Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 30, 2015, 03:23:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87242 Posts in 2280 Topics by 1069 Members
Latest Member: ctelerant
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 86091 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12604


« Reply #600 on: June 24, 2015, 07:44:22 PM »


   


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/for-sale-on-ebay-hillary-clinton-2008-confederate-flag-pins/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/22/hillary-clintons-history-with-the-confederate-flag/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #601 on: June 26, 2015, 09:00:30 PM »

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/day-history-hillary-clinton-discovers-constitutional-right-same-sex-marriage_920321.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #602 on: June 29, 2015, 02:18:11 PM »


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/records-show-clinton-withheld-emails-about-oil-terrorism/article/2567169


Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.

Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.

For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were "well aware" of which "major oil companies and international banks" supported them during the rebellion, information they would "factor into decisions" about about who would be given access to the country's rich oil reserves.

The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.
Sign Up for the Watchdog newsletter!
More Stories

    Clinton campaign pushes back on Benghazi probe

    BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 06/29/15 11:45 AM

    Campaign chairman John Podesta took shots at House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy.
    Calls grow for probe of Clinton's private server

    BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 06/26/15 9:27 PM

    Judicial Watch has filed more than 20 requests for records related to the Clinton email scandal.
    State: 'We don't know' if Clinton provided all emails

    BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 06/26/15 3:02 PM

    State Department officials are uncertain whether they have a complete record of Hillary Clinton's emails.
    Failed Afghan project highlights Clinton's contractor ties

    BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 06/25/15 7:11 PM

    The Tarakhil plant drained $335 million in taxpayer funds before an avalanche hampered operation further.
    State Dept. admits Clinton failed to disclose Benghazi emails

    BY SARAH WESTWOOD | 06/25/15 9:20 PM

    Fifteen emails between Clinton and confidante Blumenthal that were released earlier this week are missing.

WEX TV

    WH: Missed Iran deal deadline not 'surprising' or 'uncommon'
    WH: Missed Iran deal deadline not 'surprising' or 'uncommon'
    Huckabee: Criminals have 'too much power'
    Huckabee: Criminals have 'too much power'
    Obama celebrates Supreme Court victory: Obamacare 'is here to stay'
    Obama celebrates Supreme Court victory: Obamacare 'is here to stay'
    Rick Santorum discusses immigration reform with Byron York
    Rick Santorum discusses immigration reform with Byron York

She thanked Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide and author of dozens of informal intelligence memos, for the tip, which she called "useful," and informed him she was preparing to hold a meeting with Libyan leaders in Paris in an exchange that suggests the flow of information went both ways.

State Department officials admitted Clinton had withheld all of nine emails and parts of six others after Blumenthal provided 60 emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that the agency had failed to submit earlier this year.

Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., immediately demanded to know whether State or Clinton herself withheld the records. The agency's admission Thursday that it couldn't find 15 of the new emails in its records indicated both had played a role in keeping the emails away from Congress.

An undisclosed memo sent in February 2012 contains details about how new Libyan leaders were forging business relationships with private firms. Blumenthal told Clinton his sources were concerned about the focus of international interest on Libya's oil sector, playing up the importance of other "private firms" that could provide "medical assistance."

By his own admission, Blumenthal had a personal financial interest in Libya involving medical assistance.

The fact that Clinton held the email back raises questions about whether she was aware of the conflict of interest at play in Blumenthal's advocacy.

Clinton also declined to hand over a memo in which Blumenthal relayed the complaints of Libyan rebels who felt NATO wasn't going far enough in its assistance in their struggle against Gaddafi.

"[R]ebel military commanders are extremely frustrated by the performance of NATO air forces over the weekend of April 22 [2011]," Blumenthal said.

"At the same time, these commanders believe that the small number of tactical advisers sent by Great Britain and France, under their NATO mandate, is not equipped to deal with the scope of the challenge facing the rebels," he added.

Blumenthal said his sources believed the U.S. could better support the rebels by sending traditional aircraft, such as A-10 "Warthogs," to combat the regime instead of the Predator drones it deployed after NATO took the lead in the mission.

