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

[Soul Crusher]

Dozens of Hillary Clinton Emails About Benghazi Found in 15,000 Messages She Kept from FBI
90
5
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton looks on as she was looking at a smartphone when she leaves a fundraiser at a private home in Southampton, N.Y., Sunday, Aug. 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
by BREITBART NEWS30 Aug 2016373
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

email address
SUBMIT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department says about 30 emails that may be related to the 2012 attack on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, are among the thousands of Hillary Clinton emails recovered during the FBI’s recently closed investigation into her use of a private server.
Government lawyers told U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta Tuesday that an undetermined number of the emails among the 30 were not included in the 55,000 pages previously provided by Clinton. The State Department’s lawyer said it would need until the end of September to review the emails and redact potentially classified information before they are released.

Mehta questioned why it would take so long to release so few documents, and urged that the process be sped up. He ordered the department to report to him in a week with more details about why the review process would take a full month.

Video: Nearly 15,000 New Hillary Clinton Emails Recovered as Part of FBI Probe


The hearing was held in one of several lawsuits filed by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, which has sued over access to government records involving the Democratic presidential nominee. The State Department has said the FBI provided it with about 14,900 emails purported not to have been among those previously released.

Clinton previously had said she withheld and deleted only personal emails not related to her duties as secretary of state. With the November election little more than two months away, Republicans are pressing for the release of as many documents related to Clinton as possible.

In a separate development Tuesday, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press that the FBI is expected to release documents soon related to its investigation, which focused on whether Clinton and her aides mishandled government secrets.

The official, who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter by name and spoke on condition of anonymity, said documents in the case would be made public as the FBI responds to Freedom of Information Act requests. It wasn’t immediately clear when the documents would be released or exactly what they would include.

Though he described Clinton’s actions as “extremely careless,” FBI Director James Comey said his agents found no evidence that anyone intended to break the law and said “no reasonable prosecutor” would have brought a criminal case.

The FBI this month provided Congress portions of its file from the agency’s yearlong investigation.

The FBI interviewed Clinton for several hours at FBI headquarters in Washington just days before announcing its decision to close the investigation. The Justice Department accepted the FBI’s recommendation.

[Yamcha]

Dozens of Hillary Clinton Emails About Benghazi Found in 15,000 Messages She Kept from FBI
90
5
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton looks on as she was looking at a smartphone when she leaves a fundraiser at a private home in Southampton, N.Y., Sunday, Aug. 28, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
by BREITBART NEWS30 Aug 2016373
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

email address
SUBMIT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department says about 30 emails that may be related to the 2012 attack on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, are among the thousands of Hillary Clinton emails recovered during the FBI’s recently closed investigation into her use of a private server.
Government lawyers told U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta Tuesday that an undetermined number of the emails among the 30 were not included in the 55,000 pages previously provided by Clinton. The State Department’s lawyer said it would need until the end of September to review the emails and redact potentially classified information before they are released.

Mehta questioned why it would take so long to release so few documents, and urged that the process be sped up. He ordered the department to report to him in a week with more details about why the review process would take a full month.

Video: Nearly 15,000 New Hillary Clinton Emails Recovered as Part of FBI Probe


The hearing was held in one of several lawsuits filed by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, which has sued over access to government records involving the Democratic presidential nominee. The State Department has said the FBI provided it with about 14,900 emails purported not to have been among those previously released.

Clinton previously had said she withheld and deleted only personal emails not related to her duties as secretary of state. With the November election little more than two months away, Republicans are pressing for the release of as many documents related to Clinton as possible.

In a separate development Tuesday, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press that the FBI is expected to release documents soon related to its investigation, which focused on whether Clinton and her aides mishandled government secrets.

The official, who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter by name and spoke on condition of anonymity, said documents in the case would be made public as the FBI responds to Freedom of Information Act requests. It wasn’t immediately clear when the documents would be released or exactly what they would include.

Though he described Clinton’s actions as “extremely careless,” FBI Director James Comey said his agents found no evidence that anyone intended to break the law and said “no reasonable prosecutor” would have brought a criminal case.

The FBI this month provided Congress portions of its file from the agency’s yearlong investigation.

The FBI interviewed Clinton for several hours at FBI headquarters in Washington just days before announcing its decision to close the investigation. The Justice Department accepted the FBI’s recommendation.

Surely the FBI, State Dept., will do something about this.... 

[Soul Crusher]

NEWS EXCLUSIVE
Clinton emailed classified information after leaving State Dept.
By Daniel Halper August 31, 2016 | 7:56am
Modal Trigger Clinton emailed classified information after leaving State Dept.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her cellphone. Photo: Getty Images
SEE ALSO
 'It's outrageous': Clinton's aides had concerns about email setup
'It's outrageous': Clinton's aides had concerns about email setup
Hillary Clinton continued sending classified information even after leaving the State Department, The Post has exclusively learned.

On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––



The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

The email from Clinton was sent from the email account — hrod17@clintonemail.com — associated with her private email server.

The email’s recipients were Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The “123 Deal” was a 2009 agreement between the United Arab Emirates and the US on materials and technological sharing for nuclear energy production.

“Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was so pervasive, it continued after she left government,” Republican National Committee research director Raj Shah told The Post. “She clearly can’t be trusted with our nation’s security.”

Clinton is believed to have sent 2,101 emails that contained at least some classified information.

FILED UNDER

[Soul Crusher]

On Tuesday, The Post’s Daniel Halper broke the news that Hillary Clinton continued recklessly mishandling classified information even after stepping down as secretary of state. The revelation is bracing — but hardly surprising.

We already knew Clinton’s e-mail practices remained a national-security vulnerability after she left the State Department at the end of President Obama’s first term.

For nearly two years, she maintained the servers through which her unauthorized, non-secure homebrew communication system had operated. As we now know, about 62,000 e-mails were stored on those servers, over 2,000 of which contained classified information, including some of the most sensitive national-defense secrets — and the highly classified sources and methods for acquiring those secrets — maintained by our government.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––



The latest classified e-mail disclosure is a joke. The document is so chockablock with classified information — meaning, it is so thoroughly redacted — that the State Department might just as well have issued a blank page. This reminds us of how cynically the Democrats’ presidential nominee looked the American people in the eye and assured us, for over a year, that she never sent or received classified information.

