling and stonewalling, they showed explicitly that she knew from the outset that the attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and others was not a result of some video but was a coordinated terrorist operation. Nevertheless, Hillary 2.0, along with President Obama and national security adviser Susan Rice, told the world in 2012 that the deaths in Benghazi were due to the video, not a terrorist organization that was now operating freely in Libya, thanks to the policy that got rid of the Qaddafi government. Yet that key fact was treated by the media as old news, and what was exciting now was how well Hillary 2.0 outperformed the congressional committee on television. If the corruption and undermining of the American system of Constitutional government eventually costs us our freedom, will the media say, “What difference does it make now?” —
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His website is tsowell.com.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426074/hillary-clinton-benghazi-emails
-
Well summarized by Thomas Sowell.
Yup she is so predictable.
Her guy Lanny Davis even touts himself as a "crises" lawyer now. He as well as the rest of the mafia gang are back almost in full hitting the airways and driving us on the right nuts with their BS.
They are all going to get wealthy working for her.
WE are going to have to have a candidate that can not only contrast him or her self form this psychopath (as GM puts it - or at least some other kind of personality disordered sicko) but be able to deconstruct her policies and speeches and positions very very carefully because we all know the Clintons have many many people researching every angle of every issue so she can stake a claim to the most popular positions and policies based on polling.
Just saying one disagrees will not be enough. Unfortunately the Republican leaders don't seem to be able to do this with their nominees.
-
I took the liberty of trying to figure out where paragraphs should go in the Sowell post.
It is a perceptive piece.
-
Mr. Sanders who helped her more than anyone minimize her dishonesty as not important now is a sexist and a gun nut as per one of the sickest and evil individuals to ever run for President:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/hillary_clinton_keeps_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_now_she_is_reaching.html
-
Hillary has to be one of the most evil, nasty women on the planet. She's proven this over the course of her career from the time she was fired for dishonesty while working on the Watergate committee. The way she has left her husband's female victims to twist in the wind, and even actively worked to destroy them is also illustrative. That she should claim to be an advocate for women is a sick joke.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/03/emails-released-state-dept-contradict-hillary-clintons-benghazi-testimony/
-
Clinton Signed Non-Disclosure Agreement Laying Out
Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info
Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info
Dem presidential candidate and top aides signed NDAs warning against ‘negligent handling’ of classified information
BY: Lachlan Markay, Free Beacon
November 6, 2015
As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.
A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf
Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.
Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI”—top secret/sensitive compartmented information—according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.
The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI.
The Democratic presidential frontrunner defended her unauthorized possession of SCI and her sending of emails containing classified information by claiming that the information was not marked as classified when it was sent or received.
The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.
“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.
The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NDA.
According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such.
“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.”
Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008.
“If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard told Reuters in August.
Clinton’s NDA spells out stiff criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure of SCI.” The FBI is currently investigating whether Clinton’s private email server violated any federal laws.
In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting “negligent handling of classified information,” requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.
It adds, “I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization” from the proper authorizes.
Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, Clinton’s two top aides, also signed copies of the classified information NDA.
Mills sent classified information to officials at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2012, an email released by the State Department in September shows.
Mills’ NDA required her to inquire about the classification of information in her possession if she was unsure about its status. However, her attorney said that she “presumed” that the information she sent to the foundation was unclassified because it had been sent to her at her unclassified State Department email address.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-signed-nda-laying-out-criminal-penalties-for-mishandling-of-classified-info/
-
Doug this is no big deal.
She probably gets many papers to sign every day. Surely she did not realize what she was signing and was therefore lapse but not criminal.
Also her aids obviously misled her and it is their fault not hers.
:wink: :roll:
It will be interesting to see them lie and sleaze their way our of this and how much the media lets them.
Based on history the msm will again allow this to die down and then just ignore it agreeing it is all just the dirty Republicans doing their rotten thing.
-
Doug this is no big deal.
She probably gets many papers to sign every day. Surely she did not realize what she was signing and was therefore lapse but not criminal.
Also her aids obviously misled her and it is their fault not hers.
:wink: :roll:
It will be interesting to see them lie and sleaze their way our of this and how much the media lets them.
Based on history the msm will again allow this to die down and then just ignore it agreeing it is all just the dirty Republicans doing their rotten thing.
This would be just one piece of the puzzle prosecutors would use - if they were to seriously contemplating doing the job.
A key point already posted here but now documented with her signature is that negligence in the handling of non-disclosure covered information (such as sending and receiving through an unsecured, private server) is treated essentially the same under the law as selling off national secrets with intent.
Is she guilty of negligence in the handling of the information that went through her server? - Yes
Did it include "sensitive compartmented information"? - Yes
Is there a law against it? - Yes
Is prosecution called for; are criminal penalties clearly spelled out? - Yes
Will the Obummer inJustice department prosecute her? - No, of course not.
Are hard-core Democrats swayed by damaging facts? - uh, no.
The conclusion observers draw is that this will be a close election no matter which R is nominated.
-
OH my "f" God. Now there were no "highly classified" emails. Thus everything else is fine and no problem. I mean this could have derailed a Presidential campaign and that is very significant. Well Yeah I say. No problem derailing any Republican. Oh but this is different. Yep to big to jail. This should be the campaign rally and cry from the right from here on in.
Every time this sicko opens her mouth she should be met with "too big to jail". Every damn time.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-no-highly-classified-215599
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426289/hillary-clinton-obama-benghazi-lie
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630
-
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1022704784416281&set=a.568743013145796.1073741825.100000303084480&type=3&pnref=story
-
I am having trouble finding the citations for Hillary being fired from the Watergate Committee and the allegations of a retraction by the man who "fired" her. Help please.
-
My system is choking on pages from Glenn Beck's Blaze site. Could someone please paste this article here?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/12/hillary-clinton-retells-military-story-that-cnn-reporter-admits-seems-so-unusual-guess-what-happened-when-he-asked-questions/
-
There is a massive "campaign" to re-write history on Hillary and Watergate. Her supporters are using any method possible to make Hillary look like the aggrieved party. See the Snopes article which does attempt to do just this. The article keeps saying that Jerry Zeifman did not have the authority to fire her and that he admitted it, making it appear that she was not terminated, but it does not ever admit that she was terminated.
The parsing of words in the article is just like "the meaning of is is........"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp)
-
https://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/
-
We search for Truth. Thank you gentlemen.
As much as I loathe Hillary, I will be dropping this particular accusation.
-
Hillary was terminated for no longer being needed? What does that actually mean? If she was known to lie and have a vindictive side, would someone provide the truth for termination?
BTW, who writes Truth v Fiction? I see nothing about that.
-
If there were a smoking gun document showing Killary was fired, I am pretty sure someone would have located it by now.
-
My system is choking on pages from Glenn Beck's Blaze site. Could someone please paste this article here?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/12/hillary-clinton-retells-military-story-that-cnn-reporter-admits-seems-so-unusual-guess-what-happened-when-he-asked-questions/
-
My system is choking on pages from Glenn Beck's Blaze site. Could someone please paste this article here?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/12/hillary-clinton-retells-military-story-that-cnn-reporter-admits-seems-so-unusual-guess-what-happened-when-he-asked-questions/
Hillary Clinton Retells Military Story That CNN Reporter Admits ‘Seems So Unusual’ — Guess What Happened When He Asked Questions
Nov. 12, 2015 10:07am Jason Howerton
1.7K
Shares
Hillary Clinton recently retold a story about how she supposedly tried to join the U.S. Marines in the 1970s, but was turned down because of her gender. She claims the Marine recruiter gave her fake reasons for why she couldn’t enlist.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
[/caption
CNN’s senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny expressed strong skepticism about the story on Thursday, but said the Clinton campaign is now refusing to provide any additional details about the claim.
“We do not have enough specifics actually to actually know if it’s true or not,” Zeleny said. “She didn’t give any other explanation.”
Zeleny said he requested more information from the Clinton campaign because “it seems so unusual that a Yale-educated lawyer who worked on the anti-war campaigns of McCarthy and McGovern, who had just moved to Arkansas, whose husband was about to become the Attorney General of the state would decide to want to join the Marines.”
However, he got no response other than a statement indicating the campaign is “not going to add any more comment on this.”
The Washington Post gave the story “Two Pinocchios,” mostly because the story can’t really be confirmed or disputed due to the lack of details. More from the fact check:
So far, we do not have enough documentary proof to say the incident never happened, such as supposedly landing under sniper fire in Bosnia or getting the date wrong for hearing a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. This is simply a personal recollection — one that at least two friends have confirmed they had been told about at the time.
But the circumstances are in question. She pitches it as a matter of public service, but her friends suggest it was something different. So at this point Clinton’s story is worthy of Two Pinocchios, subject to change if more information becomes available.
CNN recently launched an investigation into whether GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson lied about past violent incidents that occurred when he was a young boy. The network even dispatched reporters to talk to his old classmates.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/12/cnn-cmon-did-hillary-really-try-to-join-the-marines-in-1975/
-
I think she allegedly went into a recruiting office to see how they treated women.
I would hate to learn that she has misrepresented this story and see Politico and the media outrage force her out of this race.
-
I think she allegedly went into a recruiting office to see how they treated women.
I would hate to learn that she has misrepresented this story and see Politico and the media outrage force her out of this race.
I almost spit beer all over my laptop when I read that!
Very funny, Doug!
-
https://www.facebook.com/198591323503269/photos/a.214617678567300.65998.198591323503269/1149939295035129/?type=3
-
For those who didn't read Salon this past week, this is not the work of people who will easily come back together after the nomination. Some liberals oppose the wars and wall street out of political opportunism and some really mean it.
From their point of view, Hillary is a neocon, a crony capitalist, favored Keystone, TPP, NAFTA, opposed gay marriage.
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/11/hillary_clinton_is_on_wrong_side_of_everything_stop_telling_me_i_have_to_vote_for_her_because_of_the_supreme_court/
Hillary Clinton is on wrong side of everything: Stop telling me I have to vote for her because of the Supreme Court
These justices aren't going anywhere. Hillary's been slow to evolve on everything that matters, and is not for me.
First and foremost, the latest unscientific poll out of Western Illinois University has Bernie Sanders winning the presidency. Therefore, if polls are gospel, we’ll have a Democrat in the White House who plans on fixing the structural issues plaguing Wall Street and the U.S. economy. With Sanders, we’ll have an honest attempt at breaking up “Too Big to Fail” banks, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and tackling wealth inequality. Perhaps one reason WIU predicts Sanders winning the presidency is that Vermont’s senator has more than 1 million online donors who’ve funded his campaign. No need for prison lobbyists, like his challenger Hillary Clinton, and no need for a super PAC.
Also, one great thing about a Sanders presidency is that Americans will be able to trust a person who never had to evolve toward progressive stances on war, foreign policy, Wall Street and environmental issues like Keystone XL. While critics haven’t let me evolve from one article on Rand Paul (written from a purely progressive outlook on ending perpetual war, please read the actual article), supporters of the former secretary of state are very comfortable with her evolution on a number of topics. Naturally, Clinton supporters aren’t concerned with perpetual wars.
According to one conservative historian in the New York Times, Clinton’s foreign policy can easily be deemed “neocon”:
“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
When a conservative historian known for neoconservative views says Clinton’s foreign policy is “something that might have been called neocon,” it’s safe to say her foreign policy will be hawkish. In addition, another New York Times article states that neocons are “aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.”
Yes, Clinton will have something close to a neoconservative foreign policy, and if you don’t believe me, trust the neocons who approve of her views on war and international relations. Or, you can just read Hillary Clinton’s book review of Henry Kissinger’s “World Order.”
In addition to being a Republican pertaining to war and foreign policy, conservative stances have plagued Clinton throughout the years. With Clinton, poor judgment is referred to as a regrettable mistake. Owning a personal server was a “mistake,” voting for the Iraq War was a “mistake,” she “wasn’t raised” to envision gay marriage, and now opposes the TPP based upon “What I know about it, as of today.”
Generally, poor decision-making is addressed as an honest error, then acknowledged wholeheartedly, while supporters find every way to justify the flip-flop. Accountability is a foreign concept to the Clinton campaign and any reasoned critique is met with“You sound like a Republican!” Even accepting $100,000 from Donald Trump is simply part of Washington politics.
Hillary Clinton has evolved on war, gay marriage, Keystone XL, the TPP, in addition to marijuana legislation, and her supporters believe this is a good thing. All human beings evolve, therefore politicians who do the same must be doing so for altruistic reasons. For the rest of America, 57 percent of voters nationwide find Clinton to be “not honest and trustworthy.”
Luckily, Clinton has made up for this deficit in trustworthiness by stating she’ll no longer accept money from prison lobbyists.
This is a relief since four of her top five donors since 1999 are investment banks and there are questions about foreign donors to her foundation. Nonetheless, in the eyes of supporters, a Democrat is always better than a Republican, even if Politico labels Clinton to be Wall St. Republicans’ dark secret.
We dare not vote based upon principle, since only the political power Hillary Clinton is said to possess protects us from Trump, if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination. Granted, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton, but we can’t rock the boat for fear of a Trump presidency if Clinton is the nominee.
Republicans are the enemy, says the thought process bolstering the Clinton campaign, therefore accepting money from prison lobbyists and Wall Street is part of the game.
There’s a reason Hillary Clinton waited almost three weeks to address the death of Michael Brown and the Ferguson protests. Sadly, part of this reason could be prison lobbyists.
The Huffington Post explains the conundrum faced by the Clinton campaign in an article titled “Hillary Clinton Says She’ll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money”:
Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to Vice…
Immigrant and civil rights groups have urged Clinton to stop accepting contributions from donors with ties to GEO and CCA. Earlier Thursday, in announcing its co-founder Cesar Vargas was moving to the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the advocacy group Dream Action Coalition singled out Clinton for accepting those contributions.
Sanders recently
-
Liberal Cornel West landed a sharp dig at “my dear sister Hillary Clinton.”
“I took Wall Street money but it didn’t affect me?” he said, paraphrasing Clinton’s remarks at the debate.
“I say, I was born at night but not last night.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-debate-performance-leaves-trail-of-fodder-for-political-adversaries/2015/11/15/897780e0-8b9e-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html
-
This story brings to mind Saturday's debate where Hillary went into a tirade about how she brought federal money to NY to rebuild Wall Street post 9/11. Does anyone think that by the end of that rant she had any idea what the question was?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-email-reveals-top-aide-huma-abedin-warning-state-department-staffer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/
Judicial Watch: Email Reveals Top Aide Huma Abedin Warning State Department Staffer That Hillary Clinton Is “Often Confused”
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hillary-nad-huma-e1375139427642.jpg)
NOVEMBER 16, 2015
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released more than 35 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin revealing that Abedin advised Clinton aide and frequent companion Monica Hanley that it was “very important” to go over phone calls with Clinton because the former Secretary of State was “often confused.” The emails, from Abedin’s “Huma@clintonemail.com” address, also reveal repeated security breaches, with the Secretary’s schedule and movements being sent and received through Abedin’s non-governmental and unsecured Clinton server account. The emails document requests for special State Department treatment for a Clinton Foundation associate and Abedin’s mother, a controversial Islamist leader.
(More at the link.)
-
Doug,
I think we all know how the email situation will end. The FBI will discreetly and quietly send their findings to the DOJ who will delay as long as possible and then viola: an announcement that certainly "mistakes were made" and there was "probably some poor judgement", but there is no compelling evidence of criminal wrong doing.
The lib media will cheer and say I told you so and then proceed to coronate her :x
Care to wager a bet; double down?
:-D
-
CCP, Right. Obama Already signaled that his DOJ won't touch whatever the FBI sends him, attempting to signal the FBI not to bother. However, emails like this, "Hillary is often confused", are going to keep leaking out.
Having a private server made the top people careless. The worst of the emails will come out last. No she won't get handcuffed but she most certainly indicated there is another shoe to drop. (Is that Joe Biden warming up in the bullpen?)
No more betting for me. I am already up to my neck in political gambling debts with you. )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more point about Hillary "often confused". I touched on it in my debate recap but that was before we knew Huma wrote that. Asked if the President needed congress to go to war, she said no, we already have that. Does that cover it? Yes. If you were in congress, would that be good enough? No.
WHICH IS IT?? a) Yes! b) No! c) I'm really confused, send Huma over here!
Doc, is this symptom of a medical condition?
Or can you never tell when dealing with a pathological liar?
Does she know she just said yes and no to the same question in consecutive sentences?
Is the constitutional question different, or are the facts different, depending on which side of it you sit?
Unbelievable.
--------------------------
Text from the debate:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/14/the-cbs-democratic-debate-transcript-with-insight-from-the-fix/
DICKERSON: A couple of days ago you were asked if you would declare war on ISIS and you said no. What would you say now?
CLINTON: Well, we have an authorization to use military force against terrorists. We passed it after 9/11.
DICKERSON: And you think that covers all of this?
CLINTON: It certainly does cover it. I would like to see it updated.
DICKERSON: If you were in the Senate, would you be okay with the commander in chief doing that without it coming back to you?
CLINTON: No, it would have to go through the Congress.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/
-
http://www.cfr.org/radicalization-and-extremism/conversation-hillary-clinton/p37266
-
...campaign has informed the Washington Post to now call her “Hillary Clinton,” instead of the “Hillary Rodham Clinton”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/22/hillary-changes-her-name-yet-again/
“I don’t have to change my name,” she told one journalist. “I’ve been Mrs. Bill Clinton. I kept the professional name Hillary Rodham in my law practice, but now I’m going to be taking a leave of absence from the law firm to campaign full time for Bill and I’ll be Mrs. Bill Clinton. I suspect people will be getting tired of hearing from Mrs. Bill Clinton.”
-
https://youtu.be/bd2wIuK9kAM
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/23/okeefe-releases-undercover-video-of-huma-abedin-discussing-syrian-refugees-video/
-
Hillary apologizes for calling illegals illegal.
Just missing their documents?
Home invaders now called undocumented family members?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/politics/hillary-clinton-illegal-immigration-undocumented-immigrants/index.html
For those who have a priority of stopping illegal immigration in the general election, there will be plenty of contrast between the candidates no matter who the Republican nominee turns out to be.
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-reveal-rushed-approval-of-hillary-clinton-memoir-classified-information-concerns-on-books-iran-chapter/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20%2830%29&utm_content=
-
Clinton Crime Family, Did the Aide sorting emails have security clearance?
I don't think this question has been answered.
http://politicfeed.com/political-articles/263880/grassley-turns--heat--clinton-state
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3331000/Hillary-mystery-vanishing-woman-decided-emails-erased-Key-aide-not-taken-expected-campaign-role.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/chuck-grassley-hillary-clinton-emails-lawyers-213931
Previously, Hillary’s IT Contractor Did Not Have Proper Security Clearance
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/14/exclusive-hillarys-it-contractor-did-not-have-proper-security-clearance/
-
http://nypost.com/2015/11/28/hillary-clintons-million-little-lies/
To hear Hillary Clinton tell it, she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Mount Everest — even though she was already 6 years old when he made his famous ascent.
On a visit to war-torn Bosnia in 1996, she claimed she and her entourage landed under sniper fire and had to run “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base” — although videos of her arrival show her waltzing serenely across the tarmac, waving to the crowd.
She blamed the 2012 attack on American diplomatic and intelligence-gathering installations in Benghazi on “a disgusting video” when she knew almost from the first moment that it was a jihadist assault that took the lives of four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya.
No wonder the late William Safire, writing in The New York Times in 1996, at the height of the Whitewater investigation, called her a “congenital liar.” Said Safire: “She is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”
Baron Munchausen has nothing on Hillary Rodham Clinton. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Munchausen)
Now comes the recycling this month of another Clinton tall tale: that shortly before her 1975 marriage to Bill Clinton, she decided in a fit of patriotic fervor and dedication to “public service” to stroll into a recruiter’s office in Arkansas and join the Marine Corps.
It’s an anecdote she trots out to charm military audiences, whether it’s a group on Capitol Hill in 1994, or, most recently, to veterans in Derry, NH.
“He looks at me and goes, ‘Um, how old are you,’ ” Clinton recalled at the New Hampshire event on Nov. 10. “I said, ‘Well, I’m 26. I will be 27.’ And he goes, ‘Well, that is kind of old for us.’ And then he says to me, and this is what gets me, ‘Maybe the dogs will take you,’ meaning the Army,” she added.
Yeah, right. Never mind that the term is “dogface,” used to refer to the Army infantry. And never mind as well that, given the tenor of the times, the Marines or any other service would have taken young Ms. Rodham in a heartbeat, especially given their need for lawyers.
Like so many carefully parsed Clintonian statements, Hillary’s Leatherneck fantasy is either unverifiable or dependent upon how it’s phrased. When confronted with the obvious discrepancy in her “Edmund Hillary” story, she characteristically shifted the blame to her mother, Dorothy, saying the fable was something her mother told her.
But let’s assume for a moment that, unlike Clinton’s other whoppers, this story is actually, in some sense, true.
What are the odds that, in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam, the anti-war Wellesley graduate, who’d written her college senior thesis on “community organizer” Saul Alinsky, had a snazzy Yale Law degree, and who was already envisioning a career in state and national politics alongside Bill (then a candidate for Arkansas attorney general), would do such a thing — and actually mean it?
I’m betting zero.
A far more likely explanation is that Hillary entered the Marine recruiting office — if she did — not out of any desire to “serve her country,” but as an agent provocateur, determined to show that the Marines were a bunch of bigoted sexist, ageist pigs in order to fuel her sense of outrage.
This explanation is given credence by one of Hillary’s Fayetteville, Ark., friends at the time, Ann Henry, who said that Hillary was interested in probing the way the military treated women candidates. “I can remember discussing it, but I cannot give you the details of when and what was said,” Henry told a reporter. “Hillary would go and do things just to test it out, and I can totally see her doing that just to see what the reaction was.”
Given the mood of the time, and the vituperative nastiness of the left regarding all things military, it would have been just like the self-aggrandizing Hillary Rodham to try and manufacture a controversy where there was none, to make herself look good.
And now she allegedly recasts the story as a legitimate desire to join the military, to show her dedication to public service. Is the story true? And if it is true, were her motives as described?
What difference does it make!
The late Christopher Hitchens titled his memoir of the Whitewater/Monica Lewinsky circus “No One Left to Lie To,” but even someone as perceptive as Hitch couldn’t foresee that the Clintons, like cockroaches and the Kardashians, would always be with us, forever playing the same shell game on the American people and laughing as we fall for it.
That would be the same Clintons (combined current net worth: $101 million) who were “dead broke” when they left the White House.
-
2/3rds of the emails turned over. I'm guessing the final ones will be the big ones.
With last night’s release from the State Department, about two-thirds of the e-mails turned over by Hillary Clinton have now been made public. That is, their headers have all been made public, but almost a thousand of them have had redactions to keep classified material from becoming public. State released another 7800 pages last night, including 328 e-mails that contained classified information, bringing the latter total to 999 overall.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/01/new-release-of-hillary-e-mails-7800-pages-328-classified/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-email-coming-today/story?id=35488800
"I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material, and I'm very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone," Hillary Clinton said in Minneapolis in August.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/
PolitiFact (arm of the DNC): "There isn’t enough evidence to prove that [she sent and/or received material over her unsecured private server]."
How often do they update their page? She lied and she broke the law. The facts released by her prove it.
-
https://www.facebook.com/thejournalofamadman/photos/a.354718334614721.88014.169137169839506/931011873652028/?type=3
-
This is why Hillary hides from voters and only takes interviews with friendly fire and approved questions. It was apparently was a college girl asking this. She will be famous soon. Until it was asked, I'm sure they had no idea the innocent and liberal looking questioner could name names or where she was heading with the qeustion. Now I suppose the college girl can expect to have her Pell Grants canceled and her Dad's business put under federal investigated.
I must say (again), what a political dope - Hillary Clinton. Why should she say ANYTHING about believing rape victims when she personally encountered Juanita Broadrick on the day of the alleged encounter and personally trashed the veracity of Paula Jones on national television? Is rape a national issue or a state issue? It doesn't matter now. HRC stepped in it. Now the whole matter is current and relevant! And the issue is Hillary, not Bill.
Hillary doesn't really need young women voters, does she?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WMUR, Manchester NH News, and CNN
http://www.wmur.com/politics/hillary-clinton-asked-about-paula-jones/36782240
New Hampshire (CNN) —Hillary Clinton answered a question about Bill Clinton's alleged sexual impropriety on Thursday, saying that victims of sexual abuse "should be believed" until evidence disproves their allegations.
At a campaign stop in Hooksett, New Hampshire, a woman asked Clinton: "Secretary Clinton, you recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones be believed as well?"
Clinton responded: "Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence."
She then moved on to the next question.
Broaddrick in 1999 said on NBC's "Dateline" that Bill Clinton had raped her two decades earlier, during his campaign for the Arkansas governor's office.
Willey was a Democratic activist and White House volunteer who said that in 1993, Bill Clinton had grabbed and kissed her in the Oval Office's private study.
And Jones was an Arkansas state worker who sued Bill Clinton for sexual harassment, saying he'd propositioned her for sex and exposed himself during a 1991 meeting in a hotel room.
Bill Clinton's office declined CNN's request for comment. ('ya think?)
-
http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/hillary-clintons-most-repugnant-lie/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow
-
http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/hillary-clintons-most-repugnant-lie/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow
Obviously just more of that vast right wing conspiracy waging it's war on America's smartest woman.
-
http://leestranahan.com/keeping-them-honest-watch-cnn-anderson-coopers-benghazi-coverup/
-
This is written by a Powerline contributor. Underestimate her candidacy at your own peril. She leads the Republican frontrunner by a good margin. If the lection were held today, she wins. I have already lost more than I can afford betting against her...
We should know soon whether the FBI will refer Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of State secrets for criminal prosecution, but Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett can’t wait. He has enthusiastically endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.
Here’s the main thing to understand about Hillary Clinton. Do not underestimate her. She is a formidable candidate. She has plenty of money, tech support, and staff, along with a slick message. She is waiting for Trump and wants to run against him because she knows Trump can’t beat her.
Hillary discussed many of the the same things she raised in Council Bluffs, Sioux City, and Clear Lake. The theme in Omaha was that Hillary is smart. Hillary has good judgment. Hillary is love. Hillary loves her granddaughter and yours too. I thought she got slightly emotional in discussing her “working on behalf of kids” but I was in the back of the room and upstairs so I may be wrong here. Hillary’s family had a tough life and she worked her way to the top but she did not discuss her family’s regular receipt of six-figure speaking fees.
Republicans wreck the economy. When Bill Clinton and Barack Obama took over, the economy was in shambles. (But she said she is not their third term.) The economy does poorly under Republican Presidents. The middle class has been crushed in the recent past. Hillary has a strategy – not slogans – to get us out of the ditch. She will be running against “trickle down” economics and George W. Bush. There will be tinkering with the tax code. She will deny drug companies the ability to “write off” advertising. She doesn’t like their TV ads. There will be a tax credit for caregivers of sick relatives and more.
She will fight hard for the Buffett rule and see that millionaires pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes. Warrren Buffett cited a statistic that the top 400 income earners paid an effective tax rate of 16 percent in 2012 and that it had declined over the past 20 years. No three-page tax code. As Carly Fiorina’s dad Judge Joseph Sneed told her, the tax code is how the government asserts control. And I will add it is also how politicians get votes and campaign contributions.
Hillary claims she will be conducting a fact-based campaign. The GOP candidates run “fact free” campaigns. She asserted that Iowa gets one-third of its energy from renewables, mostly wind. Warren Buffett’s Mid-American Energy company gets power from wind and coal, but she will move us away from fossil fuels. Buffett’s Burlington Northern Railroad and Omaha’s UPRR have both been badly hurt by fewer coal car loadings but that will only continue. The Paris “deal” was a good thing as combating climate change creates jobs. Good paying jobs, but not jobs in coal, oil and gas. No evidence was given regarding the cost of her proposal for solar panels on every house by the end of her second term. Also no discussion about the results and costs of Green power in Europe. The facts and science, you see, all back up Hillary.
When she talked about gun safety and closing gun “loopholes” the crowd exploded. “Anyone who is too dangerous to fly is too dangerous to buy a gun.” She made this statement right after her discussion of all the rights she would protect. She vows to defend Planned Parenthood and end mass incarceration.
On foreign policy she asserted that it was “shameful” to attack Islam because we need Muslim nations to fight ISIS. One doesn’t insult those you need in a coalition and Hillary is a coalition builder. She built the Iran coalition that imposed sanctions that are now lifted. And it is now ISIS and not ISIL as she placed a bit of terminological distance between herself and Obama. Secretary Clinton claimed a great victory over Iran with the nuke “deal” and we now are assured that Iran will not get nukes for a least 15 years. This statement was made weeks after two missile tests made by Iran contrary to UN resolutions.
One Nebraska superdelegate praised Hillary’s judgment on foreign affairs. Chaos in Libya was not cited as evidence. One claimed the GOP was lying about her and that none of the GOP candidates could withstand questioning for 11 hours as Madam Hillary did.
I am confident that she will not be indicted. If elected, she will wield great power. Congress may check or moderate it but the American people will be at her mercy.
-
"Underestimate her candidacy at your own peril."
I agree.
The entire left coalition is behind her including the minorities, media, educational class, unions, and the droves of people they keep letting into this country.
Nothing will get in their way.
-
A candidate Cruz runs the risk of ensuring that the Latino vote of America will become irrevocably Democrat.
-
Aren't those that came in illegally already Democrat?
So maybe we should just provide the Latino's more and more benefits, turn them into the wards of the state, a new supported class, and then win their vote that way.
Just what we need............
-
"Aren't those that came in illegally already Democrat?"
Yes. Oddly, Democrats leave our border open and bring people in for political purposes and when Republicans try to secure things they accuse them of doing it for political purposes, pandering to racists etc.
I'm not worried about the vote of the people who actually get sent back. I'm worried about the vote of people we threaten to send back and don't and everyone around them when we don't succeed in kicking anyone out.
Trump isn't going to send them all back. He already softened on that. Cruz isn't going to send them back. He wavered before and can't win by saying he will. The question is, what is the strongest position on border security and legalization of some of the illegals already here that can win?
"So maybe we should just provide the Latino's more and more benefits, turn them into the wards of the state, a new supported class, and then win their vote that way."
- Pat with some sarcasm.
As Carson put it, remove (reform) the goodies first so they stop coming for the wrong reasons. Some would go back without the goodies,; we see some going back anyway because of the economy. Cruz presumably would be very good on freebie reform but can't win. Rubio has a plan. Trump does not address this, has said Democrats match his policy positions the closest.
-
My fear with Rubio besides disagreeing with many of his positions...........in five words
McCain
Romney
The electable candidates.
Where have I heard this before???
-
My fear with Rubio besides disagreeing with many of his positions...........in five words
McCain
Romney
The electable candidates.
Where have I heard this before???
Trump = Putin. Shirtless and says make Russia great again. Linking people to others on paper or screen doesn't make it so.
There is no similarity between Rubio and McCain, the RINO who used every Democrat talking point to oppose tax rate cuts, and Romney, the one who passed the model for ObamaCare! You are capable of analyzing the race outside of your guy better than that!
-
https://theoutsidernews.com/articles/2015/12/18/former-clinton-employee-owns-company-center-campaign-data-scandal
-
are at higher risk? Huh? Screw the white men who get this....... Well women live longer than men.
It must be great to stand on a podium and call for a cure using other people's money for a terrible disease. What a wonderful Godly saint she is. I am voting for her (sarcasm at max volume):
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-to-call-for-alzheimers-cure-increase-spending-to-dollar2-billion-annually/ar-BBnO2JJ?li=BBnb7Kz
-
are at higher risk? Huh? Screw the white men who get this....... Well women live longer than men.
It must be great to stand on a podium and call for a cure using other people's money for a terrible disease. What a wonderful Godly saint she is. I am voting for her (sarcasm at max volume):
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-to-call-for-alzheimers-cure-increase-spending-to-dollar2-billion-annually/ar-BBnO2JJ?li=BBnb7Kz
Given her history of falls and signs of dementia, it is motivated by self interest.
-
She wouldn't use the restroom while there was one other lady in it. Too big to restroom I guess.
They really should get her a Johnny on the spot (upscale version of course) for the next debate. Also makes one wonder what she was doing in the restroom. Maybe she was getting debate coaching.
-
http://conservative-daily.com/2015/12/26/obama-administration-now-in-full-cover-up-mode/
-
http://conservative-daily.com/2015/12/26/obama-administration-now-in-full-cover-up-mode/
Wow. Benghazi emails on an unsecured server completely blacked out for security and she is still saying no classified material sent or received.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some historical info for our thread on Hillary's new campaigner. If nothing bad ever happened, why did the best lawyers in the world tell him to pay her a million bucks and accept disbarrment? Kind of serious for a sitting President, if not for the double standard. The worst part is the role Hillary played in trashing the victims. Their lies were part of "the vast right wing conspiracy".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/02/duncancampbell
Lewinsky scandal ends as Clinton is disbarred
"Vast right wing conspiracy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwtkorQKGFE
Clinton Settles Jones Lawsuit With a Check for $850,000
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: January 13, 1999
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/13/us/clinton-settles-jones-lawsuit-with-a-check-for-850000.html
"We were dead broke when we left the White House". Yes, License stripped and lucky to not be in jail.
-
And people want to complain about corruption in other countries. It is widespread here. Clinton has obviously committed multiple felonies and so far not a peep.
The joke is on real law abiding citizens.
-
"Clinton has obviously committed multiple felonies and so far not a peep."
The felony is gross negligence in the handling of national secrets. The penalty is 10 years. A plea bargain might stay the time. There is no accusation of intentionally handing out secrets and there is no doubt her actions constituted negligence. Gross negligence has a specific definition. Someone needs to charge the crime or tell us why it doesn't rise to that level.
"Not a peep"? I believe the phony pretend investigation is still under way as the evidence is still spilling out. At some point in this campaign the Attorney General needs to close the case and show us in the facts and the law why they decided to not charge out a most apparent crime.
-
http://freebeacon.com/politics/haitians-protest-outside-hillary-clintons-office-over-billions-stolen-by-clinton-foundation/
-
http://freebeacon.com/politics/haitians-protest-outside-hillary-clintons-office-over-billions-stolen-by-clinton-foundation/
There isn't enough time left between now and next November to log all the wrongdoings of the Clintons. Here's to giving it a good college try:
PolitiFact: [Donors] said they never intended their gifts to go to the Clintons. They thought they were donating to the White House itself as part a major remodeling project in 1993. Clintons announced that they would pay the government nearly $86,000 for items that were actually government property. A few days after that, they also returned about $48,000 worth of furniture. Add that up and the government got back $134,000 out of the $190,000 the Clinton’s had declared as gifts.
...lawmakers found troubling was the apparent violation of the ban on soliciting gifts. It’s fine under the law to accept someone’s generosity, but you can’t tell them what you want. This came up in regards to a portion of the goods the Clintons kept -- about $38,000 worth of goods given to Hillary Clinton in December 2000. That was after she won her Senate race in New York, but before she took office, at which point accepting such gifts would have violated Senate rules. Clinton had created a gift registry at Borsheim’s Fine Jewelry and Gifts. This yielded 16 rimmed soup bowls worth $2,352 and a soup tureen worth $1,365, among other items.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/
Clintons Take Away $190,000 In Gifts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/21/clintons-take-away-190000-in-gifts/36773cf2-8120-4d58-b903-d76d39a6cc3f/
President Clinton and his wife started shipping White House furniture to the Clintons' newly purchased home in New York more than a year ago, despite questions at the time by the White House chief usher about whether they were entitled to remove the items.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/10/news/mn-23723
Clintons Return White House Furniture [That's hardly a denial!]
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/clintons-will-return-any-gifts-found-to-belong-to-white-house.html
Bill Clinton Jokes About A President Taking Property From WH
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/10/news/mn-23723
Clinton staff vandalized White House during exit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us/white-house-vandalized-in-transition-gao-finds.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/12/nation/na-clinton12
Dead broke when we left the White House:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/16/nyregion/hillary-clinton-book-advance-8-million-is-near-record.html
Hillary Clinton Book Advance, $8 Million, Is Near Record
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: December 16, 2000
Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed last night to sell Simon & Schuster a memoir of her years as first lady, for the near-record advance of about $8 million.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/02/06/clintons-say-theyll-return-disputed-gifts/accd07f5-3cd2-4ebf-ba49-b3ac30a35a7d/
-
2015 has been the year of the big lie. There have been lies in other years, and some of them pretty big, but even so 2015 has set new highs -- or new lows.
This is the year when we learned, from Hillary Clinton's own e-mails, after three long years of stalling, stone-walling and evasions, that Secretary of State Clinton lied, and so did President Barack Obama and others under him, when they all told us in 2012 that the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed the American ambassador and three other Americans was not a terrorist attack, but a protest demonstration that got out of hand.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" as Mrs. Clinton later melodramatically cried out, at a Congressional committee hearing investigating that episode.
First of all, it made enough of a difference for some of the highest officials of American government to concoct a false story that they knew at the time was false.
It mattered enough that, if the truth had come out, on the eve of a presidential election, it could have destroyed Barack Obama's happy tale of how he had dealt a crippling blow to terrorists by killing Usama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy's SEALS).
Had Obama's lies about his triumph over terrorism been exposed on the eve of the election, that could have ended his stay in the White House. And that could have spared us and the world many of Obama's disasters in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. That is why it matters, and will continue to matter in the future.
Lying, by itself, is obviously not new. What is new is the growing acceptance of lying as "no big deal" by smug sophisticates, so long as these are lies that advance their political causes. Many in the media greeted the exposure of Hillary Clinton's lies by admiring how well she handled herself.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/29/remembering_2015_129149.html
-
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/heres-the-long-list-of-women-14233638/
-
Initiative/PRNewswire
.
By
James V. Grimaldi And
DEc. 30, 2015 2:34 p.m. ET
42 COMMENTS
At Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearing for secretary of state, she promised she would take “extraordinary steps…to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
Later, more than two dozen companies and groups and one foreign government paid former President Bill Clinton a total of more than $8 million to give speeches around the time they also had matters before Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.
Fifteen of them also donated a total of between $5 million and $15 million to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the family’s charity, according to foundation disclosures.
In several instances, State Department actions benefited those that paid Mr. Clinton. The Journal found no evidence that speaking fees were paid to the former president in exchange for any action by Mrs. Clinton, now the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Mrs. Clinton has come under fire from Republicans and some Democrats for potential conflicts of interest between her family’s work at the foundation and her duties as secretary of state between 2009 and February 2013. Her husband’s high-profile activities pose a unique challenge for Mrs. Clinton as she runs for president and he prepares to step up his role in her campaign.
Mr. Clinton, for example, collected $1 million for two appearances sponsored by the Abu Dhabi government that were arranged while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. His speeches there came during and after the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security were involved in discussions about a plan to open a U.S. facility in the Abu Dhabi airport to ease visa processing for travel to the U.S. The State Department supported the facility in the face of substantial opposition from unions, members of Congress and others.
The Journal based its analysis on financial-disclosure forms, lobbying records and emails released by the State Department. It looked at speeches given or arranged while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said “no evidence exists” to link any actions taken by Mrs. Clinton’s State Department to organizations hosting Mr. Clinton’s speeches, and that all of her actions were in line with Obama administration policies and priorities.
Representatives of most of the companies and organizations involved said there was no connection between their lobbying efforts and the speaking fees they paid Mr. Clinton. Representatives of Abu Dhabi and several companies declined to comment.
The Clintons struck an agreement with the Obama administration to allow State Department ethics officers to check for conflicts between speech sponsors and Mrs. Clinton’s government work.
State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach said not all activity at the department personally or substantially involves the secretary of state. “Her commitments did not equate to an indiscriminate prohibition on former President Clinton from working with any entity that interacted with the State Department, which would have encompassed an excessively broad range of companies, governments and NGOs [nongovernmental organizations],” he said.
The ethics reviews, he noted, “were conducted by career civil servants who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.”
Mr. Clinton was paid for more than 200 speeches while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, according to his wife’s disclosure forms. Documents released thus far by the State Department show the ethics office turned down five of his speech requests, including proposed talks sponsored by North Korea, China and the Republic of Congo.
Mr. Clinton has given mixed signals about whether he would abandon the paid-speaking circuit if his wife becomes president.
Asked by NBC in May if he would remain on the speech circuit while his wife was running for president, Mr. Clinton responded, “Oh, yeah. I gotta pay our bills.”
In June, Bloomberg TV asked Mr. Clinton if he would still give paid speeches if Mrs. Clinton gained the White House. “I don’t think so,” he replied, saying he didn’t want to make news that detracted from the presidency. Then he added: “I will still give speeches, though, on the subjects I’m interested in.”
A spokesman for Mr. Clinton, asked to clarify, pointed to the former president’s previous statements.
-
third post
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/12/29/millennials-guide-bill-clintons-20-sex-scandals
-
fourth post of the day
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/30/a-guide-to-the-allegations-of-bill-clintons-womanizing/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b
-
Hillary is still trudging through her email releases. So far, more than 1200 were classified.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/state-dept-to-miss-target-in-clinton-email-release-217255
Also she was inter-mixing her work for the country with her work for the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiative. Nothing sinister there unless you recognize that those are entities of organized crime.
Of course the main story has to do with the emails they are self choosing NOT to release.
The Obama Justice Department is lucky to have already made it clear they are not one step above a partisan hack operation. They are not even being ASKED to indict.
Question for our own law enforcement minds: Did her use of a private, unsecured server against department rules for the sending and receiving of thousands of communications of national secrets constitute gross negligence in the handling of that material?
-
Is there any reason these families all got together immediately after their sons were murdered and tried to think up a way they could invent a lie to trap the Secretary of State? No. Is there any possibility that Hillary herself told them the known lie. Yes. That is what she was telling half of everyone else at the time. She tested the lie on her real world focus group, the victims' families. But now we know it was false AND we know she knew it was false at the time. So she denies ever saying it.
The Clintons - "They lie with such ease." But pathological liars are eventually caught by the truth.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/whos-lying-hillary-or-members-of-several-benghazi-victims-families.php
WHO’S LYING, HILLARY OR MEMBERS OF SEVERAL BENGHAZI VICTIMS’ FAMILIES?
The question all but answers itself, I should think. Here’s why it’s being asked:
On September 14, 2012, at a memorial service for the victims of the Benghazi attacks, Hillary Clinton spoke with members of the victims’ families. At least three of these people say that Clinton talked about the alleged role in the attack of a video produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
Charles Woods, the father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, says that Clinton blamed the video and even told him that she was going to have Nakoula arrested. Nakoula was, in fact, arrested.
Similarly, Kate Quigley, the sister of Glen Doherty, says that Clinton told her the video was to blame. “She knows that she knew what happened that day and she wasn’t truthful,” Quigley insists.
Finally, Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, also insists that Clinton said the attack was because of the video. She has repeatedly accused Clinton of lying.
Clinton, however, denies saying anything about the video to these family members.
During an editorial board meeting with The Conway (N.H.) Daily Sun, Clinton was asked about an interview she recently had with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos in which she denied that she told family members of the Benghazi victims during a Sept. 14, 2012 memorial service at Andrews Air Force Base that the film “Innocence of Muslims” was the catalyst for the attack. . . .
Daily Sun columnist Tom McLaughlin pressed Clinton on the conflicting claims. “Somebody is lying,” McLaughlin said during the editorial meeting. “Who is it?
“Not me, that’s all I can tell you,” Clinton replied.
But there are good reasons to conclude that it is Clinton who is lying. First, it’s three against one. Woods, Quigley, and Smith all say that Clinton blamed the video. Are all of them lying?
Second, Woods, Quigley, and Smith have no reason to make up a story about what Clinton told them. What does it get them?
Clinton, by contrast, has an excellent reason falsely to deny what they say. By September 14, the blame-the-video narrative had fallen apart. Indeed, we know that Hillary herself never bought it, having told her daughter that this was a terrorist attack.
That she nonetheless peddled the narrative to close relatives of the Benghazi victims is hugely embarrassing, and indeed disgraceful, especially for a presidential candidate. Hence, the need to deny that she peddled it.
Third, Hillary was publicly talking about the video the day before the service for the victims, and on other days shortly before and after. On September 13, she denounced the video as “disgusting and reprehensible,” and added “but as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence.” This statement certainly implies that, in her view, the violence of September 11 was a response to the video.
Three days after making these comments (and two days after the memorial service), Susan Rice, appearing on four networks, blamed the video for the Benghazi violence. That same day, Clinton aide Jake Sullivan sent her an email about Rice’s appearances. Far from disagreeing with Rice’s explanation of the Benghazi attacks, Sullivan said that Rice “did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.”
Given Team Clinton’s embrace of the blame-the-video narrative on September 12, 13, and 16, it’s easy to credit the accounts of three witnesses who say Hillary also embraced it on September 14.
Fourth, Hillary Clinton has a long record of dishonesty. Twenty years ago, as Jonah Goldberg reminds us, William Safire wrote: “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation – is a congenital liar.” Since then, this realization has been reinforced repeatedly.
So in case my initial question didn’t answer itself, for these four reasons it seems obvious that the person who is lying about what Hillary Clinton said to the Benghazi victims’ family members is Hillary Clinton.
-
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1647578212126196
-
I read this story this morning thinking it was from the latest email dump, but it was from Dec 8, carried on Fox and right wing news sites, but no mention otherwise on msm. What is the followup to this story? Were these assets deployed but didn't reach Benghazi on time? Left wing Media Matters has a response calling the story bunk, they were sent but didn't arrive in time. (?)
EMAIL shows Pentagon ASKED Hillary to LET THEM send help to Benghazi
http://therightscoop.com/new-email-shows-pentagon-asked-hillary-to-let-them-send-help-to-benghazi-proving-leon-panetta-lied/#ixzz3wI2WMjEh
“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],” reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/12/08/fox-falsely-claims-defense-dept-email-contradic/207353
Oddly, we still don't to my knowledge have an after the fact accounting from the Pres and Sec of their time during the crisis, where were they, who were they meeting with, communicating with, what advice were they receiving, what choices were available, what decisions did they make?
How did we NOT have resources available to cover a diplomatic mission in a war zone where we are the enemy?
-
Clinton campaign is trial ballooning its response to the Trump attack on Bill Clinton. This is a Kansas City Star writer in the CHicago Tribune this morning making the argument that Bill Clinton did the most wonderful things for women, was always able to compartmentalize his private life from his public policies and that anyone who challenged him lost.
Donald Trump should think twice about taking on Bill Clinton
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-bill-clinton-fight-20151231-story.html
There are a couple of problems with this.
1. The allegation is about serial ABUSE of women, not general philandering.
2. The candidate is Hillary, so the question is HER complicity in it which is not at all offset by HIS compensating political skills.
3. He actually has a horrible record of helping others get elected, from losing the House and Senate to being unable to lift Hillary over Obama.
4. This story was brought back by Hillary, saying victims of abuse should be believed.
5. The way this story has resurfaced, it requires a new series of denial by the former President, restarting the clock of relevancy.
6. The liberal view, is so what if he did all that, also not fully buying the denials.
7. Half the electorate has never been under his charm, nor is aware of how great a President he was spun to be.
To review his Presidency: He squandered the 'peace dividend handed to him by the defeat of the Soviet Union under his predecessors. He looked the other way for 8 years while Saddam Hussein flaunted his violations of the agreement ending the gulf war. He opted to let OBL get away and set up training sites that led to the attacks of 9/11. He put his wife in charge of national healthcare resulting in the loss of House and Senate after 40 years of Dem control, and putting his own pet issue back by 15 years. Later he was impeached over his lies in the cover up of his propensity to abuse women. In between all that, he 'triangulated with the Republicans, passing economic measures against the policies of his own party and against his wife's current positions, passing a hemisphere-wide free trade agreement, agreeing with Republicans to dramatically lowering capital gains tax rates, and end welfare 'as we know it', resulting in a return of Reagan era growth, a balanced budget and giving him credit for being a good economic President.
What the hell does that economic record have to do with Hillary's current Bernie Sanders clone campaign? And how does it excuse abuse of women or make it okay to move an abuser back into the White House?
-
If you vote for the left's holy sacrament (abortion) then rape is an indulgence permitted to you.
-
http://www.mrconservative.com/2016/01/68855-navy-seal-confronts-hillary-clinton-you-are-an-ignorant-liar/
Also see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
-
Second post
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-adviser
Also see
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/11/hillary-clintons-muslim-brotherhood-tied-huma-abedin-i-want-muslim-refugees-to-flood-america/
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/12/08/clinton-confidante-huma-abedin-taunts-trump-im-proud-muslim
-
Looking at both of them dumbfounded at the questions, this must be the one political stategy issue they have not yet discussed. Awkward to bring up? Honey, how should I handle your past rapes, unwanted fondlings and trow droppings our on the campaign trail? Bill knows that new denials make him look even more guilty and the issue more relevant.
Bill thinks he is going to join the campaign and not get asked about his past abuse accusations? Bill Cosby and Epstein face charges, but Bill Clinon favored family leave so he is immune?? When people looked the other way before, the attitude was, hey, he's already President, what can we do about it. She has her own problems with this movie coming out, people thinking about that utter failure and her involvement in it, and people turning up the heat about her lying about the video, lying to the families about the video, calling the victims' families liars, lying about no classified material running through the email server, and running to continue Obamacare that was sold on abject lies. She probably should be under indictment if we had a Justice Department. Plus the problem of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation's work overlapping her work with his speaking fees directly tied to her official actions. What a mess - if you are them. Giving the finger to the media doesn't help keep them on your side either. She can't take questions because one or all of this comes up. He can't take questions. He can't wag his finger at us again, but I'm sure he will. She can't really go out in public, but must. And when she does, she isn't a great campaigner, inspiring or even a happy person. What she has is the resume of the high-up opportunities she was handed on account of her (sham) marriage with him. Her record in those positions of power is failure.
Don't be surprised if Bernie beats expectations in the early states.
I would love to see a general election campaign where the issue is the direction of the country, instead of all about their corruption and her failings or seeing our candidate fail to prosecute her on those.
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/lies-of-hillary.php
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/lies-of-hillary.php
Devastating. Strange how she can babble on for so long trying not to answer such a specific question and followup. Fog of war, protests elsewhere, people sobbing, that explains why she thinks the families heard her wrong or are lying? All 3 families? She is willing to lie to him, the CIA wrote the talking points, why wouldn't she lie to the families?
Neither Clinton will be able to grant interviews without 'ground rules' ever again. There is too much in just this one issue to follow up on.
Once she is the nominee, they will own the media again, as well as the Justice Dept. They just need to struggle through this for another month or two.
They get away with rape, maybe murder, but people might finally draw a moral line with her telling a completely unnecessary political lie to the families of the victims about the circumstances of their deaths.
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-u.s.-atty-clinton-two-months-away-from-criminal-indictment/article/2579620
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ex-u.s.-atty-clinton-two-months-away-from-criminal-indictment/article/2579620
Former federal prosecutor says Hillary could be indicted in the next 60 days as the FBI compiles 'overwhelming' evidence against her
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3387033/Former-federal-prosecutor-says-Hillary-indicted-60-days-FBI-compiles-overwhelming-evidence-against-her.html#ixzz3wZqkUOQ6
It doesn't seem possible politically, but legally it is an obvious possibility. Maybe they can announce the charges and a plea agreement all at once allowing her to 'own' her problem and move forward as a candidate. It is quite absurd to hear her still say she did not send or receive classified material over her private server after more than a thousand examples have surfaced. She can't really keep saying that through to November.
-
Looks like the latest batch of emails has yet another smoking gun against Hillary: By her own hand she advises an underling how to remove Secret header and then send the contents to her private server.
-
Looks like the latest batch of emails has yet another smoking gun against Hillary: By her own hand she advises an underling how to remove Secret header and then send the contents to her private server.
Chuck Todd of Meet the Press called it smoking circumstantial evidence. The campaign argues she was ordering them to cut classified emails out of what was sent.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/team-hillary-she-never-ordered-the-code-red-that-er-is-in-her-e-mail/
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/08/team-hillary-she-never-ordered-the-code-red-that-er-is-in-her-e-mail/
Reminds me of the criminal personalities I have dealt with. Look you in the eye and lie unblinkingly.
-
Recent releases bear similarities to NSA signal intelligence dispatches in the hands of one of her cronies. How'd they get there?
http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/
-
:-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Recent releases bear similarities to NSA signal intelligence dispatches in the hands of one of her cronies. How'd they get there?
http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/
I suspect that there have been abuses that would shake the nation to it's core, if discovered.
-
Who is Sid Blumenthal's source? Did they divulge classified information to a Clintonite in exchange for millions in Clinton Crime Family cash. Someone at the other end of this is in trouble too.
The backfiring of the Clinton server and the bad advice she got from her most trusted political adviser (Bill): She wrote things she wouldn't have put in writing if she thought these would be read and distributed in public later.
The worst emails will come out last if ever.
Joe Biden says he regrets his decision not to run "everyday". If I were the Dem party, I would re-open all ballots to all comers in all states until the printing deadline maybe 72 hours before each contest.
Unless Bernie is the beneficiary of the Hillary mess, it seems to me that a write in candidate could conceivably win the Dem nomination. Liberalism aside, you have to have blinders and sound blockers around the clock on to believe Hillary doesn't face a massive set of self made problems.
-
Doug,
Sid's source is here. Of course he recently died:
http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/the-chosen/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DayByDayCartoon+%28Day+by+Day+Cartoon+by+Chris+Muir%29
-
Bill Clinton in NH:
“I think this election is about restoring broadly shared prosperity, rebuilding the middle class, giving kids the American Dream back.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429425/obama-economics-recession-recovery-bill-clinton-hillary-clinton
Who is he supporting again? An agent of change? Whose record is he railing against?
What worked for him, welfare reform, free trade, capital gains tax rate cuts, mandatory criminal sentencing?
What is she running to do? Expand social spending, undo trade agreements, raise tax rates and set criminals free?
To whom does this make sense? Someone who kept their healthcare and thinks we did everything we could to secure Benghazi?
-
Does this slimy Clinton legal argument hold any merit whatsoever? Any legal experts who have a moment to explain to a first grade legal expert - moi :-o
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/07/clintons-private-email-account-exploits-foia-loophole-report-says.html
-
Does this slimy Clinton legal argument hold any merit whatsoever? Any legal experts who have a moment to explain to a first grade legal expert - moi :-o
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/07/clintons-private-email-account-exploits-foia-loophole-report-says.html
It's the typical "laws don't apply to the Clintons" legal theory. When I worked for the FedGov, I was instructed that even private emails regarding government work were to be treated as government records.
-
Here we go again. Not one shred of evidence.
Anyone notice the burlap bag she is wearing? There is something very socialist about her latest attire. I vaguely recall seeing futuristic movies with the President wearing these little Chairman Mao like garbs. That is what she is wearing now. She changed her look fro one of an early Americana like pantsuit with the scarf around the neck to look like one of the old presidential portraits to a socialist's garb
.
Must be to steal back some of Bernie's communist hoards. She is just an average comrade like you and me of course.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-private-email_5692cdbce4b0a2b6fb708334?
-
http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/g422/dressing-hilary-clinton-loobook-0508/?slide=1
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/11/report-fbi-investigation-of-hillary-clinton-expands/
-
From another thread Doug writes,
" I also have money on Hillary not being the Dem nominee..."
Rush rightly said to not get our hopes up that she will get indicted. Yet my hopes are. Which means I lose a bet but the country wins big.
Of course more than half the (c)rats do not think she should drop out even if indicted! :x@##$%^&*()
Nixon must be laughing his head off 'bout now. :-D
To think she gets knocked out for corruption would be just as sweet as if Trump who was made a joke by Brock won as he the latter leaves town.
Of course to take over the UN and continue the progressives push for world domination with one governing body and an end to the concept of country.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ8T_sCIauw
Remember this gents the next time you advocate a more powerful surveillance state , , ,
-
Corrupt Clinton Foundation Under Expanded FBI Investigation
By Paul Albaugh
For Americans who have been paying attention to the numerous scandals that have always surrounded Hillary Clinton, many are wondering when and if she will ever be indicted and charged for her crimes. If her improper handling of classified emails, use of her private server and failure with Benghazi have not been enough to derail her campaign for the presidency, perhaps an expanded FBI probe into the Clinton Foundation will be.
Last spring, we wondered whether the Clinton Foundation would actually be Clinton's downfall, but for the last several months the FBI investigations have been primarily focused on her emails and use of a private server. That has now changed.
The FBI has expanded its investigation to include the Clinton Foundation and is looking into whether or not there is a connection between Foundation work and State Department business. If there is a connection between the two, then that would be a violation of public corruption laws, and should be disastrous for Clinton.
Why would that be? Well, it just so happens that on the official website of the FBI, public corruption is listed as the top criminal priority. And by all indications, the FBI is holding to this standard.
In fact, there are reportedly at least 150 FBI agents on the case. According to former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova, that is "a very unusually high number" of investigators to be working on one case.
Indeed it is a high number, but with there being an alleged exchange of favors between insiders from the Clinton Foundation and with the State Department led by Hillary Clinton, such attention is warranted. The stench of corruption is frankly, overwhelming.
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey notes, "This development suggests something else, too. Hillary refused to turn over the server for even longer, finally surrendering the hardware last August. Originally, after being forced to give up her e-mails, she and her team went through the system and printed out about half of the 60,000+ messages it held. Hillary claimed the rest were personal and non-work-related, about her daughter Chelsea's wedding plans and quick communications with Bill. That explanation is absurd on its face; that would amount to more than 20 personal e-mails a day for four years. At the time, many suspected that Hillary and her team deleted anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation, and then wiped the server so that the software could not be accessed."
But by all indications, the FBI is on to something and the dots are likely becoming more numerous, clear and connected. Is it possible that Clinton was using her private email server to cover up the real corruption at the Clinton Foundation? We certainly think that was one of the primary reasons, though the Clintons have always sought to keep their deals out of the public record.
Her mishandling of classified material was no doubt against the law, but it may be incidental to the fact that she wanted to hide her corrupt Foundation activity. Further, she not only abused her position of power at the State Department, she used her position to enrich her family through the money-laundering slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.
In other words, she was receiving payments to the "charity" from foreign officials or governments that were very likely in return for special favors, projects and so on. That's about as illegal and corrupt as a career politician can get and several former politicians are serving time for committing far less serious crimes.
If the FBI probe reveals what we think it will and she is brought up charges for her numerous high crimes and misdemeanors, then Hillary for President will be no more and Hillary for Prison will become reality. But Democrats can take heart; there's always Joe Biden.
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-finds-new-records-in-clinton-foia-litigation/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20-%20Template%202%20%284%29&utm_content=
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ8T_sCIauw
Remember this gents the next time you advocate a more powerful surveillance state , , ,
For the record, I don't advocate a more powerful surveillance state.
To Hillary, Opposing overreach of government is not to hate government. I favor government the way our founders set it up. To speak out strongly against abuse is not to cause the bombing of a daycare in a federal building. The way her husband blamed that on talk radio and Rush Limbaugh was shameless, it's own example of hate speech same as this Hillary talk.
On Oklahoma City, note that banning all guns wouldn't make fertilizer explosions, pipe bombs and IEDs go away.
If we applied the liberal logic of how they real threats and terrorism, they should be appeasing right wing extremists, not speaking ill of them.
-
ccp: ...to not get our hopes up that she will get indicted. Yet my hopes are. Which means I lose a bet but the country wins big.
Of course more than half the (c)rats do not think she should drop out even if indicted! angry@##$%^&*()
I don't know how this comes down but I think they only charge or indict her in the context of a simultaneous pardon or plea bargain so she is left in the race with the same scar she has now, just a little more formalized, and will say lesson learned let's move on. Like you say, Dems and voters will just have to deal with that, like Bill impeached, disbarred, it isn't a big concern to her core group and Republicans (either way) will have to offer a more compelling alternative to win the middle and the persuadable.
In the end, if Republicans play every card right they may win 40-45 states but every decision we make right now needs to be approached with the conventional wisdom that Dems already hold about 255 of the 270 electoral votes needed and we need to run the table on all the squishy swing states.
-
Women Are Leaving Hillary
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on January 12, 2016
All polls are now pointing in the same direction: Hillary Clinton is tanking.
The most recent Fox News poll, taken after the new year began, shows her losing to Ted Cruz, 50 percent to 43 percent; to Marco Rubio, 50 percent to 41 percent; and even to Donald Trump, 47 percent to 43 percent. The latest Democratic primary poll, by Investor's Business Daily, shows the former secretary of State nursing only a 4-point lead over Bernie Sanders, 43 percent to 39 percent. The RealClearPolitics average of New Hampshire polls has Sanders ahead by 6 points -- and in Iowa, the candidates are tied in the RCP average, which Clinton led for months.
Beneath the overall head-to-head data, the internals of the polling show a sharp erosion of support for Clinton among women and very little change among male voters.
Among women, she has lost her lead over Cruz, falling from 13 points ahead in a Fox News poll on Dec. 17 to 3 points behind in Fox's Jan. 7 survey. Among men, she moved from 15 points behind Cruz in December to 14 points back in January.
So while Clinton has lost 16 points among women against Cruz, she is essentially unchanged among men.
The Fox News poll had similar findings for a match-up between Clinton and Rubio. And against Trump, she went from beating The Donald among women by 26 points in December to only 12 points in January.
So why are women leaving Hillary?
Bill.
The only difference between mid-December and now is the Bill Clinton issue. Trump's exposure of her husband's record of abusing women, combined with reports of the former first lady's efforts to cow them into silence, are creating an image of the Clintons as predatory against women. Indeed, as the Bill Cosby scandal escalates into an indictment for rape, the two Bills seem to have more than a name in common.
Young voters are only now learning about what went on during the Clinton presidency. Those under the age of 35 were, at most, teenagers when the Lewinsky scandal broke.
Democrats are almost totally dependent on young voters. 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney defeated President Obama among older voters. If young voters, particularly young women, find fault with Clinton, her candidacy is doomed.
With Bill Clinton becoming radioactive among female voters, Hillary Clinton is in danger of losing her best weapon. She had hoped that trotting out the ex-president, even in his current weakened condition, would give her the boost she needs to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. But her effort backfired. Putting him out there triggered all the stories of his past and nullified any bounce he may have generated.
Not only is Hillary Clinton losing her best weapon on the stump, she is likely also losing her top adviser. The fact is, Bill Clinton is the only one in her camp who understands politics. If he is driven to the dog house by one of their frequent marital spats -- and Hillary Clinton is not likely to be forgiving if he costs her votes -- she could be cut off from advice that would save her.
Sanders does not need to use the Bill Clinton issue. Trump is doing it for him and the media is carrying the ball. Bill Clinton cannot appear anywhere without being surrounded by questions he doesn't want to answer, and his victims -- Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and Paula Jones among them -- have a new platform from which to tell their stories.
If Hillary Clinton loses New Hampshire and Iowa and trails in national polls behind Trump, Cruz and Rubio, can a call to the bullpen for Joe Biden be far away?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/state-department-suddenly-discovers-thousands-more-clinton-documents/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Watchdog group Judicial Watch has been trying to squeeze Hillary Clinton’s documents out of the State Department with Freedom of Information Act requests for years. FOIA requests have a way of turning into FOIA lawsuits before any wing of the Obama Administration responds to them.
Last Friday, three years after one such suit was filed, the State Department suddenly discovered thousands of previously undisclosed Clinton documents.
“This latest find of Clinton records, at this late date, is astonishing,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton declared. “The State Department waited to last possible moment, as it did with the Clinton emails, to tell Judicial Watch and the federal courts about thousands of records that haven’t been searched, as the law requires. Who knew what – and when did they know it – about these new Clinton documents?”
Fitton also thinks the new documents include some significant information. “These newly recovered Clinton records are a potential game changer – and will be of interest to the courts, Congress, and the FBI’s criminal investigation,” he said. “It sure looks like more of the same in terms of Obama administration officials’ obstructing our FOIA requests, obstructing the courts, obstructing Congress, and obstructing justice.”
Fitton further noted that the State Department’s Inspector General recently issued a report finding that responses to information requests about Clinton’s email were “inaccurate and incomplete.”
It’s difficult to see how these inaccurate responses could have been simple mistakes, because the IG report demonstrated that many people who were demonstrably aware of Clinton’s secret private email server chose to feign ignorance.
In the case highlighted by the Inspector General, another watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington specifically asked if Clinton was using non-governmental email accounts, and even though dozens of high-ranking State officials were very well aware of her black-box server, CREW was told there were no non-gov emails to see.
That’s essentially what happened during the first stage of Judicial Watch’s pursuit of Benghazi documents, too. The State Department claimed it could find no further responsive emails, the case was closed… and then reopened after the existence of Clinton’s secret mail server was revealed.
The Judicial Watch FOIA requests pertained to “the Benghazi scandal and controversies from Clinton’s term at State.” JW has also been pursuing emails from Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The State Department made a court filing on Monday that it would begin releasing 29,000 pages of emails from Abedin, at the rate of 400 pages per month, beginning March 1 and concluding in April 2017.
In other words, the Abedin emails will come out too late to influence the Democrat primary, and most of them will be released after the 2016 election. That’s why you slow-walk FOIA requests and pretend responsive documents just randomly tumble out of closets months or years after you were supposed to produce them, folks.
In the disclosure that outraged Judicial Watch, the State Department declared it had satisfied the court order for Clinton documents in November… but then, as it explained to the court on Friday, it “located additional sources of documents that originated within the Office of the Secretary that are reasonably likely to contain records responsive to Plaintiff’s request.”
“According to information provided to Judicial Watch by various Justice Department attorneys, the new documents appear be ‘working’ records in electronic format located on both ‘shared’ and ‘individual’ drives accessible to or used by persons identified as being relevant to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits on the Benghazi scandal and controversies from Clinton’s term at State,” said the watchdog group in its statement.
At a minimum, this is another startling demonstration of ineptitude and confusion from the mega-government that claims it can micro-manage every detail of our lives. After years of working this suit, the State Department is only now discovering that people covered by the court’s orders had a huge volume of relevant document tucked away on their personal computers? That’s not the sort of answer private entities can get away with giving government regulators.
