|May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)|
|Contents||Bulletin||Scripting in shell and Perl||Network troubleshooting||History||Humor|
|News||US Presidential Elections of 2016||Recommended Links||Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton||Hillary Clinton email scandal||Clinton Cash: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and financial industry||DNC emails leak|
|Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak||Is Hillary Clinton a war criminal, the killer of women and children in Syria and Libya?||Hillary wet kiss with neocons||Hillary as pathological liar||Bill Clinton sexcapades and Hillary||Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS||Understanding Hillary Clinton email scandal|
|Perjury Investigation of Hillary Clinton||Hillary Clinton faux feminism||Conversion of Democratic Party into War Party and Hillary Clinton policy toward Russia||Hillary and Wall Street||Hillary role in Libya disaster||Hillary role in Syria bloodbath||Nulandgate|
|Female Sociopaths||Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA||Obama: a yet another Neocon||Wolfowitz Doctrine||Civil war in Ukraine||Politically Incorrect Humor||Etc|
'Lock Her Up' slogan is unifying Republicans and Bernie supporters.
It’s on display in the sartorial choices around downtown Cleveland, where “Hillary for Prison” shirts seem nearly as popular as the famous “Make America Great Again” hats. It’s on display in the speeches delivered from the dais and the comments made by delegates.
How you can became POTUS if you have no security clearance" are variations of the same theme.
The attitude that Clinton must be jailed is by no means universal but it started to affect Clinton campaign. These “indictments” don’t carry the force of law, of course, but they do carry a worrying rhetorical weight . Taking into account that Clinton is also plagued by some real legal problems, they can deflate her campaign. In a way, the idea that Clinton is a criminal candidate—as opposed to one with whom you simply disagree is a very effective tool of mobilizing opponents for candidate. That means that nearly a half, if not more, Bernie supporters will not vote for Hillary. Like Trump aptly noted
E ven mainstream politicians like Christie have talked with varying degrees of seriousness about “never let[ing Clinton] within 10 miles of the White House again.” Even if Clinton loses, quietly returns to private life, and doesn’t face any further prosecution, the scene of thousands demanding that a political rival be jailed will remain in her memory.
Legal analysts said that while it appeared unlikely that FBI will find enough evidence to prosecute Mrs. Clinton on charges of lying to Congress. But there is enough evidence to open investigation. That fact alone might be pretty damaging to her campaign (NYT, Jul 11, 2016)
Republicans have seized on a number of contradictions between what Mrs. Clinton told Congress about her private email server and what the FBI found in its investigation.
Mrs. Clinton told the House Select Committee on Benghazi, for instance, that she had turned over all her “work-related” emails to the State Department and that “nothing” in the more than 60,000 emails routed through her private server “was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.”
The FBI investigation found that, in fact, there were “thousands” of work-related emails that her lawyers did not turn over, and that a handful of emails were marked classified at the time — although the State Department now says they should not have been.
Still, it would be difficult for prosecutors to show that she intended to mislead Congress — a high legal bar — and that she should be criminally prosecuted for it.
In eight hours of testimony during a marathon 11-hour session of the Benghazi committee, Mrs. Clinton was careful to hedge a number of answers about her email system by saying that she was basing her statements on information from her lawyers.
Here is a typical reaction to her acquittal by Comey (effectively pardon by Obama):
Bill Whittle is back with another Firewall video commentary. It takes Bill only 93 seconds to show Hillary Clinton guilty of violating three separate Federal Statutes. It takes him another three minutes to explain why she and Obama simply DO NOT CARE.
Watch above and please share far and wide.
Let’s start by getting one thing out of the way right at the top: there is no question that Hillary Clinton committed multiple violations of federal law.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071, Paragraph a:
[ TITLE: COMPLETE TEXT OF A ]
says that anyone who removes -- and doesn’t return -- ANY Federal records regardless of classification has committed a felony.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said that all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
COMEY: No, we found work-related emails – thousands – that were not returned.
[TITLE: COMPLETE TEXT OF B ]
Paragraph B says that anyone who attempts to conceal or destroy these records has committed a second felony, which specifically bars the offender from holding any office in the United States government.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said that neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?
COMEY: There’s no doubt that there were work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
And finally let’s talk about 18 U.S. Code § 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
In order to clear the legal bar for prosecution on that statute – that part of the United States code -- the prosecution would have to prove “gross negligence” on the part of Mrs. Clinton.
GIULIANI: He said during his long statement that she was “extremely careless.” The first definition of “gross negligence” that comes up when you take out the legal dictionary is being “extremely careless.”
FBI Director Comey, acting for reasons unknown and which do not make the slightest difference to this case, laid out point by point the evidence of criminal violations, as well as exposing Crooked Hillary’s initial public statement as contempt for the American People so grand that it would have to be sifted through a very fine filter to find a single particle that was actually true.
What David Horowitz called “the most breathtaking fix in American history” was so flagrant, so audacious, so shamefully and obviously crooked, and reeked of such bottomless contempt, that I take exception to the idea, frequently stated, that they must take us for idiots.
They don’t take us for idiots. They take us for cowards. They know that we know, and they don’t care.
... ... ...
Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.comby Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,
In his first post-election interview , Bernie Sanders has declared to should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes would be "an outrage beyond belief".
When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as to why a pardon would even be needed.
Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.
He goes on to state:
That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would find it unacceptable to even think about those things.
Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.
No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion.
They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.
Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!
Enough with the damn emails?
Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.
You can watch the full interview below:
Aug 15, 2016 | www.breitbart.comHillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, may have committed perjury in testimony before Congress, two separate U.S. House committee chairmen detailed late Monday.
In a letter from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing Phillips, the two top House Republicans made their case that Clinton committed perjury.
Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to Phillips:
On August 2, 2016, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik confirmed that you received the Committees' request for an investigation regarding certain statements made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony before Congress and will 'take appropriate action as necessary. To assist the investigation, this letter identifies several pieces of Secretary Clinton's testimony that appear to implicate 18 U.S.C. §§1621 and 1001 the criminal statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements, respectively. The evidence collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony, which are described in greater detail below.
Before detailing at least four specific instances in which Clinton allegedly committed perjury, the House Republicans explained the matter a bit further:
During a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015, Secretary Clinton testified with respect to (1) whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; (2) whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; (3) whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State; and (4) whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State. Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton's sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI's findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence FBI Director James Comey described in his public statement on July 5, 2016 and in testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016.
The first of four main areas where Hillary Clinton allegedly perjured herself before the U.S. Congress was with her claim in sworn testimony that she never sent or received emails on her illicit home-brew email server-which was in violation of State Department guidelines, and according to FBI director James Comey "extremely careless."
"With respect to whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time, Secretary Clinton testified under oath to the Select Committee that she did not," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. "Specifically, during questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, Secretary Clinton stated 'there was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.'"
Chaffetz and Goodlatte further quoted from Clinton's testimony by including this quote:
[M]any Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department . . . where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials . . . and that's why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.
The two House Committee chairmen detail in the letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. that Clinton, according to the FBI Director, was not telling the truth in that testimony before Congress:
The FBI, however, found several of Secretary Clinton's emails did in fact contain markings that identified classified information therein. In Director Comey's public statement on July 5, 2016, he said, 'a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information.' When Director Comey testified on July 7, 2016, he specifically addressed this issue. Rep. Trey Gowdy asked, 'Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified either sent or received. Was it true?' He said it was not. Director Comey also stated, 'There was classified material emailed.' Specifically, he stated that three documents on Secretary Clinton's private server contained classified information clearly marked 'Confidential.' He further testified, 'In the one involving 'top secret' information, Secretary Clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject.'
The second claim on which Hillary Clinton appears to have been caught perjuring herself according to the two top House Republicans was with regard to her statements that her lawyers read all of her emails.
"With respect to whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system, Secretary Clinton testified that her attorneys used search terms and reviewed every single email to identify any that were work-related and should therefore be returned to the Department of State," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting directly from Clinton's transcript from when she testified under oath:
Rep. Jordan: But I'm asking how - I'm asking how it was done. Was
- did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.
Mrs. Clinton: They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.
Rep. Jordan: Will you provide this committee - or can you answer today, what were the search terms?
Mrs. Clinton: The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.
"The FBI found, however, that Secretary Clinton's lawyers did not in fact read all of her emails-they relied exclusively on a set of search terms to identify work-related messages," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting from Comey's July 5 testimony:
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
The third area where Hillary Clinton seems to have perjured herself according to the two House Committee chairmen is when she testified that she only used one server or device.
"With respect to whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton testified there was only one server," Goodlatte and Chaffetz wrote to the D.C. U.S. Attorney, before pulling another transcript of congressional testimony:
Rep. Jordan: In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I'm having a hard time figuring this out, because this story's been all over the place. But - there was one server on your property in New York, and a second server hosted by a Colorado company in - housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers?
Mrs. Clinton: No.
Rep. Jordan: OK.
Mrs. Clinton: There was a - there was a server…
Rep. Jordan: Just one?
Mrs. Clinton: . . . that was already being used by my husband's team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband's office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that's when they contracted with the company in Colorado.
Rep. Jordan: And so there's only one server? Is that what you're telling me? And it's the one server that the FBI has?
Mrs. Clinton: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.
Goodlatte and Chaffetz also wrote:
The FBI, however, found Secretary Clinton stored work-related emails on several servers. In Director Comey's public statement, he said, 'Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.' In Director Comey's testimony on July 7, 2016, he stated that Secretary Clinton used several devices to send and receive work-related emails during her tenure as Secretary of State. He testified, 'She used multiple devices during her four years as secretary of state.'
The fourth and final area where Clinton seems to have, according to Chaffetz and Goodlatte, perjured herself while under oath was during her claim that she provided all of her work-related emails to the Department of State.
"Finally, with respect to whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State, Secretary Clinton testified to the Select Committee that she had," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before again pulling a transcript of Clinton's testimony before Congress.
Mrs. Clinton: Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I take responsibility for my use of personal e-mail. I've said it was a mistake. I've said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice. When I got to the department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, and so much else. E-mail was not my primary means of communication, as I have said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I've described how I did work: in meetings, secure and unsecured phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending . . .
Rep. Jordan: I - I - I appreciate (inaudible).
Mrs. Clinton: . . . a great deal of meetings, and I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related e-mails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released.
Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote:
The FBI found, however, 'several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.' In the course of its investigation, the FBI recovered 'still others . . . from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.' When Director Comey appeared before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, he confirmed that Secretary Clinton did not turn over all work-related emails to the FBI. He stated, 'We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.'
Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrapped their letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. by noting that the FBI's findings prove Hillary Clinton was not telling the truth when she testified under oath before Congress.
"The four pieces of sworn testimony by Secretary Clinton described herein are incompatible with the FBI's findings," Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote.
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin said she doesn't know how her emails wound up on a device she said was her husband's computer, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
The person, who requested anonymity, said Abedin was not a regular user of the computer and her lawyers did not search it for materials, thinking no messages would be there even after she agreed to turn over her messages to the State Department for record-keeping, the Washington Post reported.
On June 28, 2016, Abedin swore under oath that she looked for all devices containing work information so the records could be given to the State Department, the Daily Beast reported.
In the sworn oath, she said she "looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned - returned - gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents."
Investigators found thousands of emails on Weiner's computer that they believe to be relevant to the Clinton investigation, according to federal law enforcement officials.
It is still unknown how the emails are relevant or whether or not they are significant.
Officials say it is possible that the messages could be duplicates of already investigated emails, but that will not be determined until a computer program goes through the emails to weed out the duplicates so officials can closely examine the emails for classified information.
Oct 30, 2016 | www.breitbart.comA former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family" and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was secretary of state.
Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, The Hill reported.
"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."
Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch for botching the Clinton email server investigation.
"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."
"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.
Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.
"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.comgrayslady October 28, 2016 at 5:48 pmabynormal October 28, 2016 at 7:13 pm
An acquaintance of mine said of the Clintons: "They define success as how much they can get away with." Clearly, this is just the latest example.Jim Haygood October 28, 2016 at 8:17 pm
"The pain is not about having cheap people around…. real pain is the fact that there are some people with a price to start with." Sameh Elsayed
Or as Dorothy Parker presciently quipped about the Clintons:
Q: What's the difference between an enzyme and a hormone?
A: You can't hear an enzyme.
Oct 29, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com... ... ...
Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us.
Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's speeches.
What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying, if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president?
Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?
"There's a lot of smoke and there's no fire," says Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.
If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon's.
And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning, would be cut loose to go after her.
The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton's first term.
There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails, the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come.
What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Rep. Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself.
And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with the Syrians, the Russians, the Taliban, the North Koreans, and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea-and with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do.
This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await her, and us.
Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority
Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2016 at 11:55 pmPat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue to surge and will win on November 8th.Matt , says: October 28, 2016 at 12:58 am
Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.
On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat.
The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question.
Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls were all for naught.
Thus, fortunately, the American people will avoid the spectacle of a "truly hellish" Clinton presidency.More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs, deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker.William N. Grigg , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:13 am
A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster.Michael Bienner , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:36 amJames Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory with the British.
Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?Tyranny is upon us…Brian J. , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:17 amThe only people responsible for that "cloud" are conservatives. If you wish to prevent the horrid fate that you're describing, Pat, you need to apologize and concede that these investigations are groundless. You can't say "where there's smoke, there's fire" if we can all see your smoke machine.PAXNOW , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:29 amThe Visigoths will continue their advance on Rome by the millions. The Supreme Court and Fed will shy away from diversity in their numbers. The alternative media will go bonkers, but to no avail. The military will provide employment (endless wars) to those displaced by a permissive immigration policy. Elizabeth I – will look down (up) in envy.David , says: October 28, 2016 at 7:46 am"Cloud" is an understatement.SteveM , says: October 28, 2016 at 8:34 amMike Schilling , says: October 28, 2016 at 9:31 amRe: "Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's speeches."
Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets.
Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from documented Clinton corruption.
The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks.
Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard, corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office. Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of a political and personal wreck.
Agree with Pat though that it's going to be a wild ride for the rest of us – straight down.
P.S. A Republican Congress does have the power of the purse and could shave away Clinton's Imperial use of the executive branch. But the feckless Congress has never been intelligent enough to utilize that power effectively.And if anyone would know about clouds of mistrust, it's a Nixon staffer/Kurt Gayle , says: October 28, 2016 at 9:58 amSteveM makes excellent points about the mainstream media cover-up of the Wikileaks revelations:Viriato , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:14 am
"Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets."
Alex Pfeiffer (The Daily Caller) expands upon SteveM's critique in "The Anatomy Of A Press Cover-Up." Great stuff:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/27/the-anatomy-of-a-press-cover-up/@William N. Grigg: "Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?"Viriato , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:24 am
Yes, that's one aspect of PJB's thought that has long disturbed me. Granted, PJB is a nationalist, and I can see why an old-fashioned nationalist would admire Polk. But PJB also advocates an "enlightened nationalism." There's nothing enlightened about stealing someone else's land. Frankly, I fail to see how Polk's actions are any different from Hitler's actions a century later. I don't want to offend anyone but, I'm sorry… this needs to be said.I greatly admire Pat Buchanan, but this article is rather ridiculous.KevinS , says: October 28, 2016 at 10:43 am
"If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor, as was Nixon's."
Translation: "I want revenge for Watergate."
Look, I admire Nixon. I think he was one of our greatest Presidents. I really mean that. I also think that he was unfairly subjected to a witch hunt and that there was no valid reason for him to have faced the prospect of impeachment (and the same is true, in my view, for both of the Presidents who were actually impeached, interestingly enough). Nixon should have been allowed to finish his second term.
I think Hillary Clinton is also facing a witch hunt. I don't agree with her foreign policy views or with many of her domestic policy views, but this vicious attempt by the GOP to take her down needs to stop. There is no evidence that she is any more corrupt than anybody else.
And, in any case, if she gets elected, she will be entitled to serve as President. To deliberately try to sabotage her Presidency by hounding her with these investigations would be to show profound contempt for democratic norms.
Enough already. I don't support Clinton or Trump. Jill Stein is my gal now. But I hope that whoever wins does a great job and that all goes well for them. Nothing else would be in the best interests of the country or the world."Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.Karel , says: October 28, 2016 at 12:53 pm
On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat."
We heard this in 2012. Go back and read the Free Republic election night thread to see how such comforting thoughts came crashing down as the night went on. Then read the posts today…all the exact same people saying all the exact same things.For a society to work well and to succeed, the good-will (trust and support) of it's productive, tax-paying citizens is of paramount importance. The corrupt politics in DC for the last 25 years has used up this good-will. Only few trust these elitists , as evidenced by the success of the socialist, Sanders, and Trump.KennethF , says: October 28, 2016 at 1:05 pm
With the election of the corrupt, lying, unaccomplished politician, the legitimacy of the D.C. "Leaders" will be gone. It would be a disaster!" She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate. She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy. "Susan , says: October 28, 2016 at 2:46 pm
Funny you should go there. Sure, HRC has historically high unfavorability ratings. Fact: DJT's unfavorability ratings are even higher. Check any reasonably non-partisan site such as RCP or 538.
Pretty much all the negatives about HRC are trumped by Trump. His flip-flopping makes hers look amateur: he used to be a pro-choice Democrat; has publicly espoused admiration for HRC and declared that WJC was unfairly criticized for his transgressions. Integrity: he's stiffed countless businesses, small and large; he's been sued by his own lawyers for non-payment. Character: he behaves like a child, 'nuff said.
Corruption: his daddy illegally bailed him out of a financial jam; Trump's foundation makes the Clintons' look legit by comparison.
With HRC, the GOP had a huge chance to take back the WH: she has plenty of genuine baggage to go along with the made-up stuff. However the GOP managed to nominate the one candidate who makes her transgressions appear tolerable. The end result is that a significant number of moderate Republicans are supporting no one, Johnson, or even HRC. Trump is so toxic that very few progressive Dems will stray from HRC, despite being horrified by her corporate connections.Re today: The FBI is not investigating her server. Servers don't send emails on their own. They are investigating Hillary Clinton. They just don't like to say that. I wonder if it's in order to – once again – announce Hillary's "innocence," just before the end of early voting and voting day. We'll see.GeneTuttle , says: October 28, 2016 at 2:52 pmOnce again, Pat shows prescience. The bombshell about the reopened FBI investigation was dropped minutes after I read this article.jeff , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:14 pmFor those interested in a functional government, note that this is three straight elections – over twelve years – where the incoming president is a priori deemed illegitimate, regardless of the scale of the victory, and the opposing political party has no interest in working with that president.KD , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:26 pm
In fact, some senators and representatives (Cruz, Gowdy, Issa, etc.) seem to take joy and pride in noting the extent and length of these investigations, regardless of what they find. It is the very process of governmental obstruction they seek, not necessarily justice or truth.Looks like the FBI discovered some new emails:dave , says: October 28, 2016 at 3:27 pm
Could we have a new historic first if Hillary wins, the First Woman President to be impeached by Congress? And the first couple in the history of the Republic to both be impeached?At some point the Republicans have to be for something. I suppose they will be tempted to go after Ms. Clinton for what she has elided or attempted to, but I think that is a major mistake. You wrote: "Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure four years of pure hell.
The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it."
There are a few assumptions in this – first, that any investigations into her past behavior will be impartial. True or not, the impression will be hard to pull off – I expect they will easily be framed as misogynist. And some most likely will be, so it takes a bit of thought and study to determine which are motivated by misogyny and which are not. News cycles are too fast for that sort of reflection, and in any event more or less all the major papers and television networks are in her camp, so can't really expect journalism out of them anymore. It will be a called a misogynist, partisan investigation and that will be the end of it.
Second, it assumes that the people doing the investigation have credibility. That's a big if – the GOP went from Bush 43's two terms of military adventurism, increasing income inequality and economic catastrophe to no introspection or admission of error in the ensuing 8 years of apparently mindless, vindictive opposition. That is a long time of being kind of – well – less than thoughtful.
And it's had tremendous costs. Mr. Obama presents as a decent man in his profiles, but he was very inexperienced when elected and in my opinion has more or less been bumbling around for almost 8 years now, kind of like Clouseau in those old Pink Panther movies. Only a lot of people of died, lost their homes or have seen their communities consumed by despair. Government has been very ineffective for many Americans, and the Republicans have a lot to answer for with the way they've chosen to spend their time and direct their energy over the last 8 years. It's been a waste going after Obama, and going after Clinton will just be more of the same.
And the last assumption is that with all that might be going on in the next few years, this is important. Ms. Clinton has made some statements, some good, some bad. The bad, though, are remarkably bad – she's for invading a Middle Eastern country and establishing control over their airspace, as an example. In 2017. It's pure crazy. She has Democratic support. Hate to think if she is elected the Republicans will be focusing on email.
Oct 23, 2016 | www.unz.com
Paul Craig Roberts • October 21, 2016
Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.
It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.
The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's will."
What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.
So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?
The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.
I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.
The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.
Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.
Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.
Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.orgHillary Clinton did not just pay mercenaries to assault Trump supporters, she also violated the law on several occasions.
Selection 2016 events are really getting interesting.
Hillary Clinton did not just pay mercenaries to assault Trump supporters, she also violated the law on several occasions.
https://conservativedailypost.com/breaking-trump-moves-to-file-charges-against-clinton/ALberto | Oct 22, 2016 12:40:56 PM | 7
In Illinois, Trump will be citing the Illinois criminal statute. The Mob action is a Class Four felony punishable by 3-6 years in prison and a $25,000 fine for each charge in Illinois. When Trump brings forward the paperwork, he very well could charge anyone associated with helping, planning, organizing, or paying anyone to commit acts of violence–which would include Hillary Clinton.
In Illinois, statute reads as follows:
A person commits mob action when he or she engages in any of the following:
The knowing or reckless use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by 2 or more persons acting together and without authority of law;
The knowing assembly of 2 or more persons with the intent to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony or misdemeanor; or
The knowing assembly of 2 or more persons, without authority of law, for the purpose of doing violence to the person or property of anyone supposed to have been guilty of a violation of the law, or for the purpose of exercising correctional powers or regulative powers over any person by violence.
Donald Trump would win this case easily, but he is not stopping in Illinois. Trump and his team have indicated that he will also be suing for the brutal attacks that occurred in San Diego, California.
Sep 05, 2016 | news.slashdot.orgAnonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:30PM ( #52777655 )Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)kenai_alpenglow ( 2709587 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @07:33PM ( #52778465 )
All indications are she wasn't very careful while actively using the server. However, once she started getting requests to produce data from it, then she suddenly got very careful. Even if she did do nothing wrong, that is a very stark change in behavior that just happened to coincide with legal requests to hand over data.Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)jeff4747 ( 256583 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @02:05PM ( #52781529 )
The FBI found the "key piece(s)". Comey then said "No prosecutor would pursue this case" and dropped it. He was probably right--but only because of her last name. If I did that, I might get out after 5 years or so. Heck, one of my counterparts got in trouble for a single line in a controlled document which had the same info in the public domain. I'm sick of these "Nothing to see here" claims--just look at any security briefing and it's spelled out. We just had another one, and according to it I would be required to report her if she was in my office.Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 4 , Insightful)Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @06:31PM ( #52778125 )That whole 'we little people would be in prison if we did this' meme is such bullshit.
You used the wrong tense. It's not "would be". It's "are". There are "little people" currently in prison for negligent handling of classified. Right now. Actually in prison.She didn't do anything, beyond send and receive stuff she was cleared to see.
Which means she broke the law. Being "cleared to see it" doesn't mean you can see it anywhere you want, any time you want. There are requirements for handling the information. And a server in her basement that did not use encrypted connections for months, and then had the default VPN keys on the VPN appliance once they started using encryption, and an Internet-connected printer on the same network is nowhere near close to meeting those requirements.Petreus is brought up endlessly. Y'know, the guy who gave classified stuff to his journalist girlfriend
His journalist girlfriend had a clearance. According to your gross misunderstanding of our classification system, what crime did Petraeus commit? He had a clearance, and his girlfriend had a clearance. If "had a clearance" is good enough to excuse Clinton, then why was it not good enough to excuse Patraeus?but you ought to at least acknowledge that it was a tiny percentage of the traffic
Please cite where the statute states the percentage of allowable leaks.and that stuff probably would've been sent on the unclassified DOS server had she been using that
First, government servers are regularly scanned for classified, so it would have been caught long before there were thousands of classified in her email. Second, the unclassified DoS server is far, far, far more secure than her basement server. For example, they don't have default VPN keys installed.What we have here is a witch hunt for something - anything - about Benghazi that could paint Clinton in a politically unfavorable light.
No, this has absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi. But shouting "Benghazi!!!!" does a great job getting people like you to turn off their critical thinking and accept this week's excuse.Lies ( Score: 4 , Insightful)bongey ( 974911 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @12:01AM ( #52779455 )
Yes it does, read the laws. There is a Navy person who facing 20 years to life for disposing of a phone which had his picture while inside the sub. That is one of the more extreme cases, but it's literally a Web Search to prove you are wrong (shill?) Intent comes in to play _only_ for the penalty.Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 4 , Informative)RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @10:16PM ( #52779171 )
Except ALL 22 MILLION Bush administrative emails were recovered from tape backups. Clinton wiped the data AFTER the FOIA request. I don't know of a single person that has decided one day to delete ALL their personal emails, except Clinton. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/... [wired.com] another source http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] , another http://www.npr.org/templates/s... [npr.org] . Yep you're idiot.Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Interesting)Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:50PM ( #52777831 )Comey spent hours in front of Congress explaining, very patiently, over and over, that the reason he could not recommend prosecution against Clinton is because all of the suspected crimes required proof of intent, which the FBI did not have.
Transcript of Gowdy questioning Comey. Lots of context, but note the bolded section :
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey : There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey : She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey : No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey : That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in - on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy : Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey : No.
Gowdy : Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey : Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy : Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey : That is right?
Gowdy : Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also - intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.Powell is not the prototype -- ( Score: 5 , Informative)cahuenga ( 3493791 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:51PM ( #52777843 )
Powell used an aol account. He did NOT put a private server in his house!
Same for Rice. Powell used it for non-state NON-classified business.
Hillary has lied so many times about this server, is is clear to any hones observer that she was hiding activities of corruption with the Clinton foundation and did not want FOIA to discover her activities.
Hillary was supposed to have government archivists sort through the mails, not her personal attorneys. That was a violation of the federal records act.
