Author Topic: Hillary Clinton: Corruption, Deception, Lies, Scandals, and Promises Broken (Read 21276 times)

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #101 on:** March 10, 2015, 08:56:35 AM »

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-10/e-mail-fiasco-will-cost-hillary-and-taxpayers

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #102 on:** March 10, 2015, 09:55:58 AM »

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/06/hillary_clintons_legacy_of_scandal.html

The Hillary Clinton Scandals
By Thomas Swan

There's more to Hillary than publicized scandals.There's more to Hillary than publicized scandals.
Source: Public Domain via Wiki Commons

The scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton are the surface tremors of a far greater disturbance. To many, Hillary embodies a stern but kind, hard-working, wronged wife and mother. To others she is a consummately corrupt politician who has used her image and connections to reach the very top of American politics. Hillary’s underlying character must be understood if we are to gauge the veracity of the scandals and allegations that haunt her.

To that end, this article will explore the findings of Wikileaks, her voting record, her presidential campaign ads, the sordid history of donations to her election campaigns, her connections to the health insurance industry and Zionism, the Benghazi scandal, and her secretive email practices. As a European observer who has more in common with the Democrats, it is hoped that this largely condemnatory article will be an objective investigation of the real Hillary Clinton.

The Hillary Wikileaks Scandal

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #103 on:** March 10, 2015, 10:30:08 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/10/the-worst-agency-on-transparency-during-hillary-clintons-last-two-years-at-state-state/?wpisrc=nl_fix&wpmm=1

By Philip Bump March 10 at 1:00 PM 

The Center for Effective Government (formerly OMB Watch) just published its 2015 report on government agencies' Freedom of Information Act compliance. (That's the law that allows anyone to petition for communication and research on particular topics, and is meant to ensure transparency in government.)

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #104 on:** March 10, 2015, 12:38:59 PM »

Mar 10, 3:27 PM EDT

Clinton concedes she should have used government email

By KEN THOMAS and JULIE PACE
Associated Press

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #105 on:** March 10, 2015, 01:24:01 PM »

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-it-would-have-been-better-if-i-used-official-email-2015-3

blacken700 · « **Reply #106 on:** March 10, 2015, 01:30:09 PM »

Quote from: Soul Crusher on March 10, 2015, 01:24:01 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-it-would-have-been-better-if-i-used-official-email-2015-3

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #107 on:** March 10, 2015, 01:44:39 PM »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-emails_n_6830648.html

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #108 on:** March 10, 2015, 01:55:01 PM »

The Campaign Spot Election-driven news and views . . . by Jim Geraghty. The First Two Lies from Hillary’s Press Conference Share article on Facebookshare Tweet articletweet Plus one article on Google Plus+1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA AA AA AA AA AA AA by Jim Geraghty March 10, 2015 3:49 PM All over Twitter you can find negative reactions to Hillary Clinton’s just-concluded press conference. To me, the most important part of her press conference was her statement that was an obvious, flat-out lie: She said the e-mail server was initially set up for use by former president Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton insisted that there were “numerous safeguards” in place, adding there were “no security breaches.” One hacker broke into Hillary’s account in 2013 and leaked several messages to Kremlin-funded RT. Beyond that example, if her server is being privately managed, there’s no way for, say, State Department security professionals or the NSA or CIA or any other intelligence agencies to know if there was a security breach. Can we agree that the woman who said she couldn’t carry two phones because it would be too inconvenient is in no position to assess cyber-security? Also, Hillary kept insisting that federal government workers get to decide what e-mails are considered “private” and which ones are work-related, and that doesn’t sound right at all. On CNN a few moments ago, Margaret Hoover, a former employee of the Bush White House and Department of Homeland Security, said that wasn’t true. Finally, while her wording was not terribly clear, it appears she kept half her e-mails from her time as Secretary of State as “private” and either deleted them or believes she has a right to delete them. In short, disastrous.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/415188/first-two-lies-hillarys-press-conference-jim-geraghty?fb_action_ids=10206502044176656&fb_action_types=og.shares&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B915769361778942%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.shares%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #109 on:** March 10, 2015, 02:22:45 PM »

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #110 on:** March 10, 2015, 05:29:34 PM »

Posted on March 10, 2015 at 7:24:31 PM EDT by afraidfortherepublic

Hillary stonewalled and has now outsourced her problem to attack-dog subordinates and Democratic stalwarts who, she believes, have Hillary—or no one—for 2016.

I guess the message is “I’m lying, so what?”