One other interesting development in the rolling Clinton scandal: yet another watchdog group, Citizens United, filed a lawsuit this week seeking Chelsea Clinton’s correspondence with top State Department officials, including Abedin.
Chelsea Clinton is the vice chair of the controversial Clinton Foundation, whose potential links to Hillary Clinton’s activities as Secretary of State are now reportedly part of the FBI investigation. The Citizens United FOIA suit also includes other Clinton Foundation staffers and family aides. It turned into a lawsuit because the State Department dragged its heels and didn’t respond to the Citizens United FOIA request within the allotted time period.
-
"It’s difficult to see how these inaccurate responses could have been simple mistakes, because the IG report demonstrated that many people who were demonstrably aware of Clinton’s secret private email server chose to feign ignorance."
"That’s essentially what happened during the first stage of Judicial Watch’s pursuit of Benghazi documents, too. The State Department claimed it could find no further responsive emails, the case was closed… and then reopened after the existence of Clinton’s secret mail server was revealed."
Sounds like the Copyright office. Pull records and make them disappear or switch around then when anyone complains they feign ignorance and claim that you are mistaken and if one shows them evidence they claim it was all just a mistake and find the material. (if not switched)
I called Judicial Watch and do not recall who I spoke to but he believed everything I said without batting an eye and said that is par for the course. They were sympathetic but unable to help me
No one in government is held accountable and all I can say is THANK GOD for Judicial Watch. Without them EVERY dirty speck of corruption gets swept under the rug.
It's disgusting. Government employees can get away with little to no accountability like no others.
-
http://therightscoop.com/new-email-shows-pentagon-asked-hillary-to-let-them-send-help-to-benghazi-proving-leon-panetta-lied/
-
With face suggesting contempt, first a lawyerly short and simple, "no", and then a reluctant "thank you":
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-not-interviewed-email/2016/01/17/id/709794/
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-no-individual-too-big-to-jail-tweet-backfires/article/2580775?custom_click=rss
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-no-individual-too-big-to-jail-tweet-backfires/article/2580775?custom_click=rss
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I have to say, when I read that from her yesterday, that was my first and immediate thought.
-
IMHO it is quite significant that this IG email was sent "unclassified".
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html
-
Hillary's Email Scandal Turns Deadly
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on January 19, 2016
Two recent developments have transformed Hillary's email scandal into a potentially deadly issue.
Yesterday, the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community wrote to Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to inform him that he had received "two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources."
SAP (special access program) is a designation that is even more secret than "top secret." Fox News explains that "Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a "need-to-know" because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection -- or a human asset -- at risk."
At the moment, about 1,340 emails that went to or from Secretary Clinton contained material the State Department deems to be "classified." Hillary says they were not classified when she got or sent them and that their classification is only retroactive. Her critics say she should have recognized them as classified and labelled them so herself, which she is authorized to do.
But the fact that she also sent or received SAP material is an even more significant breech of intelligence protocol.
This disclosure comes on top of the revelation last week that the FBI is now expanding its investigation of the e mails to include evidence of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and in the events surrounding the speaking fees earned by the Clintons.
Together, these new revelations, both by Fox News, indicate that the danger for Secretary Clinton has escalated and that the FBI investigation is coming closer to home.
-
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/jan/20/bill-clinton-heading-to-las-vegas-to-campaign-for/
Funny enough, the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo is in Vegas 1/20-1/23.
-
Which overlaps the SHOT Show, but I'm guessing that is of lesser interest to him , , ,
-
http://patriotpost.us/posts/40204
-
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/Clinton-Not-Rape.jpg)
-
http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt01252015&utm_term=Jolt
-
But still not clear if enough evidence to indict or whether JD would pursue according to MSM.
The corruption just doesn't end.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
-
Last nights show was to give Hillary a forum. Questions all prepared, known in advance, answers all packaged, plants in the audience, a cheering crowd, Hillary last of the three so that is what everyone remembers, and the ratings can be higher while everyone waits for the queen herself and she has plenty of time to relieve herself in the BR first:
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/25/hillary-i-wont-say-email-was-an-error-in-judgement-nothing-that-i-did-was-wrong/
Obama they said just tacitly approved of her. Which is code for the JD will do nothing irregardless of the FBI.
-
Read this about Clinton this morning. I didn't have time to fact check it, but I found it quaint....
The sources are noted in the person's comment:
"EIGHT QUOTES FROM 8 DIFFERENT BOOKS
Sorry about the language but these are her actual words.
(1)"Where is the Gxdamn flag? I want the G*damn fxxking flag up every morning at f**king sunrise."
From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244;
Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991.
(2) “Fxxk off! It's enough I have to see you shxt-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too!!
Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut."
From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90; Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning."
(3) "If you want to remain on this detail, get your fxxking ass over here and grab those bags!"
From the book "The First Partner" p. 259; Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.
(4) "Stay the fxxk back, stay the fxxk back away from me! Don't come within ten
yards of me, or else! Just fxxking do as I say, Okay!!?"
From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton’s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p. 139; Hillary is screaming at her Secret Service detail.
(5) "Where's the miserable cxxk sucker?" (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”)
From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p.5; Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer.
(6) "You fxxking idiot" From the book "Crossfire" ~pg. 84;
Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event.
(7) "Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need
those fxxking sunglasses! We need to go back! |
From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72; Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.
(8) "Come on Bill, put your dxxk up! You can't fxxk her here!!"
From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243; Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female.
This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander and Chief of our Military; the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life.
Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: “what difference at this point does it make?”
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361209.php
Tradecraft.
-
All I know she cannot be allowed to get away with this.
Too bad this is not the Wild Wild West........
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/267108-clinton-justice-obama-a-great-idea
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/26/fbi-going-right-to-source-in-clinton-email-probe-interviewing-intel-agencies.html?intcmp=hpbt1
FBI going 'right to the source' in Clinton email probe, interviewing intel agencies
-
I keep praying for the day when I can pull up Drudge for the a headline that screams Hillary is *really* and *truly* and *absolutely* DONE.
Been waiting now, lets see, 23 years?
Yet no matter she will not leave the stage anyway. Like her husband who literally had to give a speech every 5 seconds on his last day and his last flight out of DC. Just couldn't shut the hell up. She will hole up in DC with lawyers at every entrance and window and scream sexism if anyone tries to remove her.
Now we see stories about how Chelsea will continue the "dynasty". I loved the example of her genius statesmanship when she directed a pedestrian who complained to her about Obama being to blame with regards to her water problem and Chelsea had the insight to refer her to DeBlasio instead. This was the example given of her political genius and talents.
-
http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-hillary-email-exposure/38233520-C5D9-44EA-BE7B-21EDE7DB5051.html?utm_source=EmailDirect.com&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Tom+on+Opinion+Journal+1-27-16+Campaign
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/26/clinton-chief-of-staff-lost-her-personal-blackberry-which-contained-classified-emails/
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/clinton-campaign-general-counsel-represented-group-investigated-registering-dead-people-vote/
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/clinton-campaign-general-counsel-represented-group-investigated-registering-dead-people-vote/
Like illegal aliens, the dead are a Major dem voting bloc.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/26/clinton-chief-of-staff-lost-her-personal-blackberry-which-contained-classified-emails/
This is a big deal. I saw the headline, didn't realize it was Cheryl Mills. (The aide who pilfered Vince Foster's office while his body went from 98.6 to park temperature. People can see how classified info could have fallen into the wrong hands. This demonstrates it. Everybody has lost a wallet or cell phone. Even if it falls into friendly hands, you realize how easily all your contacts, messages and data could have been taken and exploited. But these are national secrets, not bank sign in codes with a hundred or thousand dollars at stake. Lives are at stake in classified info.
The felony act is gross negligence. This kind of exposure is what happens when you commit gross negligence in the handling of national secrets. In reality, the hackers in China, Russia and those who sell to ISIS already took the data through elementary school level hacking, but this loss illustrates to everyone how vulnerable they left us.
Somewhere in those emails we will find Chris Stevens' pleas for security along with his location and itinerary.
-
I wonder if it was reported in a timely manner to the proper authorities.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/27/fbi-meeting-with-intelligence-agencies-about-classification-of-hillary-clintons-emails/
-
“I first met Clinton, then Hillary Rodham, in 1978. I was struck by her directness and that she spoke in perfect paragraphs.”—Jill Abramson, Guardian (London), Jan. 24
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2016/jan/24/hillary-clinton-young-women-voters-jill-abramson
Quoting the smartest woman in the world this week:
“Well, I think that they’re—you know, look, I was delighted to get the [Des Moines] Register’s endorsement. And it was a very generous one. And yes, I think that’s a fair criticism. You know I had no intention of doing anything other than having a convenient way of communicating, and it turned out not to be so convenient. So again, we’ve answered every question and we will continue to do so. But you know maybe being faster, trying to scramble around to find out what all of this means, I probably should have done that quicker. . . . No. I’m not willing to say it was an error in judgment because what—nothing that I did was wrong. It was not—it was not in any way prohibited. And so . . . Well, apologizing sooner, as soon as you can. But part of the problem, and I would just say this as, not an excuse but just as an explanation. When you’re facing something like that you got to get the facts. And it takes time to get the facts. And so when I said hey, take all my emails, make them public. That had never been done before, ever by anybody. And so we’ve been sorting our way through this because it is kind of a unique situation. I’m happy people are looking at the emails. Some of them are you know, frankly a little embarrassing. You know. You find out that sometimes I’m not the best on technology and things like that. But look, I think it’s great. Let people sort them through. And as we have seen there is a lot of—you know a lot of interest. But it’s something that took time to get done—Hillary Clinton, CNN, Jan. 25 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1601/25/se.01.html
Hat tip: James Taranto, wsj
Can anyone figure out what the question was that this drivel pretends to answer...
-
It is a combination of standard Clintonliespeak and Grannie Clinton's unresolved medical issues.
-
From the previous post regarding the choice of using an unsecured private server to handle the classified communications that come with be Secretary of State:
"I had no intention of doing anything other than having a convenient way of communicating"
Shouldn't that be, I had no intention of doing anything other than handling America's secrets, intel and communications with the utmost care to follow all established laws, rules and procedures set up for national security?
Truth is, she had no intention taking the job other than to co-mingle the foreign policy of the United States with the financial interests of the Clinton crime family foundation.
What this pathetic housewife can't say out loud is that she trusted all the planning, thinking and judgment on this important matter to her cheating, impeached, disbarred husband, didn't seriously question him on it, and shockingly, his judgment was wrong.
The rambling paragraph demonstrates how she has none of his ability to wiggle out of these things.
-
It is a combination of standard Clintonliespeak and Grannie Clinton's unresolved medical issues.
Honestly, that was my reaction too. It is hard to believe she didn't use to be sharper than this. Also hard to believe she was not expecting the question. It's only come up a thousand times.
Waaaaay off limits, but even her weight makes her look like a person lacking the discipline to run for this position. It is hard to make millions a day and still be sharp and hungry for the next job.
She thought the Sec State job was a possible stepping stone to the Presidency. But instead it was a test to see if she might make a good or great President and she failed miserably.
Now we are down to a Stalinist Sandinista versus a government takings advocate.
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-office-of-independent-counsel-oic-memoranda-laying-out-criminal-case-against-hillary-clinton-in-whitewatercastle-grande-land-scandal/
-
https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/free-hillary.jpg
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/free-hillary.jpg)
-
I am not sure whether or not to believe this. Since when to Clinton people allow their email to be published on public sites? Could be true but could just as likely be a sucker punch or faint:
MOOK SPOOKED: Hillary manager predicts Trump will win presidency if nominated!
JANUARY 29, 2016
BY KYLE OLSON
Share on Facebook1.2kTweet This139Reddit291.4k
Democrats aren’t laughing about Donald Trump anymore. He has them all but admitting defeat.
Mook
Robby Mook
In a stunning admission, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager predicts in an email that Donald Trump will become president if he wins the Republican nomination.
“If Donald Trump takes the Republican nomination, our party will lose more than the presidency,” Robby Mook writes to supporters.
“Years of progress will be ripped away. Obamacare will be repealed. Marriage equality will be rolled back. Get excited to visit the wall on the Mexico border — and get ready to pay for it if President Trump can’t magically get Mexico to cough up the cash for it.”
While Mook stokes fear over an apparently inevitable Trump presidency, he’s also panicking over a surging Bernie Sanders.
Late last night, Bernie Sanders’ campaign announced they’d raised $1.4 million from 50,000 donations in a single day. The day before, they announced that the Reddit community had contributed more than $1 million to his campaign.
There’s no denying this: His supporters are stepping up. They see a chance to win in Iowa and they’re willing to go all in for their guy.
We can’t let Bernie Sanders’ supporters out-match us,” Mook concludes. “It’s not just about the nomination. It’s about what comes next.”
It’s just the latest email in which the campaign is hyperventilating about short funds and rival candidates.
In another earlier this month, Mook said he was “worried” and “annoyed.”
News just broke that Bernie Sanders is outspending us on TV in Iowa and New Hampshire by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I’m worried, because last-minute ads could cost us this election. And I’m annoyed — because once again, they’re counting on this team staying on the sidelines. …
They’ve got more donors than we do, more contributions than we have, and if they keep up this pace on TV, they’ll be able to get their message out to more people than we can.
The latest poll from Iowa shows Clinton and Sanders are neck-and-neck.
A survey by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist shows Clinton with 48% support and Sanders at 45% — a lead within the poll’s relatively large margin of error of 4.7 percent.
-
It really is sad that we have such deceitful low lives as leaders. This from a cabinet secretary/ The only thing he is accomplishing with this is to make a fool out of himself.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-cabinet-member-timing-of-hillary-email-news-before-iowa-quite-suspect/
-
It really is sad that we have such deceitful low lives as leaders. This from a cabinet secretary/ The only thing he is accomplishing with this is to make a fool out of himself.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-cabinet-member-timing-of-hillary-email-news-before-iowa-quite-suspect/
Right. They could have released the information 3 years ago, or never withheld it.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/29/halperin-on-hillary-fbi-investigation/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html
-
Third post:
http://20committee.com/
-
http://www.teaparty.org/rep-darrell-issa-fbi-wants-indict-abedin-along-clinton-141520/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rep-darrell-issa-fbi-wants-indict-abedin-along-clinton
-
http://www.teaparty.org/rep-darrell-issa-fbi-wants-indict-abedin-along-clinton-141520/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rep-darrell-issa-fbi-wants-indict-abedin-along-clinton
Orange is the new black.
Although BOP inmates wear khaki uniforms, if I recall correctly.
-
Former IG thinks fix is in. Consistent with his predictions is a recent Pentagon announcement that Patreus will NOT be demoted. This is no coincidence I was not aware that his lawyer is also Clinton's.
Plea bargains, some misdemeanors, fines, a few lower level people will be thrown under the bus (in pulbic - but taken care of in private) and she will go merrily on her way carrying her mob to power:
http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/
Has to go through 4 female loyal Democrats. Like this scoundrel said in the 90's (hillary) "no controlling legal authority.
politics will once again trump law . I don't know why Bennett doesn't get disbarred. We just don't know what goes on behind the scenes. One can only imagine the corruption.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/21/former-sec-def-robert-gates-odds-are-pretty-high-russia-china-and-iran-accessed-hillarys-server-video/
The following might be Russian dis-intel, but in light of the preceding, it might not be:
http://www.eutimes.net/2016/01/beyond-top-secret-hillary-clinton-emails-used-in-russian-court-against-ukraine-pilot/
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-state-department-emails-reveal-plan-to-set-up
-
https://www.facebook.com/varneyco/videos/1113961955303904/
-
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/11/david-shuster/no-email-use-didnt-sink-us-ambassador-kenya/
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430597/hillary-clinton-email-server-former-intelligence-officers-havoc
:-o :-o :-o :cry: :cry: :cry: :x :x :x
-
Did you see the clip of people chanting "you are a liar"while she was giving her "win" (scammed) Iowa speech?
Odds are she will be indicted. There will be some sort of deal that covers Bamster, JD, Hill, a few may be thrown under the bus and she will go as before.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430706/obama-hillary-clinton-email-problem
-
Even Kerry had one secret email too. At least from what I read he seems to have only done that once and report says he changes email or system.
Of everything we have heard he alone seems not to have been a serial offender.
I agree it is no surprise Obama is an enabler (like apparently the whole JD). He lies no less than her. Not even a peep whatsoever from the media about him except on Drudge or Breitbart. How dare anyone accuse him! :x
-
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261681/hillary-classified-emails-included-names-daniel-greenfield
-
The Dems excuses are just so maddening.
She still has a security clearance. Even Feinstein arguing this is overdone.
Just sickening.
And she lectures us in cybersecurity. And the set up question at the set up town hall yesterday about her mother. The joke is on all of us.
-
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-04/clinton-s-security-clearance-is-under-scrutiny
-
I must say I am open to the idea of reimposing Glass Steagall.
==================
Hillary's Latest Arrogant Wall Street Lies
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on February 4, 2016
At a New Hampshire Town Hall on Wednesday night, Hillary Clinton claimed that Goldman Sachs/Wall Street is not donating to her campaign anymore, implying that they know just how tough she will be on them and won't support her anymore.
That's a big lie.
That huge bonanza is still pouring in. Big time. According to FEC reports, Hillary has received $21.4 million from the financial and insurance industry -- almost 15% of the total $157.8 million she raised. And she's still trolling them for big money. Last week, she left Iowa to attend a hedge fund money raiser in Philadelphia. She has several other Wall Street fundraisers scheduled, but postponed them until after the New Hampshire primary. The optics wouldn't be too good while Bernie is raising the issue.
But she'll be back when she thinks no one is looking.
It's worth noting that Hillary has received a total of $41 million in campaign money from those same folks since she first ran for the Senate in 2000. And the money keeps pouring in.
But it is not just campaign money that Wall Street send her way. They take care of the Clintons personally, too. Since 2013, Hillary has raked in about $3 million in Wall Street speeches.
The $625,000 Goldman Sachs Speeches
Hillary claimed that she took $625,000 in fees from Goldman for 3 speeches since she left the Secretary of State's office in 2013 because "that's what they offered."
That's what they offered?
No, that's what she demanded. That's the regular -- and outrageous -- speaking fee her agent listed. Ten other big banks handed over the same fee. Are we supposed to believe that they each came up with the same outrageous amount on their own? No, that was the price of admission.
And it was a good investment for Goldman Sachs. They know they'll get a good return on it. In one of her pricey speeches to the Wall Street powerhouse, Hillary soothed the friendly bankers, saying "we're all in this together." For Hillary, it's all in the family. Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd Blankfein is an investor in Chelsea's husband's hedge fund. Marc Mezvinsky used to work for Goldman.
And Bill cleaned up, too. According to the Associated Press, "during Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches."
So the Clintons are no stranger to Goldman and Wall Street. In fact, the Clinton Foundation even rented office space from them at one point. That's what friends are for.
Just to help out, though, Goldman's Blankfein called Bernie Sanders "dangerous" on CNBC last week. He knows who he can count on.
What Will Wall Street Get in Return?
The central reform that populists want to impose to stop the big bank gravy train is the reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting banks from using federally insured deposits to make risky investments. Hillary opposes reinstatement of the prohibition, which was repealed in 1999 when her husband signed the necessary legislation. That repeal opened the floodgates for the bank speculation and enabled Goldman to have a very profitable IPO at the same time as the repeal was passing. It's also blamed for the 2008 crash. And, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, Hillary sided with the big banks on bankruptcy reform, she'll be there for them again.
Hillary: Every Secretary of State And President Does It
Hillary's campaign has come up with a new, but highly unconvincing, talking point on her speaking fees. Barbara Boxer floated it a few days ago and Hillary repeated it at the Town Hall. Time to try another one. That one won't fly. She told Anderson Cooper that every President and Secretary of State makes large speaking fees. But as Cooper retorted, those people were not running for President.
But she was.
Then came her next big lie: she wasn't sure that she would run for President.
Does anyone on earth really believe that she wasn't running for President? The only reason she didn't announce her candidacy was so she could grab those big fees. And the only reason for the big fees is that she might be President. That's what all the coyness was about.
Hillary lied again and again at the Town Hall and she did it will great arrogance. She seemed extremely irritated that anyone would dare to challenge her. How dare anyone question her motives!
The late New York Times writer William Safire got it right twenty years ago -- Hillary Clinton is, as he said, a "congenital liar." She hasn't changed.
-
Fact Checker
How did ‘top secret’ emails end up on Hillary Clinton’s server?
By Glenn Kessler February 4 at 3:00 AM
Clinton defends telling aide to send 'nonsecure' memo
Play Video1:06
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton maintains she never sent classified information via email as Secretary of State, as questions arise over her instruction to have a talking points memo sent to her in 2011 by a nonsecure system after it could not be sent by secure fax. (Reuters)
George Stephanopoulos: “You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified. The non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state says that that’s really not that relevant. It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of you are trained to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference.”
Hillary Clinton: “Well of course and that’s exactly what I did. I take classified information very seriously. You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put on an unclassified system, no matter what that system is. We were very specific about that. And when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”
— exchange on ABC’s “This Week,” Jan. 31, 2016
Many readers continue to ask questions about Hillary Clinton’s private email setup and whether she mishandled classified information. We have looked at this issue in the past, but the reader interest spiked again after the revelation that seven email chains contained “top secret” information and would not be released.
As the saga has dragged on, Clinton’s terminology has become ever more nuanced. When she first discussed her private-email arrangement in detail last March, her staff distributed a Q&A that flatly stated that no classified material was sent or received by Clinton at her private email address. Now she says the emails were not marked classified: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”
Takeaways from Hillary Clinton’s e-mails
View Photos
Clinton has come under fire for using a private email address during her time as secretary of state. The emails are being screened and released in batches. Here are some things we’ve learned from them.
In the ABC News interview, she cited the opinion of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee: “There is no classified marked information on those emails, sent or received by me. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, who’s had a chance to review them, has said that this email chain did not originate with me and that there were no classification markings.” (Feinstein did release such a statement.)
So what’s going on here?
The Facts
The nondisclosure agreement
Clinton did sign a Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, in which she pledged to safeguard classified information whether “marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications,” as defined by Executive Order 12958. (That was later superseded by Executive Order 13526.)
Interestingly, in that executive order, the secretary of state is given the authority to classify and declassify information at the “top secret” level. In other words, Clinton had presidential authority to decide what State Department information was classified or not.
“It is not simply that she would ‘know the difference’ between classified and unclassified information — it was up to her to make the original determination,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. “This authority, however, did not extend to information generated by other agencies, such as CIA.”
(Note: A number of readers have asked about an email in which Clinton asked to have classified markings removed regarding some talking points, and have it emailed unsecured. In theory, under the executive order, she had the authority to declassify the material, since it originated in the State Department. However, a congressional official said the indications are the material ultimately was transmitted appropriately.)
Classified and unclassified systems
The State Department has both classified and unclassified systems — known informally as the “high side” and the “low side.” The classified system has tight controls, often housed in what is known as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF); it is not possible to “cut and paste” from the classified system into the unclassified system. Instead, one would have to extract the information from the classified system and then reenter it manually into the unclassified system. Thus far, no one has alleged that happened.
Instead, congressional aides say, the concern centers on the fact that secret information was revealed as part of an email exchange. In at least one case, the discussion started with an aide forwarding a newspaper article; then in subsequent exchanges, aides revealed sensitive details as they discussed (for instance) the shortcomings of that public report. Ultimately the email chain ended up in Clinton’s email box. If the email chain was released, some intelligence officials believe, it would confirm aspects of a secret program.
Clinton’s private email system was designed to deal with the unclassified communications, similar to the unclassified state.gov email account. Clinton claims it was for convenience; others suspect it was to prevent reporters or political opponents from easily obtaining her emails through the Freedom of Information Act.
“The use of a home server was the original problem that spawned all of these continuing concerns,” Aftergood said. “Everything that the secretary of state does or says is potentially sensitive, even if it is unclassified, and so it ought to have been protected accordingly. The home server also complicates or undermines records management and document preservation. It was a mistake.”
Clinton’s private email system was discovered when the House Select Committee on Benghazi sought her emails at the time of the 2012 attacks and initially was told none could be found. Ironically, if Clinton had operated from a state.gov account, the inquiry would have ended once the Benghazi emails were turned over. Instead, Clinton has been forced to turn over all of her work-related emails for public release — precisely the situation she presumably had hoped to avoid.
The ‘top secret’ communications
So how could information sent on an unclassified system turn out to be “top secret”? The answer is easy — when State Department officials review it in response to a request for public release.
“State’s upgrading process is retroactive,” said one congressional aide. “It’s not a sign of wrongdoing but rather the normal process used by State under all administrations before unclassified documents are made public (usually via FOIA). Often an unclassified email will be retroactively classified to protect foreign and diplomatic communications, for example.”
Yet for intelligence officials, the Clinton controversy has exposed serious shortcomings in how the State Department handles sensitive communications, another congressional aide said. In the view of intelligence officials, State Department officials have been sending highly sensitive information on the unclassified system — with the expectation that if a FOIA request is made, department officials could then redact the emails and prevent any classified information from becoming public.
In other words, at State, the basis for classification appeared to rest more with FOIA than the president’s executive order — which some intelligence officials believe is backward.
Indeed, when State released the first batch of Clinton emails, some in the intelligence community were upset at what had not been redacted in a pair of released emails. As a result, other members of the intelligence community demanded a seat at the table as future redaction determinations were made.
The various intelligence agencies since have been arguing about what should be disclosed, with at least seven email chains (22 separate emails) — and possibly more — labeled as unfit for any public disclosure. Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), a member of the House Intelligence Committee who says he has reviewed the emails, told Fox News on Feb. 3 that the emails “do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets.” Other sources who have viewed the emails do not describe the emails as strongly, though one official said Clinton’s aides might have put their security clearances at risk.
Different government agencies often may disagree about the level of classification. One good example are the memoirs of former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former vice president Richard B. Cheney. Both discussed a policy debate over North Korea. Cheney mentioned traces of enriched uranium on materials obtained from North Korea — which had been reported years earlier in The Washington Post — after receiving clearance to do so from the CIA. But to her frustration, Rice was not able to mention the uranium, though she wanted to, because the State Department refused to give her clearance — even though the information was already in the public domain.
In one famous case, journalist James Bamford in 1978 received 250 pages of previously classified documents regarding a Justice Department probe of illegal wiretapping performed by the National Security Agency. Two years later, the NSA convinced a new attorney general that the information should be reclassified. The government then demanded that Bamford return the documents or face prosecution. (He published the information anyway and no charges were brought.)
Update: NBC News reported that the State Department Inspector General concluded that classified information also had been transmitted over the personal email accounts of Clinton’s predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and Colin L. Powell.
Markings
Finally, we come to Clinton’s excuse — that none of the emails were marked classified. This is a bit of a red herring. Anything marked classified could not be sent through an unclassified system — and officials are supposed to know enough about the sensitivity of communications to recognize material that could be considered classified under the executive order.
The executive order, for instance, says all foreign government information should be presumed to cause damage if disclosed without authorization. In reviewing Clinton’s emails, for instance, the State Department redacted every page of a private communication to Clinton from then-British Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
“It is entirely possible for previously unclassified information to be redesignated as classified, as long as it has not already been officially released to the public,” Aftergood noted. “It is also true that the question of public disclosure can drive a decision to classify information that had not been classified up to that point.”
The Pinocchio Test
Clinton is in a pickle here, largely of her own making.
The emails in question were sent on an unclassified system — as they would have been if she had followed standard protocol and used a state.gov account. Under State Department practice, a request for public release of her emails would have been subject to the same classification discussion currently underway. Any “top secret” communications would have been withheld.
However, if she did not have a private server, intelligence officials now would not be scrutinizing every single Clinton email for possible public release. That has heightened the scrutiny of what should not be disclosed — and what was discussed in the unclassified system in the first place.
The State Department’s unclassified system is not perfect — the Russians have hacked it — but Clinton’s home server was outside official control or supervision. Moreover, unlike state.gov, it did not have dedicated government security personnel responsible for it.
Clinton said, “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain thought that this was classified and that was not the case.” But that’s only half of the story. Even without markings, officials are supposed to recognize that information passed through an unclassified system might be deemed as classified and should take steps to protect it.
The Clinton campaign has argued that some intelligence officials are now engaged in a game of overclassification. That could well be the case; it’s impossible to know without access to emails that may not be released for years. But this debate would not even be taking place without the decision to set up the private server in the first place.
-
Third post
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-judge-wants-explanation-from-state-department-on-newly-discovered-clinton-records/
-
Keep in mind this rip is the MSM taking on their own coronated Queen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/4-words-on-goldman-sachs-that-hillary-clinton-is-going-to-really-regret/
Four Words about Goldman Sachs that Hillary is going to regret
Hillary Clinton spent an hour talking to CNN's Anderson Cooper and a handful of New Hampshire voters in a town hall on Wednesday night. For 59 minutes of it, she was excellent —empathetic, engaged and decidedly human. But, then there was that other minute — really just four words — that Clinton is likely to be haunted by for some time to come.
"That’s what they offered," Clinton said in response to Cooper's question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race.
The line is, well, bad. More on that soon. But, the line when combined with her body language when she said it makes it politically awful for her.
Clinton is both seemingly caught by surprise and annoyed by the question all at once. Neither of those is a good reaction to what Cooper is asking. Both together make for a uniquely bad response.
Here's the thing: I'm not sure there is a great answer, politically speaking, for Clinton on the question of her acceptance of huge speaking fees from all sorts of groups — from colleges and universities to investment banks. She took the money because these groups were willing to pay it. And who wouldn't do the same thing in her shoes?
[Clinton, Sanders talk meaning of 'progressive' in first one-on-one debate]
The problem is that you can't say that if you are the front-running candidate for the Democratic nomination, a front-runner facing a more-serious-than-expected challenge from a populist liberal who has made your ties to Wall Street a centerpiece of his campaign.
So, yes, Clinton was in something of a box when Cooper put the Goldman question to her. But, let's not let her off so easily. Are you telling me that Clinton and her team had no idea that the speaking fees, which Bernie Sanders put into an ad in the final days before the Iowa caucuses, might come up in the course of an hour-long conversation in New Hampshire?
If so (and I don't believe this to be the case), that's total political malpractice. Rather, I think what happened is something similar to Clinton's reaction during a testy exchange a few months ago with reporters over her email server: She got annoyed and freelanced.
The server and the speaking fees are two story lines that Clinton clearly believes are ridiculous. Sure, she shouldn't have used only a private email address and server while serving as secretary of state. But that error was a small one, not the sort of huge deal that Republicans and the media are trying to turn it into. And, sure, $675,000 is a lot of money to take for speeches but she is a former first lady, senator and secretary of state. It's not out of the ballpark that someone with that résumé would be compensated at such high levels.
That's what Clinton truly believes. And she's not good — as she made plain with her answer last night — at hiding her disdain/skepticism when questioned about it. But, politics is all about playing up your strengths and taking attention away from your weaknesses. The amount of money Hillary and Bill Clinton made from speech-giving — more than $25 million in 16 months — is a weakness. Period. It undercuts the idea that she is a committed fighter for wage equality or a voice of the 99 percent trying to level the playing field with the one percent
-
On Drudge the 'shock" that Rachel Maddow Hugged Hillary.
What is the surprise?
Isn't that what lesbians do? :wink:
-
http://observer.com/2016/02/it-wasnt-just-sid-torrent-of-anti-israel-advice-found-in-hillarys-emails/
-
http://observer.com/2016/02/it-wasnt-just-sid-torrent-of-anti-israel-advice-found-in-hillarys-emails/
Shocking!
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/iowa-democratic-official-who-refuses-to-review-results-is-hillary-supporter/
-
Donald Trump’s Campaign, Billed as Self-Funded, Risks Little of His Fortune
Donald Trump’s Immigration Message May Resound in New Hampshire
Neighborly Ties Bind Some New Hampshire Voters to Bernie Sanders
Marco Rubio Turns Toward the Personal on the Campaign Trail
Agencies Battle Over What Is ‘Top Secret’ in Hillary Clinton’s Emails
Hillary Clinton Lobbied on Health Care as Secretary of State, Emails Show
Experiencing the Presidential Campaign: A Virtual Reality Film
Play Video
In Democratic Debate, Candidates Clash on Money’s Role
News Analysis
Hillary Clinton Is Again Put on the Defensive Over Perceived Ties to Wall...
Marlow W. Cook, Senator Who Groomed Mitch McConnell, Dies at 89
For Hillary Clinton, 6 Goals on To-Do List in New Hampshire
First Draft
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Resists Releasing Transcripts From...
First Draft
Former N.A.A.C.P. President Endorses Bernie Sanders
‘Feel the Bern’? Maybe Not on Tinder
First Draft
Marco Rubio Is Endorsed by The Las Vegas-Review, Owned by Sheldon...
Pentagon Releases Small Portion of Photos From Detainee Abuse Cases
First Draft
Ted Cruz’s Campaign Spread False Report in Iowa That Ben Carson...
First Draft
Bernie Sanders to Do ‘S.N.L.,’ With Larry David Hosting
First Draft
Donald Trump’s Snow Day Has Rivals Questioning His ‘Commitment’
Bernie Sanders’s Kibbutz Found. Surprise: It’s Socialist.
First Draft
Chris Christie to Receive Backing of Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts
New York City Council Votes to Raise Members’ Pay
Ukrainian Ex-Premier’s Visit to Washington Highlights Obstacles Facing Peace Pact
Twitter Steps Up Efforts to Thwart Terrorists’ Tweets
The 2016 Race
The Way Ted Cruz Won in Iowa Suggests Trouble Ahead
View Slideshow
HistorySource
Sports Sharpen the Presidential Image
When Presidential Candidates Go Too Far on Social Media: #FeetInMouth
Looking Back at Donald Trump’s 2015
Letter From Washington
The Rise and Fall of the Bush Campaign
95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue
From Fracking to Finance, a Torrent of Campaign Cash
Buying Power
A Wealthy Governor and His Friends Are Remaking Illinois
Buying Power
Inside the Billion-Dollar Battle for Puerto Rico’s Future
Buying Power
For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions
First Campaigns
Hillary Clinton Seeks to Recapture Spirit of 2000 Campaign
First Campaigns
Ad Helped Chris Christie Win a New Jersey Race, but Then He Had to...
First Campaigns
Rand Paul Rode Tea Party Fervor to Washington, Then Yielded
First Campaigns
Ted Cruz’s Senate Bid That Didn’t Stop at the Senate
First Campaigns
Lessons, and Parallels, in Jeb Bush’s Failed Run for Governor
Opinion
Sick and Tired of ‘God Bless America’
Gray Matter
In Iowa, Voting Science at Work
Loading...
See next articles
See previous articles
The defense is more subtle than we may appreciate at the moment and our side needs to be ready for it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/us/politics/agencies-battle-over-what-is-top-secret-in-hillary-clintons-emails.html?emc=edit_th_20160206&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193&_r=0
Agencies Battle Over What Is ‘Top Secret’ in Hillary Clinton’s Emails
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and MARK MAZZETTIFEB. 5, 2016
Photo
Hillary Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January 2013, when she was secretary of state. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”
The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies.
In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies — as well as Congress — over what information on Mrs. Clinton’s private server was classified and what was the routine business of American diplomacy, according to government officials and letters obtained by The New York Times.
At the center of that argument, the officials said, is a “top secret” program of the Central Intelligence Agency that is anything but secret. It is the agency’s long effort to track and kill suspected terrorists overseas with armed drones, which has been the subject of international debates, numerous newspaper articles, television programs and entire books.
The Obama administration’s decision to keep most internal discussions about that program — including all information about C.I.A. drone strikes in Pakistan — classified at the “top secret” level has now become a political liability for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Some of the skirmishes over Mrs. Clinton’s emails reflect the disagreements in a post-9/11 era over what should be a government secret and what should not. Nonetheless, 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s server were held back from a tranche made public last week. Those 22 emails were deemed so highly secret that State Department officials in this case agreed with the intelligence agencies not to release them even in redacted form.
The emails are included in seven distinct chains that comprise forwarded messages and replies, and in most cases involved discussions of the C.I.A. drone program, government officials said.
At a Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire on Thursday night, Mrs. Clinton dismissed the issue, as she has in the past. She said the government was overzealously classifying information after the fact, citing as evidence the State Department’s finding that two emails sent to Colin L. Powell’s private email account and 10 others sent to the personal accounts of aides to Condoleezza Rice when each served as secretary of state should now be classified years after the fact. It is against the law to have classified information outside a secure government account.
“This just beggars the imagination,” Mrs. Clinton said, going on to argue that the issue was merely an extension of Republican criticism over the attack against the American mission and C.I.A. annex in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.
It remains unknown what exactly the 22 emails contain, given their classification as “top secret,” but the officials described them generally, on the condition of anonymity. The officials included people familiar with or involved in the handling of the emails in government agencies and in Congress.
Some of the emails include material classified at the highest levels, known as Top Secret/S.A.P., according to a letter sent to the Senate on Jan. 14 by the inspector general of the nation’s intelligence agencies, I. Charles McCullough III. That designation refers to “special access programs,” which are among the government’s most closely guarded secrets.
Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources — a detail that was first reported by Fox News. The officials said that none of the emails mention specific names of C.I.A. officers or the spy agency’s sources.
The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.
The officials said that at least one of the 22 emails came from Richard C. Holbrooke, who as the administration’s special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been intimately involved in dealing with the ramifications of drone strikes. Mr. Holbrooke died in December 2010.
Photo
People gathered at the site of a missile attack in the village of Tappi, Pakistan, near the Afghan border, in October 2008. The C.I.A.’s drone program remains classified, though its existence is widely known. Credit Haji Mujtaba/Reuters
Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state was first disclosed in March, and since then the State Department has slowly released 33,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton and her aides determined were work-related. None of the emails sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server were marked as classified, the officials said, and most were written by her aides and forwarded to her. That is also true of the emails forwarded to Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice, which until now have been in the department’s unclassified archives.
The handling of classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s server is now the subject of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the State Department’s security and intelligence bureaus. According to the law and security procedures Mrs. Clinton agreed to follow when she became secretary, such material should not even have been sent over the State Department’s official but unclassified state.gov server.
At the same time, the officials said, some of the classifications being sought for the emails fall into a gray area between public knowledge and secrecy. In such instances, the original source of the information — and thus the level of its classification — can be disputed, and has been, vigorously at times, they said. Other emails have been the subject of rigorous debate over what constitutes a secret and what the nation’s diplomats can say about intelligence matters as they grapple with international crises.
“While the secretary of state has a duty to protect classified information, as all of us do in a position of trust, here she did not have the benefit of six-plus months of interagency classification reviews,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “The same information said by people in two different positions may receive two opposite classification determinations.” Though the State Department accepted the C.I.A.’s classification of the 22 emails, it has also sought to challenge accusations that it was negligent in handling secrets.
During the review, the State Department has rebutted claims by at least one intelligence agency that information in some of the emails ought to remain classified.
Some of those include the emails that led Mr. McCullough’s office to refer the matter to the Justice Department last summer, prompting the F.B.I.’s investigation. Mr. McCullough made the referral based on an assessment that four of 40 emails that it sampled early on in the process contained “top secret” information.
Now, after months of review, only one of those four turned out to be classified at that level. (The State Department counts that email among the 22 of last week.) A second of the four emails has been downgraded to “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. The third was released last fall.
Different Sources
The fourth involved an email sent by Kurt M. Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs, shortly after a North Korean ballistic missile test in July 2009. The email has not yet been made public, even in redacted form, but the State Department has challenged an assertion from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which gathers data through satellite images, that the email included information that came from a highly classified program.
In a letter this past Dec. 15 to Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a State Department official said that the information could not have been based on N.G.A.’s intelligence because Mr. Campbell did not receive any classified intelligence briefings for what was a new job for him until a few days after the North Korean test.
More broadly, the memo stated, diplomats working at the State Department or in embassies around the world constantly receive and pass on information from unclassified sources — so-called parallel reporting — that can involve highly classified matters. That can make it difficult to determine with confidence whether information in any single email came from a classified source.
“When policy officials obtain information from open sources, ‘think tanks,’ experts, foreign government officials, or others, the fact that some of the information may also have been available through intelligence channels does not mean that the information is necessarily classified,” the department’s assistant secretary for legislative affairs, Julia Frifield, wrote in the December letter to Mr. Corker.
Another email whose classification has been disputed was dated April 20, 2011, and was among those that prompted members of Congress and Mr. McCullough’s office to begin a review of the State Department’s release of the emails by court order under the Freedom of Information Act.
It was from Timmy T. Davis, an officer in the State Department’s Operations Center, and it conveyed to Mrs. Clinton’s senior staff security concerns in Libya during the war against the country’s leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
At the time, J. Christopher Stevens, the future ambassador to the country, was secretly traveling there as an envoy to the opposition leadership and had telephoned the Ops Center, as it is known, to advise it about his situation on the ground.
Mr. Davis sent his message, marked “S.B.U.,” or “sensitive but unclassified” to two of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin and Jacob J. Sullivan, as well as to Alice G. Wells, an executive assistant to Mrs. Clinton who is now the ambassador to Jordan.
At issue were two sentences in the email referring to reports by Africom, the American military command for Africa, describing the movement of Colonel Qaddafi’s forces near the city of Ajdabiya. In a letter on Nov. 24 last year, Ms. Frifield detailed how the information in the email differed significantly from the suspected intelligence source and could well have been based on public briefings given the day before by NATO’s military about the course of the war.
“The conclusion that the information in the email was drawn from that intelligence product is unsubstantiated and on its face wrong, given the differences between the information in the email and the information in the product,” Ms. Frifield wrote.
Even in the case of the drone program, so much information about the strikes has filtered into public view that the C.I.A. did not object to every allusion to it, allowing at least vague references in the emails that the State Department has released so far.
In late October 2009, as she prepared for a trip to Pakistan, Mrs. Clinton asked her aides for good answers to questions she might expect while in the country about Blackwater, the private security company that Pakistanis had long suspected was secretly operating inside the country.
Ms. Abedin responded by email that the aides were working on an “answer sheet” for the tough questions she might get on the thorniest issues about American-Pakistani relations — including Blackwater, the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, and drones.
“You will have tonite or tomorrow am,” Ms. Abedin wrote.
-
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/02/05/attention-gop-colin-powell-says-he-agrees-with-hillary-clinton-on-classified-emails/
-
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/02/05/attention-gop-colin-powell-says-he-agrees-with-hillary-clinton-on-classified-emails/
Not exactly a surprise at this point.
-
Powell is covering himself since it was just reported he had a couple emails that he received on private email. He doesn't know what is in Clinton's emails and has No business saying hers should be released to the public.
He has lost my respect a long time ago.
-
Goldman Sachs Loved Hillary's Speeches
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on February 5, 2016
What exactly did Hillary Clinton say to her Wall Street friends when they paid her $225,000 an hour? According to reports by attendees at the time, Hillary was warm and friendly and decried "bank-bashing."
Maybe that explains why she won't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches.
According to Politico, she struck "a soothing note on the global financial crisis, telling the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we're all going to have to work together to get out of it."
The Goldman crowd loved it. "What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn't going to improve the economy -- it needs to stop."
It turns out that the big money men have feelings, too.
One of them offered this. "It was like, 'Here's someone who doesn't want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,'" said an attendee. "Like, maybe here's someone who can lead us out of the wilderness."
The verbatim transcripts that she routinely demanded could certainly tell a story. She charged the speech hosts $1250 for a stenographer. So the answers are there.
But, there's a problem: The transcripts remain Hillary's sole property, so don't expect to see them anytime soon.
She's has been repeatedly asked whether she'll release the transcripts. Generally, she ignores the question. The Washington Post requested them several times -- to no avail. Asked about it during the New Hampshire debate, she said "She'll look into it."
That's Hillary-speak for get lost.
Earlier, when a reporter from The Intercept asked her about releasing the transcripts at a campaign event, she laughed out loud.
Apparently that was a very funny request.
But here's what's not funny, Hillary: the Sanders campaign thinks it will become a big issue. Here's what Sanders' senior campaign strategist Tad Devine had to say:
"My advice would be: Don't look into it too long because it's not going to go away until they come out, okay?"
Them's fightin' words. And, judging by the press attention to the issue, Devine is right.
Stay tuned.
-
It is one thing GS paying her a fortune in bribes but I don't understand why we don't hear why public universities are paying these people fortunes to speak.
With all the noise about the cost of colleges and then we hear them paying their favorite politicians with these kind of fees to speak?
And what about her promising all over the place college students all sorts of stuff while she herself goes around raping the universities for obscene speaking fees.
-
Suddenly the transcripts of these speeches are a BIG deal.
As Crafty has suggested, Republicans had better get busy pointing out that their reforms will level the playing field currently tilted for special interests.
It's not the rich getting the favors, it's the friends of big government. For a list, just see the Clinton speaking log.
-
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268456-pressure-on-lynch-to-step-aside-in-clinton-email-probe
-
Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he had no doubt some of the
30,000 emails Hillary deleted from her private e-mail server very likely made
reference to the Clinton Foundation, which deletion alone would be illegal
and a conflict of interest. Here’s the back story in its sickening and
menacing details, which ought to be front-page headlines from now until
Election Day:
The Clinton Foundation is "organized crime" at its finest
Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a
tax free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to
be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. history. This is a
textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be
used for your own purposes. All tax free.
Here's how it works:
1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case, the Clintons set
it up in Canada. [!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
2. Foreign oligarchs and governments then donate to this Canadian
charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing mega millions. I'm sure
they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in
return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to
send untold millions to a Canadian charity).
3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a
massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim
Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate
good works programs.
Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the
balance goes to enrich the Clintons, pay salaries to untold numbers of
hangers on, fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means
you and I are subsidizing it.
6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants,
somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover
these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax
returns.
-
Quoting MLK :
"I have a Dream":
Bill And Hill AND Bennett AND Huma AND their accountants and perhaps others (Blumenthal, etc) all go to jail in disgrace.
And she finally gets that orange jump suit. I would be willing to chip in to donate it for her.
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
-
second post
Hillary’s Cyber Loose Lips
Clinton’s email server was ripe for hacking. How much damage to the U.S. was done?
By L. Gordon Crovitz
Feb. 7, 2016 4:37 p.m. ET
727 COMMENTS
Hillary Clinton’s emails “do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets,” a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Chris Stewart of Utah, told Fox News last week. That raises some pressing questions about the former secretary of state’s communications through her unprotected private email server:
Which foreign intelligence agencies tried to hack the computer server in the basement of the Clinton suburban home? Did any succeed? And if so, how did these countries use the hacked information against the U. S.?
The State Department last week confirmed that at least 22 of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,600 classified emails include information that is “top secret” or an even higher level of classification, known as “special access programs.” The latter applies to communications for which “the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” such as the names of sources and undercover officers.
Americans won’t see these highly sensitive emails, which were likely read in real time by intelligence agents from China, Russia and Iran. But one was described to NBC, which reported that it referred to an undercover CIA officer as a State Department official with the word “State” in scare quotes, signaling to readers the officer was not really a diplomat.
Mrs. Clinton asserted in last week’s Democratic presidential debate that she is “100% confident” she won’t be charged with a crime. She ignored the issue of hacking by foreign agents and complained about “retroactive classifications.” Yet she signed the standard nondisclosure agreement acknowledging her responsibility to keep classified information secret whether “marked or unmarked.” In one of her emails, she responded to a complaint that staffers were having trouble sending a secure fax by writing: “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
Mrs. Clinton tried to evade responsibility by claiming other secretaries of state committed the same sin, citing reports that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice received a handful of potentially classified emails. But it was Mrs. Clinton alone who chose to set up and use only a personal email system for all her communications, knowingly risking access by foreign agents.
Unless the Clinton team wiped records from the server before producing it to be inspected, there should be logs indicating who tried to gain access—and who succeeded. In an era when cyber spies have penetrated many government departments, it is highly likely that foreign agents got into her homebrew server. The Associated Press reported that the way the computer in her home was set up would allow “users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely.”
Robert Gates, the former defense secretary, told radio host Hugh Hewitt recently that “the odds are pretty high” Russia, China and Iran hacked Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in The Wall Street Journal last month that the intelligence community is “nearly certain that Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked,” which would create blackmail opportunities against Mrs. Clinton and anyone she or her correspondents mentioned. U.S. intelligence agencies are now reviewing all their operations under the costly assumption that the cover of any program or person referenced in Clinton emails is blown.
Aside from the classified emails, there would be enormous damage if cyber spies gained access to all the digital communication involving the top American diplomat for the four years Mrs. Clinton held that office. Spies would have known the information available to the Obama administration and how its diplomatic strategies evolved over time. This might explain why Iran out-negotiated Washington on the one-sided nuclear deal, why Russia felt safe in its provocations, and why Beijing confidently claimed more of the South China Sea. And foreign governments would have access to all 60,000 emails, not just the 30,000 Mrs. Clinton chose to turn over.
Mrs. Clinton can’t plead ignorance. She gave numerous speeches as secretary of state detailing successful cyber attacks on much better-protected servers at government agencies and U.S. companies. Yet she made America’s secrets and diplomacy available on an unprotected server in her suburban home.
Voters will decide if someone whose judgment made hacking easy for the nation’s enemies can ever be trusted as commander in chief. Hacking and other cybersecurity risks should be pressing matters for debate among presidential candidates.
A book by Council on Foreign Relations scholar Adam Segal will be published this month titled “The Hacked World Order: How Nations Fight, Trade, Maneuver, and Manipulate in the Digital Age.” Meanwhile, Americans shouldn’t have to wait for Vladimir Putin’s memoirs to learn how foreign agents used Mrs. Clinton’s cyber loose lips to their advantage.
-
Third post
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-email-jake-sullivan-secret-219013
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html
-
https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2016/02/12/huma-abedin-and-the-tangled-clinton-web/
-
alias Mrs Carlos Danger :-D
-
ROTFLMAO!
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-records-reveal-state-department-asked-hillary-clinton-for-emails-in-july-2014/
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/18/report-clinton-email-chain-discussed-afghan-nationals-cia-ties/
-
She must have been placed on warfarin after her cerebral venous thrombosis. If she falls now on warfarin she could have an intracranial hemorrhage:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-medical-records
No mention of her personality disorder I notice.
-
Just joking.
Agree with WSJ on this one. We keep "career official" as though that means they are obviously honest and or apolitical.
Does anyone think for over 1 second that any Obama appointee would not be partisan. In fact I cannot think of ANY Democrat appointed official or court appointee that EVER crossed the Party. Can anyone else?
Lynch may not be as obvious as Holder. And she may have had a better record of being non partisan. But the fact remains that there is NO Way Obamster would have appointed her if he thought she would ever cross him. The only possibility is that Obama would be willing or desiring to throw Clinton in court.
It appears the FBI is doing everything it can to at least try to make it hard for DOJ to not indict.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-and-clintons-email-probe-1456448102
-
Just joking.
...
Lynch may not be as obvious as Holder. ...
She just has a shorter record of conspiracy and corruption.
I wonder how her investigation of Fast and Furious is going? No laws were broken??
IRS Scandal, Day 1023: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/02/the-irs-scandal-day-1023.html Nothing there either as far as Loretta Lynch can see.
It is striking that Republicans advance their careers by opposing leadership while Democrats would destroy their careers if they won't violate the rule of law or the constitution to support their leaders and advance the 'transformation'.
Loretta Lynch so far has shown no sign of even having a mind of her own much less a willingness to speak it.
------------------------------------------
From the previous post, "She must have been placed on warfarin after her cerebral venous thrombosis. If she falls now on warfarin she could have an intracranial hemorrhage"
That's right and our 'Doc' should know! She better quit drinking and dancing. She may live to a hundred but even a Hillary supporter should be very concerned that the VP choice is someone ready to be President, not just regional or group electoral positioning. A fall or a rapid deterioration is possible. Same for all, especially the other aging athletes, Sanders and Trump.
-
She also had to deep vein thromboses (DVTs) in her legs. Another indication for warfarin.
Obviously the DVTs are the result of prolonged immobilization from extensive travel to and from locations where she ducked sniper fire and accepting "charitable" Clinton Foundation donations while becoming grand champion in the frequent flier competition at the State Department and probably all of the Federal government.
-
You want us to vote for you? Then dance white girl:
Her response: "breakdance or twerck? :
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-hillary-dances-her-cares-away-in-sc/
-
http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/90037313-bill-clinton-flips-out-when-marine-brings-up-benghazi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXypM__frpI
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/09/hillary-donors-helping-chris-matthews-wife-into-congress/
-
https://sharylattkisson.com/the-amazing-reappearing-benghazi-documents/
-
(http://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Terrorist-Better-than-Hillary.jpg)
-
I have received or sent no "classified" information:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/29/judge-napolitano-hillary-will-be-indicted-if-ag-loretta-lynch-convenes-a-grand-jury/1/
-
SERIOUS interview of AG Lynch last night by Bret Baier on his Special Report. (Can someone find it and post it here?) Excellent discussion of the Apple issue, but when things turned to Hillary's crimes , , , My take is that AG Lynch is determined to slow walk this thing past the election.
Superior work by Bret Baier.
-
Saw the interview too.
She is poised and lovely actually. Yet my sense is she is only so so serious about enforcing law against the Democrat Party, ie Hillary.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/29/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-joins-bret-baier-exclusive-special-report-interview
-
Thank you for finding this.
I am going to post it on the Rule of Law thread as well for its discussion of Hillary's legal issues.
-
Hillary’s Dirty Little ObamaCare Secret
The White House was telling her the opposite of what Obama said.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in Norfolk, Va on Feb. 29. ENLARGE
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in Norfolk, Va on Feb. 29. Photo: Gerald Herbert/Associated Press
March 1, 2016 7:09 p.m. ET
42 COMMENTS
The State Department released the last batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails on Monday, and the exercise has been instructive about her recklessness with classified material. But as a side note, we ought to memorialize what President Obama’s aides were telling Mrs. Clinton about the Affordable Care Act, which was the opposite of what their boss was telling the public.
Despite her duties as top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton found time to follow ObamaCare’s progress in Congress, and she received regular updates from Neera Tanden, then a White House health staffer. Ms. Tanden is now president of the liberal Center for American Progress, Mrs. Clinton’s economic policy shop.
In an Oct. 19, 2009 email, Mrs. Clinton asked Ms. Tanden, “Are you worried about the lack of cost controls in the current bills?” Ms. Tanden replied that “the dirty little secret is that we don’t have a lot of good evidence on what works—in a way that Congress has any appetite to do. I mean, cost controls, as we all know, is [sic] attacked as rationing. So everyone likes to discuss this, including the Administration, but then on the other hand, says they won’t touch the benefits. Now there is a lot of fat in the system, but some of that excess is just too much care. Yet no one really wants care to be restricted.”
Not a month earlier, the President had promised Congress that the bill would save “hundreds of billions of dollars,” according to “Democratic and Republican experts.” In March 2010 he said that “we have now incorporated almost every single serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care.”
Ms. Tanden was telling Mrs. Clinton that the truth was closer to the reverse. She wrote that “the other problem” is that the de minimis cost-control problems that ObamaCare did include “need some time to incubate because we don’t have all the evidence we need. . . . We may have oversold what these bills will (or even can) do.” Critics at the time, including us, argued that White House claims about cost control were always a bill of goods. But we’d be curious to hear what ObamaCare architects like Peter Orszag think of Ms. Tanden’s private candor, or the credulous columnists they duped.
By the way, the Clinton-Tanden correspondence is heavily redacted for some reason, and its release was delayed almost a year for interagency review—though emails about health care shouldn’t compromise national security. Perhaps they also shared a between-us laugh about the other health-care deceptions the White House was getting away with.
-
From my own experiences and what I have seen in health care since the mid 80s about this I moved to the politics of health care thread.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
-
“There was wrongdoing,” said a former senior law enforcement official. “But was it criminal wrongdoing?”
Everyone already knows crimes were committed. :? the question is not was the law broken multiple times but is anyone going to really do anything about it.
-
I forget whether we have this already posted:
4/22-23/2015
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
Do note the "Everyone was doing it" meme being played here , , ,
-
I saw her on Face the Nation this morning heavily using her new buzz phrase, "retroactively classified". She applauds that the aide with immunity is cooperating. Hoping this comes to a "conclusion" soon.
Her supporters need talking points to answer their own critics making the accusations that we are making. Even if aides face trial, even if she is indicted and pardoned or whatever, she will be glad to get this behind her and get on to the real issues, like the extreme views of her Republican opponent.
Back to the show, John Dickerson, a known liberal was trying to play the role of real journalist. He started with election and issue questions, then dove into this. He was surprised at her answer and asked again, you are glad this aide is cooperating? Made her look good. What is missing is a relentless followup:
Secretary Clinton, You chose to do national security business over an insecure server. Your motives for that were obvious, the co-mingling of Foundation interests with State Department clout. You said no classified material was sent or received. But it had to be because being in the loop on national security matters was your job. In fact, you received 2000 classified emails, not zero. You sent over 100, not zero. And that is just out of the emails you chose to later to disclose. You were wrong. You made a bad decision and stayed with it while it was failing you. You got caught. Information taken from your insecure communications may have even enabled the 9/11/12 attacks or other worse attacks on our forces. Yet you tell us today you learned nothing from the experience. You still rely on the person (Bill Clinton) who gave you this horrible advice as your top advisor. People are fired for errors in judgment far less than this. Instead you want a promotion. And so on
Instead the media thinks the attacks should only be made by the opposition, but then criticizes them when they spend all their time attacking instead of laying out their own, positive agenda.
I was wrong on all my bets with ccp. I was horribly wrong to be optimistic about how this election season would go. The Republican primaries turned out to be a circular firing squad, dividing and destroying the right while chasing away the undecideds and the persuadable. People are smart enough to distrust Hillary, and then vote for her anyway, while our side seems to be chasing all the wrong issues.
-
Doug,
"The Republican primaries turned out to be a circular firing squad, dividing and destroying the right while chasing away the undecideds and the persuadable."
I don't understand why we have to have debates week after week like this.
A field of 18 to start instead of being a plus turned into a disaster.
And too many debates every week. All they do is turn the whole damn thing into a circus and make money for the media.
There has to be a better way.
"People are smart enough to distrust Hillary, and then vote for her anyway,"
It is amazing how the Democrats always seem to stick together in the end. Like Spartans.
-
Well, the Spartans did enslave others to support their lifestyles...
-
"There has to be a better way."
There have to be better people. Others responded in kind, but Donald is who brought this down, single-handedly.
-
Doug writes,
"Others responded in kind, but Donald is who brought this down, single-handedl"
Yes and no. He obviously has the help of 25 to 40% of the Republican vote. Why? Because the Republican Party has ignored them for many years.
That responsibility rests squarely with the party people. As for immigration, Trump is right that we would not even be talking about it if not for him.
And he is right about China laughing at us.
But that may be about it.
-
"As for immigration, Trump is right that we would not even be talking about it if not for him."
Certainly he brought spotlight to the issue, but as Cruz says, he was donating to 5 of the Gang of Eight when they were looking to pass Amnesty while Cruz was fighting it.
Also, Cruz has no "off the record" tapes with Pravda on the Hudson that he is refusing to allow to be released.
-
Just to help out the press, someone should write an AI program that automatically pushes the spin/diversion talking point of the day for the latest Clinton criminal conduct.
-
XX committee delivers:
http://20committee.com/2016/03/07/the-xx-committee-hillary-emailgate-reader/
-
8-) 8-) 8-)
-
2009
June 23 email — Blumenthal forwarded Clinton a nearly entirely redacted email with subject line “N. Ireland/Shaun,” an apparent reference to Shaun Woodward, who then served as Northern Ireland’s secretary of state.
July 15 memo — Blumenthal refers to information from William Drozdiak, who at the time was the president of the American Council on Germany. The non-redacted portion of the email refers to the “disastrous nature” of an Obama diplomatic trip.
Sept. 23 email — Entitled “URGENT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND MEETINGS TOMORROW,” the Blumenthal memo refers to a Clinton Global Initiative event held days before to discuss ways to increase foreign investment in Northern Ireland.
Oct. 8 memo — Blumenthal provided an update on developments in Northern Ireland.
Oct. 11 memo — Blumenthal advised Clinton ahead of a speech she was set to give at Stormont Castle in Belfast in support of devolution, or the shifting of power from the U.K. parliament to the Northern Ireland national assembly.
Oct. 20 memo — Blumenthal shared an email from Northern Ireland’s Sec. of State Shaun Woodward. Clinton was set to meet with UK Shadow Foreign Minister William Hague. “This makes your meeting with Hague unexpectedly pressing,” Blumenthal wrote of Woodward’s email.
Nov. 28 memo — Blumenthal sent yet another update about negotiations in Northern Ireland.
2010
Blumenthal sent Clinton more updates on negotiations in Northern Ireland, including a Jan. 25 memo, a Jan. 27 memo, a March 4 memo, a March 6 memo, and a March 8 memo.
April 8 memo — Blumenthal forwarded Clinton an email from a source discussing internal politics in Kyrgyzstan, which was then in the midst of a revolution.
April 23 “Secret” memo — Blumenthal updated Clinton on the situation in Kyrgyzstan. The portion of the memo redacted for “secret” classified information discussed a criminal investigation.
2011
March 5 memo — Blumenthal forwarded Clinton an email from his longtime associate Cody Shearer, who has worked on behalf of the Clintons over the years. The memo, sent in the early days of the Libyan revolt, discussed the formation of the National Transitional Council, which replaced Muammar Gaddafi’s dictatorship.
March 18 memo — Blumenthal discussed Gaddafi’s response to the UN’s decision to authorize the use of force in Libya.
June 20 memo — Blumenthal’s memo, with the subject line “Bahrain, Iranian intelligence,” is completely redacted.
Oct. 12 memo — A memo entitled “Saudi Arabia/Iran/Turkey” relied on Blumenthal’s “Sources with access to the highest levels of the Government of Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, as well as regional and Western Intelligence services.”
2012
May 30 memo — Blumenthal sent Clinton two memos containing information on German policy on the Eurozone crisis, which had reached full steam at that point. The information in the memos was passed to Blumenthal by sources who had conversations with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble.
In the memo, Blumenthal cautioned Clinton that the information came from “an extremely sensitive source” and “should be handled with care.” He also insisted that the information must not be shared “with anyone associated with the German government.
June 27 memo — A memo entitled “Internal pressures and potential schisms in German government over Euro-zone” is entirely redacted.
July 14 memo — Blumenthal’s memo entitled “Egypt internal politics” came from “sources with access to the highest levels of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and Western Intelligence and security services.”
Blumenthal characterized the sources as “extremely sensitive” and cautioned that the information should be “handled with care.”
Aug. 3 memo — Blumenthal passed along a memo discussing European Central Bank president Mario Draghi and negotitions with Germany to resolve the Eurozone debt crisis. The memo is entirely redacted as classified and is b ased on “sources with access to the highest levels of the Governments and institutions.”
Sept. 4 memo — Blumenthal passed along another now-entirely redacted memo based on “high-level sources.” The subject matter of the memo is not clear.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/07/here-are-the-23-classified-memos-sidney-blumenthal-sent-to-hillary-clinton/#ixzz42KvnGm8N
-
Twisted logic also called Clintonisms. I say don't beother with distortions, denials, and cover ups. If the left is not going to enforce the law then just say so. Spare us the crap:
******Investors Business Daily POLITICS
ON THE LEFT
*Here’s Why Hillary Clinton Is Unlikely To Be Indicted*
(AP)
(AP)
RUTH MARCUS 3/08/2016 3:39 PM EST
Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
Reprints
For those of you salivating — or trembling — at the thought of Hillary Clinton being clapped in handcuffs as she prepares to deliver her acceptance speech this summer: deep, cleansing breath. Based on the available facts and the relevant precedents, criminal prosecution of Clinton for mishandling classified information in her emails is extraordinarily unlikely.
My exasperation with Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state is long-standing and unabated. Lucky for her, political idiocy is not criminal.
“There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. “This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.”
Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly — absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.
There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924, a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to “knowingly remove” classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”
Prosecutors used this provision in securing a guilty plea from former CIA Director David Petraeus, who was sentenced to probation and fined $100,000. But there are key differences between Petraeus and Clinton.
Petraeus clearly knew that the material he provided to Paula Broadwell was classified and that she was not authorized to view it. “Highly classified … code word stuff in there,” he told her. He lied to FBI agents, the kind of behavior that tends to inflame prosecutors.
In Clinton’s case, by contrast, there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.
The government used the same statute in 2005 against former national security adviser Sandy Berger, sentenced to probation and fined $50,000. Here, too, the conduct was more evidently egregious than the public record shows about Clinton’s. Berger, at the National Archives preparing for the 9/11 investigations, twice took copies of a classified report out of the building, hiding the documents in his clothes.
For Clinton, the worst public fact involves a 2011 email exchange with aide Jake Sullivan. When she has trouble receiving a secure fax, Clinton instructs Sullivan to “turn (it) into nonpaper (with) no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” But Clinton has said that she was not asking for classified information. In any event, it does not appear that anyone followed her instructions.
Another possible prosecutorial avenue involves the Espionage Act. Section 793(d) makes it a felony for a person entrusted with “information relating to the national defense” who “willfully communicates, delivers (or) transmits” it to an unauthorized person. That might be a stretch given the “willfully” requirement.
Section 793(f) covers a person with access to “national defense information” who through “gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust.” The government has used the “gross negligence” provision to prosecute a Marine sergeant who accidentally put classified documents in his gym bag and then hid them in his garage rather than return them, and an Air Force sergeant who put classified material in a dumpster so he could get home early.
The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.
My point here isn’t to praise Clinton’s conduct. She shouldn’t have been using the private server for official business in the first place. It’s certainly possible that she was cavalier about discussing classified material on it; that would be disturbing, but she wouldn’t be alone, especially given rampant overclassification.
The handling of the emails is an entirely legitimate subject for FBI investigation. That’s a far cry from an indictable offense.*****
-
So glad to see we are getting pissed on and told that it's raining.
