Hillary Clinton: Incompetence, Corruption, Sleeze, Lies, Deceit, Theft Thread

[Soul Crusher]

Clinton’s Private E-Mail Use Said to Frustrate Top Aide Huma Abedin
Both witnesses to Abedin’s testimony described her as cooperative.
  Ben BrodyBen Brody
 @BenBrodyDC
June 29, 2016 — 12:56 PM EDT
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Don't Miss Out — Follow Bloomberg Politics On
Facebook   Twitter   Instagram   Youtube

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
A top aide to Hillary Clinton said the former secretary of state’s use of a private e-mail server to conduct government business on at least one occasion got in the way of Clinton’s work and left the aide frustrated, according to two people who witnessed the aide’s deposition Tuesday.
Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and now the vice chair of her presidential campaign, was being deposed about the context of a November 2010 e-mail she sent Clinton that they “should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam.” Prompting the note, according to the e-mail chain released last week by the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act, was a missed scheduled phone call, one of a number of communications mishaps detailed in Clinton's 55,000-page e-mail record.
Huma Abedin, aide to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, stands off-stage at an event on Feb. 5, 2016, in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Huma Abedin, aide to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, stands off-stage at an event on Feb. 5, 2016, in Manchester, New Hampshire. Photographer: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Clinton responded in the 2010 exchange that she could get a “separate address or device” but said she didn’t “want any risk of the personal being accessible,” according to the e-mail chain. Abedin replied that the missed communications were “not a good system.”
Abedin testified that “the personal” referred to non-government messages Clinton was also exchanging via the e-mail address rather than any improper treatment of government records, according to one of the people who witnessed the deposition. Abedin, whose close relationship with Clinton has led her to be described as a surrogate daughter, was one of a handful of aides to have her own account on the clintonemail.com server.
Both witnesses to Abedin's testimony described her as cooperative. A spokesman for the Clinton campaign, Brian Fallon, didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. A lawyer for Clinton, David Kendall, declined to comment. A lawyer for Abedin, Miguel Rodriguez, declined to comment.
The deposition was conducted as part of a lawsuit brought by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which sued the State Department under FOIA in 2013 to obtain access to records regarding Abedin’s simultaneous employment at the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and a consultancy that catered to international clients. (Abedin’s lawyers say she didn’t do work that would have posed a conflict of interest.) As part of that lawsuit, the presiding judge granted Judicial Watch permission to engage in what he called “limited” discovery into the server and department records practices. 
The server set-up has dogged Clinton’s presidential run and provided a frequent attack line for her opponents, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Trump has suggested she compromised U.S. secrets with her communications practices and should face jail.
The testimony came on the same day that Republicans on the House Benghazi Committee, which helped uncover Clinton’s e-mail practices, released their final report. It criticized State Department decision-making surrounding the attack on a diplomatic facility in Libya in 2012 that killed four Americans, but contained few revelations about Clinton.
QUICKTAKE
Benghazi
On Monday, Judicial Watch released a cache of e-mails from Abedin that contained messages between her and Clinton. Like some released earlier, the documents were obtained by Judicial Watch as part of other FOIA litigation and contained some e-mails not found in the messages Clinton’s lawyers had sent to the State Department. Clinton has publicly said she gave the State Department all relevant e-mails.
Fallon on Monday said Clinton had turned over “all potentially work-related emails” still in her possession when she received the 2014 request from the State Department, according to the Associated Press. “Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have,” Fallon said last week, according to AP.
The president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, said the e-mails released Monday show Clinton “did not turn over all” records in her possession and raised questions about what other records should have been produced.  “I keep on asking, What else is out there?” Fitton said.
In one message released Monday from early in her tenure, Clinton appeared to fret about records management practices.
“I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State,” Clinton wrote to Abedin in March 2009. “Who manages both my personal and official files?”
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, “Secretary Clinton’s paper files were appropriately filed and archived.” Toner repeated in a statement that Clinton had said repeatedly that the 55,000 pages represented “all federal email records in her custody.”
Keep up with the race of a lifetime.
Get our politics newsletter daily.

Enter your email
 Sign Up
During his June 23 deposition in the matter, Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton aide who helped maintain the server, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, according to a transcript released by Judicial Watch. He refused to answer more than 100 questions on issues including how the server was set up, whether it was used to thwart the Freedom of Information Act and whether Clinton deleted government records. A lawyer for Pagliano, Mark MacDougall, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
Records released by Judicial Watch show Abedin and Pagliano discussing maintenance of the server and detail on at least one occasion a possible hack attempt.

