Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 31, 2015, 08:44:59 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87260 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 86457 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 6586


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 6586


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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: 33837


« 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
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33837


« Reply #624 on: July 30, 2015, 07:23:10 PM »

More Missing Hillary Emails?; See 2016 Buzz
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on July 30, 2015
More State Department business on private servers?

State Department officials told a federal judge that they could not produce all of the emails requested by the AP in a Freedom of Information lawsuit because they are still waiting for emails requested from private accounts used by Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan -- Hillary Clinton's top aides.

Philippe Reines, the acerbic smart aleck former press aide to Clinton, just delivered 20 boxes of emails to the State Department.  Twenty boxes!!!  According to Politico, the judge specifically asked whether Reines had been asked to produce federal records from his private email accounts.  The State Department confirmed that he was.

The AP is seeking information about Huma Abedin's employment as a special employee who worked for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo -- the consulting firm formed by former Clinton associate Doug Band.

So the question is why are the other aides not responding to the State Department?

We know that Huma used a private email account from Hillary's private server.  Did Mills and Sullivan use the private server too?

Gawker.com claimed several years ago that Reines used a private email account.  Reines went berserk and responded with a scathing attack.

When Gawker.com filed an FOI request for Reines' well-publicized vulgar email response to journalist Michael Hastings, the State Department responded that there were no such documents.  Other State Department employees had been copied on the exchange, as were other journalists.  Several months ago, the emails were finally released with a trove of emails sent to the Benghazi Committee.

So what's going on here and what is holding up the production of other emails?

Looks like more of the same -- and more headaches for Hillary when they are finally produced.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33837


« Reply #625 on: July 30, 2015, 07:40:20 PM »

second post

 By
Kimberley A. Strassel
Updated July 30, 2015 8:19 p.m. ET
6 COMMENTS

‘Friends of Bill” was a 1990s Washington catchphrase, shorthand for President Clinton’s favored inner circle. His wife, it turns out, has a far bigger fan club. “Friends of Hillary”—the people looking out for her welfare, and benefiting in turn—seem to occupy the highest echelons of government and business.

That’s one way of synthesizing this week’s slew of disparate Clinton revelations. The Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee is grappling with a range of scandals, from her use of a private email server while secretary of state, to actions she took while in office that look to have financially benefited her family’s foundation. But what ties all these stories together is the extraordinary number of people who continue to run cover for Mrs. Clinton’s ambitions.

First there is that menagerie of longtime aides who follow her from post to post. At a federal court hearing on Wednesday, a State Department official dropped a new bomb regarding the email scandal, suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides also might have been using private email accounts. This came out because the State Department attempted to excuse its failure to produce documents by noting that top Clinton aides—including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan—had not yet turned over their work-related emails. Had those aides used government servers, State presumably would already have their emails. Politico noted that only this week, Mrs. Clinton’s former spokesman, Philippe Reines, “turned over 20 boxes of work-related emails taken in part from a personal email account.”

The Associated Press requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act while seeking details about how Ms. Abedin was given special permission to work with outside clients while still at the State Department. The news organization filed that request four years ago; Mrs. Clinton resigned as secretary of state more than two years ago. And yet her aides, to this day, are sitting on that paper. That’s highly helpful to Mrs. Clinton, who doesn’t want any more embarrassing exchanges made public.

Then there are Mrs. Clinton’s pals still in government. At Wednesday’s hearing, the second in two weeks on the AP request, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon bluntly voiced what everybody has known for a long time, accusing the State Department of, as Politico put it, “dragging out responses to FOIA requests to protect Clinton.” The agency has in fact spent the past nine months doing little else—ignoring congressional subpoenas, slow-walking responses, omitting key documents.

State Department officials initially said they wouldn’t release any of Mrs. Clinton’s emails until the end of this year, a deadline that surely and conveniently would have slipped past the 2016 election. They are only producing those emails now under court order. And they’re doing back bends to excuse away the fact that Mrs. Clinton emailed classified information through her private server. Why all this effort? Barack Obama may not love Hillary, but he needs another Democrat in 2016 to protect his legacy.

Mrs. Clinton has additional friends in law enforcement. Last week news broke that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton mishandled sensitive information. Team Clinton has attempted to fuzzy up the story by suggesting the information wasn’t classified at the time she sent it. Utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that sensitive information flowed through a home-brew email system because Mrs. Clinton had evaded all the rules. Any lesser figure (say, David Petraeus) would be in hot water. Yet the New York Times reports that the Justice Department “hasn’t decided if it will open an investigation.” Ah, friends.

Finally, Mrs. Clinton has very good friends in the corporate world. This newspaper reported Thursday that while serving as secretary of state, she took the unusual step of intervening to fix a problem that Swiss banking titan UBS was having with the IRS. In the years that followed, UBS donated $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation, anted up another $32 million in loans via foundation programs, and dropped $1.5 million on Bill for a series of speaking events. Both sides deny any quid pro quo. But the pattern is clear: More than 60 major firms that lobbied the State Department during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure also donated some $26 million to her family’s foundation.