-
What a stalwart in the world. Iran problem -> knee jerk -> "sanctions"! (You mean the ones Brock just lifted?)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-idUSKCN0WB0I9
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/09/fact-checking-the-hillary-clinton-email-controversy/
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/source-clinton-it-specialist-revealing-server-details-to-fbi-devastating-witness.html?intcmp=hpbt1http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/source-clinton-it-specialist-revealing-server-details-to-fbi-devastating-witness.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Switching over to the Dems and Hillary's security breach investigation...
a) She is guilty. The test is gross negligence and she did it. What the FBI and the DOJ say is another matter.
b) The precedent is David Petreous. The analogy fails; what she did is far worse. He leaked to just one person. Petreus' biographer had security clearance but not at that level. They both broke the law and the rules. Petreous received leniency - a fine and probation for his lapse and leak.
c) The timing of this favors having Hillary putting it behind her now. Assuming political forces play a part and they always do, having this aired out while she is winning the nomination but still competing will help inoculate her against the same bad news later from Republicans.
d) Therefore, the FBI and DOJ will soon conclude its work and either excoriate her for carelessness that fails to rise to a criminal level, they could charge her underlings and not her, or more appropriately, charge her with a misdemeanor plea bargained down to the Petreus deal.
e) Getting that outcome now would help her win the Presidency better than letting it fester longer. She will put her spin on it and move on in the campaign, just as she is doing anyway. And then it dies off as other issues rise. A small scar is better for the campaign than the endless slow drip.
ccp is right. She will run for President, win the nomination and win the general election - even if she promised that nothing classified was sent or received and it turns out thousands of classified messages were. Did someone here doubt her? (
-
" The precedent is David Petreous. The analogy fails; what she did is far worse"
Agreed but there will be no outrage in the media that it IS worse. Secondly the "precedent" argument is also now set up to be used in a way that points out over and over again that he was essentially forgiven. (A misdemeanor was it?) That was no coincidence. You can't tell me that was granted to him without legal system looking down the road to the too big to fail gal.
As for timing. The longer this plays out the more that works in the Democrats favor. At some point the Left will be ALL OVER the airwaves arguing that this is for the "people to decide". Lets have the election and we will let the people decide. Doesn't that have such a *nice sounding ring* to it? How noble. BS of course but I have a sense that is where this is going to wind up.
Doug,
This is a bet I never ever wanted to win. :cry:
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-documents-show-that-nsa-rebuffed-hillary-clintons-attempts-to-obtain-a-secure-blackberry/
-
Hillary, the Empress Dowager of Chappaqua, on Twitter and two responses:
"It is absolutely unacceptable that the gun industry can't be held accountable when they (sic) endanger Americans."
"We going to hold car manufacturers responsible for drunk driving deaths now?"
"Do we hold the computer industry accountable when someone mishandles classified govt. intel on a private email server?"
-
Hillary, the Empress Dowager of Chappaqua, on Twitter and two responses:
"It is absolutely unacceptable that the gun industry can't be held accountable when they (sic) endanger Americans."
"We going to hold car manufacturers responsible for drunk driving deaths now?"
"Do we hold the computer industry accountable when someone mishandles classified govt. intel on a private email server?"
:-D Love the last one!
-
Hillary, the Empress Dowager of Chappaqua, on Twitter and two responses:
"It is absolutely unacceptable that the gun industry can't be held accountable when they (sic) endanger Americans."
"We going to hold car manufacturers responsible for drunk driving deaths now?"
"Do we hold the computer industry accountable when someone mishandles classified govt. intel on a private email server?"
Everybody is just full of hilarious stuff today.... I've noticed Señorita Chappaaqua or however in the hell it's spelt certainly doesn't want to give up her palm assistant.... go figure. She'll probably need it when if she's president to allow someone else to kill more Americans by leaking classified information.
Wow.... my mood just changed typing that.
-
http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/93521217-emails-reveal-hillary-had-youtube-block-benghazi-videos
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/trey-gowdy-limits-democrats-access-to-benghazi-pro/
-
It's hard to keep up with the Hillary Crime Family update posts. It is so ho-hum to say she has committed a felony or two, but I need to clear my spindle once in a while.
One small fact keeps her commodities trading from being a prosecutable felony, the statute of limitations. All other facts indicate she is guilty and the crime was trading stolen money to enrich one side and buy political favors for the other. Not a small deal for a politician.
The email fiasco is also most certainly a felony. The undercharging of Hillary by an administration that supports her, right as she runs is a political favor corruption crime of its own, of the worst kind.
Other stories:
CLASSIFIED EMAILS REVEAL HILLARY CLINTON WORKED WITH GOOGLE/YOUTUBE TO BLOCK BENGHAZI VIDEO(S)
http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/93521217-emails-reveal-hillary-had-youtube-block-benghazi-videos
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0226/7001/files/Classified_Emails_Reveal_Hillary_Clinton_Worked_with_Google_YouTube_to_Block_Benghazi_Video_1024x1024.png?9685109793385273701
After the Benghazi attack Hillary's State Department emails show her administration was in contact with Google regarding a blocked YouTube video after President Obama admitted that the Benghazi attack was a preplanned act of terror.
Gaffe? Already mentioned here, http://ktar.com/story/967243/hillary-clinton-us-has-done-a-really-good-job-securing-arizona-mexico-border/
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clintons-four-days-of-gaffes/
Black Dems aren't turning out for Hillary>
http://nypost.com/2016/03/18/black-dems-arent-turning-out-for-hillary-like-they-did-for-obama/
The number of African-Americans who voted in Tuesday’s primaries plummeted by an estimated 40 percent in Ohio, 38 percent in Florida and 34 percent in North Carolina compared with the 2008 Democratic primary when Barack Obama was on the ballot.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/03/18/four_stories_with_four_different_reasons_why_hillary_clinton_is_the_worst_democrat_nominee_in_history
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/as-hillary-clinton-sweeps-states-one-group-resists-white-men.html?_r=0
While Mrs. Clinton swept the five major primaries on Tuesday, she lost white men in all of them, and by double-digit margins in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, exit polls showed — a sharp turnabout from 2008, when she won double-digit victories among white male voters in all three states.
Huff Post, 10 reasons Hillary could fail:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/think-again-hillary-democ_b_9495560.html
Authenticity problems:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/17/report-obama-pushes-donors-to-back-hillary-despite-authenticity-problems/
Hillary has an NSA problem, not just an FBI problem.
http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/
[Blunethal's unsecured emails to Clinton ("keep them coming") "illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified “Top Secret / Special Intelligence.” Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her “unclassified” emails."
-
Republicans should start shifting the focus from
#1 Were crimes committed ?
to
#2 Will the Obama Justice Department do anything about it?
Hamlet says, that is the question. Therefore the focus should be to plow as much public pressure onto World History's greatest human being [sic] to prove to 300 million Americans no one is above the law.
I am willing to allow conjugal visits between Hillary and Huma.
-
:evil:
-
Democrat lawyers are already dancing around the Clinton emails. Bottom line the law simply does not apply to her:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/experts-clinton-unlikely-face-felony-161016100.html
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/the-republican-race-serves-as-a-useful-distraction-from-how-bad-things-are-for-clinton/
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-documents-raise-questions-on-benghazi-clinton-foundation/
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-documents-raise-questions-on-benghazi-clinton-foundation/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20-%20Template%202%20%2814%29&utm_content=
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/the-republican-race-serves-as-a-useful-distraction-from-how-bad-things-are-for-clinton/
All these defects in her character, record, candidacy and support are true, yet she is a 71% favorite right now to win the White House. (source: CNN)
She succeeds in politics the way I did in sports; I attribute all of my success in sports to weak opponents.
Some of us actively tried to put someone up against Hillary who could defeat her. Others knew better.
-
"She succeeds in politics the way I did in sports; I attribute all of my success in sports to weak opponents."
Doug, you didn't have a crooked mob of lying and corrupt pols, lawyers, media types and a hundred million bribed voters and (illegals to add to their overall mobster army) to get you over the finish line like she does.
Just read this excerpt from my previous link in my post above:
"The relatively few laws that govern the handling of classified materials were generally written to cover spies, leakers and those who illegally retain such information, such as at home. Though the view is not unanimous, several lawyers who specialize in this area said it’s a stretch to apply existing statutes to a former cabinet secretary whose communication of sensitive materials was with aides — not a national enemy."
This is from legal experts? This is the most outrageous lie I have ever heard. Legal experts who make this claim should be immediately disbarred. The reason we have laws protecting the security privacy and integrity of communications in government, particularly at the State Department is to prevent any break in that integrity or chain of custody of information. I worked as a contract worker at the CDC which is NOTHING important compared to her and yet it was made ABSOLUTELY clear that we were subject to felony charges if we messed with their IT network or exposed it to a security breech.
If this were not the case with her as well, then why did they have her sign a contract that explicitly says just that? Answer , of course she is subject to criminal prosecution.
So for this to be said now is an outrageous fucking lie of the highest order. Any lawyer who makes this argument should have their license revoked.
That would be like a doctor saying that HIPPA does not apply to him or her.
What a damn joke.
-
Exactly so!
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/21/bill-clinton-knocks-obamas-awful-legacy/82094792/
See Bill Clinton for yourself, short clip. He sounds awful.
What the hell is he talking about? Inadvertent truth?
-
Nothing new here but I only post this because this is coming from the Washington Post. I would only ask is why is he not demanding she drop out of the race?
*****Deceit and power work in Hillary Clinton’s favor
Resize Text Print Article Comments 55 Book mark article Read later list
Saved to Reading List
By Ed Rogers March 23
Hillary Clinton speaks during a rally at Rainier Beach High School in Seattle on Tuesday. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
In politics, it is said that you can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time. In other words, liars have pretty good odds. The smoking guns keep piling up at Hillary Clinton’s feet, but nothing seems to trip her. Yesterday, Judicial Watch released a batch of documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, that it says reveals blatant coordination between then-Secretary of State Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Stunningly, the internal State Department emails expose Clinton’s eagerness to “thank [Clinton Foundation] supporters for their commitments.” Of course, these “commitments” must mean money. It’s incredible.
And, Clinton’s State Department was apparently coordinating meetings for Bill Clinton with foreign heads of state. If any other employee at the State Department had arranged such meetings for their spouse and actively thanked contributors to their spouse’s foundation, they would likely go to jail. No lawyer would even let it go to trial, because the sentencing guidelines would guarantee years behind bars. Another way to think about what was going on is to imagine that another country’s foreign minister’s spouse or family ran a foundation that American companies were caught giving to. Those American companies would certainly be vulnerable to prosecution by the Justice Department under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
It’s only because Hillary’s last name is Clinton and because she is the Democratic front-runner for president that she isn’t already being prosecuted for something or another. For anyone else at the State Department, their conviction and sentencing would produce only a matter-of-fact, back-page reference in The Washington Post.
The double standard doesn’t end there. If any other State Department employee had decided to conduct all of his or her official business on a personal server located in his or her private home, that person would have already been prosecuted. Period. Full stop. And the story of that guilty plea would only have been prominent in the news because of the brazen gall displayed by the officeholder in question.
While it’s not all criminal, Clinton’s record of deceit has become something of an advantage for her campaign. One thing she can count on is that no one trusts her or believes what she says about her current policy positions. She rails against the big banks and the bankers she has always been cozy with, in part as a response to the popularity of Bernie Sanders’s message. But if you ask any bankers how they feel about Hillary Clinton as president, they will tell you they don’t fear a Hillary Clinton presidency. They will tell you that Hillary Clinton knows them and they know her. No one believes her White House would be hostile to the financial services industry. No one assumes she is telling the truth. They all know she is just saying what she has to say on the campaign trail in order to pacify the most gullible among the Democratic voters. The bankers and Wall Street types all count on the idea that whatever Clinton says in the campaign is irrelevant. They are all getting the message; they all see the wink, and they are happy to shrug off today’s rhetoric.
It’s the same thing with the free-trade advocates and the Keystone XL pipeline opponents. There is not one business executive who thinks a President Hillary Clinton would actually block the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty. The anti-Keystone groups will rely more on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau than on Hillary Clinton’s newly minted assertions that the pipeline won’t get built.
Don’t just take it from me. Voters can sense her lack of authenticity and sincerity. In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, 59 percent of voters said that Hillary Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. The only person who is viewed as being even less trustworthy is the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump. How is it that in a country of approximately 330 million people, there aren’t two well-adjusted, honorable people who are likely to end up being our choices to be president of the United States?
It’s all very discouraging. Election 2016 is taking American politics beyond a new low, entering us into a reality where deceit and deception are assumed.
Ed Rogers is a contributor to the PostPartisan blog, a political consultant and a veteran of the White House and several national campaigns. He is the chairman of the lobbying and communications firm BGR Group, which he founded with former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour in 1991.***
-
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/28/judge-napolitano-says-new-phase-of-fbi-investigation-is-very-very-dangerous-for-clinton-aides-and-he-has-a-prediction/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%203-28-16%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obama-administration-withholds-draft-whitewater-indictment-of-hillary-clinton/
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-second-federal-court-grants-discovery-in-clinton-email-case/
-
Yes, this is just gossip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftUItehaIoo
-
"Yes, this is just gossip."
OTOH everything she is claiming fits the profile to a tea.
Even the part about Chelsea being conceived as a political calculation. Would anyone doubt that this does sound just like everything we know about both of them?
Hillary certainly has some sort of personality disorder. I don't know if it is psychopathic or narcissistic ? There are at least features of each. While it is true that there are a higher percentage of psychopaths in the prison vs the general population it is also true that the most are not murderers like in the slasher movies. Her being on the wrong side of the law is characteristic. Wish we had a psychiatrist on the board to give a better opinion.
Could we get Charles Krauthammer to comment?
-
This is so Classic of some form of personality disorder. Everyone else lies and lies about her. Just never her!
To think some one so sick can get this far. Grifters:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/03/31/hillary-i-m-so-sick-of-bernie-lies.html
-
An interesting indictment, logistic, campaign question came up today, where will they post the secret service protection in relation to her cell? Will it affect her acceptance speech if she skypes it in wearing an orange jumpsuit?
-
"where will they post the secret service protection in relation to her cell? Will it affect her acceptance speech if she skypes it in wearing an orange jumpsuit?"
One could imagine she will run her mafia organization from jail . The SS will be used to smuggle out covert orders to her soldiers. The Clinton Foundation will have her daughter run day to day operations under Chelsea, Bill will remain the "front man" and Hill will still call all the big shots from jail. Just let the guards and SS in on the action. That's all.
Now one can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. But is there any Constitutional guidelines on a convicted felon from running for office. They cannot vote but can they run for office? President?
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-department-halts-review-clinton-emails-fbi-request-000207678.html
-
Let's see who else picks up on this. HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life. I can add the transcript later.
Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child". She also referred to "the unborn person".
Justice Breyer has also made this awful Orwellian, pro-choice mis-speak. Why is a woman carrying a "fetus" a mother? Mother of what? The facts (in that case) didn't say she had previous children.
I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother". I was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman". Important distinction!
This changes everything. You terminate tissue. You don't terminate a child. Some might call that ......[murder].
Maybe Hillary had a Trump pro-life moment when a beautiful (to them) Clinton grandbaby popped out after 9 months of kicking inside the tummy of Hillary's loving (to her) daughter Chelsea.
Maybe Democrats are people too and are capable of putting life ahead of politics... Or should I expect a correction. She didn't mean to say mother and child - and Trump didn't mean to say punish the woman.
Unfortunately, we live in a time void of great leaders.
-
USA Today is not exactly a conservative publication. One thing is for sure. Bernie Sanders should go down in history as making the most stupid political blunder of all time letting the grifter off the hook. No Bernie. Most Americans do care about honesty.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/
-
Let's see who else picks up on this. HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life. I can add the transcript later.
Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child". She also referred to "the unborn person".
...
I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother". It was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman". Important distinction!
This changes everything. You terminate tissue. You don't terminate a child. ...
Yes, this was noticed by others! At least on the right...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/print/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3522101/Hillary-Clinton-says-unborn-person-doesn-t-constitutional-rights-explains-stance-abortion.html
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-doesnt-constitutional-rights/
http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/03/hillary-clinton-on-abortion-the-unborn-person-doesnt-have-constitutional-rights/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/03/hillary-unborn-babies-do-not-have-rights-video/
Video Clip of the exchange:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/03/chuck_todd_to_hillary_clinton_when_or_if_does_an_unborn_child_have_constitutional_rights.html
Good for Chuck Todd for asking one tough, relevant question. She usually doesn't go on shows that do that - I believe she has never appeared on Fox News Sunday. Todd introduced the subject by ripping Trump for taking 5 positions in one week on abortion. Hillary got her guard down, was ready to jump in and pile on, but instead he gave her an open ended opportunity to state her view on abortion. She went right into Roe v Wade, that she agrees with it and so on, and it allows for some restrictions. Then Todd bluntly asked her when and if an unborn child has constitutional rights. And she stumbled badly.
The left thrives off of owning the language of the issues. Spending going up is a budget cut. Temporary spending is permanent. Affordable housing is not affordable but requires subsidy, hence a government policy. Affordable healthcare, same thing, makes it unaffordable, requiring a massive federal program with mandates that all would not be needed if it was affordable as the term used to mean. Eliminating racial differences means putting more focus on race. Marriage is no longer husband-wife, and so on. The left owns the language when they are winning on issues, and they pull it off by having monopoly control of the messages around us, from k-12 curriculum, to teachers unions, colleges, elite universities and the media.
Nowhere is language more crucial than abortion. Rachel meant well, especially on moral issues but would only post about abortion by starting a separate thread called 'reproductive issues'. Abortion isn't reproduction; it's the opposite. But you don't call it killing a baby and then ask people what they think about it.
Hillary has been so deeply entrenched in this kind of leftism that her blunder was outrageous. ccp might know, but it could be a symptom of age or brain injury that such an expert on the topic would make such a beginner leftist type of error after all these years in the leftist bubble. Otherwise she got sloppy after recently experiencing a real, grandmother-grandbaby love when she should have been reviewing Saul Alinsky manuals for her upcoming run.
You don't call 'it' a 'person' while talking about it having no rights, okay to kill. You don't call the woman a mother and you don't call the fetus a child. If you begin to admit, as Reagan put it, that it [a fetus] is 1) alive, 2) human, and 3) and has separate, distinct DNA from the mother (and father), then you are pro-life, not pro-choice. Abortion becomes a killing of a child, not a procedure on a woman.
In the middle of the same sentence, she used proper leftist language, that it is the woman's "decision". A sentence that ends without saying it is the woman's decision to do what, kill / end the life of the 'child', 'person', 'tissue mass', whatever you want to call what is alive and being killed and removed.
The science in this case is not on the side of the life deniers, so adhering to a very careful and strict choice of words is the only way to defend this barbaric, 21st century, 1st world practice that in 98% of the cases is done for convenience reasons.
Muslim genitalia mutilation at birth is abhorrent behavior to us, but killing the same baby one moment earlier isn't - only because of a strict choice of words and framing of the issue.
-
Very good post. Please put on the abortion thread as well.
-
Thank you, will do. I would add that 'person' is a legal term and Hillary is hinting that she would like to guarantee government healthcare to the unborn - if not for the abortion interest. I think she hit her head pretty hard on the fall...
-
Obviously from a Sanders supporter on Salon a vehemently anti- anything Republican and leftist news outlet:
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this_is_how_the_fbi_destroys_hillary_the_10_questions_that_could_end_her_white_house_dreams/
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/the-clinton-shell-game/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/06/any-one-of-these-four-laws-could-put-hillary-aides-in-jail/
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/one-shot-at-queen-fbi-ag-intensify-focus-on-clinton-email-probe.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-campaign-chief-linked-to-russian-bank-listed-in-panama-papers/article/2587741?custom_click=rss
-
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/12/bill-de-blasio-hillary-clinton/
And then puts the blame for the joke back on deblahsio.
-
We all know more or less how it is going to play out in the end, but watching it happen while being helpless is just so frustrating. Like being robbed by the entertainment industry without any real recourse:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/13/how-hillary-clintons-misuse-of-classified-documents-alters-u-s-law/
-
Hillary pays female executives 38% less than men
There ought to be a law against this - leftist hypocrisy.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/04/14/of-course-clinton-foundation-pays-female-executives-38-percent-less-than-male-counterparts-n2148105
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/17/hillary-clinton-dances-stage-ny-officials/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/17/exclusive-disgraced-clinton-donor-got-13m-in-state-dept-grants-under-hillary/
-
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/hillary-mao-4-13-16.jpg?w=500)
you want.
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+chairman+mao+outfit&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2rJ2_g5vMAhUJrD4KHaD1Dy4Q7AkIKQ&biw=1440&bih=805#imgrc=_
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-shields-her-saudi-donors-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/04/19/re-surfaced-sex-allegation-could-be-hillary-clintons-biggest-nightmare/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20160419GlennBeckDailyV4_C&utm_term=Smart%20List%20-%20Responsive%20Group%20Control
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/20/sheriff-clarke-hillary-clintons-hot-sauce-remarks-im-surprised-didnt-say-watermelon/
-
The only question is how will the Dems get her out of it. Not if:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/22/judge-napolitano-fbi-has-evidence-indict-and-convict-hillary-clinton-email-scandal
-
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
-
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
Yoko-Broke up the Beatles.
Hillary-Will break up America.
-
1)
http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-hillarys-spin-on-benghazi/EB06B6AD-5C19-488F-8FE5-1333AE04534F.html?utm_source=EmailDirect.com&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=4-22-16+weekly+update+Campaign
========================================================================
2) State Department Belatedly Releases New Hillary Clinton Benghazi Documents
Another piece of the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton and Benghazi fell into place this week when the State Department released to us new documents containing telephone transcripts from the evening of September 12, 2012.
The documents reveal that the then-Secretary of State informed then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound the day before "had nothing to do with the film."
You will recall that on the evening of September 11, Mrs. Clinton issued an official State Department press statement, approved by the White House, placing the blame for the attack on an Internet video:
Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
Yet the next day, September 12, in her conversation with Kandil, Clinton said, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack - not a protest." Kandil responded, "You're not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe that group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda."
Nevertheless, two days later, at the ceremony when the bodies of the four Americans who were killed arrived in the United States, Clinton again left the implication that it was all due to the video:
"This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We've seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with."
This became an administration theme. On September 16, then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice, appearing on all the Sunday morning political talk shows, invoked the video. For example, she told Jake Tapper of ABC:
"But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated."
There are actually two scandals here. The first is Hillary Clinton telling different stories to different foreign leaders about the Benghazi attack - including an admission that it was a terrorist attack.
The second is the State Department's cover-up of these documents. The department has forced Judicial Watch to play 'whack-a-mole' with Clinton and Benghazi documents. It is no wonder that two frustrated federal court judges granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton FOIA issues.
Here's the story on that.
Clinton's admission to Kandil was first revealed to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton's testimony, October 22. However, court filings in Judicial Watch litigation show that the record was only produced after two federal court judges ordered the State Department to produce more Benghazi-related records to us.
Similarly, our litigation also forced the release of the September 11, 2012, email in which Clinton informed her daughter that the attack had been staged by an "Al Qaeda-like group," rather than as the result of "inflammatory material posted on the Internet," as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier. (So, the two big reveals of the Benghazi Select Committee during Clinton's testimony only came about because of your Judicial Watch - and despite the incompetence of Congress.)
The State Department had previously told a federal court that the Kandil document wasn't responsive to Judicial Watch's request and resulting lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)) seeking:
Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.
But the State Department then delivered this information last month to us. The records, the State Department told the Court, were found among thousands of new Clinton State Department records supposedly only discovered in December, 2015 - again, two months after the key Kandil document was first produced to the Benghazi Committee.
I provide more analysis in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, which you can watch here.
Bureaucratic bungling or cover-up? What do you think?
-
What if she just admitted she helped Obama spread that lie about the film to help him get re-elected?
That they didn't rescue them for the same reasons, denying there was a terror attack.
And admitted Bill convinced her to do business on the private server because of all the quid pro quo arrangements sure to develop, taking personal and Foundation enrichment in exchange for State Dept favors.
And that the Obama DOJ isn't prosecuting because no one else can win on the Democrat side.
Everyone already knows all this. Would people like her any better if she was honest? (No.)
-
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
Snopes says no on the logic that if true the msm would have carried it.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/yokohillary.asp
So that settles it. (?)
-
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/yoko-ono-i-had-an-affair-with-hillary-clinton-in-the-70s/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
Snopes says no on the logic that if true the msm would have carried it.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/yokohillary.asp
So that settles it. (?)
Snopes isn't agenda free or impartial.
-
Snopes isn't agenda free or impartial.
Agreed. Still, not much of a source on that quote.
Coming out as gay now would be the perfect shiny object she needs to rescue her candidacy. I just kind of doubt it.
As an excuse for Bill's pattern of conduct, having a lesbian wife is not a free pass to be a criminal, sexual predator.
-
The Leftist hoopla begins. It will be man 'against' woman.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/hillary-clinton-considers-all-female-ticket-by-choosing-woman-as/
-
The Leftist hoopla begins. It will be man 'against' woman.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/23/hillary-clinton-considers-all-female-ticket-by-choosing-woman-as/
She would carry the fake Indian vote. So that's a plus.
-
Too bad they can't link this to Obama himself:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/state-department-hid-key-clinton-benghazi-email-from-judicial-watch/
-
Too bad they can't link this to Obama himself:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/state-department-hid-key-clinton-benghazi-email-from-judicial-watch/
He knows enough to avoid a paper trail. Like how he "joked" in public about using the IRS to punish his enemies, and then funny enough, guess what happens....
-
http://m.hannity.com/articles/war-on-terror-487284/bombshell-email-from-libyan-embassy-specifically-14087758/
-
This could go in so many threads, crony governmentism, rigged economy, housing crash, corruption, white collar crime etc, but the most immediate relevance is his affiliation with the Clintons. Why do you suppose that is so? When I bought foreclosures, I was limited by the amount of money I had to invest. When Friends of Hillary do it, free money, no limits. Stories like this conflate resentment for others' success with all the corruption that makes some of it possible. There is nothing like watching a liberal look out for the little guy - he caused foreclosures, bought foreclosures, then refuses to rent to anyone who had a foreclosure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Guy Who Screwed America’s Economy Hearts Hillary Clinton
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/26/the-guy-who-screwed-america-s-economy-hearts-hillary-clinton.html
The man behind Goldman Sachs’s infamous bets on the housing collapse now buys foreclosed homes and rents them out—but not to anyone convicted of a financial crime. He’s also a big Clinton donor.
Wall Street is buying Main Street one foreclosed home at a time.
The houses—more than 200,000 of them—are then rented to folks who continue to struggle in the aftermath of a near financial collapse in 2008.
And one of the leading figures in Wall Street’s scavenging of the wreckage created by Wall Street is also a big-time backer of Hillary Clinton.
His name is Donald Mullen, and he was once the global head of credit at Goldman Sachs. He was credited with devising the infamous “big short,” by which the firm bet bigger than big that the housing market would collapse even as it was urging customers to invest in it.
“Sounds like we will make some serious money,” he famously emailed colleagues in 2007, at early signs of the impending implosion.
Mullen left Goldman Sachs in 2012 and made some more serious money by becoming one of a number of Wall Streeters who are acquiring and leasing thousands of foreclosed homes.
Mullen embarked on this new endeavor with Curt Schade, formerly a managing director at Bear Stearns, which failed at the start of the financial crisis. Mullen and Schade received a $400 million credit line from Deutsche Bank, which survived thanks to billions of dollars in direct and indirect financial support from the government.
The new firm came to be called Progress Residential. The name takes on an added resonance when you visit the website of the major pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action, to which Mullen contributed $100,000 in June. You are welcomed by a picture of a smiling, waving Hillary Clinton and a message:
“The story of America is one of hard-fought, hard-won progress. And it continues today.”
The $100,000 to the pro-Clinton super PAC was noted by OpenSecrets.org and reported by various news outlets. The Washington Post has further reported that Mullen is one of 146 people who have contributed to all six of the federal races entered by either Hillary or Bill Clinton.
What has not been reported are some supreme ironies arising not so much from the money Mullen hands out but in the money he rakes in. Consider the “Rental Qualification Criteria” that a prospective tenant must pass before being granted a lease to one of the foreclosed homes that Progress Residential has acquired.
Applicants must document monthly household income of at least three times the monthly rent. Income and “credit worthiness” (PDF) are then “entered into an application scoring model to determine rental eligibility.”
But that is not all. You must also attest that you have never been convicted of any one of various felonies, including these:
“Financial crimes.”
The ban in this category applies for 10 years for those convicted of a felony, three years for a misdemeanor.
A guy who has been caught passing a bad check can forget renting one of Mullen’s houses for a decade.
That by the onetime credit chief at Goldman Sachs, which this month reached a $5.06 billion settlement with the government arising from allegations that the bank knowingly sold iffy mortgages to unsuspecting customers even as it was betting against them via Mullen’s big short.
In announcing the deal, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Benjamin Mizer, said, “Today’s settlement is another example of the department’s resolve to hold accountable those whose illegal conduct resulted in the financial crisis of 2008.”
Sure.
If there was illegal conduct, how come nobody was arrested?
In truth, the settlement was another example of the department’s failure to hold any individuals accountable for breaking the law.
Too big to jail.
To be completely fair to Mullen, the Goldman emails show that he at one point worried “about the representations we may be making to clients.”
But that does not seem to have stopped him from playing a major role in what followed, which is to say upending the lives of millions of people.
And he refuses to rent not only to those who have committed financial crimes but also to those who have been evicted within the past seven years.
In other words, a family could be evicted when its home is foreclosed, watch Mullen buy the house, and then find itself barred from renting any of his thousands of properties because they had been evicted.
Also barred from renting are those who have been incarcerated for a felony of any kind within the past five years; those jailed for a misdemeanor have to wait three years.
Those who survived the financial collapse without being evicted or going bankrupt or committing a crime for which Main Street if not Wall Street folks are jailed might then actually get a lease. (more at link)
-
The Liberal Fascism thread would be a good call for this as well.
-
http://m.hannity.com/articles/war-on-terror-487284/bombshell-email-from-libyan-embassy-specifically-14087758/
The email brings up another important point about having the three stooges speak for our country and run our foreign policy:
Along with the fact that it proves the narrative false is that the false narrative was used to draw attention to the video in hopes of making that a true motive for more attacks??
From the warning in the US Embassy in Tripoli:
"If we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it."
Fits the line describing the whole Obama administration that should have been the reelection stopper:
'They made it worse.' We have all these problems, the economy, Libya, ISIS, terrorism, the world, they made it worse.
-
No citation and from a not always reliable source:
GLAD IM NOT A FRIEND OF CLINTONS
Just a set of coincidences, right??
Food for Thought
Just a quick refresher course lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" of the
Clintons.
1- James McDougal - Clintons convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former White House councilor and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the air Traffic controller committed suicide.
5 - C.Victor Raiser II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization, died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - DNC Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".
7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.
11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994 in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound, also ruled a suicide, at the grave site of his fiancee.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena, Arkansas airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death in December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council, personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov. 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural causes".
33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
33 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
Quite an impressive list! Pass this on. Let the public become aware of what happens to friends of the Clintons!
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT?
-
Wow you saw this too! I was looking at the comments section a month back and one of the commentators posted this. I don't remember what the thread in response to some article was about . I too almost copied to post here. I guess in the end I thought it is all old news.
Hard to believe everyone of these are coincidental.
-
First, that is quite a list!
From murder-suicide back to nonsense on issues:
Hillary Clinton bragged six weeks ago in the course of the CNN infomercial in Columbus, Ohio: “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” (video at link)
Then yesterday in West Virginia, however, Clinton had a different “explanation.” She didn’t mean it. She had taken herself out of context: “I don’t know how to explain it other than what I said was totally out of context from what I meant” (video at link). Now, she says, she wants to see coal “continue to be sold and continue to be mined.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/the-clinton-context.php
http://www.weeklystandard.com/clinton-flip-flops-on-coal-now-wants-coal-to-prosper/article/2002208
Coal or no coal? Depends on whether you are in West Virginia. It's no more complicated than Cubs or Yankees.
-
And what is her fix for the coal miners whom she wants to put out of business? A tax payer program policy. What a surprise. The answer to everything is some leftist matriarchal program funded by you and me.
Same old leftist crap.
-
I've let my WSJ subscription lapse. Can someone please post the full version of this?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158#:ct1UF3qAHDBwyA
-
https://www.facebook.com/mcallout/videos/596808117144452/
-
These college students are so brainwashed.
-
So this is the line that will be parlayed all over the air waves. She never *intentionally* met to compromise security. And this *is important* because no crime was committed if she did not *intentionally* risk security. Phrases bandied about such as "phony scandal", "scant evidence", a" bunch of Republicans operating a smoke machine in full view",
Well this is opinion piece. Opinion based on denial and lies etc:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/06/hillary-clinton-is-going-to-be-exonerated-on-the-email-controversy-it-wont-matter/
-
25 minutes. Have not had a chance to watch it from beginning to end yet, but hopping my way through it leads me to believe it may have much worthy content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK2K5v5bm0Q
-
to take on Trump. Gotta love how some professor types sit around dreaming up these so called "analyses":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-election_us_572cae72e4b016f378957726
-
We knew that the Democrat party and the DOJ were going to find a way to fix this for Hillary . The only questions remaining were what kind of baloney story are they and their media accomplices going to hit the propaganda outlets with.
It dawned on me that the plan for fix is totally in for Hillary . Behind the scenes Obama, Bennett, DOJ have likely worked out the fix.
Obama absolutely is colluding and gave up the secrets in his Wallace interview when he said she was "careless" but "nothing intentional" was done. We now see hints from the journolisters who are using the exact same language. For example the Wash compost opinion article that uses the EXACT same language. "mistakes" were made - and hillary admits to that, but there is no *intentional* security mistakes. And the claim (which is clearly NOT true) that since there is no *intentional* effort on her part or from her aides to compromise security (the world's smartest Yale valedictorian lawyer had not clue, despite being briefed, despite signing a document, etc. blah blah blah) she didn't know the emails were classified , she didn't know that the server was not secure and THEREFORE NO CRIME was committed.
Now will this sell to the public? Answer it will not matter. The entire elected Democrat party will with arms in lock step will of course all make the case. Most of the mainstream media certainly will go along with it. And the DOJ will turn this into a no big deal slap in the wrist and Obama will give us a lecture about Justice was served. And we know what 40% or there 'bouts of the public will be happy to keep blowing this off and many will of course say it was a Republican witch hunt the whole time.
We here all know this is from start to finish totally flawed, not believable, untrue, not even close to being consistent with the facts but it suggests to me that the Dem machine is already outlining their weasel arguments (flawed, disingenuous, and not even really resolving the law breaking) that they will try to con over the public with as the DOJ brushes this off.
-
"She never *intentionally* met to compromise security. And this *is important* because no crime was committed if she did not *intentionally* risk security"
- That is a false premise, as I understand it. The criminal test for the mis-handling of classified information is "gross negligence" which she most certainly committed. That is a felony.
-
"She never *intentionally* met to compromise security. And this *is important* because no crime was committed if she did not *intentionally* risk security"
- That is a false premise, as I understand it. The criminal test for the mis-handling of classified information is "gross negligence" which she most certainly committed. That is a felony.
The free sh#t army doesn't care.
-
Generally, WND is not a great source, but on this one they are pretty much on target-- except for number 22.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-blackberry-a-microphone-for-espionage-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/emails-hillary-clinton-director-state-department-appear-missing-205506182.html
WE all knew this did and would happen. She always has any incriminating evidence destroyed or made to disappear.
What I am not completely clear about is why cannot the FBI get a court order to seize evidence before we all know it just simply vanish? Why do government departments have rights to not turn over documents (like the IRS or DoS) like the rest of us?
National Security issues? or phony claims thereof?
-
Perhaps a bit better of a source for this:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/emails-from-hillary-tech-staffer-go-missing/
Question: Is it possible that his emails were never in the State Dept's system?
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/hillarys-emails-hacked-russia-kremlin-deciding-whether-release-20000-emails-hacked/
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2036.htm
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/whitewater-twelve-versions-of-hillary-clinton-draft-indictment-451-pages-withheld-by-national-archives/
-
https://www.hotgas.net/2016/…/hillary-clinton-email-problem/
https://www.hotgas.net/…/hillary-clinton-email-problem-par…/
https://www.hotgas.net/2016/05/hillary-emails-endgame/
If you are looking for a superior condensed summary, this will do nicely.
-
Pat says pressure will be coming from the DNC and WH to ask Hillary to step down.
I don't know what he is reading but that is not what I have been reading nor could I ever imagine Hillary step down without being unconscious.
The fix is in every which way but loose.
No crime committed. Just mistakes.
For God sakes she already apologized! What more could an honest person want? Leave the poor lady alone. (sarcasm)
-
Pat says pressure will be coming from the DNC and WH to ask Hillary to step down.
I don't know what he is reading but that is not what I have been reading nor could I ever imagine Hillary step down without being unconscious.
The fix is in every which way but loose.
No crime committed. Just mistakes.
For God sakes she already apologized! What more could an honest person want? Leave the poor lady alone. (sarcasm)
Hillary recognizes no legal, moral or ethical controlling authority.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/chelsea-clintons-husband-closing-hedge-fund-after-losing-90-percent-of-its-money/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/chelsea-clintons-husband-closing-hedge-fund-after-losing-90-percent-of-its-money/
Really investors, or just using the hedge fund as another way to sell access and SoS favors?
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-reveal-clinton-knew-about-security-risk-of-private-blackberry-avoided-use-of-secure-phone/
-
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/
-
http://www.elderstatement.com/2016/05/by-fox-news-may-13-2016-former.html
-
http://www.elderstatement.com/2016/05/by-fox-news-may-13-2016-former.html
War on women girls.
Waiting on the feminist outrage...
*Crickets*
-
https://fee.org/articles/penn-jillette-on-the-clintons-quote-of-the-day/
Clinton
Penn Jillette on the Clintons: Quote of the Day
Their fans think they can read their minds
Anything Peaceful
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Facebook Twitter Reddit More
#Clinton #Libertarianism #Politics #Democracy
On his weekly podcast, libertarian magician and skeptic Penn Jillette gave an incisive take on Hillary and Bill Clinton.
We have Hillary Clinton — while you were alive, while you were sexually active, three years ago — saying marriage is just between a man and a woman. ...
And yet many people in [the gay community] are supporting Hillary, and their reason for supporting her is that "she was always in favor of gay rights, but she had to say what she had to to be elected." …
She came out in favor of the pacific trade deal, very strongly in favor of it, and now she’s against it.
And that’s not seen as flip-flopping, it’s not really seen as a revelation or learning something — it’s seen as "she is politically expedient, and we want someone who is politically expedient."
The followers of Hillary Clinton seem to think they have a secret deal with her — where they understand what she really believes, what she’s really going to do — and they are willing to support her as she bends the truth in order to be elected. …
Why do the people who support Hillary think that what she’s saying is to manipulate other people and not to manipulate them?
This cultivated impression of insincerity allows her supporters project whatever beliefs and values they want onto her, rationalizing away any dissonant actions as just "savvy politics," letting her be everything to everyone.
Penn notes that Bill Clinton exploited the same tendency when he ran for president in 1992:
I remember when Bill Clinton was running for president. He was in a capital punishment state, Arkansas, and he flew back during his campaign, during the Gennifer Flowers thing, to pull the switch on a mentally handicapped criminal.
He went back to pull the switch, and I remember talking to a buddy of mine in Chicago … who said, "We know Bill Clinton is against capital punishment, we know he’s against it, but he had to make sure this guy was killed in order to be elected, and he knows that’s important."
And I said I know people who are pro-capital punishment who have never actually been part of killing a person, and who might balk at that.
So this is what they postulate: you’ve got an anti-death penalty guy who think it’s worth it to kill this guy in order to be elected... so he can fight for not killing people?
Of course, this is not unique to Clinton supporters. Politics is a tribal game, where members of one team will always assume that their leaders are (at least secretly) really on their side and doing the right thing, and they'll find ways to rationalize their disagreements as merely strategic or cosmetic.
Listen to the rest of the show here.
-
Figures she would go for the synthetic , , ,
http://nypost.com/2016/05/16/christina-aguilera-hillary-stared-at-my-boobs/
-
7 Million served, please add a click to this 13 minute Hillary Lie Compilation video.
Spread it around. The more people see of Hillary, the more they dislike her. Nothing new in here to me, just a nicely organized proof in her own words just how worthless and duplicitous her own words are.
13 minute Hillary Lie Compilation Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
-
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/op_ed/2016/05/parker_viral_video_shows_years_of_hillary_s_lyin_ways
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435393/hillary-clinton-e-mails-Cheryl-Mills-DOJ
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQKAaPgwj_U
and here is the trailer for the next movie from the same people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=cc0c6e10-bc78-4b0a-9c8e-d5fa370c4c38&feature=cards&src_vid=oMDB-2r0w80&v=r7e6gLht6OQ
-
"Scant evidence of criminal wrong doing."
Everyone in the world knows this is simply NOT true.
The Dems star is check mated so what do they do? Just ignore the rules of the game and move on.
-
We already know this but the numbers and details are quite mind boggling.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-21m/
...in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $21,667,000 in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, “Hard Choices.”
Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria,” and the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the former first couple — who, according to Hillary, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001 with some of the furniture in tow — can finally make ends meet.
At least Trump builds Towers.
-
@ 1/4 million per speech that is over 2 "speeches a week for 2 years.
Didn't we know from day one of the Clinton Foundation that it would be used as a front for campaign money?
the scale of it and how they get away with it is truly breath taking though i would admit.
Chelsea , her in law is a crook, her parents are crooks. But she is a star.
-
@ 1/4 million per speech that is over 2 "speeches a week for 2 years.
Didn't we know from day one of the Clinton Foundation that it would be used as a front for campaign money?
the scale of it and how they get away with it is truly breath taking though i would admit.
Chelsea , her in law is a crook, her parents are crooks. But she is a star.
Part of the Sanders craze and the Obama Phenomenon before it is and was about at least some Democrats wanting to distance themselves from the moral ugliness that is the Clintons. Even among her supporters now there really is an awareness about all of these issues. Big question now is whether Sanders supporters come back to her. The answer is, not all of them and not with great enthusiasm.
-
$150 million value, enjoy. Link below, read it with better paragraph breaks. Let's discuss.
PRES. BILL CLINTON: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you.
Thank you very much, Jay. I want to thank you and my longtime friend and former coworker, Debbie Schiff, for inviting me here, and Mark Lindsay, who's going to come up in a minute and ask questions.
I find if you thanks someone in advance for asking your questions, you get better questions. (Laughter.)
I want to thank Mayor Steve Adler for welcoming us back to Austin. I never had a bad day in Austin, Texas, and I've been coming here 43 years. (Applause.) And it's a wonderful place.
I want to especially welcome our friends from China, who have come a long way to be part of this, and tell you that I believe this is a very important occasion. I think the presence of a lot of people here indicates this, the former Secretary of Agriculture and head of UNICEF, Ann Veneman, who worked with me very closely in the aftermath of the tsunami in south Asia and a lot of other things we did together.
Ambassador Locke, Ambassador Randt. Mark Updegrove of the LBJ Library, thank you for the work you've done in holding your conference.
The relationship for the U.S. and China is perhaps the most important one for the next 20 years for the whole world, and it's an interesting relationship now.
And what's going on in Asia is very interesting and very important. You have a strong leader in China in President Xi, a strong leader in Japan in Prime Minister Abe, a strong leader in India in Prime Minister Modi, who has enrolled 120 million people with their first bank accounts in eight months. (Applause.)
This is all very hopeful. We're about to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the reconciliation and full opening of relations with Vietnam this year, something that I was very proud of.
And we all know what the problems are, but I want to talk about the opportunities and why I think it's so important that you're here.
When I was president, I realized that the time in which I had the privilege to serve was first the first entire presidency to be conducted after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War; second, that we were rapidly evolving into the most interdependent age in human history.
Interestingly enough, since all of you are here, it's important not to say that's always going to be good, because last year we acknowledged or observed the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I. Before World War I, the wealthy countries in the world were actually slightly more trade dependent as a percentage of GDP than they are today.
So everyone said happy times are here to stay; yes, there are problems, but they'll never get in the way of all these people making all this money. And a crazy person killed the Archduke in Sarajevo and we were off to the races. A war people thought would only last a few months lasted through November of 1918 and claimed more lives than any conflict in history up to that point, as we fought with 20th century technology and 19th century battle tactics.
What's that got to do with today? Today, as it was in a different way when I was president, our interdependent world, which goes way beyond what happened before World War I because of information technology and travel and massive movements of capital every day across national borders, our interdependent world is full of positive possibilities, as represented by the rise of China and the presence of all of our Chinese friends here today, and the potential we have for investment both ways for the creation of new businesses, new jobs and new opportunities. It's been good to us or you wouldn't be in these seats.
But it is also a world full of significant challenges. There is too much inequality for a consumer economy to sweep the globe, around the world and even in here in America.
After the financial crash, it's gotten worse, and I didn't think it could get much worse than it has been since the dawn of the 21st century. And that's because at least in our country, with fewer conventional economic opportunities, people with funds and the financial industry as a whole put more energy into trading than investing. And if you swap out money and you don't invest it, then some people will make a lot of money but you won't make money the old fashioned way, creating jobs and businesses and opportunities that have a huge multiplier effect on the economy. So that's a big challenge.
The second big challenge we face is global instability. Look how fast the financial crisis spread across the globe, and how difficult it is to overcome in the EU for Greece, for Spain, for Italy. The Irish seem to be doing pretty well, but they're very small.
And there is enormous political instability, particularly in the Middle East and Afghanistan and elsewhere where the very concept of the nation state is under assault.
In Nigeria, the biggest country in Africa, full of brilliant, gifted people, with staggering economic achievements, a place where our foundation works on a wide range of areas, it's also the home of Boko Haram.
In Africa you have Kenya trying to finally come to grips with a lot of its serious challenges, and just next door there's al-Shabab wreaking havoc out of Somalia.
And, of course, we had first al-Qaeda, then al-Qaeda in Iraq, and now we have ISIS threatening the most interesting but fragile democracy in the Middle East, Lebanon.
Jordan, a progressively modernizing state, they have these massive numbers of refugees, and they're getting enough aid to feed them and keep them alive, but not enough to generate economic growth and opportunity and any sort of stability. And you have essentially a nihilist philosophy there.
So I thought about the difference in this meeting and what you represent, and one headline I saw in the paper today about how the ISIS militants are now, in addition to beheading people on television and over the Internet, and using children to walk people to their execution, they're not destroying some of the most previous historic relics of the Middle East. Claiming to return us to an ideal past, they are instead trying to erase the past, not building anything but just tearing down and trying to rule through naked terror.
And we have, of course, the regrettable and I think self-defeating path that Russia has chosen in Ukraine.
So we're dealing with all these things.
To me that makes it perfectly clear what we should all be doing, believe it or not. We should be doing whatever we can in our current situation to build up the positive forces of our interdependence and to reduce the negative ones.
And if you ask me any question on any issue in any country in the world, I would run it through a filter, and I would ask myself, will this increase the positive or reduce the negative forces roiling around in the world today? If so, I'm for it. If not, I'm against it.
One of the most distinguished people here I think academically is Mr. Khalid Malik here, and he said to me on the way out, and I took a picture with his larger family, he said, "You know, our family is the intermarriage of a Muslim and a Jewish family." And I said, "Thank God, and praise Allah." (Laughter, applause.)
And why? Because religion in the service of politics is a dangerous thing, and requires a highly selective reading of all sacred scriptures. After all, the Torah says "He who turns aside a strange might as well turn away from the Most High God." The Christian bible says that the most important commandment is to love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, to love your neighbor as yourself. And the Koran says that Allah put different people on the earth not that they might despise one another but that they might come to know one another and learn from one another. So you've got to get rid of all that if you really want to hate people. That takes a lot of effort and leads to a lot of loss.
So that brings me to the current moment. I have -- I'm not sure what time it is because I just got back from Singapore yesterday morning. (Laughter.) I had the signal honor of representing my country at the request of the White House and the government of Singapore, along with Henry Kissinger, at the funeral of Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of Singapore.
Fifty-plus years ago, when Singapore was founded, the per capita income was less than a thousand dollars a year. Today, it's over $55,000 a year. For three years in a row the airport in this tiny country has been voted the finest airport in the world. For 31 of those years Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore, then he became the Senior Minister, and then what's called the Minister Mentor afterwards. Along the way, he and I came into contact when he was the Senior Minister, and Goh Chok Tong was the Prime Minister and my colleague.
Now, it's a little country, only 6.5 million people on a little piece of land, but in a very critical place; massive sea lanes all around, a history of ethnic conflict between Chinese and Malays. And they have a diverse population, Chinese, Malay and Indian. Everybody there is bilingual. They use English for commerce and then you are taught in the schools your own language to make sure you understand your language, your culture, your faith, and you carry it into cooperation, not conflict.
What the United States and China have to do now with renewed vigor in Japan, renewed vigor in India, restless independence in Southeast Asia and the Philippines, unresolved problems in North Korea, is to find a way to work through our differences and dramatically accelerate things that benefit us both, because the very idea of the nation state is under assault outside Asia, and we together can prove that in an imperfect world full of necessary agreements and debates and discord, it is the best vehicle for establishing the rule of law, basic opportunity, and lifting people out of poverty.
So that's how I see this. I love this meeting. And I will say this, there's only one person I'm uncomfortable with in this crowd, and that's Admiral Owens here looking at me. (Laughter.) He may be the smartest guy the military has produced in the last 40 years, and I always feel if I have to speak in front of him that I'm being quietly graded and I'm never going to get an A. (Laughter.) But be that as it may, I will try to get through this.
Now, what does that mean? Now, I want to say it doesn't bother me that we have differences of opinion. And we should not seek to abolish them or sweep them under the rug. We should instead become comfortable talking about them.
When I was president and I went to China on the longest state visit I took anywhere, Jiang Zemin, then the president, honored me by allowing me to speak to a university where university students asked me the kind of hard questions they would ask him in America when the shoe was on the other foot. Then he trusted me to have a national press conference and let me make an argument to the Chinese people that they ought to ease up on Tibet and he should meet with the Dalai Lama and he would actually like him if he did.
And we worked through the trade agreement, got to normal trading status, which led to the membership of China in the World Trade Organization, which I thought was very important.
Another lesser known thing we did together that I think will have real impact over the long run is to send a group of Americans there at the invitation of the Chinese to work for years to work through basic legal questions of commerce law, so that it would be possible for people not just in big businesses but in middle and small businesses to do business in China with rules they understood and protections everyone's entitled to. And I love that. I had a lot of the people who actually went there year-in and year-out became friends of mine and I saw how important it was.
After I left office, I began to work in China on the AIDS problem. And I was really honored when our foundation was the first non-governmental organization actually given office space in the Chinese Ministry of Health. They knew they had to deal with it, and after a few years of denial they did what the Chinese are so good at, they turned on a dime and crushed the problem.
There were actually two different AIDS problems in China. There was the big city traditional AIDS problem, basically born of drugs and sex. But there were rural Chinese villages that were literally wiped out because the younger adults who stayed behind to take care of the children and the older people while everyone else went to the city to work needed money desperately and found an honorable way to earn it by giving blood to the urban hospitals so they would have adequate blood banks. But China then had the same problem we had in America in the early '80s, which was that many of them gave blood with improperly sterilized equipment and became infected and whole villages were wiped out.
So we went into China at the request of the Chinese government. A friend of mine from Chicago with a particular love for China completely funded everything we did there for three years. And we worked to help them get adequate medicine, get adequate testing equipment.
The viral load equipment, actually the whole testing mechanism was actually developed by someone who's here in this audience today. And you have to be able to test to see what the viral load is to know whether the medicine's working or not.
And then I had an amazing encounter with the Minister of Health. First, I went to Tsinghua University more than a decade ago and gave a speech, and four ministries were represented on the platform with me.
And a young AIDS activist, who was reminiscent of the ACT UP people a decade earlier in America, stood up with a very spiky hairdo and was giving me hell about something. And so I invited him up and I put my arm around him and let him say something to the audience. And I took him over and he shook hands on national television with all these senior Chinese ministers.
Ten days later, Prime Minister Wen had AIDS activists in his office. Six weeks later, President Hu was in hospital wards shaking hands with people dying, and the whole thing turned around. It was breathtaking.
The Health Minister said, okay, we've got this under control at a national level, but you have to understand we have politics in China just like you do. And just like in America, the rural areas are more conservative than the urban areas. So we want you to go out to your Yunnan Province and to Anhui Province. And I went up to the Uighur Autonomous Region on a different trip, and we want you to sit with people who are HIV positive. Have meals with the young adults, play with the children, let us show it on television so people will understand how this is communicated and how it's not. And it's safe to treat their neighbors as their friends so we can actually do something about this. And they did.
And we don't work there anymore because they don't need us. They had the money and the infrastructure once the technology and the established practices were put in place. Now, during all this time there were arguments about trade differences and currency values, and all the stuff that occupies the headlines. But we found a way to seek common ground, get to know each other better, and work together. And along the way save a lot of lives.
So my belief is that that explains what we should do. There may come a time when the U.S. and China will become involved in some irreconcilable conflict, as many pessimists believe, but it doesn't have to happen if we work for the best and both plan for our security. Only a fool doesn't plan for the worst, but you should work for the best.
And this is a little thing, but the most encouraging thing to me about the future, if you're from China whether you ought to make a ten-year investment in the United States, and whether we should be making long-term investments in China was the announcement of the Presidency, and Prime Minister Abe about their dispute over these small islands that they've been arguing about.
And essentially what they said in plain English, like if you're an American politician and you read this rather carefully crafted statement, what it really said is, we are not going to war over this. We will both take our nationalist positions, we will stick up for national pride, but relax. We are not going to let this kill any chance we've got to make this a season of Asian ascendance. And that was really good.
And that's what I think we have to work for. There are lots of good opportunities here, and we still have a lot to learn from each other. And the rise of India and the rise of Japan creates amazing opportunities for synergy as well as for friction.
Mr. Abe is the leader of a truly great nation that doesn't have enough people to support real growth, where no matter how much technological advance they get they're not going to be able to deal with the challenge of having very small families and very long lives, but more and more people in their later years.
Since they don't want to have a lot of immigrants he's got to get more women in the workforce and convince more people who look like me to work later in life. And I wouldn't bet against him. I think there's a chance. He's trying to join security alliances in Asia. He doesn't want to be totally dwarfed by China and rendered insignificant. But, he clearly recognizes that cooperation is better than conflict.
Mr. Modi in India has exactly the reverse problem of China. China is great at aggregating and deploying capital for massive projects. India is wildly successful in entrepreneurialism. They have a million non-governmental organizations. I work with a lot of them sometimes I think I work with most of them. And I like working there. But, they have been terrible at aggregating and deploying capital so they don't have enough infrastructure to take their economic growth away from the 35 percent that are in the aura of the high-tech cities into 100 percent of the country.
So Modi is trying to learn from China how to do that. The United States, alas, has become more like India than China. That is, we spend so much of our tax money on yesterday we're not investing enough in tomorrow. And we have so much antipathy for the government we forget that public investment is necessary for private growth. So we have something to learn from China.
China, I believe, will move sooner or later from creating more economic freedom and social mobility and the Chinese have lifted more people above the extreme global poverty line in less time than any entity in history. And that, too, is a form of freedom. Being able to choose where you go to college and what you learn and what you do for a living is a freedom. But, there is still a lot of nervousness about dissent. Singapore had the same thing, a radically different economic system, much smaller country, but sharing the fear of the Chinese that if you have too much dissent you could have disintegration.
One of the things I learned when I was President working with Boris Yeltsin about expanding NATO, he said to me why? I said, Boris, you surely don't believe that I would use an air base in Poland to bomb Western Russia. He said, of course you wouldn't. But, a lot of little old ladies in Western Russia think you would, which is why Putin got so much support when he took over Crimea.
He said, look, Bill, he said countries are like individuals, they have hopes and fears, dreams and nightmares. You didn't ever have Napoleon or Hitler all the way up in your belly. And we have people who lived through Hitler and whose grandparents told them stories about Napoleon. And so perhaps we are too nervous about trying to control the near abroad. But, you have to work with me on this.
So China also has dreams of nightmares, memories of bad things that have happened in the form of disintegration. I understand that. But, I do think that it's too bad these women have been arrested in the run up to the 20th Anniversary of the Beijing Conference. And I'm glad so many Chinese are saying the same thing. And I think that there's a way to be a strong country and tolerate dissent.
It became comical when I was president because I liked Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji so much, and once I got a cartoon in the mail when I was fighting out that Whitewater business. And Jiang Zemin and I are sitting together at a state dinner, and in the first frame I say to President Jiang, I said, "You know, you're doing great economically, but our country has more human rights." And he looked at me and he said, "Yes, and if you were the leader of China Ken Starr would be in prison making running shoes." (Laughter.) So I saved that cartoon for a long time. I must say there were days when I wondered who had the better model. (Laughter.)
But I say that for the serious purpose. We are all moving toward a time when greater creativity is more important. When we will all have to -- if President Xi hadn't changed the one child policy, the United States would have been younger than China within a couple of decades because of our immigration policy. We're barely above replacement in America with families that are static here, but we have enough immigrants, and that's another reason we need immigration reform, that we have continued to be young and we continue to grow more diverse, and we've continued to be able to function well.
But China is going to change that policy, and I think as it gets more comfortable with its world role. And I'm very grateful for the work we did on disarmament, on North Korea, on the Asian Financial Crisis together, where 20 years earlier China would have devalued its currency to keep from getting hurt by the Asian Financial Crisis, and they didn't. And it got us through it a lot faster.
I think the security will build up and they will see that having a creative economy requires the ability of people in public life to take criticism from private citizens, and it won't kill you. And so I hope for that day and I hope for that debate to go on. Meanwhile, we should be doing what we can do. China has made real strides in trying to move away from the pollution of its old reliance on coal to generate electricity. You've done great with solar and wind. You'll find a lot of opportunities in America today, Texas, Iowa, and Minnesota, all three today have a base load electric generating capacity that's 20 percent wind.
And almost every American state now without any subsidies wind is cheaper than coal. Solar would have total parity with coal today if there was parity of financing. And I won't bore you with all the details, but it's economical today without much subsidy in probably 20 states. And it won't be long until it will be economical everywhere. The idea that moving away from a greenhouse gas-based economy to one that reduces greenhouse gases has to be bad for the growth of jobs, businesses and incomes is simply not true, not if we do it in a smart way.
The agreement President Xi made with President Obama to reduce hydrofluorocarbons creates an enormous potential market because most HFCs in China, in India, and in older American cities are produced by antique room air conditioners. And you can convert them, but actually it's cheaper to build new ones, which means there's an enormous market for that just to keep the agreements that have already been made, and then an enormous market for what to do with the scrap mountains high of all those old air conditioners. And that's just one example.
The sequencing of the human genome, if you're an American I spent $3 billion of your money on it, and I keep reading all the time about how we spent all this money and we expected miracles and what has happened? Well, the year before last what had happened already was $176 billion in new investment just in America spinning out of the genome. That's pretty good return on investment. And we've identified the two genetic variances that put women at high risk of breast cancer at an early age.
We are not far from being able to send home every young mother with a young baby girl, something I'm partial to now that I'm a grandfather, with a little gene card that says whether your child has this variance or not. If so she should start having tests at about age 25. And then everybody else can do what the American Medical Society says and wait until they're 50.
St. Jude Hospital in Memphis, which is the premiere children's cancer center in America, with staff from over 100 nations discovered something they can now test with the genome test, which is that there's a rare of form of child brain cancer for which there has been for some time a drug that guaranteed 80 percent of the children that had this cancer 100 percent chance of recovery and a normal life, but mysteriously kills the other 20 percent, ended their lives early.
So just experimenting, a doctor there started giving a half-a-dose to the other 20 percent and they all got well. Then the doctor gave a half-a-dose to the 80 percent and they stayed sick. So they sequenced all their genomes, identified the differences, now when every child comes in there because of the genome they get the treatment that they should get in the beginning and they all recover and they all have normal lives. This is the beginning.
With nanotechnology it won't be very long before every person in the United States and every person in China, and increasingly in other countries, can stand in a tube and be scanned four times a year and tell you more than an expensive physical will tell you today. And it will create a lot of opportunities.
So what I want to say is in the meanwhile, we can't let our differences override what we have in common. And we have to find ways to cooperate on these big problems. China has a lot of investment in Afghanistan, which has probably a trillion dollars worth of various things underground that can be mined, maybe more. It's very important that that be done in a responsible way that doesn't rip off the Afghans, builds their own capacity, preserves their environment, and gets enough people involved in that that they just as soon do that rather than drive a truck with a bomb on it. And you can do that. You have more money to do that with state funds than we do right now.
So there are all these places in the world where we can work together for mutual benefit. But it is very, very important to do what you are here to do. We need more Chinese investment in America, just like we need more American investment in China. We need people who work together, who talk all the time who come to trust each other. You don't want all the differences of opinion to go away that will make us stupid. Nobody is right all the time. Differences of opinion are healthy and debate is important, but it is really important to find a way for what we have in common to trump our interesting differences.
That's really the story of what Lee Kuan Yew pulled off in Singapore. In a microcosm, it's what the United States and China have got to try with working with Japan, working with India, finding a cooperative way for China and the states of Southeast Asia to resolve their disputes over the wealth in the South China Sea and elsewhere, around the disputed islands with the Philippines. We've got to find ways to do that.
You cannot do it without trust. You cannot do it without people believing that it is a good thing that the modern world is organized around nation states that work and private economies that pay off. And if we do it we have to find a way then to lift the people who believe that in the most troubled part of the world, the Middle East, and the Afghan-Pakistan area, to do the same thing.
There are lots of unresolved issues here, which are not the subject of this conference. But, I'm just telling you in addition to the fact that I think you can make a lot of money if you're Chinese investing in America and I think you can make a lot of money if you're American investing in China, every time we do something and people come to know each other and trust each other, we increase the chances that the 21st Century world will be one of shared prosperity instead of shared despair, one of shared security instead of shared vulnerability, one of a shared sense of community rather than an endless bleak conflict of competing religious and ethnic identities.
And it will open up all kinds of other things we can do, building the capacity of nation states to function in Africa. I spent a lot of time on that in my healthcare work. If somebody asks our foundation to go in and work on AIDS and malaria, and reducing infant mortality, we try to get the donors to give all the money to the African countries. So they buy the medicine, not us. They buy the equipment not us. We want to build the capacity of government to work. And I have strict no-corruption contracts that require oversight, because corruption is a major reason for the failure of nation states all over the world.
But, we can do this together. If you're Chinese, and I was just trying to make the sale in the next 30 minutes I'd say, look, America is coming back, we're growing well and we're just at the beginning of our capacity to grow, which his one reason wage levels haven't risen as much as the stock market has. The labor markets aren't tight enough. We do have a lot of work to do in our K through 12 education. We don't have the kind of apprenticeship programs we need. And we could learn a lot from Germany in that regard. But, this country has lots of natural gas, more oil. We'll be exporting energy soon, as well as all the clean energy sources.
It's got a great information technology base, even though we have lousy national broadband download speeds, because it's a big old country and we haven't done what South Korea did, which we should all learn from, where the government built the infrastructure and they didn't have to worry about an open Internet. It's cheaper to use there and must faster, on average four times faster than ours. And all this fight we've been having in America about net neutrality it's all because we depended on the big companies to build the infrastructure and they have a right to recover their investment. And the only way they can recover it on current terms is to charge more for people who can pay for faster. And that violates what we want, but we, Americans, we've got to grow up. We didn't want to pay to get a system that would give us net neutrality and cheap fast download speeds, and every country has got some of that where we say what we want and then we don't act like we're prepared to do what it takes to get it.
That is also something we'll learn from each other. More Americans who understand what the strengths of the Chinese economy are the more likely we are to make good economic decisions here. The more Chinese who understand what the strengths of the American economy are and how you will need a whole creative class to move to the next stage of development, the more likely the Chinese are to feel comfortable with political dissent, and to believe you can have national cohesion, national unity, national loyalty and still allow people to say they disagree with you.
And I will just close with this thought. The most important political book I have read in the last five years by far was written by a Nobel Prize winning microbiologist who is now almost 90, E.O. Wilson. It's called The Social Conquest of Earth. And Chinese and Americans will find something to identify with. Wilson in about 250 pages traces as best he can from the evidence we have the history of all life on planet Earth, not just people, all life, from the emergence of single cell organisms.
He said if you look at the history of life on Earth and you make allowances for the fact that, let's say, the dinosaurs were destroyed 65 million years ago because of the after effects of an asteroid hitting the planet. You have to conclude that there are four species who have been the hardiest. They've been the most successful in avoiding destruction when they could have been killed and they weren't the biggest or the strongest. They are ants, termites, bees, and people.
Twenty years ago I read one of Professor Wilson's books and I learned that the weight, combined weight of all the ants on Earth is greater than the combined weight of all the people on Earth. That's sobering. They laugh because in places where ants are subject to predators when the predator is chasing the ants some of them will run up on the highest blade of grass and sacrifice themselves so everybody else gets away. In very hot climates termites build underground homes with air conditioning. They drill five holes in their roof and they'll only go in and out of one. The others are just to circulate the air. And when it's about to rain they won't go in at all. They sense when they're going to be destroyed if they do that.
People, he says, are the most remarkable cooperators of all and that's what he says. He said ants, termites, bees, and people have prevailed because they cooperate better than all other species. Last week in the Science Times section of the New York Times there was an article saying of all the hundreds of species of spiders on Earth, for reasons no one can explain, 24 separate species have begun to cooperate and instead of solitary spiders spinning webs they're spinning their webs together and they're dramatically stronger. So that they're safer from predators and they get more food.
What's the point of all this? The point is that what you would do to earn a profit and make a living happens to be in my opinion what we need to do to
ensure that the 21st Century is a good news story not a bad news story. And the more we can find ways to cooperate and elevate cooperation over constant conflict, the better we're going to do. So I urge you to look at this. It's a really good time for this conference, because America ought to have about five or six really good years now. It's a good time to be investing here.