[Soul Crusher]

Politics
New analysis shows 160 emails missing from Clinton’s disclosure to State

 
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, accompanied by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), speaks to and meets Ohio voters during a rally at the Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal on Monday, June 27. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
By Rosalind S. Helderman June 29 at 1:56 PM
Ths story has been updated:

As Hillary Clinton tries to put to rest the controversy over her private email server that has dogged her presidential campaign, she has repeatedly cited her willingness to make her work correspondence public as evidence that she has nothing to hide.

“I have provided all of my work-related emails, and I’ve asked that they be made public, and I think that demonstrates that I wanted to make sure that this information was part of the official records,” she told ABC News last month.

But disclosures over the past several weeks have revealed dozens of emails related to Clinton’s official duties that crossed her private server and were not included in the 55,000 pages of correspondence she turned over to the State Department when the agency sought her emails in 2014.

At least 160 such emails have come to light so far, many of them through public-records lawsuits brought by the conservative group Judicial Watch.

In one email released by Judicial Watch on Monday, Clinton queried aide Huma Abedin and another staffer about how her official records were being maintained. “I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?” she wrote on March 22, 2009.

A 2010 Clinton email, which was disclosed last month by the State Department’s inspector general but had not been submitted by the former secretary, appears to show that she was concerned about ensuring privacy for her personal emails if she was given an official government account.

“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton wrote.

The newly disclosed gaps in Clinton’s correspondence raise questions about the process used by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and her lawyers to determine which emails she turned over to the department.

Clinton has said she deleted nearly 32,000 emails from her time as secretary because they were purely personal, dealing with such matters as arrangements for her daughter’s wedding and her yoga routine. But Republicans have said there is no way to know whether Clinton also deleted potentially embarrassing work-related emails.


The State Department has released redacted copies of the emails Clinton handed over. The newly disclosed emails have emerged as the agency has released copies of Abedin’s correspondence, which in some cases includes previously undisclosed exchanges with Clinton.

Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said that both Clinton and Abedin provided “all potentially work-related emails in their possession” to the State Department.

Fallon added: “We understand Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have.”

The email controversy has haunted Clinton’s candidacy for more than a year and contributed to her rising unfavorable poll numbers. Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump’s negative ratings are higher, and Clinton has taken a solid lead in recent national surveys.

But the email disclosures come as part of ongoing litigation that is likely to cause Clinton’s campaign continued discomfort in coming months.

[Officials: Scant evidence Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails]

Judicial Watch was scheduled to spend seven hours on Tuesday taking sworn testimony from Abedin, a Clinton confidante and former State Department deputy chief of staff. A transcript of the session could be released as early as this week and is likely to provide new information about Clinton’s email setup. Another former top aide, Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, will be interviewed Wednesday. Judicial Watch has also requested permission to interview Clinton herself.

The group will also receive hundreds of additional pages of emails sent and received by Abedin using a personal email account routed through Clinton’s personal server. Abedin turned those records over to the State Department in 2015, and the department, in turn, is under a court order requiring that they be released to Judicial Watch in monthly batches over the next year. That process could well result in the publication of additional emails that Clinton had not provided to the State Department.


Another conservative group, Citizens United, has also been receiving documents showing how Clinton’s department operated.

On Monday, a judge ordered the State Department to turn over emails from Clinton’s scheduler for the weeks leading up to 14 foreign trips taken while Clinton was in office. The group hopes to use them to show that Clinton met with political donors while overseas and did not record the meetings on official schedules.

Meanwhile, an FBI investigation into the security of Clinton’s email server has yet to be resolved.

Clinton filed a sworn statement to a federal judge certifying that she submitted all emails in her possession that might have been federal records to the State Department in December 2014.

[How Clinton’s email scandal took root]

Her campaign has said she no longer had access to some of her emails, particularly from her first two months in office, while she was transitioning into the role and switching from an account linked to her AT&T BlackBerry to one routed through her home server. But her spokesman has not provided a full explanation for all of the gaps.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the growing number of Clinton work emails that she did not turn over undermined her vows of transparency.

“The most charitable interpretation is that the process she and her attorneys used to cull government emails from the emails she took with her didn’t work,” he said. “The less charitable interpretation is that these emails were not helpful to Mrs. Clinton, so they were not turned over.”