When this preposterous claim was exploded, she tried Clintonian parsing: none of the e-mails, we were told, was “marked classified.” But the latest e-mail discovery illustrates how farcical this talking-point has always been.

Officials with security clearances know the categories of information that are classified pursuant to an executive order — whether they’re “marked” as such or not. Clinton not only knew the rules; she was in charge of enforcing them throughout her department.

And in any event, as Comey conceded, Clinton did send and receive some e-mails with classified markings.

We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she’d surrendered every single government business-related e-mail upon the State Department’s request.

This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy thousands of e-mails which, like the one The Post describes, involved government business — some of it highly sensitive and significant (such as the 30 e-mails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government records to one’s own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if no classified information is involved.

Of course the Obama Justice Department was never going to indict the Democrats’ nominee (who, if she wins, would be positioned to reappoint Loretta Lynch as attorney general). But, in recommending against the filing of criminal charges (which he could only do by contorting statutes under which Clinton was clearly culpable), Comey noted that officials in Clinton’s shoes normally face “security and administrative sanctions.”

Translation: they have their security clearances revoked and are fired.

How could someone who should not be allowed to work for the government, much less have access to classified information, be permitted to stand for the presidency? It’s a question Congress should very publicly be exploring, even if the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign seek to sweep it under the rug.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and a contributing editor at National Review.

[Soul Crusher]

Why Hillary Is Never Held Accountable for Her Lies (Reuters photo: Mary Schwalm)

by VICTOR DAVIS HANSON   

August 30, 2016 9:57 AM @VDHANSON

The media excuse her mendacity because it serves the progressive cause. Everyone rightly catalogues Donald Trump’s fibs, distortions, and exaggerations: his assertions about his net worth, his charitable contributions, his initial supposed opposition to the Iraq War, or his “flexible” positions on illegal immigration. After all, he is flamboyant, right-wing in his present incarnation, and supposedly bends the truth either out of crass narcissism or for petty profiteering. So the watchdog media and popular culture have no problem with ridiculing Trump as a fabricator. But not so with Hillary Clinton, whose untruths far overshadow Trump’s in both import and frequency, but are so often contextualized, excused, and forgotten because of who she is and the purpose her outright lying supposedly serves. Lying in America has become not lying when “good” liars advance alternative narratives for noble purposes — part of our long slide into situational ethics and moral relativism. Every new bad idea in America today can ultimately be traced to the university. And it seems to take only about 30 years for academia’s nihilism to filter through the elite institutions and make its way into popular culture. So it is with our present idea of truth as a mere construct. In the 1980s and 1990s professors in the liberal arts became enamored of the French-speaking postmodern nihilists — among them notably Paul de Man, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan.

They refashioned an old philosophical strain of relativism found as far back as the Greek sophists and Plato’s discussion of the noble lie. They were influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche’s attacks on absolute morality, and their youth was lived during the age of Joseph Goebbels and Pravda. The utter collapse of France in six weeks in May and June 1940 and the later shame that most of the nation either was passive or actively collaborated with the Nazi occupiers rather than proving brave resistance fighters made the idea of empiricism and truth an especially hard pill to swallow for the postwar French postmodernists.

While this group comprised quite different thinkers, they mostly agreed that reality was socially constructed and arbitrarily defined by the language of those in power. In fact, “truth” for a postmodernist is supposedly what those who control us say it is, largely in efforts to perpetuate their own race, class, and gender privilege. You can see how thoroughly popular culture has picked up this mostly banal relativist observation and transformed it into “the Truth”—and why today we assume that lying is simply a narrative,  not a window into one’s character. RELATED: Habitual Liar Lies

Habitually Relativist slogans abound (e.g., “One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”). “Hands up, don’t shoot” was never uttered by Michael Brown, who was not an innocent “gentle giant” but a strong-armed robber who sought to take a policeman’s gun and then charged at the cop. But since his fictitious last utterances should be true, therefore they are and, presto! became the slogan of Black Lives Matter. In the opposite fashion, there is to be no such thing as Black Lives Matter protestors calling for frying police or killing cops, since negation of the truth serves a far more noble purpose than would confirmation. Orwell was onto the game far earlier than the French postmodernists. He rightly saw it as a postwar pathway of the Left to assuming and keeping power: What was written on the barn wall on Monday as an absolute commandment was crossed out and replaced on Tuesday, in the fashion that the Soviet Union used to airbrush out sudden enemies of the people from all past pictorial records. Who knew what the party line would be by Wednesday? What frightened Orwell was not so much lying British industrialists or celebrities, but officers of the state who sought to dismiss the idea of the truth itself and justify the dismissal on ideological grounds.

All of Hillary Clinton’s Lies Are Premeditated “People’s Republic” after 1946 usually meant that the Communist country in question was never a republic or ratified by a vote of the people. “Sanctuary cities” today have neither the legal right nor the moral weight to offer exemption from federal immigration law. They do not serve any purpose other than self-interested “nullification” of the law in the fashion of 1850s Confederate states that arbitrarily declared federal statutes null and void in their jurisdictions. We know how that construct ended up. Gender is now defined not by biology, but by culture or suspect patriarchically constructed norms. “Undocumented migrant” replaces “illegal alien” even as those who crossed illegally into the U.S. never had any documents to begin with, were foreign nationals, and were migrants going into the U.S., not mere directionless travelers.

Both Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill are Native Americans because they say they are. To question them on the basis that neither has any proven Indian ancestry is simply to offer a competing narrative, and one driven by racism, not their sort of altruism. RELATED: Estrangement from the Truth Is a Problem for Hillary If Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King reconstruct themselves as black Americans, then their “stories” are as legitimate as any others, given their progressive agendas and their antitheses to the white male power structure. When Hillary falls into her phony black patois to talk down to African-American audiences, in an accidental caricature of a snooty suburbanite trying to seem cool or authentic, she is no more false than she was earlier in her Annie Oakley incarnation of 2008, when she quaffed boilermakers and bowled to appeal to Obama’s despised clingers.