I think the Chinese President is doing things that make sense. It's a good time to invest there. I think China and Japan have sent a signal to the world that they will cooperate in a healthy, not a -- I mean they will compete in a healthy, not an unhealthy way. And the more we can build trust across all these lines that divide the more we can create a world that avoids the identity politics that bedevil people everywhere. And in the end that's the most important thing. We should be proud of our differences, but we should believe and act on the fact that our common humanity matters more.
Commerce advances that when done fairly, lawfully, and honorably. And so don't feel any pressure, but the whole future of the world may depend upon whether, to what extent and in what manner China and the United States build a common economic, social and political future.
Thank you very much.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/full-text-bill-clintons-china-us-private-investment-summit-speech-223404#ixzz49a2x8SBH
-
I just took a stab at editing in paragraph breaks.
Also, I think that it might better fit in the Foreign Policy thread, nothing to do with the Clintons' corruption in it.
-
https://www.facebook.com/subjectpolitics/videos/1699510340266519/
-
http://www.newsmax.com/TomFitton/email-emails-guidance-search/2016/05/24/id/730478/
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz49g1MKcSr
-
No biggie - unintentional - no crime - now lets clear this up and move on about the important "issues" this country faces. :-(
-
I just took a stab at editing in paragraph breaks.
Also, I think that it might better fit in the Foreign Policy thread, nothing to do with the Clintons' corruption in it.
Thank you for improving the readability.
This is one answer to the question of what is in these Clinton speeches. Of the $150 million received, some are buying influence and some just want the biggest name, best of his time speaker at whatever cost for their event. Bill's might have been more for star power and Hillary's more for buying influence. Either way, they are not going script something incriminating or even controversial. This is a good speech. Still missing are the Hillary speeches to Goldman Sachs etc. I don't suppose they sound that much different than this.
Yes, largely foreign policy, but the genome point is interesting too. A Whitewater reference, he is not afraid to have a laugh about that. To me, it's just 'Clintonesque', taking credit for things that happened in his time and showing off a wisdom that is quite impressive when unchallenged. We need to be able to answer back to this kind of thinking since Hillary has access to all the same speechwriters.
-
Ok here we go. State Department gives their girl the out, "they all did it"; I don't believe anyone but her signed a legal document about electronic security however. So no biggie. This will wind up along the same rationalization we will see from Justice:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-department-audit-faults-hillary-143137030.html
-
From Breitbart:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/25/clinton-releases-plan-dissolve-us-border-within-100-days/
I ask:
Can anyone have any doubt whatsoever that the Clinton Foundation was a front for donations in return for favors when Hill was Sec. of State. If so put your doubts to rest with this:
Here she is giving the privilege of citizenship away to people who break our laws in return for votes that go to her political power. Cannot be any more blatant than this. Give away the rights and privileges of being American for power.
And yet the anti American, anti white, anti man, more free benefits crowd just doesn't care.
-
http://freebeacon.com/issues/terry-mcauliffe-involved-shady-deals-chinese-two-decades/
-
:-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-email-problems-just-got-much-worse/
-
This article looks slightly different. Notice that at the end of the article the author must point out nothing illegal was done. And as i predicted the lefts final fall back position: "let the voters decide". The Post just cannot brin g themselves to call for prosecution and for her to pack her bags. They just won't do it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html
They call her actions "inexcusable". Well if that is the case then why are they excusing her and leaving it for voters to decide?
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/26/report-hillary-clinton-and-staff-compromised-counterterrorism-ops-with-sloppy-communication/?singlepage=true
Report: Hillary Clinton and Staff Compromised Counterterrorism Ops With 'Sloppy Communication'
BY DEBRA HEINE MAY 26, 2016
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a United Food and Commercial Workers International union Legislative and Political Affairs conference, Thursday, May 26, 2016, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)
A new report suggests that at least two U.S. counterterrorism operations were compromised due to Hillary Clinton’s “sloppy communications with her senior staff" while she was secretary of State. Newsweek interviewed a retired military adviser for the unsubstantiated but plausible report.
Bill Johnson, who was the State Department’s political adviser to the special operations section of the U.S. Pacific Command, or PACOM, in 2010 and 2011, says secret plans to eliminate the leader of a Filipino Islamist separatist group and intercept Chinese-made weapons components being smuggled into Iraq were repeatedly foiled.
Johnson says he and his team eliminated the possibility of other security leaks before settling on the unprotected telephone calls of the secretary of state and her aides as the likely source—though he quickly adds they have “no proof.”
“I had several missions that went inexplicably wrong, with the targets one step ahead of us,” Johnson tells Newsweek in an exclusive interview.
Clinton’s spokesman Nick Merrill calls the allegations "patently false."
Johnson, a Bernie Sanders supporter who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, told Newsweek he had witnessed the sloppy communication habits of Clinton and her aides:
In January 2010, Clinton was in Honolulu to give a speech on the administration’s “pivot” to Asia when news of the Haiti earthquake broke. She retreated to the secure communications facility in the basement of Pacific Command headquarters to make calls to various military officials and humanitarian groups to help organize a response to the catastrophe. But she also “needed to talk to her senior staff on Mahogany Row,” her seventh-floor executive suite back in Washington, Johnson recalls.
The only problem: She did not readily have any secure telephone numbers or email addresses for her staff members because they were all using personal servers and phones. Security had prevented her traveling aides from bringing their personal cellphones into PACOM headquarters. They appealed to Johnson for an exception, but he refused, citing alarms and lockdowns that would be automatically triggered by any attempt to bring unauthorized signal-emitting units into the building.
Clinton came up with a work-around, Johnson says. “She had her aides go out, retrieve their phones and call the seventh floor from outside”—on open, unsecure lines, he says.
“My relationship with that group started downhill when I refused to let them bring phones and computers into my office [at the Special Operations Command],” Johnson recalls. “It was really an eye-opener to watch them stand outside using nonsecure comms [communications] and then bring messages to the secretary so she could then conduct a secure [call] with the military” and the State Department.
The State Department had no acting inspector general director from 2009 to 2013, freeing Clinton to flout existing rules regarding email communications with no oversight. According to the IG report that was formally released today, when staffers in 2010 expressed concerns about her email arrangement, they were blown off and told by a now retired official never to bring it up again.
The question of why she was more worried about what the American public could discover about her activities through FOIA than what hackers and foreign spies services could discover is a puzzle the FBI investigation is hopefully piecing together as part of their investigation. Former NSA analyst John Schindler at the New York Observer has some ideas about that.
Hints may be found in the recent announcement that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime Clinton intimate, is under FBI investigation for financial misdeeds, specifically dirty money coming from China. In fact, Mr. McAulliffe invited one of his Beijing benefactors over to Ms. Clinton’s house in 2013. Not long after, Chinese investors donated $2 million to the Clinton Foundation.
That an illegal pay-for-play-scheme, with donations to the Clinton Foundation being rewarded by political favors from Hillary Clinton—who when she was secretary of state had an enormous ability to grant favors to foreign bidders—existed at the heart of EmailGate has been widely suspected, and we know the FBI is investigating this case as political corruption, not just for mishandling of classified information. That certainly would be something Ms. Clinton would not have wanted the public to find out about via FOIA.
Schindler opines that it's "game over" for the Hillary Express now because the Democrat frontrunner has been seriously hobbled by the IG report. But the wounded Clinton campaign will limp on for a few more weeks until the FBI investigation is completed and their report comes out. Whether or not the attorney general decides to indict, that FBI report will likely be the coup de grace for Hillary.
-
Bill Clinton's Personal Aide -- With No Security Clearance -- Operated Hillary's Email Server
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on May 26, 2016
Buried in a footnote and text of the scathing report by the State Department's Inspector General (IG) about Hillary's emails is evidence that the private email server that carried America's top secret information to and from the Secretary of State was installed, maintained, and partially operated by a civilian aide to Bill Clinton who lacked any security clearance and did not even work for the government.
This extensive reliance on a close assistant to Bill Clinton raises questions about the handling of classified material by the Secretary of State. If General David Petraeus was held accountable to passing secret information to his biographer and mistress, what are we to make of the routine access to potentially all secret information granted to Hillary's husband's aide?
While not named in the report itself, the "non-Department" aide referred to is apparently Justin Cooper, longtime aide-de-camp to the former president. Cooper had no security clearance and no expertise whatsoever in safeguarding computers. He helped Bill Clinton research two of his books, frequently traveled with Clinton, was involved in Clinton Foundation fundraising, and, at the same time, worked for Teneo -- the sprawling investment banking, political consulting, and PR firm that started on Hillary's tenure. Teneo paid Bill Clinton, Huma Abedin, Doug Band, Justin Cooper. The firm was founded by two former State Department employees and then hired four more.
It was Cooper who initially opened and registered the private server and it was he who apparently maintained its security. But that wasn't the end of it.
The Inspector General report indicates that on two occasions, Cooper suspected that the server had been hacked and that, on one of them, he actually took it upon himself to shut the entire server down. (Hillary's aides deny that it was ever hacked, but emails from Cooper belie that assertion). Indeed, both hacking attempts came while Hillary was traveling abroad in locations of dubious security -- the UAE, Bosnia, Serbia and Algeria. Her server was especially vulnerable to hacking on her foreign travels when she carried and used her Blackberry which was linked to her server.
The IG Report states that on Jan. 9, 2011, the Bill Clinton aide who registered the clintonemail.com domain -- who was Justin Cooper -- "notified the Secretary's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations [Huma Abedin] that he had to shut down the server because he believed 'someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in I didn't [sic] want to let them have the chance to.'"
Cooper wrote another email to Abedin later in the day stating that, "We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min." Abedin emailed another top Clinton aide the next day urging them to not email "anything sensitive" to Clinton. She also offered to "explain more in person." Abedin did not report any of the hacking issues to anyone at the State department, as was required.
Cooper obviously had the authority, access, and ability to access and shut down the server used by State Department employees, diplomats, and ambassadors to communicate with the Secretary of State. And apparently the server was also used by Bill Clinton's aides for his business, as we reported last September.
The Clintons are very interested in Cooper's legal issues. Columnist Monica Crowley reported that the Clintons are now paying Cooper's legal bills. That's interesting, isn't it?
The "all in the family" approach of the Clintons to the operation of the private server makes a mockery of security. Not only could anyone with even minimal levels of skill hack into her server through her Blackberry (that she carried with her into high risk countries despite the explicit warnings of security officials that she wrote about in her own books), but an aide who worked for a former president, who was aggressively courting foreign countries for donations and for a private consulting firm soliciting foreign governments as clients had access to the State Department email server.
But the broader implications of the IG Report about Cooper's intimate connection with the Secretary of State's email server suggest that the Hillary and the former president operated an off-the-shelf rogue operation out of Bill Clinton's office -- and possibly the Clinton Foundation -- that had the potential access to all the government's secrets that passed through the Secretary of State.
Hillary went to great lengths to keep the server secret and out of the reach of the State Department and the Freedom of Information Act.
What's even more astounding is that Bryan Pagliano, who is obviously the second "technical adviser, "a political appointee" of the Secretary referred to in the Report, kept his work on the Secretary's server a dark secret from his State Department bosses.
Remember, Pagliano was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in exchange for his testimony.
But whatever he actually did for Hillary was on the QT, because according to the Report, his direct supervisors said: "they did not know that he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary's email system during working hours. They also told the IG that they questioned whether he could support a private client during working hours, given his capacity as a full time employee."
Yet Hillary's attorney, David Kendall, said that Pagliano performed technical assistance for the Clinton family and was compensated in various amounts at various times by wire or check.
So what was he doing?
This massive conflict of interest opens up an important new line of investigation: Did Cooper -- or anyone else in the Bill Clinton orbit -- access any of the actual emails, and, if so, did they share the content with Bill Clinton or anyone at Teneo? These are the kind of questions that the indiscriminate sharing of the email server with the Clintons' entire official family invites.
The OIG Report raises lots of questions beyond its unequivocal conclusion that Hillary did not seek permission for the use of a private email server and would not have been granted permission in any event. Moreover, the Report certifies that she violated Federal Records requirements and failed to protect the server from cyber strikes.
The Report verifies what we already knew: Hillary is a chronic liar who deliberately lied about her email server cover-up.
Let's hope the FBI picks up where the OIG left off.
******
Molon Labe
-
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/05/did-the-clinton-email-server-have-an-internet-based-printer/
Keep in mind that if any of us did this, we would be sitting in a cell right now.
-
The Worst Thing in Hillary’s Email Report
Originally published at the Washington Times
It’s difficult to choose the most disturbing aspect of the State Department Inspector General’s report this week on Hillary Clinton’s email practices, but near the top of the list must surely be this: virtually everything Clinton has said about her email has been a lie, and she knew it all the time.
Her first explanation was that she set up the secret server in her private home as “a matter of convenience” so she didn’t have to carry two devices.
Then she told us she was “not willing to say it was an error in judgment because...nothing that I did was wrong. It was not – it was not in any way prohibited.”
The whole thing, she promised, was “fully above board.”
“The truth is” she told CNN, “everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure if the State Department didn't capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them.”
And there was no indication, she assured us, that the server was ever hacked. “Not at all.”
Now, with the State Department IG report, we know it was all untrue. And Hillary knew it when she went on TV and said those things -- lying to us again and again.
Contrary to Clinton’s claims that she set up her complicated server scheme to avoid carrying two phones, the Inspector General’s report proves that it really had nothing to do with “convenience,” and everything to do with avoiding public disclosure of her emails. The report shows that when Huma Abedin, the Secretary’s deputy chief of staff, suggested “putting you [Hillary] on state email...”, Hillary responded, “Let’s get a separate address or [second] device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.” In other words, her priority wasn’t to limit the number of phone she carried, but to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests.
That arrangement certainly was not “fully above board” nor was it “permitted,” according to the IG report. The IG states flatly, “She did not comply with the [State] Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” Instead, her practices were “not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record.” So much for her claim that “nothing that [she] did was wrong.”
Clinton was equally dishonest when she said she “went above and beyond” and “[made] sure if the State Department didn’t capture something, [she] made a real effort to get it to them.” As the IG report points out, “Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete.” For instance, she has produced no emails at all from her first several months in office -- “from January 21, 2009, to March 17, 2009 for received messages; and from January 21, 2009 to April 12, 2009 for sent messages” -- even though we know she was using email during that period. This months-long gap is in addition to the roughly 30,000 supposedly “personal” emails that Clinton deleted before handing the rest over to the State Department nearly two years after she left office.
Finally, the report revealed that despite Hillary’s insistence that her server was not hacked, she was in fact aware of repeated attacks on it. The server administrator, who worked for Clinton personally, advised Clinton aide Huma Abedin that “he had to shut down the server because he believed ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in I didnt want to let them have the chance to.’ Later that day, the advisor again wrote to [Abedin], ‘We were attacked again so I shut [the server] down for a few min.’”
The next day, according to the IG report, Abedin “emailed the Chief of Staff and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Planning and instructed them not to email the Secretary ‘anything sensitive’ and stated that she could ‘explain more in person.’” This suggests Clinton and her aides were at the very least seriously concerned that the server could have been hacked -- far from having “no indication” that it might have been.
The fact that virtually everything Clinton has said about her secretive email system has proved to be a lie is probably no big surprise to the American people. In a recent Quinnipiac poll, the word most mentioned by respondents in association with Hillary Clinton was “liar.” The runners up were “dishonest” and “untrustworthy” -- offered by a combined 394 people. The next most common term, “experience,” was offered by 82.
But while the lies revealed in the Inspector General’s report may not be surprising, they do deal with sensitive issues of national security -- and that should be disqualifying for the job of commander-in-chief.
A normal person would be chastened by such a report. Having everything he or she said revealed as a lie might elicit some apology, for “an error in judgement” at the very least. But then again, a normal person would never have had such reckless disdain for the law to begin with, nor continued the dishonesty when caught. So now we watch uncomfortably, as Hillary goes on lying about lying -- as if we didn’t already know.
Your Friend,
Newt
-
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=245244612504426&set=a.109079146120974.1073741827.100010566667295&type=3&theater
-
I am only surprised that 30% of Republicans say she should stay in election bid if she is indicted. Possible reasons could be they hate Trump more, they are lying, or they feel her staying in the race is good for Trump. As for the others I am not surprised that obvious multiple offenses are not important. She will have to literally be dragged off the stage kicking and screaming by her feet by Federal agents to get her to shut up and leave us alone:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicted
-
2nd post today
Former IG of State Department points out there was no IG of State when Clinton was there:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/31/former-state-dept-watchdog-debunks-central-clinton-email-claim.html
Yet the appointment of one should have been made as mandated by Congress:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Inspector_General_of_the_Department_of_State
Obviously Clinton for some reason did not have one as mandated by Congress. How come? How did she get around this?
-
http://www.downvids.net/demopocalypse-jon-stewart-comes-out-of-retirement-813527.html
-
https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/1058264634212454/
-
https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/1058264634212454/
From that video, as I saw it,
They had a lineup of liberals and they all agreed she lied.
Inspector General report concluded she violated the Federal Records Act by not turning over all official emails when she left office. There was no evidence she ever asked for or received permission to use her personal server for official business.
All these sympathetic journalists agreed they don't know how she goes forward politically.
Chuck Todd, host of Meet the Press, 'said she couldn't be confirmed as Attorney General right now'.
Hillary Clinton: "I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible."
But her personal was official business, repeatedly intertwining her foundation activities with US government business.
-
"said she couldn't be confirmed as Attorney General right now"
but nothing stopping her from running for president, even if indicted and even if prosecuted. Hey she could be not only the first woman but the first felon. She could run her mafia org from jail.
Even Presidency. Home arrest in the White House, if as John Podesta pleads - *the people decide*
Nothing in the Constitution about that.
-
"said she couldn't be confirmed as Attorney General right now"
but nothing stopping her from running for president, even if indicted and even if prosecuted. Hey she could be not only the first woman but the first felon. She could run her mafia org from jail.
Even Presidency. Home arrest in the White House, if as John Podesta pleads - *the people decide*
Nothing in the Constitution about that.
If elected, she could pardon herself and the whole Clinton-Abedin crime family.
-
"If elected, she could pardon herself and the whole Clinton-Abedin crime family."
Good point. And of course she would too. And evn more, she would appoint the next party hack liberal Supreme Court Justice to stack the court, and so the inevitable Supreme Court challenge would be squashed by the liberal justices who ALWAYS vote with the Democrat Part when push comes to shove.
-
OTOH, , , if Trump is elected , , , :evil: :evil: :evil:
-
While I generally like Ali I cannot forget the rest of his story. His conversion to Islam was in my interpretation not some love for a religion but a statement. A statement that says f you America.
Fitting how one draft dodger will eulogize the other.
I remember Rush Limbaugh commenting on Clinton's stating to Ali when he lighted the '96 Olympics that the nation had reconciled with him as to what a *self serving" statement that really was.
Now the king of self service is at it again:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/president-bill-clinton-give-eulogy-muhammad-ali-interfaith/story?id=39611189
-
Hillary University: Bill Clinton Bagged $16.46 Million from For-Profit College as State Dept. Funneled $55 Million Back
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/
With her campaign sinking in the polls, Hillary Clinton has launched a desperate attack against Trump University to deflect attention away from her deep involvement with a controversial for-profit college that made the Clintons millions, even as the school faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations.
In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation. Progressive billionaire George Soros is also a Laureate financial backer.
As the Washington Post reports, “Laureate has stirred controversy throughout Latin America, where it derives two-thirds of its revenue.” During Bill Clinton’s tenure as Laureate’s chancellor, the school spent over $200 million a year on aggressive telemarketing, flashy Internet banner ads, and billboards designed to lure often unprepared students from impoverished countries to enroll in its for-profit classes. The goal: get as many students, regardless of skill level, signed up and paying tuition.
“I meet people all the time who transfer here when they flunk out elsewhere,” agronomy student Arturo Bisono, 25, told the Post. “This has become the place you go when no one else will accept you.”
Others, like Rio state legislator Robson Leite who led a probe into Bill Clinton’s embattled for-profit education scheme, say the company is all about extracting cash, not educating students. “They have turned education into a commodity that focuses more on profit than knowledge,” said Leite.
Progressives have long excoriated for-profit education companies for placing profits over quality pedagogy. Still, for five years, Bill Clinton allowed his face and name to be plastered all over Laureate’s marketing materials. As Clinton Cash reported, pictures of Bill Clinton even lined the walkways at campuses like Laureate’s Bilgi University in Istanbul, Turkey. That Laureate has campuses in Turkey is odd, given that for-profit colleges are illegal there, as well as in Mexico and Chile where Laureate also operates.
Shortly after Bill Clinton’s lucrative 2010 Laureate appointment, Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. began pumping millions of its USAID dollars to a sister nonprofit, International Youth Foundation (IYF), which is run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker. Indeed, State Dept. funding skyrocketed once Bill Clinton got on the Laureate payroll, according to Bloomberg:
A Bloomberg examination of IYF’s public filings show that in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.
Throughout ten Democratic Party debates, Establishment Media have not asked Hillary Clinton a single question about she and her husband’s for-profit education scam.
-
She is a lawyer, right?
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/06/05/watch-hillary-refuses-say-right-to-bear-arms-is-a-constitutional-right/
Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton refused to say conclusively the Second Amendment is a constitutional right and that it “is subject to reasonable regulations.”
Partial transcript as follows:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s talk about the Second Amendment. As you know Donald Trump has been out on the stump talking about the Second Amendment saying you want ti abolish the Second Amendment. I know you reject that but a specific question, do you believe an individual’s right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?
CLINTON: I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right as we do with every Amendment to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have commonsense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment. And, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90% of the American people and more than 75% of responsible gun owners. So that is exactly what I think is Constitutionally permissible. And once again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background check, closing the gun show loophole, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done and it is in my view consistent with the Constitution.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And the Heller decision also says there can be some restricts but that’s not what I asked. Do you believe their conclusion an individual’s right to bear arms is a Constitutional right?
CLINTON: If it is a Constitutional right, then it like every other Constitutional right is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic where some of the earliest laws were about firearms. So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say as i do responsible gun owners have a right — I have no objection to that — but the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.”
-
I read this too. I just do not see the law enforced as it obviously should be and her taken away in handcuffs.
Some sort of plea or other type of deal is probably already planned the second tier option behind the JD simply finding some other way not to go after her.
Obamster is out in force for her and his ideology. He like Clintons will just never go away.
-
I read this too, [Hillary college kickbacks]. I just do not see the law enforced as it obviously should be and her taken away in handcuffs.
Some sort of plea or other type of deal is probably already planned the second tier option behind the JD simply finding some other way not to go after her.
Obamster is out in force for her and his ideology. He like Clintons will just never go away.
Agree. All we can do is spread the word ourselves.
------------------------------------------------------------
What was in the documents Sandy Burglar took?
This is getting more and more relevant.
(Hard to believe he died in Dec 2025. Something in the water?)
Rush L:
you know what those documents contained? Elements of evidence that Al-Qaeda was in the country in 1999! It's all part of this millennium plot that the Clinton administration tried to take a lot of credit for stopping when in fact it was just good police work by a single Customs agent. It was not the result of any directive.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/12/21/what_was_in_documents_sandy_burglar
-
Hillary On The Ropes
By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, June 1, 2016
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a yearlong investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Mrs. Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.
The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.
The inspector general interviewed Mrs. Clinton’s three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Mrs. Clinton, none used a private server and, though Gen. Powell and Miss Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets.
Mrs. Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she “can’t wait” to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.
The inspector general’s report is damning to Mrs. Clinton. It refutes every defense she has offered to the allegation that she mishandled state secrets. It revealed an email that hadn’t been publicly made known showing Mrs. Clinton’s state of mind. And it paints a picture of a self-isolated secretary of state stubbornly refusing to comply with federal law for venal reasons; she simply did not want to be held accountable for her official behavior.
The report rejects Mrs. Clinton’s argument that her use of a private server “was allowed.” The report makes clear that it was not allowed, nor did she seek permission to use it. She did not inform the FBI, which had tutored her on the lawful handling of state secrets, and she did not inform her own State Department information technology folks.
The report also makes clear that had she sought permission to use her own server as the instrument through which all of her email traffic passed, such a request would have been flatly denied.
In addition, the report rejects her argument — already debunked by the director of the FBI — that the FBI is merely conducting a security review of the State Department’s email storage and usage policies rather than a criminal investigation of her. The FBI does not conduct security reviews. The inspector general does. This report is the result of that review, and Mrs. Clinton flunked it, as it reveals that she refused to comply with the same State Department storage and transparency regulations she was enforcing against others.
Here is what is new publicly: When her private server was down and her BlackBerry immobilized for days at a time, she refused to use a government-issued BlackBerry because of her fear of the Freedom of Information Act. She preferred to go dark, or back to the 19th-century technology of having documents read aloud to her.
This report continues the cascade of legal misery that has befallen her in the past eight months. The State Department she once headed has rejected all of her arguments. Two federal judges have ordered her aides to testify about a conspiracy in her office to evade federal laws. She now awaits an interrogation by impatient FBI agents, which will take place soon after the New Jersey and California primaries next week. Her legal status can only be described as grave or worse than grave.
We know that Mrs. Clinton’s own camp finally recognizes just how dangerous this email controversy has become for her. Over the Memorial Day weekend, John Podesta, the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, sent an email to her most important donors. In it, he recognizes the need to arm the donors with talking points to address Mrs. Clinton’s rapidly deteriorating support with Democratic primary voters.
The Podesta email suggests attempting to minimize Mrs. Clinton’s use of her private server by comparing it to Gen. Powell’s occasional use of his personal email account. This is a risky and faulty comparison. None of Gen. Powell’s emails from his private account — only two or three dozen — contained matters that were confidential, secret or top-secret.
Mrs. Clinton diverted all of her email traffic to her private server — some 66,000 emails, about 2,200 of which contained state secrets. Moreover, Gen. Powell never used his own server, nor is he presently seeking to become the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land.
The inspector general who wrote the report was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2013, after Mrs. Clinton left office. He did a commendable job — one so thorough and enlightening that it has highlighted the important role that inspectors general play in government today.
Today every department in the executive branch has, by law, an inspector general in place who has the authority to investigate the department — keeping officials’ feet to the fire by exposing failure to comply with federal law.
If you are curious as to why the inspector general of the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s years as secretary did not discover all of Mrs. Clinton’s lawbreaking while she was doing it, the answer will alarm but probably not surprise you.
There was no inspector general at the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary — a state of affairs unique in modern history; and she knew that. How much more knowledge of her manipulations will the Justice Department tolerate before enforcing the law?
• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of seven books on the U.S. Constitution.
-
"There was no inspector general at the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary — a state of affairs unique in modern history; and she knew that. How much more knowledge of her manipulations will the Justice Department tolerate before enforcing the law?"
I brought this up in a previous post. Well why is THIS FACT also not a crime of hers. She, or someone at State was supposed to appoint an IG by Congressional statute.
From my post of May 31st:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Inspector_General_of_the_Department_of_State
Being the smartest lawyer who ever lived she was confused about the rules?
Judge N is great. I really enjoy his analyses . He is brilliant ...
But he leaves out the fact that unless the controlling legal authority fails to act and soon she could be President and pardon herself. All the time using Clinton Mafia money to pay the best legal defense lawyers on the planet.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Inspector_General_of_the_Department_of_State
-
second post
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/05/hillary-clinton-private-email-endangered-life-physical-safety/
-
What does "EDC" stand for?
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-07/hillary-clinton-talks-about-inequality-jacket-cost-more-new-car
Woman of the people.
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-07/hillary-clinton-talks-about-inequality-jacket-cost-more-new-car
Woman of the people.
1. She is the world's worst possible choice for spokesperson of that cause. Total hypocrisy.
2. She is doing it only to pander to Bernie-type voters. It's not something that bother's her. Obviously she's comfortable hanging with the 1%, guarding their interests, being one of them.
3. The substance and content of that position needs to be called out and soundly defeated regardless. For example, please see Larry Elder, On Inequality, http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1023.msg96504#msg96504
The idea that we can 'defeat' inequality is nonsense.
4. Recognize this for what it is, one of those magical domestic issues like poverty, racism, homelessness, that the worse they can make it, the more we need them to 'do more'. This is right out of whatever leftist playbook you may follow, Alinsky, Ayers, Carville, Reich.
5. The math and facts behind the issue are worse than for climate change. Everything from Census Data that excludes the income of the poor to Thomas Piketty's flawed studies are manufactured for deception and thoroughly debunked IMHO on these pages in the forum.
6. If we has total and complete economic equality, as much as it is possible, we would all be poor and power would still be concentrated in the hands of less than the 1%. See Chavez, Maduro, Castro, Breznev, Kim Jong-un.
-
Hillary Clinton has a decades-long documented history of dishonesty and outright disregard for the law. Let's not forget that she was kicked off the subcommittee investigating Watergate by a DEMOCRAT, who called her "extremely dishonest." That the press has covered for her all these years is despicable. Donald Trump is correct that she should not even be eligible to run for President considering her history. What she has done makes what Richard Nixon did pale in comparison - and yet he was crucified in the press and in the court of public opinion for those relatively minor offenses. How far we have sunk as a nation from a moral sense when 70% of Democrats believe that Hillary should continue to run EVEN IF SHE IS INDICTED.
I personally find the oft-repeated refrain that Trump is equally as bad as Hillary both laughable and disgusting. A Hillary presidency would consign this nation to a 4 or 8-year continuation of Barack Obama's policies, from which we would never recover in our lifetimes. That the anti-Trumpers can't see this obvious fact and see the obvious and easy choice to be made between the two bodes very badly for the future of this country.
-
EDC= Empress Dowager of Chappaqua
-
"EDC= Empress Dowager of Chappaqua"
So you agree that EDC was by law supposed to appoint an inspector general but did not ?
So wh¥ is that not a clear violation of law in addition to all the others?
-
"How far we have sunk as a nation from a moral sense when 70% of Democrats believe that Hillary should continue to run EVEN IF SHE IS INDICTED."
Half the country including myself agree with this. Some portion of the other 50
% (~ 1/3?) also agree but will vote for her because they will not vote Republican and the rest could care less because they are all in on her mafia organization.
In any case there is no controlling legal authority that will do anything about it at this time. Obama won't. The AG won't.
I still guess there will be some sort of deal made to get her off. Like with no admittance of wrong doing, just mistakes or at most carelessness, maybe be disbarred , take a national security class, fine, or whatever slap on the wrist General Patraeus got . And he was finally let off in anticipation of letting her off easy. It was the setup for her.
Yup, all just so sickening.
-
EDC= Empress Dowager of Chappaqua
Dowager: Power derived from her husband.
From Chappaqua, her hometown, lol. She was in government housing so long she couldn't remember where she's from. She didn't want to go back to Chicago or Little Rock and DC doesn't have Senators.
---------------------------------------
Trump hopes western PA is Trump country. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin and his wife, Kiya, a fashion designer, will host a private fundraiser for Clinton at their home Tuesday afternoon. According to an invitation, attendees will donate $10,000 to $34,000 each to hear Clinton discuss her (indictments?) candidacy.
http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/10600024-74/pittsburgh-trump-rally
Sorry, I don't associate Steelers fans with Hillary supporters.
-
"Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin and his wife, Kiya, a fashion designer, will host a private fundraiser for Clinton at their home Tuesday afternoon."
Naturally the wife will be happy to donate a high end wardrobe that is oked by Hillary's marketing team for her to wear on the red carpet.
All her jackets look Maoist these days.
I am sure Hillary will in kind say that Pittsburg is her favorite team and she follows them during season.
-
Obama is now endorsing Hill, Sanders out and Warren's name as well as a few other floated as VP possibilities to see public reaction. Whoever gets most reaction wins. Hillary sits and smugly answers Bret Baeir's question that she is 100% sure the email thing will not be a problem. "I would like to wrap this up and put this behind me" (or something like that she said recently)
Exactly how the Democrats will get this wrapped up is the only question, not if. Cal may be right. It may simply be a pardon by Obama. My guess is that he will not even he put in that position.
All of us here knew in our hearts this would happen. But there was always (false) hope, like a terminal cancer patient grasping on straws, that finally, finally someone who is a controlling legal authority would have enough courage and honesty to see that justice is served and this serial criminal gets punished.
***Cal Thomas
By Cal Thomas
Published June 7, 2016
image: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/carics/hillary_extradition.jpg?ref=relatedBox
Some believe that soon after Tuesday's final presidential primaries the FBI will interview Hillary Clinton about her handling of emails while she was secretary of state. What comes next is the subject of much speculation.
One of the better speculators is Bradley Blakeman, who served as a member of President George W. Bush's White House staff.
We spoke in the "green room" at Fox News before our separate interviews. The following is culled from our conversation.
Blakeman says the FBI has deliberately waited to interview Hillary Clinton until after the primaries because the bureau did not want to interfere with the nominating process. He thinks the FBI is "likely" to recommend to the Department of Justice whether or not she should be indicted for violating what she says are agency rules and what others call the law between now and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which begins July 25.
If she is indicted before the convention, Blakeman says, it will give the party an opportunity to make changes in the rules that could result in an alternate nominee.
Here is the intriguing part about Blakeman's scenario: "If a grand jury is empaneled, or if she were to be indicted before the convention, the Democrats would have to let her go." If an indictment were to come after the convention, he says, it presents a different problem because each state needs to certify their ballots before November. If an indictment occurs after the states have certified their ballots, it would be nearly impossible to replace Hillary Clinton with another candidate.
Here's where things might get even more interesting. In states where ballots have been certified, the party would have to go to court to ask that Clinton's name be replaced. "They also have another problem," says Blakeman. "Once the convention ends, how do they reconvene to substitute Hillary? They have no rules for that."
What if a court denies a ballot change? Blakeman says the Supreme Court would almost certainly have to decide. That might look to many like a replay of the 2000 election in which the court certified Florida's vote count, awarding the state's electoral votes -- and the election -- to George W. Bush.
But what if the court -- with its one vacancy -- divides 4-4? In that case, the lower court ruling would prevail and if that court decided to strike Hillary Clinton's name from the ballot, a write-in would be the only option.
"Timing is not on Hillary's side," says Blakeman, who thinks "the silver lining for Hillary is that, if she were indicted, there is no doubt Obama would pardon her on January 19 as he walks out the door. She will never have to answer for her crimes."
What about any others who might be indicted, such as top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills? If they are indicted, but not pardoned by the president, will they go public? It's the stuff of big book contracts.
Should any of these scenarios prove true, as Blakeman thinks they might, President Obama, unlike President Ford and his pardon of Richard Nixon, will never have to face the voters and be held accountable for his action.
In this unpredictable election season, any one -- or all -- of these scenarios are possibilities, including the ultimate scenario: the delegates turning to Vice President Joe Biden to save them from Hillary and defeat in November.***
-
In Hillary's defense, without her, Bill would probably be the top used car salesman in Little Rock. And/or a registered sex offender.
EDC= Empress Dowager of Chappaqua
Dowager: Power derived from her husband.
From Chappaqua, her hometown, lol. She was in government housing so long she couldn't remember where she's from. She didn't want to go back to Chicago or Little Rock and DC doesn't have Senators.
---------------------------------------
Trump hopes western PA is Trump country. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin and his wife, Kiya, a fashion designer, will host a private fundraiser for Clinton at their home Tuesday afternoon. According to an invitation, attendees will donate $10,000 to $34,000 each to hear Clinton discuss her (indictments?) candidacy.
http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/10600024-74/pittsburgh-trump-rally
Sorry, I don't associate Steelers fans with Hillary supporters.
-
In Hillary's defense, without her, Bill would probably be the top used car salesman in Little Rock. And/or a registered sex offender.
True. One helliva team. Her political instincts have been wrong about almost everything. Still the best the Dems have found since Bill and Barack.
If she is the smartest woman in the world, that's no way to talk about the rest.
-
Fox News had Clinton surrogate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on, (auditioning for VP).
She turned all Hillary questions back to Trump as gracefully as she could.
Brett Baier asked her about the Hillary University dollars scandal. She said, "well I don't know anything about that."
But she did. They laid out all the facts on the screen, amounts of payments, timing of payments, etc. 16.5 million from the University to the Clintons. 55 million from the US taxpayer to the University, a good part of it from the State Department UNDER HER WATCH.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/
What she meant was, no one could have an answer for that except to say Donald Trump is worse. But Donald Trump didn't do anything like THAT and he isn't under FBI inquiry.
-
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/crime/2016/06/12/who-omar-mateen/85791280/
A former Fort Pierce police officer who once worked with 29-year-old Omar Mateen, the assailant in an Orlando nightclub shooting that left at least 50 dead, said he was "unhinged and unstable."
Daniel Gilroy said he worked the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift with G4S Security at the south gate at PGA Village for several months in 2014-15. Mateen took over from him for a 3 to 11 p.m. shift.
Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim. Gilroy quit after he said Mateen began stalking him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day. He also sent Gilroy 13 to 15 phone messages a day, he said.
FLORIDA TODAY
Orlando shooting is deadliest in U.S. history
"I quit because everything he said was toxic," Gilroy said Sunday, "and the company wouldn't do anything. This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people."
Gilroy said this shooting didn't come as a surprise to him.
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/tumblr_o8o7rlyxck1r7p8tto1_1280.jpg?w=500&h=334)
https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/tumblr_o8o7rlyxck1r7p8tto1_1280.jpg?w=500&h=334
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/obama-admin-promises-clinton-email-dump-on-a-day-that-doesnt-exist/
http://www.elderstatement.com/2016/06/julian-assange-wikileaks-plans-to.html
-
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/clinton-email-scandal-imminent-document-leak-enough-to-indict-her/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/judge-confirms-criminal-probe-clinton-emails/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRGa1pUQmhNamt6WW1JMyIsInQiOiJINENla2V1ZnpSanBic2J2TWNES3JHSU4wRGU0VFNUWEdUczRwTDZkRDVQQ3dNN3c3YXozR0lITnFFRFRjVDNiY3JaaFhzZFFGdTRxYWRSOHExeGRkTUpTMktudm16WCtCdERKYnFWZ3RpVT0ifQ%3D%3D
-
DNC Researched Clinton Speeches, Travel Records
Hacked documents are latest leaked by "Guccifer 2.0"
JUNE 21--The latest document dump from “Guccifer 2.0,” the hacker who breached the Democratic National Committee’s servers, shows that party officials have researched Hillary Clinton’s prior travel on private jets, the Clinton Foundation’s investments, and the Democratic presidential candidate’s speech contracts.
The hacker this morning began distributing more than 250 files--totaling thousands of pages of records--that appear to have been prepared by DNC research staff.
In e-mails to TSG, “Guccifer 2.0” claimed to be from Romania (like “Guccifer”) and portrayed himself as a “hacktivist” with “a lot of fans” and an “unknown hacker with a laptop.” He also chafed at TSG’s prior description of him as a felon. “Ok, but stop calling me the vandal. I'm not a criminal I'm a freedom fighter,” the hacker wrote.
As for the DNC’s claim that the breach was the work of Russian intelligence agents, “Guccifer 2.0” dismissed the assertion as a “Total fail!!!” In recent correspondence, the hacker has used an AOL France e-mail account.
The bulk of the material released today centers on Clinton’s position on scores of domestic and international issues and criticisms leveled against her by assorted opponents. The documents include Clinton’s counterarguments to those attacks from Republican officials and other foes.
Along with Clinton’s tax returns, personal financial disclosure reports, and U.S. Senate travel records, the DNC dossier included copies of contract documents related to the presidential candidate’s paid speeches.
In addition to a “standard” $225,000 fee, Clinton required a “chartered roundtrip private jet” that needed to be a Gulfstream 450 or a larger aircraft. Depending on its outfitting, the Gulfstream jet, which costs upwards of $40 million, can seat 19 passengers and “sleeps up to six.” Clinton’s contract also stipulated that speech hosts had to pay for separate first class or business airfare for three of her aides.
As for lodging, Clinton required “a presidential suite” and up to “three (3) adjoining or contiguous rooms for her travel aides” and up to two extra rooms for advance staff. The host was also responsible for the Clinton travel party’s ground transportation, meals, and “phone charges/cell phones.”
Additionally, the host also had to pay “a flat fee of $1000” for a stenographer to create “an immediate transcript of Secretary Clinton’s remarks.” The contract adds, however, “We will be unable to share a copy of the transcript following the event.” (3 pages)
-
Is this the purse she carries her *Bible* and *hot sauce* in:
https://www.yahoo.com/style/hillary-clintons-3500-purse-overshadows-birth-142002877.html
-
Liar, Liar Pantsuit On Fire
And with Donald Trump's renewed focus, is the comeuppance of economically illiterate "Crooked Hillary" at hand?
June 23, 2016
Matthew Vadum
Hillary Clinton's bizarre claim that billionaire businessman Donald Trump will cause a recession if elected to the presidency was overshadowed yesterday as Trump took deadly aim at the pathological liar's horrifying public service track record.
For her part, Clinton glibly dismissed Trump.
"As I said yesterday in Ohio, Donald Trump offers no real solutions for the economic challenges we face," Clinton said in a speech to the faithful in Raleigh, N.C. "He just continues to spout reckless ideas that will run up our debt and cause another economic crash."
Around the same time, Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, laid into "Crooked Hillary" with a vigor and focus that Americans haven't seen for a while. Trump's speech, in which he accurately described Clinton as a "world-class liar," was very well received and is making left-wing pundits nervous -- for good reason.
Unlike Trump's address, Clinton's speech was a carefully constructed alternate reality held together by a tissue of leftist lies. Clinton's oration was an economically illiterate catalog of hoary Marxist cliches, or as Dr. Bob Shillman quipped, "liar, liar, pantsuit on fire."
Clinton offered a vague outline of her disastrous socialistic economic agenda, largely a continuation of President Obama's anti-growth policies and tainted as it is by a focus on so-called social justice objectives at the expense of economic growth and individual rights.
She spoke nonsensically of "growth that’s strong, fair, and lasting ... that reduces inequality, increases upward mobility, that reaches into every corner of our country." To keep her union thugs happy, Clinton vowed to "say no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership," and no to the "assault on the right to organize and bargain collectively."
Ignoring the fact that she served front and center in a radically left-wing administration that over the last nearly seven and a half years has presided over the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, Clinton promised "to make this economy work for everybody ... building it from the ground up, from every home and every community, all the way to Washington."
Leftists like Hillary enjoy anthropomorphizing inanimate objects and abstract concepts because they can't win policy arguments on the merits. They prefer fabricating monsters they can slay.
Guns and gas-guzzling SUVs "kill" people, they routinely claim as if machines were sentient, volitional beings. To them the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times. And like their cousins the Keynesians, they treat the economy like a circus animal that can be manipulated and taught tricks, instead of as the product of billions of individual decisions made every day by producers and consumers.
Clinton dredged up one of the Left's favorite and most insidious talking points, declaring "it is way past time for us to guarantee equal pay for women."
The fanciful claim that women earn less than men will probably never die because it is essential to the Left's narrative that America is inherently unfair. Of course comparing men's wages to women's wages is like comparing apples to oranges. Women pull in less money because they tend to opt for more humanities and fewer science and math majors in college. Owing to family and child-rearing obligations, women as a group also tend not to work the long hours that men work.
Critiquing President Obama's claim that women earn just 77 cents for every dollar men earn, the Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote in 2013 that the 77-cent figure "is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men."
"Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's," she wrote. "In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more: 108 cents on a man's dollar."
The feminist fabulist continued spinning yarns.
"Excessive inequalities such as we have today reduces economic growth," Clinton said, pretending she likes the market economy. "Markets work best when all the stakeholders share in the benefits," she said, paying homage to candidate Obama's mantra that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
"There are great ideas out there," Clinton said. "And we are going to be partners in a big, bold effort to increase economic growth and distribute it more fairly, to build that economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top." The "Wall Street corporations and the super rich," also known as her most ardent supporters, must be made to "pay their fair share of taxes."
She promised to "make college debt-free for all" and to "rewrite the rules so more companies share profits with their employers and few ship profits and jobs overseas."
Clinton defended the international cash-for-future-presidential-favors trading platform known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. She belittled Trump for highlighting the corruption endemic to the enterprise that is primarily devoted to enriching the Clinton family.
Trump is trying "to distract us" by "attacking a philanthropic foundation that saves and improves lives around the world," she said with a straight face. "It's no surprise he doesn't understand these things."
The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore dismantled what he called Clinton's "Twilight Zone" grab bag of proposals. A related speech Hillary gave the previous day "was vacant of ANY ideas at all about how to help the economy. The left's idea cupboard is entirely empty. "
Moore mocked her claim that here "in America we pay our bills," a reference to what he called "Trump's sensible idea of refinancing out debt to lock in historically low interest rates." The Obama administration in which Clinton served has generated some $8 trillion of new debt, which is hardly "paying the bills."
"It's passing them on to the next generation," Moore wrote.
Clinton's claim that Trump doesn't understand the new economy and job creation, is "a bold claim since Donald Trump is a highly successful businessman who actually has created thousands of jobs, while Hillary has gotten rich off of... politics."
Moore continued:
"The class warfare theme ran throughout the speech, and yet this presents Hillary with another uncomfortable problem. Obama has raised the minimum wage, he already did spent $830 billion on infrastructure stimulus spending, and he has taxed the bejesus out of the rich. And the result wasn't more equality and a resurgent middle class, but an angry and worried worker class that hasn't seen a pay raise in 15 years and with household incomes in the last seven years that have fallen behind inflation. Some 95 million Americans aren't working and the poverty rate is still hellishly high."
Clinton "is selling the American voters sand in the desert: four more years of stay the course economic bromides at a time when two out of three voters say that the U.S. is on the wrong, not the right track."
Trump fired back at Hillary yesterday, hitting her hard enough that Clinton worshippers are getting anxious.
Slate's Michelle Goldberg lamented that the tide may be turning against the Benghazi bungler Trump paints as a corrupt, money-grubbing, political hack. Crestfallen, the diehard leftist called Trump's Wednesday speech on Clinton's record dishonest and demagogic but "terrifyingly effective" and "probably the most unnervingly effective" speech the man has ever given.
"In a momentary display of discipline, he read from a teleprompter with virtually no ad-libbing, avoiding digs at Bill Clinton’s infidelity or conspiracy theories about Vince Foster’s suicide," speaking "for 40 minutes without saying anything overtly sexist." Instead, he took aim at "Clinton’s most-serious weaknesses, describing her as a venal tool of the establishment."
“Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs and effectively let China completely rebuild itself,” Trump said. “In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!” He added, “She gets rich making you poor,” and declared her possibly “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”
Goldberg treated Trump's address as brilliant performance art in which he "interwove truth and falsehood into a plausible-seeming picture meant to reinforce listeners' underlying beliefs."
Pretending her readers were complete idiots ignorant of Hillary's history, Goldberg wheeled out Washington establishment yes man David Gergen to denounce what he called Trump's "slanderous speech." On CNN an animated Gergen made a fool of himself by castigating Trump for relying on the exhaustively documented allegations of graft and corruption in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by acclaimed best-selling author Peter Schweizer.
Regurgitating the self-serving nonsense peddled by leftist slander shop Media Matters for America, the "conservative misinformation" monitor that Hillary herself takes credit for founding, Gergen said that the "book has been basically discredited."
Not so. In fact, the New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Bloomberg, Reuters, ABC News, and CBS News have all confirmed several key details in Clinton Cash, investigative reporter Matthew Boyle points out.
Gergen added, "I'm sorry, at this level, you can't slander somebody."
Why Gergen has attained such prominence at this level in the Washington punditocracy is unclear.
What is clear is that he seems to know nothing about the Clinton family and has been asleep throughout Barack Obama's Saul Alinsky-inspired presidency.
-
"The fanciful claim that women earn less than men will probably never die because it is essential to the Left's narrative that America is inherently unfair. Of course comparing men's wages to women's wages is like comparing apples to oranges. Women pull in less money because they tend to opt for more humanities and fewer science and math majors in college. Owing to family and child-rearing obligations, women as a group also tend not to work the long hours that men work."
I can tell you that is absolutely true in the health field.
Do private and public health insurances pay less for doctors who have female genitalia?
Do hospitals pay female nurses less then male nurses because of sex?
Another fraud claim.
-
This could go under "humor WTF" thread . Look specifically at the third picture down. All I can think of is "2,000" later:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/see-first-photos-chelsea-clintons-150000538.html
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/new-clinton-email-smoking-guns/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=June+Weekly+Update
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-failed-hand-key-email-state-department-40097531
-
Paulson a lib and a globalist and donator to Clinton and ex Goldman Sachs. Trump is NOT advocating we " wall ourselves off from 7 billion people"!
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/25/hank-paulson-cites-hillarys-globalist-platform-reason-endorsement/
-
Add this freak "accident" to the list of those around Clinton who just happen to die in the nick of time:
http://pagesix.com/2016/06/26/disgraced-ex-un-officials-death-conveniently-timed/
-
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/254202/revived-questions-about-huma-abedin-matthew-vadum
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263183/huma-abedin-daughter-jihad-matthew-vadum
http://pamelageller.com/2016/06/saudis-kept-two-jihad-terror-groups-tied-to-huma-abedin-off-u-s-list.html/
-
http://conservativetribune.com/clinton-murder-case-cover-up/
http://conservativetribune.com/official-testify-against-hillary/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=THENewVoice&utm_content=06/27/2016&utm_campaign=manualpost
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
-
I don't understand why this is a negotiation. Cannot the FBI simply say to her she is to be interviewed by such and such a date. Be there. Is she not a private citizen?
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-fbi-interview-stalling/2016/06/28/id/736028/
-
HILLARY’S 'SERIOUS LACK OF COMPETENCE' COST LIVES AT BENGHAZI
But she is only the tip of the iceberg.
June 29, 2016 Robert Spencer
Former CIA officer D. W. Wilber noted in The Hill Monday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s actions leading up to the Benghazi attack, and the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Libya as a whole were “lunacy on a grand scale”: “Additional security was denied even though intelligence reports clearly indicated the presence in Libya of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups hostile to the United States.” Hillary’s “trust in the various militia factions to set aside their longstanding differences and establish a governing body in the war torn country illustrates another amateur mistake.” But it wasn’t. It was a professional mistake.
In reality, Hillary’s actions in Libya were an implementation of the policy called for by foreign policy professionals for years: to ignore whatever a study of Islamic doctrine and law might reveal about the thought processes and motivations of Islamic jihadis, and to assume that they’re motivated by the same mix of pragmatism and self-interest that motivates secular Western urban cosmopolites, i.e., people just like themselves.
This is the kind of disastrous miscalculation preached by establishment foreign policy wonks including the likes of the puerile and silly Will McCants (and the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution in general), Max Abrahms (and the Council on Foreign Relations in general), and a host of others that the State Department and other foreign policy entities hire by the pound.
The foreign policy establishment is a bipartisan creation, and both parties refuse to challenge its hegemony. The Republicans, as the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearings showed Tuesday, continue instead to let Hillary and Obama off the hook, and don’t even come close to challenging the entrenched foreign policy bureaucracy. Breitbart News noted that the final report from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)’s committee refused “to blame President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as refus[ed] to say directly if Clinton lied to the American people regarding the Benghazi attacks.”
The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell said of Gowdy after the Tuesday hearing: “It was up to him to get to the truth, and he punted. Just as with the IRS investigation, the Republicans lacked the fortitude to confront those responsible.”
Bozell detailed the many failures of Gowdy’s inquiry: “The causes, events and circumstances regarding the attacks on the American personnel and facilities at Benghazi are still a mystery to the American people. Who denied the multiple requests for additional security for the compound? No answer. Who is being held responsible for the deaths of these men? No answer. Why did this administration deliberately lie about the video? No answer. Should the Commander-in-Chief be held responsible for the multiple failures of the military? Should the Secretary of State be held responsible for the disastrous consequences of State Department decisions? Not according to this report. They wouldn’t even state that Hillary Clinton lied about the video though her own emails, read by committee members, prove she had! But they did blame a ‘rusty bureaucratic process.’”
That “rusty bureaucratic process” is a product of the foreign policy establishment that led us into this mess. Hillary Clinton is just their most prominent exponent — which does not in the least exonerate her. It’s just to say that not only does Hillary Clinton’s influence over the U.S. government in whatever capacity need to be decisively rejected; the whole foreign policy establishment needs to be swept out, cherished and unquestioned assumptions rejected, and the edifice remade by people who are more realistic and unafraid to base policy on unpleasant realities rather than upon politically correct wishful thinking.
Even worse, right after the Benghazi massacre, the father of one of those slain there recounted that Secretary of State Clinton spoke to him at a memorial service about the Muhammad filmmaker, saying, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted.” And she did. The filmmaker, who went by several different names, had a record full of run-ins with the law, and at the time of the Benghazi attacks was out on parole. A condition of his parole, however, was that he not go on the Internet – which he apparently did in order to upload the notorious video to YouTube.
For that, he was arrested and imprisoned for several months, thereby becoming the first political prisoner in the U.S. for Obama’s war on free speech and enforcement of Sharia blasphemy laws. There can be no doubt that he was imprisoned not for the technicality of the probation violation (while thousands of more serious probation violators walked the streets), but for insulting Muhammad. His arrest was a symbol of America’s capitulation to the Sharia. He was nothing more than the fall guy who became the first offender against the new de facto federal crime of blasphemy against Islam.
That, too, was a reflection of the foreign policy establishment’s determination to compel Americans to stop doing anything and everything that any Muslim might construe as offensive to Islam. Reflecting the establishment policy also were Hillary’s fatuous words: “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people, and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” In response to that, Donald Trump recently opined that Hillary was “in total denial, and her continuing reluctance to ever name the enemy broadcasts weakness across the entire world — true weakness.” Clinton wants, he said, “to take away American’s guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us. Let them come into the country, we don’t have guns. Let them come in, let them have all the fun they want….The bottom line is that Hillary supports policies that bring the threat of radical Islam into American and allow it to grow overseas, and it is growing.”
Trump’s point was sound. In what way was it not? Combining unrestricted immigration and a massive influx of Muslim migrants, among whom the Islamic State has promised to embed jihadis, with a disarmed American population is simply an invitation to jihad massacres on a frequency never hitherto imagined. Could there be an Orlando-style attack every day? Why not, in the America of the near future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are busy preparing for us?
Trump declared: “The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system really to screen.” Again, his point his sound: all those, including Hillary, who are busy excoriating Trump for the “racism” and “bigotry” of his immigration proposal have not bothered to suggest any alternative plan for preventing jihadis from entering the country. Hillary and the rest of the political and media elites would rather see Americans subjected to jihad mass murder on a huge scale than do anything that is politically incorrect.
The foreign policy establishment that is irrevocably committed to these politically correct fantasies must be swept out. And to elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States would be, in D. W. Wilber’s words, “lunacy on a grand scale.”
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/clinton-email-update-judicial-watch-releases-former-clinton-deputy-chief-staff-huma-abedin-deposition-testimony/
-
During a criminal investigation of his wife.
So Bill got on plane to chat with her about the grandkids for 1/2 hr? No one with half a brain can believe that?
ttp://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meet-privately-in-phoenix
Just wondering , "Loretta" don't forget we are thinking of appointing you as our
AG too. Maybe SCOTUS nomination. Hope the kids are good......."
-
:-o :x :-o :x :-o :x :x :x
-
Chicago style corruption at the federal level? Who could have foreseen this?
-
During a criminal investigation of his wife.
ttp://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meet-privately-in-phoenix
The top law enforcement officer in the land met with a discredited, disbarred former lawyer. Which one is more powerful?
The contents of their conversation were FAR worse than what we imagine in our worst case scenarios.
Bill refuses to use email being careful to not put things like this meeting in writing, and avoiding witnesses for deniability. Ms. Lynch may want to retain a food taster down the road.
-
And stay off of aircraft.
-
http://conservativetribune.com/truth-about-huma-leaks/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=WesternJournalism&utm_content=2016-06-29&utm_campaign=manualpost
-
Doug writes,
"The contents of their conversation were FAR worse than what we imagine in our worst case scenarios.
Bill refuses to use email being careful to not put things like this meeting in writing, and avoiding witnesses for deniability. Ms. Lynch may want to retain a food taster down the road."
We know it was.
Probably a lot of security and privacy on the airplane. Why couldn't they meet for coffee at the airport Starbucks? The answer is obvious. Should not Congress looking at this?
I did notice that both ABC and CBS picked up and announced the story. Gold star to them. However this will likely be the last we hear about it.
-
Huma from Pakastani worked under Clinton at DOS in 2009. She married a nice Jewish boy named Carlos Danger in 2010. Bill C., the family man, conducted the ceremony.
What a "f" up soap opera.
-
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
-
The 800-plus-page report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi was released earlier this week. It slams former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her willful indifference to her obligation to repel military-style attacks on American interests and personnel at the U.S. Consulate and a nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya. She particularly failed to save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues, all under her care and control while she was secretary of state.
The report also slams Clinton for her repeated lies about the cause of the attacks. After she told her daughter in an email that the Benghazi consulate had been attacked by an organized terrorist group using heavy military hardware, she told her colleagues at the State Department that the attacks were a spontaneous overreaction by locals to an American-made internet video about the Prophet Muhammad.
After telling that lie, she sent another email, this one to the Egyptian foreign minister, repeating what she had truthfully told her daughter.
The Obama administration then spread the “internet video-inspired” myth by dispatching Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., to repeat it to five Sunday morning American television talk shows. This was met with profound disbelief in the diplomatic and intelligence communities. Yet, still unwilling to acknowledge the truth publicly, Clinton then retold the myth to the families of the four dead Americans in the presence of their loved ones’ bodies as the bodies were being reverently removed from a U.S. transfer plane at Joint Base Andrews.
Myths, Misunderstandings and Outright lies about owning Gold. Are you at risk?
What does all this say about the character of Clinton? How cold and heartless is she? How can she expect voters to reward her with the presidency when she failed to lift a finger to save Americans and then she repeatedly lied in public about her failures — while being truthful about them in private?
Yet the committee’s report is incomplete and has aroused dissent from some Republican members of the committee. The essence of their dissent is that the unstated and unacknowledged but true mission of the committee was not to reveal facts but to conceal them. There is ample evidence to support their argument that Benghazi was the unintended consequence of Clinton’s private war against Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
Yet the report does not delve into that.
The war against Gadhafi was, of course, never declared by Congress. It was conceived by Clinton, approved by President Barack Obama and agreed to by leadership in both houses of Congress and from both major political parties. It was supposed to be the crown jewel of Clinton’s foreign policy stewardship — ousting the dictator, replacing him with a democracy, putting no American boots on the ground and avoiding American bloodshed.
As is often the case in war, particularly illegal ones and especially secret ones, there were unintended consequences. Here the consequences have been the destruction of the government of an American ally, the imposition of mob-ruled chaos in Libya, the empowerment of terror groups in the Middle East, the deaths of innocent American civilians, the rejection of the rule of law and the obfuscation of the truth.
One of those who signed off on this secret war was the person who appointed the committee and its senior staff with personal loyalists — former House Speaker John Boehner. Another is a former congressman whose wife personally prospered from all this by serving as the go-between in the delivery of military hardware from Western sources to terror groups on the ground.
The method of those who authorized the secret war was for Clinton to issue waivers — as the secretary of state may do — to the U.S., NATO and U.N. embargo of arms sales to Libya. What did this do? Instead of issuing waivers so as to permit arms to be sold to a friendly government, Clinton and her colleagues conspired to get arms into the hands of terrorist organizations masquerading as local militias. The CIA warned her about this, but she was indifferent to the warnings.
Those who signed off on this war and its methodology were arguably conspirators in an effort to provide material support to terrorist organizations by supplying them with military equipment, allegedly to be used to topple the Gadhafi government. That is a felony — and the beneficial or strategic use of the weapons is not a defense to the charge of providing them to terror groups.
How dangerous and reckless was Clinton? She ignored the CIA’s advice and let the weapons spread among deranged madmen and committed killers. Who in the intelligence community would work for her in light of this behavior? Ambassador Stevens and the others were killed by heavy military hardware that Clinton and her colleagues permitted to make its way into the hands of terror groups.
Though Clinton was the creator of the conspiracy and remained at its heart and hoped to ride it triumphantly into the White House — and though she bears more blame than any other conspirator — the committee’s work fails as a seeker of the whole truth.
The truth is that some of the committee’s congressional allies set in motion the awful events that led to the tragedy in Benghazi. The truth is that these people will probably escape accountability for their lawless behavior. The truth is that Congress knows that the president wages secret wars and it does nothing to stop them. The truth is that Hillary Clinton put her own political ambitions above fidelity to the rule of law and properly doing her job.
The truth is that the House Select Committee on Benghazi concealed more truth than it revealed. Yet the government is supposed to work for us. Aren’t we entitled to know what the government has done in our names?
-
That Jewish star by Trump is outrageous :roll: :roll: :roll:
I notice the jurnolisters have caused a so called "media storm" about this.
What about this:
Remember how Bill let Bin Laden get away when the Sudanese offered to hand him to Bill too busy messing around in his office?
http://ifunny.co/fun/kIr3Usbr2
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ny-times-clinton-may-keep-lynch-as-attorney-general/article/2595580?custom_click=rss
-
The great whore of Babylon will not be indicted.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-director-doesnt-recommend-charges-against-hillary-clinton/index.html?sr=fbCNN070516fbi-director-doesnt-recommend-charges-against-hillary-clinton1125AMStory
"Do as I say, not as I do."
From a personal standpoint, I've struggled for more than 20 years now to do the right thing, to serve, to be the best I can be, and still be 2nd class, and to see this mockery from the highest offices, weapons given to cartel hitmen from Holder and other agents, and God knows what else, and we're supposed to respect that? Play by the rules?
I honestly have nothing to say for once.
-
"I honestly have nothing to say for once."
I feel the same way.
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-statement-decision-fbi-director-james-comey-not-recommend-indictment-hillary-clinton/
-
FBI: HILLARY LIED AND ILLEGALLY SENT CLASSIFIED EMAILS, BUT WE WON'T DO A THING ABOUT IT
July 5, 2016 Daniel Greenfield
Is anyone seriously surprised?
Yes all sorts of people might have gone down for this. But the idea that government, in its current state, would hold a presidential candidate from the government party accountable for anything less than choking a nun to death in broad daylight while cackling evilly was always a pipe dream. (And probably not even then.)
Hillary Clinton has a vast and influential network at her disposal. And the current administration backs her to the hilt. Furthermore, Lynch no doubt made it clear to the FBI that no charges would be pursued no matter what. And that made the outcome inevitable.
The FBI investigation provides plenty of ammunition for the election. It makes it crystal clear that Hillary Clinton lied about not sending classified emails. But it also states that it isn't going to do a thing about it.
Here's Comey trying to sum up the classified email abuses
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.
With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”
But....
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
The clear evidence standard is of course absurd, because Clinton and her people knew the regulations and clearly violated them. That standard would apply to any other employee, yet Hillary is allowed to act as if she had no idea of what the law was or that she was violating it.
So Comey demolishes Hillary's lies about classified emails on the one hand and then shrugs the whole thing off on the other. You can see that as the action of a man in an impossible spot who does his job demolishing the alibi and then walks away having provided the information while knowing that it can be used politically, but not criminally.
Effectively he's blown the whistle but can't do anything about it.
-
Of course we all knew she would get off.
The only surprise to me is how easy it was.
Not only does she get off but the DOJ and the WH too.
Comey certainly did cave. Not clear why.
-
I'm not certain what to make of it.
https://i.sli.mg/WuG4nP.png
-
Uhhh , , , what is that?
-
Uhhh , , , what is that?
It's a person off of 4chan.org (a hacker chat sight) stating that they are an FBI analyst and the converstation that ensued yesterday.
Obviously anyone could just say that, but it would be a crime and the person actually had some interesting things to say.
The truth of their statements will be known shortly. If you click on the link, you have to click the magnifying glass to expand it to where it is readable.
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2016/most_disagree_with_decision_not_to_indict_clinton
-
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-missing-emails-secretary-state-department-personal-server-investigation-fbi-214016
Among the troubling gaps is the time around her controversial approval of the purchase American nuclear assets by Russia.
"There are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed official.”
(Peter Schweizer is the author of Clinton Cash)
-
Very interesting, , ,
-
"Rasmussen: 54% thought Hillary should have been indicted"
And when you subtract the 40 % who love her because she is a Democrat you have 54 % to 6 % who are either right or independent who think she should have been indicted.
The Leftists of course know she should have been they will just never say it.
-
"Rasmussen: 54% thought Hillary should have been indicted"
And when you subtract the 40 % who love her because she is a Democrat you have 54 % to 6 % who are either right or independent who think she should have been indicted.
The Leftists of course know she should have been they will just never say it.
Who knows? I think the 54% include the people who love her and will vote for her anyway.
My centrist friends always say they vote for the person, not th party. As I told my liberal cousin who doesn't like Hillary but will most certainly vote for her, I vote for the direction of the country, not the person. Hillary is disgusting and despicable, but if you are a leftist liberal, she is all you have left.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/06/former-congressman-allen-west-heres-why-im-delighted-about-the-fbis-verdict-on-clinton-emails/
-
Iowahawk:
Possibly the first FBI investigation in history where the FBI director had to testify under oath and the target didn't.
https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/751125019116253184
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437597/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-decision-america-lawless-state
-
Please post in Rule of Law too.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437597/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-decision-america-lawless-state
This article has a slight error.
"she clearly set up her illegal private e-mail server..."
They should have said "servers."
They make it sound like it's a one time thing.
-
Low-ranking soldiers are convicted and sent to the brig for comparatively trivial negligence; the secretary of state is given effective immunity for an offense that was systematic and gargantuan
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437643/fbi-director-james-comey-testimony-clinton-defense-crumbles-under-scrutiny
-
On yahoo news she is blaming other officials for sending her classified emails!
This whole DOJ "looking into it " is , we all know , a joke. Just a show. Some insignificant aides will be thrown under the bus lest us just watch. Who does the DOJ think they are kidding? Not us here.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/11/clinton-charity-spends-nearly-80-percent-administrative-costs/
IIRC this was the conduit for the deal wherein Hillary sold out 20% of US uranium supplies to Russian interests.
Also IIRC the US Clinton Foundation has an overhead of over 90%.
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/david-kendalls-deceitful-whitewater-op-ed.php
-
Again I thank God for Judicial Watch.