In a statement Monday night, the Trump campaign cited new emails released by Judicial Watch as a sign that Clinton had “lied” about turning over all her work-related correspondence. “We now know that Clinton’s repeated assertion that she turned over everything work-related from her time at the State Department is not true,” the campaign said.

In a report issued last month about Clinton’s email practices, the State Department inspector general’s office formally concluded that Clinton’s production of emails had been “incomplete.” Among the gaps, the IG found, were all emails Clinton sent and received between Jan. 21, 2009, when she took office, and March 17, 2009. The IG said emails were also missing that Clinton sent from the start of her term until April 12, 2009.


Among those the IG said she had not turned over were 19 emails exchanged with Gen. David H. Petraeus in January and February 2009. Approximately 15 additional emails that Clinton exchanged with informal adviser Sidney Blumenthal were turned over by Blumenthal to the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks on U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, but did not appear among the emails she had turned over.

An additional 127 have emerged through Judicial Watch litigation, according to a new analysis by the group.

The State Department has not addressed the gaps in Clinton’s emails other than to note that it is methodically responding to public records requests as they are received, which has included releasing all of Clinton’s emails, as well as some emails from Abedin and other aides.

[State Dept. inspector general sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices]

A steady stream of internal State Department documents released in response to public records requests promises new revelations until Election Day about Clinton’s leadership of the department.

One series of documents requested by Citizens United and then published by ABC News and other news organizations appears to show that Clinton’s top staff intervened to appoint a Democratic donor to a sensitive arms control advisory panel even though the donor, a Chicago securities trader, had no experience in the field.

Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
The emails show that some State Department staffers were initially puzzled when they received questions regarding the appointment of Rajiv K. Fernando to the International Security Advisory Board in 2011. “The true answer,” one official wrote at the time, explaining the inclusion of Fernando on a list of candidates, is that Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills “added him.”

Fernando had also been a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, the global charity started by former president Bill Clinton. He resigned the board position shortly after ABC News inquired about the appointment in 2011.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill noted the board was a volunteer advisory panel, its charter called for members with a diverse set of experiences, and that this was one of several foreign policy-oriented organizations with which Fernando was involved.

[Soul Crusher]

EXCLUSIVE: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.

Drudge linked to

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/30/exclusive-state-department-wont-release-clinton-foundation-emails-for-27-months/

[Soul Crusher]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/30/bill-clinton-and-loretta-lynch-dont-have-an-optics-problem-they-have-a-corruption-problem


HillCUNT is already setting this up as a corrupt Admn

[Soul Crusher]

If Hillary Clinton Is Indicted, Would Bernie Sanders Be The Nominee? There's No Guarantee
Bustle ^ | July 1, 2016 | Cheyna Roth
Posted on July 1, 2016 9:38:06 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet

On Friday in a press conference, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed to "accept" investigators' and prosecutors' recommendations regarding whether to indict presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's alleged use of an insecure email server. This announcement set aside whisperings that Lynch would be a safety net for Clinton if an indictment was recommended, particularly in light of a certain tarmac rendezvous with Bill. While Clinton waits to hear her fate, some wonder if an indictment would help the all-but-defunct campaign of her rival, Bernie Sanders. Looking at the inevitable domino reaction that could come with an indicted presidential candidate, the question becomes, could Sanders become the nominee if Clinton is indicted?

Let's start with what happens to Clinton if she is indicted. Nothing in the Constitution says Clinton has to step down if she is indicted. In fact, as long as Clinton is still a natural-born citizen, over the age of 35, that has been living in the United States for at least the last 14 years, she can still be president. However, like anyone who has ever gotten turned down for a job, just because you meet the basic qualifications, doesn't mean you will get the gig. Clinton has a solid but not huge lead in recent polls over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump; Fox News has her polling at 44 percent to Trump's 38. With that standing, she would likely be pressured by Democrats to step down and make way for a less tarnished candidate — no doubt to Trump yelling, "Crooked. Crooked" while ringing a bell, à la Cersei Lannister's walk of atonement.....

(Excerpt) Read more at bustle.com ...