All these are mere narrative moments, but disturbing evidence that she cheaply peddles identities for votes.

We claim there is no such thing as “truth,” as assertions gain credulity only by the degree of wealth and influence behind them (white, male, Christian heterosexuals usually are the bogeymen who establish self-interested “standards” of accuracy and fidelity). So fables in service to a progressive cause are not lying, as they would be if in league with reactionary forces. Barack Obama can make up narratives about under-appreciated Islamic catalysts for the Western Renaissance or Enlightenment in his Cairo Speech because such mythmaking serves a noble cause of stopping “Islamophobia” and thus deserves the artificial currency of “truth.” Obama himself can invent large chunks of his “autobiography” and it is neither a lie nor a fable, given that his principled intent was to enlighten us about the burdens of growing up as the Other.

The Moral Universe of Liars Lying for a Brian Williams or plagiarism for a Doris Kearns Goodwin or Fareed Zakaria can be passed off as the shoddy work of subordinates, or “misremembering,” or symptomatic of too full a schedule (not egoism, laziness, or efforts at career enhancement), given that all serve the progressive gods. In 2012 the progressive future of the country hinged on the reelection of Barack Obama, so naturally ensuring that the imploding Middle East was quiet and that al-Qaeda was somnolent demanded a “truth” that an obscure videomaker and Islamophobic bigot had enraged otherwise peace-loving Muslims and incited them to burn down our consulate in Benghazi — an isolated act that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Fables in service to a progressive cause are not lying, as they would be if in league with reactionary forces If that narrative meant that National Security Adviser Susan Rice had to lie five times on Sunday talk shows, or Hillary Clinton had to deceive the families of the Benghazi dead, or Barack Obama’s Justice Department had to jail Nakoula Basseley Nakoula on a trumped-up old probation charge, then the ends of an Obama reelection more than outweighed the unethical means of achieving it. In each case, “conflicting narratives” or the “fog of war” made the idea of one absolute truth absurd.

Who is to say whether $400 million in nocturnal cash transfers to the Iranians for hostages is, or is not, “ransom”? Almost everything Hillary Clinton has said about her current scandals is a lie: No other secretary of state used a personal server; Colin Powell was certainly not her model for lawbreaking; she really did send and receive classified materials that she at the time knew were classified; she did not have lawyers examine all of her personal e-mails that she destroyed; they were not mostly about Chelsea and yoga; she did not accurately inform authorities of the actual number of her personal e-mails; there was no firewall between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation; rich individuals did meet with the secretary of state in a fashion that they would otherwise not have been able to, had they not donated vast amounts of money. And on and on. Again, all lies, but lies that in postmodern culture are merely competing progressive narratives that translate into the vulgar media as “Who is to say what pay-to-play actually is?” Did anyone care that progressive Hillary long ago lied about her rigged $1,000 cattle-future investment beating 34 trillion to 1 odds to earn her $100,000, or her supposed foray into a combat zone in Serbia? Clinton’s lies, past and present, are fobbed off as either fantasies of right-wing conspiracists, who hope to derail her progressive agenda, or as psychodramas of a struggling progressive couple trying to do good.

Either that, or they are minor problems of communication, or were courageous stances taken to advance the cause of the poor, the dispossessed, and the children.

The problem with the Clintons and all postmodern liars goes back to Epimenides’ ancient paradox of the Cretan liar: “All Cretans are liars.” Are we then to believe that the Cretan Epimenides was lying when he insisted that all Cretans (like himself) lie? Were Cretans, then, liars or not? Was Hillary lying when she set up the private server, when she explained away her criminal behavior, or when she insisted she had not lied about her prior lying about lying? Postmodernist Hillary, however, does believe in absolute truth when it is a matter of checks to the Clinton Foundation not bouncing and aviation fuel being purchased for private jets. Postmodernists do not believe that truth exists for others in the abstract; but for themselves it most certainly does and advantageously so in the concrete. The danger to democracy is never from the bad liars who patently fabricate for self, but from the sophisticated and progressive good liars who lie that their untruth is truth because it was all made up for us. —

 NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439505/hillary-clinton-lies-progressives-look-other-way

[Yamcha]

Politico: Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email server

Program for ex-presidents paid salaries and benefits to Clinton aides at the center of controversies.

http://archive.is/dB3J2#selection-7311.1-7317.102

Bill Clinton's staff used a decades-old federal government program, originally created to keep former presidents out of the poorhouse, to subsidize his family’s foundation and an associated business, and to support his wife’s private email server, a POLITICO investigation has found.

Taxpayer cash was used to buy IT equipment — including servers — housed at the Clinton Foundation, and also to supplement the pay and benefits of several aides now at the center of the email and cash-for-access scandals dogging Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

This investigation, which is based on records obtained from the General Services Administration through the Freedom of Information Act, does not reveal anything illegal. But it does offer fresh evidence of how the Clintons blurred the line between their non-profit foundation, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the business dealings of Bill Clinton and the couple’s aides.

[Soul Crusher]

The Clinton Foundation Was Designed For Two-Way Bribery

The Clinton Foundation would represent a source of power to the Clintons unlike those enjoyed by any previous American president. This corruption machine should be shut down.

Kyle Sammin By Kyle Sammin

AUGUST 29, 2016

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has begun to attack the Clinton Foundation, the global nonprofit corporation Bill and Hillary Clinton started after Bill left the White House in 2001. Trump characterized the foundation, to which he has donated, as a “business to profit from public office,” and called it a threat to American democracy. Trump and members of his campaign staff have called for the foundation to be shut down.

Trump’s comments strike at Hillary Clinton’s most obvious vulnerability. One of her deepest flaws as a candidate is that the voters do not trust her. The reason for that distrust, by and large, is her long record of lying in public. Most of those lies, since she and Bill left the White House, have been about the Clinton Foundation and how its activities and fundraising overlapped with her duties as secretary of State.