Gotta love this one:
"The State Department claims that no one at the agency really knew anything about Mrs. Clinton’s non-state.gov email system, so there is nothing left to say.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, claims that everyone at the agency knew all about her non-state.gov system, so, once again, there is nothing left to say."
Yet we have well known lawyers on the airwaves telling us NO CRIMES WERE COMMITTED when everyone can see from the public record that is simply not true.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/13/judicial-watch-chief-slowly-but-surely-clinton-email-cover-up-is-unraveling.html
-
That was pithy.
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/david-kendalls-deceitful-whitewater-op-ed.php
This piece is a keeper. Like the Cattle Straddles, the only part that falls short of a prosecutable felony is that the facts and evidence were not all available until the Statue of Limitations had expired. The crime is Obstruction of Justice, concealment of documents under judicial subpoena which means the documents expose even worse crimes.
She is already ineligible to be hired for any federal office, so let's make her President!
I don't want to re-live the 90s and the watching of the hunt down of Clinton crimes like a sports fan, but every opponent of Hillary today needs to be able to answer succinctly the question from Whitewater and the rest of it, 'What did she do wrong?'
The cattle straddles crime was the accepting of stolen money paid to in exchange for crony government favors. The crime here is obstruction of justice; she prevented the court from doing it's job - in a criminal case where she was part of the conspiracy!
-
Though that seems enough to buy small thinking voters.
Just like the minimum wage hike. For a large corporation the total amount can add up. But, for the individual it is mere chump change. No one with any sense should take a minimum wage job without thinking that is just a temporary stepping stone anyway.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/14/dont-wait-for-presidential-decree-to-cut-student-debt.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103785689&yptr=yahoo
-
"she would impose a three-month moratorium on federal student loan payments via executive action"
A 3 month moratorium on a LONG term problem?
Via executive action? Is that the new Article 1, 2 and 3 of the living, breathing US constitution?!
Someone stop her!
How about instead get the economy going again and let adult education be a market?
How about start with no money toward gender studies and other fields that produce nothing.
The federal student loan and grant money is what is causing the out of control college costs. It's not students demanding higher costs with their own money. The idea you might not have to repay it makes it even more attractive to incur, hold and not pay down.
As usual, do more of whatever caused the mess. Blame others.
-
"The federal student loan and grant money is what is causing the out of control college costs. It's not students demanding higher costs with their own money. The idea you might not have to repay it makes it even more attractive to incur, hold and not pay down."
This is just fine for an academia that is 90% liberal . Very cozy don't you say?
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/13/new-ties-emerge-between-clinton-and-mysterious-islamic-cleric/
-
https://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/clinton-bush-covered-saudi-terror-network-us
-
Looking for the post about Hillary's commodity trades and not finding it , , , :x
-
Looking for the post about Hillary's commodity trades and not finding it , , , :x
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg86824#msg86
-
Certainly a lot of what ifs. But we know the last one is obviously true and the others certainly very possible:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/21/judge-napolitano-what-if-fix-was-in-for-hillary-at-obama-justice-department.html
-
Very strong!
-
I said it would be Tim Kaine, now NYTimes says Tim Kaine, Washington Post, too, but he is not liberal enough! Supported Free Trade!
Cory Booker is black. That's exciting! 'His' life matters. But supports school choice. (
Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee, Harvard's first 'woman of color'! Too risky.
Hickenlooper supports fracking. Are there ANY good Democrats available?
It's pretty hard to say her first choice Huma comes from a different state if they are together 24/7/365.
This is a conundrum.
Hillary should pick Joe Biden! Tanned and tested.
Democrats save bad news they want ignored for the Friday afternoon news dump.
Hillary says she will 'tweet' her choice today.
-
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=n3t4NlpxcMc
-
http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton-practically-handed-her-email-password-to-the-russians/
If Vlad really wanted to torch the Hildabeast he would release her Clinton Foundation corruption just before the election. We all know what went on. Since Comey won't do anything and allowed her and her criminal lawyers to destroy evidence Vlad may well have copies. Would that be great!
-
http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton-practically-handed-her-email-password-to-the-russians/
If Vlad really wanted to torch the Hildabeast he would release her Clinton Foundation corruption just before the election. We all know what went on. Since Comey won't do anything and allowed her and her criminal lawyers to destroy evidence Vlad may well have copies. Would that be great!
Why would he do that when he can sit on them and use them as leverage if the Dowager Empress becomes president?
-
"Why would he do that when he can sit on them and use them as leverage if the Dowager Empress becomes president?"
Well, if she becomes President, and Russia gains control of EVEN MORE of our uranium , then we will have our answer. Thanks to the joker smiling beast.
-
http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton-practically-handed-her-email-password-to-the-russians/
If Vlad really wanted to torch the Hildabeast he would release her Clinton Foundation corruption just before the election. We all know what went on. Since Comey won't do anything and allowed her and her criminal lawyers to destroy evidence Vlad may well have copies. Would that be great!
Why would he do that when he can sit on them and use them as leverage if the Dowager Empress becomes president?
Good points. That was the risk of cheating, of corruption, of deception and of communicating over an unsecured server. Give an enemy leverage, career ending leverage. Hillary's only defense against damaging releases is that everyone already knows she is a crook. There are books out there documenting it.
I believed all along that deleted emails will become public over time from a variety of sources and that the worst ones will come out last. The tell-all books from her friends will mostly come out too late to matter and most of the media would rather be a co-conspirator than report. Still, there is more info out there and big secrets are hard to keep.
Assuming Putin has control over these even if it was a private Russian hack, it is an interesting game theory exercise to ponder how he will best use it to his advantage. First he has to show he has it and is willing to use it: Check. Now if they communicate over keeping something secret, he will have that too!
Which candidate would make a better partner for Putin, Trump or Hillary, through his eyes? The answer is not clear or obvious. The Hillary side wants us to presume Putin prefers Trump, because what? The Democrat would be so tough on him? What did Obama say, tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after my reelection... Putin may prefer Trump for reasons different than people think, a more rational person to deal with. He may prefer Hillary as the pushover. Or is Hillary more of a hawk than Trump? Trump would build an arsenal that would make Putin's look puny?
Also assume that various people, even the Clintons, have dirt on Trump beyond the Trump University, commenting on breasts and business bankruptcies to expose.
Look for this to keep getting uglier.
-
And 2,000 others.......
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/bill_clinton_s_long_beautiful_speech_at_the_dnc.html
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillary-bill-left-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
I didn't know the # 1 Yale law school grad flunked the DC bar!
Dick for some reason is not being hired officially by Trump. Though he has been writing a book about how Trump can beat Hillary and and doing nice hit pieces on National Enquirer for Trumps cause.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/1100-donors-to-a-canadian-charity-tied-to-clinton-foundation-remain-secret/2015/04/28/c3c0f374-edbc-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html
-
Link below. I will be working on my own list.
10. Under Sniper Fire - Smiling and waving
9. Dead Broke - Total Assets $1.8 million
8. In Accordance with the Rules - Federal Judge ruled it violated government policy
7. Grandparents came over here - No so but she thought of them as immigrants
6. Bin-Laden Was Her Reaction To The Helicopter Crash http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0222nyr
5. DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act was to stop Republicans from going further
4. College costs won't be a burden
3. Campaign will be Carbon Neutral
2. Veterans Affair Scandals Are Not “As Widespread As it Has Been made Out To Be”
1. I have been very consistent, Same sex marriage, trade deals, immigration policies
http://choiceorlife.com/hillary-clintons-top-10-lies-exaggerations/2/
-
To the top, Previously posted, I had trouble digging out this information. I will try to weave it all together on the next post, searchable as Hillary's First Felony, Cattle Straddles
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg86778#msg86778
he odds of doing what she did without cheating the system are one in 31 trillion against her, best case. Assuming that the return is made in the most efficient way possible, this probability falls to approximately 1.5×10−16
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02920493
In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.[14]
Anderson, Seth C.; Jackson, John D.; Steagall, Jeffrey W. (September 1994). "A note on odds in the cattle futures market". Journal of Economics and Finance 18 (3): 357–365. doi:10.1007/BF02920493.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
-
Hillary's First Felony, "Cattle Straddles" - Memorize the name for future access to the links and articles. I have no link fo the 1994 WSJ article; it was emailed to me in pdf by the deputy editor.
1 in 31 trillion are the odds that Hillary told the truth about her amazing commodity trades. Quoting the Journal of Economics and Finance: "Economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion." http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02920493
Stating it the other way around, the odds are 31 trillion to one that Tyson Foods was buying state government favors from the Governor by depositing rigged commodity trading profits with his wife, with her knowledge.
Facts of Hillary's trades were analyzed by a former IRS chief prosecutor of commodities trading crimes and published in the WSJ article below. The commodity trader that Tyson Foods referred to Hillary was convicted of this exact crime for trades done with other clients during this exact same time period.
Quid pro quo. It was the NY Times that broke this case in 1994: "During Mr. Clinton's tenure in Arkansas, Tyson benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans, the placement of company executives on important state boards and favorable decisions on environmental issues." http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/18/us/top-arkansas-lawyer-helped-hillary-clinton-turn-big-profit.html?pagewanted=all
The statute of limitations had expired by the time these trades were known. The crime is otherwise a felony for all involved. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/13
The Mystery of Hillary's Trades
By David L. Brandon
7 April 1994
The Wall Street Journal
PAGE A14
(Copyright (c) 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)
As former head of the IRS chief counsel's Commodities Industry Specialization Team in the mid-1980s, I have followed with great interest the media stories on Hillary Clinton's excellent adventures in the commodities markets. As a proud capitalist and free market proponent (and an avid beef eater), I would be the first in line to salute this woman's success with cattle futures. But based on my years of experience with these markets, her story just doesn't add up. In fact, the chances of someone making almost $100,000 in the futures markets on her first try are about as great as walking into a casino in Las Vegas, hitting the million-dollar jackpot on your first try at the slots, then walking out never to play again. It just doesn't happen that way.
For those unfamiliar with the details of Mrs. Clinton's remarkable venture into the commodities markets, she allegedly made more than $99,000 in cattle futures (and other commodities) in late 1978 and 1979, withdrawing from trading just before the markets went bust. No explanation has been offered of how Mrs. Clinton managed to satisfy state laws that require futures investors to demonstrate a minimum net income and net worth, nor how a novice could have such uncanny timing.
There is, in fact, a much more probable explanation for Mrs. Clinton's good fortune. The media have already suggested that trades may have been moved to Mrs. Clinton's account after gains had been realized. However, the stories thus far have not clearly focused on a common trading strategy called a "straddle" that was very much in vogue at the time.
Straddles have the unique ability to produce exactly equal and offsetting gains and losses that can be transferred or used by the straddle trader for a variety of purposes. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, straddles were used for all kinds of illegal activities, ranging from tax evasion to money-laundering and bribes. In fact, this activity prompted a number of legal and regulatory changes by the Reagan administration to curb the abuses.
Although it sounds somewhat esoteric, a commodities straddle is a relatively simple trading device.
A commodities futures contract is nothing more than an agreement between two parties to buy or sell a certain type of commodity (in Mrs. Clinton's case, cattle) for a stated price on some date in the future. If the price of the commodity goes up before the contract delivery date, the individual who agreed to buy the commodity will realize a gain equal to the difference between the current price and the contract price. The individual who agreed to sell will realize a loss in an equal amount. Conversely, if the price goes down, the buyer will lose and the seller will gain.
A straddle is created when an investor enters into contracts to both buy and sell the same commodity. In this case, any gain on one contract will be exactly offset by a loss on the opposite contract. While straddle trading today is used in a variety of legitimate ways, these transactions lend themselves to all sorts of abuses as well. Before regulatory changes in the 1980s, it was common to enter into straddles to wipe out large capital gains for tax purposes. For example, an investor who realized a $100,000 capital gain in the stock market might enter into a large straddle in the commodities market. When the commodity price moved, the investor would close the loss leg of the straddle and realize a $100,000 loss, which offset his gain in the stock market. The investor was not required to report the unrealized $100,000 gain in the opposite leg of the straddle until that leg was closed in the following year. Typically, the investor entered into another straddle in the following year, thereby indefinitely rolling over the capital gain into subsequent years.
Another ploy common during that time required the assistance of a friendly broker. An investor could create a straddle using two separate investment accounts with his broker. After the straddle had moved, so that a gain and an offsetting loss had been created, the friendly broker simply wrote in the name of the investor's tax-exempt retirement fund on the account that held the gain leg of the straddle. The result was that a loss was realized that was reported on the investor's tax return, while the gain went unreported in the tax-exempt retirement account.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the IRS began noticing large numbers of individual tax returns that curiously showed commodities losses just big enough to wipe out unrelated capital gains; no corresponding commodities gains, which would suggest a straddle, ever appeared on subsequent returns. Even more curiously, the profile of these investors always had one thing in common, which was limited experience or no prior experience in commodities trading. In the early 1980s, an IRS agent in Chicago thought to look into one taxpayer's retirement fund and, of course, found the hidden gain leg of the straddle.
After that experience, the IRS redoubled its efforts to seek out thousands of missing straddle gains. It found them in retirement accounts, in London, in the Cayman Islands -- almost anywhere a taxpayer thought he might hide them from the IRS. With respect to these thousands of mysterious, isolated commodities transactions that showed up on tax returns, the IRS uncovered some form of questionable trading in virtually 100% of the cases it investigated. Well before the close of the 1980s, the IRS had assessed more than $7 billion in delinquent taxes and penalties attributable to these transactions and eventually settled these cases out of court for approximately $3.5 billion.
While most of the IRS's efforts were directed at finding hidden gains of the ubiquitous straddle, the trading device could just as easily be used to openly transfer gains while hiding the offsetting loss. If someone desired to make an illicit payment to another party, a straddle could be used to accomplish this purpose with no incriminating or suspicious-looking bank withdrawals or deposits. In fact, the IRS found numerous incidents of straddles being used for money-laundering purposes.
Does Mrs. Clinton's trading activity fit the profile of the illegitimate straddle trader? She was a novice in the commodities markets who, against all odds, realized large gains. Although she intermittently realized losses, it does not appear that she ever had to risk her own capital beyond her initial $1,000 deposit, which itself may have been insufficient to cover even her first transaction (which netted her $5,300). According to the trading records released by the White House, most of Mrs. Clinton's gains were recorded as intra-month transactions. This means that these records include no information regarding key elements of the trade, such as the type and quantity of the contracts, acquisition dates, acquisition prices, etc. Such information is needed to determine whether trades were part of a prearranged straddle.
It also appears that Mrs. Clinton's broker, Robert L. "Red" Bone, was no stranger to the spicier practices of commodities trading, according to The Wall Street Journal's front-page article last Friday.
It seems more than coincidental that Mr. Bone was a former employee of Tyson Foods and that Mrs. Clinton's investment adviser, James Blair, was the company's legal counsel. Tyson, the poultry concern, is one of the largest employers in the state of Arkansas. The fact that the Clintons withheld disclosing only those tax returns that included their commodities gains until the transactions were reported by the New York Times in February also appears quite suspicious. From my standpoint as a former government staff attorney with extensive experience in these matters, Mrs. Clinton's windfall in the late 1970s has all the trappings of pre-arranged trades.
How would a straddle have been used in Mrs. Clinton's case? The Journal has already reported that gains theoretically could have been transferred to Mrs. Clinton's account, while "others" may have absorbed losses. Such a transaction could be accomplished with a straddle.
A party desiring to transfer cash to another's personal account for legal or illegal purposes could enter into a straddle in a particularly volatile commodity, such as cattle futures in the late 1970s. After gains and losses were generated in the opposite sides of the straddle, the gain side would be marked to the beneficiary's account, while the loss side would remain in the account of the contributor. The contributor might even be entitled to use the loss to offset other gains. Such a transaction would be not only well-hidden from government authorities but potentially tax-deductible.
No direct evidence of wrongdoing has been produced in the case of Mrs. Clinton's trading activity. In fact, no conclusive evidence of anything has been produced. In order to settle the legitimate questions surrounding her trades, a satisfactory explanation is needed for her apparently low initial margin deposit and whether the requirements relating to an investor's minimum net income and net worth were satisfied. In addition, the details of her numerous intra-month trades should be provided, as well as the details of the trades of persons who may have had a special interest in how well she did. If it is discovered that certain interested parties happened to realize losses in cattle futures at the same time, and they were comparable in size to the gains reported by Mrs. Clinton, this would amount to a "smoking gun."
This is not a matter of partisan politics. Even if the public had never heard of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the circumstances surrounding her unusual good fortune would still appear suspicious to anyone awake to abuses of the commodities markets. In this writer's experience, the normal trading world just doesn't work that way.
Mr. Brandon was a career attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service from 1983 to 1989. During that time he also served as head of that department's Commodity Industry Specialization Team, which was responsible for coordinating and developing the IRS's legal positions on tax issues arising in connection with commodities transactions.
Dow Jones & Company - copyright, reprinted with permission
Update:
Bringing more links forward:
A few days after Hubbell’s resignation, the New York Times ran a lengthy story about Hillary’s commodity trades. Her aides and lawyers had finally provided financial records to the Times, but only after the newspaper made clear that it was preparing to publish a detailed account of her trading profits.
Initially, senior aides to the Clintons said in March 1994 that Hillary “based her trades on information in the Wall Street Journal.” That explanation was subsequently dropped. An aide to Hillary then said she had withdrawn from the market in the fall of 1979 because she had found trading too nerve-racking in the final months of her pregnancy. But another White House aide quickly declared that excuse “inoperative” after it was disclosed in April 1994 that Hillary made $6,500 in a commodities-trading venture in 1980 but failed to report that profit to the IRS.
Shortly after that, Hillary took responsibility—in her standard combination of singular acknowledgment and plural blame—for her aides’ confusing answers to reporters, saying they stemmed from her being away, working on other issues. “I probably did not spend enough time, get as precise,” she explained, “so I think that the confusion was our responsibility.”
...
A reporter asked whether her criticism of the Reagan era as a decade of unabashed greed appeared hypocritical in light of her recently disclosed commodities-trading windfall.
“I think it’s a pretty long stretch to say that the decisions we made to try to create some financial security for our family and make some investments come anywhere near” the “excess of the 1980s,” she replied. Inverting reality, she claimed that it was her father’s stubborn frugality and quest for financial security that had helped her succeed at trading commodities.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-pink-press-conferences-115952_Page2.html#ixzz3VDuOabvg
Mrs. Clinton traded with Mr. Bone[known crook], the chief broker in 1978 at the Springdale, Ark., offices of Ray E. Friedman & Co., or Refco. In 1981, Mr. Bone was fined $100,000 and barred from trading for three years after an investigation of allegations that he had been allocating winning positions to favored clients.
New Records Outline Favor for Hillary Clinton on Trades
By STEPHEN ENGELBERG,
Published: May 27, 1994
WASHINGTON, May 26— The White House today released new records showing that Hillary Rodham Clinton received preferential treatment from her commodities broker in the late 1970's, when she was allowed to trade in cattle futures without depositing the cash that normally would have been required.
Mrs. Clinton ultimately turned a $1,000 investment into profits of nearly $100,000. The records showed that she had earned her initial $5,300 in profits without depositing $12,000 in cash that ordinarily would have been needed for the purchase of a contract for 400,000 pounds of cattle.
In such margin trading, brokerages are required to deposit $1,200 per cattle contract with the commodity exchanges, and they typically demand that their customers put up the money in case, as sometimes happens, the market moves against them and the customers lose more than their original investment. Margin Rules Ignored
Several commodities experts said the failure to enforce the margin requirements had amounted to favorable treatment. But Mr. Kendall said she would have been liable had the market turned against her.
"I don't think it was a favor," he said. "She was under margin, that's true, but she was still on the hook. If they needed the money, they could have gotten it from her. They knew who she was. She violated no rules. Margin is for the protection of the broker."
The documents did not conclusively settle questions raised by some commodity experts about whether her broker had improperly allocated winning trades to her account.
"It doesn't suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn't prove there wasn't," said Leo Melamed, the former head of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, to whom the White House directed press questions. "I told them I couldn't say it wasn't."
Merton H. Miller, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, agreed. "It doesn't answer the questions people were asking," he said in a telephone interview this afternoon. "It's her account number, but it doesn't necessarily they were her trades." Explanation Changes
Mrs. Clinton earned the commodities profits in 1978 and 1979 with trading advice from James B. Blair, the general counsel of the Arkansas-based Tyson Foods and a close friend of both Clintons. Mrs. Clinton initially said that she had placed all of her trades herself and had made her decisions by consulting Mr. Blair, other advisers and The Wall Street Journal. Later, she acknowledged that Mr. Blair had placed many of her trades.
From the beginning, some experts suspected that Mrs. Clinton's good fortune had stemmed from favorable treatment by her broker, Robert Bone, a good friend of Mr. Blair's. Mr. Bone was disciplined by commodity regulators both before and after Mrs. Clinton's trading.
Mr. Blair and Mrs. Clinton traded with Mr. Bone, the chief broker in 1978 at the Springdale, Ark., offices of Ray E. Friedman & Co., or Refco. In 1981, Mr. Bone was fined $100,000 and barred from trading for three years after an investigation of allegations that he had been allocating winning positions to favored clients. Mr. Bone was also accused of "serious and repeated" violations of recordkeeping rules and margin requirements.
Margin requirements, former commodity regulators explained, are a matter between brokerages like Refco and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which wants to make sure the costs of trades are covered. Generally, brokers in turn require their customers to put up the money. But in the late 1970's, Refco permitted many of its customers to trade without putting up their margins in advance.
Earlier this year, the White House made public documents concerning commodity trading from Mrs. Clinton's personal files. Today, the White House released records of her account maintained by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Promises to Buy or Sell
Futures trading is essentially a bet on the price of cattle, soybeans or some other commodity. A speculator enters into a contract promising to buy or sell a given amount of cattle, say, at a certain price on a specific date in the future. The contracts are typically sold and resold months before they expire. Speculators can gamble that the price of cattle will rise or fall, depending on the type of contract. If the prices move favorably, the speculators sell their contracts and reap profits.
In 7 of Mrs. Clinton's 32 transactions, the Mercantile Exchange records are missing at least one segment of the transactions described in her personal documents. Mr. Melamed said this could stem from poor recordkeeping or a mistake by a clerk or it could reflect trading in large blocks of stock.
He said these were unlikely to be part of a scheme to allocate winning trades to Mrs. Clinton's account, since all of the transactions with missing data involved trades over more than one day.
"If this were predominantly day trading, you would hear me saying something different," Mr. Melamed said. "If there was anything wrong, there's no way the Federal Government, the exchange or anyone else would have gone to Mrs. Clinton and said, 'You violated something.' " Constency Noted
Mr. Kendall, the Clintons' lawyer, noted that Mrs. Clinton's personal records and the Chicago Mercantile documents were consistent. "At no point do they contradict," he said.
All of the records released by the White House make clear that Mrs. Clinton ran substantial risks in her trading. On one day in July 1979, for example, she held contracts for two million pounds of cattle, worth around $1.36 million.
What would have happened if the market had moved against her, and Mrs. Clinton had run up large losses? Professor Miller said no records would ever make clear what understandings might have existed between brokers and customers.
"Suppose that first trade had gone the other way and she had lost $5,300," he said. "Would she have paid it? She says she would have, but the question is, Did someone agree to vouch for those trades and say, in effect, 'Don't worry about it'? I'm not suggesting it did happen, but there's no way to say it didn't."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/27/us/new-records-outline-favor-for-hillary-clinton-on-trades.html
-
Simply outstanding Doug! Thank you!!!
-
Second post
http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/
-
Second post
http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/
Says the liberal couple and their cat (Snopes) http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.mx/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html
-
Unsolvable mystery:, For all the good they do, including $2 Billion unaccounted for and an FBI investigation in process, can anyone figure out why no one mentioned the Clinton Foundation in the convention...
-
Ask not who’s the most qualified to be president
Obama really said this Wednesday night:
“I can say with confidence there has never been a man or woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”
You don’t say, Mr. President? So why don’t we size up her, uh, qualifications, eminent as they might be, compared to some of the prior, lesser 44 occupants of the office.
Dwight Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander. Hillary ran the Bimbo Eruptions Unit.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Hillary wrote “It Takes a Village.”
Teddy Roosevelt charged up San Juan Hill. Hillary dodged sniper fire on the tarmac at Tuzla.
Honest Abe, Crooked Hillary.
Lincoln slept in the Lincoln bedroom. Hillary rented it out.
Reagan said, “Tear down this wall.” Hillary said, “Delete them all.”
William Howard Taft threw out the first pitch at a baseball opener. Hillary threw the first vase at a president.
Gerald Ford appointed Justice Stevens. Hillary abandoned Ambassador Stevens.
George Washington wrote letters to John Paul Jones. Hillary wrote a check for $850,000 to Paula Jones.
JFK said, “Ask not….” Hillary said, “Don’t ask.”
George H.W. Bush built oil rigs. Hillary rigged elections.
Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address. Hillary delivered three speeches to Goldman Sachs … for $675,000.
Andrew Johnson was the first impeached president. Hillary is the wife of the second.
Washington could not tell a lie, Nixon could not tell the truth, Hillary could not tell the difference.
Harry S. Truman was a haberdasher. Hillary donated her underwear to charity for a $2 tax write off.
James Madison wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers. Hillary served on the Wal-Mart board of directors.
Truman: “The buck stops here.” Hillary: Pay for play.
Calvin Coolidge: “The business of America is business.” Hillary: the Clinton Foundation.
FDR defeated Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Hillary defeated Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.
James Garfield was shot by a disgruntled office-seeker. Hillary was a disgruntled office-seeker.
William Henry Harrison: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too. Hillary: Me Too.
Lincoln: “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Hillary: “Are you sure about that?”
In 1953, Truman drove his own car back to Independence, Missouri. Hillary hasn’t driven a car since 1996.
Washington turned down the invitation to become king. What would Hillary have done?
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/07/carr_ask_not_who_s_the_most_qualified_to_be_president
-
http://counterjihad.com/abdourahman-alamoudi-jailed-al-qaeda-financier-frequented-clinton-white-house
-
https://www.facebook.com/UncleSamsMisguidedChildren.Net/videos/529539240575413/
-
You mean to tell me the FBI could have gotten the deleted emails all along? :?
I cannot imagine they would not have had just cause to get these emails in view of the pattern ob obstruction of justice.
Just astounding. Dershowitz has the nerve to question if we want an FBI to have this kind of power? What about the question , do we really want a corrupt person as President of the United States.
The voter have a right to know how corrupt the person is who is major part nominee. For God's sake if the FBI cannot be trusted to enforce the law the who will?
http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/07/31/exclusive-nsa-architect-agency-clintons-deleted-emails/
Interesting how the NSA now is backing off its' surveillance of regular folks like you and me, JUST as this news is coming out thanks to Aaron Klein.
-
Post in Rule of Law too please.
-
Is this an emotional appeal or a logical appeal?
Hillary promises to oppose every economic measure that worked for her husband, enact the opposite policies yet delivery the same results. It's almost unbelievable
Welfare Reform
Bill Clinton: "End welfare as we know it." Unemployment dropped.
Hillary Clinton: Expand welfare in ways never before imagined.
NAFTA
Bill Clinton: Free trade benefits all sides. Fought his own party to pass NAFTA.
"Expanded trade benefits all peoples in all nations" President Bill Clinton’s farewell address
Hillary Clinton: I was for it before I was against it and will be for it again after the election. Or not.
Taxes on Capital
Bill Clinton lowered the top capital gains taxes rate by roughly a third from 28% to 20%, the lower bracket from 15% to 10%, and sparked an economic boom that created $20 million jobs.
Hillary Clinton wants "taxes on the rich" raised further no matter how many times they have already done that achieving dismal results. There are 2 million more Americans on food stamps during this 'recovery' while the government and the crony rich got richer.
Bill Clinton enacted Newt Gingrich's policies and the private sector flourished. Hillary promises to enact Bernie Sanders' and Venezuela's policies and get Reagan-like results. What is the appeal of using false logic to win votes?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/report-hillary-clintons-campaign-mgr-john-podesta-sat-board-company-bagged-35-million-putin-connected-russian-govt-fund-2/
-
"The woman is a case study in pathology."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/08/if-shes-moving-her-lips.php
She calls the families of the Benghazi victims liars essentially:
"I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who, in that moment, may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”
“Recalling” something that wasn’t said is inventing it, but Clinton is the inventor here. Smith joins Kate Quigley and Charles Woods in recalling Clinton’s blaming the video and her promise to have the video maker arrested.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/whos-lying-hillary-or-members-of-several-benghazi-victims-families.php
Wallace played the clip of Rep. Gowdy questioning Comey on her receipt and forwarding of classified information via email. In his answers Comey declared Clinton’s public statements to be false.
“That’s not what I heard Director Comey say,” Clinton said. “Comey said that my answers were truthful and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people.”
Wallace asks Clinton about the private email server that she used for her official State Department business. Everything she says is premeditated, cold-blooded, false and fraudulent. Consider her characterization of the misconduct giving rise to the scandal. Let us pay special attention to this, for it is truly twisted. She characterizes her “mistake” in using the private Clinton email server as “not using two different email addresses.” That’s what she said. Really.
The manifold falsity of this characterization of her “mistake” is astounding. She deserves some kind of recognition for the skill she puts into it.
-
The hits just keep coming.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/dnc-ceo-resigns-amid-turmoil-226570
-
This story was stepped on by Trump responding to the Khans, also parents of a fallen soldier.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438657/hillary-clinton-benghazi-lies-pat-smith-charles-woods
Clinton’s in-your-face lies to Patricia Smith — mother of Sean Smith, an American diplomat whom al-Qaeda-affiliated radical Islamic terrorists murdered in the September 11, 2012, Benghazi massacre. Hillary stared right at this mourning mother as her son lay in a casket just feet away, at Andrews Air Force Base that September 14.
As Smith told the Republican National Convention, “When I saw Hillary Clinton at Sean’s coffin ceremony, just days later, she looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible.” Hillary Clinton denies this. In fact, she questioned Smith’s mental capacity. The Democrat standard bearer told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, “I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”
However, strong evidence arose yesterday to corroborate Smith’s account and underscore the question with which she closed her emotional convention speech: “If Hillary Clinton can’t give us the truth, why should we give her the presidency?” Charles Woods, the father of former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods — who was slaughtered by al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists at Benghazi — appeared on Fox News Channel with the calendar that he carried on the day he met Clinton. “I keep this little book, and I’ve shown this to the public many times,” Woods told anchor Bill Hemmer. I jokingly say I keep my brains in my pocket, and I write down the important things that happen each day. And I’ve been doing this for many years. What I have written down here, this is verbatim what was written down soon after she spoke it. Here it is: “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand, and she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son.”
Clinton’s prophecy came true — the First Amendment be damned. The next day, Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies hauled Nakoula Basseley Nakoula from his home in Cerritos, Calif. The Egyptian-born Coptic Christian director of the video Innocence of Muslims, subsequently was sentenced to a year in federal prison for using the pseudonym Sam Bacile and otherwise violating his probation after an unrelated 2010 federal bank-fraud conviction.
While Clinton can accuse Mrs. Smith and Mr. Woods of being too dimwitted to remember accurately what she told them up close, Hillary’s public lies at that ceremony are very much on the record. As the Washington Post’s transcript of Clinton’s remarks indicates, she tied the murders of Smith, Woods, Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, and U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens to “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Charles Woods said that Clinton “also lied to the American public” during the televised memorial. “She said basically the same thing in private to the families that were grieving,” Woods said. “And then a half an hour later, she said basically the same thing, as far as causation, to the American public.” Woods added: “She stood in front of my son’s casket and blamed the rage directed at American embassies upon the video that she said we had no part of.”
...Clinton’s flat-out lies to at least two bereaved parents while their valiant sons came home in flag-draped coffins. Clinton knew damn well that these men were butchered in a pre-meditated, militant-Islamic terrorist attack — not a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a spectacularly amateurish YouTube video. Clinton privately shared the real reasons behind these men’s deaths with her daughter, even as the terror assault roared on, and while Woods and Doherty still were alive. “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group,” Hillary e-mailed Chelsea at 11:12 p.m. Eastern time on September 11, 2012. Hillary gave the truth to Libyan president Mohamed Magariaf at 11:49 p.m. “There is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar [al] Sharia is claiming responsibility for,” Hillary said. This group is al-Qaeda’s Libyan branch.
Hillary blamed associates of al-Qaeda for this mayhem during a phone call at 3:04 p.m. the next day with Hisham Qandil, then prime minister of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood–led government. “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film,” she told him. “It was a planned attack — not a protest. Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda.” But, just two days later, Hillary Clinton looked into the sorrow-soaked faces of a mother and father and spat lies at them like a venom-spewing serpent. She then peered into TV cameras and duped the American people.
-
Truthful answers to whom? Internal investigations? She lied to the American people and the committee about every aspect of it. Will this explanation hold up?
Blame the 'professionals':
Mrs Clinton also appeared to direct some of the blame for the whole imbroglio to her subordinates. After acknowledging that she "made a mistake" not using separate email addresses for personal and work messages, she said she had relied on the "judgements of the professionals" with whom she worked.
"In retrospect, maybe some people are saying, well, among those 300 people, they made the wrong call," she said. "At the time, there was no reason in my view to doubt the professionalism and the determination by the people who work every single day on behalf of our country."
Media fact-checkers have offered harsh reviews of Mrs Clinton's response. The Washington Post gave it four "Pinocchios", its lowest rating. Politifact labelled her statement "pants on fire".
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36960223
She's counting on Bernie's synopsis, paraphrasing, people are tired of hearing about her lies and her crimes.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/bill-clinton-honorary-chairman-international-sharia-school-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
"The Washington Post gave it four "Pinocchios","
We know that this is essentially meaningless except it gives us some fodder
I hear the skunk Carl Bernstein on the air a week or so ago saying her email deeds are "inexcusable".
NOW that she is safely the nominee and she was excused by the FBI, DOJ, Obama and the DNC in reality.
Like Rush said. The Dems only criticize their own when it doesn't really matter to do so.
-
"The Washington Post gave it four "Pinocchios","
We know that this is essentially meaningless except it gives us some fodder
----------------------------------------------------------
When you figure in the double standard and media bias it is like getting 8 or 16 Pinocchios. )
But is it really a lie, Doc, if she has been already diagnosed as having no regard for the truth?
Maybe she can take the insanity plea!
-
DNC not Russians but Gucifer? as per Roger Stone who is controversial:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/05/dear-hillary-dnc-hack-solved-so-now-stop-blaming-russia/
-
This is apparently only available on the Fox site - be sure to adjust the volume using the gear icon at the lower-right of the screen. It is her opening statement from last night's show:
www.foxnews.com/shows/justice-jeanine.html
-
Can't stand that woman's voice , , ,
-
Crafty: LOL :lol: My best friend in CT who is Jewish says the same thing, though he likes her opinions generally. He says she reminds him of the pushy, dominating and abrasive Jewish women he grew up surrounded by in West Hartford, CT. :-D
-
When did wages grow under Pres. Bill Clinton? Only after passing pro-growth policies.
When will wages grow under Hillary Clinton if she wins and keeps her promises? Never.
The facts of the Clinton economic growth record: Bill Clinton's presidency gets credit for some impressive private sector growth but the lion's share of it came in the last 4 years after he co-opted the Republicans economic agenda. See chart below.
Bill Clinton's economic policy achievements:
1) Passed NAFTA with majority Republican support, majority Democratic dissent. Took effect 1994.
2) Passed Welfare Reform with majority Republican support, lacking majority Democratic dsupport, 1996.
3) Passed Capital Gains Tax Rate cuts with majority Republican support, 1997.
Hillary Clinton -
1) opposes free trade, 2) opposes welfare reform, and 3) wants to raise taxes further than Obama did on investment, and crush our fragile growth.
Bill Clinton's economic results:
Venture capital grew 6 fold over 1995 levels in the years following the capital gains tax rate reductions.
Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent rate after the Bill Clinton-Newt Gingrich capital gains tax rate cuts compared with 0.8 percent growth rate after the Bill Clinton tax rate hikes of 1993.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom
Hillary Clinton now opposes the pro growth policies that worked for Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton -
Not satisfied with growing the private economy and balancing the federal government, returned to big government ways, attacked America's most successful company Microsoft in March 2000 with a DOJ lawsuit that triggered the tech stock crash of 2000 and the 2000-2001 recession. Growth ended, see chart:
(http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/dougmacg/961316df-b980-4912-ade6-6dadecf3c8d5_zpswbksyfxm.jpg)
Chart source: Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/05/the-clinton-economy-in-charts/
Hillary Clinton opposes all the policies that accelerated economic growth, favors all policies tied to big government growth, is running to continue Obama's slow growth, low growth polices.
Insanity or deception? Candidate Hillary promises the results of the Bill Clinton administration while rejecting the policies responsible for that growth.
-
Please post on Political Economics thread please and/or 2016 Election thread.
-
http://counterjihad.com/exclusive-hillary-rubber-stamped-visas-record-number-saudi-visitors
-
I thought my tax dollars should go to enforcement immigrant law. Instead Hillary proposes in her usual style more government, more "policies" , more bureaucracy , more regulation, not to enforce immigration law but to make it easier for immigrants to come here:
ttps://www.yahoo.com/
-
I thought my tax dollars should go to enforcement immigrant law. Instead Hillary proposes in her usual style more government, more "policies" , more bureaucracy , more regulation, not to enforce immigration law but to make it easier for immigrants to come here:
ttps://www.yahoo.com/
Trump spoke up on border security, took a stand and it got him this far.
Unbelievably, Hillary doesn't even stake out middle ground, will not enforce our borders. She is the extremist.
If Trump wins, this is the number one reason.
-
http://www.jpost.com/printarticle.aspx?id=463680
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/exclusive-hillary-aide-cheryl-mills-okd-oil-deal-that-put-500k-in-bills-pocket/
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3732075/Secret-emails-reveal-Hillary-s-closest-aide-took-orders-Clinton-Foundation-open-State-Department-doors-one-biggest-donors.html
Morris says this is a smoking gun
http://www.dickmorris.com/smoking-gun-clinton-foundation-scandal-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/09/hillary-emails-message-private-server-betrayed-name-nsa-agent/
-
In the msm are the headlines how clintons would lose money if she were president and how she donated 10% of 10 mill to charity. and her tax rate was an exorbitant 34%!!!!
Of course 96% of the charitable donation went to the Clinton Family Foundation who then paid Bill. As always a con game with them and their mafia cohorts:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/12/clinton-releases-2015-tax-returns-heres-where-96-percent-of-their-charitable-donations-went/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/12/clintons-charity-themselves/?utm_source=FB-ARB&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=TWT_Chacka_BreakingNews_LP&utm_content=103547922&utm_term=103547922
-
I am sure everyone here has seen this but it is just so outrageous that it is not possible to comment. Now that Hillary is looking good in the polls this strikes me as a form of veiled threat to Comey.
I also have to wonder if Comey should not be sorry he did NOT recommend indictment. The stinking corruption of the Clintons seems to hath no end:
http://nypost.com/2016/08/13/bill-clinton-accuses-fbi-of-serving-up-a-load-of-bull/
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-documents-226963
-
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
OK gents, how legit are these counter claims?
-
One of m allegations against Hillary Clinton, and it's true, is that she sold her book Living History in CHina with the chapter removed that covered criticism of Chinese government's lack of women's rights. In nearly press account of this, she is portrayed as the victim. How could she know they would censor criticism of the government? They censor all criticisms of the government. They were rushed to beat the black market versions etc. SHe gets her money. THey get a book that iincludes all the praise that makes them look good, nothing critical, makes politburo look like the greatest woma in the world endorses ther benevolent rule. When discovered, she is 'outraged', publishes the missing chapter on her website - where it also will be censored off every internet connection in China.
Incompetent boob or compulsive liar trying to make every available buck at any price? You make the call.
Willing accomplices:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/24/world/clinton-history-doesn-t-repeat-itself-in-china.html
-
"the failure to build up Syrian rebels battling President Bashar Assad "left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled." - Hillary Clinton The Atlantic, Aug 10, 2014 Link below
"It is striking, however, that you have more than 170,000 people dead in Syria. You have the vacuum that has been created by the relentless assault by Assad on his own population, an assault that has bred these extremist groups, the most well-known of which, ISIS — or ISIL — is now literally expanding its territory inside Syria and inside Iraq," Clinton said.
Iran Deal:
"it’s important to send a signal to everybody who is there that there cannot be a deal unless there is a clear set of restrictions on Iran," adding, "little or no enrichment has always been my position."
Clinton said Obama's political message on foreign policy might be different from his worldview, noting, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'Don’t do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."
Her own organizing tactic? "Peace, progress and prosperity."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/
http://thehill.com/policy/international/214796-clinton-criticizes-obama-foreign-policy
-
Good stuff; please post on FUBAR and 2016 Presidential.
-
A number of people like Kudlow and Trump are picking up on this. The current economy teeters on zero growth, near recession. The Fed who I say has the most complete economic data available has long believed that interests rates above near zero will kick this fragile economy into recession. We took the dyamism of our private sector and taxed it to its limit, not just with taxes but worse yet with regulations and mandates. The best and brightest by anyone's standard believe it can't handle a shock right now, yet a shock is on the ballot and leading in the polls: Hillary's economic plan.
As I have been saying (ad nauseum), there are growth policies and there are anti-growth policies that pursue other goals like fighting "inequality". Sadly those other policies not only kill growth but fail against their own agenda except to keep it as a political issue.
Barack Obama promised to raise taxes, crack down on Wall Street and the like and he did it. Why not celebrate success, 0.0 growth, instead of always say do it more until you kill off the private sector entirely?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438534/trump-beats-hillary-on-taxes-and-economic-growth
Let me get this right. In order to spur growth, Hillary intends to raise taxes on individuals, businesses, capital gains, stock trading, and firms that move overseas (which they do because the U.S. has the most uncompetitive tax system in the corporate world). In addition, Hillary’s door is open for a carbon tax, higher payroll taxes, and a 25 percent gun tax.
---------------------------------------------------
Liberal pundits (willing accomplices) such as Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday say that Hillary is only proposing to raise taxes on the rich. But she is raising taxes on the economy. Are the rich detached from the economy? Is losing your job because of a tax, not a tax on you? Really? Is the economy not interconnected, labor and capital, buyers and sellers, employers and employees, or are these people economically illiterate?
-
Well Dr Pinsky I think is a psychiatrist not a neurologist yet I agree with him here.
A healthy 69 yo should not have imbalance going up and down a few steps though she clearly is pushing herself to the limit of fatigue which I don't think would be surprising at 69 yo going through the rigors of a presidential campaign.
http://www.infowars.com/dr-drew-gravely-concerned-about-hillary-clintons-health/
-
Staying out of public view for 96 hours... Wednesday through Sunday.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/rest-time-no-public-events-hillary-sunday/
-
"Hillbillary Clinton, shrewd move"
If only Trump had the sense to do that after the RNC.
OTOH if Trump can get his message right he can win browny points now . OTOH again the MSM will not let him no matter what.
-
This campaign has got to be grueling for anyone of any age , , ,
-
To the Top, this deserves an answer...
----------------------------------------------------------
Crafty:
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
OK gents, how legit are these counter claims?
----------------------------------------------------------
I would like to delve deep but will start with only a few points here:
1. The Clinton Foundation was not mentioned once at the Democratic National convention even though it has become the life's work of the stars of the convention. Why? a. Lots of problems, b. It polls badly, people know it's a scam. (Our job is to prove that.)
2. "89% of the funding went to charity. That leaves 11%, hundreds of millions, to Clintons and friends, just taking their figures.
3. Of the 89%, where did THAT money go? Is charitable percentage of the recipient charities 100% as inferred by the factcheck link? No. They buy speeches, give to politicians, etc.
4. Out of the 100%, what amounts came from people expecting or getting something in return? All?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/02/09/hillarys-wall-street-speech-fees-hers-or-clinton-foundations/#7b48ee076232
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/11/16/tracking-hillarys-speech-fees-clinton-foundation-or-pocket/#1098cfc449cd
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-reveals-up-to-26million-in-additional-payments/2015/05/21/e49da740-0009-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html
5. Of the recipients of the money, did any happen to purchase part of the $150 million of Clinton speeches or funnel money to Dem or leftist causes etc.?
6. Of the donations, who had business pending with the State Department? See Russian Uranium deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
7. The short answer is that all of it was crooked. As one pundit put it, does anyone really believe these donor don't know of the United Way?
-
" people know it's a scam."
I remember upon hearing about the Clinton Foundation immediately concluding it was a form of money laundering scam. We probably even talked about it on the Dogbrother's forum.
It is obvious what it was to begin with.
addendum: wikipedia states it was founded in 1997 though I thought it later. Perhaps after the world's greatest grifter finished his tenure as Prez is when it came to the forefront. In any case it was totally obvious what it was early on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation
-
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/stories/5955/top-hillary-clinton-scandals#Intro
HillBillary's Top 17 Scandals (as of Sept 2015)
One might ask, are they cleaner now, more honest, done with corruption, ready to follow the rules, out for the best interests of the country?
Needless to say, it's all gotten worse since Sept 2015, the corruption is bigger, we have more information on Benhazi and the emails, and the old scandals just get morel relevant as they show the pattern we see today and reveal character, or lack of it.
-
https://www.youtube.com/embed/BdNHf1g4ivA
To defend a brutal rapist MIGHT be part of the job as a young attorney, a necessary evil that makes our justice system work. To laugh about getting a really awful guy off on a technicality is something else, reveals her own ambition, a political gaffe (extreme understatement) worse than Dukakis' technocratic answer about the hypothetical rape of his wife and daughter.
People need to see the video above, know what she was laughing and bragging about, 12 year old violently raped, put in a coma for 5 days, was never able to have children because of it. She wanted it, fantasized about an older man. The charged man's semen was found in the victim's blood, suppressed. Got off with time served, 2 months for destroying a young girl's life. Champion of women and women's rights. Ha ha.
Along with Whitewater, the pardons, Benghazi, speeches, selling the Lincoln bedroom, and working 'The Foundation', this is her life's work.
-
"addendum: wikipedia states it was founded in 1997 though I thought it later. Perhaps after the world's greatest grifter finished his tenure as Prez is when it came to the forefront. In any case it was totally obvious what it was early on."
Sounds like it was set up at the start of his second term, planning his transition from President to UN Secretary General. Maybe Barack will get that job.
In another story, the foundation was hacked. Maybe there will be a series of smoldering guns exposing the foundation's quid pro quo and how their efforts were organized in terms of both donors, recipients and clients of the State Dept.
-
"In another story, the foundation was hacked. Maybe there will be a series of smoldering guns exposing the foundation's quid pro quo and how their efforts were organized in terms of both donors, recipients and clients of the State Dept."
A lot of headlines about hacking going on . Seems like someone on the right is behind the recent hacks. I am not sure it is simply just Russia or China. The level of hacking and eavesdropping is astounding. Few people even realize. I live it personally every day. And now with wireless etc. Forget about security.
It is rampant in corporate crime. Entertainment. Wall Street is obvious. Politics - of course. So far the leaks are about the LEFT mostly. Don't expect that not to change soon. The LEft will not sit on their behinds and let this get away from them without revenge and "one-upsmanship".
The idea that governments do it is well known. I would not think they would like to make it obvious as would professional criminals. However is leaking these emails etc is doing it for a reason. And who has a better reason than someone(s) on the Right?
-
"In another story, the foundation was hacked."
Catching up with a link: "Possibly hacked"
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/18/report-clinton-foundation-possibly-hacked/
Both sides get hacked, we assume, but the left has more to hide. There is nothing exciting or diabolical about being pro-freedom or pro-equal treatment under the law, or waiting for the Obama administration to approve your 501c3. If you favor freedom, you have no motive to work in government - except in the army fighting for freedom and a few other positive aspects. Being pro-powerful government is another thing. Ask Putin or Chavez's daughter. Or the Clintons.
The leak is different than the hack. ccp, your curiosity about motive for the leaks is interesting. NSA targets hacking back the NSA for embarrassment or to get them to back off? What do the hackers/leakers want from Hillary? Revenge for not following through on a quid pro quo? Something to do with all the deaths around the Clinton machine? Will we ever know?
-
"ccp, your curiosity about motive for the leaks is interesting. NSA targets hacking back the NSA for embarrassment or to get them to back off? What do the hackers/leakers want from Hillary? Revenge for not following through on a quid pro quo? Something to do with all the deaths around the Clinton machine? Will we ever know?"
Just seems to me that the hacks AND RELEASE of liberal sided entities emails, including DNC, Clinton campaign and Soros seems most likely someone or some people with Right leaning persuasions. This could be a rogue Russian or American, or the like. I just do not buy it is a STATE sponsored entity such as Putin or China or Korea or Iran. Of course they are hacking but it is just from common sense not logical to think that they would release to the world information and exposing their operation.
Just my 2 cents. I think the Left's trying to pin the hacks on "Russia" is nothing more than another spin to damage Trump etc. Do I think Trump or other wealthy Republican bribed or paid off someone else who did it? Like you said , Doug, we will never know.
-
urgency and stress urine incontinence is extremely common in older women ( am I allowed to use that phrase? "women??) so this is possible:
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2016/08/17/is-hillary-clinton-wearing-a-catheter/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FireAndreaMitchell+%28Fire+Andrea+Mitchell%21+Exposing+Liberal+bias+cause+the+MSM+doesn%27t+have+to.%29
-
What if they are raging alcoholics with a hx of head injuries?
urgency and stress urine incontinence is extremely common in older women ( am I allowed to use that phrase? "women??) so this is possible:
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2016/08/17/is-hillary-clinton-wearing-a-catheter/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FireAndreaMitchell+%28Fire+Andrea+Mitchell%21+Exposing+Liberal+bias+cause+the+MSM+doesn%27t+have+to.%29
-
http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/
Worth watching.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/does-donald-trump-like-any-american-presidents.html?via=desktop&source=facebook
And let’s never forget that Bill Clinton employed Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser, who used his unique access to the National Archives to stuff highly classified documents down his pants, including the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR), believed to include President Bill Clinton’s handwritten notes calling off a military strike that could have taken out Osama bin Laden years before the September 11 attacks.
==============================
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html
January 15, 2007
Sandy Berger: What Did He Take and Why Did He Take It?
By Ronald A. Cass
Some things cry out for explanation. Like finding $90,000 in marked bills in a Congressman's freezer. Or finding out that a blue-chip lawyer who held one of the most important jobs in the nation was willing to risk his career, his livelihood, and his liberty to steal, hide, and destroy classified documents.
We all have a pretty good idea what the money was doing in Representative William Jefferson's freezer. But the questions about President William Jefferson Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, just keep piling up.
It's time we got some answers.
00:29
/
00:00
**********
According to reports from the Inspector General of the National Archives and the staff of the House of Representatives' Government Operations Committee, Mr. Berger, while acting as former President Clinton's designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.
Marc-- there is more on the page but this is all I can get to paste.
-
second post:
http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/huma-abedin-worked-at-a-radical-muslim-journal-for-10-years/
-
Another hit by Hillary? or by another of Assange's many enemies?
http://galacticconnection.com/julian-assanges-lawyer-found-dead-after-being-struck-by-train/
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/
-
second post of day:
Why was this not a part of Comey's testimony?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-uncovered-at-least-14900-more-documents-in-clinton-email-investigation/2016/08/22/36745578-6643-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/
Pay to play at the Clinton State Dept has found its smoking guns. (Does anyone care? Is anyone surprised?)
It also proves for the many thousandth time they haven't released all the emails, as required by law and promised.
Is there a consequence?
-
second post:
http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/huma-abedin-worked-at-a-radical-muslim-journal-for-10-years/
Their defense, she was only a figurehead. Okay, but a figurehead for whaqt cause, WHY? Why didn't lend her name to some food for starving children around the world cause instead of the advancement of terrorism around the world? And what was the value of her name and credibility before her fame and fortune acquired by serving with Hillary?
Another question, what are her good qualities that make her valuable to Hillary worthy of weathering all this adverse exposure?
[Amazing similarity to the Valerie Jarrett and Obama story. Somebody in that White House has a huge, pro-Iran bias and is calling all the shots on policy in that area. WHY? What's in it for him and his Presidency to be risking it all by trusting the good qualities of terror sponsoring, American killing, Islamic extremists.]
-
"... let’s never forget that Bill Clinton employed Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser, who used his unique access to the National Archives to stuff highly classified documents down his pants, including the Millennium Alert After Action Report (MAAAR), believed to include President Bill Clinton’s handwritten notes calling off a military strike that could have taken out Osama bin Laden years before the September 11 attacks."
This is what I have heard also, though I think we may underestimate how damaging the notes were considered the risk they took to remove and destroy them. No doubt hiding corruption or something worse, not just policy errors and missed opportunities.
What we know about the corruption of the Clintons can only be the tip of the iceberg. There is a whole new scandal in those notes and documents that we may never know.
-
From the VDH Trump article just posted over there.
Hillary:
"The problem with chronic lying is that finally the liar reaches a combustible state, one in which she cannot lie any more without contradicting a particular prior lie and yet cannot tell the truth without contradicting all prior lies. To keep them straight, one needs an amoral photographic memory. Hillary Clinton has the requisite shamelessness, but (unlike Bill) not the animal cunning to pull off such serial prevarication."
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439256/donald-trump-unexpected-opportunity?target=author&tid=900280
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/08/hillary-state-dept-helped-jailed-clinton-foundation-donor-get-10-mil-u-s-failed-haiti-project/
-
second post
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/22/emails-huma-abedin-left-classified-material-unsecured-in-the-front-seat-of-her-car/
-
I wonder if it is common to have an ambassador driving in one's own car. I suppose a government owned vehicle? Why would the ambassador be in her car without her being in it?
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/huma-abedin-edited-radical-islamic-journal-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439275/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-judicial-watch-questions&hl=en&geo=US?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202016-08-24&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
-
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/44454
-
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/44454
Sadly, she will be the next president.
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/confirmed-army-training-slide-calling-hillary-an-insider-threat-is-real/?singlepage=true
Accurate.
-
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/13-of-abedin-emails-100-redacted/
-
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/44480
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/fly-on-the-chappaqua-wall/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DayByDayCartoon+%28Day+by+Day+Cartoon+by+Chris+Muir%29
-
https://www.facebook.com/PrepareToTakeAmericaBack/videos/1098277813560580/?pnref=story
-
https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14080055_126217901161893_8200435587193062513_n.jpg?oh=7ddab4d88d0035aa8ec98e0d5f699258&oe=584221CC
-
Hillary for small businesses!!! For crying out loud. Nothing hypocritical here. :x
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hillary-clinton-small-business-plan-karen-mills-171954974.html
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293914-clinton-emailed-classified-information-after-leaving
Untouchable.
-
Hillary Clinton’s favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself. Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54 percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped in the last few weeks, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive view. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/women-dont-really-like-hillary-clinton-that-much/article/2600647
"To be fair, men like her even less." - Glenn Reynolds (https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This election is SO winnable for Trump with the frontrunner stuck at about 41% in the polls, no accomplishments, no skills, no charisma, and no positive plan for the country.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/romanian-hacker-guccifer-sentenced-52-months-u-prison-160948958.html
-
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/02/fbi-interview-hillary-said-no-biggie-secretnoforn-data-got-exposed/
-
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=35781
-
Amazing huh?
Uses the concussion and stroke as an excuse when it is convenient. Yet the rest of the time her minions are all over the place saying she is 100% fit to be President!
Sickening.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/02/fbi-interview-hillary-said-no-biggie-secretnoforn-data-got-exposed/
Keep in mind MANY people have done much less and went to PRISON.
-
Who in their right mind would ever hire a person like this for even a menial job?:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-told-fbi-couldnt-recall-key-details-26-times/
-
With regards to the Empresses coughing fits and now grabbing for glasses of water -
One can only recall how the MSM mercilessly MOCKED Sen. Rubio for momentarily reaching for a glass of water for a dry mouth.
bastards.
-
Glenn Reynolds, deserves a read.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/06/emails-fbi-hillary-crooked-blackberry-lost-phones-laptop-server-classified-glenn-reynolds/89881664/
-
Moved over from political rants:
Did Hillary put out a "hit" on Putin? evil
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1735372/putins-official-presidential-car-involved-in-head-on-horror-crash-in-moscow-killing-russian-presidents-favourite-chauffeur/
Notice how this story dropped off the face of the Earth:
http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-murder-dnc-hack-julian-assange-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3yesvvYEvs
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/04/ben-carson-bill-clintons-position-on-illegal-immigration-is-the-same-as-trumps-video/
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/09/06/julian-assange-we-have-released-thousands-of-emails-where-clinton-herself-has-used-a-c-in-brackets/?singlepage=true
Crooked Hillary and Crooked Comey corrupted the FBI.
-
"Crooked Comey"
Their will be books written trying to figure exactly WHY Comey let her off.
Intimidated? Threatened with a stick (or )
Corrupt? Bribed with a carrot? In on the fix?
Incompetent? Tricked? Screwed up?
Rationalization? Did not want the FBI to have so much power as to knock off a leading Presidential nominee? Some (warped in IMHO) concept that it is best left for the 'voters to decide'?
Combinations of the above
We may never know.
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/09/hillarys-email-scandal-takes-down-the-fbi
-
Yes . Why is it there is no scrutiny of her lawyers who contributed or allowed there to be destruction of evidence:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439804/clintons-e-mail-scandal-stinkier-stinkier-documents-destroyed-after-subpoena
-
Yes . Why is it there is no scrutiny of her lawyers who contributed or allowed there to be destruction of evidence:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439804/clintons-e-mail-scandal-stinkier-stinkier-documents-destroyed-after-subpoena
Or the IT workers that destroyed evidence after they knew it was subpoenaed....
Because the rule of law is dead in this country.
-
Yes . Why is it there is no scrutiny of her lawyers who contributed or allowed there to be destruction of evidence:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439804/clintons-e-mail-scandal-stinkier-stinkier-documents-destroyed-after-subpoena
Or the IT workers that destroyed evidence after they knew it was subpoenaed....
Because the rule of law is dead in this country.
As I was saying....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html?_r=0
Granted immunity, just like Hillary.
-
“As the F.B.I.’s report notes,” Mr. Fallon said, “neither Hillary Clinton nor her attorneys had knowledge of the Platte River Network employee’s actions. It appears he acted on his own and against guidance given by both Clinton’s and Platte River’s attorneys to retain all data in compliance with a congressional preservation request.”
We know this is a lie.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/07/hillary-clintons-outsourcing-of-top-secret-government-documents-the-untold-story/
Yup DOJ allowed Clinton and mob to cover their tracks as much as they could get away with. As we knew they would. And Comey is the fall guy. DOJ would follow whatever his recommendations are.....
We know that was a fix. And of course not even a coffee stain on Obamster's shirt.......
-
Coulter can be an embarrassment, but OTOH she can do this:
Hillary told another whopper today, one of her typical I am a heroic woman who has stood up to bullies my whole life lies.
Speaking to a blog called “Humans of New York” on Thursday, Hillary shared a “rare personal message” – as Politico put it. She claimed that when she took the LSAT during her senior year of college, men taking the test shouted at her, saying her admission to law school could cost them their draft deferments, forcing them to go to Vietnam, where they would die. The moral of the story was that she had to “learn as a young woman to control my emotions.” Brave Hillary!
Here’s what Hillary said:
“I was taking a law school admissions test in a big classroom at Harvard. My friend and I were some of the only women in the room. I was feeling nervous. I was a senior in college. I wasn’t sure how well I’d do. And while we’re waiting for the exam to start, a group of men began to yell things like: ‘You don’t need to be here.’ And ‘There’s plenty else you can do.’ It turned into a real ‘pile on.’ One of them even said: ‘If you take my spot, I’ll get drafted, and I’ll go to Vietnam, and I’ll die.’ And they weren’t kidding around. It was intense.
“It got very personal. But I couldn’t respond. I couldn’t afford to get distracted because I didn’t want to mess up the test. So I just kept looking down, hoping that the proctor would walk in the room. I know that I can be perceived as aloof or cold or unemotional. But I had to learn as a young woman to control my emotions. And that’s a hard path to walk. “
The problem with this corny story that only stupid 20-year-old girls would believe is: Hillary graduated from Wellesley in 1969. Remember? That’s when she gave that speech insulting the first black senator since Reconstruction. So her senior year began in autumn, 1968. She says she was a senior during this harrowing experience, which is when the LSAT is normally taken. But the LBJ administration ended all graduate school deferments on February 16, 1968, except for medical, dental and divinity students, when Hillary was still a junior in college.
Perhaps it was that bump on her head that has her confused on dates. Or the trauma of that gunfire she ducked landing in Sarajevo.
-
Mary Matalin: Trump ‘Has a 100% Chance Of Winning’
Mary Matalin: I'm Positive Trump Is Going To Win
Breitbart
by PAM KEY8 Sep 2016541
” Republican political consultant Mary Matalin said she is “confident” Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will win.
When asked about the odds of a Trump victory in November, Matalin said, “I think he has a 100 percent chance of winning.”
*****She continued, “I’m confident he’s going to win. The race is closing despite Mrs. Clinton’s dumping hundreds of millions of dollars relative to his $4 million or whatever.”****
Backing off a little on the 100 percent prediction, she gave Hillary Clinton a “10 percent to 15 percent,” chance of winning, adding, “I just think he’s going to win.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN
For Hillary , from Paul and the gang:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxha1IUsSPI
-
I am sure she is in a private location in the emergency room right now with chiefs of cardiology sitting at her bedside.
It is common for older people to faint at church.
But usually they are more like 80 or 85 years old. And often on water pills so they get dehydrated fast.
This could have been Atrial Fibrillation or a simple mostly benign fainting (vasovagal ) spell. This is more than just a coughing fit for sure.
She does not appear to have the stamina one would expect from a President. The dems will carry her over the finish line on a stretcher if they have to. Then bill and chelsea will help her run the White House ala Woodrow Wilson style.
-
I forgot. She is warfarin too. So she will have the chief of neurology also holding her hand at bedside and will get her Cat Scan of the brain.
-
I am sure she is in a private location in the emergency room right now with chiefs of cardiology sitting at her bedside.
It is common for older people to faint at church.
But usually they are more like 80 or 85 years old. And often on water pills so they get dehydrated fast.
This could have been Atrial Fibrillation or a simple mostly benign fainting (vasovagal ) spell. This is more than just a coughing fit for sure.
She does not appear to have the stamina one would expect from a President. The dems will carry her over the finish line on a stretcher if they have to. Then bill and chelsea will help her run the White House ala Woodrow Wilson style.
Huma and her Muslim Brotherhood handlers will run things.
-
If she dies, does Keane take the top slot , , , leaving room for Bill or Baraq in the SP slot?
-
Or Biden-Warren?
BTW, a different camera angle here, one that makes it even clearer what bad shape she is in: https://patriotpost.us/posts/44771
-
If she dies, does Keane take the top slot , , , leaving room for Bill or Baraq in the SP slot?
You mean VP? No, they cannot be VP as the VP must be eligible to be president.
-
If my dog was in her shape, he'd be making his last trip to the vet. No pickles here.
-
https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/csfxqpzwcaacawm.jpg
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/csfxqpzwcaacawm.jpg)
-
https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/csfxqpzwcaacawm.jpg
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/csfxqpzwcaacawm.jpg)
https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/hillary-health-8-31-16.jpg
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/hillary-health-8-31-16.jpg)
-
Love your humor GM..... laughing heartily here.
By the way.... in one of the videos I was studying, they say that a metallic object was dropped by Clinton today. I saw it drop, but have no idea what it was. Do you?
[youtube]YzZl9j580tM[/youtube]
-
Love your humor GM..... laughing heartily here.
By the way.... in one of the videos I was studying, they say that a metallic object was dropped by Clinton today. I saw it drop, but have no idea what it was. Do you?
[youtube]YzZl9j580tM[/youtube]
I am guessing a stainless steel type pen, like what zebra makes. Or a component from the exoskeleton came loose...
-
But Bill would not be 3 consecutive terms, , , what is the law on that?
================================================
So lets see what do we know:
History of Concussions
history of venous thrombosis
Warfarin anticoag on board
Fresnell lenses
Various tics and odd behaviour
Coughing episodes
-----------------------------------
All of this supports neurological damage to the brain which affects nerve supply to the pharyngeal nerves. She has difficulty regulating the temp, so perhaps hypothalamic injury ?. I am convinced this is not benign, not the common fainting spell which most of us have from time-time...Yash
==========================
Our Pat; picture of nurse checking Hillary's pulse as she walks
https://www.hotgas.net/2016/09/faintinghillary-dragged-van/
======================
Does anyone think Hillary may have CLL? Or a myeloproliferative or myelodysplastic syndrome?
=========================
Before everyone goes nuclear, CLL is a myeloproliferative disorder but she may have one of the others or myelodysplastic syndrome. That would explain her constellation of symptoms and slow progression. Certainly none of them have a pretty outcome. They are debilitating though.
======================
Pneumonia is a finding in many disease processes and a is a diagnosis in and of itself sometimes but in her case it is probably a finding that is part of the bigger picture that fills her more definitive diagnosis. Coagulopathy, immune deficiency, thrombosis, and generalized lethargy sounds more like a systemic disease. My bet is myelopathic. Could be a lymphocytic SLL but more likely myeloid.
Hope I'm wrong.
===============================
PowerLine blog:
A prominent internist writes with admittedly speculative comments on the diagnosis of pneumonia made public today regarding Hillary Clinton. He writes:
During my 19 years as a board certified internist I have taken care of many hundreds of patients with pneumonia. The story about Hillary Clinton being diagnosed with pneumonia raises a red flag as to the cause. It could simply have been a community acquired pneumonia, which means she contracted it as a healthy person living her usual life. This happens occasionally, even to healthy people. If this is the case the timing certainly is unfortunate for her given where we are in the election cycle though it doesn’t portend anything ominous.
Another more worrisome possibility comes to mind. I raise this second possibility because of Hillary’s history of neurological illnesses (blood clot in brain, concussion), hints raised on the internet in Wikileaks documents and by others that she may have a neurological disease like Parkinson’s, and her by now well documented history of recurrent coughing fits. This second possibility is that she has an aspiration pneumonia.