She had classified information on the server, despite assertions that she did not- caught in another lie. She said all work related mails were turned over. Another lie- the FBI found thousands of work related mails not turned over, including classified.Re:Too secure for insecure? ( Score: 5 , Insightful)Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:13PM ( #52778643 )Sure, Clinton sucks, but the big knock against her and her email server was that she wasn't secure enough with it.
My quibble was the blatant arrogance of the act. That private server was clearly a move to preserve final editing rights of her tenure at the State Department and evade any future FOIA requests that may crop up during her next run for the presidency; and was there ever any doubt that she would run again? The fact that she thought she could get away with it after experiencing the fallout from the exact same move by members of the Bush administration while she was a sitting Senator in Washington reinforces the feeling that her arrogance knows no bounds. She took a page out of the neocon playbook and figured she would show them how it's done.You're being willfully ignorant ( Score: 5 , Informative)Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @08:24PM ( #52778703 )
1. She put classified info on a private unsecured server where it was vulnerable, contrary to the law which she was fully advised of upon taking office.
2. She did all her work through that server, hiding it from all 3 government branches (congressional oversight, executive oversight, and the courts) and public FOIA requests.
3. When the material was sought by the courts and congress, she and the state department people lied under oath claiming the material did not exist (perhaps Nixon cronies should have all lied about tapes existing).
4. After her people knew the material was being sought, the server's files were transferred (by private IT people w/o clearances) to her lawyers (no clearances).
5. She and her lawyers deleted over 30000 e-mails, claiming they were only about yoga and her daughter's wedding dress (Nixon cut a few minutes of tape).
6. They then wiped the files with bit bleach (a step not needed for yoga or wedding dress e-mails). (Nixon did not degauss all his tapes)
7. They handed the wiped server to the FBI, and hillary publicly played ignorant with her "with a CLOTH?" comment (absolute iin-you-face arrogance against the rule of law) (Nixon did not hand tape recorders with erased tapes to the FBI)
Prove you are sincere, and not a total unprincipled partisan hack:
Are you a Nixon supporter?
Would you accept this behavior from Donald Trump or Dick Cheney?Backup appliance and server have all emails ( Score: 4 , Interesting)zerofoo ( 262795 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @05:39PM ( #52777719 )
Hillary Clinton's IT guy purchased an MS Exchange hosting contract from Platte River. The standard package came with a periodic backup to a Datto appliance, which takes snapshots of the Windows disk image several times a day. The appliance copies the snapshot to Datto's data center in real time. You can erase or even destroy the Windows machine drives and still use the snapshots to restore the disks to the snapshot of the time and date of your chosing.
The FBI confiscated the appliance from Platte River and seized the server from Datto. They have all the emails she sent and received since the start of her State Department tenure.Not responsible - it's a crime. ( Score: 5 , Insightful)AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @11:44PM ( #52779421 )
Hillary Clinton co-mingled personal and official government communications on her private email server. All of those communications are subject to the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Her personal emails ceased to be personal when she co-mingled them with official government communications. HRC and her lawyers were not authorized to decide what is relevant to FRA and FOIA and what is not.
HRC and her lawyers deleted 30,000 or so emails that are not recoverable - therefore she is in violation of both the FRA and FOIA.
HRC should be, at the very least, in front of a jury to answer for her actions.Re:More political redirection ( Score: 5 , Insightful)mysidia ( 191772 ) writes: on Saturday August 27, 2016 @09:28AM ( #52780637 )I guess the people that are making accusations over that are either ignorant, or disingenuous.
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.) and then effectively "burned" the server, including (by her lawyer's own admission) tens of thousands of messages.
FBI investigations have now come up with thousands of emails which were NOT turned over in that paper dump. How many could have been part of those that were deleted and then lost when the server was wiped? We'll never know. Many of them were likely deleted in error, with her lawyers not realizing which ones should have been retained as they were going through tens of thousands of documents. But were ALL of these official state department emails recovered by the FBI (now 15,000+) deleted "in error"?
That's what's troubling about all of this. We have no way of knowing whether there may have been significant spoliation of evidence here (that's the legal term for intentionally, recklessly, or negligently destroying evidence). If this were a corporation who had been issued a subpoena and they acted in this manner, and it was later proven that they "lost" over ten thousand relevant documents in the process of their destruction of "irrelevant" documents, they would likely face significant legal sanctions, perhaps even criminal charges.
Legally, the safe course in this instance would have been to put the server in a secure location with legal supervision by Clinton's counsel until the matter could be resolved. Clinton's use of BleachBit is not surprising here -- not because it's proper protocol to delete secure information, but because it's the only reasonable way to delete potentially incriminating evidence of spoliation (even if most of it was accidental or whatever). If they hadn't used a very secure deletion protocol, then Clinton's attorneys would have been doing a VERY poor job at protecting her legally.
Personally, I'm not sure it's likely there was any "evil memo" buried among the State Department correspondence that could prove anything. (And if there were, I'm not convinced Clinton realized it.) On the other hand, I'm sure she had a bunch of private email dealings that she wouldn't want to get out -- if for nothing else then for bad public relations. Hence the destruction of everything on the server -- it's in line with the privacy paranoia that likely caused her to set up the server in the first place. But could there have been worse stuff there too? Maybe. Doesn't seem like we'll ever know, though, does it?Re:More political redirection ( Score: 4 , Insightful)Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday August 26, 2016 @09:10PM ( #52778941 )
Here's the problem -- Clinton deleted these emails AFTER they were requested from the House as part of an official investigation. She chose to print out everything she claimed was relevant (probably to avoid giving away metadata in headers, etc.)
In other words, she willingly destroyed information she was required to hand over.
The full Headers and all Metadata are part of the Record and part of the E-mail; If you are requested to hand over the e-mails: you have no right to exclude or remove headers, even if your standard e-mail software does not normally display the headers when you are reading the message.Re:More political redirection ( Score: 4 , Insightful)A: "But anyone could hack in and see her emails, it's totally unsecure!"
B: "She used BleachBit."
A: "That proves she had something to hide!"
Being that Clinton didn't give a damn about securing the physical server and didn't give a damn about securing the messages sent through the server, it seems strange that she suddenly cares about security practices when deleting e-mail messages about yoga classes.
Oh, did I mention that deleting the e-mail messages would be considered an obstruction of justice if it were done by a typical citizen?
Sep 03, 2016 | www.strategic-culture.org
1: The FBI chose to 'investigate' the most difficult-to-prove charges, not the easiest-to-prove ones (which are the six laws that she clearly violated , simply by her privatization and destruction of State Department records, and which collectively would entail a maximum prison sentence of 73 years ).
The famous judge Jed Rakoff has accurately and succinctly said that, in the American criminal 'justice' system, since 1980 and especially after 2000, and most especially after 2010, "the prosecutor has all the power. The Supreme Court's suggestion that a plea bargain is a fair and voluntary contractual arrangement between two relatively equal parties is a total myth… What really puts the prosecutor in the driver's seat is the fact that he - because of mandatory minimums, sentencing guidelines (which, though no longer mandatory in the federal system, are still widely followed by most judges), and simply his ability to shape whatever charges are brought - can effectively dictate the sentence by how he publicly describes the offense".
If an Administration wants to be merely pretending an 'investigation', it's easy: identify, as the topic for the alleged 'investigation', not the criminal laws that indisputably describe what the suspect can clearly be proven to have done, but instead criminal laws that don't. Prosecutorial discretion is now practically unlimited in the United States. This discretion is an essential feature of any dictatorship . It's the essence of any system that separates people into aristocrats, who are above the law, versus the public, upon whom their 'law' is enforced. It's the essence of "a nation of men, not of laws".
But, different people focus on different aspects of it. Conservatives notice it in Clinton's case because she was not prosecuted. Progressives notice it in Clinton's case because other people (ones without the clout) who did what she did (but only less of it), have been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for it. The result, either way, is dictatorship , regardless of anyone's particular perspective on the matter. Calling a nation like that a 'democracy' is to strip "democracy" of its basic meaning - it is foolishness. Such a nation is an aristocracy, otherwise called an "oligarchy". That's the opposite of a democracy (even if it's set up so as to pretend to be a democracy).
2: The FBI chose to believe her allegations, instead of to investigate or challenge them. For example: On page 4 of the FBI's record of their interview with Hillary dated 2 July 2016 , they noted: " Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system" . But they already had seen this email . So, they asked her about that specific one: " Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically. Clinton stated a 'nonpaper' was a document with no official heading, or identifying marks of any kind, that can not be attributed to the US Government. Clinton thought a 'nonpaper' was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US Government to a foreign government and believed this practice went back '200 years.' When viewing the displayed email, Clinton believed she was asking Sullivan to remove the State letterhead and provide unclassified talking points. Clinton stated she had no intention to remove classification markings" .
Look at the email : is her statement about it - that " issues sending secure fax" had nothing to do with the illegality of sending classified U.S. Government information over a non-secured, even privatized, system - even credible? Is the implication by Clinton's remark, that changing the letterhead and removing the document'a classified stamp, would solve the problem that Jake Sullivan - a highly skilled attorney himself - had brought to her attention, even credible? Well, if so, then wouldn't the FBI have asked Sullivan what he was referring to when his email to Clinton said " They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it" .
The FBI provided no indication that there was any such follow-up, at all. They could have plea-bargained with Sullivan, to get him to testify first, so that his testimony could be used in questioning of her, but they seem not to have been interested in doing any such thing. They believed what she said (even though it made no sense as a response to the problem that Sullivan had just brought to her attention: the problem that emailing to her this information would violate several federal criminal statutes.
Clinton, in other words, didn't really care about the legality. And, apparently, neither did the FBI. Her email in response to Sullivan's said simply: "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure". So: she knew that it was classified information but wanted to receive it so that she would be able to say, "I didn't know that it was classified information". In other words: she was instructing her advisor: hide the fact that it's classified information, so that when I receive it, there will be no indication on it that what was sent to me is classified information.
3: The FBI avoided using the standard means to investigate a suspect higher-up: obtaining plea-deals with subordinates, requiring them to cooperate, answer questions and not to plead the Fifth Amendment (not to refuse to answer) . (In Hillary's case, the Obama Administration actually did plea-deals in which they allowed the person who was supposed to answer all questions, to plea the Fifth Amendment to all questions instead. This is allowed only when the government doesn't want to prosecute the higher-up - which in this case was Clinton. That alone proves the Obama Administration's 'investigation' of Clinton's email system to have been a farce.)
A plea-deal isn't a Constitutional process: Jed Rakoff's article explained why it's not. The process is informal, but nowadays it's used in more than 97% of cases in which charges are brought, and in more than 99% of all cases (including the 92% of cases that are simply dropped without any charges being brought). That's the main reason why nowadays "the prosecutor has all the power". Well, the prosecutor in Hillary's case (the Obama Administration) clearly didn't want her in the big house; they wanted her in the White House.
The American Conservative
Why, exactly, did the FBI wait until Labor Day Weekend to dump this startling news about Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal? Hard to believe it was a coincidence that official Washington wanted this story to have the best chance of going away. From the Daily Beast:
A laptop containing a copy, or "archive," of the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server was apparently lost-in the postal mail-according to an FBI report released Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton's emails has been lost and is not in the FBI's possession.
The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be "locked up" for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton's emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren't intended. The FBI director has already said it's possible Clinton's email system could have been remotely accessed by foreign hackers.
The revelation of the two archives is contained in a detailed report about the FBI's investigation of Clinton's private email account. The report contained new information about how the archives were handled, as well as how a private company deleted emails in its possession, at the same time that congressional investigators were demanding copies.
The archives on the laptop and thumbdrive were constructed by Clinton aides in 2013, using a convoluted process, before her emails were turned over to State Department officials and later scrubbed to determine which ones had classified information and should either be withheld from public view or could be released with redactions. The archive of messages would contain none of those safeguards, potentially exposing classified information if it were ever opened and its contents read.
The FBI has found that Clinton's emails contained classified information, including information derived from U.S. intelligence. Her campaign has disputed the classification of some of the emails.
The archive was created nearly a year before the State Department contacted former secretaries of state and asked them to turn over any emails that they had sent using private accounts that pertained to official business. A senior Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, told the FBI that the archive on the laptop and thumb drive were meant to be "a reference for the future production of a book," according to the FBI report. Another aide, however, said that the archive was set up after the email account of a Clinton confidante and longtime adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, was compromised by a Romanian hacker.
Whatever the rationale, the transfer of Clinton's emails onto two new storage devices, one of which was shipped twice, created new opportunities for messages to be lost or exposed to people who weren't authorized to see them, according to the FBI report. (The Clinton campaign didn't immediately respond to a request to comment for this story.)
Read it all. The disappearing laptop and thumb drive story is incredibly fishy. Either Team Hillary is lying about it, or they are spectacularly incompetent and reckless with national security information.Clint says: September 3, 2016 at 12:00 pmThe Clintons have gotten away repeatedly by not playing by the rules that others must play by or get punished for breeching.Noah172 , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:08 pm
It's incrementally being exposed and Americans see that The Clintons act as if they're too big to jail.KevinS wrote:Sebastien Cole , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:09 pm
It is like going through a red light because you weren't paying close enough attention as opposed to consciously choosing to run a red light
Lousy analogy. Running a red is a momentary lapse, not a years-long, well-thought-out conspiracy, with considerable effort given to covering tracks (BleachBit).No one in the media wants to say it, but this report almost entirely exonerates Clinton. Yes, she's lawyerly and is inclined to walk too close to the line, but no – she didn't do anything immoral or unethical. If at some point it turns out that she's actually done something wrong then we revisit, but the obsession with this 'crimeless coverup' prevents us from stating the obvious – Clinton is a solid candidate for President, intelligent, diligent and serious enough to guide the nation through difficult times. Trump is uncontroversially not.mongoose , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:15 pm
The moral equivalence games the media plays with the two candidates amounts to a cancer in our civic fiber that allows us not to put away our childish things.…like choosing a hangover…rather than a heroin overdoseBuckeye reader , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:22 pmYou're insulting Nixon.Abelard Lindsey , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:37 pm
We could have had Carly Fiorina dealing with the challenge of cyber warfare in the 21st century. Voters are choosing a woman who put an insecure server containing national security communications in her basement, and sold our intention and opportunities to do good in the world to rich people for her own financial gain.