Even Clinton’s hometown scribes at The New York Times have been forced to admit that the foundation’s aggressive fundraising, especially among foreign leaders and governments, will necessarily lead to conflicts of interest should she win the presidency, as now seems likely.

The Damage Is Done
The foundation’s existing problems are well-chronicled and, given the mainstream media’s fixation on and reactions to Trump, surprisingly well-covered. Jim Geraghty summarized the situation last week for National Review: “Foreign governments and individuals give large amounts of cash to an account controlled by a secretary of state and likely future president, an arrangement that smells fishy to the FBI and looks corrupt to everyone not within the Clintons’ orbit, but the Department of Justice tells everyone not to worry.” The corruption, even if it ended today, would continue to stain the Clintons’ already tattered public reputation.

Bill and Hillary have said recently that they would resign from their leadership roles in the foundation if they return to the executive mansion next year. But the continuation of the foundation, controlled by friends of Bill and Hill, possibly even led by their daughter, Chelsea, would still represent an obvious conflict of interest.


Trump has often been criticized for saying that, if elected, he would transfer his business holdings to a “blind trust” run by his children—something that does not meet the traditional meaning of “blind trust.” Now, Clinton offers to make the same sham transaction, putting her and her husband’s financial non-profit empire into “independent” hands, which are obviously not independent under any normal definition of the word, as several ethicists noted in a Politico article published Thursday morning.

It Could Get Worse
The potential for harm is monumental and unprecedented. All of the money flowing into the foundation, even if those donations are restricted to those by individual American citizens, would create the appearance of corruption, if not corruption itself. This was the logic the Supreme Court used to justify limits on campaign donations by individuals in the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo.

The theory behind that case, beloved on the Left for its limitation of First Amendment principles, surely applies to the Clintons and their foundation. The money may not go directly into the pockets of Hillary’s pantsuits, but in donating to a corporation founded by the Clintons, named after the Clintons, and staffed by the Clintons’ longtime friends, every donor knows he is effectively doing the same thing. For the purpose of political influence, the Clintons and their foundation are one and the same.


Less discussed is the problem of the money flowing out of the corporation. Usually, we worry about politicians taking bribes, but politicians who can pay bribes also pose a threat to the balance of power in Washington. This agglomeration of financial and political power was one of the things that made Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi such a stain on the escutcheon of that nation.

By leveraging the fortune accumulated through his vast communications empire, Berlusconi was able to short-circuit many processes that had once limited Italian prime ministers’ power. At first, this was not unpopular—their parliamentary administrations are notoriously unstable—but in time became poisonous to the Italian political process.

The Bloomberg Effect
How might such a thing work? Consider an example closer to home in the administration of former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s tenure as mayor appears to have been free of the unrest that now plagues his successor, Bill de Blasio. Under closer inspection, however, as this 2013 BuzzFeed article reveals, Bloomberg’s reign was kept quiet by countless donations by the mayor to groups (mostly on the Left) that would normally have opposed his centrist policies.


As Ben Smith writes, “n Mike Bloomberg’s New York, the mayor bribed you, buying the silence or cooperation of individuals, cultural organizations, and social service groups with hundreds in millions of dollars spent on small personal favors — a legal payment here, a medical procedure there — and charitable contributions.” Bloomberg’s wealth obviously helped get him elected. That part, at least, was well-known. But that wealth also—quietly, secretly, and without notice—helped keep him in office without serious opposition.

That that Clintons would use their wealth in the same way is obvious. Hillary has already aroused considerable ire on the Left, and not just among Bernie Sanders diehards. Her and Bill’s triangulation in the 1990s made enemies, even as it kept Bill in office. Their close association with Wall Street has only made the situation worse, from the Left’s point of view. A little money to the right (i.e., the Left) people would make some of the Clinton’s problems go away.

Bribes work as well on the Right as on the Left, and some of the folks Hillary once characterized as a “vast right-wing conspiracy” might well mute their opposition, too, for the right price. For examples of such flexible morals, we need look no farther than the prominent members of the Republican Party establishment, who bent the knee to Trump after months of seemingly principled opposition. If Reince Priebus and his cohort can twist one way to save their jobs, they will surely turn the other way when the winds—and the cash—blows them there. For every Never-Trump mugwump, Washington holds a dozen Vicars of Bray.

The Clinton Foundation would represent a source of power to the Clintons unlike those enjoyed by any previous American president. Such a source of power, available to one who would already be, by virtue of her office, the most powerful person in the world, creates a situation heretofore unknown in this republic.

Bill’s personal improprieties in his term damaged the office of the presidency, and the appearance of corruption from the donations to the Clinton Foundation will damage it again. To keep that reputation and the reputation of the entire country from being further degraded, the Clintons must dissolve their corporation as soon as possible if Hillary wins election.

Related
Trump Has A Binder Full Of Abused Women To Throw At Hillary Clinton
May 31, 2016
In "2016"
Clinton’s Disturbing Connections To Racists And Tyrants Remains Unexplained
August 29, 2016
In "Politics"
Hillary Chose Tim Kaine To Keep Bill Happy
July 25, 2016
In "2016"
Photo Getty
Kyle Sammin is a lawyer and writer from Pennsylvania. Read some of his other writing at kylesammin.com, or follow him on Twitter @KyleSammin.