Remember Richard Nixon’s vain attempt to keep Watergate tapes because he alone had determined that some were only private in nature and did not relate to government business or subpoenas—and the subsequent reaction to his “gaps.” That is Hillary Clinton’s absurd line of something like “secretary of state privilege,” and thus her press conference could only end in disaster.

After all the obfuscation, the only thing that one can take away from this embarrassing performance is that Hillary Clinton envisioned her own personal server for just such contingencies: to trash a large percentage of her incoming and outgoing e-mails after becoming the sole arbitrator of what constituted her own, and her government’s, business, and thus the preserver or destroyer of all her communications.

Some depressing details: Hillary used a U.N. forum as a prop to address a private scandal, largely because she assumed the press pool might be a little different and she could suggest that the e-mail scandal was incidental rather than essential to her more important global messaging.

But in typical Clinton fashion that gambit proved counter-productive: She inappropriately used the U.N. prop, and the reporters were not necessarily D.C. pets, as she learned when she abruptly cut off their questions. Then she reviewed her feminist credentials, omitting her own role in gender-pay inequalities, the misogynist nature of the benefactors to her foundation, and, of course, her husband’s recent troubles in regard to feminist issues.

Then she accused Republican senators of either wishing to help the Iranians or to undermine their commander-in-chief. That was a warm-up to her defiant replies:

1) She confuses device and account: Many people have one device and two e-mail accounts. In the private sphere, one does not need two devices to have two different e-mail accounts. Teenagers can set up two in 30 seconds. If not, Hillary should make the case that one cannot do that with government accounts and that the problem affected her alone and not others of similar status.

When her fable of the one phone/two phone dilemma is reviewed, her veracity will be again questioned, as it will when we learn she still probably used multiple phones like most D.C. grandees do.

2) She seems to think that her dilemma was unique and no other high government official faced the same private/public quandary that required her special solution; if she were correct, then almost any other cabinet member would have had only a personal account with his own private server to conduct all government business. No one apparently has ever had a BlackBerry with a separate government and a private account without a private server.

3) There will be no third-party adjudicator to determine which of her e-mails were private and which non-private, and those she determined were private are now apparently already destroyed.

4) She confused, again deliberately, State Department rules. When Hillary refers to “my practice was” that is not the same as the law demands: She seems to think not turning over all her e-mails on her sole account when she left office was okay because the State Department and / or the government in theory could always spend thousands of hours to hunt down all the recipients of her supposedly purely government e-mails. Try that with the government, as for example not paying your taxes on April 15 on the theory that you can always pay when and if the government hunts you down and comes after you and fills out your 1099 for you.

Her final message? It’s over; get over it; and the messages are destroyed even if you had wanted to have determined that I lied about the private/public divide. What are you going to do—hound the likely next president of the United States?

What’s next? We are back to 1998–99 where the law does not apply to the Clintons; and if it did, it pales in importance to their progressive efforts on our behalf; and if you doubt it, there are plenty of hirelings who can make life miserable for you right-wing conspiracists and disbelievers.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #111 on:** March 11, 2015, 05:21:37 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/10/3-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-convenience-argument-on-her-email-controversy-probably-wont-work/

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #112 on:** March 11, 2015, 06:34:18 AM »

Breitbart London
Breitbart Texas
Breitbart California

AP Fact-Check: Hillary’s Email Excuses Don’t Hold Water

2124

7

444

AP Photo/Seth Wenig
AP Photo/Seth Wenig

by Breitbart News10 Mar 2015564

WASHINGTON (AP) — How Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statements about her exclusive use of private email instead of a government account as secretary of state compare with the known facts:

CLINTON: “Others had done it.”

THE FACTS: Although email practices varied among her predecessors, Clinton is the only secretary of state known to have conducted all official unclassified government business on a private email address. Years earlier, when emailing was not the ubiquitous practice it is now among high officials, Colin Powell used both a government and a private account. It’s a striking departure from the norm for top officials to rely exclusively on private email for official business.

—

CLINTON: “I fully complied with every rule I was governed by.”

THE FACTS: At the very least, Clinton appears to have violated what the White House has called “very specific guidance” that officials should use government email to conduct business.

Clinton provided no details about whether she had initially consulted with the department or other government officials before using the private email system. She did not answer several questions about whether she sought any clearances before she began relying exclusively on private emails for government business.

Federal officials are allowed to communicate on private email and are generally allowed to conduct government business in those exchanges, but that ability is constrained, both by federal regulations and by their supervisors.