(I lean toward voting for Trump. My issue is the immense paperwork drag on health care delivery and the increase in cost caused by the "affordable" care act. I expect more of the same with Clinton. )Hillary Clinton: Incompetent, Or Criminal? Both.Michael Guarino, says: September 3, 2016 at 12:51 pmDear God, from the Daily Beast article, apparently they were using one of the laptops as a way to transfer the emails to a contractor they had hired. Since no one knew how to do it, they effected the transfer by sending the entire archive to a personal gmail account, then transfering it again to the contractor. So we have a massive store containing quite classified information going to a major tech company, entirely over the internet with only ssl protection I can only presume, because they could not figure out how to transfer a file system. The incompetence here is astonishing. Even a Google employee who forwards sensitive information to a personal gmail account would risk being fired.Will Harrington , says: September 3, 2016 at 12:52 pm
This sort of astonishing incompetence is exactly why I originally thought this was a big deal. The reason you don't want HRC running her own server is because she plainly doesn't know how to manage, or even hire for, all the inane details of information security.
Of course the most important detail to come out of this is the use of BleachBit. You don't use that software to delete emails about yoga classes.Jay, or, and hear me out, like the other Bill, there has to come a point in time where the shear amount of claims of criminal behavior has to be considered. The other Bill got away with rape for years, maybe its time to consider that this Bill and his wife lack credibility in the face of accusers that HRC has denigrated and called Bimbos.Michael Guarino, says: September 3, 2016 at 1:08 pm
Leftists make me sick in this. They will cry that we should always believe the victim unless one of their political leaders are accused. You want to take out a conservative? Give credible evidence that he is guilty of rape or sexual harassment. We quit voting for them. Your side, deny, deny, deny….and ultimately demand we move on, just like a previous poster's five stages of a Clinton scandal.
The only exception to this I can think of is Weiner, not because he did something that is horrible. No, you guys abandoned him because he was pathetic and embarrassing.This is the direct quote from the Daily Beast article:Andrew E. , says: September 3, 2016 at 1:23 pm
After trying unsuccessfully to remotely transfer the emails to a Platte River server, Hanley shipped the laptop to the employee's home in February 2014. He then "migrated Clinton's emails" from the laptop to a Platte River server.
That task was hardly straightforward, however, and ended up exposing the email archive yet again, this time to another commercial email service.
The employee "transferred all of the Clinton e-mail content to a personal Google e-mail (Gmail) address he created," the FBI found. From that Gmail address, he downloaded the emails into a mailbox named "HRC Archive" on the Platte River server.
Honestly, Rod you should highlight this. I can assure you that if something this mindbogglingly reckless were ever done at a major tech company the employee would either be fired or told to find work elsewhere but never enter the office again (because severance is expensive and bad pr). I assume the same is true of the government as well.
It really makes the Nixon comparisons seem apt, except she has an out for her supporters in simply claiming that she is a bumbling idiot.The good liberals here who are starting the writing on the wall with Crooked Hillary should begin considering the fact that Trump isn't that bad and is actually pretty good in many ways. Come on over, you will be welcomed warmly.
Aug 28, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Scott in MD , August 26, 2016 at 6:20 amIf Clinton gets elected, she will be under investigation prior to the inauguration. The Republicans will use their hold on the house to start several investigations on November 9.collin , August 26, 2016 at 9:47 am
However, the GOP (continuing a party tradition) will cruise right past several true issues, and lock onto the one thing they believe will hold the most shock value. This will turn out to not be provable, or not be all that interesting to anyone but die-hard GOP supporters, and she will exit the investigations as powerful, if not more so, than before.
There are plenty of reasons to investigate the Clinton machine, but if you expect this clown show to do it competently I have a bridge to sell you…No this one is backfiring already as most of the donors were people HRC would have met anyway, including Nobel Peace winners! and the 89 out of 154 people has not been released. And the article does not note any mischief but that there were meetings!
Or that there are a ton of other government officials have spouses that run well run charities. Matt Yglesias has de-bunked this one a lot and my guess disappears relatively quickly.
This is as worthless evidence as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
Johann , says: August 26, 2016 at 9:50 amHillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII.Samuel Hooper , says: August 26, 2016 at 1:06 pm
The economy will continue to hollow out due to central bank hubris, government stimulus, and non-free trade deals. Income inequality will get worse. The middle class will continue to shrink.
We are well on our way to third world status.After leaving office, Bill Clinton could have devoted his energies to Habitat for Humanity (like Jimmy Carter) or thrown his energies into helping an existing organisation (like the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation). He didn't, because he wanted the "fruits" of his philanthropic work to accrue to him and his family. And so it is not unreasonable to ask exactly what those fruits are, especially those gained while Hillary Clinton was serving as the nation's chief diplomat.Steve Thompson \, says: August 26, 2016 at 2:41 pmHere is an article that quite succinctly explains, in her own words, Hillary Clinton's views of America's role in the world:
Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve.
"There is no evidence she's a crook". "There's no evidence that she gave favors for money….." "A vote against Hillary is a vote for Trump".
There were similar people in Germany 70 years ago who were saying "Hitler did some really good things, before he started killing Jews and invading other countries……."
This stuff makes me want to pull my hair out.
That's not the way it works, dammit. There isn't going to be a "smoking gun" most of the time. Unless they do something by being arrogant or stupid, and even then there will be apologists/head in the sand types.
A million dollar gift to the Clinton Foundation, gives you things that won't be in any written contract. It goes without saying, like Kabuki theater.
Like her book advances and speaking fees. Absolutely nothing Hillary Clinton has to say is worth $250,000. It's a cover to pay for future services rendered.
economistsview.typepad.comilsm said in reply to EMichael... Friday, August 26, 2016 at 06:26 PMThe burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".
Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.
The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. There isn't enough fascism going around?
That headline is Hillary Clinton's biggest current problem. At this point, it has become akin to how Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign used to be described: "a noun, a verb, 9/11."
Clinton has entered similar linguistic territory, because any headline using the word "Clinton" and the word "emails" now triggers a consistent reaction from the public. Details, even fresh new ones, don't even really matter all that much at this point - all people are really hearing now is: "Clinton, a verb, emails."
Aug 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-23/fbi-reports-linking-hillary-vince-foster-suicide-go-missing-national-archives"
Vince Foster was a mentor to Hillary when they worked together at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. When Bill was confirmed as the 42nd President of the United States on January 20, 1993, Foster took a role as his Deputy White House Counsel. 6 months later, to the day, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, along the Potomac River, of an apparent "suicide" resulting from a gun shot from a .38 caliber revolver. Like a lot of things surrounding the Clintons, Foster's "suicide" has always been shrouded in mystery. A few months ago, The Daily Mail interviewed former FBI agents Coy Copeland and Jim Clemente who claimed that Hillary "triggered" Foster's "suicide" by "humiliating" him in front of colleagues just a few days before
' Hillary put him down really, really bad in a pretty good-size meeting, ' Copeland says. ' She told him he didn't get the picture, and he would always be a little hick town lawyer who was obviously not ready for the big time.'
Indeed, Hillary went so far as to blame Foster for all the Clintons' problems and to accuse him of failing them , according to Clemente, who was also assigned by the FBI to the Starr investigation and who probed the circumstances surrounding Foster's suicide.
'Foster was profoundly depressed, but Hillary lambasting him was the final straw because she publicly embarrassed him in front of others,' says Clemente.
' Hillary blamed him for failed nominations, claimed he had not vetted them properly , and said in front of his White House colleagues, ' You're not protecting us ' and ' You have failed us ,' Clemente says. 'That was the final blow.'
After the White House meeting, Foster's behavior changed dramatically , the FBI agents found. Those who knew him said his voice sounded strained, he became withdrawn and preoccupied, and his sense of humor vanished. At times, Foster teared up. He talked of feeling trapped.
On Tuesday, July 13, 1993, while having dinner with his wife Lisa, Foster broke down and began to cry. He said he was considering resigning.
That weekend, Foster and his wife drove to the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where they saw their friends, Michael Cardoza and Webster Hubbell, and their wives.
'They played tennis, they swam, and they said he sat in a lawn chair, just kind of sat there in the lawn chair,' Copeland says. 'They said that just was not Vince.
He loved to play tennis, and he was always sociable, but he just sat over in the corner by himself and stared off into space, reading a book.'
Two days later, Foster left the White House parking lot at 1:10 p.m. The precise time when he shot himself could not be pinpointed. After Park Police found his body, they notified the U.S. Secret Service at 8:30 p.m.
Based on what 'dozens' of others who had contact with Foster after that meeting told the agents, while Foster was already depressed, 'The put-down that she gave him in that big meeting just pushed him over the edge, ' Copeland says. 'It was the final straw that broke the camel's back.'
No one can explain a suicide in rational terms. But the FBI investigation concluded that it was Hillary's vilification of Foster in front of other White House aides, coming on top of his depression, that triggered his suicide about a week later , Copeland and Clemente both say.
The Daily Mail is now reporting that an "extensive investigation" has found that FBI reports filed by those former agents have "gone missing" from records stored at the National Archives and Records Service in College Park, MD. On two occasions, reporters went to the National Archives to review boxes of evidence related to Vince Foster's death. While the boxes contained "dozens of FBI reports concerning Foster's death - including interviews with the medical examiner, U.S. Park Police officers, and White House aides about the contents of Foster's office" it was mysteriously missing the reports of Copeland and Clemente.
Growing suspicious of the missing reports, The Daily Mail filed a FOIA request with Martha Murphy of the National Archives who subsequently reviewed all of the " relevant FBI files, including those that had not been previously made public. " An emailed response from Martha Murphy reported that the FBI files requested could still not be found:
"He examined all eight boxes but found no interviews by any investigator that detail either a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster or the effects of a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster on Vince Foster's state of mind. We did not limit ourselves to interviews by the two individuals [FBI agents] you mention."
But to be clear, according the Director of Communications and Marketing at the National Archives, John Valceanu, just because the FBI agents' reports could not be located doesn't mean they've been vanished :
'We do not agree with your conclusion that the records you requested are missing from the National Archives simply because we were unable to locate any responsive records in response to your request.'
Instead, Valceanu suggested the files might just be misplaced among the other 3,000 boxes of records related to the FBI's investigation into the Clinton's Whitewater scandal.
Certainly, we can understand how difficult it must be to keep track of all the boxes of FBI evidence related to past Clinton investigations but it does seem suspicious that this specific report would be the one to go missing.
Bunghole nope-1004 •Aug 23, 2016 5:04 PM
Google it bitchez
fleur de lis -> Uber Villian •Aug 23, 2016 4:54 PM
So the Vince Foster file got smuggled out of the National Archives to protect the Clintons. And this is a surprise because why?
Find me one person in America high or low that is surprised. Anyone entering the NA has to undergo restrictions. Nothing is ever supposed to leave.
It's a major crime, you know. Except if you're a Clinton or working for one.
Remember that sleazeball Sandy Berger? He smuggled documents out stuffed in his socks and underwear. Then he got busted. Major crime.
Did anything happen to him? No. He was working for the Clintons.
The FBI probably apologied to Sleazeball Berger and the Clintons for taking up their time with some stupid, pesky investigation.
They were only trying to keep up appearances that they enforce the law.
Note to America:
If you have anything important in the National Archives don't be so stupid as to think they are secure.
SQUIDHELMET -> fleur de lis •Aug 23, 2016 4:59 PM
Oh but the answer as to why is so simple -- James Comey oversaw Sandy Berger's case.
VegasBob -> Government needs you to pay taxes •Aug 23, 2016 4:05 PM
These wouldn't be the first documents Sidney Blumenthal stole from the National Archives.
Blankenstein -> Government needs you to pay taxes •Aug 23, 2016 4:23 PM
And they have a history with "missing" documents
" After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's."
"The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of various investigative subpoenas for two years, sparked intense interest about how they surfaced and where they had been"
"But Whitewater investigators believe that the billing records show significant representation. They argue that the records prove that Ms. Clinton was not only directly involved in the representation of Madison, but more specifically, in providing legal work on the fraudulent Castle Grande land deal."
"Investigators believe this suggests that, at some point, this copy was passed from Vince Foster to Hillary Clinton for her review.
In addition, investigators had the FBI conduct fingerprint analysis of the billing records. Of significance, the prints of Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton were found."
beemasters -> Killdo •Aug 23, 2016 5:34 PM
The problem is most psychopaths tend to seek political power.
Mena Arkansas •Aug 23, 2016 4:10 PM
This is a great interview with Patrick Knowlton who was taking a leak in Fort Marcy Park and saw a brown Honda - not the grey Honda Vince Foster drove.
According to him, the FBI actively covered up the whole crime.
