Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 634546 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #850 on: December 22, 2015, 02:03:30 PM »
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. 


Crafty_Dog

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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Disbarred, Clinton pays Paula Jones $850,000, "vast right wing conspiracy"
« Reply #852 on: December 28, 2015, 09:06:43 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #853 on: December 28, 2015, 10:20:38 AM »
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. 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #854 on: December 28, 2015, 02:16:34 PM »
"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.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Clintons also stole White House public property from the American people
« Reply #856 on: December 29, 2015, 10:23:58 AM »
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/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Hillary, Lying, and our scary tolerance of Lying, Thomas Sowell
« Reply #857 on: December 30, 2015, 08:18:05 AM »
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

Crafty_Dog

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

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
$8 million to Bill from donors while they had matters before the State Dept
« Reply #859 on: December 30, 2015, 01:03:17 PM »

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.

Crafty_Dog

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

Crafty_Dog

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

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #862 on: January 03, 2016, 01:43:18 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 01:52:48 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Hillary accuses the deceased families of lying
« Reply #863 on: January 03, 2016, 02:01:00 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 02:54:30 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 06:37:01 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
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?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
DT (and all Republicans) should think twice about taking on Bill Clinton ??
« Reply #866 on: January 04, 2016, 08:05:22 AM »
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?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #867 on: January 04, 2016, 08:11:41 AM »
If you vote for the left's holy sacrament (abortion) then rape is an indulgence permitted to you.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 07:40:23 AM by Crafty_Dog »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #870 on: January 06, 2016, 09:45:21 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 11:01:47 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 11:26:00 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
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.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #874 on: January 07, 2016, 08:40:37 AM »
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.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #875 on: January 08, 2016, 04:15:49 PM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #876 on: January 08, 2016, 04:54:09 PM »
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.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #878 on: January 08, 2016, 11:43:48 PM »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Guest
Blumentahal on Sudan via the NSA?
« Reply #879 on: January 09, 2016, 04:16:18 PM »
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/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #880 on: January 09, 2016, 04:22:29 PM »
 :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Blumentahal on Sudan via the NSA?
« Reply #881 on: January 09, 2016, 09:07:11 PM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #882 on: January 10, 2016, 08:13:00 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
(Soon to be convict) Sid's source
« Reply #883 on: January 10, 2016, 09:30:26 AM »
Doug,

Sid's source is here.  Of course he recently died:

http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #885 on: January 10, 2016, 10:33:40 AM »
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?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
FOIA Loophole?
« Reply #886 on: January 10, 2016, 12:22:26 PM »
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
« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 01:18:16 PM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: FOIA Loophole?
« Reply #887 on: January 10, 2016, 02:44:37 PM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #888 on: January 10, 2016, 09:08:36 PM »
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?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #891 on: January 12, 2016, 01:46:41 PM »
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.  

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
The Empress Dowager on White Terrorism
« Reply #892 on: January 12, 2016, 05:35:35 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ8T_sCIauw

Remember this gents the next time you advocate a more powerful surveillance state , , ,

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #893 on: January 13, 2016, 12:17:52 AM »
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.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Empress Dowager on White Terrorism
« Reply #895 on: January 13, 2016, 09:59:18 AM »
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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« Reply #896 on: January 13, 2016, 11:20:30 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2016, 11:22:59 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Morris: Bill costing Hillary the women's vote
« Reply #897 on: January 13, 2016, 12:35:16 PM »
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?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
State Department Suddenly Discovers Thousands More Clinton Documents
« Reply #898 on: January 16, 2016, 11:28:30 AM »
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.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Unsung heros - Judicial Watch
« Reply #899 on: January 16, 2016, 12:04:52 PM »
"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.