The reason why Clinton withheld that particular memo is unclear, but it demonstrates that she knew the coalition's efforts were falling flat — and that they could have been boosted if she pushed for the use of a less politically popular aircraft.

Clinton withheld an email sent March 22, 2011 that described the French government's alleged involvement in forming the transitional government as the uprising against Gaddafi raged.

In the email, Blumenthal claimed the French had "provided money and guidance to assist" with the emerging Libyan council.

"In return for this assistance, [French government] officers indicated that they expected the government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya," Blumenthal wrote.

An email in which Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to consider the same "shock-and-awe" tactics former President George W. Bush employed in Iraq was also not included among the emails Clinton provided to State.

Blumenthal openly pressed for an increase in U.S. funding in another email that Clinton refused to turn over.

"My own view is that they desperately need professional military trainers, preferably Americans," Blumenthal said.

"Some of the funds released should go to that end," Blumenthal added, referring to the creation of a "more professional military" in the aftermath of the Gaddafi regime.

In the same memo, Blumenthal assured Clinton that representatives of the country's transitional government were "very, very happy," about a meeting with the secretary of state in May of 2011.

The subject of the same email refers to a "memo on OBL photos," likely referring to photographs of slain terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was killed days before Blumenthal sent the memo. A controversy over whether the government should release graphic pictures of bin Laden continues to this day.

In the subject, Blumenthal said there was "more to come soon on Libya," but he did not send another email until the following month. The gap raises additional questions about whether Blumenthal provided Congress with all the emails he and Clinton exchanged.

Clinton selectively edited other portions of emails she declined to provide to the State Department.

For example, in July 2012, Clinton removed paragraphs from a Blumenthal memo that warned "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy." Blumenthal also wrote — in sections that Clinton deleted before providing the document to State — that the government would likely be "founded on Sharia," or Islamic laws.

The group advocating to implement Sharia, Ansar al-Sharia, is a designated terrorist group that played a role in the Benghazi attacks.

But Clinton hid how much she knew about that development.

Clinton withheld another email that showed she informed Blumenthal of a "very good call" she had with the new Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf. She deleted another, in which she called a memo about Magariaf's intention and history "a keeper."

Clinton did not include in the batch published by the State Department last month an exchange in which she prompted Blumenthal to provide her with "more intel" about French and British involvement with Libyan leaders.

She told Blumenthal the memo "strains credulity" in a message she withheld from State. Clinton posed the same question to a top aide, Jake Sullivan, when she forwarded him the memo, according to the records released by the agency.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #603 on: July 01, 2015, 06:38:21 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420573/hillarys-private-e-mail-server-whitehouse-knew-since-2009?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NR5PM&utm_campaign=Wednesday%20Email%207%2F1%2F15
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #604 on: July 08, 2015, 08:44:10 AM »

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/07/dinesh-dsouza/hillary-clinton-confederate-battle-flag-nope-old-i/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4528


« Reply #605 on: July 08, 2015, 10:06:57 AM »

So 6 out of 10 polled do not think her trustworthy.  The 4 out of 10 who call her trustworthy are obviously the die hard Democrats who don't and won't care about her honesty.  If she were a Republican these same 4 out of 10 would call her dishonest and would be calling for accountability.   

Of the 6 who think she is dishonest 2 of those will vote for her in a heartbeat anyway, if she tugs at their identities and pocketbooks.



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #606 on: July 09, 2015, 05:06:02 PM »

Hillary's 5 Top Lies On CNN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on July 8, 2015
A defiant Hillary Clinton granted CNN her first national interview since the release of her book, Hard Choices, more than a year ago.  Throughout the interview, Hillary was defensive, and seemed annoyed that she would be questioned about her emails and her trustworthiness.

So what did she do? Lie continuously.
 
Here's a list of her top 5 lies in the CNN interview:
 
1.  "I Never Had A Subpoena" (for her emails)
 
Benghazi Committee Chairman Gowdy issued the following statement immediately after the interview, contradicting Mrs. Clinton:
 
"Secretary Clinton...was personally subpoenaed the moment the Benghazi Committee became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server..."
 