Aspiration pneumonia occurs when fluids and food particles that normally enter the esophagus instead enter the windpipe and lungs. It is commonly seen in neurological conditions like strokes and Parkinson’s disease or similar diseases where the nerves to the swallowing mechanism are not working properly. This is especially worrisome because it is likely to recur given the underlying, usually incurable disease process and because it can be a life-threatening event.
I consider aspiration pneumonia to be the more likely cause because it unifies all the pieces of disparate information that are available on Hillary’s medical condition. A diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia raises profoundly troubling implications for her possible election as president.
Someone should demand full and immediate disclosure of her medical records. She should also be the subject of a swallow study to confirm that she can swallow normally (if one hasn’t been done already). Every voter should know what’s at stake.
-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxii
Bill and Buraq cannot hold the position.
-
Thank you GM. Let's continue this discussion on the 2016 Election thread please.
-
===============================
PowerLine blog:
A prominent internist writes with admittedly speculative comments on the diagnosis of pneumonia made public today regarding Hillary Clinton. He writes:
During my 19 years as a board certified internist I have taken care of many hundreds of patients with pneumonia. The story about Hillary Clinton being diagnosed with pneumonia raises a red flag as to the cause. It could simply have been a community acquired pneumonia, which means she contracted it as a healthy person living her usual life. This happens occasionally, even to healthy people. If this is the case the timing certainly is unfortunate for her given where we are in the election cycle though it doesn’t portend anything ominous.
Another more worrisome possibility comes to mind. I raise this second possibility because of Hillary’s history of neurological illnesses (blood clot in brain, concussion), hints raised on the internet in Wikileaks documents and by others that she may have a neurological disease like Parkinson’s, and her by now well documented history of recurrent coughing fits. This second possibility is that she has an aspiration pneumonia.
Aspiration pneumonia occurs when fluids and food particles that normally enter the esophagus instead enter the windpipe and lungs. It is commonly seen in neurological conditions like strokes and Parkinson’s disease or similar diseases where the nerves to the swallowing mechanism are not working properly. This is especially worrisome because it is likely to recur given the underlying, usually incurable disease process and because it can be a life-threatening event.
I consider aspiration pneumonia to be the more likely cause because it unifies all the pieces of disparate information that are available on Hillary’s medical condition. A diagnosis of aspiration pneumonia raises profoundly troubling implications for her possible election as president.
Someone should demand full and immediate disclosure of her medical records. She should also be the subject of a swallow study to confirm that she can swallow normally (if one hasn’t been done already). Every voter should know what’s at stake.
I threw this up on Politico's Facebook page this morning.
The Empress' minions didn't like this at all. I was attacked IMMEDIATELY.
They evidently are all doctors now. Silly me. I should have known.
-
"I am guessing a stainless steel type pen, like what zebra makes. Or a component from the exoskeleton came loose..."
? Something come off her foley bag? that she wears taped to her leg so she doesn't have to go to BR during a long ceremony?
-
"I am guessing a stainless steel type pen, like what zebra makes. Or a component from the exoskeleton came loose..."
? Something come off her foley bag? that she wears taped to her leg so she doesn't have to go to BR during a long ceremony?
To me, the sound of it resembled the thin metal jacket of a pen, or even glass.
-
The term "walking pneumonia " is more of a lay man's term then a medical one.
It simply describes a mild pneumonia. One in which the patient does not need to be in hospital. Some reasons to be in hospital is need for respiratory support such as ventilator , supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluids or other co existing conditions that need to be controlled or corrected. I do have to say that it would be typical for someone her age , over 65 to be observed in the hospital for a day or so for the most part.
Though naturally she can afford to get support at home including IV fluids, antibiotics, or say oxygen if she needs any of that.
The pneumonia could be mild enough for her to improve in a week or two or it take someone at her age 4 to 6 weeks to fully get all her strength back. Antibiotics also effect the blood levels of warfarin which she takes to prevent more blood clots so that is often monitored closely when on an antibiotic. Home monitoring machines can be acquired for that.
I would not say this means she is not fit to run in and of itself. It sounds like she will recover and could never have another problem for 20 years (though hopefully from jail and not the WH).
-
After Hillary had her health issue rear it's ugly head Saturday morning, some liberal news agencies (albiet not large ones), are reporting that she felt good enough to attend a fundraising dinner at the home of Marie McInnis Boies and David Boies, two attorneys in Armonk, New York (a 43 minute jaunt, one way).
"Despite the pneumonia diagnosis, Clinton attended a $100,000-per-ticket fundraiser at the home of prominent attorneys Mary and David Boies in Armonk, New York on Saturday night." http://inewstoday.net/2016/09/clinton-leaves-daughters-home-feeling-great/
I'll admit, that the former site is not one that I would trust at all, but even VICE NEWS, a left leaning news organization that does have somewhat of a following, proclaimed the same - "Despite the pneumonia diagnosis, Clinton attended a $100,000-per-ticket fundraiser at the home of prominent attorneys Mary and David Boies in Armonk, New York on Saturday night." They then go on to rail in defense of Hillary's health. https://news.vice.com/article/hillary-clintons-health-is-a-campaign-issue-again-after-she-nearly-passed-out-in-public
If it sounds like I am attacking Hillary, I am. She has a $100,000 per ticket fundraiser, and although no major news agency has reported anything on it, it bears mentioning, that Vice News does have a sizable internet audience, with a total of almost 8 million viewers between both of their Facebook pages, not to mention their website.
It leaves one to wonder, where is the evidence? Not a single photo, no major coverage of it, and a sighting of Hillary these days is almost as rare as the Loch Ness monster showing itself.
Could it be more Soros money in action, doing damage control? Perhaps. The Left has already been caught doing just that and much worse this election season. One simply doesn't report something as a reputable news agency to 8 million people, without some sort of evidence, unless they're purposely attempting to sway the thoughts of others for gain.
Extra Credit: Where is Bill?
-
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/09/Weekend-at-Hillarys-copy.jpg)
A picture from the fundraiser. Happy now?
After Hillary had her health issue rear it's ugly head Saturday morning, some liberal news agencies (albiet not large ones), are reporting that she felt good enough to attend a fundraising dinner at the home of Marie McInnis Boies and David Boies, two attorneys in Armonk, New York (a 43 minute jaunt, one way).
"Despite the pneumonia diagnosis, Clinton attended a $100,000-per-ticket fundraiser at the home of prominent attorneys Mary and David Boies in Armonk, New York on Saturday night." http://inewstoday.net/2016/09/clinton-leaves-daughters-home-feeling-great/
I'll admit, that the former site is not one that I would trust at all, but even VICE NEWS, a left leaning news organization that does have somewhat of a following, proclaimed the same - "Despite the pneumonia diagnosis, Clinton attended a $100,000-per-ticket fundraiser at the home of prominent attorneys Mary and David Boies in Armonk, New York on Saturday night." They then go on to rail in defense of Hillary's health. https://news.vice.com/article/hillary-clintons-health-is-a-campaign-issue-again-after-she-nearly-passed-out-in-public
If it sounds like I am attacking Hillary, I am. She has a $100,000 per ticket fundraiser, and although no major news agency has reported anything on it, it bears mentioning, that Vice News does have a sizable internet audience, with a total of almost 8 million viewers between both of their Facebook pages, not to mention their website.
It leaves one to wonder, where is the evidence? Not a single photo, no major coverage of it, and a sighting of Hillary these days is almost as rare as the Loch Ness monster showing itself.
Could it be more Soros money in action, doing damage control? Perhaps. The Left has already been caught doing just that and much worse this election season. One simply doesn't report something as a reputable news agency to 8 million people, without some sort of evidence, unless they're purposely attempting to sway the thoughts of others for gain.
Extra Credit: Where is Bill?
-
I'll take what I can get. There are currently rumors of Clinton having a body double.
I know that most rumors are false. Still, I've had mantra that has always served me well, "at the heart of every rumor, is at a minimum, a seed of truth."
Personally, I can't even bring myself to wish her health, which for me, is a rarity. It really is. I view her as an absolute enemy to freedom.
-
What's 30,000 deleted emails, when you gave someone access to every single email you ever sent, who had no security clearance?
"Justin Cooper, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private home email system, testified Tuesday before the House Oversight Committee and admitted that he had no national security clearance during the time he had access to all of Hillary Clinton’s emails while she was Secretary of State."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/13/hillary-clinton-aid-set-private-email-server-no-security-clearance/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
This goes so much deeper than meets the eye. There is a reason she is being protected. She would take so many others with her including Obama.
-
What's 30,000 deleted emails, when you gave someone access to every single email you ever sent, who had no security clearance?
"Justin Cooper, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private home email system, testified Tuesday before the House Oversight Committee and admitted that he had no national security clearance during the time he had access to all of Hillary Clinton’s emails while she was Secretary of State."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/13/hillary-clinton-aid-set-private-email-server-no-security-clearance/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
This goes so much deeper than meets the eye. There is a reason she is being protected. She would take so many others with her including Obama.
Yes. He had to know. Think anything he emailed to her got bleachbitted?
-
"Yes. He had to know." Of course . The fix was all cleared by him. From the top.
He gave it away when in an interview ? was it Chris Wallace when he said she didn't do anything "intentional".
Then is the leak from the WPOST (I think) that she had "no malicious intent". The decision to fix was probably from the start. Tread carefully and assess for the best "way out"
And that was the best available game to play. When she was caught with black and white evidence of breaking the law then simply the next best thing is to bastardize the interpretation of the law just enough so it seems not to apply.
One way to summarize it is this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439982/hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-fbi-fix-was
Only difference I don't think he names Obama as the fixer. Which he was.
-
"This goes so much deeper than meets the eye. There is a reason she is being protected. She would take so many others with her including Obama."
THIS.
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-13/medical-doctor-explains-why-hillarys-911-medical-episode-looks-more-parkinsons-pneum
-
"Noel points out that if Hillary actually was suffering from such a severe case of pneumonia that it forced her to literally collapse on a sidewalk, it's extremely unlikely that she could make a seemingly full recovery after only 90 minutes at Chelsea's apartment and feel well enough to great onlookers and snap a selfie with a child. "
I don't agree with this. Her pneumonia , if true is not a "serious case". If it were a serious case she would be fighting for her life in a hospital ICU or telemetry unit. It is perfectly possible it was a mild case and she just got very run down at the 911 Memorial and developed the urge to lie down from exhaustion and finally fainted just as she was getting near the van . People who faint can easily recover in minutes let alone 90 minutes.
For all we know she got some IV fluids at home or a bowl of Chelsea's chicken soup with all it's sodium and rehydrated and felt better enough to do just what he says. she did. I would agree it was risky for her to go to Chelsea's and not an ER to be monitored and evaluated with a heart monitor and maybe blood work and an ECG. My guess is she has had fainting spells before and therefore felt it was just another one.
I am not saying Parkinson's is not possible but it is a stretch in my view. How many 69 year old ladies does anyone know who can campaign like Presidential candidates for a year and a half and not get tired or run down at least some times? Why do we need to guess that she , like Hitler , is hiding a diagnosis of Parkinson's?
That said her falling is still concerning because she is on a blood thinner. Should she tap her head on a curbside one day her skull could fill with blood. Falls are a big risk factor to consider when medicating a person with warfarin and indeed, if it could be avoided, it should be . It depends if the risk of not treating and thinning the blood (in her case blood clots) is greater then the risk of a fall and life threatening bleeding from the fall.
In her case her doctors determined that with 3 (reported) blood clot episodes the risk of not treating with warfarin is greater then the risk of dying from a fall.
All that said she might benefit from a walking cane.
-
From Newsweek of course.
Only a LEFIST with a phD in psychobabble could come up with crap about Hillary:
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-pneumonia-donald-trump-vulnerable-health-frail-strong-leader-497762
-
Abstract
The suppressive effect of sunglasses upon photoparoxysmal responses (PPRs) elicited by 15-Hz flicker stimuli with a low luminance of nearly 10 nits was studied in eight patients with photosensitive epilepsy. Using three commercially available sunglasses of neutral density (ND), blue, and brown, the influence upon generalized PPRs elicited by a flickering dot pattern (FDP) and red flicker (RF) stimuli was separately examined in six patients; the luminance of the visual stimuli decreased from roughly one-fifth (ND and brown sunglasses) to one-tenth (blue sunglasses). With FDP stimulation, four of the six patients wearing each of the three sunglasses had no provocation of PPRs, whereas two of the six patients had provocation of generalized PPRs with all of the sunglasses. With RF stimulation, two of the six patients wearing ND sunglasses had provocation of generalized PPRs; three of the six patients wearing brown sunglasses had similar provocation; in contrast, none of the six patients showed provocation of PPRs while wearing blue sunglasses. These results suggest that the suppressive effect of the three sunglasses on FDP stimulation is mainly due to a luminance diminution, whereas that of blue sunglasses on RF stimulation is produced by an inhibitory effect of short wavelengths and possibly by a luminance diminution. Thus, blue sunglasses are thought to be useful in the treatment of patients with photosensitive epilepsy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1592030
-
What difference at this point does it make??
In the recluse of the White House we would not even know when she is no longer able to serve.
We still don't know if she was sober, awake or conscious during the Benghazi crisis.
She disappears 15 days at a time and goes 300 days without a press conference.
It would take a court order and a constitutional crisis to even go in and find out if she was still president.
-
"This goes so much deeper than meets the eye. There is a reason she is being protected. She would take so many others with her including Obama."
THIS.
Guru Crafty, tail wags, but that wasn't mine. I stole it from the comments section because it seemed exactly so.
What difference at this point does it make??
In the recluse of the White House we would not even know when she is no longer able to serve.
We still don't know if she was sober, awake or conscious during the Benghazi crisis.
She disappears 15 days at a time and goes 300 days without a press conference.
It would take a court order and a constitutional crisis to even go in and find out if she was still president.
You're right of course. I know what my answer is, but the founding fathers are viewed as terrorists by the federal government.
I have to add, I think Hillary should have chosen Michael J. Fox for her campaign manager. Snarky I know, but imagine the public buy in that would have generated.
-
This is the problem, that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" has perished. Killed by public ignorance and apathy and the deep state.
"This goes so much deeper than meets the eye. There is a reason she is being protected. She would take so many others with her including Obama."
THIS.
Guru Crafty, tail wags, but that wasn't mine. I stole it from the comments section because it seemed exactly so.
What difference at this point does it make??
In the recluse of the White House we would not even know when she is no longer able to serve.
We still don't know if she was sober, awake or conscious during the Benghazi crisis.
She disappears 15 days at a time and goes 300 days without a press conference.
It would take a court order and a constitutional crisis to even go in and find out if she was still president.
You're right of course. I know what my answer is, but the founding fathers are viewed as terrorists by the federal government.
I have to add, I think Hillary should have chosen Michael J. Fox for her campaign manager. Snarky I know, but imagine the public buy in that would have generated.
-
That tends to happen when Obamaphones and mealtickets are only a few forms away.
I wonder what (if any) welfare programs were available in 1774? It's a valid question. You take away someone's security, their cushoned existence, and watch them start caring. At that point, revolutionary violence wouldn't even be necessary. people would start to care.
We all know where welfare and votes purchased from it leads. How to end it (or at a minimum curtail it to a point where it doesn't become a way of life), in the interest of everyone's well-being.
This is the problem, that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" has perished. Killed by public ignorance and apathy and the deep state.
"This goes so much deeper than meets the eye. There is a reason she is being protected. She would take so many others with her including Obama."
THIS.
Guru Crafty, tail wags, but that wasn't mine. I stole it from the comments section because it seemed exactly so.
What difference at this point does it make??
In the recluse of the White House we would not even know when she is no longer able to serve.
We still don't know if she was sober, awake or conscious during the Benghazi crisis.
She disappears 15 days at a time and goes 300 days without a press conference.
It would take a court order and a constitutional crisis to even go in and find out if she was still president.
You're right of course. I know what my answer is, but the founding fathers are viewed as terrorists by the federal government.
I have to add, I think Hillary should have chosen Michael J. Fox for her campaign manager. Snarky I know, but imagine the public buy in that would have generated.
-
The Pilgrims tried socialism when they first got here. Funny enough, it collapsed and they almost starved to death (Hola Venezuela!). Immigrants came here and only got private charity, if anything. America represented opportunity, not a promise of three hots and a cot.
That tends to happen when Obamaphones and mealtickets are only a few forms away.
I wonder what (if any) welfare programs were available in 1774? It's a valid question. You take away someone's security, their cushoned existence, and watch them start caring. At that point, revolutionary violence wouldn't even be necessary. people would start to care.
We all know where welfare and votes purchased from it leads. How to end it (or at a minimum curtail it to a point where it doesn't become a way of life), in the interest of everyone's well-being.
This is the problem, that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" has perished. Killed by public ignorance and apathy and the deep state.
"This goes so much deeper than meets the eye. There is a reason she is being protected. She would take so many others with her including Obama."
THIS.
Guru Crafty, tail wags, but that wasn't mine. I stole it from the comments section because it seemed exactly so.
What difference at this point does it make??
In the recluse of the White House we would not even know when she is no longer able to serve.
We still don't know if she was sober, awake or conscious during the Benghazi crisis.
She disappears 15 days at a time and goes 300 days without a press conference.
It would take a court order and a constitutional crisis to even go in and find out if she was still president.
You're right of course. I know what my answer is, but the founding fathers are viewed as terrorists by the federal government.
I have to add, I think Hillary should have chosen Michael J. Fox for her campaign manager. Snarky I know, but imagine the public buy in that would have generated.
-
I wonder what (if any) welfare programs were available in 1774?
Immigrants came here and only got private charity, if anything.
Private charity, yes, but mostly family. If you reached adulthood without being able to make it on your own, you turned to family for shelter and meals and they expected something in return for it like all day, everyday labor! Where is the quid pro quo in welfare?
-
Quid pro quo? The underclass gets the bread and circuses which they trade for votes for the political elites. Some people work for a living, others vote for a living.
I wonder what (if any) welfare programs were available in 1774?
Immigrants came here and only got private charity, if anything.
Private charity, yes, but mostly family. If you reached adulthood without being able to make it on your own, you turned to family for shelter and meals and they expected something in return for it like all day, everyday labor! Where is the quid pro quo in welfare?
-
The vote for the liberal elite in exchange for continuing the programs explains how we got stuck in this cycle. Someone (Trump) pointing out that they're getting the shaft is the start of how we break out of it.
Malcolm X was in a better position to say it than me (race thread?), "Chumps". "They are taking you for chumps."
This isn't a better life and we're killing off the golden goose that got you the Obamaphones.
-
Talk to many democrats? They think we aren't spending enough money. We need MOAR government!
The vote for the liberal elite in exchange for continuing the programs explains how we got stuck in this cycle. Someone (Trump) pointing out that they're getting the shaft is the start of how we break out of it.
Malcolm X was in a better position to say it than me (race thread?), "Chumps". "They are taking you for chumps."
This isn't a better life and we're killing off the golden goose that got you the Obamaphones.
-
When I was a boy, after my mother divorced, she got welfare. I also remember her carrying rocks working on a construction crew. Growing up on a farm, none of us were strangers to hard, manual labor. I'm not against welfare. I'm against people not having to do anything for it, especially manual labor, a hand up.
I don't think we should have socialist "collectives," but there's nothing wrong with people getting welfare being forced to work on farms that grow food in exchange for it, until they find something better and can get off of it.
Interesting point about the pilgrims attempting socialism. I learn something new everyday. It is funny though... to see how many centuries people have attempted socialism, having it fail, and trying it again, expecting different results.
Talk to many democrats? They think we aren't spending enough money. We need MOAR government!
The vote for the liberal elite in exchange for continuing the programs explains how we got stuck in this cycle. Someone (Trump) pointing out that they're getting the shaft is the start of how we break out of it.
Malcolm X was in a better position to say it than me (race thread?), "Chumps". "They are taking you for chumps."
This isn't a better life and we're killing off the golden goose that got you the Obamaphones.
-
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."-Orwell
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/11/21/how-a-failed-commune-gave-us-what-is-now-thanksgiving/
How A Failed Commune Gave Us What Is Now Thanksgiving
Jerry Bowyer ,
Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
English: "The First Thanksgiving at Plymo...
"The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth" (1914) By Jennie A. Brownscombe (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It’s wrong to say that American was founded by capitalists. In fact, America was founded by socialists who had the humility to learn from their initial mistakes and embrace freedom. One of the earliest and arguably most historically significant North American colonies was Plymouth Colony, founded in 1620 in what is now known as Plymouth, Massachusetts. As I’ve outlined in greater detail here before (Lessons From a Capitalist Thanksgiving), the original colony had written into its charter a system of communal property and labor. As William Bradford recorded in his Of Plymouth Plantation, a people who had formerly been known for their virtue and hard work became lazy and unproductive. Resources were squandered, vegetables were allowed to rot on the ground and mass starvation was the result. And where there is starvation, there is plague. After 2 1/2 years, the leaders of the colony decided to abandon their socialist mandate and create a system which honored private property. The colony survived and thrived and the abundance which resulted was what was celebrated at that iconic Thanksgiving feast.
As my friend Reuven Brenner has taught me, history is a series of experiments: The Human Gamble. Some gambles work and are adopted by history and some do not and should be abandoned by it. The problem is that the human gamble only works if there is a record of experimental outcomes and if decision makers consult that record. For many years, the story of the first failed commune of Plymouth Bay was part of the collective memory of American students. But Progressive Education found that story unhelpful and it has fallen into obscurity, which explains why (as I alluded to before) a well-educated establishment figure like Jared Bernstein would be unaware of it.
I’m often asked why our current leadership class forgets the lessons of the past so often. They are, after all, very smart men and women. Don’t they know that collectivism will fail?
No, they don’t. Not anymore. For much of our history, our leaders were educated in the principles which were to help them avoid errors once they have joined the ruling class. They studied to learn how to not misuse power. Now our leaders learn nothing of the dangers of abusing power: their education is entirely geared to its acquisition. All of their neurons are trained on that one objective – to get to the top. What they do when they get there is a matter for later. And what happens to the country when they’re done with their experiments is beside the point: after all, their experiments will not really affect them personally. History is the story of the limitations of human power. But the limits of power is a topic for people who doubt themselves and their right to rule, not the self-anointed.
That’s how it is now, and that’s how it was in 1620. The charter of the Plymouth Colony reflected the most up-to-date economic, philosophical and religious thinking of the early 17th century. Plato was in vogue then, and Plato believed in central planning by intellectuals in the context of communal property, centralized state education, state centralized cultural offerings and communal family structure. For Plato, it literally did take a village to raise a child. This collectivist impulse reflected itself in various heretical offshoots of Protestant Christianity with names like The True Levelers, and the Diggers, mass movements of people who believed that property and income distinctions should be eliminated, that the wealthy should have their property expropriated and given to what we now call the 99%. This kind of thinking was rife in the 1600s and is perhaps why the Pilgrim settlers settled for a charter which did not create a private property system.
But the Pilgrims learned and prospered. And what they learned, we have forgotten and we fade. Now, new waves of ignorant masses flood into parks and public squares. New Platonists demand control of other people’s property. New True Levelers legally occupy the prestige pulpits of our nation, secular and sacred. And now, as then, the productive class of our now gigantic, colony-turned-superpower, learn and teach again, the painful lessons of history. Collectivism violates the iron laws of human nature. It has always failed. It is always failing, and it will always fail. I thank God that it is failing now. Providence is teaching us once again.
When I was a boy, after my mother divorced, she got welfare. I also remember her carrying rocks working on a construction crew. Growing up on a farm, none of us were strangers to hard, manual labor. I'm not against welfare. I'm against people not having to do anything for it, especially manual labor, a hand up.
I don't think we should have socialist "collectives," but there's nothing wrong with people getting welfare being forced to work on farms that grow food in exchange for it, until they find something better and can get off of it.
Interesting point about the pilgrims attempting socialism. I learn something new everyday. It is funny though... to see how many centuries people have attempted socialism, having it fail, and trying it again, expecting different results.
Talk to many democrats? They think we aren't spending enough money. We need MOAR government!
The vote for the liberal elite in exchange for continuing the programs explains how we got stuck in this cycle. Someone (Trump) pointing out that they're getting the shaft is the start of how we break out of it.
Malcolm X was in a better position to say it than me (race thread?), "Chumps". "They are taking you for chumps."
This isn't a better life and we're killing off the golden goose that got you the Obamaphones.
-
Another political mobster named Stalin could play the charm when desired too. Did you see the last episode of madam secretary? :x
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/15/shes-back-hillary-clinton-discusses-binge-tv-watching-habits-press/
-
What kind of moron would believe that? Once again Clinton showing contempt for voters with twisting the truth:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/13/trump-hillary-clintons-bait-destroying-campaign-defending-deplorables.html
-
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."-Orwell
Stealing the story GM. Thank you.
-
An odd irony about Ms. Clinton, she was so valuable as a speaker (quarter million an hour?) and now she can't pay people to watch her boring speeches. Something is amiss.
"Thousands of empty seats"
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/thousands-empty-seats-latest-hillary-speech-signals-beginning-end-campaign/
Clinton's crowd size dwarfed by Trump
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/trump-vs-hillary-campaign-events-no-comparison-pictures-say-thousand-words/
-
An odd irony about Ms. Clinton, she was so valuable as a speaker (quarter million an hour?) and now she can't pay people to watch her boring speeches. Something is amiss.
"Thousands of empty seats"
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/thousands-empty-seats-latest-hillary-speech-signals-beginning-end-campaign/
"Clinton's crowd size dwarfed by Trump"
http://www.infowars.com/video-hillary-clintons-crowd-size-dwarfed-by-trump/
An info wars link? Quick,get the spray!
-
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/14/email-bombshell-hillary-clinton/
Ill-ary.
-
Again, as a general rule, Infowars is not a welcome source here. Unless there is particular reason for a particular piece-- which should be noted and explained-- please do not use it.
-
Again, as a general rule, Infowars is not a welcome source here. Unless there is particular reason for a particular piece-- which should be noted and explained-- please do not use it.
I changed the source.
Mainstream sources aren't running stories about Hillary's enthusiasm deficit yet and Google fails to search negative Clinton stories.
The point remains, why were universities and companies paying a quarter million for a speech people won't go see for free?
While we're at it, what was in those Goldman Sachs speeches she won't release? My guess is nothing of interest.
-
Doug, those are professional journalists! They have credentials! How dare you question them?
Again, as a general rule, Infowars is not a welcome source here. Unless there is particular reason for a particular piece-- which should be noted and explained-- please do not use it.
I changed the source.
Mainstream sources aren't running stories about Hillary's enthusiasm deficit yet and Google fails to search negative Clinton stories.
The point remains, why were universities and companies paying a quarter million for a speech people won't go see for free?
While we're at it, what was in those Goldman Sachs speeches she won't release? My guess is nothing of interest.
-
Doug, those are professional journalists! They have credentials! How dare you question them?
10,000 go to see one candidate; 200 go to see the other. No story there, at least nothing that fits the narrative.
The collaboration of Google and Facebook is truly Orwellian. At least with Pravda the Soviet subjects only had one state run news room.
-
Doug, those are professional journalists! They have credentials! How dare you question them?
10,000 go to see one candidate; 200 go to see the other. No story there, at least nothing that fits the narrative.
The collaboration of Google and Facebook is truly Orwellian. At least with Pravda the Soviet subjects only had one state run news room.
The saddest thing, is that the Russians knew Pravda was bullshiite.
-
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=35760
(https://images1-focus-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnoiimages%2Es3%2Eamazonaws%2Ecom%2Fimages%2Fredstate%2F201609021103677405%2Ejpg&container=focus)
-
Anyone remember this from Article 1, Section 9? Friends in Europe were surprised we included this.
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
-
Anyone remember this from Article 1, Section 9? Friends in Europe were surprised we included this.
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
Rules are for the little people.
-
Anyone remember this from Article 1, Section 9? Friends in Europe were surprised we included this.
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
I specifically remember it. I agree with GM too.
I'll also add, that it very much resembles the ITAR rules that we have to adhere to.
EDIT: And they WILL VERY MUCH, put you in prison or fine you millions if you violate it. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) - US State Department, which is funny, because SHE's the BOSS. Imagine that. Let me find the specific portion I'm looking for.All of our titanium and other things have to come from approved countries, the titanium, in this case, coming from Russia. Let me look at what I can find, because they'll absolutely grill you if you break those rules.
EDIT II:
Here we go (there is much more to it than this, and in fact, if you're a manager, we go through extensive training on this to avoid problems because the consequences are serious) - "The ATT should be limited to international transfers. Imports, exports, transit, transshipment, or brokering of conventional arms, whether the transfers are state-to-state, state-to-private end-user, commercial sales, leases, or loans/gifts." http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/
I'm bringing this up, because it is relevant in regard to the fact that Hillary routinely sells Putin plutonium and uranium (which isn't all that big of a deal if the fact that the US has often paid Russia to dismantle nukes). What is a big deal though, is when the Clinton's Foundation getting Russian money after "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well." http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/
Politifact rates this as "We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
They do a healthy amount of minimizing, and deflecting Clinton's involvement, but it should be mentioned, that the law doesn't require quantities of money or "timing" as to whether Clinton was the Secretary of State at time or not. It applies to every American, for any dollar amount, and again, GM was right, in that rules are only for little people. If a private citizen did this, they'd never get out of prison, the company they worked for would be bankrupted, and it's a fact. It's happened to others. http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/insights/publications/2014/03/state-fines-defense-manufacturer-$20-million-for__
The Clintons basically think they walk on water, whether it's Bill, interns, cigars and the Oval Office or anything that Hillary has been involved in. It's protocol to them.
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/09/16/sources-tens-of-thousands-of-files-from-clinton-blumenthal-computers-available-on-deep-web/?singlepage=true
In deep.
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/09/16/sources-tens-of-thousands-of-files-from-clinton-blumenthal-computers-available-on-deep-web/?singlepage=true
In deep.
People are afraid of the deepweb or don't know how to access it. They shouldn't be afraid and it isn't difficult to access.
Just download the TOR browser (from TOR), have a deicated computer for specifically that with no personal info on it or use a thumb drive to boot your system, a VPN, and you're good to go. Don't download anything from there, and obviously avoid the smut pages and whatnot, but it's surprising what is on there that Google and company don't register in their search engines. You can basically find whatever you want.
Edit: Make sure you cover up your camera physically as well and don't speak while surfing, or any background noise for that matter.
-
I personally would avoid the dark web altogether. Big boy rules apply.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/09/16/sources-tens-of-thousands-of-files-from-clinton-blumenthal-computers-available-on-deep-web/?singlepage=true
In deep.
People are afraid of the deepweb or don't know how to access it. They shouldn't be afraid and it isn't difficult to access.
Just download the TOR browser (from TOR), have a deicated computer for specifically that with no personal info on it or use a thumb drive to boot your system, a VPN, and you're good to go. Don't download anything from there, and obviously avoid the smut pages and whatnot, but it's surprising what is on there that Google and company don't register in their search engines. You can basically find whatever you want.
Edit: Make sure you cover up your camera physically as well and don't speak while surfing, or any background noise for that matter.
-
And you're correct. It is not without significant risk.
I personally would avoid the dark web altogether. Big boy rules apply.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/09/16/sources-tens-of-thousands-of-files-from-clinton-blumenthal-computers-available-on-deep-web/?singlepage=true
In deep.
People are afraid of the deepweb or don't know how to access it. They shouldn't be afraid and it isn't difficult to access.
Just download the TOR browser (from TOR), have a deicated computer for specifically that with no personal info on it or use a thumb drive to boot your system, a VPN, and you're good to go. Don't download anything from there, and obviously avoid the smut pages and whatnot, but it's surprising what is on there that Google and company don't register in their search engines. You can basically find whatever you want.
Edit: Make sure you cover up your camera physically as well and don't speak while surfing, or any background noise for that matter.
-
What are those risks?
-
Where is the WSJ article from 1994 on the Hillary's commodity trades that one of us heroically dug up?
-
What are those risks?
Drawing the attention of lots of entities that you don't want attention from.
-
What are those risks?
Drawing the attention of lots of entities that you don't want attention from.
Just as GM stated, plus they could potentially hack into your computer, steal your files, id your location, control your computer remotely, you could potentially access websites that have criminal activities - thus drawing the attention of alphabet soup type organizations (NSA, CIA, FBI, USSS, ATF, DEA, NCIS and INS), or even if none of that happened, the fact that you have to use a TOR browser (which can also access "http:www" sites), your local internet service provider (even using a VPN with TOR), they'll know you're accessing onion sites BECAUSE of where their exit traffic is going - Note the following: "A user is talking to a clear net website instead of the onion so in theory the proxy can read all the information you're sending and getting from the onion. Also, you are far from anonymous because the Tor2Web-gateway sees your IP." https://chloe.re/2016/05/20/killing-tor2web-once-and-for-all/
And (note the web address in the photo here). You WILL get attention from someone. There's no avoiding that. There are also a couple of things I didn't provide above to disguise where you are or who you are, but the bottom line, is if someone wants to find you, they will. A quick query of TOR security precautions will make it so that most people won't find you, but the government and good hackers will if they want to.
I've used the deep web on and off for about two years. Then again, I work where I work and do what I do, so I'm not overly concerned about having uninvited guests. For the most part, I've seen a lot of bit coin operated sites that offer whatever service you can think of, blueprints, how to's, and seedier things. The bit coin sites all work off of an escrow service that can be used to locate someone as well.
GM is correct in saying that it has its risks. I'll add, for what I've seen on it, it isn't worth the hassle, other than just to go cruising downtown Tijuana to go see things that no one else sees for the "been there, done that trip."
Edit: I forgot to add, that if you do decide to access it, disable java. If anyone reading his doesn't know how to disable java, they shouldn't go. Period.
Edit II: Do not use TOR with windows to access the web. As I stated above, the best way is a dedicated machine, using Linux and TOR on a thumb drive into that.
It really isn't worth the hassle. Those curious, can go youtube query "deeb web sites" and get an idea that way without risking themselves.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l5wiLJBiePI/VoNMACHgtzI/AAAAAAAACvA/3w5f7s8fiAY/s1600/dw%2Bprint%2B20.jpg)
-
Would someone please post all of this on the Cyber War thread? TIA.
-
Would someone please post all of this on the Cyber War thread? TIA.
Will do.
-
[.quote author=Crafty_Dog link=topic=1534.msg98659#msg98659 date=1474254417]
Where is the WSJ article from 1994 on the Hillary's commodity trades that one of us heroically dug up?
[/quote]
Search function not working properly, this should come up under 'cattle straddles' or 'Hillary's First Felony'.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg97583#msg97583
-
The problem of Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign was explained years ago in a marketing textbook story:
A company came out with a new dog food, and hired an advertising firm to promote the product. The ad agency placed commercials on television and ads in magazines; millions of dollars went into the campaign. The commercials and ads were first-rate, but still the dog food did not sell. The client called a meeting at the ad agency and demanded to know what had gone wrong.
After a moment of silence, the leader of the ad agency team explained: “The dogs don’t like it.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/electoral-college-math-and-why-i-think-trump-will-win.php
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/365894.php
No intent? Corrupt Comey.
-
Reason is MSM loves to point out discord in the Trump campaign . Anytime anyone leaves etc we hear about it. Well it sounds not so good behind the scenes at camp Clinton. Chelsea is one of the bosses.
I am sure she could ethically run the Clinton foundation while Hill is President :roll:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Myth-Hillary-Ground-Game/2016/09/20/id/749172/
-
Graphic Language Alert
"Hillary’s meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer- narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired! She was overheard threatening executives at NBC saying “If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist F.ck will have us swinging from nooses! What the f.ck is wrong with you idiots?”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/09/no_author/real-hitlery/
http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.mx/2016/09/hillary-clintons-rage.html
Granted, it isn't from a major newsite, but taking into consideration of what youtube documentaries say about her, as well as USSS agents that have worked with her, as well as other service details, it's at least plausible.
-
DDF,
I believe it.
If this were a different age who does not think Hillary would be exterminating anyone that gets in her way.
If only this were taped and released online.
-
DDF,
I believe it.
If this were a different age who does not think Hillary would be exterminating anyone that gets in her way.
If only this were taped and released online.
I believe it too. In the article, it states that she doesn't allow any staff members to have cell phones. I personally know, that when I entered here, before they knew whether you would make it or not, getting caught with a cellphone would get you fired immediately, no questions asked, so I do know that the practice goes on. How much more so for the staff in her position?
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/stroke-of-luck/
-
Has anyone asked why she visited so many countries? I strongly suspect it was to hit them up for money for the Clinton Foundation. Why else? It had something to do with that I suspect.
The only other reason would be just so she can state, like she is doing, that she did visit so many countries as though that is a gold star on her resume:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/hillary-clinton-countries-travels_n_2602541.html
-
Has anyone asked why she visited so many countries? I strongly suspect it was to hit them up for money for the Clinton Foundation. Why else? It had something to do with that I suspect.
The only other reason would be just so she can state, like she is doing, that she did visit so many countries as though that is a gold star on her resume:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/02/hillary-clinton-countries-travels_n_2602541.html
That's right. They had already planned the Foundation all the way back in the 90s. That is from a post of yours, I believe. She became the first fitbit Secretary where it is taxpayer paid miles, not steps, that are counted. A resume is a list of accomplishments, not of addresses. I recall that women first voted in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush. What did she accomplish? Liberation of Libya - to al Qaida?
One place she visited on behalf of women's rights was China. Then when she wrote "Living History" she had the book translated to Chinese to sell more copies with any scolding of the regime omitted. All the nice things she said about the PLA and PRC were left in the book. Caught in that by the NYT(?) she was 'appalled' to learn that criticism of the Chinese government was censored by the communist government! (Who could have seen that coming?!) She immediately posted those chapters to her website on the internet - where it was censored again by the communist government, as all anti-regime content is. (And who could have seen that coming?) Meanwhile she kept all the money for the selected text books. Was she bragging about being ignorant, stupid about what oppresive regimes do or was she just being duplicitous in profiting while giving legitimacy to a totally oppressive regime?
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/aiding-and-abedin/article/2004014
-
Without Judicial Watch this whole thing would have received a blind eye. More assertions the FBI investigation was a sham from the start. I recall Mark Levin saying he has full confidence in Comey. That was unfortunately a misplaced leap of faith in our justice system under obama. Comey is just as guilty as the rest of the mob. Why he didn't even bother to get non redacted emails.....:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/judicial-watch-fbi-used-redacted-documents-question-clinton-aides
-
No surprise. Who wouldn't and why shouldn't anyone who can legally avoid taxes not do so? So what's the scandal? Just the left wing media blowing this out of proportion:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/02/hillary-clinton-avoided-taxes-way-trump/
Also what are most of these charitable foundations for? The wealthy save millions with these devices and have great PR from them and lastly ( I say that tongue in cheek) may actually do some humanity work.
Like the Kennedy's special olympics charity.
-
Bill's Clinton's alleged love child said this:
"I’d like to have a relationship with Chelsea, too. She’s my half-sister."
However, this statement could just as easily be false since she bears a striking resemblance to Webster Hubbell.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/21/my-quest-to-find-bill-clinton-s-love-child.html
-
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562
-
"Unsupported, but plausible: Can't we just drone this guy?"
Absolutely. I have posted before if this was a different age or a third world country I could easily see her having the "deplorables" all marched out and shot. And that means us. Anyone that gets in her way to absolute power.
Her mentality is similar to the 20 th century despots.
-
"Unsupported, but plausible: Can't we just drone this guy?"
Absolutely. I have posted before if this was a different age or a third world country I could easily see her having the "deplorables" all marched out and shot. And that means us. Anyone that gets in her way to absolute power.
Her mentality is similar to the 20 th century despots.
Don't think there is something magical about the US that makes it impossible to have it happen here.
-
http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/
"Prosecutor in Berger case
"As deputy attorney general, Comey was involved in the investigation of Berger, as Fox News reported in 2004
"Berger at that time was under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for removing from the National Archives various classified documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks and for removing handwritten notes he made while reviewing the documents.
"The New York Times reported in 2005 that Republican leaders speculated Berger removed the documents from the National Archives because he was trying to conceal material that could be damaging to the Clinton administration.
"There is no evidence Comey’s investigation for the Justice Department made any attempt to determine if anyone affiliated with the Clinton White House prompted Berger or coordinated with him in the decision to remove the classified documents."
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/06/sandy_berger.jpg
Sandy Berger
Sandy Berger
Various statements Comey made about Berger’s mishandling of classified documents bear comparison to his comments regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server.
In 2004, Fox News noted Comey told reporters he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.
“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey said in response to a reporter’s question.
Video: Attorney general to accept FBI findings in Clinton email probe
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/.../comey-has-long-history-of.../...
-
Guccifer 2.0 hacked Clinton foundation.
Assange dropped the ball, but another hacker picked it up and ran with it.
https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/clinton-foundation/
-
Nice detail about the big banks who received big money from the TARP program are big Clinton Slush Fund donors.
DDF, to help future use of the Search function, please make good use of the Subject line. TIA
-
Nice detail about the big banks who received big money from the TARP program are big Clinton Slush Fund donors.
DDF, to help future use of the Search function, please make good use of the Subject line. TIA
Will do PGC. I'm decompressing the files from the last links on the page. It's taking a while because the files are huge. Thus far, Pelosi has shuffled $77,500 to the Clinton Foundation. Meeting notes from Pelosi's office manager teleconferencing with LGBT personnel and others, but one thing I did find, was the amount of dues that they set as goals for fundraising, with individual members required to produce in some cases $300,000 annually.
-
$700,000. That is only for one year:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump
-
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/guccifers-travels/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DayByDayCartoon+%28Day+by+Day+Cartoon+by+Chris+Muir%29
-
Can anyone guess which charity? I don't suppose this was written off.
http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/96-of-the-clintons-2015-charitable-donations-were-to-the-clinton-foundation/
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_content=dsouza%3Futm_campaign%3Dpoor-haitians
-
I thought the biggest damage from Powell's email on HRC was this comment, "everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris.”
Genius Hill backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-backed-egypts-muslim-brotherhood-regime/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/13/wikileaks-clinton-sent-intelligence-info-to-podestas-hacked-email-account/?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=ICYMI%20-%20Media%20-%20Conservative&utm_campaign=ICYMI%20-%20National%20Security
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent a lengthy Middle East intelligence breakdown in an email to longtime ally and lobbyist John Podesta while he was working in the White House.
“With all of its tragic aspects, the advance of ISIL through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle East,” Clinton wrote to Podesta in an August 2014 email obtained by WikiLeaks.
Clinton’s email, sent from a private account she began using after leaving the Department of State, gives Podesta a breakdown of the political situation in the Middle East following the rise of the Islamic State. Clinton says her email and advice is based on various intelligence sources.
“Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region,” Clinton wrote.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/13/wikileaks-clinton-sent-intelligence-info-to-podestas-hacked-email-account/?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=ICYMI%20-%20Media%20-%20Conservative&utm_campaign=ICYMI%20-%20National%20Security
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent a lengthy Middle East intelligence breakdown in an email to longtime ally and lobbyist John Podesta while he was working in the White House.
“With all of its tragic aspects, the advance of ISIL through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle East,” Clinton wrote to Podesta in an August 2014 email obtained by WikiLeaks.
Clinton’s email, sent from a private account she began using after leaving the Department of State, gives Podesta a breakdown of the political situation in the Middle East following the rise of the Islamic State. Clinton says her email and advice is based on various intelligence sources.
“Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region,” Clinton wrote.
Totally legal! -Corrupt Comey
-
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/wikileaks-bill-clintons-1-million-dollar-birthday-check-from-qatar
-
'we should vote for Hill because Putin "fears" her'
I'm not sure what WikiLeaks has to do with Russia, nor is she, nor is Putin, but the answer to all questions related to leaked emails that we should have had anyway is pivot to Russia.
But pivot to Russia is a pivot to her own weaknesses and ineptitude, and Obamas'.
A little misunderstanding over a big red button.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/06/clinton-reset-button-gift-to-russian-fm-gets-lost-in-translation/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/06/clinton-goofs-russian-translation-tells-diplomat-wants-overcharge-ties.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/03/remember-hillarys-russian-reset-button-guess-where-she-got-it/
Democratic governance:
Tell Vladimir I'll have more flexibility after my reelection.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9167332/Barack-Obama-microphone-gaffe-Ill-have-more-flexibility-after-election.html
Who needs checks and balances.
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/hillary-clinton-really-is-the-perfect-politician
And if she could get away with murder like droning her enemies and maybe others , she would be no different.
Truth and Justice enforced by the media should prevail. But it doesn't work anymore.
-
http://counterjihad.com/hillarys-not-really-sorry-fbi-files-reveal-blatant-disregard-classified-information
-
"“She was treating every stop like a campaign stop for the presidency, shaking hands with everyone and looking like a presidential nominee. It was like she was running for presidency for all the years she was secretary of state,” the agent said."
This is consistent with what I was wondering why Clinton was traveling so much when she was SOS. It wasn't about foreign policy. It wasn't to represent the nation. It was to make connections for herself and strongly suspect hit up people of money and personal influence. A more innocent reason might be that she simply wanted to make an appearance of working so hard for us but we know her too well to know that anything she does is totally self serving.
http://nypost.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clintons-security-detail-laughed-when-she-broke-her-elbow/
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-pardon-record-218331
-
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/10/20/rewind-clinton-foundation-subsidized-now-imprisoned-senior-muslim-brotherhood-official/
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UeyBuqWSME
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/a-president-hillary-clinton-must-be-impeached
Yeah right Good luck with that. Zero Dems will have the integrity or courage to go along even if the Repubs can keep the Senate.
And the media will not stand for it.
So foggettabote it
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/10/a-president-hillary-clinton-must-be-impeached
Yeah right Good luck with that. Zero Dems will have the integrity or courage to go along even if the Repubs can keep the Senate.
And the media will not stand for it.
So foggettabote it
It would take a lot of spine and testicle implants to make it happen.
-
"It would take a lot of spine and testicle implants to make it happen."
Other than Cruz and Mike Lee name anyone else who have these.
Ryan will be tripping all over himself to make deals and compromise which means totally cave in.
McConnell will pretend to be standing firm but will cave as always.
-
I agree with him on all except # 13. I agree with him most on #20:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3860740/Hillary-looks-unstoppable-20-reasons-dread-day-walks-White-House-free-sex-Madonna-just-one-Piers-Morgan.html
-
We know how Clinton is going to play it and we hear the LW media already trying to impress voters with how above it all she is.
She will play the game "reaching out" to Republicans trying to impress everyone with let all get along , lets make this work, lets bring the country back together, etc
The Republicans who never seem to play the game as well will shake hands publicly put on the same show and will privately be thinking they will outsmart her, and then will proceed to give away the barn and lose because they are never as ruthless as the Democrats.
-
(Hillary's support) "but always at less than 50%. "
"Bill won both elections under 50% as well."
------------------------------------------------------
Yes he did! If we take today's polls forward, she wins with under 50% of the vote and way under 50% of the country. Consolidating the opposition to Hillary is the only alternative to being ruled by Hillary. We don't avoid permanent leftism any other way.
It isn't going to be easier to get her out after 4 years than it is now, major understatement. In 4-8 years we will have 11-30 million new voters leaning left and owing their citizenship to her. There is no waiting or next time around strategy. The opportunity to take the country back doesn't come around again in our lifetimes, if ever.
-
Agreed.
If they hold the Senate and the House perhaps Republicans should come out with their contract for the first 100 days so they will not appear to be obstructionists which we all know will be savaged by the Leftmedia.
Stake their/our claims and stand their/our ground.
First we need to get rid of McConnell and Ryan who are not capable of this. Only Newt was for a couple of years.
-
For what it is worth the National Enquirer allegations of Hillary having affairs on the side certainly refutes the I am just an innocent wife in all the Bill 's shenanigans. Just more confirmation that with Hillary that one can ALWAYs assume the most cynical view is the correct view.
-
At the very beginning one can hear her ask "why can't you get any closer" - because she is maybe 3 feet away from the steps! Notice the slave reach for the umbrella at the top:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-hillary-stumbles-boarding-campaign-plane/
-
At the very beginning one can hear her ask "why can't you get any closer" - because she is maybe 3 feet away from the steps! Notice the slave reach for the umbrella at the top:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-hillary-stumbles-boarding-campaign-plane/
It didn't look like much of a stumble, looks she has high heels on, but still - very strange that she knew she would have trouble making it up the stairs with two handrails alone.
My mom was waterskiing at Hillary's age.
Probably not drunk this time, but that has been a problem:
http://heatst.com/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-sober/
Whatever it is that's wrong with her, she calculates it would be damaging to her election chances for us to know. She is accusing the country of handicap-phobia?
-
At the very beginning one can hear her ask "why can't you get any closer" - because she is maybe 3 feet away from the steps! Notice the slave reach for the umbrella at the top:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-hillary-stumbles-boarding-campaign-plane/
I personally found the second video, with her needing help onto a step box that was about 8 inches in height, to be much worse.
-
Comey hedging his bets....
If she wins, he buries it... and she looks like she's been exhonerated to the Left.
If he wins, he looks like he tried to do the right thing and keeps his bacon out of the fire.
Just disgusting.
https://www.rt.com/usa/364586-comey-reopens-clinton-investigation/
-
DDF: "Comey Re-opens Clinton Investigation"
Don't know what it means,
but at least a few hours of pleasure reading from the
[Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar,rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.] " website:
Gotta love the headline: "WTF FBI"
8-) :lol:
PS:
The jornolisters, DAvid Kendell and other mobsters are behind the scenes getting their alibi story coordinated and also lining up more women to come forward one a day for 11 more days as we speak.
-
DDF: "Comey Re-opens Clinton Investigation"
Don't know what it means,
but at least a few hours of pleasure reading from the
[Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar,rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.] " website:
Gotta love the headline: "WTF FBI"
8-) :lol:
PS:
The jornolisters, DAvid Kendell and other mobsters are behind the scenes getting their alibi story coordinated and also lining up more women to come forward one a day for 11 more days as we speak.
Evidently the "new" emails that are turning up, are from Huma Abedin's estranged husband's phone, in regard to the investigation against him concerning sexting.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441573/hillary-clinton-corruption-foundation
-
In deserving fashion, didn't Huma and Weiner meet through the Clintons?
What kind of people did they expect to meet there?
And it turns out she's the sleazier one??
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441593/fbi-email-scandal-hillary-clintons-fault-not-james-comeys
I still have major doubts the world will finally be rid of these miscreants.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441593/fbi-email-scandal-hillary-clintons-fault-not-james-comeys
I still have major doubts the world will finally be rid of these miscreants.
Yes, the candidate and these miserable surrogates blaming Comey and the process. THESE DCOUMENTS WERE UNDER SUBPAENA. She is the one who tried to stretch this issue out to the election and beyond.
Someone other than National Review and Fox call her out on it!
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-state-department-documents-reveal-clinton-abedin-email-exchanges-classified-information-unsecure-server/?utm_source=Facebook.com&utm_campaign=Press+Release&utm_medium=Social
-
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/10/image001.gif)
-
Anyone hear about the National Enquirer stories of Hillary bribing philandering etc
Since the guy showed up on Hannity and was obviously afraid to say anything the story seems to have been shut down.
Hillary can't play the scorned woman thing if she is doing the same thing behind the scenes. I still Chelsea is Web Hubell's daughter. Hillary joined him at the Rose law firm in 1977 and Chelsea was born in 1980:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-fixer-unmasked-sean-hannity-fox-news/
-
This could easily be a crock of excrement.
BTW, NE is run by Trump crony who planted a crap story for Donald against Cruz IIRC.
-
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/breaking-leaked-email-proves-hillary-and-cheryl-mills-lied-to-the-fbi?utm_source=FBLC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC
-
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/31/top-7-charges-hillary-clinton-could-face-while-president/
-
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-left-classified-documents-china-hotel-room-lawmaker-charges/
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/25/does-huma-abedin-have-ties-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/
-
second post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXG_h765ZBA
How do these charges hold up in light of the WaPo article?
-
This could easily be a crock of excrement.
BTW, NE is run by Trump crony who planted a crap story for Donald against Cruz IIRC.
National Enquirer is occasionally right. This story about Hillary flings might be true and the Chelsea thing is possible, but as a practical and political matter it is better to stay on what we know for sure about her, especially between now and the election.
The seven felonies story should be front and center, electing a criminal just to pardon herself. Even the story about Hillary's first felony is still relevant in that it matches her current and recent behavior and proves she has no regard for the law or her victims. She chose personal enrichment over Arkansas pollution protection then; now she chooses personal enrichment over American control of American Uranium assets, hiding from oversight over national security, hiding facts over complying with and assisting an FBI criminal inquiry.
The way should went after Bill's victims is horrible. It makes his transgressions, sexual assault and rape, hers.
There is also room to oppose her on policy!
-
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/02/linda-tripp-great-clinton-con/
[did she have plastic surgery?] She looks good here.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/hillarys-two-official-favors-to-morocco-resulted-in-28-million-for-clinton-foundation/
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html
http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/727378-fbi-sources-say-likely-to-recommend-hillary-clinton-indictment-nobody-saw-the-reason-why-coming/
-
http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials
By Paul Sperry
November 6, 2016 | 4:53am | Updated
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government e-mails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, DC, e-mails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material.
In fact, Marina Santos was called on so frequently to receive e-mails that she may hold the secrets to E-mailgate — if only the FBI and Congress would subpoena her and the equipment she used.
Clinton entrusted far more than the care of her DC residence, known as Whitehaven, to Santos. She expected the Filipino immigrant to handle state secrets, further opening the Democratic presidential nominee to criticism that she played fast and loose with national security.
Clinton would first receive highly sensitive e-mails from top aides at the State Department and then request that they, in turn, forward the messages and any attached documents to Santos to print out for her at the home.
Among other things, Clinton requested Santos print out drafts of her speeches, confidential memos and “call sheets” — background information and talking points prepared for the secretary of state in advance of a phone call with a foreign head of state.
“Pls ask Marina to print for me in am,” Clinton e-mailed top aide Huma Abedin regarding a redacted 2011 message marked sensitive but unclassified.
In a classified 2012 e-mail dealing with the new president of Malawi, another Clinton aide, Monica Hanley, advised Clinton, “We can ask Marina to print this.”
“Revisions to the Iran points” was the subject line of a classified April 2012 e-mail to Clinton from Hanley. In it, the text reads, “Marina is trying to print for you.”
Both classified e-mails were marked “confidential,” the tier below “secret” or “top secret.”
Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.
From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.
Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.
A 2012 “sensitive” but unclassified e-mail from Hanley to Clinton refers to a fax the staff wanted Clinton “to see before your Netanyahu mtg. Marina will grab for you.”
Yet it appears Clinton was never asked by the FBI in its yearlong investigation to turn over the iMac Santos used to receive the e-mails, or the printer she used to print out the documents, or the printouts themselves.
SEE ALSO
Hillary's 33,000 emails might not be 'missing' after all
Hillary's 33,000 emails might not be 'missing' after all
As The Post first reported, copies of Clinton’s 33,000 allegedly destroyed e-mails still exist in other locations and could be recovered if investigators were turned loose to seize them. Higher-ups at the Justice Department reportedly have blocked them from obtaining search warrants to obtain the evidence.
It also appears the FBI did not formally interview Santos as a key witness in its investigation.
This is a major oversight: Santos may know the whereabouts of a missing Apple MacBook laptop and USB flash drive that contain all of Clinton’s e-mails archived over her four years in office.
In 2013, Hanley downloaded Clinton’s e-mails from her private server to the MacBook and flash drive.
“The two copies of the Clinton e-mail archive (one on the archive laptop and one on the thumb drive) were intended to be stored in Clinton’s Chappaqua and Whitehaven residences,” the FBI said in its case summary.
But Hanley says the devices were “lost,” and the FBI says it “does not have either item in its possession.”
In addition to Abedin, Santos worked closely with Hanley at Whitehaven and could shed light on the mystery — if only she were asked about it.
When a Post reporter confronted Santos at her DC apartment Friday, she would say only, “I don’t speak to reporters.”
According to a 2010 profile in The Philippine Star, close Clinton friend Vernon Jordan recommended Santos to the Clintons after she worked part-time for him.
Bill Clinton gave a speech in Manila as part of his foundation and took time to visit with the family of the “mayordoma [housekeeper] of his Washington, DC, home — Marina Santos.”
He was quoted as describing Santos as the “wonderful woman who runs our home in Washington, without whom Hillary will not be able to serve as secretary of state.” The article ended remarking, without a hint of irony: “Marina now runs his house so that he and his wife can better serve interests higher than their own.”
Santos could turn out to be the Betty Currie of the Clinton e-mail scandal. Currie was the secretary for President Clinton. She also came recommended by Jordan, and became famous as a central witness in the Monica Lewinsky scandal for her handling of gifts given to Clinton’s mistress.
Investigators had sought the gifts, allegedly hidden under Currie’s bed on orders from Clinton, as evidence.
The State Department and Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
Paul Sperry, a former DC bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily and a Hoover Institution media fellow, is the author of “Infiltration.”
-
Lets move along folks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Nothing rigged nothing at all and how dare anyone even suggest such a dastardly thing.
-
There is only one way this mockery is going to end. And it will not be by the act of just one person.
The only thing I have not figured out, is if there are people unknown doing it on purpose.
You cannot make a mockery of justice, of class, and of the rule of law, without there being significant consequences.
-
There is only one way this mockery is going to end. And it will not be by the act of just one person.
The only thing I have not figured out, is if there are people unknown doing it on purpose.
You cannot make a mockery of justice, of class, and of the rule of law, without there being significant cosenquences.
The only good thing about Hillary's election is that it makes where we are as a nation crystal clear.
-
There is only one way this mockery is going to end. And it will not be by the act of just one person.
The only thing I have not figured out, is if there are people unknown doing it on purpose.
You cannot make a mockery of justice, of class, and of the rule of law, without there being significant consequences.
The only good thing about Hillary's election is that it makes where we are as a nation crystal clear.
You know.... you're quite correct about that. The other good thing (as I have often realized in my own life), we're usually exactly where we need to be, to learn what we need to learn and do what we need to do. Nature is perfect in that sense.
-
http://nlpc.org/2016/11/05/happened-20-million-clinton-haiti-fund/
-
http://nlpc.org/2016/11/05/happened-20-million-clinton-haiti-fund/
Remember the Dem Congressman caught with $100,000 in cash in his freezer? This amount would pay off 200 people at that level. (Instead of feeding an island full of hungry children...) Yet I doubt anyone leaning Hillary or defending Obama cares about $20 million lost. It wasn't lost. They are paying off people, including themselves, all over the world. By the time we get the facts on this they will say it's an old story that no one cares about.
It seems futile but I'm glad we are logging Clinton misdeeds here.
-
"It seems futile but I'm glad we are logging Clinton misdeeds here."
Our eternal struggle with the Memory Hole!
-
I like his pointing out how Janet Reno who we all knew as partisan still had integrity and would appoint special counsels to avoid partisan interference in investigations when Obama and his crew have No such integrity. Only a phony facade of such:
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/07/john-fund-fbi-investigation-clinton-foundation-rather-than-emails/
-
Analogous to the famous phrase of Bill Clinton, "the era of big government is over" I have to believe the era of Clintons is over. She is done. She was the worst candidate, high negatives, etc
Dems wil never nominate her again.
Personally I think Trump should let HIS justice department and the FBI do their jobs when investigating the Clinton Foundation. We should not simply move on and let this go unchecked. We need confidnece in our government and in the justice system.
-
Analogous to the famous phrase of Bill Clinton, "the era of big government is over" I have to believe the era of Clintons is over. She is done. She was the worst candidate, high negatives, etc
Dems wil never nominate her again.
Personally I think Trump should let HIS justice department and the FBI do their jobs when investigating the Clinton Foundation. We should not simply move on and let this go unchecked. We need confidnece in our government and in the justice system.
I agree, with the exception, that new directors should be appointed.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11
"Wisconsin is such a solidly blue state that Hillary Clinton didn't feel the need to campaign there in her general-election battle against Donald Trump."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTOH, she made hundreds of trips to Iowa I suppose and lost there by even more.
-
We keep hearing about trumps temperament but read this:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/ed-klein-hillary-clinton-crying-election/2016/11/09/id/758084/
It is all "Comey's fault". And Obama "let" him do it. Folks this is sick. It is always some one else's fault when someone has a personality disorder. She does not take responsibility for her crimes and lies etc. The problem was Obama did not help her cover it up.
She should be prosecuted if not for the emails then for the Clinton Foundation corruption. We should not let her and the Democrats get away with this. We all know they will go after Trump every second they are out of power. Here comes the Trump U law suit.
-
We keep hearing about trumps temperament but read this:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/ed-klein-hillary-clinton-crying-election/2016/11/09/id/758084/
It is all "Comey's fault". And Obama "let" him do it. Folks this is sick. It is always some one else's fault when someone has a personality disorder. She does not take responsibility for her crimes and lies etc. The problem was Obama did not help her cover it up.
She should be prosecuted if not for the emails then for the Clinton Foundation corruption. We should not let her and the Democrats get away with this. We all know they will go after Trump every second they are out of power. Here comes the Trump U law suit.
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screen-shot-2016-11-09-at-9-47-22-am.png)
https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screen-shot-2016-11-09-at-9-47-22-am.png
-
http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/chelsea-clinton-being-groomed-to-run-for-congress/
It really is like Friday the 13th. Every time you think the scourge is killed of it keeps rising from the dead to terrorize the world.
Like the influenza epidemic that keeps coming back every year mutated but still at its core - the same. Leaving dread, travesty, and death in its wake. :x
-
https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/screen-shot-2016-11-09-at-9-47-22-am.png
That is closer to the truth than many realize.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/chelsea-clinton-being-groomed-to-run-for-congress/
It really is like Friday the 13th. Every time you think the scourge is killed of it keeps rising from the dead to terrorize the world.
Like the influenza epidemic that keeps coming back every year mutated but still at its core - the same. Leaving dread, travesty, and death in its wake. :x
I think the Clintons missed the memo on Americans not being fond of monarchies, much less monarchies that are hereditary in nature.
One of the things that stood out to me, is that Chelsea Clinton's "groomer," Rep. Nita Lowey, who herself has "served" for nearly 30 years, and will presumably "serve" even more.
A vast amount of Americans appreciate neither nepotism in politics, nor career politicians, even though the Gallup poll and others indicate otherwise. You'll forgive me if I don't trust polls at all, especially in this political climate and age of internet access.
If Trump does indeed find a way to institute term limits for Senate and Congress, Chelsea's running for Congress won't be a major issue.
OTOH, I have read somewhere, musings that Trump himself has considered position in government for his own son, even though his Ivanka Trump has said this against it:
“Nothing epitomizes the excesses of America’s elite today more than the granting of prominent job titles to family members. This will end with the Trump family on the case,” Ivanka Trump told supporters at a campaign event in New York on Tuesday morning.
Even The Donald agreed:
“Corruption and nepotism are a big problem in american politics—very, very big! But if there’s someone who can root it out, it’s my children,” Donald Trump wrote in a tweet on Tuesday.
http://syruptrap.ca/2016/08/trump-children-vow-to-root-out-nepotism-in-american-politics/
Nepotism itself, I don't find to be a major issue, because who wouldn't know, trust and help out their own offspring? Most people would. It becomes an issue, when as stated in the article, the family becomes a "brand," particularly in politics.
The Clinton brand, The Bush brand, even now with Barack, and people pining for Michelle in 2020, people are already considering the Obama brand.
I was going to make this post longer with examples, but that should be saved for another thread. It does need to be mentioned though, George W. Bush's father was president, and his great-grandfather, a Senator. There is a distinct pattern with certain families in the US, and it isn't healthy. This makes clear two things:
1.) What amount of connections and currency are required, to become a politician, eliminating people not traditionally associated with the industry to join?
2.) How do qualified people that aren't involved with career politicians, achieve enough visibility to the American public in order to be able to run effectively, with a population over 300 million people?
Those are two important questions that need to be addressed for several reasons, chief of which, is political integrity and accountability for the nation as a whole.
-
Some good points about the Clinton Foundation. Lets see how money pours in to all the good causes it does around the world now that she is (for now) politically dead:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/15/clinton-foundation-great-arent-democrats-pushing-donations-now/
I don't think Trump should pardon her. The Left is going to go after him either way with no mercy . So why let her off. And besides we may be able to implicate Chelsea who is being groomed.
Of course Brock may well pardon her anyway.
-
I say yes. Apparently her cronies and she have committed dozens of felonies, yet proclaim their innocence.
For the record, for history, for defense of America's secrets, let's settle this.
A special investigator/commission should be appointed, with a grand jury empaneled to empower it, and once the facts are known, I am OK with a pardon for the sake of our political culture.
-
I think not pursuing an investigation is wrong. Don't think for one second this will in any way pacify the LEFT and we need to know as much of the truth as possbile:
http://nypost.com/2016/11/22/trump-wont-pursue-charges-against-clinton/
-
Not following through with a proper investigation/prosecution is a true error. I get wanting to move forward, to be busy with big things, etc. but the Clintons are vampires and a stake needs to be put through their hearts and all those a part of this vast criminal conspiracy.
It would not be necessary to actually lock her up, but the Truth needed to be established for all to see, deny deniability for all time.
A true error.
-
"but the Clintons are vampires and a stake needs to be put through their hearts and all those a part of this vast criminal conspiracy"
Absolutely. We can be 100 % certain they will try to come back in some way and do what they can to hurt our side.
Again the LEFt gets their way with this.
The bigger question is Trump becoming a victim of responding to the LEFT's ploy ( and probably the never Trumpsters) to weaken him by luring him to into being "magnanimous" and "inclusive" and "compromising" that he caves on other issues as well?
We shall see.
-
I might another thought. Is Trump possibly going easy on Clinton because he thinks the LEFt will go easy on him on the obvious onflict of interests between his business and his family members?
If that is what is running through his mind he better think again.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442412/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-case-prosecution-lock-her-up
-
"Is Trump possibly going easy on Clinton because he thinks the LEFt will go easy on him on the obvious onflict of interests between his business and his family members?"
The thought occurs , , , :-P
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442412/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-case-prosecution-lock-her-up
-
"I don't think Trump should pardon her. The Left is going to go after him either way with no mercy . So why let her off. And besides we may be able to implicate Chelsea who is being groomed."