They also attempted to intimidate the witnesses through gang stalking and other methods.
Well worth the listen.
Bennie Noakes •Aug 23, 2016 4:38 PM
The National Archives seems to lose a lot of important stuff. Like JFK's brain for instance:
And the FBI "investigation" of JFK's death was really a cover up. J Edgar Hoover and the Kennedy brothers hated each other. They were going to make Hoover retire when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 70 in 1965. So he had no real interest in hunting for JFK's real killers. The members of the Warren commission were probably picked because Hoover had blackmail information on them and could control them to prevent them from reaching conclusions that contradicted the FBI's report (which he leaked before the commission was even formed.)
Herdee •Aug 23, 2016 4:54 PM
There are highly trained people in what is called "Document Management."Oil Companies and all major corporations and Government use these people in their operations every day. The paper documents are stored separately in warehouses that specialize in this part of the operation. The paper documents are scanned and stored. Many use sophisticated and highly secure server farms to store electronic data on the paper version. Nothing just goes missing, there are checks and balances throughout the process and everything is coded and recorded whenever anything is accessed either electronically or through paper. At the server farm the security is very tight everything is videotaped, security guards watch every single movement.
Neochrome •Aug 23, 2016 4:55 PM
We are Legion.
Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a "mistake" and was just "sloppy" when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase.
Democrats are defending Mr. Berger by attacking the "timing" of the revelation that he was, ah, "sloppy." They stand behind his contention that he didn't really commit a crime, by stuffing Top Secret material in his pants and removing them from Federal custody. The Democrat spinmasters say that the revelation that Mr. Berger had "mistakenly" stuffed certain documents in his pants relating to how Clinton handled terrorism prior to 9/11 is just Republican trickery and an attempt by Bush to divert American's attention from his failures in the unjust war in Iraq.
dexter_morgan Sam Spayed •Aug 23, 2016 5:19 PM
August 11, 2016 | YouTube
I love Rand Paul. Sad thing tho is Rand.. we the general public is think she has the entire government wrapped around her finger.
I know it, and that tells me one thing. The system creates the illusion that we have a say on who is president, but im starting to believe we don't, it's all a facade. It's all rigged, I think Hillary will be president, seems to me that either the democratic party is much more powerful or because of the fact they are running the administration it gives them leverage to call all thr shots, even our votes.
Look at what happened with Sander's votes, all rigged.
How obvious does it have to be when all the evidence of corruption is out there? Director Comey laying out all the evidence of numerous lies and not being able to prove intent is just obvious signs of bribery, threats or both. Same thing with the dirtbag Loretta Lynch not answering any questions in the press conference. How many damning emails will it take??
usuncut.comSanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver spoke to The Hill, telling Sanders supporters to stop repeating the chant and channel their energy more productively. "I would encourage them to continue the political revolution by advancing the cause of progressive change," he said.
The convention has had a chaotic starting day thus far, as Sanders' supporters have consistently voiced their outrage over accusations of corruption involving the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party.
The chant was first heard the night before during a speech by Retired Lt. General Mike Flynn said: "We do not need a reckless president who believes she is above the law."
"Lock her up, that's right," Flynn said. "Lock her up."
Jul 20, 2016 | The Atlantic
For many Republicans, it's not enough that Hillary Clinton be defeated at the polls in November. They want to see her imprisoned
... ... ...
The attitude that Clinton must be jailed or even executed is by no means universal. Some delegates seem as disgusted by the saber-rattling as they are by their nominee and the fights over rules at the convention-more signs of a party veering into populism and barbarity. Clinton is also an unusual figure in that she is plagued by some real legal problems, so it's not just partisan animosity. But the Justice Department's decision not to bring charges against Clinton over the use of her private email server inspired a harsh backlash. For months, Republican leaders suggested that Clinton would be indicted, despite legal experts' consensus view that a prosecution was unlikely. When FBI Director James Comey dashed those hopes by recommending against charges, people who had gotten their hopes up were furious. Since the Justice Department won't bring charges, people like Smith, Baldasaro, and Folk are making their own citizens' indictments.
These "indictments" don't carry the force of law, of course, but they do carry a worrying rhetorical weight. Around the world, it's not uncommon for rulers who have just come to power to prosecute, imprison, and even execute their rivals or predecessors; historically, it's probably the norm. The United States has been an international outlier-it has been exceptional, even-in its long pattern of peaceful and non-recriminative transfers of power. Even Richard Nixon, who likely could have been convicted of crimes, was pardoned by Gerald Ford. In announcing that decision, which was deeply unpopular, Ford cited the necessity of preserving American norms. It would take too long for Nixon to be tried, Ford said. "During this long period of delay and potential litigation, ugly passions would again be aroused, our people would again be polarized in their opinions, and the credibility of our free institutions of government would again be challenged at home and abroad," he said.
Would a President Trump be inclined to engage in this kind of score-settling? It's impossible to tell.
"I know emotions are running high right now, but I think people really have to consider the implications of what a [Donald] Trump presidency would mean for those of us who support the kind of agenda that Bernie Sanders has laid out for the country," Weaver, who served as campaign manager for Sanders's presidential bid, told The Hill in a brief interview at the Wells Fargo Center.
Jul 25, 2016 | The Durango Herald
"It's of utmost importance you explain this to your delegations," Sanders wrote in a separate text message to delegates.
But the message was lost on many of his supporters in the audience, who repeatedly shouted "Bernie" over those speaking in favor of Clinton, while "booing" Clinton.
Some even chanted, "lock her up," a familiar message used by Republicans who believe Clinton should go to prison for using a private email server while secretary of state.
The Democratic divide was inflamed over the weekend following leaked emails that highlighted an effort by the DNC to tilt the primary in favor of Clinton. The party is expected to remain neutral during the nominating process.
Wasserman Schultz resigned in the aftermath. On Monday, the DNC announced that she would not preside over the convention this week, after she was heckled at the Florida delegation breakfast, with some yelling "Shame!"
Her ousting served as a monumental and symbolic moment for Sanders supporters who have lamented for months about unfair treatment.
The divide from the Democratic convention resembled unrest seen by Republicans last week at their convention. Colorado Republicans overwhelmingly declined to support Trump, instead backing Ted Cruz, while attempting a coup against Trump. Cruz refused to endorse Trump.
www.breitbart.comSupporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) adopted a slogan from the Republican National Convention in their protests against presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Sunday: "Lock her up!"
The Wall Street Journal reports:
At a lively Sunday march in support of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, chants of "lock her up," "Hillary for Prison" signs and t-shirts and calls for indictment were common among the most ardent supporters of Mr. Sanders, who arrived in Philadelphia to make their voices heard to the delegates attending the Democratic National Convention.
LA Times...Monday's speech by retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who said the nation didn't need a president "who believes she is above the law," a reference to Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state. Fair enough, even though Flynn failed to add that the FBI and the Justice Department decided not to file criminal charges against Clinton. But then, responding to delegates' shouts of "Lock her up," Flynn shot back: "Yeah, that's right, lock her up."
... Patricia Smith, whose son Sean was one of four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack. Responding to a sign in the audience, Smith extemporized: "That's right, 'Hillary for Prison.' She deserves to be in stripes."
On Tuesday New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, introducing himself as a former federal prosecutor, conducted a call-and-response session in which delegates - whom he described as "a jury of her peers" - pronounced "Guilty!" as he reeled off a litany of supposed Clinton offenses.
... ... ...
Donald Trump has encouraged this unhinged rhetoric by calling Clinton "crooked Hillary" and saying that she "has to go to jail."
... ... ...
It's not out of bounds to question a candidate's character, and Clinton's clearly is an issue in this campaign. But when one political party characterizes the candidate of the other as not just wrong but corrupt and criminal, the toxic effects are likely to linger long after Inauguration Day.
The New York Times
On the opening day of the Democratic National Convention, the ragtag coalition of liberals that Mr. Sanders is supposed to deliver to Hillary Clinton heckled from the convention floor. They marched in the streets. They protested outside the arena.
They refused to go quietly.
"I'm booing now, and I'm going to boo for four more days," said Jody Feldman, a
... ... ...
Liz Maratea, 31, a delegate from New Jersey, said she refuses to lay down arms and accept Mrs. Clinton as the nominee. "She has the moral depth of a thimble," Ms. Maratea said. "Are we supposed to take this, or are we supposed to rise up?"
Here in Philadelphia, it was the Sanders-inspired activists who seized the message and the megaphone of his self-proclaimed rebellion against money and power - and who decided that the man who had inspired their cause, and who adorned their T-shirts, was no longer their movement's unchallenged leader.
"As beloved as Bernie is," said Norman Solomon, a Sanders delegate from California, "he's not running the show."
... ... ...
The rejection of Mrs. Clinton inside the Wells Fargo Center was scattered but persistent. Those loyal to Mr. Sanders waved fists with thumbs turned down. They screamed "No" and "Nay." They wore pins, stickers, shirts and hats bearing Mr. Sanders's face. And they defaced Clinton signs that once read "Stronger Together," transforming them into a different message: "Stop Her."
In a way, the angry remnants of Mr. Sanders's presidential campaign are not really about him anymore: They have become a stew of simmering grievances from the primaries about rules, process, money, fairness and democracy - and were reignited by leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee revealing the bias of some party officials in favor of Mrs. Clinton.
... ... ...
Their distrust of Mrs. Clinton runs deep. Even if she wins, they already expect to be disappointed by her presidency. Rosario Dawson, an actress and a Sanders supporter, admonished fellow Democrats to watch a Clinton White House carefully for signs of betrayal on signature liberal issues like universal health care and a $15 federal minimum wage.
If not, she warned, "then civil disobedience will follow, because we are serious."
... ... ...
As tensions mounted, verbal skirmishes occasionally broke out on the floor. Inside the Wisconsin delegation, a Sanders supporter stood up with a piece of paper taped over her mouth. "Silenced," read a message on the tape.
www.theguardian.comspaceagedemocracy , 2016-07-26 07:37:35How can anyone continue to run for office when your record is such, that even your own party is chanting "lock her up, lock her up". I think the Democrats are making a big mistake as she is clearly very devisive and as such appears to be Trump's only chance of winning.Antagonista , 2016-07-26 05:22:23Has the time come to seriously think about Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate? If you don't know him at least you can't hate him.JonP2 , 2016-07-26 05:09:08If not Bernie, then Trumpnaomh , 2016-07-26 05:00:50Folks the media will not inform you but there are 4 candidates running for president. Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket and Gary Johnson ( former governor of New Mexico) on the Libertarian ticket. Check them out. Both are very capable people. I plan to vote for one of them. If we all do one of them will win. The media are in bed with the military-industrial complex. So continuing wars with both Clinton and Trump!naomh 11834f , 2016-07-26 05:27:43True! However, Hillary is in bed with the Neocons who started the whole charade about Iraq. Check out the great journalist, Robert Parry (broke the Iran-Contra story), on her ties to the Kagans, etc. Also her recent speach at AIPAC. Clinton will get us into a nuclear confrontation with Russia. Trump is no better. Please reconsider.MarkThomason , 2016-07-26 04:48:57The Sanders crowd never supported Sanders the man. They supported the message he brought.Bruce G , 2016-07-26 04:16:15
They still support the message. It is not in the power of the man to silence that. He can't deliver them to Hillary.So the email leaks prove the DNC was working against Sanders all along and trying to get Hillary in there. So basically, the democratic candidate race wasn't fair. Why should voters support a party that doesn't take their votes seriously?PerspectivesPlease , 2016-07-26 03:21:15
If we keep letting them get away with this shit because "the other guy might get in!", they'll just keep doing it and keep pushing the envelope to erode democracy.
People seem to hilariously think Trump can unilaterally make good on all his ridiculous promises. Sorry guys, that's not how the presidency works. His ideas will be shot down at the other levels of government pretty fast. As far as starting wars goes, Hillary is just as hawkish and actually has a far worse history of voting for wars.What a state of affairs -- Bernie Sanders supporting a presidential candidate who charged $10,000 per minute for a chat with the oligarchs who had bought her and got her surrogates to undermine the democratic process.JenniferIntl , 2016-07-26 03:19:29
Hillary did not win the primaries, it was offered to her as an entitlement.An average worker would have been arrested for what Clinton did. I am not saying that is right, but it is clear that punishment is different for people based on their economic and political influence. And that is not right.Macrina Herrera JenniferIntl , 2016-07-26 06:09:34What you said is true. The CNN newscasters commented that the Attorney GeneralID1773222 BG Davis , 2016-07-26 06:53:03
and the FBI Director knew that their jobs are in danger ...if they tried to prosecute
a powerful person such as Clinton.
So we can put the following as official:
The punishment of a crime is inversely proportional to the economic and political influence of of the criminal.I think jenniferintls comment is based on the factual evidence that the Clintons are greedy corrupt immoral people. Nothing to do with a legal educationAndrew West , 2016-07-26 02:51:49Lock her up. Lock them up. Weasels.htown009 , 2016-07-26 02:37:43
The Clintons, as "public servants," have amassed $200 million in wealth and yet nobody can point to anything either one of them solved or accomplished. The Clintons are masters at using politics to create wealth. But, their party is over. America won't elect Hillary, she's a weasel."Matt Schmidheiser, an 18-year-old student from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, was similarly emphatic.devanand54 BG Davis , 2016-07-26 04:03:34
'I think she does need to be locked up her along with the DNC chairwoman who just stepped down. Because they both just horribly mislead the American public and they spit lie after lie and nobody seems to care.'