[Skeletor]

WTF

[Soul Crusher]

Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules
By Daniel Halper July 4, 2016 | 12:52am
Modal Trigger Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules
Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton Photo: Splash News
MORE ON:

THE HILLARY EMAILS

Loretta Lynch falls under the Clintons' corrupting influence

Hillary's latest shower of email shoes

Clinton interviewed by FBI about private email server

Lynch may be forced to charge Hillary after Bill's shady powwow
Hillary Clinton’s closest aide revealed in a deposition last week that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those public records.

Huma Abedin was deposed in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit into Clinton’s emails — but her admission could be relevant to another lawsuit seeking Clinton’s schedules.

“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that . . . that certainly happened on . . . on more than one occasion,” Abedin told lawyers representing Judicial Watch, the conservative organization behind the emails lawsuit.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––



Abedin made the surprising admission in response to a question about document destruction at the Department of State. A lawyer for Judicial Watch asked: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”

‘I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag.’
 - Richard Grenell, former diplomat
Abedin was not pressed for more details.

Clinton has admitted to destroying “private personal emails” as secretary of state. But Abedin’s admission that she used so-called “burn bags” — a container that material is placed in before it is destroyed — for some of her schedules is the first time anyone close to her has disclosed destroying public records.

The exact circumstances surrounding those destroyed records will likely come under intense scrutiny, critics said.

A former State Department official told The Post it was unprecedented for a diplomat to destroy a schedule like this.

“I spent eight years at the State Department and watched as four US ambassadors and two secretaries of state shared their daily schedules with a variety of State Department employees and US officials,” said Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations.

Modal Trigger
Huma AbedinPhoto: AP
“I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag — because every one of them had a state.gov email address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law.”

Others said Clinton’s careful approach to her schedule further highlights her recklessness in using a personal server for all her email communications.

“The [president’s] schedule was not classified but it was deemed ‘highly sensitive.’ Instructions were given at the White House and on the road that schedules would be disposed of through the use of ‘burn bags’ and/or shredding,” said Brad Blakeman, a scheduler for President George W. Bush.

“This shows, in my opinion, a skewed sense of security. The Clinton people would dispose of the secretary’s schedule in the same manner as if it were classified yet those same safeguards were not in place with regard to email communications.”

Ambassador John Bolton, a Clinton critic, said the matter shows Clinton’s “recklessness” regarding her emails. But he noted it’s unlikely Clinton could have completely destroyed her schedules.

“They can’t eliminate it even if they wanted to,” Bolton said.

The Associated Press has been seeking Clinton’s schedule through Freedom of Information Act requests asking for Clinton’s public and private calendars and schedules from Jan. 21, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013. The wire service sued the State Department for those schedules in 2015.

[Soul Crusher]

Sen. D’Amato Drops Bomb: Hillary Allowed Russia to Take Ownership of US Uranium to Sell to Iran
Gateway Pundit ^ | 07/03/016 | Jim Hoft
Posted on 7/5/2016, 6:28:29 AM by Enlightened1

Former Senator Al D’Amato (R-NY) dropped a bomb on Sunday Morning Futures this AM. D’Amato told Maria Bartiromo that Hillary allowed Russia to take ownership of US uranium so they could sell it to Iran.

Hillary made it possible for the Russians to take control of one of our huge uranium producers and allow them to own the company, export the uranium and who do they sell the uranium to? Iran! Now if people knew that and that the foundation as a result of that got $135 million. I think people would start saying, “What?”

Former Senator Al D’Amato (R-NY) dropped a bomb on Sunday Morning Futures this AM. D’Amato told Maria Bartiromo that Hillary allowed Russia to take ownership of US uranium so they could sell it to Iran.

Hillary made it possible for the Russians to take control of one of our huge uranium producers and allow them to own the company, export the uranium and who do they sell the uranium to? Iran! Now if people knew that and that the foundation as a result of that got $135 million. I think people would start saying, “What?”

It’s true.
In January 2013, Pravda celebrated the Russian atomic energy agency’s purchase of the company “Uranium One” in Canada.


(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Here's Why FBI Director Comey Can't Give Hillary A Free Pass
Investors Business Daily ^ | Jul 2, 2016 | Scott S. Powell
Posted on 7/5/2016, 4:23:56 AM by Ray76

The facts known about actions taken by Hillary Clinton while secretary of state surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting government business show that she violated 10 federal statutes. Several are national-security-related felonies, just three of which include: 1. disclosure of classified information (22 documents were Top Secret), 2. unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents, and 3. destruction of evidence (erasure of the hard drive and deletion of some 30,000 emails by Secretary Clinton) after a government investigation had commenced (Benghazi hearings began Oct. 10, 2012).