I think it is clearly obvious that if Brock does not pardon her that Trump should not and should get an independent counsel through the Sessions DOJ and thoroughly continue investigating all things Clinton.
NEVER can they be trusted. EVER. Hasn't the Right learned this?
Being nice will never win browny points and the Clintons will , if they can , always come back to hurt you. They are sick people. Not normal. Not gracious. No integrity.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2UQuk14Xv4
-
Too bad to see this thread fade off into history... :wink:
So, have you heard the one about the old man and the United States Marine standing guard at the White House?
marine-standing-watch_1
On a sunny day at the end of January 2017, an old man approaches the White House from Across Pennsylvania Avenie where he’d been sitting on a park bench.
He walked up to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, “I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton.”
The Marine replied, “Sir, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn’t reside here.”
The old man said, “Okay,” and quietly walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, “I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton.”
The Marine again told the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn’t reside here.”
The man thanked him and again quietly walked away.
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same Marine, saying “I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton.”
The Marine, understandably a bit agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mrs. Clinton. I’ve told you already several times that Mrs. Clinton is not the President and doesn’t reside here. What don’t you understand about these facts?”
The old man answered, “Oh, I understand you fine, Sir. I just love hearing your answer!”
The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, “See you tomorrow, Sir.”
-
Great joke
:-D
The only caveat:
Hillary is NOT going to go away. This will not be the last post on the Clintons. :cry:
-
they will not go away till they are dead which will not be soon enough.
So Clinton's groups of angry feminist, minority, illegal, homosexual , union people were all beaten by the deplorables - angry white guys.
Her 70 negatives and lying conniving crooked self had nothing to do with it:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-talks-emails-trump-202652923.html
She will be looking to run in 2020. Doesn't mean she will get off the diving board but these two will not go away.
-
they will not go away till they are dead which will not be soon enough.
So Clinton's groups of angry feminist, minority, illegal, homosexual , union people were all beaten by the deplorables - angry white guys.
Her 70 negatives and lying conniving crooked self had nothing to do with it:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-talks-emails-trump-202652923.html
She will be looking to run in 2020. Doesn't mean she will get off the diving board but these two will not go away.
I hope she does but I doubt she will be in any condition to run by then.
-
“angry, white men.” caused her loss? She lost white women by 52 to 42!
At the end, 'drain the swamp' resonated.
-
The new theme: no crimes committed, a mistake made, no cover up, no quid pro quo, and now the FBI was unjustified to start with. I don't know why the Trump DOJ should not appoint a counsel to go after the grifters. They are not going away! Doug - double or nothing that she at least entertains the idea of running in 2020. :cry:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/search-warrant-related-clinton-emails-unsealed-174012441.html
-
These might have been posted a few months ago, posting now just to make sure
http://dennismichaellynch.com/bernie-sanders-supporter-who-served-dnc-legal-papers-found-dead/
http://dennismichaellynch.com/dc-conspiracy-death2/
http://dennismichaellynch.com/highlight-one/former-u-n-official-dies-before-testifying-in-bribe-scandal-with-clinton-donor/
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/federal-appeals-court-reinstates-clinton-email-lawsuits/
-
I knew that if she is still walking and talking in 2019 we will hear the run for '20 trial balloons . But I never dreamed of this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/443640/hillary-clinton-mayor-new-york-city-please
What a money grubbing mob she has put together! They aren't going to go away.
I see many are already with jobs at the DNC working in the anti- Trump *war room*.
-
Oh my God no.......Only Republicans can be this foolish to "reach across the isle" to someone who would slit our throats if necessary:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443647/hillary-clinton-new-york-city-mayor-2017
-
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/report-clinton-global-initiative-is-shutting-15472111/
-
From hot gas - what is Bill looking at ?
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/01/hillary-catches-bill-licking-chops-staring-melania-trump/
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Maybe I missed something but noon eastern came and went today without a pardon from (former) President Obama for the Clinton Crime Family. It would have made her look guilty and would have permanently stained his Presidency.
He learned something from President Ford.
-
"Maybe I missed something but noon eastern came and went today without a pardon"
That's right . I didn't think of that.
-
The Dog Didn't Bark: No Pardon For Hillary
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 20, 2017
If Bill and Hillary looked dour at Donald Trump's inauguration, it may have been more than just frustration and sour grapes at losing the election. As Obama passed into history and Trump took power as president, what didn't happen may have had more consequence for the former first couple than what did take place: Obama did not pardon Hillary.
Now the coast is clear for a thorough investigation of Hillary both on charges of mishandling state secrets and of running a pay-for-play operation out of the State Department.
As president-elect, Trump vowed not to pursue Hillary and expressed the wish that she not be prosecuted, but said that it "was not something I feel very strongly about." In a series of tweets on November 22nd, Trump said that a prosecution of Hillary would be "very divisive" and noted that the Clintons have "suffered greatly" already. But, significantly, he refused to say that he would take prosecution of Hillary "off the table."
Anyone watching the inaugural ceremonies could not fail to note how deliberately President Trump avoided eye contact with either Clinton, passing right by under their noses rather than pause for a handshake.
For his part incoming Attorney General Jeff Sessions has promised to recuse himself from any investigation.
But the investigators themselves -- in at least four US Attorney offices -- are by no means letting up. If they find a case that Hillary ran afoul of the law in either scandal (pay for play or national secrets), it is quite likely that they will recommend prosecution. In that eventuality, it is hard to see either Sessions of President Trump refusing to bring the case.
Hillary's only secure protection would have been an Obama pardon. But now she is exposed. She may have to face the fruits of her own criminality.
-
Dick Morris now writing for the National Enquirer :roll: :lol:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/videos/hillary-clinton-prosecution-dick-morris/
-
Dick Morris now writing for the National Enquirer :roll: :lol:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/videos/hillary-clinton-prosecution-dick-morris/
:roll:
-
Caveat lector
http://www.proudcons.com/hacker-breaks-into-clinton-foundation-servers-finds-millions/
-
I must be hallucinating . A hit piece on Clinton in the Huff post! And huff post published it??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/yes-cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-amid-us-russian_us_58aa5dd6e4b0fa149f9ac82f
-
Last night was the first night of my life I would have been delighted to see the Clintons. :-D
-
:?
-
CD,
I meant the look on the Clinton's faces ***while watching Trump give the best speech*** from a President since W made the post 911 speech!
I would have paid $5 to see Hillary's face at home watching the speech.
:lol:
-
:-D
-
Must post this great story before we close this thread and the Clintons disappear quietly off into the sunset.
[Everyone was afraid that TRUMP wouldn't accept the outcome of the election.] Clinton's campaign manager had agreed the night before through an email to Kellyanne Conway that within 15 minutes of the AP calling the race for Secretary Clinton, they would wait 15 minutes and then she would take to the podium and declare victory. 'So he was basically saying that you have 15 minutes for Mr Trump to get out there [and give a concession speech] or she's going to declare victory either way.
'And then he said in the event that Mr Trump wins, Secretary Clinton will call him within 15 minutes of the AP,' Conway said with a wink, implying that Clinton staffers were confident their boss would win.
Clinton's camp held up their end of the deal. Conway said that she looked down to see her phone was ringing.
'I look down - literally it was like a movie - my phone is ringing and it said "Huma Abedin" [Clinton's longtime aide]. And I said, "Hey, Huma. What's up?"
"And she's absolutely lovely, she really is. And she's like 'Hi Kellyanne, Secretary Clinton would like to speak to Mr. Trump..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4325212/Kellyanne-Conway-recalls-Hillary-Clinton-s-concession-call.html#ixzz4byxc9eck
Trump went on to accept the result even though 4 of the 6 closest states were won by Clinton, New Hampshire, Maine, Nevada and Minnesota.
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14813/chelsea-clinton-drops-single-stupidest-tweet-all-hank-berrien
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14813/chelsea-clinton-drops-single-stupidest-tweet-all-hank-berrien
Isn't she about to get a lifetime achievement award?
-
Yup :roll:
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/23/chinese-donor-linked-to-terry-mcauliffe-probe-also-caused-trouble-for-hillary.html
-
Marc: What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer with a slimy politician?
Chelsea.
===================================
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/please-god-stop-chelsea-clinton-from-whatever-she-is-doing
-
https://heatst.com/politics/chelsea-clinton-gets-another-award-this-time-for-handing-out-grapefruits-to-the-homeless/
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/15837/chelsea-clinton-tries-debating-ben-shapiro-twitter-hank-berrien?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=042017-news-title&utm_campaign=lead
-
The next money making scam for the Clinton mob. Anyone who donates to them is a fool.
There are many fools taken in by them.
All for the "cause".
aka make their mob richer.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/5/hillary-clintons-new-onward-together-group-smells-/
She will certainly consider running in '20. That is also part of this mix. Power and money grab dressed as a "resistance" movement.
Even after she finally dies the fellow mobsters will continue in her name the con. Chelsea will win/be given a Congress seat to carry on the scam.
Like the Kennedys . Just refuse to go away.
-
https://pjmedia.com/video/hillary-clinton-admits-to-drinking-wine-to-get-over-election-result/
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4558362/Philippines-president-Duterte-hits-Chelsea-Clinton.html
-
https://www.facebook.com/JudicialWatch/videos/10154994511706943/?pnref=story
-
she has a personality disorder - narcisistic maybe borderline - these people are INCAPABLE of taking responsibility . They only know to blame others for their own faults:
They have zero self insight.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-lacks-the-remorse-of-conscience-1496359405
It is refreshing to note that even a few on the Left will in a-round-about way admit this . But not because they don't love her as Franken says, or they would not back her in a second, but because they blame her for the loss of the election. I can't deny that if they had a less repulsive human running that person might have well beaten Trump - like Joe Biden .
She is a truly sick and inherently cruel women who if lived in earlier times would have murdered anyone who would have gotten in her way. If it ain't obvious then you ain't got your eyes and ears open.
I really do hope they go after her and she does jail time . Let her stew in a cell where she belongs. Not in luxury.
Though I admit I would not hold my breath for this to come about.
-
Separate-planes should be the middle name of both Hillary and Michelle, no disrespect intended, they've earned it.
Nice thing about the private server is that she thought we would never see communications like these. Revealed is an ugly peak into her miserable, privileged soul.
[Read it from the bottom up.]
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/06/DBP4vLVWsAE7lJJ.jpg-large.jpeg?w=464)
https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/870312791957278721
Secure, luxurious, expensive government aircraft was all set for Mrs. Clinton's travel. Instead she wants separate aircraft. If it only costs several million, not to mention the phony global warmings emissions argument, we wouldn't she prefer separate aircraft. After all, there will be news people, egos, appearances, image critics and cameras likely on the tarmac.
Meanwhile, were is Chris Stevens and where are those lost security requests of his?
Hillary to Huma, July 9, 2011
"Is is ok that we and Mrs O take on two separate planes?"
"I would rather have our own of course."
-
TRUMP is KILLING the Planet!!!!111!!!!!1!!!!
Never mind what the left's "elites" actually do.
Separate-planes should be the middle name of both of Hillary and Michelle, no disrespect intended, they've earned it.
Nice thing about the private server is that she thought we would never see stuff like this, revealing an ugly peak through the window into her miserable, privileged soul.
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2017/06/DBP4vLVWsAE7lJJ.jpg-large.jpeg?w=464)
Secure, luxurious, expensive government aircraft was all set for Mrs. Clinton's travel. Instead she anssers,
Hillary to Huma, July 9, 2011
"Is is ok that we and Mrs O take on two separate planes?"
"I would rather have our own of course."
-
John Belushi plays Hillary in a famous movie clip, Blues Brothers, 1980:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE
Jake Blues: I ran out of gas! I got a flat tire! I didn’t have change for cab fare! I lost my tux at the cleaners! I locked my keys in the car! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!
-
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/shocking-clintons-used-forcedlabor-at-arkansas-15894942/
-
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/shocking-clintons-used-forcedlabor-at-arkansas-15894942/
Arkansas is AR, AK is Alaska.
-
So noted. Thanks.
-
smoking gun Hillary should be jailed:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/judicial-watch-cites-new-evidence-clinton-knowingly-used-unsecure-device
-
another lying sleaze ball:
http://nypost.com/2017/07/05/uncovering-the-russia-ties-of-hillarys-campaign-chief/
-
http://yournewswire.com/new-zealand-taxpayer-hillary-clinton/
-
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/07/lawsuit-accuses-chelsea-clinton-stealing-book-idea/
In my mind there is no doubt this is true. But she has the money and connections to hire shysters to get her out of this.
The man filing the suite has no chance.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/07/13/newsweek-dabbles-in-president-hillary-fan-fiction/
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/24/judicial-watch-obama-holdovers-slow-roll-release-clinton-emails-cite-diminished-public-interest/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29
-
The next money making scam from the sicko girfter. Her fans will love her being able to be from the heart and "free from political" from politics in telling her story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/hillary-clinton-calling-new-book-what-happened/2017/07/27/7621141a-72bb-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?utm_term=.22e52ff2135f
We already know the story and who really gives a hoot about her warped rationalizations why she lost. That said this is just another scam to pilfer people from their money OR / AND she still thinks she is going to run again for President.
-
LEFT
no sane Democrat will let this loser run again for the Dem Party:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-hires-two-former-campaign-aides-for?utm_term=.awOyZKqPP#.qmWDlJmMM
This doesn't surprise me - yes - she IS that sick
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/19523/report-justice-department-has-offered-hillary-plea-joseph-curl?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=080917news&utm_campaign=position1
-
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/judge-orders-searches-hillary-emails/2017/08/10/id/806851/
They should have raided this lying grifter's house and made seizures but no, her lawyers with all the inside connections were able to block everything while she had her people smashing and wiping drives.
And despite everything she is running for 2020 - AGAIN!!!! :x
-
"unavailable". IMHO "Newsmax" is not a reliable site.
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-victory-federal-court-orders-state-department-conduct-search-benghazi-emails-hillary-clintons-closest-advisors/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newswatch&utm_term=members&utm_content=20170811025912
-
But they order the *State Department* to do it..........
I don't have confidence that Tillerson is going to oversee this and make sure there is no cover up.........
which is exactly what I would expect........
Compare the pussycat investigations that has to do with Clinton to the early morning raid and seizure of Manafort evidence......
But again I thank JW for without them Hillary *might* well be President......
-
Sure to delight the Vanity Fair and Salon and Vogue crowd:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/23/hillary-clinton-resorts-to-old-tactics-in-upcoming-book-attacks-trump-for-invading-her-space/
Play both ends:
Claim as a woman you are just as tough as any man and then turn around and use code works like "creep " sure to delight the feminists crowd.
The book sounds like she is talking to a psychiatrist trying to come to terms while explaining away her being a jerk.
She is running in '20. The mob will sit by their phones hoping for the phone call and cash being spread around.
-
"She is running in '20. "
Notwithstanding that I haven't paid you yet for being 2/3rds wrong in 2016...
I will bet you:
a) she doesn't run in 2020
b) she won't win the nomination if she does run
and c) she won't be elected if she does win the nomination. ))
I tortured myself watching the Sunday shows last weekend and heard R's and D's all talk negatively for hours about Trump and how the Republican party are all in disarray without one mention that the Dem party is the one hopelessly in disarray.
Republicans are always only one great leader away from snapping out of their own disarray, and Trump captured that void, while Democrats are incapable of accepting a great leader if he or she were even out there. Hillary, even if she was competent, charismatic and not a crook, had to abandon all of what made her husband successful in order to gain the endorsement of the far left that are her party. There was no argument remaining to say she would make America Great Again. In order to get Ellison, Warren, Sanders, occupy wall street and black lives matter all on board, all she was left with saying was that she would make us into a Venezuela of the North.
-
" I will bet you:
a) she doesn't run in 2020
b) she won't win the nomination if she does run
and c) she won't be elected if she does win the nomination. ))"
I admit this is not as sure a bet as '16.
I don't think the Dems would be stupid enough to nominate her
and if she was the only she could beat might be Trump ........ :|
As for her running I think she will at least explore the possibility for sure
She would love to. But I would guess that she will find few will be rooting for her as long as the DEms can come up with someone else that suits their purposes.
OTOH if they don't she would run.
It might be a better bet to ask :
will Trump run
and if he does , get the nominatio n
and if he does , win .
-
Trump who said he did not want to hurt Hillary can see that , as expected, she is doing everything she can to destroy him. Time to get the independent counsel to investigate Comey Lynn, Brock and her.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/04/hillary-endorses-media-site-created-by-former-adviser-targeted-at-clinton-voters/
Monica Crowley was on the John Batchelor radio show last week or so and said she had heard from people close up that Hillary is listening to the NY feminist crowd and planning on running again though Bill does not agree and knows her chance has come and gone and thinks she is too old
Until she is 6 feet under she will be "running".
-
Trump who said he did not want to hurt Hillary can see that , as expected, she is doing everything she can to destroy him. Time to get the independent counsel to investigate Comey Lynn, Brock and her.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/09/04/hillary-endorses-media-site-created-by-former-adviser-targeted-at-clinton-voters/
Monica Crowley was on the John Batchelor radio show last week or so and said she had heard from people close up that Hillary is listening to the NY feminist crowd and planning on running again though Bill does not agree and knows her chance has come and gone and thinks she is too old
Until she is 6 feet under she will be "running".
I sure hope she does!
-
"...Hillary is listening to the NY feminist crowd and planning on running again though Bill does not agree and knows her chance has come and gone and thinks she is too old
Until she is 6 feet under she will be "running"."
She is running now, to stay relevant, and losing.
The tell-all book by a Hillary-insider people might like to see would be Bill Clinton's, if they ever split and if he ever really told what he saw. How it must have felt to have his instincts and skills and then sit silently and watch her flounder!
What keeps her even on the curiosity stage is that there still isn't anyone (else) who resembles a leader of that party.
Besides 4 years older and a proven two-time loser, another difference for Hillary is 2020 is that she would have no power to clear the field. If she ever resembled a front runner again, she will take their fire. It would be quite an septuagenerian circus to see Hillary, Biden, Warren, Sanders fight publicly amongst themselves about who is irrelevant, who is dishonest and who is a failure. For once I might agree with all of them.
Hillary isn't the unqualified Democrat former First Lady we should fear in 2020...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/michelle-obama-popularity.html
-
" https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/michelle-obama-popularity.html "
Apparently one of the requirements to run for the modern Democratic Party is to hate America.
She could run but it doesn't sound like it is in her DNA like Barry's.
-
"She [Michele] could run but it doesn't sound like it is in her DNA like Barry's."
That's right. She would enjoy the Madrid trip and the money, power and security more without the scrutiny.
She may be smart enough to know that her very high popularity, like Hillary's at a different point, came from mostly staying out of the fray.
The first great woman President will be one who did not rise solely on her husband's coattails.
For the 2020 thread, Nikki Haley is the next woman to have that opportunity. She could very well be the next VP if something should happen to Trump (or Pence).
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-statement-court-ruling-clinton-email-issue/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newswatch&utm_term=members&utm_content=20170908001437
-
"it is unbelievable we’re being opposed by Trump appointees in the State and Justice Department’s on the Clinton email issue."
WHAT is going on? :x
The swamp continues......
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/371472.php
Lindsey Graham Wants Comey to Testify Again About Exonerating Hillary Clinton Before Investigation Had Interviewed Key Subjects: "This Doesn't Add Up and I Smell a Rat"
I'm sure the evidence has all been bleach-bitted to the point where even the component atoms are sparkling white, but good on Graham for tugging on this thread.
He should definitely grill Comey on the question proposed by Sean M. Davis: if the decision was already made, why were Hillary Clinton's minions all given Get Out of Jail Free immunity cards for their inconsequential testimony?
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham wants former FBI Director James Comey to testify again to Congress after new details emerged last week about the Hillary Clinton email case.
"This doesn't add up, and I smell a rat here," Graham told Fox News on Thursday.
...
"He needs to come back to the committee," Graham said.
Graham said he wants to know whether Comey had "predetermined the result" of the Clinton investigation before she and her aides were interviewed, "contrary" to his testimony.
Graham told Fox News he has reason to believe the "real reason may have been some email between the DNC and the Justice Department about the scope of the Clinton investigation."
That last bit is intriguing -- I think he's suggesting there's an undisclosed, hidden email that sharply limited what Comey was asked to investigate, in order to make it appear a full investigation had been conducted when in fact his ambit was only limited to, say, researching whether or not "intent" could be read into a law which deliberately excludes "intent" as a requirement.
-
just enforces my theory that this repulsive woman , if she had lived in different times would have been as murderous and violent as anyone in history to get and maintain her power.
This IS SICK:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-i-wanted-to-make-voodoo-dolls-of-reporters-lawmakers-and-stick-them-with-pins/
-
just enforces my theory that this repulsive woman , if she had lived in different times would have been as murderous and violent as anyone in history to get and maintain her power.
This IS SICK:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-i-wanted-to-make-voodoo-dolls-of-reporters-lawmakers-and-stick-them-with-pins/
https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-cersei-what-happened
Of Course Hillary Clinton Identifies with Cersei Lannister. They Are the Same Person.
"What Happened" invites readers to make an unflattering comparison with the mad queen of Westeros.
Robby Soave|Sep. 12, 2017 1:50 pm
Queen Hillary
Dennis Van Tine/ZUMA Press/Newscom
What's the difference between Game of Thrones character Cersei Lannister and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton? One is an entitled narcissist who quietly supported her lecherous husband (whom she clearly loathed) when it was politically convenient, then insisted it was her turn to rule (even though it wasn't), chose boot-lickers, ass-kissers, and elitist bankers as her advisors while alienating more competent and better-liked people who might have helped her, exacted petty vengeance on imagined enemies, escaped justice and the judgment of the people by destroying her main rival—the charismatic, income-inequality obsessed populist—with an explosive cheat, and was left confused why so many people in her country would rather be ruled by a complete political unknown who tells it like it is.
The other fucks her twin brother.
It comes as little surprise Clinton identifies with the mad queen. In What Happened, her new book about losing the presidential election to Donald Trump, Clinton writes:
Crowds at Trump rallies called for my imprisonment more times than I can count. They shouted, 'Guilty! Guilty!' like the religious zealots in Game of Thrones chanting 'Shame! Shame!' while Cersei Lannister walked back to the Red Keep."
Assuming this reference is genuine—and not something ham-fistedly inserted into the book by a culturally-woke ghostwriter—it's actually a bit revealing. It's true that Cersei is a tragic, occasionally sympathetic figure. But she's also one of the villains of the story: a manifestly incompetent ruler whose greatest talent is hurting every person who crosses her. She doesn't represent any ideology or philosophy beyond naked self-promotion. More than any other claimant for the Iron Throne of Westeros, she wants to rule because she believes it is her turn.
That Clinton would actively invite readers to make this comparison is, um, probably a partial answer to the question asked by the book's title. What happened? Nobody wants to vote for a Cersei.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/donald-trumps-state-department-slows-hillary-clint/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1dRNE5qWXdPR0l6T1RRMiIsInQiOiJOdk45U3pFWVhKOGJGTnpPQ2pTK3FcL0JmUXZFUE14bktXZXBxMjAzbFwvdk9IVk45KzVOb2lxeFRyeWgwZGxSTlwvdHY1djhTTU1yTlBwUXpUQ01McHhZTU90YUdqR2Y5Tjg5YzFrRkdRaXdxSTVTR0o4Z0ZPZ3JyeW1tVE1wb0JYRCJ9
-
I wonder if it is not Tillerson who is holding this up?
Just a hunch.
To think Hillis out there criticizing Trump on foreign policy when for years she was a Senator and SoS herself allowing NK and IRan and the rest to happen is just maddening.
Time to go after her . If she cannot or will not shut up then it is time to ram crap down her throat each time she opens up her bouche.
-
I hate to jump in on the Hillary mess at this late date, but the latest trove of emails made public by the work of Judicial Watch ices the prosecutorial cake. They were illegally sending and receiving classified information. Perhaps more importantly from a criminal aspect, they were selling State favors for their own gain in money, privilege, benefits and power.
Easily predicted at the beginning, the emails with the most damning information would come out last, and here they are. There was evidence of all this throughout so it isn't exactly a new story.
On a personal level I could care less what happens to Hillary, but letting a criminal off for what puts others in jail sets a terrible precedent in a nation (formerly) of laws.
Organized crime is the vehicle and it can be prosecuted under RICO:
A. The Foundation ostensibly set up as a charity but financially and otherwise, it benefits the Clintons.
B. Specific State Department favors actions were done and traded for the benefit the Foundation.
C. Therefore, State Department favors traded for the benefit of the Foundation were traded for the personal gain to the Clintons.
D. We have all the evidence now. Don't need a commission or an investigation except to compile what we already have.
E. This operation is one step more complicated than catching the Congressman with $100,000 cash in the freezer. That step, merging the State Department, the Foundation and the personal gain of the Clintons was the essence of the criminal conspiracy. The other difference with the cash in the freezer is that we are talking here about A LOT MORE MONEY.
F. The only unknown is what role Bill played. The private server was his idea. The Foundation was his idea. The trading favors was likely his idea. Their consultations behind the scenes are protected by husband-wife privilege. Whether or not he falls with her is up to her.
It would be more than a little bit ironic if she and her team of confidantes were convicted of the whole operation that was his idea and he walks away unscathed. A wife in jail and a smile on his face...
Prosecuting Hillary would divide a country already divided. I suggest Sessions bring charges and Trump pardon her on condition of a full and complete admission. Then put this ugly chapter behind us.
-
" It would be more than a little bit ironic if she and her team of confidantes were convicted of the whole operation that was his idea and he walks away unscathed. A wife in jail and a smile on his face... "
The private server was HIS idea??? I thought it hers.
I think we prosecute and get in her to jail.
I would be okay with conjugal visits between Bill and Hill though.
She should keep her pinstripe dress though. Never know. .....
-
"F. The only unknown is what role Bill played. The private server was his idea. The Foundation was his idea. The trading favors was likely his idea. Their consultations behind the scenes are protected by husband-wife privilege. Whether or not he falls with her is up to her."
And, as we have previously noted her, their marriage is domiciled in NY which considers money to one as money to both e.g. Bill's speech money is imputed to Hillary as well.
-
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267995/second-coming-christic-lloyd-billingsley
-
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/amp/
Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance
May 05, 2015
Administration knew three months before the November 2012 presidential election of ISIS plans to establish a caliphate in Iraq
Administration knew of arms being shipped from Benghazi to Syria
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria.
The documents were released in response to a court order in accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications between the two agencies and congressional leaders “on matters related to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. government at the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi” (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of State(No. 1:14-cv-00812)).
Spelling and punctuation is duplicated in this release without corrections.
A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), dated September 12, 2012, the day after the Benghazi attack, details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by the BOCAR terrorist group “to kill as many Americans as possible.” The document was sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Obama White House National Security Council. The heavily redacted Defense Department “information report” says that the attack on the Benghazi facility “was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR).” The group subscribes to “AQ ideologies:”
The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 atacks on the World Trade Center buildings.
“A violent radical,” the DIA report says, is “the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset ((AZUZ)), AZUZ was sent by ((ZAWARI)) to set up Al Qaeda (AQ) bases in Libya.” The group’s headquarters was set up with the approval of a “member of the Muslim brother hood movement…where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these caches are disguised by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS…they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”
The Defense Department reported the group maintained written documents, in “a small rectangular room, approximately 12 meters by 6 meters…that contain information on all of the AQ activity in Libya.”
(Azuz is again blamed for the Benghazi attack in an October 2012 DIA document.)
The DOD documents also contain the first official documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria. An October 2012 report confirms:
Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.
The DIA document further details:
The weapons shipped from Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea – 125mm and 200ea – 155 mm.]
The heavily redacted document does not disclose who was shipping the weapons.
Another DIA report, written in August 2012 (the same time period the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” The growing sectarian direction of the war was predicted to have dire consequences for Iraq, which included the “grave danger” of the rise of ISIS:
The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:
This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.
Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out but the DIA presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”
From a separate lawsuit, the State Department produced a document created the morning after the Benghazi attack by Hillary Clinton’s offices, and the Operations Center in the Office of the Executive Secretariat that was sent widely through the agency, including to Joseph McManus (then-Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant). At 6:00 am, a few hours after the attack, the top office of the State Department sent a “spot report” on the “Attack on U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” that makes no mention of videos or demonstrations:
Four COM personnel were killed and three were wounded in an attack by dozens of fighters on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi beginning approximately 1550 Eastern Time….
The State Department has yet to turn over any documents from the secret email accounts of Hillary Clinton and other top State Department officials.
“These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
-
I was thinking about what courses Clinton qualifies to teach at Columbia . Here are some of my ideas:
1) How to pretend one is for women's rights yet stand by your philandering predatory old man like no tomorrow to save power.
2) How to position oneself to be literally handed a seat in the Senate and then do nothing while there
3) How to become a champion mile logger while doing nothing as Secretary of State other then compromise national security
4) How to run for President against a man who never could get more than 45 % approval ratings and still lose
5) And for graduate students - how to run a criminal enterprise for many years and through mafia techniques and dirty affiliates raise 200 million dollars
6) and finally a summer class on how to become a Columbia Professor with essentially no qualifications to teach anything legitimate
-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2016/07/27/top-11-times-bill-clinton-was-accused-of-sexual-assault-or-rape-an-antidote-for-his-speech-inspired-nostalgia/3/
-
Second post
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-court-overrules-trump-administration-objections-will-review-state-department-clinton-petraeus-emails/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20171016212213
-
**Remember, Hollywood/DNC/the left isn't dropping Weinstein because they found out what he has done. They've known for years, decades even. They are dropping him because WE found out about him.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/372026.php
October 16, 2017
Harvey Weinstein Helped Pay Bill Clinton's Legal Bills During Lewinsky Investigations
Thick as sexual assailants.
Harvey Weinstein is no stranger to sex scandals -- back when Bill Clinton was battling allegations he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Weinstein had the president’s back, and a hefty check in hand.
A recently uncovered 1998 story in The Washington Post lists the powerful producer -- now accused of sexual harassment and assault by numerous women -- among several Hollywood heavyweights who gave the maximum $10,000 to Clinton’s legal defense fund.
The detail gives a fuller picture of the longstanding financial relationship between the former first family and one of their best West Coast fundraisers. That relationship has been under the microscope after Hillary Clinton came under criticism for waiting five days to condemn Weinstein.
How many dominoes will fall before we're done? Is anyone, for example, going to probe deeper into Jeffrey Epstein and the Lolita Express to Pedophile Isle?
I don't see much media interest perking up about the allegations of widespread pedophilia in Hollywood made by Corey Feldman and Todd Bridges.
Feldman says he gave cops the names of his abusers/rapists -- before the statute of limitations ran out, so charges could have been brought -- but says police did "zero."
One begins to see a pattern of police not taking action against rich and connected Hollywood types, and one begins to wonder how deep the corruption runs.
Might be time to watch the documentary An Open Secret about Hollywood's pedophilia problem.
One of the most Hollywood-throne-sniffing magazines, Variety, claims that it's "Game Over" not just for Weinstein, but for Hollywood's Culture of the Cover-Up:
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Claudia Eller ✔@Variety_Claudia
We have an explosive story packagein tomorrow's issue. "Game Over" refers not only to Weinstein, but to Hollywood's history of covering up
11:18 AM - Oct 16, 2017
23 23 Replies 118 118 Retweets 148 148 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
We'll see.
-
GM:
" **Remember, Hollywood/DNC/the left isn't dropping Weinstein because they found out what he has done. They've known for years, decades even. They are dropping him because WE found out about him."
That is the truth in a nutshell
Plain and simple.
-
Crafty D :
" JW: WTF? Tillerson State Dept. and Sessions DOJ protecting Hillary?!? "
That is precisely why I was hoping that JJ would ask Chafitz the question *why*
Smells like a rotten egg in Denmark to me. (though I have never been to Denmark)
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/16/bill-clinton-caught-harvey-weinstein-sexual-assaul/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkdKak0yRTRPRE15TkRGaSIsInQiOiIxSlVjQWxwcXJ4Nm8zcklVWENSSEhidHE0dTNkMWpCTDM5NDQxamJKamI0dENEeG15MnlOdkVGaTRKMWZERjNmUm9XMkVwUkVBTGhjZ3IwXC9kcUlVQko4alN4K1NJNjYrbEg4YmQ4Mm5RK1RFQTR3ek1PWUxmWHN5NUVuK1pjOHAifQ%3D%3D
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/16/maryland-defend-hillary-clinton-lawyers-cheryl-mil/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWm1JMlkyUTBaRGxrTjJNNCIsInQiOiJyS0ZxUjNLUkVnOFIxNjJKQkFMWDZrTmpOaFFJalN6ZXdLUnZVTndBcEw1TEllSG41XC9Pbmt2UmlyZlVMYkwwTkZGY1VpUk5MSzBsVVd0QVBzMlhcL3c5Q0JyZVFSazg2ZjdXSlwvSWxiWFRKdFpHMHhXZHpCK1RyYXlkTktHUmJcL0IifQ%3D%3D
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/372036.php
October 17, 2017
Holy Crap: Investigation Found Widespread Bribery and Kickbacks by Russia to Increase Their American Uranium Holdings During Obama Administration... While Hillary Was Approving Uranium Sale to Russia
Big, big story from Jonathan Solomon and Allison Spann.
FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow
BY JOHN SOLOMON AND ALISON SPANN
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account -- backed by documents -- indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted "with the consent of higher level officials" in Russia...
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
...
"The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions," a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
It's worse than that, even -- it appears that Obama and Holder deliberately under-investigated and restricted the charges to as anodyne a list as possible so as not to alert the public (or even Congress) as to the full nature of the corruption.
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/bombshell-revelations-about-russia-and-obamas-department-of-justice.php
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/bombshell-revelations-about-russia-and-obamas-department-of-justice.php
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/hillary-clintons-russian-ghost-stories/
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452972/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/bombshell-revelations-about-russia-and-obamas-department-of-justice.php
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/hillary-clintons-russian-ghost-stories/
And the left's concerns about Russia disappear as if they never were real at all...
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/clinton-bribed-twice-uranium-deal-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356323-bill-clinton-sought-states-permission-to-meet-with-russian-nuclear
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/372131.php
October 23, 2017
Russian Spy Ring Got Close to Hillary Clinton; Previously, State Department Denied Russian Spy Ring Got Close to Hillary Clinton
Breath deeply. Namaste. Prayer-hands. Warrior Pose.
Hillary Clinton may sometimes not be entirely truthful with you.
As Hillary Clinton was beginning her job as President Obama's chief diplomat, federal agents observed as multiple arms of Vladimir Putin's machine unleashed an influence campaign designed to win access to the new secretary of State, her husband Bill Clinton and members of their inner circle, according to interviews and once-sealed FBI records.
Some of the activities FBI agents gathered evidence about in 2009 and 2010 were covert and illegal.
A female Russian spy posing as an American accountant, for instance, used a false identity to burrow her way into the employ of a major Democratic donor in hopes of gaining intelligence on Hillary Clinton’s department, records show. The spy was arrested and deported as she moved closer to getting inside the secretary's department, agents said.
Other activities were perfectly legal and sitting in plain view, such as when a subsidiary of Russia’s state-controlled nuclear energy company hired a Washington firm to lobby the Obama administration. At the time it was hired, the firm was providing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in pro bono support to Bill Clinton’s global charitable initiative, and it legally helped the Russian company secure federal decisions that led to billions in new U.S. commercial nuclear business, records show.
Agents were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country's version of Silicon Valley, agents said.
...
"There is not one shred of doubt from the evidence that we had that the Russians had set their sights on Hillary Clinton’s circle, because she was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset strategy and the assumed successor to Obama as president," said a source familiar with the FBI’s evidence at the time, speaking only on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.
How did the Russian spy going by the name Cynthia Murphy get close to Hillary Clinton? Through her biggest weakness, of course -- money. Murphy got close to a Hillary fundraiser named Alan Patricof.
Back in 2010, when the spy story broke, Hillary Clinton's office issued a statement that there was “no reason to think the Secretary was a target of this spy ring.”
Court documents and agents who worked the case suggest otherwise, saying the Russians were specifically targeting her department and any intelligence they could get on the new administration’s emerging foreign policy.
The article goes on to note an informant for the FBI -- whose disclosures about the Uranium One deal have made recent news -- reports that he kept hearing about Russian efforts to buy their way into Hillary's inner circle. That informant's lawyer, Victoria Toensing, states:
"I can confirm that my client while working undercover for the FBI and in the employ of the Russian energy firm TENEX witnessed numerous, detailed conversations in which Russian actors described their efforts to lobby, influence or ingratiate themselves with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration," attorney Victoria Toensing said.
Definitely click on the article because it links the spy ring encircling the Clintons' with the enormous amounts of Russian cash the Clintons were taking at the exact same time. But I can't excerpt the whole thing.
The informant is being blocked from going public by a Non-Disclosure Agreement the Obama administration forced him to sign.
That may change, though. Charles Grassley has invited him to speak to the Senate Judiciary committee. A majority vote on that committee would produce a subpoena, which would trump any NDA (and presumably immunize him against any attempted action against him for breaching it).
The NDA may not even be legal, but I know a lot of Benghazi whistleblowers believe it is, and aren't willing to talk without that grant of congressional immunity. (Which, bizarrely, Congress won't give them.)
-
Newsweek , the Dem Party jornolister propaganda outlet
Clinton Inc. ONLY got $145M in uranium deal-linked cash ...
Posted October 23, 2017 03:56 PM by Rob Eno
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? …
Newsweek “fact check” … Greg Price of Newsweek did a “fact-check” entitled “Did Russia send money to Bill Clinton’s foundation like Trump says? Fact checking the president’s claim.” Here’s the key part: “All told, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from those linked to Uranium One and UrAsia, but it went to the charity organization and not the Clinton family. Furthermore, most of those donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, according to The Post.”
And the “assessment” of Price? “Yes, the foundation received money and Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech, but there’s no evidence the Clintons were paid by Russians to push through the uranium deal.” Yes, that is really his conclusion. One hundred forty-five million dollars but nah we couldn’t find anything. Are these folks serious?
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/russian-uranium-bribery-scandal-reaches-bill-clinton-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.speroforum.com/a/IJVHCDQQYB25/81972-Judicial-Watch-says-State-Department-sits-on-a-motherlode-of-Clinton-documents?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=YVWZLNECHS50&utm_content=IJVHCDQQYB25&utm_source=news&utm_term=Judicial+Watch+says+State+Department+sits+on+a+motherlode+of+Clinton+documents#.WfAFK3rcCeQ
Tillerson and Session could give a fk.
-
http://www.speroforum.com/a/IJVHCDQQYB25/81972-Judicial-Watch-says-State-Department-sits-on-a-motherlode-of-Clinton-documents?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=YVWZLNECHS50&utm_content=IJVHCDQQYB25&utm_source=news&utm_term=Judicial+Watch+says+State+Department+sits+on+a+motherlode+of+Clinton+documents#.WfAFK3rcCeQ
Tillerson and Session could give a fk.
(https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/23921924968_b9ceb401ac_b.jpg)
-
Watch the first 13:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNSF2Mqpq-c
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/top-obama-advisor-uranium-deal-islamic-activist-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
second post
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/52189
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-secret-slush-fund-needs-investigated-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
I dunno > Donna Bazille is to me just as much a liar and grifter as Hillary
now she makes a tell all book deal now that her boss is truly dead and buried from political power!
Brazille if you ask me is most likely trying to stay relevant . She wants to be in included as a big shot with the DNC
her book is far too little and too late to resurrect herself
unless of course the Dems are to be suckered again.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453369/donna-brazile-politico-democrats-hillary-clinton
-
Would rather sell a book than be President? Yes, it pays better!
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-finally-making-way-wisconsin/
Tickets for the event are currently running between $25 and $125.
What did Trump charge at his rallies?
And he's the money grubbing, greedy one??
Is she the best expert on What happened? Should it be called, What didn't happen?
-
What Harvey Learned From Hillary
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on November 9, 2017
According to a blockbuster story by Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker, Harvey Weinstein apparently adopted Hillary Clinton's shameless blueprint for smearing and discrediting any woman who dared to complain about sexual harassment and rape.
It's a tactic that Hillary utilized very well in the 1992 presidential campaign. She's been perfecting it ever since.
And she's still at it.
Taking a page from the Clintons, Harvey secretly hired private eyes through a law firm, where the exorbitant expenditures could be buried and protected by non-disclosure agreements and dubious attorney-client privilege. The subcontractor gumshoes than tried to find dirt on the women to shut them up them. At the same time, they used questionable tactics to stop legitimate media - The New York Times and The New Yorker -from covering the incriminating stories.
Harvey took Hillary's strategy very seriously. He even hired Jack Palladino, the same bare-knuckled private eye who Hillary hired in in 1992 to destroy Gennifer Flowers. The Clinton campaign paid Palladino over $100,000.
Did Hillary recommend Palladino to Harvey?
He certainly followed her M.O.
Harvey didn't hire just any law firm or some unknown private eye. No, he went straight to the top.
His law firm was the prestigious Boies, Schiller, Flexner, run by star litigator David Boies, who represented Al Gore in the Florida recount and successfully argued the gay rights case before the Supreme Court. Bories signed the three contracts with the spy firms himself. Amazing that he had time for such things. Especially when he was hard at work representing The New York Times.
In legal circles, that's called a conflict of interest. A big one.
And the "investigators" were unparalleled. Two were top-notch international investigative firms were hired. One, BlackCube, was actually staffed by ex-Mossad and Israeli defense veterans and tasked with
It takes a village to effectively destroy women, doesn't it?
When the Paula Jones scandal engulfed her husband, Hillary used her D.C. law firm, Williams and Connolly to hire private eyes to go after the Arkansas woman. Same for Monica Lewinsky.
More recently, we learned that Hilary's campaign paid DC law firm Perkins Cole over a million dollars to hire Fusion GPS and the British spook who created the phony anti-Trump dossier alleging collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians.
Hillary didn't hire ex-Mossad, but she did hire ex-MI6. Those foreign spooks have a lot to offer.
Hillary Clinton, the self-described champion of women would stop at nothing whatsoever to smear and destroy any woman who came forward and truthfully accused her husband of sexual harassment,
Those women are not worthy of her championship.
And she's taught Harvey Weinstein just how to keep victims quiet.
-
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/hillary-clinton-personally-overturned-visa-ban-islamist-figure-now-accused-rape/?singlepage=true
-
https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/hillary-clinton-personally-overturned-visa-ban-islamist-figure-now-accused-rape/?singlepage=true
At this point, what difference does it make?
-
"At this point, what difference does it make?"
That's what Seth Rich was saying.
-
"Seth Rich"
the man who out of no where was shot in the back during a robbery attempt
and then NOT robbed
almost zero mention about it by the "drive by's"
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23599/watch-shep-smith-destroys-uranium-one-scandal-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=111517-news&utm_campaign=position1
-
4 more women come forward to accuse Bill Clinton:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5090399/Bill-Clinton-accused-sexual-assault-four-women.html
They were teeneagers at the time. Is anybody offended? [tap, tap on the microphone] Is this thing on?
Hey Liberals, Now that you've seen the light and grown a moral compass, where is the move to re-name Clinton National Airport?
-
Doug ,
while it is shameful, if true, that this 55 ish year old guy at the time was dallying around with girls maybe younger then his own daughter (or Web Hubbell's)
these girls must not have been angels . What were these girls doing hanging out with a billionaire etc?
Some of these accusations we are seeing sound more like extortion scams then "assaults" to me lately .
Some of these teenage girls know FULL WELL WHAT they are doing ( although they may have been manipulated but still....)
yeah yeah yeah - he got me drunk - and I woke in bed with him lying next to me naked and I had no clue - this is sounds rotten to me. (unless date rape ala Bill Cosby who played the fatherly gynecologist - like the father on the Donna Reed show)
These women are treating this like a lotto - some of them anyway. Some certainly do sound legitamit I do not dispute at all.
-
Bill Clinton earned the experience of being lied about for the way he did that to Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broadrick to name a few.
My guess is that these young gals on the sex trips might have consented or consented part way, not for all they were 'asked' to do. We'll never know of course. Not being a criminal trial, the standard of proof is lower. At this point this is more of a political question.
Watching the left squirm in their hypocrisy is the interest here. Republicans are happy to see bad leaders pulled out if given a choice. Note that in both cases, Moore and Trump, the bad stuff was timed to come out after all the choices for other candidates were removed. They weren't trying to expose filth, the were trying to steal an election.
-
"Note that in both cases, Moore and Trump, the bad stuff was timed to come out after all the choices for other candidates were removed. They weren't trying to expose filth, the were trying to steal an election. "
excellent point!
and that observation supports the notion that this was all "LEFT wing conspiracy" . and not, as many merry trumpsters, are wont to believe McConnell or other "establisment " Repub playing dirty tricks.
-
"Note that in both cases, Moore and Trump, the bad stuff was timed to come out after all the choices for other candidates were removed. They weren't trying to expose filth, the were trying to steal an election. "
"excellent point!"
Yup.
-
Speaking of harassment, assault, underage girls and rape, there is the billionaire pedaphile Jeff Epstein who has ties to both Trump and Clinton.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime--law/trial-date-set-for-lawsuit-against-billionaire-sex-offender-epstein/VJbBnxT9PK4AXk0mbLchBK/
former President Bill Clinton was a regular visitor to Epstein’s estate in the Virgin Islands, where Epstein now lives. Flight logs from Epstein’s private jet show Clinton was a frequent flier.
Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender's jet much more than previously known
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/jeffrey-epstein-trump-lawsuit-sex-trafficking-237983
In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, for which he served 13 months in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein
-
Audio: http://www.hughhewitt.com/wp-content/uploads/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton.mp3
Transcript: http://www.hughhewitt.com/hillary-rodham-clinton-happened/
A wide ranging softball 45 minute interview. Two people trying to advance their careers, Hewitt wants to be a conservative show that welcomes liberal guests with civility. Oddly it was Clinton who brought up Uranium One and Hewitt did not 'take the bait' to hear her scripted answer to it. He stayed on his path of questions from the book and got a couple of important questions asked. He leaves it to the listener to judge her answers. No pressing follow up questions were asked. She is selling a book and selling herself as someone who is now free to tell it like it is. But most of what the Clintons have done cannot be told as it is or was.
Strangest or most telling part of the interview had to do with Benghazi. Hugh asked her if she should have stayed longer in the crisis room and she answered no, the critics would have blamed this on her politically anyway. Really? The point of being in the crisis room until late in the evening, while Americans were under attack and help was being denied was to thwart the inevitable political attacks, not to save or rescue the "Four.Dead."Americans.
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/22/hell-indeed-frozen-hillary-clinton-consents-interview-conservative-radio/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/
Kind of like when the Chinese Ministry of State Security clears party members while arresting others for the same deeds.
-
Trump with all his warts polls ahead of Theresa May, Angela Merkel and HRC.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/365656-gallup-hillary-clintons-image-at-record-low
http://news.gallup.com/poll/224330/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-new-low.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
"The former first lady also reached a new high disapproval rating of 61 percent. Clinton has bucked the trend of defeated presidential candidates gaining popularity after the election, Gallup says. "
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/bill-clinton-says-haiti-relief-funds-didnt-pay-chelseas-wedding-wikileaks-dropped-document/
-
both are children of crooks
-
I suggest to celebrate the 20 th anniversary of Lewinsky Clinton the blue dress should have it's own exhibit in the Smithsonian
:lol:
-
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/aussie-complaint-tells-fbi-clinton-misled-government-down-under/
-
Logging and journaling the criminal activity of Clinton machine:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUq3BGiVoAAYCLE.jpg)
Destroy evidence? It's scandalous! (The name of a new documentary coming out a year and a half too late.)
I wonder if Cheryl Mills (who cleared Vince Foster's office while his body was still warm and lost the documents in a car burglary) knew we'd be reading her email to John Podesta convicting (ex) President Obama.
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-07-15/news/mn-24214_1_white-house
-
What is worse for his credibility than ties to the Clintons, ties to Sid!
The Second Dossier Shiny Object had a half life of less than a day.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/russian-dossier-enter-sid
As for Shearer, he has a long history of dirty tricks. He’s been linked to Whitewater-era efforts to dirty up Bill Clinton critics; to shakedown politics involving the Cheyenne-Arapaho Indian tribe; and to fronting for Bosnian Serb butcher Radovan Karadzic.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419131/meet-cody-shearer-strangest-character-hillarys-vast-left-wing-conspiracy-brendan
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/1999/05/cody_shearer.html
----------------------------
Blumenthal is probably behind BOTH Dossiers. Good enough to get a FISA warrant, a wiretap and a Flynn plea. Until exposed.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/informant-says-moscow-paid-millions-in-bid-to-influence-clinton.html
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/07/fbi-clinton-emails-marked-classified/
Hat Tip GM
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-humas-influence-hillary-let-islamic-scholar-now-charged-with-rape-into-the-us/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=deepsix&utm_content=2018-02-16&utm_campaign=can
Dick Morris: Huma’s Influence? Hillary Let Islamic Scholar Now Charged with Rape into the US
By Dick Morris
February 16, 2018 at 12:34pm
Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print
In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration and allowed Tariq Ramadan, a world-famous Islamic scholar who donated to a terrorist front group, into the United States.
CNS reported that two weeks ago, Ramadan was arrested in Paris and charged with the rape of two Muslim women, one of whom had been disabled in a car accident, forcing her to use a crutch to walk.
Ramadan, something of a celebrity in the Muslim world, was a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at St. Anthony’s College in Oxford, U.K. His grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Advertisement – story continues below
The ban imposed by the Bush administration was a cause célèbre in the Islamic world.
Question: Did Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser, play a role in Clinton’s unjustifiable decision to lift the ban on Ramadan’s ability to travel to the U.S.? Was Hillary trying to please Huma?
TRENDING: FBI Was Warned About the Florida School Shooter Last Year in Comments Section of a YouTube Video
Abedin had to have known all about Ramadan. Her connection with the Muslim Brotherhood runs deep.
Huma’s father founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League. Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy said the Muslim World League is “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world.”
Advertisement – story continues below
Tariq Ramadan was barred as a security threat from entering the U.S. in 2006 by the State Department for “providing material support to a terrorist organization.” Specifically, he was found to have donated funds to a supposed charity that was really — and quite openly — a front for Hamas.
He was arrested in Paris for raping two Muslim women.
A Swiss newspaper also reported that Ramadan tried to seduce a 14-year-old student in his class and noted that three other female students have said that Ramadan seduced them.
Despite his record, Hillary reversed administration policy and lifted the ban on his travel to the U.S. Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, says that Ramadan “openly supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas” and has done work for Iran.
The New York Times wrote that “the women’s accusations have put a dent in his (Ramadan’s) projected image as a pious family man.”
The decision to revoke the ban on Ramadan came in the form of an order personally signed by Secretary Clinton, saying that she was acting “as a matter of discretion.”
Ramadan has been a host on an Iranian television talk show “Islam and Life.” He was employed by the Dutch city of Rotterdam as an adviser on “integration,” but was terminated because of his role on Iranian television.
That Hillary Clinton used her “discretion” to let him into the United States speaks volumes about her own lack of “discretion” and may give us a clue to Huma Abedin’s ability to get Hillary to do what she wanted.
-
grifters till their deaths (not soon enough)
conning suckers out of money to go see this loser charge to tell some fable about why she lost . What a bunch of dopes to pay to see her whine:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/19/hillary-clinton-to-go-down-under-as-what-happened-book-tour-heads-south/
Like Barnum said , "there is sucker born every minute" . If one includes the whole world then as Hillary has calculated , we can expand that to one every second.
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/the-arkansas-connection/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180220235722
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIH6wzkJ44&feature=share
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/28/john-podesta-warns-jared-kushner-better-start-wearing-kevlar/
foreigners speaking to WH people trying to influence policy
I can't imagine that has ever happened before the Trump administration - no sir
you ought to know John.
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/1/more-cover-up-questions/
-
"Interestingly, it is well known in the intelligence circles that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron Rich, downloaded the DNC emails and was paid by Wikileaks for that information."
How am I supposed if this has any veracity?
That said I believe all of it is possible even likely there is a cover up.
One would think there is one honest person in the know who would go pulbic
but then I remember how the whole music business if filled with liars and thieves and everyone knows to keep their mouths shut for various reasons
so a conspiracy of silence and professionally performed murder and coverup is totally plausible to me.
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/03/the-weiner-laptop-revisited.php
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/02/senator-seeks-answers-on-why-fbi-waited-weeks-to-act-on-weiner-laptop-in-clinton-case.html
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3rsn2ktl346ahsr5/images/1-8a863af900.jpg)
(https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/3rsn2ktl346ahsr5/images/2-6b5446b0b5.jpg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All we know for sure is that they weren't busy chasing down reported school shooters.
-
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-routed-millions-influence-clinton-uranium-deal-informant-tells-congress-801686
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KKPpjN5PTc&feature=youtu.be
-
yes she goes to India to disrespect half the country . No end to her disease till she is dead and buried.
-
yes she goes to India to disrespect half the country . No end to her disease till she is dead and buried.
Yes, those comments were horrible. It is still someone else's fault, in this case the heart of the country men's fault that women didn't support her. She was an abhorrent candidate with a checkered background to say the least and otherwise had every opportunity to win.
Did you notice that she fell (again) twice on the stairs. It's of no political relevance but I wonder what her ailment is. Seems like something more than obesity, drunkenness and aging is going wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76EuMPDCWfs
-
In fairness, to my eye both of the steps in question were chipped off.
-
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/keep-on-truckin-not/
-
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/keep-on-truckin-not/
Hillary's greatest foe: stairs.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/378259-dems-are-angry-over-hillary-clintons-latest-comments
-
answer :
notice how not a SINGLE crat is named!
If this were about a Republican we would be seeing all their names .
Oh how the cover for one another in their party :-P
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/russia-collusion-real-story-hillary-clinton-dnc-fbi-media/
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-records-clinton-state-department-protocol-officer/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180326224036
-
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/fbis-mccabe-doj-are-you-telling-me-i-need-shut-down-clinton
-
https://amgreatness.com/2018/04/19/congress-pursues-clinton-for-hiding-fusion-gps-payments/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180424192144
After all, we know that Trump's payoff to Stormy Monday was a campaign finance violation, right?
-
another Clinton scam
James Patterson writes book with a few thoughts from Bill and now Clinton on tour to hawk the book:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/06/exclusive-juanita-broaddrick-despicable-sexual-predator-bill-clinton-planning-book-tour-age-metoo/
-
If I had to guess I would say osteoporosis :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5714365/Hillary-Clinton-wears-scarf-suggestions-brace.html
I read that is what JFK had from his addison's disease and may have been the source of his back ailments. - rather then some war injury.
The dowager would have had one of these to be carted around if she had won"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_(vehicle)
-
https://www.dcstatesman.com/just-in-clinton-foundation-ties-to-shady-russian-firm-were-just-exposed/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=ptc&utm_campaign=n51518
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/15/clinton-campaign-hillary-payments/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180517193353
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/05/fact-checking-bill-clintons-meltdown-on-nbcs-today-show/?utm_term=.4c44f3fbea07&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
“The important thing is that was a very painful thing that happened 20 years ago, " - Bill Clinton 2 days ago
- Since when is a blow job that you keep repeating painful. Getting caught was politically challenging, not painful.
"I still believe this #MeToo movement is long overdue, necessary, and should be supported.
- What the hell do you think the 'me too' movement means? If Harvey Weinstein made a lot of good movies and a lot of women made a lot of money and fame in that, that excuses harassment and rape? The whole point of the me too movement, Mr. former (impeached) President, is that it doesn't!
-
and I think he also used the philandering of other Presidents , LBJ and JFK to put himself in perspective and that these times are different then in past 20 or 40 or 50 years ago
All I could think of is if the public knew of the truth about JFK and LBJ they both would have been run out of office in 10 minutes
Probably both would have resigned and not put the country through what you , you grifter did.
But the Dems were happy to go along with him. So now they looks like hypocrites - which they are.
No tears shed by me now over there trying to game this Me Too thing to get Trump . Sorry won't work.
I suspect Allred will pray the Dems win the House and then wait for impeachment calls and then file her law suits
And then go after him out of office too .
-
Problem with his philandering comparison with other Presidents defense is that was not the accusation against Clinton. His supporters had already accepted an adult, outside of marriage affair of Gennifer Flowers before electing him to his first term.
Bill Clinton thinks he just had the bad luck of having so many women supporters end up accusing him of dropping trow, fondling against their will and rape. It's not like it was a pattern of that he had a (criminal) behavior problem.
The Lewinsky workplace affair was not consensual either by the standards of 'me too' with the largest possible workplace power discrepancy.
He can't embrace the 'me too' movement and escape judgment and guilty verdict, even though taking both sides of an issue was his way. He says 2/3rds of the American people sided with him THEN, meaning the so-called good he did justifies them looking the other way on serial sexual harassment, groping and rape proclivities. The 'Me Too' movement says it doesn't; he should have been tossed out.
Had he been tossed out, Al Gore (also later known to also be a sexual predator) would have been elevated, ran as an incumbent and probably would have won in 2000. The Clinton fight against Ken Star, against the accusers, against the Republicans and against the "vast right wing conspiracy" was all about Clinton's power, not about his political party, policies or movement.
Ironically, if the sides were reversed, Republicans would never have put up with this, IMHO.
-
"Ironically, if the sides were reversed, Republicans would never have put up with this, IMHO."
And we only do now because the stakes are far higher then a few women who were offended by a billionaire trying to get into their pants.
-
"The Lewinsky workplace affair was not consensual"
Disagree. Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, and many others may not have been, but I bet Monica was orgasmic.
-
***"The Lewinsky workplace affair was not consensual"
Disagree. Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, and many others may not have been, but I bet Monica was orgasmic.***
I think Doug means by definition of a powerful man having sex with the lowest level person around - an intern.
He used his power and authority to take advantage on the situation . She planned it but by agreeing so readily he took advantage of her suscpetibility
That said this construct is really preposterous...... :lol:
-
"The Lewinsky workplace affair was not consensual by the standards of 'me too' with the largest possible workplace power discrepancy."
Yes, not consensual by their standards, the gender justice warriors, me too crowd, etc.
Another theory is that at 18 or 21 or some other age, women are fully functioning humans capable of making their own choices assuming physical force, threat of force, undue pressure was not used. I agree with CD; she was quite thrilled to be sucking the (married) President's ____. That bad choice was hers.
-
" agree with CD; she was quite thrilled..." [etc]
she even coveted the stained dress.
what other reason to save the dress from washing other then as trophy ?
-
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5797769954001/?playlist_id=930909813001#sp=show-clips
18 USC 793 (D,E, and F)
18 USC 1924 (A)
18 USC 641
18 USC 2071 (D)
18 USC 1505
18 USC 1515 (B)
18 USC 1001
52 USC 30121
52 USC 30101
-
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/bombshell-accusation-hillary-never-had-a-state-department-email-address-all-emails-were-sent-to-her-at-her-private-unsecured-email/
-
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/files/hillaryclintonthesis-ocr.pdf
Actually, she criticizes the Alinsky model (1967) as "too conservative for our present (1969) situation.
"the application of the Alinsky model in geographically-bound lower
class areas assumes an almost bootstrap formula which is too conservative
for our present situation." - pdf page 75.
-
"I'm back"
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/10/hillary-clinton-bernie-2020-teachers/
we will just have to pray she dies so Americans can finally be left alone.
twisted sick creature that she is ... and her criminal mob.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8MptkcbuEs
-
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/12/ig-clinton-foreign-emails/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180718051439
-
"The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,”
Thanks for reminding me about this recent revelation.
Totally ignored by MSM. What about this you pricks in the MSM?
For all we know this was Wikileaks.
:x
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-six-more-clinton-emails-containing-classified-material-on-her-unsecure-non-state-gov-email-system/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180821000929
-
From CD's link above :
****https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-six-more-clinton-emails-containing-classified-material-on-her-unsecure-non-state-gov-email-system/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20180821000929***
"On October 20, 2010, lawyer Lanny Davis writes Clinton an email saying, “Thank you H for who you are and what you do,” followed in the exchange by another with “PS. I swear you look younger and better every time I see you, Good night dear Hillary. Lanny.” Mr. Davis is currently a lawyer for Michael Cohen.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
"PS. I swear you look younger and better every time I see you, Good night dear Hillary. Lanny.”
They didn't like when Trump's cabinet went around the room praising the team. Understood, but this is truly pathetic. Is that how you get and keep your job on the Hillary team? If he has an ounce of honesty in him, he should tell her what she looks like now. (
-
Well, Huma was able to do the deed , , ,
-
60 million abortions caused the economy to grow by $3.5 trillian, you do the math.
More realistically, people pay her a large fee and she will say what writers write.
If people at the slaughter your young rally really want to grow the economy, they would be Republicans.
The question of Roe, is it a correctly or a wrongly decided case? Nothing more. It is startling how openly they support outcome-based judiciary.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/08/22/chelsea-clinton-twisted-argument-about-abortion-and-economic-growth/6ajP713rANYAOizO30hLeN/story.html
-
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/22/boston-globe-chelsea-clintons-promotion-of-abortion-is-grotesque/
To hear a crat talk about growing the economy is laughable. But that to hear at the same time as a tool to justify abortion is revealing.
No surprise here either; the dirt ball is still dreaming of re running (again):
" In its efforts to thwart the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, event organizers enlisted Ms. Clinton—who recently floated the idea of a possible future bid for the White House—to kick off their New York rallY"
-
https://pjmedia.com/blog/liveblogevent/live-blog-65/
-
Is that the URL you intended?
-
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5828067500001/?#sp=show-clips
-
here it the story
Reprot that Chinese were reading all of Billariy's emails in REAL TIME including while the dirtball was secretary of state:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5828067500001/?#sp=show-clips
-
Just a quick history reminder for those too young to know
REMEMBER WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT?
(January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001—two terms)
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over an attempt to reform health care.
Her proposed plan was so bad that many Democrats came up with competing plans of their own in protest, and in spite of threats and intimidation, on September 26, 1994, the “Hillarycare” bill was declared dead.
This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood—both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.
Next, she chose Janet Reno, which husband Bill described as "my worst mistake."
(Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.)
Husband Bill also allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission—Lani Guanier was her selection.
After considerable backlash from prominent Democratic senators concerning Ms. Guanier's radical views, Bill Clinton withdrew her name from nomination, stating that she did not represents the civil rights views that he had championed during his campaign.
However, apparently a slow learner, husband Bill continued to allow Hillary to make more recommendations.
She chose former law partners, Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.
Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
(Is anyone wondering yet what her Supreme Court Justice appointments would be like?)
Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate," the first major ethics controversy during Bill’s presidency.
Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend, Harry Thompson—but the White House Travel Office refused to comply.
She trumped up allegations of financial mismanagement and reported seven long-time White House employees to the FBI. This ruined their reputations, got them fired, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.
Eventually, most of the employees were reinstated and Clinton associates were forced out of the travel office. Only one White House employee, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime—the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds; a jury acquitted him in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House Security.
When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the President denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense.
Let’s look at some of her more notable decisions in this regard . . .
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation, they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.
After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury, followed by his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath. (Sound familiar?)
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had "mistakenly thought was hers."
So you see, the email scandal and all of her malfeasance regarding the handling of Top Secret information, not to mention the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation, are nothing new.
Hillary’s entire political career has been nothing but a web of lies, corruption and destruction in her quest for power.
Is anyone else ready to say, “Enough is enough!”?
But unfortunately, I’m sure her loyal fans will say, "What difference does it make?...........
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/57uakt/remember_when_bill_clinton_was_president/
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/how-clinton-meddled-in-russian-election-big-time-history-video/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/more-clinton-ties-in-uranium-one-scandal-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Didn't we hear rumors that Tony Podesta got an immunity deal?
Like all the other Democrats.
Republicans only get it if they are forced and agree to say bad things about Trump.
Yet silence for most Repubs
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/american-democracy-is-in-crisis/570394/
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/american-democracy-is-in-crisis/570394/
Did she bleachbit the computer’s hard drive after writing how Trump has ruined the rule of law?
-
I cannot be any more honest
I wish this witch would just die already
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/american-democracy-is-in-crisis/570394/
Chutzpah.
She opens with, he happened to get enough electoral votes rather than he was elected president. What else in the Constitution does she deny the validity of other than the way we elect our president?
"How did we get here?"
If you summarize what led to this you might spell it BHO and HRC. Also NYT. We had 10 years of the left running our country including the last two years of Bush and decades of the Republican establishment pretending to represent conservative principles. We had a media enjoying the circus of the least (Republican establishment) qualified candidate disrupting a serious field of 16 qualified Republicans. The media wanted what they considered to be the weakest and the worst to come out of that field to face their own flawed favorite and now they reap what they sow, a leader who plays the game differently.
What is wrong with Trump is that he pursues conservative outcomes using leftist tactics, embellishments, untruths, etc. Ouch, that hurts.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-provided-clearly-false-statements-to-derail-hillary-clinton-doc-requests-federal-judge-says
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-federal-court-ordered-hillary-clinton-to-answer-additional-email-questions-under-oath/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20181119233615
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/28/clintons-speaking-tour-opens-83-empty-seats-coughing-fit/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20181128
-
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-justice-state-department-20181206-story.html
-
when power hungry narcissists lose power and influence:
enjoy the look on their faces
I am :
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/08/bill-and-hillary-clinton-using-groupon-to-boost-sagging-ticket-sales/
Instead of just enjoying their senior yrs and leaving the rest of us alone..........like most who retire and what Presidents used to do.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/key-takeaways-from-james-comeys-testimony-before-congress_2734427.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2cmS379TBEpCOxODJMeKIMCGmtkdfDiAEFiBLkZW_1RYJUuiQk9ggVrzk
-
Rather thin here on evidence, but worth keeping an eye on this:
https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-criminal-chinese-company-strong-links-clintons/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=deepsix&utm_content=2018-12-10&utm_campaign=can
-
https://saraacarter.com/financial-bounty-hunters-testify-clinton-foundation-operated-as-foreign-agent/
-
https://spectator.org/the-clintons-vs-the-american-spectator/
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-subcommittee-holds-hearing-on-potential-clinton-foundation-wrongdoing_2738863.html?fbclid=IwAR1DefQsIIZGxtlsiCliMYy6TalxfNQzTpl6dKHffJEDtXlOQW-N0SVKFRg
-
https://www.cato.org/commentary/clinton-regime-outdoes-itself-snatching-elian-gonzalez?fbclid=IwAR09xouIYtHx_cNHjZPGmVNb_O7TMVicGxvG3R8YeZe4UlP4ltK6QHL6Gjs
-
https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-clintons-made-money-huawei/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=deepsix&utm_content=2018-01-30&utm_campaign=can
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/judicial-watchs-weekly-update-another-clinton-cover-up/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190225212511
Hillary Clinton has Russia Collusion Problem
All of the huffing and puffing about President Trump and Russia these past two years effectively took the spotlight off Hillary Clinton and her foundation’s activities. That, I suspect, is the purpose of the Mueller/Comey/Rosenstein/McCabe farce. Our chief investigative reporter, Micah Morrison, updates us in his latest Investigative Bulletin.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion with Russia by the Trump presidential campaign dominates the news, but behind the scenes another bombshell story is coming together piece by piece. Was the Clinton network knee-deep in Russians, and did the FBI shut down an investigation that would have provided answers about Clinton collusion?