The subpoena was issued on March 4, 2015.  In fact, Hillary's lawyer, David Kendall, acknowledged the subpoena in a letter to Chairman Gowdy asking for an extension of time until March 27, 2015.  Gowdy granted the extension of time in a letter dated March 19, 2015.

Click Here to read more.
On March 27, 2015, Kendall responded to the subpoena and told the Committee that Clinton had turned over all relevant meal's to the State Department and "wiped her server clean."
 
Her statement was a big lie.
 
2.  "I Had One Device" (for convenience)
 
The emails released by the State Dept. clearly show that Clinton used two devices -- both a Blackberry and an iPad for her emails.  Several of the emails indicate "Sent from my iPad."

Click Here to read more.
So the "convenience" story just doesn't fly.  Another lie.
 
3.  "Colin Powell Admitted He Did The Same Thing"
 
Colin Powell did not have a personal email server in his house.  And he certainly never admitted that he did.  No way.
 
Another Hillary whopper!

4.  "I Didn't Have To Turn Over Anything"
 
She certainly did.
 
The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2009, "the National Archives and Records Administration issued regulations that said agencies allowing employees to do official business on unofficial email accounts had to ensure that any records sent on private email systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system."
 
This covered Hillary Clinton.  She claims that because she sent emails to people in the government email system, all is preserved.  But we don't know who she sent mail to.  And, as we have seen from the released emails, she sent plenty to people outside the government, like the ubiquitous Sidney Blumenthal.
 
The records showed that she didn't turn over at least 15 emails to Blumenthal that showed that she asked him to continue sending information to her.
 
5.  "People Should And Do Trust Me"
 
They don't and they shouldn't.
 
A recent CNN poll showed that 57% of the voters believe that Hillary is not honest and trustworthy.
 
And her obvious and continuous lies keep feeding that perception.

She says it's all the fault of the Republicans. Just like the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
 
Hillary, we have your number -- and we definitely don't trust you.
The 2016 Buzz -- All The Latest News on the Candidates and Issues. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4528


« Reply #607 on: July 10, 2015, 09:26:58 AM »

I liked Mark Levin's line:

"she should be in an orange jumpsuit not a pants suit".

Amazing.  And to here the wildly liberal Carl Bernstein make excuses for her as though her long list of crimes are not worse than Nixon's. 

Watching the Democrats point fingers at everyone else on cable concerning who is to blame for the illegal killing the girl in San Francisco I could not recall one single Democrat EVER take responsibility for any crime or screw up ever.   Rarely they may say they take responsibility but then continue on as though nothing ever happened. 

Just disgusting.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6583


« Reply #608 on: July 13, 2015, 12:56:23 PM »

Received in the email from a friend who is a former Democrat.  Humor grounded in truth.

Things I trust more than Hillary:
 
Mexican tap water.
A rattlesnake with a "pet me" sign.
OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection.
A fart when I have diarrhea.
An elevator ride with Ray Rice.
Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby.
Michael Jackson's Doctor.
An Obama Nuclear deal with Iran.
A Palestinian on a motorcycle.
Gas station Sushi.
A Jimmy Carter economic plan.
Brian Williams news reports.
Loch Ness monster sightings.
Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton.
Playing Russian Roulette with a semi-auto pistol.
Emails from Nigerian princes.
The Heimlich Maneuver from Barney Frank.
A condom made in China.
A prostate exam from Captain Hook.
And finally....
Bill Clinton at a Girl Scout convention.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #609 on: July 18, 2015, 02:28:59 AM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4528


« Reply #610 on: July 18, 2015, 08:18:20 AM »

The thought of another year and half of this stuff and maybe 9 and a half - with our side having to read all this stuff, and the liberals just ignoring it - it makes one want to go to a remote mountain in Montana and cut oneself off from the news.