Comey knows of a related but lesser law violation in handling classified material by General David Petraeus that was recently adjudicated. Petraeus was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years' probation for providing his personal notebooks containing classified information to his biographer, although no classified information was ever exposed. Hillary Clinton's email server containing more voluminous classified and Top Secret information was reportedly breached and exposed by notorious Romanian hacker "Guccifer" and by the Russians (who have 20,000 Clinton server emails in their possession). So Comey can't easily give Secretary Clinton a pass and at the same time be true to his oath of office.

The country is now at the edge of an abyss from years of obfuscation, unaccountability, subterfuge and law evasion by the Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry into an acceptance of government corruption and abuse of power.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

WHERE THE REAL STENCH IS WITH HILLARY
The Market-Ticker ^ | July 5, 2016 | Karl Denninger
Posted on 7/5/2016, 10:05:16 AM by SatinDoll

EmailGate is very, very bad.

The mere presence of SAP material on her "private" email server is a federal offense -- and should be. Sometimes described as "above top secret" these programs are no-BS "need to know" and you must be read into each one individually, then you must access whatever material is involved in a secured facility from which that material may not leave. There is no such thing as "having access to them" on a general basis, no matter who you are.

These programs typically deal with human intelligence of some form -- an agent on the ground in a foreign nation employed in a very sensitive role and operation. Divulging the material will cause great harm to national security, usually will get people killed outright and might start a war -- literally. That's not hyperbole -- it's real and is no joke.

That Hillary is reported to have had this material on her server means that at least two serious felonies occurred. First, the person who caused it to be there committed a serious federal offense, since there is literally no possible way for it to happen without multiple breaches of security protocols to have taken place sequentially, acts that cannot happen by accident.

Second, for Hillary to not immediately report same and deal with the fallout is a second federal offense.

And by the way, if Bill had access to it then he's in trouble too (and he probably did, and is.)

There are people who have a namby-pamby view of the world and who think that programs like this have no place in a civil society. Well, you're wrong. Other nations use them and we both do and have since our founding. The modern structure around them is (relatively) new but not this sort of program itself. Their presence and operations often save lives, sometimes hundreds or thousands of lives. They're important, but if you wish to argue the propriety of the programs themselves then go ahead and initiated that debate -- but in the meantime recognize that crapping all over them as they exist today may well get someone killed or even that a war might be initiated that leads to cities getting nuked -- and that the someone who that happens to might be or include you.

Nonetheless this is not the most-serious aspect of the Emailgate scandal. No, it's far worse folks -- it's the Clinton Foundation linkage.

There is already plenty of evidence in the public that the Clinton Foundation basically sold access to information and even secrets themselves to persons in other nations for "donations", and this is not something that happened without the knowledge of literally hundreds of people in our government, including at the highest levels, all of whom had a legal and national duty to prevent and report it.

That we have a candidate for President who was not only deeply involved in this she was the architect and chief steering agent for it is beyond outrageous. There are plenty of people who believe that Obama has basically sold out America to various foreign interests, including the Muslim Brotherhood. What Hillary appears to have been involved in is not only far worse it's far more-pervasive.

We shall see what the FBI and related agencies come up with here. We then shall see what Loretta Lynch does in response. I have often commented during this process that the mere presence of classified material on her "home grown" email server on its own is sufficient to bar her from running for President and ought to land her in prison, because it both is and should.

But that merely scratches the surface.

Remember that this pattern of conduct -- selling off American secrets for money by the Clintons -- is neither new or particularly surprising given Hillary and Bill Clinton's history. In 1996 Chinagate involved the transfer of satellite technology usable for the development of military purposes, including nuclear missiles, to China and millions of dollars of donations to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign by persons barred from donation because they were not Americans.

Judicial Watch went after this and ultimately prevailed; they not only prevailed they were awarded nearly a million dollars in attorneys fees and costs. Clinton administration officials destroyed records during this investigation as well in an attempt to prevent discovery and lied under oath.

In addition Yah Lin Trie pled guilty to violating campaign finance rules (which prohibit non-US sources or persons of funds for said donations or structuring to evade said rules) and over 100 other people either took the 5th or fled the country to avoid prosecution.