Judicial Watch is one of the few organizations in pursuit of the story. We filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department after it failed to respond to our request for “all communications” related to “the closure or possible closure of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation” in 2016. Last week, in a separate lawsuit, we uncovered evidence pointing to undisclosed documents related to controversial FBI official Andrew McCabe and potential charges against Mrs. Clinton.
We sued for records of a meeting between a top FBI official and an attorney for a Clinton-connected law firm related to then-candidate Trump and Russia, a story first reported by Fox News. And we’ve taken a skeptical look at the appointment by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions of U.S. Attorney John Huber to “evaluate certain issues” rising from the 2016 election.
One of those issues is the Uranium One controversy. Russia’s Rosatom atomic energy corporation in 2010 received U.S. permission, including a sign-off from Hillary Clinton’s State Department, to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company that owned significant American uranium assets. Was the Russian purchase of Uranium One connected to payments to the Clinton network and improper actions by Secretary of State Clinton?
Judicial Watch is lonely on the story but not alone. The Hill’s indefatigable John Solomon a year ago broke the news that the Clinton Foundation was under FBI investigation. “The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state,” Solomon reported.
Earlier this month, Solomon was at it again. Revisiting an episode that has “escaped significant attention,” Solomon reports that there is “clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefitting Russia.”
The episode centers around the Skolkovo Innovation Center, a high-tech business center launched in Moscow in 2009. Five years later, as Skolkovo entities expanded in the U.S., the FBI issued an extraordinary public warning, saying that the Skolkovo connection “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies.”
Solomon notes that Secretary of State Clinton’s “handprint was everywhere” on the Skolkovo project, part of an attempt by the U.S. to reboot Russia relations. Leading the Russian side of the project was oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin-connected billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor. Firms connected to the oligarch donated at least $75,000 to the foundation. As the Skolkovo collaboration got underway, Solomon reminds us, Bill Clinton made his way to Moscow and was paid a jaw-dropping $500,000 for a speech to a Russian investment bank, Renaissance Capital.
Solomon reports that Bill Clinton sought permission from the State Department to meet with Vekselberg and “Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom,” during the Moscow trip. This was at the time Rostom was “seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One.” The Washington Examiner notes that the Clintons’ “relationship to Vekselberg continued throughout Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department.”
Solomon adds additional details on possible Clinton collusion with the Russians—read his full report here. And Viktor Vekselberg certainly is a busy man, making a cameo in the Mueller probe and turning up in various other sketchy endeavors. Not everything in the Russia story comes up as collusion, cover-up or crime, but Solomon correctly notes that evidence related to Skolkovo, Rosatom and Uranium One “shows that the Clintons financially benefitted from Russia—personally and inside their charity—at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.”
-
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bernie-sanders-green-new-deal-jet-fuel-democrat/2019/02/25/id/904315/
with her MOB waiting for the signal.
-
https://sovereignnations.com/2018/08/10/obama-policies-aided-muslim-brotherhood-clinton-foundation/?fbclid=IwAR2BdT02VvVOU-uMPXL_9qKjWMLHBJ5mgxrlpClHAqr8ViAwNp98nlI4-tg
-
Done. 4 years ago would have been a better time for this announcement.
Link on Drudge.
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chart-reveals-doj-informed-investigators-not-willing-to-charge-clinton?fbclid=IwAR1SUP_qzzqHQxWh9S6qFWJZw1Y96ZQJBMlCHHqvPZS64NtnAwBnnU9-3ZM
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/is-trump-holding-up-the-hillary-investigation-to-see-how-mueller-rules-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
I am more inclined , unlike Dick , who does have good ideas , that it is less likely Trump is holding the DOJ back from investigating Clinton because
of totally STUPID SHIT like this :
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushner-communications-may-have-broken-the-law-democrats-say-213621315.html
How can Trump make case now?
Oh yea i get it the kids are not really government employees .... blah blah blah
-
Know nothing about Ivanka, but I gather the assertion is that Jared (and I am NOT a fan) used WhatsApp for security, and screen shot contents (provided?) for purposes of meeting Govt. Records Act. Don't get stampeded , , , yet.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/28/lawsuit-fbi-hack-clinton-email/?utm_medium=email
-
"LAWSUIT SEEKS DOCUMENTS POTENTIALLY SHOWING FBI IGNORED INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IG EVIDENCE THAT CHINESE HACKED CLINTON’S SERVER"
Rush pointed out yesterday that we also have no clue who or what , if anything hacked the Democrat National Committee
computer as they would not turn over their devices for analysis
Gee I wonder why?
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/judicial-watch-foia-releases-422-emails-proving-clinton-cover-up/
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/confirmed-hillary-suffered-mailbox-corruption-on-her-non-secure-email-server/
-
i hope they go after the Kardashians next . I can't stand turning on the online yahoo news and seeing half naked photos of them every day for yrs.
I prefer Greta Garbo, Barbara Stanwyck ,or Rosalyn Russell types
not sleezy looking talentless one.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=TAoRDL4EH_A
-
https://www.amazon.com/Year-Rat-Clinton-Compromised-Security/dp/0895263335/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=year%20of%20the%20rat&qid=1556296332&s=books&sr=1-3&fbclid=IwAR1o5cHa5_wn4DpZUC-k191ufB2i5ZjOwvuChp_Ae1t9hmWtJS1BtfJahak
AMAZON DESCRIPTION:
While many political journalists largely considered the second term of Bill Clinton's presidency in terms of his romantic interludes, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II follow up on one of the more controversial scandals of the 1996 reelection campaign. The Democratic National Committee was eventually forced to return $2.8 million in illegal contributions, much of it from foreign nationals, and much of it brought to the party by fundraising executive John Huang.
Huang originally represented U.S. interests for the Riady family, a powerful family of Indonesian businessmen with close ties to the Communist Chinese government. James Riady had been a "Friend of Bill" since 1977, and the two authors all but insinuate that the Riadys "scouted" Clinton--whether as an unwitting dupe, a sleeper agent, or merely an exploitable opportunist is never quite clear--and helped underwrite his bid for the White House. Why? So they could get John Huang a Commerce Department appointment... one that came with a top-secret security clearance.
Timperlake and Triplett gather together an astonishing--and largely convincing--mass of evidence that the Clinton-Gore administration "has made a series of Faustian bargains and policy blunders that have allowed a hostile power to further its aims in Washington." In addition to the potential security breach represented by Huang, they document numerous policy decisions that risk strengthening the technological and military power of Communist China, power that might well be used against the United States in the future.
-
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-hits-new-hampshire-fresh-off-speaking-tour-clinton-heads-to-first-primary-state/
this thread just won't die, till she and he do.
I suppose Dartmouth wasted money paying her for the propaganda spittle the comes forth from her mouth.
Why not lower tuition by that amount?
-
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-hits-new-hampshire-fresh-off-speaking-tour-clinton-heads-to-first-primary-state/
this thread just won't die, till she and he do.
I suppose Dartmouth wasted money paying her for the propaganda spittle the comes forth from her mouth.
Why not lower tuition by that amount?
2020 is her year!
**Fingers crossed**
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/102119/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newswatch&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190510144730
-
Judicial Watch announced that it obtained 44 pages of records from the State Department through court-ordered discovery revealing that the Obama White House was tracking a December 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records concerning then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecure, non-government email system. Months after the Obama White House involvement, the State Department responded to the requestor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), falsely stating that no such records existed.
Judicial Watch’s discovery is centered upon whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system and whether the State Department acted in bad faith in processing Judicial Watch’s FOIA request for communications from Clinton’s office. U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as E.W. Priestap, to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”
“These documents suggest the Obama White House knew about the Clinton email lies being told to the public at least as early as December 2012,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “A federal court granted Judicial Watch discovery into the Clinton emails because the court wanted answers about a government cover-up of the Clinton emails. And now we have answers because it looks like the Obama White House orchestrated the Clinton email cover-up.”
More from our press release here: http://jwatch.us/oam3mf
-
Note how much Bill made for speeches while Hillary was Sec. State!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2016/04/17/why-did-congo-offer-clinton-650000-for-two-pics-and-a-speech/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3W0YO2ulmPaK6GUeXkiDeoqRa6bwYV3tNJGE5rICIr0hwrN33wSK1zJ3c
-
Note how much Bill made for speeches while Hillary was Sec. State!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2016/04/17/why-did-congo-offer-clinton-650000-for-two-pics-and-a-speech/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3W0YO2ulmPaK6GUeXkiDeoqRa6bwYV3tNJGE5rICIr0hwrN33wSK1zJ3c
Total coincidence!
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/hillary-clintons-lawyer-changes-story-on-when-she-knew-about-emails_2984163.html?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=members&utm_content=20190703014218
-
https://trendingviews.co/former-advisor-to-obama-and-clinton-commits-suicide-months-before-his-book-release/?fbclid=IwAR0CQqmWTdnDZG3DL662zGU_fk8VPNRtR2S_eprlv0bZOqzaghX1hevudcE
-
If your life insurance company finds out you are a friend or associate of the Clintons, do your rates go up?
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/18/hillary-clinton-trump-rally-shows-time-has-come-again-to-fight-for-democracy/
that's right Hill , that is why Trump won and we support him no matter what and what we have been trying to do for 10 yrs.
-
I assume he killed himself to end his own saga of public shaming. There was no way out this time.
The second best theory connects to the people who might want him to not talk, top of the list, Bill Clinton. 26 flights together:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known
Some other friends and associates of the Clintons also faced untimely demises:
https://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2016/08/10/the-list-of-clinton-associates-whove-died-mysteriously-check-it-out/
James McDougal, Vince Foster, Sandy Burglar, Jeffrey Epstein all dead. Just bad luck?
It's hard to keep the list up to date, but good riddance to the latest casualty.
-
https://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2016/08/10/the-list-of-clinton-associates-whove-died-mysteriously-check-it-out/?fbclid=IwAR2r1_08OCGWqdN-becchAnczfYNODYfgeTA6Bo5Pgx1Gp-XBubFdzbb2vI
-
"Sandy Burglar "
ha ha :)
another possibility is someone paid the corrections people to look the other way - maybe Epstine himself.
still quit suspicious. Like Herman Goering and the prison guard conspiracy theory.
-
"No one was more shocked at Jeffery Epstein's suicide than Jeffery Epstein!"
I assume he killed himself to end his own saga of public shaming. There was no way out this time.
The second best theory connects to the people who might want him to not talk, top of the list, Bill Clinton. 26 flights together:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known
Some other friends and associates of the Clintons also faced untimely demises:
https://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2016/08/10/the-list-of-clinton-associates-whove-died-mysteriously-check-it-out/
James McDougal, Vince Foster, Sandy Burglar, Jeffrey Epstein all dead. Just bad luck?
It's hard to keep the list up to date, but good riddance to the latest casualty.
-
CDC: People With Dirt On Clintons Have 843% Greater Risk Of Suicide
- Babylon Bee. (satire?)
James McDougal was 57, in federal custody, cooperating with Ken Starr, died of... old age??
-
outraged then the right which is a bit of a surprise since more dems involved as far as I can tell.
I guess the outrage is (rightfully) coming from the "me 2 angle".
While the manipulation of these girls is disgusting
it is still clear some if not most , of these girls knew exactly what was going on . Come on you go to some rich old man's mansion or island for cash ?
I can believe a few were naive but surely many were not.
But who wouldn't want to get on the gravy train now. I mean they were girls for hire to start with.
That said, if I had a daughter who got mixed up in this I would have liked to have taken some jujitsu classed and strangled Epstein myself.
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/prince-andrew-sex-allegations-jeffrey-epsteins-butler-alfredo-rodriguez-who-stole-tell-all-black-9962307.html?fbclid=IwAR19hkuTRDO729rqursY7UEpbAkNWJslgsqU_2IprQDj0ecPmD8y3WoS9zg
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/prince-andrew-sex-allegations-jeffrey-epsteins-butler-alfredo-rodriguez-who-stole-tell-all-black-9962307.html?fbclid=IwAR19hkuTRDO729rqursY7UEpbAkNWJslgsqU_2IprQDj0ecPmD8y3WoS9zg
I'm sure the feds will protect it with the same level of diligence they used to protect Epstein.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/hillary-clintons-emails-were-sent-to-gmail-address-with-a-chinese-companys-name_3043380.html?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=sharetoshare&fbclid=IwAR0Q_8U5Bkpdsv0GmLx1xT66lDjle0Qw0vVwXO3hT5YeKP14gcDsFLN4Q9s
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/hillary-clintons-emails-were-sent-to-gmail-address-with-a-chinese-companys-name_3043380.html?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=sharetoshare&fbclid=IwAR0Q_8U5Bkpdsv0GmLx1xT66lDjle0Qw0vVwXO3hT5YeKP14gcDsFLN4Q9s
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-08-14%20Staff%20memo%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20-%20ICIG%20Interview%20Summary%20RE%20Clinton%20Server.pdf
Declassified, for your pleasure!
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/clinton-emails-with-classified-info-sat-in-gmail-account-two-weeks-before-comey-exonerated-her_3045426.html
-
with regards to the guy who was allegedly the one to send 30 k emails to encrypted google email account and who refused to cooperate with IG and Senate committee
Paul Combetta
was granted immunity in '016:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-investigation.html
double standard so obvious ...... as always
-
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/01/02/abedin-forwarded-state-passwords-to-yahoo-before-it-was-hacked-by-foreign-agents/?fbclid=IwAR25AmnX0yk6rrb8JB_uGOBQoXYIJO33HmtZisSEnnaLnkpIeMMqipH5tvE
-
Thanks Donald , we are now seeing more and more trial balloons.
She is just waiting for her mob , surely they chat behind the scenes feeling more and more confident everyday with Biden in a mess, Warren and Sanders too left , thinking why not us again?
We beat Trump in the popular vote. We can win a few Midwestern states a second time around.
Donald ( and us) . will probably get what HE wishes for:
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/10/08/hillary-maybe-we-need-rematch-with-me-and-trump-i-can-beat-him-again/#
One poll I saw had them neck and neck at 45 % . To thinks with such a good economy how Donald keeps turning everyone except the hard core off........
-
maybe there should be a “rematch” between her and President Trump, and “obviously, I can beat him again.”
--------------------
She 'feels like' she won last time, guess I missed her inauguration. Does she remember picking cabinet secretaries after the election? Did she make the last two supreme court appointments? The map I see says 306 to 232. She didn't even recognize or visit the states that made the difference. What will her motto be, I'll do better this time, I promise?
Forget Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, she couldn't win Minnesota again. Trump has Target Center booked tomorrow for a rally of 20,000 screaming fans. What does she have, a book tour where no one comes to the table?
Trump is flawed, but a far stronger candidate in 2020 with much greater resources to draw on than in 2016. Clinton suffers from political atrophy and fatigue.
Clinton would not have a free ride to the nomination. Does the AOC generation see Clinton as the future? In her prime she lost the nomination to the junior Senator from Illinois and had to cheat to beat mad Bernie and she is weaker now. I know a lot of Democrats but not one who yearns for Hillary to run again. Her emails and Foundation corruption are still out there and her husband would be a complete albatross around her neck in the 'me too' age. Michelle Obama is the one delegates dream of. If HRC jumps in, she and Biden to fight over each other's corruption. Nothing short of a Bernie Sanders heart attack would help Elizabeth Warren more.
What has Hillary done since her loss to stay relevant, write books and give talks about her loss? If she couldn't paint Trump as unready when he was an NY real estate developer, how is she going to do that when he is already has a mostly positive record as leader of the free world?
-
yeah she sucks but
I would never underestimate the Clinton mob
I don't want to see her run again. The Dem machine could get behind her again
and with the freakin MSM on their side .......
I just don't want to go through this again with her and her crowd......
I even prefer Warren then her.
just my opinion
-
ccp, I feel a little uneasy telling you (again) that she won't run. :wink:
Michelle Obama is the one person who has everyone around her telling her how great she is, how popular she is and how she is the only one who could beat Trump and save the world. The only thing to stop her is full knowledge that her life would instantly go from popular to divisive, from perfect to horrible, from easy to just tortured.
At this point I don't think the Democratic field would clear for either one of them.
-
want to bet a dinner at Mar a Lago?
:wink: :wink:
thank God Michelle does not have the "fire in her belly" to run.
She would not have to do anything other then read scripts
and smile
the MSM would do the rest......
-
quote author=ccp
want to bet a dinner at Mar a Lago?
:wink: :wink:
---------------------------------------
No but that sounds like a good meeting place to settle the previous wager. )
Or hop on a plane and I'll buy dinner tomorrow on the way to the Trump rally.
-
I'll look for you in the audience. :-D
I heard the mayor will be there cheering his head off. :wink:
-
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turns-out-hillary-clinton-said-republicans-not-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-2019-10-24?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
without question she is waiting desperately for the call and beckon to save the party from Trump.
I am not sure if I could think of any revenge worse then her for 4 to . 8yrs after Trump as revenge for Trump.
I had clinton derangement syndrome for 8 yrs (later same with obama) and to think it could be her again is just, well you know.
Never underestimate the ambition of this bizzare woman and never underestimate the corruption power and reach of her mob.
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-secret-fbi-chart-of-potential-violations-of-law-by-former-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newslink&utm_term=members&utm_content=20191024192132
-
New Benghazi Documents Confirm Clinton Email Cover-Up
Foggy Bottom, the nickname given to the State Department’s neighborhood in the District of Columbia, would seem an appropriate term for the fog its bureaucrats create and use to cover the email irregularities of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Here’s the latest. We released new Clinton emails on the Benghazi controversy that had been covered up for years and would have exposed Hillary Clinton’s email account if they had been released when the State Department first uncovered them in 2014.
The long withheld email, clearly responsive to our lawsuit seeking records concerning “talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack,” contains Clinton’s private email address and a conversation about the YouTube video that sparked the Benghazi talking points scandal (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Our FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.
The Clinton email cover-up led to court-ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our request. The court also authorized discovery into whether the Benghazi controversy motivated the cover-up of Clinton’s email. (The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”)
The September 2012 email chain begins with an email to Clinton at her private email address, “hdr22@clintonemail.com,” from Jacob Sullivan, Clinton’s then-senior advisor and deputy chief of staff. The email was copied to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s then-chief of staff, and then was forwarded to then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Strategic Communications and Clinton advisor Phillipe Reines:
From: Sullivan, Jacob J
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 11 :09 AM
To: 'hdr22@clintonemail.com' <hdr22@clintonemail.cont>
Cc: Mills, Cheryl D
Subject: Key points
HRC, Cheryl -
Below is my stab at tp’s for the Senator call. Cheryl, I've left the last point blank for you. These are rough but you get the point.
I look forward to sitting down and having a Hillary~to-John conversation about what we know. l know you were frustrated by the briefing we did and I'm sorry our hands were tied in that setting.
It's important we see each other in person, but over the phone today I just wanted to make a few points.
First, we have been taking this deadly seriously, as we should. I set up the ARB in record time, with serious people on it. l will get to the bottom of all the security questions. We are also in overdrive working to track down the killers, and not just through the FBI. We will get this right.
Second, the White House and Susan were not making things up. They were going with what they were told by the IC [Intelligence community].
The real story may have been obvious to you from the start (and indeed I called it an assault by heavily armed militants in my first statement), but the IC gave us very different information. They were unanimous about it.
Let me read you an email from the day before Susan went on the shows. It provides the talking points for HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] and for her public appearance. It's from a very senior official at CIA, copying his counterparts at DNI [Director of National Intelligence], NCTC [National Counterterrorism Center], and FBI:
Here are the talking points ...
--The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
-This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
--The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths US citizens.
That is exactly what Susan said, following the guidance from the IC. She obviously got bad advice. But she was not shading the truth.
Third, you have to remember that the video WAS important. We had four embassies breached because of protests inspired by it. Cairo, Tunis, Khartoum, and Sanaa. We had serious security challenges in Pakistan and Chennai and some other places. All this was happening at the same time. So many of the contemporaneous comments about the video weren't referring in any way to Benghazi. Now of course even in those countries it was about much much more than the video, but the video was certainly a piece of it one we felt we had to speak to so that our allies in those countries would back us up.
(In fact, as we famously uncovered in 2014, the “talking points” that provided the basis for Susan Rice’s false statements were created by the Obama White House.)
We requested records related to the Benghazi talking points in May 2014. In July 2014, we filed suit. The Clinton email finally released this month was first identified by the State Department in September, 2014 but was withheld from us despite it specifically referencing talking points. After it was specifically described in an Office of the Inspector General report, the court ordered its production. It was only after we informed the State Department that we were prepared to file a motion with the court to compel production of the records that the Department relented and produced the 2012 email in question.
(In an August 22, 2019, hearing, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered production of the record in granting us significant new discovery in the case. Judge Lamberth said, “There is no FOIA exemption for political expedience, nor is there one for bureaucratic incompetence.” The judge also stated that the government has mishandled this case and the discovery of information including former Secretary Clinton’s emails so poorly that Judicial Watch may have the ability to prove they acted in “bad faith.”)
This email is a twofer – it shows Hillary Clinton misled the U.S. Senate on Benghazi and that the State Department wanted to hide the Benghazi connection to the Clinton email scheme. Rather than defending her email misconduct, the Justice Department has more than enough evidence to reopen its investigations into Hillary Clinton.
The court is considering whether to allow us to question Hillary Clinton and her top aide in person and under oath about the email and Benghazi controversies.
Last month, the State Department, under court order, finally provided us a previously hidden email, which shows top State Department officials used and were aware of Hillary Clinton’s email account.
Our discovery over the last several months found many more details about the scope of the Clinton email scandal and cover-up:
• John Hackett, former Director of Information Programs and Services (IPS) testified under oath that he had raised concerns that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff may have “culled out 30,000” of the secretary’s “personal” emails without following strict National Archives standards. He also revealed that he believed there was interference with the formal FOIA review process related to the classification of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.
• Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison at the State Department, and later Clinton’s personal lawyer, admitted under oath that she was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in June 2016.
• Justin Cooper, former aide to President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee who registered the domain name of the unsecure clintonemail.com server that Clinton used while serving as Secretary of State, testified he worked with Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, to create the non-government email system.
• In the interrogatory responses of E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, he stated that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.
• Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Clinton’s senior advisor and deputy chief of staff when she was secretary of state, testified that both he and Clinton used her unsecure non-government email system to conduct official State Department business.
• Eric Boswell, former assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, testified that Clinton was warned twice against using unsecure BlackBerry’s and personal emails to transmit classified material.
The Deep State has a secure home at the State Department.
-
Bringing back an article I wrote for Sparta report, timely now with everyone talking about Hillary getting back in.
https://www.spartareport.com/2016/09/fact-checking-hillary/
-
And what I wrote for the 12th Day of Corrupt Democratic Politicians and Hillary.
https://www.spartareport.com/2019/10/pus-the-12-days-of-corrupt-democratic-politicians-day-12/
-
Awesome summary!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)
-
I know only one poll
and most certainly driven by clintonites
a few more of these and she will be encouraged to run:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-poll-hillary-only-1-point-behind-biden-in-hypothetical-match-up/
This is what she has been waiting for .
If Trump was willing to learn anything this would never be an issue
of course he will see this tweet how much he would love running against her again and this time bring us all down with the inability
to appeal to anyone beyond the 42 %.
The pain of having to deal with him everyday is only beaten by the pain of having to deal with a Democrat every day
Every day he tweets or says something , like calling someone a dog etc. that is like a smash to my brain because I know this turns off all the middle roaders (as well as myself)
He just keeps throwing all his advantages away every time he does this.
Yeah a maga hat wearing Trumpian will cheer and laugh but the rest do not.
It is the rest that likely will take us down along with Trump . What are the chances the houses could improve if the president is taken down? very low I believe.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfaxA9Q-9AQ&fbclid=IwAR2MYOzQiZkOnHys9FUeW007pNCFnVfbd81NVdumvYpp4INOT15z4j27Rmk
-
(https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/11/IMG_0841.jpg?w=600&ssl=1)
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sources-of-funding-ronan-farrow-says-hillary-clinton-cooled-on-him-when-he-investigated-metoo-crimes?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
My condolences to his loved ones after learning of his upcoming/suicide/murder during a botched robbery/fatal car crash/fatal plane crash.
-
The FBI Uncovers Even More Clinton Emails
The government malfeasance in the Clinton email scandal is seeming never-ending.
The State Department just confessed to a court that FBI found more Clinton emails that were then over to State for review. In the November 15, 2019 filing, the State Department informs the court that the FBI located additional Clinton emails that potentially had not been previously released:
[T]he Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) recently sent [the State Department] additional documents as part of the ongoing inter-agency consultation process in connection with other FOIA litigation. [The State Department] is working to determine whether that set of documents includes any responsive, non-duplicative agency records that have not already been processed. [The State Department] will promptly update [Judicial Watch] and the Court once that initial review is complete.
The FBI filed this court ordered joint status report in response to our May 6, 2015, FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)). Our FOIA lawsuit seeks all emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton and other records about her non-governmental email account.
Earlier this year, Judicial Watch announced that it received 756 pages of emails that were among the materials Clinton tried to delete or destroy, several of which were classified and were transmitted over her unsecure, non-“state.gov” email system. This production was supposed to be the final production of Clinton emails. Judicial Watch estimates that the FBI being only able to recover or find approximately 5,000, including classified material, of the 33,000 government emails Clinton removed and tried to destroy. The FBI uncovered 72,000 pages of documents Clinton attempted to delete or did not otherwise disclose.
Now again, it appears the FBI has uncovered more Clinton email documents.
You may recall that last week we released FBI emails showing that the FBI’s top lawyer gave deferential treatment to the attorney representing Hillary Clinton’s top aides implicated in the mass deletion of Clinton’s emails.
So it is astonishing news that the FBI mysteriously found more Clinton emails. Were they on Anthony Weiner’s laptop? At James Comey’s house? Or on Peter Strzok’s cell phone? This disturbing development further highlights how the fix was in on the Clinton email scandal and why a criminal investigation needs to be reopened by Attorney General Barr.
In separate Judicial Watch FOIA litigation, a federal court will soon rule on whether Hillary Clinton and her top aide can be questioned under oath by our lawyers about the email and Benghazi controversies. The court has already granted us additional discovery.
The court ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our request. The court specifically ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” (This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015.)
When Hillary Clinton’s people used software called BleachBit to destroy her emails so that “even God can’t read them,” as Rep. Trey Gowdy put it, she must have thought she was rid of this threat of incrimination for good. I’ll let you know what is this latest batch as soon as we find out…
-
just donated $100 to JW .
-
As we roll into December I will be making my annual donations and JW will be very near the top, perhaps at the very top.
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/13/former-haitian-senate-president-calls-clintons-common-thieves-who-should-be-in-jail/
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/04/hillary-clinton-suffers-coughing-spell-in-howard-stern-interview/
I wonder if he asked her about her sexual orientation
or of her relationship to Huma
or if she used to tie up Bill.
:-P
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/04/hillary-clinton-suffers-coughing-spell-in-howard-stern-interview/
I wonder if he asked her about her sexual orientation
or of her relationship to Huma
or if she used to tie up Bill.
:-P
They just don't know how to go away quietly. She has nothing to do at the Clinton Presidential Library and Massage Parlor. Maybe she should do what the other great, humble, first couple did after reversing the rise of the oceans, buy sea level, beachfront property for tens of millions of dollars.
-
"I wonder if he asked her about her sexual orientation "
I guess he did on the Sirius radio which I don't listen to
I see now reported.
He should have then asked if Chelsea is Webster Hubbel's
or if she was doing Vince Foster........ just a few other "rumors".
-
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hillary-clinton-tells-howard-stern-shes-never-had-lesbian-fantasies-riiiiight/
-
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hillary-clinton-tells-howard-stern-shes-never-had-lesbian-fantasies-riiiiight/
:roll:
https://www.eonline.com/news/369401/christina-aguilera-talks-giving-hillary-clinton-an-eyeful-of-cleavage
-
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/bombshell-whistleblowers-present-hundreds-of-pages-of-evidence-alleging-illicit-behavior-of-clinton-foundation/
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/videos/new-docs-show-state-dept-knew-about-hillary-clintons-secret-email-account/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=action+alert&utm_term=members&utm_content=20191220191605
https://www.judicialwatch.org/in-the-news/watchdog-asks-court-to-subpoena-google-for-records-tied-to-mystery-clinton-tied-gmail-account/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=action+alert&utm_term=members&utm_content=20191220191759
-
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/russia-probe-witness-charged-funneling-millions-hillary-clinton-s-2016-n1096221
-
but no mention or even suggestion of culpibility on part of Clinton and her staff for taking the bribe
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXL8NQFUHJ0
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/476894-chelsea-clinton-reaps-9-million-from-corporate-board-position
-
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/hillary-clinton-full-a-fiery-new-documentary-trump-regrets-harsh-words-bernie-1271551
"power broker" turns it over to Hollywood
for another fawning portrait of Clinton
about her marriage (:roll:)
about Monica Lewsinsky . (:roll:)
about can a babe with a vagina ever be president ( :roll:)
about what she means to gender to culture ( :roll:)
""This is not an agenda piece," says Hulu's head of docs, Belisa Balaban. "It's an authored piece of work that looks at a very long slice of personal and political history."
yeah right :-( :-P :roll:
In case we haven't heard the platitudes
the self serving shit in the past
How about a real . *honest* portrait of one of the most vile dishonest self serving despicable controlled corrupt politicians in history ?
-
"How about a real . *honest* portrait of one of the most vile dishonest self serving despicable controlled corrupt politicians in history ?"
----------------
This opens the door for that and someone should put it all out there.
I saw the movie of Chappaquidick (only a year ago?), made by someone who was not born yet, saw the biggest political scandal of all time and couldn't believe no one had done it yet. Maybe same thing here.
Just the story of Clintons during Whitewater could be a serious full length movie. Same for the Clinton Cash years of the Foundation, Uranium One etc.
Problem is that looking back at Hillary, who never made it, is not the best use of our time. Proving her to be a crook is math too easy. Make her the nominee again and maybe the resources of the right won't hold back this time.
Maybe a comfortable time after Bill Clinton's death someone of Hollywood level skills can put out the some episodes of how they both really were. He is a former two term President; she is an asterisk in history.
Funny might be parody of the Madam Secretary TV show more accurately aimed at Hillary.
But the Democrats move on fast. We have the 5 Bidens other than Joe who were enriched by his power, the academic fraud that lifted Liz Warren to the stage, the Soviet, Iran, Sandinista preferences of Bernie to work on, and if we succeed at exposing all that, they still have a little Marxist Butti for us.
-
" saw the movie of Chappaquidick (only a year ago?), made by someone who was not born yet, saw the biggest political scandal of all time and couldn't believe no one had done it yet. Maybe same thing here."
I saw Chappaquidic movie too
just amazing how rich powerful people can get away with murder.
That was accurate honest
Pain in the ass liberal Massachusetts voters
just had to have their Kennedys
They complain how Trump voters stick by him no matter what
so what was their accepting the phony lying Kennedy's speech
-
Chappaquidick [movie]
That was accurate honest
---------------------------
Yes. They stayed away from everything that was only speculated. Most likely an autopsy would have shown she had sex with him that night. Maybe she was smitten with him and maybe it was 'me, too' type stuff of which he was also known. The women of the party were fans of the late charismatic Bobby, not necessarily the loser leftover Ted.
-
I wishI could re-size this. Need to see it all the way across:
(https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/01/Clinton-Foundation.png?w=1146&ssl=1)
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/hillary-doesnt-%e2%9d%a4%ef%b8%8f-bernie.php
-
https://washingtondailynews.today/bill-barr-indicts-8-people-for-illegally-funneling-millions-in-foreign-money-to-hillarys-campaign-in-2016/
-
https://washingtondailynews.today/bill-barr-indicts-8-people-for-illegally-funneling-millions-in-foreign-money-to-hillarys-campaign-in-2016/
Were these unsolicited millions or should we indict the candidate who solicited foreign interference in our election? Are 'high crimes' legal if you end up losing?
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/30/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-be-served-tulsi-gabbard/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/30/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-be-served-tulsi-gabbard/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
Not her fault. She was busy tweeting how "No one is above the law".
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/01/sad-hillary-clinton-concedes-senate-clears-way-trump-acquittal-only-way-remove-trump-is-vote-him-out/#
bitter angry entitled
to the end
-
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-foundation-idUSKBN12Z2SL
-
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/02/27/hillary-clinton-bagged-more-money-from-harvey-weinstein-than-any-other-democrat/
wonder what kind of sex acts she had to perform ......... :evil:
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/breaking-federal-judge-orders-hillary-clinton-deposition-over-private-emails-says-still-more-to-learn/
-
https://pjmedia.com/trending/breaking-federal-judge-orders-hillary-clinton-deposition-over-private-emails-says-still-more-to-learn/
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/386119.php
-
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/03/08/hillary-clinton-i-begrudgingly-give-breitbart-news-a-lot-of-credit-for-leading-the-narrative/
still fantasizing to be VP
drag the rest of us through her neuroticism.
-
https://thefederalist.com/2016/07/13/source-fbi-agents-believe-an-inside-deal-protected-hillary-clinton/
-
https://thefederalist.com/2016/07/13/source-fbi-agents-believe-an-inside-deal-protected-hillary-clinton/
"Can't put anything past them!" - for very long. It's been 4 years! (
From the article: "FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of an unsecured, private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State were required to sign unprecedented non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from disclosing anything about their investigation of Hillary."
If you are following Bureau procedure, how is ANYTHING "unprecedented"??
Still, no one charged, no one in jail - for any of this.
-
".Still, no one charged, no one in jail - for any of this."
Who here is optimistic any Clintonite will ever pay a dime or a time? :wink:
Durham will maybe go after an FBI agent or two.
That will be it.
-
".Still, no one charged, no one in jail - for any of this."
Who here is optimistic any Clintonite will ever pay a dime or a time? :wink:
Durham will maybe go after an FBI agent or two.
That will be it.
Optimist.
-
GM.
"optimist"
who maybe ?
I'll bet you a membership to Dogbrothers forum :)
-
GM.
"optimist"
who maybe ?
I'll bet you a membership to Dogbrothers forum :)
Even better, 100 rounds of Federal 9mm FMJ Ammo.
Not long ago, might be able to get some at 20 cents a round. Now, about 35 cents a round, if you are lucky.
:evil:
-
https://neonnettle.com/news/4440-ig-report-confirms-bill-clinton-lied-to-his-country-about-tarmac-meeting
-
https://neonnettle.com/news/4440-ig-report-confirms-bill-clinton-lied-to-his-country-about-tarmac-meeting
Shocking!
-
Of course! But now the question presented is that now that it seems there is evidence of what we already "knew", is will there be prosecutions? And if not, why not?
-
Of course! But now the question presented is that now that it seems there is evidence of what we already "knew", is will there be prosecutions? And if not, why not?
Because we live in a country with multiple tiers of law. The deep state is exempt from prosecution.
-
"The deep state is exempt from prosecution."
especially the democrat party connected deep state
-
https://www.independentsentinel.com/lest-we-forget-hillarys-china-gate-scandal/
https://spectator.org/chinagate-and-the-clintons/
https://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/966.shtml
https://www.independentsentinel.com/russia-controls-up-to-half-of-americas-uranium-thanks-to-bill-clinton-who-lied-about-it/
-
https://therepublicpost.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/the-complete-list-of-clinton-associates-who-allegedly-died-mysteriously-or-committed-suicide-before-testimony/
-
https://therepublicpost.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/the-complete-list-of-clinton-associates-who-allegedly-died-mysteriously-or-committed-suicide-before-testimony/
I have an idea!
(https://phil.cdc.gov//PHIL_Images/23311/23311_lores.jpg)
"Sources say COVID-19 has information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton".
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/state-department-belatedly-releases-new-clinton-benghazi-documents/
-
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/05/11/hillary-knew-about-trump-opposition-research-in-2016-according-to-podesta-testimony-n389856
-
If I recall the very day she lost the election
that evening she and her mob were already spreading the Russia collusion rumors
of course she knew
all about it.
did she know about the FBI thing etc - she must have had some awareness of it.
-
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/02/appeals-court-clinton-testify-emails-297132
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/investigative-bulletin/mena-uncovered-judicial-watch-discloses-secret-cia-report/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members&utm_content=20200629210218
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/03/hillary-clinton-i-would-have-done-a-better-job-than-trump-on-coronavirus/
this reminds me of Bill lamenting after 9/11 that he was not longer prez because he would have gotten the glory and how he would "have done better".
of course he did not mention how he could have captured Osama bin Laden in Africa pre 2000 and did not - allowing the 9/11 attacks to occur.
My dear Hillary ,
This song is for YOU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7j8wa9sWOE
-
(https://social.infogalactic.com/images/posts/8fa4e9b5-a819-4c58-ac35-bf569bda34f4/original-52ddd57bfe3f3fe655b2d4dca1875f57.png?v=63763945981)
-
(https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/08/Screen-Shot-2020-08-04-at-9.12.07-PM.png?resize=600%2C398&ssl=1)
-
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/389686.php
(https://social.infogalactic.com/images/posts/8fa4e9b5-a819-4c58-ac35-bf569bda34f4/original-52ddd57bfe3f3fe655b2d4dca1875f57.png?v=63763945981)
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/fbi-agent-uncovered-weiner-laptop-hillarys-emails-says-fbi-leadership-told-erase-findings/
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/fbi-agent-uncovered-weiner-laptop-hillarys-emails-says-fbi-leadership-told-erase-findings/
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-agent-who-discovered-hillarys-emails-weiner-laptop-claims-he-was-told-erase-computer
-
Hillary Clinton 'sick to my stomach' over possible second Trump term.
Winning.
-
Hillary Clinton 'sick to my stomach' over possible second Trump term.
Winning.
I suspect it's yesterday's 3 bottles of Grey Goose.
-
".I suspect it's yesterday's 3 bottles of Grey Goose "
very possible GM
the name fits
I was thinking thunderbird wine
in a paper bag
-
One intriguing name being discussed privately is former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, according to the person familiar with the chatter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The thinking behind the move was that it would be a way for Biden to highlight the importance of that position in his administration and that placing her there would raise the prestige of the U.N. itself at a time when global cooperation, and the U.S. role on the world stage, has ebbed.
-
One intriguing name being discussed privately is former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, according to the person familiar with the chatter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The thinking behind the move was that it would be a way for Biden to highlight the importance of that position in his administration and that placing her there would raise the prestige of the U.N. itself at a time when global cooperation, and the U.S. role on the world stage, has ebbed.
Nothing will do more to restore the American People's faith in the integrity and legitimacy of the US government than putting Hillary in another position of power!
-
".One intriguing name being discussed privately is former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, according to the person familiar with the chatter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The thinking behind the move was that it would be a way for Biden to highlight the importance of that position in his administration and that placing her there would raise the prestige of the U.N. itself at a time when global cooperation, and the U.S. role on the world stage, has ebbed."
she would simply spend the time traveling around the world on tax payer money
in pantsuites
speaking about women of the world needing to break glass ceilings motif
Just the thought of the same cast of comic book characters again
we lived thru both Clinton and Obama for 16 yrs !
:-( :x
-
https://nypost.com/2021/01/30/pi-hired-by-bill-clinton-harvey-weinstein-to-smear-accusers-on-life-support-after-robbery/
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/breaking-reporter-broke-clinton-lynch-tarmac-story-found-dead-apartment/
high suicide rates
police officers doctors
etc. and add to list those who in some way could or did hurt the Clinton mob.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/breaking-reporter-broke-clinton-lynch-tarmac-story-found-dead-apartment/
high suicide rates
police officers doctors
etc. and add to list those who in some way could or did hurt the Clinton mob.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/3070657/alabama-football-player-anchor-christopher-sign-dead/
-
Bill:
"Ms [Betty] Currie ,"
"Tell Yasaar I will meet with him shortly, something just came up!"
https://heavy.com/entertainment/monica-lewinsky-cigar-bill-clinton-brand/
:wink:
-
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/09/26/war-criminal-crowds-heckle-hillary-clinton-northern-ireland/
-
I recall Hillary was blaming Russians for her loss right after the election
she and her liars for hire
were immediately spreading and seeding the phony story among the jurnolisters:
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/16/505858615/in-leaked-remarks-hillary-clinton-explains-putins-beef-with-her
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/14/politics/bill-clinton-hospitalized/index.html
FYI "sepsis"
has a spectrum of severity from some elevated inflammatory measures to full blown septic shock
with low blood pressure
and organ failure
the latter has mortality rate ~ 40 %
the former , or mild sepsis is much less
and often used to increase "severity" of the illness for various reasons
in any case I would be shocked if he dies.
GOD SPEED President Clinton ! ( :roll: :wink: )
-
https://dailycaller.com/2017/03/21/hillarys-hypersonic-missile-gap/
-
probably just coincidence. but one never knows:
https://populist.press/husband-of-woman-killed-by-baldwin-connected-to-durham-indictment/
-
as for the Clinton foundation
how twisted that Clinton et al
played the Russian card against Trump
while all the time she was influence peddling out national interests all around the world
selling the country out
Hillary 's corruption runs so wide deep ........
-
for misusing funds:
https://www.conservativereview.com/former-clinton-operative-charged-with-securities-fraud-2655392122.html
only surprise he is caught
-
https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/arrest-illustrates-how-steele-dossier-was-political-dirty-trick-by-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=piano&%3Butm_medium=site%20buttons&%3Butm_campaign=site%20buttons&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2906&pnespid=pL1mUyodbPtLxvTM9y_oGo_KrhijCYVlc_qymO9t9AxmdS.wq4sEqeZ7.xPA.xCtbKYIZOvv
-
Durham didn't kill himself!
First!
https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/arrest-illustrates-how-steele-dossier-was-political-dirty-trick-by-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=piano&%3Butm_medium=site%20buttons&%3Butm_campaign=site%20buttons&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2906&pnespid=pL1mUyodbPtLxvTM9y_oGo_KrhijCYVlc_qymO9t9AxmdS.wq4sEqeZ7.xPA.xCtbKYIZOvv
-
https://populist.press/clinton-foundation-hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-decrease-donations-corruption/
who could have thought
it wasn't about philanthrapy
???
:roll:
-
https://amgreatness.com/2021/12/08/hillary-clinton-fights-tears-while-reading-would-be-2016-victory-speech/
-
*Schadenfreude* is the experience of pleasure, joy, or self-satisfaction that comes from learning of or witnessing the troubles, failures, or humiliation of another.
had to look this up . 8-)
as for hillary - no one gives a hoot for this person who has led a life of political destruction and corruption
no sympathy from me, just for the nation who had to endure her and her mob that still won't go away.
-
Smells to me like she is preparing to bust a move into the void.
-
anything for a buck:
https://nypost.com/2021/12/26/huma-abedin-ny-post-publishing-weiner-sexting-photo-was-final-straw/
resurrecting her 15 min of fame
then good riddance
or is she looking for job?
-
Yes.
:-D
-
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/hillary-clinton-democrats-midterms-election/2021/12/30/id/1050522/
she is running
playing the Dick Morris triangulation angle
:-(
-
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/its-funny-because-its-true?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg4MTI0MCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDc4ODg0NDQsIl8iOiJCdFEyQyIsImlhdCI6MTY0MzQ3NTI1NCwiZXhwIjoxNjQzNDc4ODU0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMzYzMDgwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.8AF-kKs6gDNgsNdJSWS6RihzqT3xZ9LZsS92EkE4WDo
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clinton-campaign-paid-infiltrate-trump-tower-white-house-servers
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/02/the-dirtiest-trick-gets-dirtier.php
And why is this Fox news and Powerline? Why isn't it ALL news? This is a BFD.
It's not just the Clintons. It's the Obama Biden administration they so easily and willingly suckered in. And not one person of the 40% furthest Left is offended one bit.
Meanwhile almost all real crime goes unsolved while the top level of LE focuses (still) on Trump.
-------
One more coservative source:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/durham-report-spying-steele-dossier-trump/2022/02/12/id/1056594/
When does it hit the networks?
What page NYT?
She is going to lead Dems out of the Biden mess? With what? Clean living? Maybe capital gains tax rate cuts like Bill and Newt did?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k6X03XvxWw&t=27s
-
https://nypost.com/2022/02/16/hillary-clinton-calls-durham-claims-fake-scandal/
-
https://nypost.com/2022/02/16/hillary-clinton-calls-durham-claims-fake-scandal/
Anyone think she will ever face a court date, much less any sort of consequence?
-
gives a history lesson on DEMOCRACY:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/02/25/hillary-clinton-putin-motivated-to-invade-ukraine-by-trump-january-6/
while Clinton probably with some bimbo weeps because he is not Prez now since , of course,
he is sure he could have done a better job
(like he pointed out after 9-11)
the ease with which they lie............
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/02/28/hillary-clinton-has-thoughts-about-giving-aid-and-comfort-to-russia-n2603907
-
madcow returned to msnbc
because of the importance of ukraine
and her first guest after 15 minutes or her remarks as general madcow
she interviews the great diplomat of our age
H RC
who comes on and clearly is reading off a teleprompter ,
with her eyes visibly gazing above the camera as she moves her head up and down every time
mad cow speaks in bobble head fashion ( she has been a bobble head for long time in interviews always nodding
in some sort of body language technique she was taught to use by some democrat partisan body language university professor
we are all supposed to be sitting in our armchairs mentally craving and begging for HRC to make a triumphant return to DC [Rome] with her praetorian [mobster] guard
:roll:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MQEG6J2rU
-
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/bill-clinton-to-resume-leadership-summits-put-on-hold-since-2016-1.1732430
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/100/338/822/original/5ad13086058602c0.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/100/338/822/original/5ad13086058602c0.png)
-
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/100/338/822/original/5ad13086058602c0.png
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/100/338/822/original/5ad13086058602c0.png)
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/409356-fbis-37-secret-pages-of-memos-about-russia-clintons-and-uranium-one
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bill-clinton-announces-relaunch-of-global-initiative-amid-war-in-ukraine
once a slime always a slime
the fact their money schemes for personal enrichment to them and their mob
and for upcoming political campaign
while being sold as for "humanitarianism "
just shows how f'g corrupt our system is
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/clinton-campaign-dnc-are-paying-fec-fine-in-an-effort-to-bury-story-kash-patel_4375276.html?fbclid=IwAR2WlF2OxDVkN1lKDbE_AUOek51rNq7x3U-UBA-xnl_bdgT2-czPgojYSqo
-
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/bill-clintons-corrupt-love-affair-putin-daniel-greenfield/
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-okd-leak-to-reporter-about-alleged-trump-russian-tie-her-campaign-manager-says-200540563.html
I could swear it was the day she lost or the very next day she was spreading the rumor it was "the Russians"
I recall thinking what is she now talking about and making up the next day .
of course she knew and helped spread this lie.
it is amazing how hard it is to get the (obvious) truth out there
I can't wait for the DNC liars for hire show up on CNN for 1 minute in their 1200 $ suits and slicked back hair to tell us this is BS
and then CNN will move on to 1/6 stuff......
-
https://www.nationandstate.com/2022/05/27/dirty-political-trick-bill-barr-says-hillary-clinton-guilty-of-sedition/
-
she will never be held accountable
one could say that Trump's greatest gift to America was that he kept her from her life's dream and out nightmare - the presidency
Mark Penn was on cable ? Laura I think or maybe newsmax, and said Hills favorable rating is ! 36% when asked if she would run again.
:-D
-
https://www.nationandstate.com/2022/05/27/dirty-political-trick-bill-barr-says-hillary-clinton-guilty-of-sedition/
Barr is one to talk, given how he helped with the stolen election/coup.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10882101/Family-late-Clinton-advisor-Mark-Middleton-block-release-files-relating-suicide.html
Interesting that an electrical cord was used. Epstein also died with one around his neck.
Contact GSW? How long was the shotgun barrel? Unless the decedent had really long arms, it would be really difficult for him to place the muzzle against his chest and pull the trigger, even with an 18 inch barrel.
-
https://heavy.com/news/mark-middleton/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10882101/Family-late-Clinton-advisor-Mark-Middleton-block-release-files-relating-suicide.html
Interesting that an electrical cord was used. Epstein also died with one around his neck.
Contact GSW? How long was the shotgun barrel? Unless the decedent had really long arms, it would be really difficult for him to place the muzzle against his chest and pull the trigger, even with an 18 inch barrel.
-
https://radaronline.com/p/bill-clinton-advisor-dead-jeff-epstein-photos-mark-middleton/
The toxicology report would be very important in this case.
Note again the use of an electrical cord.
-
Hillary Clinton
@HillaryClinton
The latest January 6 hearings show that Trump knew he lost the election.
His own people told him he'd lost the election.
He then chose to wage a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results and prevent the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history.
-
https://republicbrief.com/public-records-sealed-arkansas-judge-locks-down-police-report-in-bizarre-death-of-clinton-aide/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10882101/Family-late-Clinton-advisor-Mark-Middleton-block-release-files-relating-suicide.html
he "hung himself up" and then committed suicide with a shotgun ?
odd
-
https://republicbrief.com/public-records-sealed-arkansas-judge-locks-down-police-report-in-bizarre-death-of-clinton-aide/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10882101/Family-late-Clinton-advisor-Mark-Middleton-block-release-files-relating-suicide.html
he "hung himself up" and then committed suicide with a shotgun ?
odd
Please see above.
Hillary sends a message
« Reply #1854 on: June 09, 2022, 08:57:09 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10882101/Family-late-Clinton-advisor-Mark-Middleton-block-release-files-relating-suicide.html
Interesting that an electrical cord was used. Epstein also died with one around his neck.
Contact GSW? How long was the shotgun barrel? Unless the decedent had really long arms, it would be really difficult for him to place the muzzle against his chest and pull the trigger, even with an 18 inch barrel.
-
may Dick Morris is right
it will be hillary in '24
podesta a clinton mobster just weaseled his way back into government in the Climate change politburo.
-
TILL DEATH DO US PART:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/19/reactivated-clinton-global-initiative-ready-to-save-a-world-on-fire/
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
-
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/president-obamas-pardon-oscar-lopez-rivera-trades-terrorist-votes?fbclid=IwAR2_C5td_MNZLh4ATD_HAbTsHEG6JIM8ZyKFbzAnjw6wQE3y9WoNTWPi6KU
-
the BEAST is plotting to triangulate
like BJ
steal Republican issues make them their own with the kiss of approval by msm
and try to win over independents
crime immigration and not sure what else
https://republicbrief.com/hillary-clintons-criticism-of-open-border-under-biden-is-a-sign-she-will-run-for-president-in-2924/
:roll:
-
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/117/164/248/original/b7d328c786ed59b4.jpeg
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/117/164/248/original/b7d328c786ed59b4.jpeg)
-
watch the video
not the article about Bloomberg
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bloomberg-democrats-midterms/2022/10/26/id/1093589/
I am thinking Dick is right
as soon as Biden is out Clinton WILL come back
as selling herself as the "moderate democrat "
and will triangulate
be tougher on crime
talk tough on foreign policy ( I will "confer with our friends and allies")
talk tougher about immigration
talk more about inflation
maybe even be more oil conciliatory
-
Not a stupid analysis.
I would add she might even support uranium for nukes :wink: :wink: :wink:
-
Hard to imagine we will turn that far back but for sure there is a void of new leadership emerging on the Dem side.
-
In her most recent clip it looks like she has been going to Nancy's eye lift surgeon.
-
for position for '24:
she is tough on crime :wink: same game Bill played in '96
https://nypost.com/2022/11/04/hochul-denies-crimes-a-problem-but-hillary-clinton-lets-truth-slip/
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/05/hillary-clinton-columbia-university-professor/?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking&pnespid=6OF4Gn4eN.sB0_HArDnpDoyCvkv3C5B8LOqywPdr9EZm3w6Eyr33DVyFrf0rvw3R3Z_Ymxw4
-
"Clinton will “work closely with Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo and other senior faculty and administrators on a variety of major initiatives, especially those focusing on global politics and policy and on supporting female leaders in those arenas” in her position with the SIPA, according to an email sent by university president Lee Bollinger. She will also work with CWP leadership “to support programming related to renewing democracy and advancing efforts for effective engagement of women and youth in this country and around the world.”
:roll:
-
There's nothing more important in foreign policy than gender, is there?
-
https://insiderpaper.com/police-suicide-in-death-of-clinton-aide-middleton-linked-to-epstein/?fbclid=IwAR3OQPwhD14GlNXKpTLUqZKu2VgeV6FU5RKiechzegTSD9tPyND-Pzbznkg
Hat tip to GM for this one: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11759771/Mystery-Bill-Clinton-advisor-dead-gunshot-wound-no-gun.html
-
https://nypost.com/2023/02/24/new-details-emerge-in-shock-suicide-of-financier-thomas-lee/
total :evil: speculation
but was he also a friend of Jeffrey the Lolita lender ?
-
https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/1650035974611812354
-
Hillary => Soros => $$$$$$$$$$$
GM do you know when this video was made;
must be 30 yrs ago
-
Hillary => Soros => $$$$$$$$$$$
GM do you know when this video was made;
must be 30 yrs ago
2006, as far as I can tell.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/05/fbi-suddenly-dropped-four-investigations-hillary-bill-clinton/
-
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/fbi-shut-down-four-criminal-investigations-into-the-clintons-months-prior-to-the-2016-election/
-
https://www.oann.com/newsroom/fbi-shut-down-four-criminal-investigations-into-the-clintons-months-prior-to-the-2016-election/
Bill "CIA" Barr never reopened them?
Strange.
At least he had the claims of election fraud in 2020 investigated, right?
-
I had hopes for Barr. but they went unfulfilled.
-
I had hopes for Barr. but they went unfulfilled.
That was his assignment, to create the illusion that we had the rule of law.
-
Don't know that I agree that Trump chose him for that purpose.
-
Don't know that I agree that Trump chose him for that purpose.
This is one of many times the Deep State chumped Trump.
-
https://nypost.com/2023/05/19/how-obama-officials-fbi-squashed-any-investigation-into-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons&fbclid=IwAR1E2jMz_jePbtfDIBIh-Zc2OfdtFOvl5uiwdVUi6CFnRu4nhpVcjQJOvkg
-
The Clintons get mentioned here too:
========================
https://nypost.com/2023/07/05/missing-biden-corruption-case-witness-dr-gal-luft-details-allegations-against-presidents-family-in-extraordinary-video/?&utm_campaign=devineonline&utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20230706&lctg=649c637ec7c6527b1b0fe213&utm_term=NYP%20-%20Devine%20Online
‘Missing’ Biden corruption case witness Dr. Gal Luft details allegations against president’s family in extraordinary video
By Miranda Devine
July 5, 2023 10:52pm Updated
MORE FROM:
MIRANDA DEVINE
Most voters say Hunter Biden got sweetheart deal because of dad Joe, poll shows
Blowing the lid off the cover-up of Hunter Biden's cushy plea deal
Allegations against Biden and his family are too credible to wipe away with 'father's love' sob story
Heroic IRS whistleblower testimony ensnarls Hunter and Joe Biden in bribery scheme
This businessman — who went to prison for 2 years for corrupt donations to Biden — received jail time from the feds because he had wrong last name
The “missing witness” from the Biden corruption investigation, Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft, has laid out his bribery allegations against the president’s family in an extraordinary video filmed in an undisclosed location while he’s on the run.
In the 14-minute recording, obtained exclusively by The Post, the fugitive former Israeli army officer claims he was arrested in Cyprus to stop him from testifying to the House Oversight Committee that the Biden family received payments from individuals with alleged ties to Chinese military intelligence and that they had an FBI mole who shared classified information with their benefactors from the China-controlled energy company CEFC.
The self-proclaimed fall guy says he provided the incriminating evidence to six officials from the FBI and the Department of Justice in a secret meeting in Brussels in March 2019 — but alleges that it was covered up.
“I, who volunteered to inform the US government about a potential security breach and about compromising information about a man vying to be the next president, am now being hunted by the very same people who I informed — and may have to live on the run for the rest of my life on the run …”
“I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I have no political motive or agenda … I did it out of deep concern that if the Bidens were to come to power, the country would be facing the same traumatic Russia collusion scandal — only this time with China. Sadly, because of the DOJ’s cover-up, this is exactly what happened …”
Dr. Gal Luft
Israeli professor Dr. Gal Luft laid out his bribery allegations against President Biden’s family in an extraordinary video filmed in an undisclosed location while he’s on the run.
Luft claims he was arrested in Cyprus to stop him from testifying to the House Oversight Committee that the Biden family received payments from individuals with alleged ties to Chinese military intelligence.
AP
“I warned the government about potential risk to the integrity of the 2020 elections … Ask yourself, who is the real criminal in this story?”
The House Oversight chairman, Republican James Comer, who was preparing to interview Luft before Luft disappeared, says the Israeli remains a “potential witness” in the Biden family probe, despite his fugitive status.
It remains to be seen whether Luft is the man who will bring down the Bidens, but he is not going quietly into the sunset.
He is determined to tell the American public his version of the truth.
Calling himself “patient zero of the Biden family investigation,” Luft, 57, says he is innocent of charges of conspiring to sell Chinese weapons to Kenya, Libya and the UAE, of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and of making a false statement.
He says he was forced to skip bail in Cyprus in April while awaiting extradition “because I did not believe I will receive a fair trial in a New York court.”
Hunter Biden
The self-proclaimed fall guy says he provided the incriminating evidence to six officials from the FBI and the Department of Justice in a secret meeting in Brussels in March 2019 but alleges that it was covered up.
CNP / Polaris
‘Make evidence public’
Now he is challenging the government to release the minutes of the Brussels meeting and make public the evidence against him.
“Why did the DOJ choose to unseal the indictment on Nov. 1, 2022, the very same week of the midterm elections?” he asks.
“Could this have anything to do with the fear that once Republicans gain control over Congress and begin to investigate, [the DOJ] cover-up would be on full display?”
Luft says he told the DOJ and the FBI in Brussels that Joe Biden, soon after his vice presidential term ended, had attended a meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, DC, with his son Hunter and officials from CEFC.
Luft’s account of the former VP’s presence at that meeting was corroborated 21 months later when the FBI interviewed another attendee, Biden family associate Rob Walker, according to recent testimony before Congress.
Luft disclosed during the Brussels interview that CEFC was paying $100,000 a month to Hunter and $65,000 to his uncle Jim Biden, in exchange for their FBI connections and use of the Biden name to promote China’s Belt and Road Initiative around the world — and that the money was being funneled through Walker.
The Oversight Committee has written to Walker demanding he submit to questioning about his role in distributing more than $1 million from China to at least three of President Biden’s relatives.
The DOJ sent a delegation of six people to meet Luft in Brussels, he alleges: four FBI agents and two prosecutors from the Southern District of New York, Daniel Richenthal and Catherine Ghosh.
Among the FBI contingent was Special Agent Joshua Wilson from the Baltimore field office, who would go on to sign a subpoena later that year to seize Hunter’s abandoned laptop from a Delaware repair shop.
“Why did the government dispatch to Europe so many people?” asks Luft.
“They knew very well I’m a credible witness and I have insider knowledge about the group and individuals that enriched the Biden family.
“Over an intensive two-day meeting, I shared my information about the Biden family’s financial transactions with CEFC, including specific dollar figures. I also provided the name of Rob Walker, who later became known as Hunter Biden’s bagman.”
James Comer
Rep. James Comer, who was preparing to interview Luft before he disappeared, says the Israeli remains a “potential witness” in the Biden family probe, despite his fugitive status.
Getty Images
Think-tank ties
He also told the DOJ and the FBI in Brussels that Hunter had an FBI mole named “One Eye” who had tipped off his CEFC associates, Dr. Patrick Ho and Chairman Ye Jianming, that they were under investigation.
Luft is well connected in intelligence circles in Washington, DC, where he ran a think tank, the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, with former CIA Director James Woolsey and former national security adviser Robert McFarlane as advisers.
He learned in 2017 that Hunter and Jim Biden were being paid by CEFC because Luft was in partnership at the time with a nonprofit think tank associated with the Chinese company.
When Ho was arrested in 2017 in New York on bribery charges, the first person he tried to call was Hunter Biden, whom he had paid $1 million as a “legal retainer.”
But at his trial, Ho was blocked by prosecutors from mentioning the Bidens, according to Luft.
Ho “paid Hunter Biden a million dollars for God-knows-what [but] was not allowed to mention the word Biden before the jury,” says Luft.
Joe Biden, Hunter Biden
Luft also told the DOJ and the FBI in Brussels that Hunter had an FBI mole named “One Eye” who had tipped off his CEFC associates, Dr. Patrick Ho and Chairman Ye Jianming, that they were under investigation.
WireImage
“Prosecutor Daniel Richenthal told the judge at the time that mentioning the name Biden would ‘add a political dimension’ to the case, and the judge agreed. Which means if I was brought before a New York court, I would not be allowed to utter the word Brussels or Biden.”
Luft denies the charge that he is an arms dealer: “I was asked by a bona fide arms dealer, an Israeli friend, to inquire with a company I knew if they had an item and what would be the price of an item. This is where the conspiracy ended. No follow-up, no money, no brokering activity.”
He also faces FARA charges of acting as an unregistered foreign agent of CEFC.
“The DOJ says I caused a payment of $6,000 a month to former CIA Director James Woolsey in order to put his name on an article I had ghostwritten for the China Daily newspaper … Woolsey had been an adviser to my think tank since 2002 and nothing in the article represented Chinese interests.”
“Why am I being indicted … for ghostwriting an innocuous article for which I received no payment, let alone from a foreign government, when the mother of all FARA cases, the Bidens’ systemic influence-peddling on behalf of foreign governments, for which they raked [in] millions, goes unpunished?”
Attorney met with government
A curious addendum to Luft’s tale comes in October 2020, days after The Post’s bombshell revelations from Hunter’s laptop.
Luft dispatched his attorney, Robert Henoch, to Washington to meet the Trump administration’s acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to repeat the allegations he had made in Brussels.
Donoghue also had been assigned by Attorney General Bill Barr in February 2020 to coordinate federal investigations into all Ukraine-related corruption allegations against Joe Biden.
Unbeknownst to Luft, on Sept. 4, Donoghue had ordered the Delaware US attorney to pause the criminal investigation into Hunter to avoid leaks in the two months before the election, according to testimony before Congress.
Donoghue agreed to meet Henoch at a Starbucks near DOJ headquarters and corresponded on his private email, says Luft, who showed The Post the emails between his attorney and the senior official.
“The story is about corruption at the very highest levels of government/politics and I think it can all be corroborated,” Henoch wrote.
Nothing ever came of the meeting — until February of this year, when Luft was arrested in Cyprus.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/hillary-clintons-official-portrait-is-unveiled/vi-AA1hj8kI?ocid=msedgntp
:wink:
well, it is reported she did log more frequent flier miles than any other SOS, her most important achievement.
-
https://www.judicialwatch.org/israel-massacre/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=tipsheet&utm_term=members
-
I confess it amuses me that these college students were taken in by this grifter—one of the most unprincipled and venal politicians in American history IMO—but have little doubt she’ll be left looking much better by the time the editors work their magic:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/12/columbia-university-students-say-hillary-clinton-class-was-a-huge-disappointment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=columbia-university-students-say-hillary-clinton-class-was-a-huge-disappointment
-
Circa ~ 1997
"I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!'
failed to mention he was talking about Hillary :wink:
NOW:
"I did not have sex with those young women!"
Who knows maybe 'this' time he is telling the truth.
Problem who can believe him?
"I like em younger" .....I [Bill] was talking about the freshness of coconuts...........
depends on what the word younger means.
depends what you mean by was I on the same island with them
:roll:
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12945287/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-mexico-gavin-newsom-Epstein-files.html
-
https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/piers-morgan-heres-what-i-think-went-down-between-bill-clinton-and-gavin-newsom-just-a-week-out-from-upcoming-us-iowa-caucus-amid-doubts-over-joe-bidens-tenure/news-story/bf5dacc285dad8f46cec0207ff801b80
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12945287/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-mexico-gavin-newsom-Epstein-files.html
Good humor but it does seem they are plotting and planning something. Newsom could be the choice of both the Clintons and the Obamas. I mean who else is there. Still leaves the dilemma, how do you step over Kamala without ever having a primary or a vote? I mean, how would it look, how would it go over? And then there is Joe/Jill refusing to leave.
-
" how do you step over Kamala without ever having a primary or a vote?"
you get this guy on board with the idea:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/james_clyburn/400075
-
How about Condaleeza Rice? :-D
"Newsom could be the choice of both the Clintons and the Obamas."
And Nancy Pelosi.
"Still leaves the dilemma, how do you step over Kamala without ever having a primary or a vote? I mean, how would it look, how would it go over?"
Gordian Knot-- just do it! Just speak the Truth-- She had her chance and blew it. No one respects her, no one likes her.
"And then there is Joe/Jill refusing to leave."
Maybe something will miraculously come out of the investigations that have been buried.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12932491/hillary-clinton-bill-epstein-documents-finance-ghislaine-maxwell.html