Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 634375 times)



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
More and greater evidence of Hillary's Libya lies
« Reply #602 on: June 29, 2015, 12:18:11 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 10:39:05 AM by Crafty_Dog »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #605 on: July 08, 2015, 08:06:57 AM »
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.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Hillary's 5 lies on CNN
« Reply #606 on: July 09, 2015, 03:06:02 PM »
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. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #607 on: July 10, 2015, 07:26:58 AM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #608 on: July 13, 2015, 10:56:23 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #610 on: July 18, 2015, 06:18:20 AM »
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. 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #611 on: July 18, 2015, 06:34:28 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #612 on: July 18, 2015, 01:52:49 PM »
I hear it gets real nippy there for much of the year , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #613 on: July 18, 2015, 02:17:14 PM »
I hear it gets real nippy there for much of the year , , ,

It's a four season climate. Winter, winter, mud and deer.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Her highness demands this photo not be seen
« Reply #615 on: July 21, 2015, 05:20:19 AM »
She was happier then.  Should not have run - or done the Bruce Jenner surgeries.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Illegal private server etc.
« Reply #618 on: July 27, 2015, 09:34:38 AM »
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.

 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Hillary wants to double the capital gains tax
« Reply #620 on: July 27, 2015, 11:30:56 AM »

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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Morris: Hillary's latest lies 2.0
« Reply #621 on: July 29, 2015, 12:25:09 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #624 on: July 30, 2015, 05:23:10 PM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: Hillary's friends in high places
« Reply #625 on: July 30, 2015, 05:40:20 PM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Hillary's classified intel emails look likely to have caused major damage
« Reply #626 on: July 31, 2015, 03:08:23 AM »
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.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2015, 03:15:36 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Hillary's friends in high places
« Reply #627 on: July 31, 2015, 06:45:59 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Hillbillary Clintons earnings since 2001
« Reply #628 on: August 03, 2015, 06:28:03 PM »
$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

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Hillbillary Clintons earnings since 2001
« Reply #630 on: August 04, 2015, 08:06:16 AM »
"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.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
The pressure builds
« Reply #633 on: August 05, 2015, 06:10:23 PM »
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.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #635 on: August 06, 2015, 12:22:17 PM »
"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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #637 on: August 06, 2015, 01:25:00 PM »
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?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Morris: Hillary's server
« Reply #638 on: August 11, 2015, 02:32:18 PM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Morris: Hillary's server
« Reply #639 on: August 11, 2015, 05:55:32 PM »
"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?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton Crime Family Financials
« Reply #640 on: August 11, 2015, 06:29:18 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 06:51:16 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #641 on: August 12, 2015, 09:34:42 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #642 on: August 12, 2015, 10:34:52 AM »
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.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #643 on: August 12, 2015, 12:09:51 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 12:29:34 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #644 on: August 12, 2015, 12:36:17 PM »
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 , , ,

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Did Bill Clinton aides access Hillary's server?
« Reply #645 on: August 12, 2015, 06:28:16 PM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #646 on: August 13, 2015, 07:10:58 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #647 on: August 13, 2015, 08:13:38 AM »
"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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #648 on: August 13, 2015, 08:43:50 AM »
“If Hillary Clinton goes to prison, will the Secret Service protect her there?”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #649 on: August 13, 2015, 09:12:36 AM »
"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