Federal law during Clinton’s tenure called for the archiving of such private email records when used for government work, but did not set out clear rules or punishments for violations until rules were tightened in November. In 2011, when Clinton was secretary, a cable from her office sent to all employees advised them to avoid conducting any official business on their private email accounts because of targeting by unspecified “online adversaries.”

—

CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

THE FACTS: The assertion fits with the facts as known but skirts the issue of exchanging information in a private account that, while falling below the level of classified, is still sensitive.

The State Department and other national security agencies have specified rules for the handling of such sensitive material, which could affect national security, diplomatic and privacy concerns, and may include material such as personnel, medical and law enforcement data. In reviewing the 30,000 emails she turned over to the State Department, officials are looking for any security lapses concerning sensitive but unclassified material that may have been disclosed.

—

CLINTON: “It had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”

THE FACTS: While Clinton’s server was physically guarded by the Secret Service, she provided no evidence it hadn’t been compromised by hackers or foreign adversaries. She also didn’t detail who administered the email system, if it received appropriate software security updates, or if it was monitored routinely for unauthorized access.

Clinton also didn’t answer whether the homebrew computer system on her property had the same level of safeguards provided at professional data facilities, such as regulated temperatures, offsite backups, generators in case of power outages and fire-suppression systems. It was unclear what, if any, encryption software Clinton’s server may have used to communicate with U.S. government email accounts.

Recent high-profile breaches, including at Sony Pictures Entertainment, have raised scrutiny on how well corporations and private individuals protect their computer networks from attack.

—

CLINTON: “When I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two. Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.”

THE FACTS: If multiple devices were an inconvenience in the past, they may be something of an obsession now. Clinton told an event in California’s Silicon Valley last month that she has an iPad, a mini-iPad, an iPhone and a BlackBerry. “I’m like two steps short of a hoarder,” she said. She suggested she started out in Washington with a BlackBerry but her devices grew in number.

Smartphones were capable of multiple emails when she became secretary; it’s not clear whether the particular phone she used then was permitted to do so under State Department rules.

Read More Stories About:

Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, Hillary Clinton

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #113 on:** March 11, 2015, 07:01:02 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-public-deserves-answers-not-stonewalling-from-hillary-clinton/2015/03/09/5a829ddc-c67e-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

By Editorial Board March 9

A PARAMOUNT test for those running for president is how they make decisions — how they absorb information, what principles they carry and how it is all processed to a final choice. This is highly subjective, often lost in the hurly-burly of campaigning, but crucial. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to announce her candidacy soon for the Democratic nomination, is at one of those revelatory moments and so far seems not to have recognized it. On Monday, people in her circle suggested that she will soon answer questions about her e-mail account. We hope she seizes the opportunity to be forthcoming.

A week has passed since the disclosure that Ms. Clinton used a private account for all of her e-mail messages while serving as secretary of state, contrary to the administration’s instruction that officials should use government e-mail accounts and contrary to what the State Department — on her watch — was telling its ambassadors and other officials to do. Ms. Clinton did not turn in the e-mail records to the government when she left office. Since then, she has given the department 55,000 pages of messages in response to a request, but those were selected by her and her staff, not by government archivists or officials. All of this reveals a cavalier attitude to the public’s legitimate claim on government records.

In the past week, Ms. Clinton has said exactly this, in a tweet: “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”

This perfunctory statement is even less helpful than it sounds. Ms. Clinton must know that the State Department will follow the Freedom of Information Act process to release her e-mails, requiring that they be scrutinized for sensitive information and that other agencies be consulted — a lengthy process, not likely to result in release any time soon.

The tweet also does not address a number of questions that Ms. Clinton should answer: Why did she use a private account? What discussions did she have with advisers and other State Department or White House officials about it? How many messages, if any, have been omitted from those turned over to the department? Will she permit a neutral arbiter — say, from the National Archives — to examine any withheld messages?

Some have portrayed the e-mail story as a conflict between Ms. Clinton and members of Congress who are investigating the attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, while she was secretary. But this is not primarily about Benghazi. Instead, it is about how Ms. Clinton responds to legitimate questions about her judgment and her record; it is about how she would function as president. Dispatching friendly politicians and former aides to television news shows to dismiss the issue as just politics does not help her cause. If she is elected president, can Americans expect a similar response when she faces difficult questions — one 26-word tweet and a cloud of obfuscation from her friends?

If she wants to demonstrate the strength of character and judgment required to be president, Ms. Clinton should hold a news conference and answer all the unanswered questions about her e-mails.