If only we had a brilliant candidate that could articulate the likes of Mark Levin with the temperament of a Bobby Jindal or Jeb Bush or Santorum;  I really think Hillary would lose.

But......I just don't know if any of the candidates will rise to the occasion. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12604


« Reply #611 on: July 18, 2015, 08:34:28 AM »

The thought of another year and half of this stuff and maybe 9 and a half - with our side having to read all this stuff, and the liberals just ignoring it - it makes one want to go to a remote mountain in Montana and cut oneself off from the news.

If only we had a brilliant candidate that could articulate the likes of Mark Levin with the temperament of a Bobby Jindal or Jeb Bush or Santorum;  I really think Hillary would lose.

But......I just don't know if any of the candidates will rise to the occasion. 


A remote mountain in Montana is a good place to be, given what is coming.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #612 on: July 18, 2015, 03:52:49 PM »

I hear it gets real nippy there for much of the year , , ,
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12604


« Reply #613 on: July 18, 2015, 04:17:14 PM »

I hear it gets real nippy there for much of the year , , ,

It's a four season climate. Winter, winter, mud and deer.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12604


« Reply #614 on: July 19, 2015, 10:30:15 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/Windows-Live-Writer/Overnight-Open-Thread-7-19-2015_10634/hillCHqu-LUUEAArD_k_2.jpg



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6583


« Reply #615 on: July 21, 2015, 07:20:19 AM »

She was happier then.  Should not have run - or done the Bruce Jenner surgeries.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #616 on: July 22, 2015, 09:28:44 AM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/21/have-it-by-next-weekdo-you-hear-me-judge-has-absolutely-had-it-with-the-state-dept-over-hillary-records/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire_Morning_Test&utm_campaign=Firewire%20Morning%20Edition%20Recurring%20v2%202015-07-22
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #617 on: July 22, 2015, 12:38:44 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-blatant-haiti-conflict-of-interest-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4528


« Reply #618 on: July 27, 2015, 11:34:38 AM »

Seems like the Democratic ambulance chasers are shifting the public "dialogue" from corruption and criminal to simply incompetence or mistakes were made and the blame is being diverted to the State Department and away from their very wealthy powerful client.

Republicans must NOT let them do this.   The media however will probably tag along with the talking points.

 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #619 on: July 27, 2015, 12:45:08 PM »

Some useful summary here by Dick:

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-latest-lie-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #620 on: July 27, 2015, 01:30:56 PM »


July 26, 2015 6:13 p.m. ET
371 COMMENTS

Hillary Clinton’s march to the left continues, hitting a new milestone on Friday when she proposed to nearly double the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 43.4% from 23.8%—or the highest rate in decades.

Mrs. Clinton says she wants to overthrow “quarterly capitalism,” the supposed tendency of companies to be preoccupied with earnings reports and stock prices at the expense of investment that pays off over time. Yet her plan would undermine short-run shareholder goals and long-range economic growth.
***

Under current tax policy, capital income is taxed as ordinary income if an investor has held an asset for less than a year. But after 365 days the top rate of 20% on long-term gains applies, plus the 3.8% ObamaCare surtax on so-called unearned income. The one-year cutoff for short-term gains became part of U.S. tax law under FDR.

Mrs. Clinton now wants to apply the normal top income tax rate of 39.6% plus the 3.8% surtax to investments that are sold in less than two years. This 82.3% increase in the top rate is unprecedented.

The nearby chart shows the recent five-decade history of the top long-term capital gains rate, which was 25% for decades until it began to climb in 1968 into the Carter years. The Steiger Amendment of 1978 dropped the rate to 28% from 40%, and it fell to 20% in 1981. The rate bounced back to 28% in 1987 as part of the Reagan tax reform that also cut the top income-tax rate to 28%.

In 1997 Bill Clinton the New Democrat agreed to a 20% rate, not least based on economic literature suggesting the lower rate would yield more tax revenue. It did. George W. Bush’s 2003 tax cut shaved five percentage points, which President Obama repealed in 2012 for couples earning more than $484,851 a year ($413,201 for individuals). Keep in mind that this is a double tax on capital because corporate profits are already taxed once at the 35% corporate rate.