[Soul Crusher]

Drudge did a good job of gathering articles on Hillary's email server data dump by the FBI.
Thought it would be good to have them in one place

LABOR DAY DOC DUMP...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-notes/

SERVER BREACHED...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-email-server-tor-227697
Someone using Tor breached email account on Clinton server

PORN PHISHING SCHEME...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3771474/Clinton-email-server-hit-dark-web-tools-Hillary-worried-hacked-getting-send-link-porn.html

SHE CLICKED ON IT!
http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/fbi-report-on-hillary-clinton-921645

MORE...
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

CLINTON SIGNED FOR RECEIVING CLASSIFIED TRAINING -- SAID SHE DIDN'T...
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

LOST CELL PHONES WITH SENSITIVE INFO...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/02/fbi-hillary-clinton-lost-cell-phones-classified-emails/

THOUGHT CLASSIFIED MARKINGS WERE 'ALPHABETICAL PARAGRAPHS'...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-told-fbi-she-thought-classified-markings-were-alphabetical-paragraphs/article/2600900

WITHHELD 17,500 EMAILS...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2600901

LIST: THINGS SHE 'COULD NOT REMEMBER'...
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-told-fbi-couldnt-recall-key-details-26-times/

VIDEO FLASHBACK: FEARED INVESTIGATIONS...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-email-2000/story?id=29396854

FBI DOWNLOADS ON HILLARY
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-releases-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-documents/2016/09/02/21bd3682-704c-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html

'CAN'T RECALL' AFTER HER FALL!
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/02/clinton-says-could-not-recall-all-briefings-due-to-concussion-fbi-report.html

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439708/hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-kevin-drum-defense-fails-excuse-her-violated-law



 

[Soul Crusher]

Even Worse Than Clinton’s Emails
The civil service was missing in action. We learned about the emails from a hacker.

Hillary Clinton in Cleveland, Sept. 5. ENLARGE

Hillary Clinton in Cleveland, Sept. 5. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
By WILLIAM MCGURN
Sept. 5, 2016 7:01 p.m. ET


Forget the new dump of Hillary Clinton emails. Forget the phony claims that the missing communications were all about wedding plans and yoga routines. Forget, too, the many requests from Doug Band in which the Clinton Foundation honcho hoped his quos (hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation) would translate into quids (e.g., special access to the secretary).

Forget them all. The most disturbing aspect about the FBI dump may not be fresh evidence of another Clinton lie. The most disturbing thing about Mrs. Clinton’s continuing email drama may be where she’s telling the truth.

Or at least a half-truth. Mrs. Clinton told the FBI it was “common knowledge” at State that she used private email. Agents further quote her as saying she “could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

However unseemly the cashing in of the Clinton family, whatever the trampling of the ethics accord the Clinton Foundation had signed with the White House, even apart from the walking conflicts-of-interests that were Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, the much larger stink here is this: Mrs. Clinton was allowed to spend her four years as secretary of state off the grid.

It isn’t so much that Mrs. Clinton set up a personal server so she would not be accountable the way normal political appointees are held accountable. It’s that no one in government stopped her. The inspector general’s report notes that when two IT officers expressed their concern in 2010 that her private email system meant federal records were not being preserved, they were told “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”


As a result, when the American people finally learned about Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email for public business, it wasn’t because of a functioning civil service. It was because of a hacker.

Mrs. Clinton says officials at State never told her what she was doing wasn’t allowed. That isn’t quite true. It’s more accurate to say she never asked the people who would have the answers to these questions. The IG report confirms it was made clear to State staffers that she did not want the questions asked.

It gets worse. Even today her former department is still resisting efforts to make public the emails she tried to hide. Groups such as Judicial Watch have done yeoman’s work in forcing the emails into the sunlight—but they have also had to get court orders to pry them out of an obstructionist State Department.

It’s a disturbing pattern, and unfortunately it’s not limited to State. There have been similar questions about the integrity and professionalism of the IRS ever since the American people learned in 2013 that it was unfairly targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Three years, many congressional hearings and disappearing hard drives later, there is still no evidence the IRS has ended the practice. Just last month, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals described the IRS approach to its targets this way: “You’re alright for now, but there may be another shoe falling.” This follows on a March ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which blasted the IRS for refusing to produce a list of those it had targeted—as well as for its bad faith in defending itself by invoking a rule meant to “protect taxpayers from the IRS, not the IRS from taxpayers.”

Originally the speculation was that the IRS effort had been orchestrated by the Obama administration. As the Journal’s James Taranto noted at the time, the IRS scandal is worse if it was not directed by the White House. “If it ‘went rogue’ against the Constitution and in support of the party in power,” he wrote, “then we are dealing with a cancer on the federal government.”

Now consider the FBI. Its director is appointed to a 10-year term precisely to remove him from political pressures.

In our criminal-justice system, the bureau’s job is to investigate, while the decision to indict belongs to the Justice Department. In other words, whether to indict Mrs. Clinton was Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s responsibility, and she would have to take the heat whichever way she decided.

Until FBI director Jim Comey intervened with a press conference in which he announced he was recommending against indictment. By going public in a way even he admitted was “unusual,” Mr. Comey effectively pre-empted the Justice Department and any hope for accountability. That Mr. Comey’s decision let Ms. Lynch off the hook after her private meeting with Bill Clinton only makes it more disgraceful.

Welcome to modern Washington, just two months away from a presidential election. It’s possible, of course, that the people who believe the system is rigged and that their government has taken sides against them are wrong.

But the most disquieting possibility is that it isn’t crazy to think they might be right.

Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.

[Soul Crusher]

FBI 'Unable to Acquire' Any of Clinton's 13 Mobile Devices; Aide Says He Smashed 2 With Hammer
CNSNews ^ | September 6, 2016 | Susan Jones
Posted on 9/6/2016, 10:40:52 AM by xzins

While serving as Secretary of State, “t was not uncommon for (Hillary) Clinton to use a new BlackBerry for a few days and then immediately switch it out for an older version with which she was more familiar,” the FBI said. (AP File Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - The FBI says its investigation identified “13 total mobile devices” associated with Hillary Clinton's “two known” phone numbers, both in the D.C. area code 212.

All 13 of those devices “potentially were used to send emails” through Clinton's personal email server, but the FBI was unable to acquire or examine any of those devices, at least two of which apparently were smashed by a hammer.

Here's how the FBI describes Clinton's need to use 13 mobile devices, most of them BlackBerrys, one after another:

Monica Hanley, a former Clinton aide, often purchased replacement BlackBerry devices for Clinton during her tenure at State. Hanley recalled purchasing most of the BlackBerry devices for Clinton from AT&T stores located in the Washington, D.C., area.
(The FBI noted that Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton, was usually responsible for setting up the new devices — transferring data from the old device to the new one and syncing the new device to the Clinton's private email server.)