And let's not forget Marc Rich, who Clinton pardoned after he and his wife donated over a million dollars to the Clinton Presidential Library and campaigns combined. He subsequently fled the country to avoid being imprisoned for tax evasion and died in 2013 -- in Switzerland, having successfully avoided punishment.

Whatever you may think of Democrats generally and Hillary personally the premise that laws intended to protect not only the integrity of this nation but our military secrets are something that can be bought and sold by persons for their own personal political and financial interests is something you must reject using whatever means are available -- and necessary.

Hillary is facially disqualified by the laws of the United States from being President, or for that matter, holding any office in our government.

That we continue to allow someone who is tantamount to Senator Palpatine to continue with this charade is an outrage. If it continues, and leads to her election, it very well may destroy our nation.

Hillary Clinton, along with the rest of her cabal, must face indictment and prosecution -- not election.

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/588c1ba16f51484e8e0010b12b9e8b28/ap-fact-check-clinton-email-claims-collapse-under-fbi-probe

[Soul Crusher]

FBI’s baffling rescue of Hillary is turning America into a banana republic
New York Post ^ | July 5, 2016 | By Charles Gasparino
Posted on 7/6/2016, 6:01:02 PM by Hojczyk

What makes this whole sordid set of facts so damning is that before yesterday, Comey was considered one of the nation’s most trusted and apolitical beat cops. He was, after all, appointed US attorney for the Southern District by a Republican president, George W. Bush, and FBI chief by a Democrat, Obama.

Indeed, when Lynch all but turned the case over to him last week, many (including me) believed the rule of law would actually prevail, particularly since FBI staffers made no secret in law enforcement circles that they believed Clinton’s conduct merited some legal rebuke.

But Tuesday, Comey was anything but apolitical. Yes, he said, he found lots of classified stuff passing through Clinton’s personal email server that shouldn’t have been. He said “there is evidence that [Clinton and her team] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified” information and that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statute regarding the handling of classified information.”

Yes, there are laws that make sure government officials use government email accounts that are more secure and easier to monitor for possible abuse than those kept on private servers monitored by no one, except possibly someone at the Clinton Foundation.

And yet Comey said there was no case to be made because Hillary didn’t show enough “intent” to violate the laws. This is coming from a guy who as Manhattan US attorney once indicted a Wall Street banker for a 22-word email that could’ve been construed three different ways. (The case was later successfully appealed and, after a deferred-prosecution agreement, put to rest.)

In the meantime, the real loser is the rule of law and, of course, the American people, who have to live in a country that might soon be renamed “The Banana Republic of America.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

[Primemuscle]

FBI’s baffling rescue of Hillary is turning America into a banana republic
New York Post ^ | July 5, 2016 | By Charles Gasparino
Posted on 7/6/2016, 6:01:02 PM by Hojczyk

What makes this whole sordid set of facts so damning is that before yesterday, Comey was considered one of the nation’s most trusted and apolitical beat cops. He was, after all, appointed US attorney for the Southern District by a Republican president, George W. Bush, and FBI chief by a Democrat, Obama.

Indeed, when Lynch all but turned the case over to him last week, many (including me) believed the rule of law would actually prevail, particularly since FBI staffers made no secret in law enforcement circles that they believed Clinton’s conduct merited some legal rebuke.

But Tuesday, Comey was anything but apolitical. Yes, he said, he found lots of classified stuff passing through Clinton’s personal email server that shouldn’t have been. He said “there is evidence that [Clinton and her team] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified” information and that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statute regarding the handling of classified information.”

Yes, there are laws that make sure government officials use government email accounts that are more secure and easier to monitor for possible abuse than those kept on private servers monitored by no one, except possibly someone at the Clinton Foundation.

And yet Comey said there was no case to be made because Hillary didn’t show enough “intent” to violate the laws. This is coming from a guy who as Manhattan US attorney once indicted a Wall Street banker for a 22-word email that could’ve been construed three different ways. (The case was later successfully appealed and, after a deferred-prosecution agreement, put to rest.)

In the meantime, the real loser is the rule of law and, of course, the American people, who have to live in a country that might soon be renamed “The Banana Republic of America.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

I was wondering when you were going to chime in. You had much to say in the 2012 Presidential election.

[Soul Crusher]

I was wondering when you were going to chime in. You had much to say in the 2012 Presidential election.