Mrs. Clinton would raise the rate above what it was in the 1970s and even during the New Deal. She wants to create a sliding scale of higher tax rates that gradually decline depending on how long investors wait to realize a capital gain. For two years the rate would rise to 43.4%, falling to 39.8% for year three and 35.8% in year four. Investments would have to be held for more than six years to qualify for the 23.8% rate (20% plus the 3.8-percentage-point Obama surcharge).

Mrs. Clinton invokes “everyday Americans” to justify the plan, but if she were honest she would say she wants to cut their incomes. Higher taxes mean a lower return on capital, which reduces the capital stock available to invest in technology, factories, equipment, buildings, etc. More costly capital means less to invest to raise labor productivity, which means slower economic growth and income gains.

A high and sliding tax-rate scale also harms the efficient allocation of capital by expanding what economists call the “lock-in effect.” If owners of capital must wait years to pay a lower tax rate, many will decline to realize their gains solely for tax purposes. This artificially reduces the mobility of capital.

Economic growth is enhanced when capital is able to efficiently find its highest return. “Buy and hold” often works well for individual investors in specific stocks. But no economic theory says one- or two-year investments are worse than 10-year, and sometimes they’re better.

Consider a Facebook investor sitting on a capital gain. Under current law he might sell some of his gain and use the proceeds to fund a new venture. For the overall economy, it makes sense if that Facebook investor can sell the shares to someone who wants to hold them, while cashing out himself to invest in the new venture.

But if he has to hold that Facebook stock for years or pay a higher tax rate, that money may stay locked into those Facebook shares. So there is less Facebook stock available to “everyday Americans” who want to buy into a growth company, and the new venture might never be funded.

The dividends and corporate share buybacks that Mrs. Clinton also assails serve the same larger economic purpose. If a mature business can’t find a suitable investment for its cash, then it makes sense to return those dollars to shareholders to invest elsewhere. Think of the many years Microsoft refused to pay a dividend while spending its cash on ideas that failed.

Locking in capital will harm entrepreneurship and risk-taking, preventing the economy from exploiting the best growth opportunities. As for short-termism, Mrs. Clinton assumes that millions of investors and corporate managers are irrationally passing up lucrative lasting returns for a temporary profits high. Who is the economic clairvoyant who told her that?
***

In Mrs. Clinton’s famous 2008 debate on ABC with Mr. Obama, he promised to raise investment taxes in the name of “fairness” even if capital gains rates higher than 15% raised less revenue. But she averred that “I wouldn’t raise it above the 20% if I raised it at all.”

Yet now she is blowing past Mr. Obama on the left to borrow the sliding-scale idea that goes back to that lost economic decade known as the New Deal. A 1934 law allowed people to exclude from taxes a rising share of capital gains based on how long an investment was held. The sliding scale was eventually dropped because of the widely recognized damage from the lock-in effect.

Mrs. Clinton’s Wall Street fan club keeps telling itself that she’d provide relief from the anti-growth Obama years. On the growing evidence of her policies, she’d be worse.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #621 on: July 29, 2015, 02:25:09 AM »

Anatomy Of Hillary's Latest Email Lie
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 28, 2015
Hillary Clinton's latest lie is her claim that the only reason for the flap over whether she emailed classified documents was her "desire to have transparency and make everything public." Except for her insistence on disclosure, "we would not be having this conversation."

Seriously? It's hard to even use the words Hillary and transparency in the same sentence - because she's anything but transparent; she's secretive and paranoid. And she thinks she can outsmart us. That's what started this problem in the first place.

Why did she lie? As always, Hillary's lie has two motivations:
 
    ALERT: The Currency that May Replace the USD in Just 3 Months

 
    Barack Just Lost It with Alan Greenspan's Warning for Owning Gold (Bombshell)

 
    IRS Tax "Loophole": Move Your IRA or 401(k) to Gold – Get this FREE Info Kit

a. to kindle a debate that distracts from the basic question of whether or not she sent classified information on her private server; and

b. to try to show how she is the victim of her own good intentions and integrity.