Those in the business and financial world, after all, understand how the Clintons operate: pure Arkansas, purely transactional. You scratch my family foundation; I’ll scratch your government problem. They’ve spent a lot of money getting on Mrs. Clinton’s right side (and they certainly don’t want to be on her wrong side) so expect the corporate cash to now flow toward her election effort. Yes, Mrs. Clinton has, and will continue to have, lots of amigos in the private sector.

Left out in the cold, of course, are all those Americans who would like the straight story on Mrs. Clinton’s emails and her foundation before they have to make a decision about whom to vote for next year. Problem is, unlike Hillary, they don’t have friends in high places who can force those answers into the light of day.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 33837


« Reply #626 on: Today at 05:08:23 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/30/hillary-clinton-emails-us-intelligence-preparing-m/

By John Solomon and S.A. Miller - The Washington Times - Thursday, July 30, 2015
The U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account contains hundreds of revelations of classified information from spy agencies and is taking steps to contain any damage to national security, according to documents and interviews Thursday.
The top lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committee have been notified in recent days that the extent of classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s private email server was likely far more extensive than the four emails publicly acknowledged last week as containing some sensitive spy agency secrets.
A U.S. official directly familiar with the notification, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said the notification of possibly hundreds of additional emails with classified secrets came from the State Department Freedom of Information Act office to the Office of Inspector General for the Director of National Intelligence.
________________________________________
________________________________________
The inspector general, the chief oversight watchdog for the entire U.S. intelligence community, subsequently sent a letter to the Republican chairmen and ranking Democrats of the Senate and House intelligence committees, the official said.
“We were informed by State FOIA officials that there are potentially hundreds of classified emails within the 30,000 provided for former Secretary Clinton,” DNI Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III late last week wrote Sen. Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat; Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican; and Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat.
“We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked and transmitted via a secure server,” Mr. McCullough wrote the four lawmakers.
________________________________________
________________________________________
The U.S. official said the intelligence community has been informed that secret information had been contained in some of Mrs. Clinton’s private emails that originated from the FBI, the DNI and the CIA as well as a spy satellite agency. It is believed the 30,000 emails remain on a thumb drive in the possession of Mrs. Clinton’s private attorney, David Kendall.
The official said the intelligence community’s first response was to take steps to secure the handling of remaining 30,000 emails and make sure they were handled on top-secret servers to avoid any further breaches, and then to assess any damage to national security from the insecure handling and release of information already in some of the publicly disseminated emails.
“Containment first, then a damage assessment is how this must be handled,” the official said.
The official said the intelligence community was already concerned, for instance, that some classified information was inadvertently disclosed by the State Department in recent weeks when one of Mrs. Clinton’s emails about Libya was publicly released.
The inspector general’s notification to Capitol Hill and the Justice Department also opens possible legal exposure for Mrs. Clinton about improper handling of classified materials, something her attorney knows much about.Mr. Kendall represented former CIA Director David H. Petraeus last year when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling national secrets because he gave some classified information to his mistress and biographer and stored a classified book of information in his home in an insecure manner.
Separately, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey asking him to explain what the bureau was doing to keep secure the classified information within 30,000 Clinton emails known to be on Mr. Kendall’s thumb drive.
“It’s a serious breach of national security if the United States government fails to secure classified material in the hands of people not authorized to possess it, no matter who they are. There are fundamental questions as to what the FBI is doing to securing these classified emails and why the State Department is not fully cooperating with the inspectors general at the State Department and the Intelligence Community to ensure that all of the appropriate emails are identified,” Mr. Grassley wrote.
Mr. Grassley also sent a letter to Secretary of State John F. Kerry inquiring about the delay in sending the 30,000 emails to intelligence community inspectors general.



Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, fended off the new questions about the email scandal and suspicious foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, distracting from her effort to wrangle support from union bosses at the AFL-CIO’s annual summer meeting.
The former secretary of state’s email woes deepened when a federal judge scolded the State Department for delays in releasing the documents, as the agency revealed that Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and top officials during her tenure at the agency — Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan — also used private email accounts and all of their message have not been turned over to the State Department.
“I think we have been proceeding in a timely fashion, and indeed the vast majority of the emails that I turned over and that are being turned over by others were already in the State Department system,” Mrs. Clinton said at a press conference at the union meeting in the Washington suburb of Silver Spring, Maryland.
Her response to reporters was the same explanation she gave in March, when it came to light that she had used a private email account exclusively for official business as America’s top diplomat, shielding her correspondence from probes by Congress and requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
It remains unclear how much of her email was captured by the State Department system during exchanges with other agency employees, especially since other high-ranking officials at the agency also were using private email accounts.
Mrs. Clinton batted questions about the email back at the agency.
“This is really a question for the State Department,” she said at the union press conference. “They are the ones that are bearing the responsibility to sort through these thousands and thousands of emails and determine at what pace they can be released, and I really hope that it will be as quickly as possible.”
Mrs. Clinton has insisted that she followed the rules and used a private email account because it was more convenient for her than juggling two smartphones. But nearly two years after she left office and after a congressional probe learned about her private email account, she turned over about 30,000 messages to the State Department and erased another 32,000 messages that she deemed personal.
At some point, she wiped clean the email server kept in her home in Chappaqua, New York, preventing any of the messages from being recovered.
Questions about her email setup and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state, which potentially posed conflicts of interest, have dogged Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. The controversies have hit her in the polls, with a majority of voters nationwide saying they don’t think she is honest and trustworthy.
The former first lady, senator and top diplomat also had to tamp down reports about increased donations to the Clinton Foundation from Swiss bank USB after she intervened to settle IRS charges that the bank had helped thousands of Americans use secret accounts to avoid U.S. taxes.
Coinciding with Mrs. Clinton’s involvement, the bank’s donations to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 in 2008 to roughly $600,000 by the end of 2014. The bank also paid Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, $1.5 million for participating in a series of corporate events, The Wall Street Journal reported.
In June, The Washington Times reported that Mr. Clinton’s foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Mrs. Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.
The Swedish entity, called the William J. Clinton Foundation Insamlingsstiftelse, was never disclosed to or cleared by State Department ethics officials, even though one of its largest sources of donations was a Swedish government-sanctioned lottery.
As the money flowed to the foundation from Sweden, Mrs. Clinton’s team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish firms despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was expanding its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran’s rogue nuclear program, diplomatic cables show.
Mrs. Clinton said any implication of wrongdoing was “categorically false.”
“I worked hard as our nation’s first diplomat to solve problems, to work with my colleagues in government,” she said. “I remember the governmentwide efforts to try to pursue America’s interest with respect to Swiss banks and there was a resolution to that, and it continued to be the subject of diplomacy and law enforcement interest.”
She dismissed the report as routine campaign politics.
“You know, this is just the kind of unfortunate claim or charge that you see in campaigns,” Mrs. Clinton said.
The press conference demonstrated that her answers have not settled the matters and the scandals will continue to overshadow her campaign.
At the AFL-CIO meeting, Mrs. Clinton met with the union leaders behind closed doors to woo support with her pledge to fight for higher wages and for laws that would make it easier to unionize workplaces.
“I asked for their support going forward. I asked them to be my partner in making sure that we stand against those powerful forces on the other side that don’t agree with the [union] agenda,” she said.
Union insiders say the leadership prefers more aggressively pro-union candidates such as Sen. Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent and avowed socialist who has emerged as the chief rival to Mrs. Clinton.
But Mr. Sanders trails by a wide margin and is widely viewed as unable to win.
That leaves the unions stuck with Mrs. Clinton, the all-but-inevitable nominee who has refused to take a position on the Keytsone XL oil pipeline or the pending trade deal with Pacific Rim countries — issues that are top priorities for unions.
“That’s what we’re waiting for — for her to take a stand,” said an official from a union local at the meeting.

« Last Edit: Today at 05:15:36 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6586


« Reply #627 on: Today at 08:45:59 AM »

Good coverage Crafty of all these issues and good article here.  ccp and others might say say the Clintons always get away with this and I partly feel that way, but this is different.  It is was intentional, not something they backed into, setting up their own server, their own foundation, their own overlapping contacts, soliciting big money while knowing they were running for President.

One thing they didn't see coming was Benghazi.  They thought the Sec State job was all PR and setup to be the successor; Obama and Jarrett had special envoys reporting to them for all the trouble spots.  But the Libya collapse was Hillary's doing, not fitting at all with Obama's (lack of a) foreign policy.  She steered away from the plan and deposed a guy who gave up his nuclear ambitions and replaced him with al Qaeda.  If it wasn't obvious then, in hindsight it was kind of dumb.

Of course she had classified info going in and out or else how was she communicating?  If Ambassador Stevens was not emailing his whereabouts, mission and plans, then did she not even know his whereabouts, mission and plans?  Maybe she didn't; she was writing books about herself.  Was the attempt to keep classified off of this why he couldn't reach her in his warning cries for help?

Now she is at war with the NY Times and the AP among others. not Drudge and the vast right wing conspiracy.  A catchy phrase and a tear from drop-trow Bill isn't going to make this go away. 

As soon as Obama turns on her, it's over.

My fear is that while we succeed at exposing Hillary's defective moral character, we are failing to challenge the eventual nominee on the issues, Warren or whoever.
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!