Hillary is a disgusting evil CVNT traitor and pos.  the only ones worse than her are those making excuses for her.

[Soul Crusher]

Jill Stein: Prosecute Clinton for Reckless Abuses of National Security [Green Party]
Jill2016 ^ | 07/06/16 | Jill Stein
Posted on 7/7/2016, 2:24:51 AM by Robwin

Jill Stein made the following statement about the FBI decision regarding Hillary Clinton's violations of national security laws as Secretary of State.

Today FBI Director James Comey described Hillary Clinton's email communications as Secretary of State as "extremely careless." His statement undermined the defenses Clinton put forward, stating the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton's server that were classified at the time they were sent or received; eight contained information classified at the highest level, "top secret," at the time they were sent. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton's repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails.

All the elements necessary to prove a felony violation were found by the FBI investigation, specifically of Title 18 Section 793(f) of the federal penal code, a law ensuring proper protection of highly classified information. Director Comey said that Clinton was "extremely careless" in handling such information. Contrary to the implications of the FBI statement, the law does not require showing that Clinton intended to harm the United States, but that she acted with gross negligence.

The recent State Department Inspector General (IG) report was clear that Clinton blithely disregarded safeguards to protect the most highly classified national security information and that she included on her unprotected email server the names of covert CIA officers. The disclosure of such information is a felony under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

While the FBI is giving Clinton a pass for not "intending" to betray state secrets, her staff has said Secretary Clinton stated she used her private email system because she did not want her personal emails to become accessible under FOI laws. This is damning on two counts – that she intended to disregard the protection of security information, and that she had personal business to conceal.

(Excerpt) Read more at jill2016.com ...

[andreisdaman]

This thead is another waste of time...just more insane rantings

[Soul Crusher]

This thead is another waste of time...just more insane rantings

Just keep those welfare checks flowing right?

[andreisdaman]

Just keep those welfare checks flowing right?

Might as well...those government loans that got you through law school are still flowing as well aren't they???

[Soul Crusher]

Might as well...those government loans that got you through law school are still flowing as well aren't they???

I paid all my loans back and pay taxes.   Land whales scarfing down lobsters, steaks, grape juice, Colt 45's, OE, and biscuits contribute what again?

[Soul Crusher]

[Soul Crusher]

[Dos Equis]

Brutal. 

[Skeletor]

1:58

Let's see.. I wouldn't hold my breath though.


Chaffetz: "Did the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?"

Comey: "Not to my knowledge, I don't think there's been a referral from Congress"

Chaffetz: “Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?”

Comey: “Sure do”

Chaffetz: “You’ll have one, you’ll have one in the next few hours.”

[Skeletor]

State Department reopens internal probe of Clinton emails

The State Department is re-opening an internal investigation into whether Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her top aides mishandled classified information, Fox News confirmed late Thursday.

The investigation, which was first reported by the Associated Press, focuses on how classified emails to and from Clinton's private server were categorized at the time they were sent.

The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton's private server to be "top secret." The investigation was halted after the FBI began investigating Clinton's so-called "homebrew" email setup last April. On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said there would be no indictments resulting from the FBI probe.

"Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement, the State Department intends to conduct its internal review," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. "Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations."

Kirby set no deadline for the investigation's completion.

Clinton was secretary of state until early 2013. Most of her top advisers left shortly thereafter.

Kirby said earlier this week that former officials can still face "administrative sanctions." The most serious of those penalties is loss of security clearances, which could complicate Clinton's naming of a national security team if she becomes president.

Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is most likely examining confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton's former policy chief, could be national security adviser.
The State Department says it won't identify former officials that still hold security clearances. But in an email Fox News made public in February, the department described Mills as still holding a valid clearance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/07/state-department-reopens-internal-probe-clinton-emails.html

[Soul Crusher]

Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie: The Quick List of Clinton’s Eight E-mail Lies (Carlos Barria/Reuters) SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE   TWEET ARTICLETWEET   PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1   PRINT ARTICLE   ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by CELINA DURGIN   July 8, 2016 4:00 AM

Actually, a truly quick list is not possible, because she told so many, so often. James Comey, the FBI director, said in a statement Tuesday that the FBI would not recommend Hillary Clinton for indictment for using a private e-mail address and server for work communication while secretary of state. But he also detailed the findings of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private server — disproving several of eight major lies she has told multiple times since the investigation into her private server began.

Here are those eight lies, debunked.