Start with the first point. Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails that contained classified material over her private server in violation of federal law. This is the charge made by the two inspectors general for the State Department in their referral to the Justice Department and the FBI. But Hillary defiantly claims that she never sent any email containing classified information.

To her, it's just some bureaucratic squabble. "What I'm hearing from the discussion that's going on is that something that wasn't classified should have been or maybe now should be," she said. "That's a very different issue." The inspectors general disagreed and noted that the material in question "was classified then [when Hillary emailed it] and is classified now."

So it boils down to a question of trust. Two presidentially appointed professional civil service inspectors general vs. Hillary. So which one should be trusted? That one's not too hard to call.

And on the second point, to distract and redirect the debate, Hillary claims that she was transparent to a fault and that this caused the current scandal.

Incredibly, she says:

"If I just turned it [the emails] over, we would not be having this conversation. But when I said, 'Hey, I want it to be public,' it has to go through the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] process. That's what's going on here. And I am going to continue to say that I want it to be made public as soon as it possibly can. And we will do whatever we can to try to get the process to move along."

What a whopper!

Hillary didn't just wake up one day and decide to turn over her emails. She spent five years hiding them on her secret Chappaqua server - for the sole purpose of thwarting the Freedom of Information Act.

And she succeeded.

Indeed, throughout her tenure as secretary of state, dozens of FOIA requests for emails from Hillary and her top aides were consistently turned down because the State Department found no relevant emails. Of course they didn't - they were safely concealed in her home, where no one could access them. Now, after the discovery that her emails were never searched in response to FOIA requests, most of those cases have been re-opened, and numerous federal judges have ordered the State Department to respond to the requests. That's why her emails are going through the FOIA process now. It is despite Hillary that the documents are being made public, not because of her.

For Hillary to claim now that she is the one who insisted that her emails had to "go through the Freedom of Information process" is a flat out lie. She would have kept them secret forever, but the State Department requested their return. She had no choice. So, in one last arrogant step, she decided herself what to turn over and deleted the rest.

Hillary had no role in subjecting her emails to the FOIA process. They were public records that were automatically subject to review for FOIA requests. Once she stopped hiding them, the automatically went through the process. That is a far cry from her statement, "When I said, 'Hey, I want it [her emails] to be public,' it has to go through the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] process. That's what's going on here."

And this scandal is a gift that will keep on giving. Each month, the courts have ordered the State Department to turn over another batch of Hillary's e mails. And each month, the inspectors general, the Justice Department and the FBI will have to report any that concern classified material.

Can we trust them to do their jobs and determine if Hillary broke the law and prosecute her if she did?

Certainly, we can trust the inspectors general. By their actions in referring four emails to Justice and the FBI, they have shown their integrity and independence.

How about Justice and the FBI? Under former Attorney General Eric Holder, the answer is obvious: The Justice Department would join in the cover-up and instruct the FBI to do likewise.

But how about under the new Attorney General Loretta Lynch? As the new kid on the block, she may be anxious to enhance her reputation for integrity and actually do her job.

But what will President Obama do? If he lets the process unfold, he will likely severely hurt Hillary, perhaps knocking her out of the presidential race. But if he intervenes, he risks disclosure and even possible grounds for impeachment.

Remember that the Obamas don't always like the Clintons. Despite her huge lead in the polls, Obama has refused to endorse Hillary. In fact, an argument can be made that the entire email scandal stems from leaks from an unfriendly White House.

Is Obama determined to get a Democratic nominee who will be committed to pursuing his agenda and will not be tempted to move to the center as the Clintons have often done?

Now Obama can achieve this objective by doing nothing and just letting the process run its course.

And that may be just what he will do.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33822


« Reply #622 on: July 29, 2015, 07:44:44 AM »

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12604


« Reply #623 on: July 29, 2015, 07:52:39 AM »


Strange. How could that happen?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!