Schmidheiser was carrying a homemade poster that catalogued Clinton's alleged misdeeds. He had been a little late arriving at city hall and missed the chant.
'I wasn't there for it but I would love to have been a part of it and I would love to start another,' he said.
'I think it's accurate and I think she needs to be in prison for the rest of her life.' "
Oh really, so here's someone who wants to imprison someone for lying. Authoritarians come in all stripes. And he couldn't be bothered to get his sorry butt to the demonstration so he could chant "get a rope" errrrr "lock her up".Don't be condescending. Hillary Clinton represents everything Bernie is against. She is only slightly less toxic than Trump. On top of that the entire primary season was rigged against Sanders. The apex of that was having the major networks "call" the entire nomination the night before California (and 4 other states) got to vote. I can't imagine how that happened (nor why). The two-party system is dead. They are both wholly owned by corporate and military industrial complex interests. Millions of Americans have had enough and no Hillary cheerleaders are going to change that...mindinsomnia , 2016-07-26 01:41:22What did you expect? The DNC, a supposedly neutral party in the nomination race, blatantly sided with one candidate to help them win against the other, in a close race, and were kind enough to document all the evidence in long email chains. In the year 2016, a time when everyone should know that no one has any privacy anymore. Not you, not me, not even them. They should of realised the emails would eventually be leaked. Now their actions are known to all, and half of the democrat base feel utterly betrayed.
It's a good day to be Trump. He must be thanking his lucky stars.
Yesterday, the House of Representatives formally referred Hillary Clinton's testimony to the FBI for investigation into perjury/false statements under oath.
Hillary Clinton, as you well know, made no less than three false statements under oath during her previous Congressional testimony.
She declared she never sent any emails with information marked classified. She did .
She asserted that she handed over all of her work-related emails. She didn't .
And she claimed that her attorneys went through all of her emails before deciding what to turn over and what to delete. They didn't .
The FBI will now investigate and submit a recommendation to Loretta Lynch.
But after yesterday's joke of a hearing, does anyone really think that Lynch would prosecute Hillary Clinton? Lynch refused to answer at least 74 questions pertaining to the Clinton email scandal.
She was asked point-blank to explain her reasoning in declining to indict Hillary Clinton and each time, she just refused to answer.
Unfortunately, after yesterday's performance, it is clear that even if the FBI does find evidence that Hillary Clinton committed perjury or made false statements under oath – which is absolutely obvious – Lynch will protect the Clintons once again.
But there is a way to take Loretta Lynch out of the equation entirely. There is a way to ensure that a Grand Jury is impaneled and that both the FBI and DOJ would be powerless to stop it.
FaxBlast and tell Congress that it MUST file contempt charges against Hillary Clinton to send her perjury case directly to a Grand Jury!
When the House refers a matter to the FBI, there is no guarantee that anything will come of it. Technically, the FBI doesn't even need to accept the referral.
Even when there are so many clear lies and false statements, the Obama administration can still derail such an investigation at every level.
The same is not true for Contempt of Congress charges.
When Congress charges someone with Contempt, the law is actually written to take the DOJ and FBI pretty much out of the equation.
According to the law, the Attorney General has a "duty" to impanel a Grand Jury for action on a Congressional Contempt charge. The law does not allow the DOJ or FBI to insert themselves into the case if they don't agree with the findings. It the House votes to charge someone with Contempt of Congress, the Sergeant at Arms is instructed to have that individual arrested and, if necessary, is given the power to imprison someone in the Capitol Jail pending the Grand Jury's decision.
In 1983, the House of Representatives held Rita Lavelle, an EPA administrator, in Contempt of Congress for lying under oath. The Attorney General impaneled a Grand Jury, as the law requires, and Rita Lavelle was convicted and ultimately served three months of her six month sentence.
This isn't some obscure function that hasn't been used since the 1800s. This is a legitimate method for Congress to hold administration officials accountable without having to deal with corruption in the Executive Branch.
One floor vote. That's all it takes. One House of Representatives vote.
It takes 218 "yes" votes and then the House can force the Attorney General to impanel a Grand Jury. Just to put it in perspective, twenty-nine RINOs could vote with the Democrats and there would still be enough votes to hold Hillary in Contempt.
No more political interference… no more re-interpreting the law to get Hillary off the hook…
FaxBlast and DEMAND that Congress circumvent the corrupt Department of (in)Justice and formally charge Hillary Clinton with Contempt of Congress for her lying under oath!
www.quora.comCary Aguillard, Opinions are like a**holes; everybody's got one and nobody wants to hear yours! 237 Views
She unquestionably lied under oath at the Benghazi hearings about the sending of classified emails through her personal server. Mrs. Clinton clearly stated that she sent no classified information through her emails. Period. Now we know this is a big, fat lie. Under sworn oath.
The classified status of her emails was not her only lie under oath. She also testified that she had submitted all her work related emails to the FBI. Now it is apparent that was also a complete fabrication, as the FBI reports thousands of other work related emails retrieved from the recipient's servers.
Multiple lies under oath. Perjury. If you or I distorted the truth to that extent under oath, they would lock us up and destroy the key. The time for perversion of justice in favor of this habitual criminal offender is over. If charges of perjury are not brought then our entire justice system will be proven corrupt in the eyes of America and the world. End this embarrassment, and let justice be served!
"All of my work related emails, yes." All that weren't erased and all the hard copies that were put into burn bags don't count by her reasoning. If she had nothing to hide why did her staff take the 5th so frequently? Of course she committed perjury. Drew McCormick , No, Hillary did not lie about Benghazi 91 Views
No. She instructed her lawyers to release all work related emails and they, based on the headings, separated out all of those that seemed to be work related. They then told her that they had released all her work related emails.
- Apparently the Lawyers did the job competently but not thoroughly, as the FBI did identify a few emails that should have been released.
- Since Hillary believed her Lawyers and their statements, she did not lie. She may have been mistaken, but it does not meet minimal standards for perjury.
A couple of points for those who didn't pay attention the last time a Clinton was baselessly charged: Lying is not perjury. It has to be material to the investigation in order to be perjury. Obviously this didn't meet that standard since none of her emails were informative to the case. The second is that being mistaken is not a lie. If a New York Times reader believed that there were extant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they would be mistaken, but their statements would not knowingly be false. When the British politicians stated that, however, they were lying.
Richard Warner, Author and researcher 122 Views
I believe she did. She certainly made false statements under oath, and I think there is sufficient evidence to show that she knowingly and intentionally made false statements. The continuous references to "marked" emails as a qualifier is used by her supporters as a safety net that is irrelevant since classified information is classified whether or not it is marked. Moreover, since so many emails were kept on her private servers they could not have been passed on to officials whose job it was to make markings.
The biggest example of her intentional deception is that she testified that she only had one server and Comey said she had several. Since those are physical objects she had to know that she had more than one. To claim ignorance not only asserts that she didn't know simple math, but that as a former senator who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee that she didn't understand what classified information meant, the same Hillary Clinton who earned her law degree from Yale.
Does this mean that she will be recommended for an indictment, prosecution or any penalty? Probably not. She could probably order a hit squad and leaders of her party would protect her as her supporters would cheer her on.
03/28/2013 | www.wnd.com
TEL AVIV – Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commit perjury when she claimed in a Senate hearing that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries?
The goal of the alleged weapons shipments was to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
Any training or arming of the Syrian rebels would be considered highly controversial. A major issue is the inclusion of jihadists, including al-Qaida, among the ranks of the Free Syrian Army and other Syrian opposition groups
During the recent hearings over the Obama administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Clinton was directly asked about alleged U.S. weapons shipments out of Libya.
Clinton claimed she did not know whether the U.S. was aiding Turkey and other Arab countries in procuring weapons.
The exchange took place with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
Paul asked Clinton: "Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?"
"To Turkey?" Clinton asked. "I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me."
Continued Paul: "It's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I'd like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?"
Clinton replied, "Well, Senator, you'll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available."
"You're saying you don't know?" asked Paul.
"I do not know," Clinton said. "I don't have any information on that."
Clinton's claims seem to now be unraveling.
Confirming WND's exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times earlier this week reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.
Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
The aid, the sources stated, included weapons shipments and was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The specifics of the New York Times reporting, meanwhile, open major holes in Clinton's sworn claims to be in the dark about the alleged weapons shipments.
U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity told the Times that American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons and then helped to vet rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.
The plan mirrors one the Times reported last month in a separate article that was proposed by Clinton herself. The Times described Clinton as one of the driving forces advocating for arming the Syrian rebels.
Last month, the New York Times reported Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus had concocted a plan calling for vetting rebels and arming Syrian fighters with the assistance of Arab countries.
The Times report from earlier this week of U.S. arms shipments and vetting seems to be the Clinton-Petraeus plan put in action.
It may be difficult for most to believe the secretary of state was not aware that her alleged plan was being implemented, especially when arming the Syrian rebels is a serious policy with obvious major repercussions internationally.
Clinton is not the only one in hot water.
As WND reported yesterday, the New York Times report threatens the longstanding White House narrative that claims the Obama administration has only supplied nonlethal aid to the rebels.
The White House has repeatedly denied directly arming the rebels.
Days after the Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, WND broke the story that Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad's regime in Syria, according to Egyptian and other Middle Eastern security officials.
Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad's forces, said the security officials.
The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.
The latest New York Times report has bolstered WND's reporting, citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.
The Times reported that the weapons airlifts began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanding into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows.
The Times further revealed that from offices at "secret locations," American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia. They have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.
The CIA declined to comment to the Times on the shipments or its role in them.
The Times quoted a former American official as saying that David H. Petraeus, the CIA director until November, had been instrumental in helping set up an aviation network to fly in the weapons. The paper said Petraeus had prodded various countries to work together on the plan.
Petraeus did not return multiple emails from the Times asking for comment.
Both WND's reporting, which first revealed the U.S.-coordinated arms shipments, and the Times reporting starkly contrast with statements from top U.S. officials who have denied aiding the supply of weapons to the rebels.
It's not the first time WND's original investigative reporting on U.S. support for the Syrian rebels was later confirmed by reporting in major media outlets. Other WND reporting indicates support for the Syrian rebels that goes beyond supplying arms, painting a larger picture of U.S. involvement in the Middle East revolutions.
A story by the German weekly Der Spiegel earlier this month reporting the U.S. is training Syrian rebels in Jordan was exclusively exposed by WND 13 months ago.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms.
The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the Der Spiegel report. The French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
While Der Spiegel quoted sources discussing training of the rebels in Jordan over the last three months, WND was first to report the training as far back as February 2012.
At the time, WND quoted knowledgeable Egyptian and Arab security officials claimed the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
Editor's note: Additional research by Joshua Klein
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/did-hillary-commit-perjury/#GD9uo2OOii2wJdpE.99
July 12, 2016 | cnsnews.com
(CNSNews.com) -- Given the testimony of FBI Director James Comey and statements made under oath by Hillary Clinton about her use of a personal email server as Secretary of State, two chairmen in the House of Representatives have sent a letter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia requesting that he investigate whether Clinton "committed perjury and made false statements when testifying under oath before Congress."
In the July 11 letter, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) write to the Honorable Channing D. Phillips: "We write to request an investigation to determine whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional committees."
"While testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey stated the truthfulness of Secretary Clinton's testimony before Congress was not within the scope of the FBI's investigation," write the chairmen. "Nor had the FBI even considered any of Secretary Clinton's testimony."
"Director Comey further testified the Department of Justice requires a criminal referral from Congress to initiate an investigation of Secretary Clinton's congressional testimony," said Chaffetz and Goodlatte. "We are writing for that purpose."
"The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony," said the chairmen. "In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes."
In a press release, Chaffetz and Goodlatte further note that they have requested FBI Director Comey to turn over "the FBI's full investigative file from its review of former Secretary Clinton's use of an authorized private email server."
In addition, Chariman Goodlatte has asked Director Comey, in a letter signed by more than 200 members of Congress, "demanding answers" regarding "the many questions surrounding his announcement that he does not recommend federal prosecution against former Secretary Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information through private email servers."
The New York Times
Carolyn Egeliis a trusted commenter Valley Lee, Md 18 hours ago
Why not pick a clean candidate? There's still time. Bernie Sanders has not endorsed Clinton, nor has he backed out of the campaign. Maybe there is a good reason. I can't see endorsing her if I were him. I still have hope the delegates will understand how tainted Clinton is and how Trump will make mince meat of her. Maureen Dowd is right today, but she didn't really bring out the big guns, like Clinton's ties to Wall Street, Haiti, Syria or a coup in South America.
Or maybe she could have written about the Clinton Foundation and those so called "private" emails. And I don't think she won the primary fair and square. Thousands and thousands showed up at Sanders' rallies. Clinton's average was 347 people. Except for NYTimes readers, the rest of the country simply doesn't like her. For that matter they don't care for Trump either. 70% of the independents are for Sanders. In the electorate, 39% are independents. That means 29% are Republicans and 31% are Democrats. With some Repubicans voting Sanders, DO THE MATH! Clinton can't win.
Alison, Menlo Park, California 18 hours ago
After being rescued by FBI director James Comey this week, Mrs. Clinton is both unapologetic and uncontrite for her actions. Particularly galling is her comment dismissing Comey's statements about her actions as "speculative."
Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 15 hours ago
Wow. I never expected this in the newspaper that tooted the Clinton horn, since last January, when they endorsed her. This is quite an honest assessment; effectively the NYT honeymoon is over.
The words here have been said in many ways, by those who seen through Ms. Clinton and those trying to get her into office, at all costs. It is no longer about e-mails; it was never about e-mails; it comes down to the ends the the Clintons will go to attain and keep power. That is lie, cheat, steal. And go further, to poison anyone and anything they touch.
Ms. Clinton could end up in the White House, but a number of people were damaged in the process. Her aides, members of the Obama Administration, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Biden, the DNC, journalists and the media. There is still time to undo this possibility.
This sums up things up perfectly:
"We're resigned to the Clintons focusing on their viability and disregarding the consequences of their heedless actions on others. They're always offering a Faustian deal. This year's election bargain: Put up with our iniquities or get Trump's short fingers on the nuclear button.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago
If the superdelegates care about reversing 35 years of Reaganomics and reversing our slide to oligarchy they would support Bernie Sanders. A Sanders candidacy would help to change the makeup of Congress because he attracts more Independents and Millennials, and some Republicans.
A bonus in supporting Sanders: no scandals, and no unethical deals and conflicts of interest (see the Clinton Foundation).
Faced with Trump and Clinton, Americans Yearn for Third Choice: Reuters/Ipsos Poll
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 16 hours ago
No, many more were classified when sent, 14 entire chains about Top Secret matters were sent.
In order for them to "not be marked" someone had to remove the markings by retyping them into the non-secure system. But that was illegal. Those were already classified.
Furthermore, Hillary knew it or should have known it, by knowing that subject matter is classified. She was Sec of State, she knew which things she was doing were Top Secret. Drones. Her Libyan war. Her attempts to expand the Syrian war. Her efforts in Ukraine.
Richard Luettgen, is a trusted commenter New Jersey 23 hours ago
Maureen will be lambasted by the usual suspects here, as offering up yet another dose of humble pie to the woman who would be president. But of course everything she writes is true. There's a natural law, the Conservation of Political Viability. For Hillary and Bill to have maintained their positions for decades and stroked their shared sense of entitlement, others collectively needed to bear the consequences of all the karma debt they accumulated. It's as if these they glide along committing what outrages they will, incurring no personal damage, yet those around them populate some portrait of Dorian Gray, collectively taking the blows while the principles smile and move on to the next disaster without a mark on them.
However, as the NYT has noted, eMailGate is a ready-made Republican attack ad. Certainly, the right's establishment as well as the supportive Super-PACs will exploit Comey's dreadful condemnation of her behavior. We'll see if Trump can get his act together sufficiently to benefit from it in more than an indirect manner. But those attack ads no doubt are going into the can as we write, Hillary's poll numbers will go down and the commentariat here as well as much of Dem America will again wring its blue hands that Trump could win.
Me, very little that Hillary does surprises me; and neither did I want her in prison for this or expected it to happen. It remains that with an opposed Congress she wouldn't accomplish anything as president but Trump just might.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 19 hours ago
"Hillary was trying to make her job more efficient and protect her privacy."
No she wasn't. She was entitled and paranoid. She shut down objections to reckless behavior that defied the new, clear, written rules enacted to deal with past problems. It was reckless. It was reckless disregard of the rules and dangers they were designed to prevent. That is one of the definitions of criminal negligence. It was a crime.
Shellie F., Kensington, Md. 10 hours ago
I read an article where someone called Hillary's appointment to be Secretary of State a "vanity appointment." I think that is exactly how she saw it. Just a stepping stone to the presidency and payback from Obama for winning against her. She didn't take the office seriously, and clearly didn't take the requirements of the office seriously, as far as security. The article cited in the column contains a quote where Hillary makes a joke about hacking by the Chinese into an account at the State Department.
All of the people here who are supporting her, whether because you want her or because you are afraid of Trump, really confuse me. Maureen Dowd is absolutely correct about the bizarre behavior of the Clintons and the sleazy crowd that will return to the White House if she is elected.
anne d, ca 10 hours ago
This column accurately depicts the "Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American Politics." In their eyes, they are the victims of their enemies' ethical standards. It should be possible to agree with the facts that Dowd presents without having to read 30 responses about how terrible Trump is and how necessary she is to avoid a Trump presidency. I don't want Trump as president, but Clinton deserves this critical analysis. It's unfortunate that she has thus far been incapable of accepting criticism and changing her actions.
Aram Hollman, Arlington, MA 11 hours ago
Hillary Clinton benefits from a double standard in evaluating security risks; she is running for President and has the support of the President. Others, at lower levels, who have arguably created far fewer security risks, have been stripped of security clearances, fired, or prosecuted. Those at her top level of government (positions requiring Senate confirmation) are not prosecuted, but are forced to resign. A few examples only, at Clinton's level: former Defense Secretary John Deutsch and former General David Petraeus.
President Obama's directives to government employees, forbidding them to talk to the media and promising dire consequences to those who do, have been far more stringent than any other president, have decreased the openness and transparency of the federal government. Too bad his directives applied only to the disclosure of government records, not their confiscation.
Clinton is smart, well-spoken, and has used her legal training to navigate the gap between what is prohibited by guidelines and what is prohibited by law; her private server was the former (State Dept. rules), not the latter.
What is lost in all the discussion of what emails were classified, when and at what level, is a far bigger issue: Clinton tried to control what information would be available to future historians; in short, she tried to edit future history.
Look for a future trend, former Presidents whose Presidential Libraries' content will be more and more limited.
steven, g 10 hours ago
Thank you Maureen, for perfectly summarizing where things are with the Clintons. What is wrong with the American people that so many can't see what you so clearly articulate? Hillary and Bill are a pox on our nation, and yes maybe she is preferrable to Trump, but then let's vote for her, but that's it. No rallies, no signs, no enthusiasm. Don't give her the wrong impression. Let's send a message to her that we know she is dishonest. We are simply choosing, as Russell Crowe once said in a movie, the lesser of two weevils.
AR Clayboy, Scottsdale, AZ 9 hours ago
In an odd way, Hillary Clinton is the second coming of Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, Hillary grew up as the unpopular, socially awkward over-achiever, whose achievements always were more about proving the popular kids wrong than the joy of actually accomplishing anything. Like Nixon, Hillary's resume is hollow -- plenty of appointments and titles, but very little of substance to show for it. Like Nixon, Hillary is a paranoid. She can't wrap her mind around disagreement with her views, preferring instead to think it comes from unfair, mean-spirited bias or worse. Like Nixon, Hillary wants to live a public life but detests scrutiny. Like Nixon, Hillary believes she has earned the privilege to live above those silly ethical rules that should only apply to other people. After all, she knows better than anyone else what the people want and need. And finally, like Nixon, Hillary, if elected, will be the President no one truly wants, elected by default.
The parallels are amazing. In retrospect, Nixon turned out to be the very type of person who should never be President. Let's see whether history repeats itself.
Paul, Texas 10 hours ago
Well if the voters are 'careless' they will elect her. If we can't blame Hillary for carelessness, why should voters be blamed for being careless. I mean, I guess Nixon was careless to. So was Martha Stewart. Maybe Snowden was careless. And surely Gen. David Petraeus was just a tad careless. Yet the rest went to jail, or resigned, or ran to Russia.
Think carefully folks as to who you really want for President. Votes do matter, and Presidents can do a great good or grievous damage to this country and to this world.
JJ, Georgia 20 hours ago
This election makes me think of a bank considering a new chief executive. Do you hire a person with a questionable skill set and personality similar to a Jerry Lewis movie character or the person known to have embezzled and is unrepentant except for having been caught. For the first time I am giving the other 3rd party candidates a look.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 20 hours ago
Anyone who voted for the Iraq War is not qualified to be president in my opinion. In addition to voting for an unnecessary war, Clinton pushed for intervention in Libya, Syria, Honduras, and Ukraine.
Jack, Texas 10 hours ago
For all those that love Clinton, imagine if an R had pulled any of these stunts. The R's kicked Nixon to the curb for far less. Meanwhile if Trump were a D, the press would be eating up his populist message by the spoonful. He would be the next messianic D figure. One big advantage of Trump vs Clinton? At worst, he's a one term mistake. If he doesn't perform, both the R's and D's will toss him aside in a heartbeat. Clinton? She is a two term mistake. As this email case has proven, she is either incredibly incompetent and/or incredibly corrupt, yet still garners support of her party.
Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 16 hours ago
NB, Ms. Clinton lied that she had a private e-mail server and she lied that the server contained confidential e-mails. This is the crux of this article, the result of the FBI investigation and the report from the Department of State. And, this article is no longer about e-mail, it is about Ms. Clinton's ethics, or lack of them.
phil morse, cambridge, ma 8 hours ago
So much to dislike about Hillary and so little time. I hope that Maureen keeps venting because I think she sees Hillary more clearly than almost anybody else, even the Donald. NY Times readers can carp about the damage, but most of the people who will vote for Trump despise the Times. Echo chamber that it is, a discordant note is a good thing. Soldier on Ms Dowd.
Jean, Scarsdale, NY 20 hours ago
Best column in a long time, but are you really that scared of Trump? He may bluster, but in the long run I think he is less likely to get us into a war than Ms. Hillary
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 20 hours ago
If Bernie took up Jill Stein's offer to run with her, I've vote for them, and so would millions of others. It might be Teddy Roosevelt coming close but failing with the Bull Moose Party, or it might be Lincoln succeeding with the original Republican Party's creation. Either way, we've been here before, and we went third party.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
"So many lawyers in this column, so little law." That is one of the things lawyers are good for. That is what the Bush Admin used them for, from signing statements to memos justifying torture and rendition. They're baaack, like the Terminator. And they bring a good many of the neocons with them. It really isn't much different from W's team.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 20 hours ago
"Compare Benghazi and the emails to what Bush/Cheney did. Hundreds of souls are still dying in Iraq because of our criminal joyride in Mesopotamia."
Exactly, but Hillary has often advocated taking us back into that criminal joyride in Mesopotamia. ASAP, she'll do far worse than emails, she'll do Bush Admin neicon policy, on steroids, in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and start it in Ukraine too. She's promised AIPAC to pick an early fight with Iran. She wants to fight at the same time with China and North Korea.
The emails are not the problem, they are the warning.
Susan, Mass 9 hours ago
Maureen, as brilliant as ever in your absolute, perfect take on a woman who is not just Teflon, but dangerous...as are all the people in her "machine." Read the WP today about the case in the nineties when the same scenario took place, when the judge could not convict, she lied, and yet, she slipped right through. To say there is something pathological, in this woman's DNA would be too kind. But, the bottom line...or two..is "how does this continue to happen?" And, "What difference does it make?"
For us mortals who are honest, have a moral core, and know right from wrong, there are no words to express the exasperation that befalls us all at this most dangerous woman
Michigander, Alpena, MI 6 hours ago
Did she start a war in Afghanistan with no clue how to end it?
Did she lie us into a war with Iraq?
Did she out a CIA agent?
Did she declare "Mission Accomplished" when the 13 year and counting war had only just begun?
Was she responsible for Abu Ghraib and authorize torture?
Was she the one who told Brownie that he was doing a heck of a job while New Orleans was washing into the ocean?
Was it Hillary who allowed a financial crises and unprecedented deficit to trigger the worst recession since the Great Depression?
No, her offense is much worse: she used a private email server.
Peter, Cambridge, MA 7 hours ago
Another success for the GOP propaganda machine. Karl Rove, Colin Powell, and General Petraeus and scores of other Republican officials all used private email servers, one of them located at the Republican National Committee headquarters, and tens of thousands of their emails were destroyed. No complaints from the GOP then. They all knew what Clinton knew - the State Department's non-classified system was cumbersome and leaked like a sieve, and they didn't have the funds to fix it.
It's just like Benghazi "scandal": during the GWBush administration there were 14 terror attacks on embassies or consulates, with 100 people killed, including a US diplomat. Where was the Republican outrage then? No investigations, no hearings. Maureen, you should do some homework before leaping on the Fox Noise bandwagon.
Realist, Santa Monica, Ca 7 hours ago
Isn't it painfully obvious than Hillary set up this private system because she didn't want every gumshoe on the Koch payroll investigating every action and breath she took in hopes of discovering a "scandal" that would lead to an "investigation." So this time it backfired big time and she wound up with more "transparency" than she bargained for. But in the end, what did she do that was so bad. If Russia is hacking the US Government payroll records, I can hardly see how some how drone mission intelligence is going to tip the balance of power.
It's just that, since Reagan, Republicans will simply not accept a Democratic (NOT Democrat!) president. It's all rule or ruin with those guys. How can they blame Obama for a mess when they scuttled his plans at every turn?
And speaking of Saint Ronnie, where was the fine-tooth-comb "investigation" of Reagan after he injected US Marines into the Lebanese civil war and got them all killed? And how about an investigation into how the basic rule of law disintegrated after the Marines took Baghdad. How was all that looting and secular murder a good thing Mr. Gowdy? Maybe you should look into it, ha ha.
Bruce, MA 8 hours ago
Maureen, how about a column on your former Times colleague Judith Miller whose fabricated articles about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq help make the Bush administration's case. She and they should be tried as war criminals. Instead you write about this stupid, non-issue. Clinton made a stupid mistake. Get over it. This nation faces some very serious issues: racism and injustice, weapons on our streets, student debt crisis, social security insolvency to name a few. As we said in the 60's, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the pollution." Get with it Maureen. Stop polluting.