1. Lie: She didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.” Clinton told this to reporters at a press conference March 10, 2015. She repeated it at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser July 25 and at a Democratic debate February 4, 2016. Once the investigation into Clinton’s e-mails began, the FBI began retroactively classifying some of the work-related e-mails she had released. So Clinton probably opted to dodge the issue by qualifying her statement, saying that no e-mails she sent were classified “at the time.” Truth: Comey said that the FBI found at least 110 e-mails that were classified at the time Clinton sent or received them — 52 e-mail chains in all, including eight Top Secret (the highest classification level) chains.

2. Lie: She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time. Clinton made this claim most recently July 3, 2016, on Meet the Press. She first made the claim August 26, 2015, at an Iowa news conference. She repeated it at Fox News town hall March 7, 2016; at a Democratic debate March 9; at a New York news conference March 1; and on Face the Nation May 8. Clinton again appeared to spin the facts emerging in the investigation. This time, she suggested that even if the FBI were now classifying some of her e-mails, she couldn’t be held responsible since the e-mails lacked any mark of classification at the time they were sent or received. Some wondered what she even meant by “marked” classified, while others pointed out that lack of markings was no defense for mishandling the information — which the secretary of state, of all people, should have judged to be sensitive. Truth: Comey confirmed suspicions about Clinton’s claim by noting that a “small number” of the e-mails were, in fact, marked classified. Moreover, he added: “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

3. Lie: She turned over all of her work-related e-mails. Clinton said this on MSNBC September 4, 2015; at a Fox News town hall March 7, 2016; and at a New York press conference March 10. It’s important to remember that Clinton made this claim about the 30,000 e-mails she and her attorneys chose to provide to the State Department. After turning over paper copies of these 30,000, she and her attorneys then unilaterally deleted another 32,000 that they deemed personal. Truth: The FBI found “thousands” of work-related e-mails other than those Clinton had provided; they were in various officials’ mailboxes and in the server’s slack space. Clinton’s attorneys “did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails,” Comey said. “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.” Though Comey denied he saw evidence of ill intent, he said: It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them. . . . 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.  (Remember the “server-wipe” speculation?)

4. Lie: She wanted to use a personal e-mail account for convenience and simplicity, streamlining to one device. Clinton said she used one device on CNN July 7, 2015, and at a New York press conference March 10. Truth: Clinton used multiple servers, administrators, and mobile devices, including an iPad and a Blackberry, to access her e-mail on her personal domain. “As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways,” Comey explained. “Piecing all of that back together — to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work — has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.” 5.

Lie: Clinton’s use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation. Clinton made this claim in an interview on CNN July 7, 2015; in a campaign statement in July 2015; and at the Democratic primary debates in Las Vegas on October 13, 2015. Truth: No: A May report issued by the State Department’s inspector general found that it has been department policy since 2005 that work communication be restricted to government servers. While the IG allowed for occasional use of personal e-mail in emergencies, Clinton used her personal e-mail exclusively for all work communication.

6. Lie: All of Clinton’s e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses. Clinton made this claim at a New York press conference May 10, 2015. Crucially, Clinton told reporters that she exclusively used her personal e-mail because she thought her messages were always saved in the e-mail threads of senior department officials who used @.gov accounts. Truth: The State Department did not begin automatically capturing and preserving e-mails until February 2015, two years after Clinton left the State Department.

7. Lie: There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking. Clinton made the “safeguards” claim at a New York press conference March 10, 2015, and her former tech aide made the “no evidence” claim March 3, 2016. Truth: Among the “safeguards” of Clinton’s server were Secret Service members — but this is no safeguard at all where the Internet is concerned. Further, Comey noted: None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Your Gmail account is more secure than Hillary’s personal e-mail. Which is to say: Your Gmail account is more secure than Hillary’s personal e-mail. There is some evidence of a possible breach. Comey said: Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. Clinton’s “no evidence” claim is less of a bald lie than a concealment of strong possibility. She also failed to report several hacking attempts.


 8. Lie: Clinton was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use. Clinton said this in a CNN interview July 7, 2015. Truth: The next day, July 8, the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, accused Clinton of lying about not receiving a subpoena. Gowdy said in a statement: “The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy.” — Celina Durgin is a Collegiate Network fellow at National Review. Did you like this?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437606/hillary-clintons-eight-email-lies-exposed-james-comey