Read more on this issue:

Ruth Marcus: Hillary Clinton is again her own worst enemy

The Post’s View: Hillary Clinton’s use of private e-mail reflects poor judgment

Dana Milbank: Hillary Clinton, too cautious for her own good

Paul Waldman: Six questions Hillary Clinton must answer

Alexandra Petri: The real stunner from the Clinton e-mails

James Downie: Clinton is already repeating her 2008 mistakes

 Share on Facebook

 Share on Twitter

389 Comments

The Post Recommends

How parents create narcissistic children

Narcissists are bred, not born, by parents who tell them they are superior to others and deserve special treatment.

Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams owe Marvin Gaye’s family $7.4 million for ‘Blurred Lines,’ jury decides

Jurors ruled that the 2013 hit too closely resembles a 1977 R&B classic.

PNC Bank loses Vienna man’s $100,000 check for 10 months, then ‘finds’ it

The bank appeared uninterested in restoring a longtime customer's money. Then The Washington Post called.

Trending on Social Media

Privacy advocates try to keep 'creepy,' 'eavesdropping' Hello Barbie from hitting shelves

Redskins free agency: Where things stand heading into Day 2

This 95-year-old man just killed the 200-meter sprint and set a world record

A coda to the Cotton letter

Islamic State claims slaying of Arab Israeli 'spy' in latest video

Leak investigation stalls amid fears of confirming U.S.-Israel operation

Discussion Policy 389 Comments

Mentioned in this story and want to comment? Learn more

Please Sign In to Comment

All Comments

Newest First 

Pause live updates

d_lakedaddy

7:36 AM EDT [Edited]

If Hillary is being honest, she should have no problem handing the server over to the FBI for forensic analysis. We all know that is what she would demand from any opponent of hers.

LikeReplyShare

inchoate

7:24 AM EDT

The fact that this woman remains politically relevant is a sad, sad commentary on the electorate.

LikeReplyShare

2 ·

DisgustedwithElitism

7:12 AM EDT

The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law have made America the success it has been. Those principles have endured serious wounds in the past six years under BHO; we simply cannot afford another lawless administration on the heels of this one.

America can do better, and America must do better, than HRC.

LikeReplyShare

1 ·

kisja-pisja

1:00 AM EDT

If Palin wrote her own e-mails without assistance, how could anybody understand them even if they were totally transparent?

LikeReplyShare

Eric M Krehemker

12:22 AM EDT

So in other words, will HIllary be more of the same or different? I imagine she will be somewhat different than Obama, but the results if she is ever president will be the same, disaster.

LikeReplyShare

Get Opinions

Daily updates delivered just for you.

Advertisement

Most Read Opinions

1

GOP senators appear set on their own breakaway nation

2

Tom Cotton's grandstand play

3

GOP senators' letter to Iran is dangerous and irresponsible

4

Republicans are beginning to act as though Barack Obama isn't even the president

5

New questions for Clinton

Unlimited Access to The Post. Just 99¢

The Most Popular All Over

TIME

Lily James: My Cinderella Glass Slippers Didn’t Fit Me

WNYC - New York Public Radio

Yodels and Hockets

The Dodo

Carpenter Fired For Rescuing Raccoon Has No Regrets

Advertisement

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #114 on:** March 11, 2015, 08:10:36 AM »

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5f35e25c77194546822769b2f9672fe3/ap-sues-state-department-seeking-access-clinton-records

SUED!!!!!

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #115 on:** March 11, 2015, 08:13:15 AM »

Hillary's Top Two Aides Used Personal Email at State Department

10:39 AM, Mar 11, 2015 • By DANIEL HALPER

Share on email

Send to Kindle

Single Page

Print

Larger Text

Smaller Text

Alerts

reCAPTCHA challenge image Get a new challengeGet an audio challengeGet a visual challengeHelp

Stephen F. Hayes reported on Fox News that Hillary Clinton's top two aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, used personal emails while working for the secretary of state at the State Department:

"Two of Hillary Clinton's top aides used personal email while they were employed at the State Department, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff. The State Department has evidence of this.

"And the question I think become: were they emailing with Hillary Clinton from their personal email addresses to her personal email address about State Department business, about Benghazi, including sensitive classified information?Those are questions that I think that Trey Gowdy and the House Benghazi committee is going to want to look at very carefully."

Hayes went on to explain, "This is the key point. Yesterday, she said look, when I was doing State Department business I was emailing to people who on the receiving end of her emails had .gov email addresses and therefore the emails, the documents would have been retained. What this suggests is that others were using non-.gov emails, their personal emails, and if they communicated with her in that manner those emails with her will be lost unless they're compelled to provide them."