Allie, New York 8 hours ago
Well, I think that we've at least laid to rest the oft-repeated accusation that Hillary is calculating. No calculating politician intending to run for president would have committed the silly error of for which she is now being pilloried (again!) by Maureen Dowd.
I find Hillary's decision with respect to her private email server understandable, however unfortunate. Ever since she was first lady her every word has been parsed (remember "baking cookies"?), her every action dissected and subjected to the most unfavorable interpretation. She has been accused of murder. She has been repeatedly investigated by Republican partisans in their effort to besmirch her, or worse and despite being exonerated each time, she has been vilified by vindictive people like Dowd. And, speaking of "goo," at the time of the Lewinsky scandal, instead of being an object of sympathy, she suffered the intrusion of the public into her private life and condemnation for not leaving her husband.
Is it any wonder that a person so treated over such a long period would be skittish about public scrutiny of communications she considered exempt from it?
Hillary Clinton may be a flawed human being, like the rest of us, but she is neither arrogant nor entitled, and compared to Trump she is a sage and and a saint.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 20 hours ago
He is less likely to get us into wars, because she is near certain to leap gleefully into wars. We already know the multiple ones she'll start with. But it is "pick your poison" because Trump will do other things, not wars, but cause no end of problems all the same. Those many nutty things he says? He'd keep saying them, and start doing them.
Dick Purcell, Leadville, CO 4 hours ago
"Obama tried to get Hillary without the shadiness. (Which is what we all want, of course.)"
No, we don't all want that. Wih or without shadiness, Hillary represents Rule of the Money-Insider Royalty at home, which is what The People have risen up against, and Wars Abroad.
We the People do not want these things.
Applarch, Lenoir City TN 6 hours ago
No Mo, self-described "lifelong Republican" Comey was far out of line with his highly irregular press conference. He pushed Republican narratives as far as he could get away with, in the process doing a grave disservice to FBI and Justice Department traditions, policy, and procedure. The picture he (and you) paint bears little relationship to the truth.
Here's what he should have said. "If it's a crime for people to ever use personal accounts for government work, whether hosted by a public service or a private server, we'd have to charge millions of people. We investigated something else: classified information on email systems. In the 30,000 emails exchanged among 300 top officials at the State Department that included Secretary Clinton on distribution, only a tiny number had any indication of classification, and these turned out to not be classified. We also discovered a difference of opinion on about fifty discussions. The intelligence community's senior professionals believe that these require classification, while State Department senior professionals believe they do not. Clearly we need to define consistent classification standards that all federal agencies can agree to. As to the notion that there is any criminality associated with this difference of opinion, it makes absolutely no sense that the entire senior ranks of the State Department professional civil service, a group numbering in the hundreds, needs to be charged, or that we should single out the Secretary."
Vsh Saxena, New Jersey 4 hours ago
It is a lamentable state of political maturity in US that the 'cherub faced con woman' has an almost inevitable shot at the Presidency.
Her competence is questionable at best resting as it does on a paper-resume, but her dishonesty and ability to lie in your face is beyond any doubt.
Four months before the election we know this, and are we so helpless as a nation state that - with Trump as the non-alternative - there is nothing we can do about it?
R.C.W., Heartland 7 hours ago
Pardon my French, but the Clintons are really nothing other than the earliest and biggest example of the reverberating power of double-career couples-- especially when the couples are in the same field.
You will see more of this-- in law firms, universities, hospitals, and corporations.
The Clintons are more like Bonnie and Clyde than the Buchanans of the Great Gatsby -- the Buchanans were simply born into old money, and didn't really work. By contrast, the Clintons are still strivers, ambitious, determined to see their meritocratic rise via the Ivy League to its most grandiose fulfillment.
But we have seen this movie before--Imelda Marcos, for example-- and the Macbeths of corse.
But I fear the apparent quid pro quo with Lynch and the FBI director may not be as obvious as hoping to keep one's job in the new, seemingly inevitable, Clinton administration.
What about their retaliation once in power? Would anyone really dare to cross this powerful pair?
J, NYC 4 hours ago
"Hillary willfully put herself above the rules - again - and a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her."
Twisting like a plane in a death spiral. You'll note that Clinton never puts herself above the rules to take political risks for progressives or progressive causes. She never sticks her neck out to do something bravely principled.
Hence, the democratic party has squandered the surge of strength that came with Obama's election in 2008 to end up instead twisted-pretzel-selling exactly what Obama was embraced to refute and replace, feebly marketing it to an electorate that has only grown more informed, engaged, and impatient for the change Obama fell inexplicably short of delivering.
That, politically, the Hillary play, so long in the planning, so tedious in the execution, is a self-destructive, backwards-sliding strategic move on nearly every level only underscores that other priorities and constituencies are driving the party. Driving it right off the cliff.
leitskev, Andover, Ma. 15 hours ago
I'm glad to see a rare Democrat not drinking the kool aid. The Clintons will skate on charges here because it's difficult to prove criminal intent, though we all know she did this to avoid oversight, knew she was breaking the rules, delayed turning over her emails by years, and then lied to the public.
Same with the influence peddling. She and Bill took hundreds of millions in speech money while she was Senator, Secretary, and then presumed Dem nominee. The Foundation, the Clinton slushy, took in a billion more. Much of this money all came from very shady places, people needing to buy influence, and the Clinton for sale sign was in blinking neon. They will get away with, however, only because these were not technically gifts, but were speech payments and "charity" donations.
One might prefer Hillary to Trump, that argument can be made. But no one should fool themselves about just how corrupt the Clintons are. When you cheer for them, understand what you are enabling.
ss, nj 4 hours ago
Dowd is correct. The crux of the problem is Hillary's continuing pattern of dissembling and obfuscation. Hillary has demonstrated questionable judgement for a presidential candidate. Equally disturbing is the self-igniting quality of Bill and Hillary, who create many of their own problems, like the server fiasco and Bill's recent inappropriate conversation with Lynch. What unpleasant surprises does the Clinton Foundation yet hold?
While Trump is not a viable candidate, I fear a Clinton administration mired in scandal and characterized by opacity and secrecy. I realize that in voting for Hillary, I choose to ignore the red flag waving chaotically for the Clinton's pattern of poor judgement, and their belief that they are above the law. It is difficult to muster a sanguine outlook for a Clinton presidency, because established patterns of behavior don't easily change.
tmann, los angeles 4 hours ago
Thanks again Maureen for enlightening those who read the NYTimes with the truth about Mrs. Clinton and her extremely reckless behavior. It is obvious there are many rabid Hillary supporters who refuse to accept what you have to say. Old news. A waste of ink. Move on. But the truth is the truth. And once again you have bravely gone where those who deny and deny, spin and spin refuse to go. Bravo to you and keep the ink flowing!
John Plotz, Hayward, CA 4 hours ago
Sainthood is not a qualification for the office. We could do worse than Clinton -- witness any Republican you can name. We could do very much worse -- witness her opponent, that orange lunatic.
N B, is a trusted commenter Texas 17 hours ago
Mark, your love affair with Bernie is messing with your judgment. Sending classified emails to those with classified clearance seems like a low voltage issue. I get email chains that are tomes long. I don't read to the fist link ever.
La Mirada, CA 13 hours ago
Well, what I remember is what happened after Bill Clinton had the temerity to reject the received wisdom of the political class and raise taxes in the early 1990s when the economy flourished to such a degree that he ended his final years as President with both a robust economy and budget surpluses sufficient to pay off the entire national debt in just another decade. Then, GWB was elected, and as usual after electing a Republican, disaster ensued. I don't want to go down the GWB road again. We've already tried stupid, and it simply doesn't work.
c. thomas, washington 5 hours ago
Hillary released her emails-50K of them. My current job is in public disclosure. So I read zillions of public officials' emails. Most of the elected are having to be trained to stop using their private emails, cell phones, etc to conduct business. Why do they do it?
Because it is something they have been doing forever, because it is easier, because they did it before they became officials, because they are older people and have a harder time figuring out how to direct their devices to the shared servers.
Hillary admitted she made a mistake.
Jeb Bush used a private server to handle state business when he was governor, but no one made a big deal about that. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell also used personal email accounts that had classified emails in them. It has been distressing to see people attack Clinton viciously for everything that I have to believe they would not do to a man. She was crucified as the First Lady for doing more than giving tea parties, for forgiving her husband for cheating, for being a strong smart woman with ambition.
This article attempts to tarnish her because of who she is married to, again, the wife role. And it brands her actions in gutter terms that are not supported by the investigation. Hillary is a role model to many of us who thought none of us would see the possibility of a smart brave woman at the helm. Obama is right on about Hillary. Even Republicans praised her as a rock star for her performance as Secretary of State.
<----- Number of e-mails Hillary deleted HFP ♥ /r/all ( self.HillaryForPrison )
submitted 12 hours ago * by yomjoseki
The Clinton "foundation" donated a staggering 2.9% of their revenue to charity in 2014. ( i.sli.mg )
submitted 13 hours ago by f01kchild
Why Bernie is still in the race. ( i.sli.mg )
submitted 5 hours ago by Hi_ImBillOReilly Sanders Cult Member
[Serious] why did Clinton news network put it's almost nonexistent reputation on line to say no charges? ( self.HillaryForPrison )
submitted 3 hours ago by 759ca5440badb99f35d8 Banned from /r/HillaryClinton and /r/Politics
Shillbots out on Facebook this evening. CORRECT THE RECORD ( i.sli.mg )
submitted 4 hours ago by twomongsmakearight
Excuse me FBI, ( livememe.com )
submitted 1 day ago by dusty1207
[Serious] Is the FBI going to release the transcript of their interview with Hillary Clinton? ( self.HillaryForPrison )
submitted 3 hours ago by IanMazgelis
The Daily Beast is owned by IAC, and Chelsea Clinton sits on their board of directors. - Medium ( medium.com )
submitted 2 hours ago by mrthatman5161
Email scandal is bad, but its a distraction for the real scandal ( self.HillaryForPrison )
submitted an hour ago by LightBringerFlex
A List of Leaks of CIA and Other Secret Government Agents - How many people will die because of these leaks? We may never know. (thompson timeline) ( thompsontimeline.com )
submitted 3 hours ago by NinjaDegrees Federal Bureau of "Casual Chats" (FBCC)
[Serious] How can I, the average American help put this monster behind bars? ( self.HillaryForPrison )
submitted 3 hours ago by ililiililillililii
Clinton sought secret info on EU bailout plans as son-in-law's doomed hedge fund gambled on Greece ( foxnews.com )
submitted 58 minutes ago by hillsfar
#Hillary2016's private server violated at least 4 federal criminal laws: #18USC1924 #18USC793f #18USC2071 #18USC1519 ( twitter.com )
submitted 14 hours ago by Ninma
Roseanne Barr Despises Hillary Clinton: 'She's in Bed with CNN and Saudi Arabia' ( thedailybeast.com )
submitted 7 hours ago by Mike_Rubin
Hillary Tweeted this, let's make sure it happens ( i.reddituploads.com )
submitted 1 day ago by Felidae_Silverwing Ready For Prison
Found an interesting read this morning (sorry if repost i didn't see it here) ( i.redd.it )
submitted an hour ago by RealityKing4Hire
[unverified] FBI AMA claims Clinton Foundation was used to sell classified US Intel for cash. Hillary and many others guilty of treason. Claims Trump has several unrevealed leaks. ( i.sli.mg )
submitted 4 hours ago by f01kchild
Republican National Committee: Hillary Clinton Becomes First Major Party Candidate to Sit for FBI Criminal Interview ( breitbart.com )
submitted 19 hours ago by I-_I
Someone stole my Hillary for Prison sign, so I made a better one. ( imgur.com )
submitted 17 hours ago by ShelbyDecorates
Former Sec Of Labor under bill clinton about lynch meeting "I find bills sense of entitlement deeply Frustrating" ( facebook.com )
submitted 16 hours ago by HelloOperator3 Bernie for White House Hillary for Jail Cell
Hillary in 2008: finger is itchy for that shiny red button. "If I'm the President, we will attack Iran." ( twitter.com )
submitted 14 hours ago by Ninma
New Ben Garrison Comic - "I'm with Her" ( i.sli.mg )
submitted 21 hours ago by happinessmachine
TIL the same prosecutor, James Comey, who is leading the investigation on Hillary Clinton, successfully indicted & prosecuted Martha Stewart in 2003. "Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not for who she is, but because of what she did." ( nytimes.com )
submitted 8 hours ago by f01kchild
Remember everyone, DO NOT BRIGADE the Hillary Clinton subreddit! Watching them try to put spin on it is too hilarious to risk them locking a thread. ( i.imgur.com )
submitted 20 hours ago by IanMazgelis
Taken from the hillaryClinton sub; Why is this okay? ( i.imgur.com )
submitted 5 hours ago by untildeath
May 20, 2015 | beforeitsnews.com
Emails published by the New York Times Monday indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the Democratic presidential contender's office.
Multiple emails show Clinton used account "firstname.lastname@example.org" while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.
... ... ...
Clinton served as secretary of state from Jan. 2009 to Feb. 2013. The emails she sent with the "email@example.com" were sent in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times.
... ... ...
Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Monday evening that the news proved Clinton "misled public about the use of only one secret email address."
Earlier this year, it was reported Clinton may have violated federal rules by exclusively using a personal email address to conduct all official government business while serving as secretary of state.