Abedin, (redacted) and Hanley also assisted Clinton with setting up any new devices. According to Abedin, it was not uncommon for Clinton to use a new BlackBerry for a few days and then immediately switch it out for an older version with which she was more familiar.
Clinton stated that when her BlackBerry device malfunctioned, her aides would assist her in obtaining a new BlackBerry, and, after moving to a new device, her old SIM cards were disposed of by her aides.
Abedin and Hanley indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown when she transitioned to a new device.
Cooper did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer.

The FBI stated in its report that one of the “investigative limitations” was its “inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton's personal email systems.”

This “prevented the FBI from “conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton's personal email systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means.”

Here's the excerpt from page 9 of the FBI report:


While serving as Secretary of State, "t was not uncommon for (Hillary) Clinton to use a new BlackBerry for a few days and then immediately switch it out for an older version with which she was more familiar," the FBI said. (AP File Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - The FBI says its investigation identified "13 total mobile devices" associated with Hillary Clinton's "two known" phone numbers, both in the D.C. area code 212.

All 13 of those devices "potentially were used to send emails" through Clinton's personal email server, but the FBI was unable to acquire or examine any of those devices, at least two of which apparently were smashed by a hammer.

Here's how the FBI describes Clinton's need to use 13 mobile devices, most of them BlackBerrys, one after another:

Monica Hanley, a former Clinton aide, often purchased replacement BlackBerry devices for Clinton during her tenure at State. Hanley recalled purchasing most of the BlackBerry devices for Clinton from AT&T stores located in the Washington, D.C., area.

(The FBI noted that Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton, was usually responsible for setting up the new devices -- transferring data from the old device to the new one and syncing the new device to the Clinton's private email server.)

Abedin, (redacted) and Hanley also assisted Clinton with setting up any new devices. According to Abedin, it was not uncommon for Clinton to use a new BlackBerry for a few days and then immediately switch it out for an older version with which she was more familiar.

Clinton stated that when her BlackBerry device malfunctioned, her aides would assist her in obtaining a new BlackBerry, and, after moving to a new device, her old SIM cards were disposed of by her aides.

[Soul Crusher]

US
Clinton Aides Told FBI They Didn’t Know About Server, But Emails Suggest Otherwise
Photo of Chuck Ross
CHUCK ROSS
Reporter
10:39 PM 09/04/2016
01996 01996 Share   

Several Hillary Clinton State Department aides told the FBI that they were unaware of the former secretary of state’s private email server, a report from the bureau’s investigation shows. But a Daily Caller review of public documents reveals that at least two of the aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, were involved in multiple email exchanges in which Clinton’s server was discussed.

The FBI’s 47-page report, released on Friday, states that the majority of the State Department employees interviewed by the FBI “had no knowledge” of the private email server Clinton kept at her residence in Chappaqua, N.Y.

“Clinton’s immediate aides, to include Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and [redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at State or when it became public knowledge.”

Screen Shot 2016-09-04 at 10.58.25 AM
Passage from FBI report on Clinton email investigation.

The FBI did not release notes from the interviews, so the full context of the aides’ statements about the server is unclear. It could be that they claimed they were aware of Clinton’s server but not that it was located at her house in New York. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment and additional detail.

 
Sponsored Content
 
15 Russian Pictures That Will Leave You Scratching Your Head!
Detonate
 
What is Your Brain Health Score? Take the Assessment
Staying Sharp - AARP
 
Bill Clinton Affair with Vice President's Daughter: REVEALED
LifeDaily
Sponsored Links by
But in depositions given to the watchdog group Judicial Watch, both Abedin and Mills vaguely denied learning about the server at all until they left office with Clinton in Feb. 2013.

Clinton aide Abedin meets House Select Committee on Benghazi in Washington REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Clinton aide Abedin meets House Select Committee on Benghazi in Washington. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

Three email exchanges that have surfaced in recent months — two of which were released after the FBI interviewed both Abedin and Mills — call the claims into question and raise the possibility that they misled the FBI.

Server discussions

In one Feb. 27, 2010 email provided to Judicial Watch in June, Mills, who served as Clinton’s chief of staff, explicitly mentioned the email server. She was also informed about how the hardware was configured.


“hrc email coming back — is server okay?” Mills asked in an email to Abedin, who was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and Justin Cooper, the Bill Clinton aide who helped set up the Clinton server at the Chappaqua residence. Mills sent the message after an email she sent had bounced back as undeliverable.

“Ur funny. We are on the same server,” Cooper told Mills and Abedin.

The Clinton email server, which Cooper set up along with Bryan Pagliano, a State Department IT specialist, maintained accounts for both the @clintonemail.com domain and one set up for Bill Clinton’s staff.

Screen Shot 2016-09-04 at 11.24.30 AM
Feb. 27, 2010 email exchange (Judicial Watch)

Abedin and Mills were involved in other discussions the next year in which Clinton’s server was mentioned and discussed.

On Jan. 9, 2011, Cooper sent Abedin an email mentioning that he “had to shut down the server.”

“Someone was trying to hack us,” he said.

Screen Shot 2016-09-04 at 1.30.38 PM
Jan. 9, 2011 email exchange (Judicial Watch)

Both of those email exchanges were cited in a State Department inspector general’s report released on May 25. They were obtained and released by Judicial Watch in June.

Abedin and Mills had both been interviewed by the FBI by the time the IG report was released — Abedin on April 5 and Mills on April 9. Both declined to talk to State’s IG. Clinton refused to cooperate with the internal watchdog as well.

Abedin and Mills were involved in a third email thread on which the server was mentioned.

On Aug. 30, 2011, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull emailed Mills, Abedin, Clinton aide Monica Hanley, and State Department undersecretary for management Patrick Kennedy, informing them that he was “working to provide [Clinton] per her request a Department issued Blackberry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning.”

In the email, which TheDC obtained through a lawsuit and released in January, Mull stated that Clinton’s device was malfunctioning “possibly because of [sic] her personal email server is down.” (RELATED: Emails: Clinton Aides Resisted State Dept. Suggestion That Clinton Use State.gov Account)

Abedin responded to the email, and voiced her opposition to providing Clinton a government BlackBerry, saying that the idea “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

Clinton never did use a government BlackBerry, a decision which put her emails at greater risk of being hacked.

Judicial Watch Depositions

Transcripts of Judicial Watch’s depositions with Abedin and Mills show that the Clintonistas were cagey in their interviews with the watchdog group when asked what they knew about the server and when.

In her May 27 deposition, Mills repeatedly stated that she did not learn about the server until after she left the State Department and started working as Clinton’s lawyer.

She said that she did not talk to Justin Cooper or Bryan Pagliano about the server until “the period in which I was representing Secretary Clinton.”

Mills has at times cited her work as Clinton’s lawyer to avoid answering questions about the email system.

She also claimed not to have known about the server because she didn’t “have a technological background.”

“But in terms of the technicalities of how it was managed…I don’t have any recollection of having conversations around that until the time period where I was representing Secretary Clinton with Mr. Cooper,” she told Judicial Watch’s lawyers.

Abedin provided similarly murky recollections during her June 28 deposition. Asked when she first learned about the server, Abedin said:

I don’t know that I experienced the — the notion of the server for — for my purposes. It was a matter of obtaining an e-mail address. I didn’t really think about the server until the — all the press reports in the last year and a half.
Despite that claim, the FBI’s report states that Abedin was the catalyst for the creation of the Clinton email system.

“At the recommendation of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide and later Deputy Chief of Staff at State, in or around fall 2008, [Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper] contacted Bryan Pagliano…to build the new server system and to assist Cooper with the administration of the new server system,” the document reads.

Follow Chuck on Twitter

Tags: Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, State Department


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/04/clinton-aides-told-fbi-they-didnt-know-about-server-but-emails-suggest-otherwise/#ixzz4JUYf27lG

[Soul Crusher]

Chelsea Clinton: It Doesn’t Make Sense That People Think My Mom Is Untrustworthy
freebeacon.com ^
Posted on 9/9/2016, 1:32:06 PM by Sub-Driver

Chelsea Clinton: It Doesn’t Make Sense That People Think My Mom Is Untrustworthy David Rutz

BY: Follow @DavidRutz September 9, 2016 12:36 pm

Chelsea Clinton said it did not make sense to her that her mother Hillary is viewed as untrustworthy during an appearance Friday on The View.

Whoopi Goldberg, a co-host of the left-leaning, all-woman talk show whose panelists are friendly with the Democratic presidential nominee, asked Chelsea Clinton about the critique of her mother being dishonest made “by lots of people who don’t know her or have not met her.”

“Well, it doesn’t make sense to me,” Chelsea said. “It’s probably not such a surprise. With my husband, there’s no one I trust more than my mom.”

She relayed that if something were to happen to her and her husband, then Hillary would take care of her children. The crowd applauded.

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

[240 is Back]

what year will chelsea run for president?  

[Soul Crusher]

Hillary Clinton Aide Who Set Up Her Private Email Server Had 'No Security Clearance'
Breitbart.com ^ | 9-13-2016 | JEROME HUDSON
Posted on 9/13/2016, 4:22:54 PM by servo1969

Justin Cooper, who helped set up Hillary Clinton’s private home email system, testified Tuesday before the House Oversight Committee and admitted that he had no national security clearance during the time he had access to all of Hillary Clinton’s emails while she was Secretary of State.

Cooper, who was a former aide to President Bill Clinton, said “I did not have a security clearance” while setting up and servicing Hillary Clinton’s private email server, laptops, and mobile devices.

Cooper’s confession came during day two of the Rep. Jason Chaffetz-led Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Chaffetz issued a subpoena to top FBI official Jason Herring on Monday for every document related to the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

During Tuesday’s hearing, two employees of Colorado tech company Platte River Networks — the firm that maintained Clinton’s private home server — repeatedly invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

“Who told you to delete the emails?” Rep. Chaffetz asked Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks about Clinton's email server.

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer and assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,” Combetta said. Combetta was reportedly granted immunity by the Department of Justice during its investigation of Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails while at State.

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

[Skeletor]

“Who told you to delete the emails?” Rep. Chaffetz asked Paul Combetta of Platte River Networks about Clinton's email server.

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer and assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,” Combetta said. Combetta was reportedly granted immunity by the Department of Justice during its investigation of Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails while at State.

"Extremely careless"...

[Soul Crusher]

http://theweek.com/articles/648447/not-cough-coverup

 

[Yamcha]

[Yamcha]

[Soul Crusher]

Nothing Left To Lie About
Townhall.com ^ | September 15, 2016 | Derek Hunter
Posted on 9/15/2016, 8:48:43 AM by Kaslin

Willie Sutton famously said he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.” But he clearly had a compulsion.

In his book “No One Left To Lie To,” Christopher Hitchens deconstructed Bill Clinton’s compulsion to lie. If he were alive today, my friend would have a field day with Bill’s wife.

Lying is breathing for the Clintons. Secrecy is favored above all. When the truth would do, they lie – seemingly only to see if they can get away with it.

When there are potentially serious consequences, they lie. When there is nothing at stake, they lie. Jon Lovitz should sue them for stealing his Tommy Flanagan character.

The lies about the secret server and threats to national security or the pay-for-play years at the State Department are somewhat understandable – there are serious consequences should the truth ever come out. When your future plans, and prison, are potentially on the line, BleachBit-ing your server when its contents are under subpoena is a gamble a lot of people would take.

And it paid off for Hillary. Just like all the other lies have paid off for the Clintons.

When you’ve been getting away with it your whole life, why wouldn’t you keep doing it?

What has changed is not the frequency of the lying but the purpose. Pleading ignorance to a friendly FBI on what you can and can not remember is one thing; claiming to be “overheated” on a cool summer morning is something else.

When Hillary Clinton passed out, then needed to be propped up like a broom against a wall by her staff and security detail, her campaign first denied anything had happened. Then, the campaign said she was merely overheated and would be fine.

Were it not for a civilian filming her carcass being dragged and slung into her van, the first story might have stuck and the second almost certainly would have.

After hours of liberal journalists rushing to recount their own brushes with “overheating” and anchors (particularly MSNBC) beclowning themselves about her “long sleeves” and blistering temperatures in New York on Sunday morning (it was breezy in the high 70s with low humidity, for the record), the campaign paraded Hillary out of her daughter’s building to wave and hug a young girl. All was well.

But it wasn’t all well because it wasn’t at all true.

Later in the day, the Clinton campaign forced its journalist allies to scrap all their hard work yet again when it announced she had pneumonia. They lined up to declare her “brave” for “powering through” to continue to campaign.

So was Hillary dehydrated, sick, tired or simply too hot? Yes and no. And maybe.

It doesn’t matter, really. What matters is the lie. If any of those stories were true – and it’s safe to assume none before the pneumonia story were – they’d have stuck with them. The truth, after all, is much easier to remember, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s believable.

But the stories weren’t true. And instead of going for truth, they were going for believable. The evidence – that video, along with the fact no one else in the large crowd at the memorial even seemed to be sweating – took the viability from that lie.

The pneumonia story can’t really be refuted, so the third time was the charm. The press could demand to see X-rays from Friday, which is when the campaign claims Clinton’s doctor diagnosed her. They could ask when she saw the doctor Friday, and where, and how she was able to do all of this while attending campaign events. You know, fact check the claim. But they aren’t going to do that.

They could ask how her doctor managed to not only diagnose her without anyone noticing, but also declare her to not be contagious at the same time, especially when we’re told pneumonia has spread throughout her campaign.

So somehow everyone around her was spreading and catching pneumonia, and not only did the press not notice them dropping like flies, or catch it themselves, Hillary managed to catch a non-contagious version of it. They could ask, but they won’t. The media has its own compulsion – wanting to believe whatever her campaign tells them.

Whether it’s a lie matters less than the fact that only true believers buy any of it. No rational person hears three different explanations, all asserted as the truth at the time, and thinks they’re finally being leveled with.

That’s how the Clintons are; they lie like they breathe – as a reflex. It’s like a muscle they must exercise to prevent atrophy, and they’re running out of “heavy lifts” to lie about, so they lie about anything.

What responsible adult would seek refuge at her daughter’s apartment with two young children while stricken with pneumonia that caused you to pass out only minutes earlier? It’s not an accident Hillary is about as believable as a candidate as Jared from Subway is as a babysitter.

All politicians lie; we know this. But they’re usually lies of overpromising. The Clintons, particularly Hillary, lie because it’s how they’ve gotten into power, how they’ve maintained it, how they’ve gotten rich. It’s not second nature; it is her nature. It’s a compulsion. That’s how to explain so much effort being expended to cover what we’re told was really nothing. If the truth is so innocuous, you don’t work so hard to shield it.

[Soul Crusher]

National Enquirer ^ | September 14,2016 | By National ENQUIRER Staff
Posted on September 17, 2016 at 2:59:07 PM EDT by Hojczyk

Horndog-in-Chief Bill Clinton brazenly fondled the breast of a beautiful young campaign worker — as wife Hillary Clinton slept just a few feet away! The new issue of The National ENQUIRER — on newsstands now — has the explosive story of Cristy Zercher, a brave flight attendant who endured being sexually attacked by the former president!

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

[Soul Crusher]

Bill Clinton’s birthday bash proves the Clintons just can’t stop influence-peddling
New York Post ^
Posted on September 17, 2016 at 6:02:52 PM EDT by Sub-Driver

Bill Clinton’s birthday bash proves the Clintons just can’t stop influence-peddling By Post Editorial Board

For a giant, flashing sign that the Clintons’ influence-peddling will never end, look no further than Bill’s 70th birthday party Friday night at the Rainbow Room — which of course is a Clinton Foundation fundraising bash.

Yup, that’s right; show ’em the money, money, money: Donors must give $250,000 to be a “chair” of the party, six figures to be a co-chair, 50 grand to be a vice chair.

True, buying a ticket will get you some glam — Barbara Streisand, Jon Bon Jovi and Wynton Marsalis are all to perform. But how many others hope their gift will at least get them onto some future White House guest list, and possibly buy even larger favors?

Oh, and the foundation won’t disclose the night’s donors, despite earlier promises to do so. And it will keep taking all “gifts” right up through Nov. 7 (at least).

What’s really remarkable here is the Clintons’ utter shamelessness — or the compulsive need to raise cash. The event, notes Politico, has “induced cringes among some Clinton supporters, who cast it as an unnecessary show of excess at a sensitive time in the presidential race.” Ya think?

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

[Yamcha]

The autists over at Reddit and 4chan struck gold late last night with this.
LOTS of posts on Reddit have mysteriously been deleted. I'll link more if they prove to be enlightening.

https://i.redd.it/cw0phpj5eimx.jpg

[Soul Crusher]

Skip to comments.

Clinton scolds Trump for grandstanding on terror fears (Pollutico Alert!)
Pollutico ^ | 09/19/2016 | NOLAN D. MCCASKILL
Posted on 9/19/2016, 3:34:06 PM by E. Pluribus Unum

Donald Trump says the latest domestic terror attacks prove the need to remove the stigma around profiling. Hillary Clinton says Trump’s “demagogic” popping off borders on treason and shows why he’s unfit to be commander in chief. The dueling arguments, played out on Twitter and cable news, sharply politicized the latest outbreak of domestic terror — a series of planted bombs throughout New York and New Jersey, as well as a stabbing spree at a Minnesota mall.

“We don’t wanna do any profiling,” Trump bemoaned during a phone interview with “Fox and Friends” on Monday morning, before going on to suggest that racial profiling is exactly what’s needed. “If somebody looks like he’s got a massive bomb on his back, we won’t go up to that person and say, ‘I’m sorry,’ because if he looks like he comes from that part of the world, we’re not allowed to profile,” Trump continued.

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





LOL - she is losing her mind by the hour

[Soul Crusher]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-who-tells-dreadful-lies/2016/09/19/cd38412e-7e6a-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html?postshare=1921474305864470&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.2b050d4e7880