Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 47. (Read 234761 times)

In bitcoins I hope?

 

I emailed The Donald that line and got back 5000 bucks, not bad, huh?

But she´s just such an awful sell. How the hell can they push this on the public? Granted, a sugar coated dog turd may not look all that unappetizing but it´s still a turd.

She won't fall alone. Bill and her daughter are deep in it. She won't have any scruples burning down the whole house with her. The house may have to trigger a natural heart attack for protection...

Don´t Wall St. and the war industry have a replacement option if Hillary keeps imploding. This is starting to look serious for them. What if the authorities are forced to indict her?

Dem Panic: Hillary’s Catastrophic Collapse In One Chart





http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/15/2008-redux-dems-panic-as-hillary-loses-lead-to-socialist-bernie-sanders/

State Dept jumped through “quite unusual” hoops to allow Hillary attorney to keep classified info







[...]

    Newly released documents, obtained by The Daily Beast in coordination with the James Madison Project under the Freedom of Information Act, include legal correspondence and internal State Department communications about Clinton’s emails. Those documents provide new details about how officials tried to accommodate the former secretary of state and presidential candidate.

    In May 2015, a senior State Department official informed Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, that government reviewers had found at least one classified email among the messages she sent using a private account, which she used exclusively while in office. That email was only part of the “first tranche” of the review, a State Department employee noted at the time, leaving open the possibility that more classified information would be found, which it was.

    Patrick F. Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, who had worked under Clinton, asked Kendall to delete all electronic copies of the message in his possession. (Copies were sent to the State Department.)

    But Kendall resisted, saying he needed a full record of his own of the 55,000 pages of emails Clinton had sent, in order to respond to information requests from a House committee investigating the 2012 attacks on U.S. officials in Benghazi, Libya, and from the inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

[...]

    There is no indication that Kennedy, who oversees physical and information security for the State Department, protested the private lawyer’s position or tried further to persuade Kendall to delete the classified email. The message had been forwarded to Clinton by one of her senior aides, Jacob Sullivan, in November 2012 and contained references to the attack in Benghazi two months earlier.

    Rather, within a few days, State Department employees were told to develop a system that would let Kendall keep the emails in a State Department-provided safe at his law firm in Washington, D.C., where he and a partner had access to them.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/15/how-the-state-department-caved-to-hillary-clinton-s-lawyer-on-classified-emails.html

In this thread the subject is harpy clinton and how honest she is, 24/7... Nothing else really.

Clinton Foundation Running Private Equity Fund in Colombia


http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-foundation-running-private-equity-fund-in-colombia/

That's the problem! The extra money held by the uber-rich is not creating jobs, That money is going into overseas accounts and foreign investments.

Yes. It always matters whether a person is honest and trustworthy. How is this even a question?
 
However, that said, even a mostly honest and trustworthy person can have lapses in judgment, or make the wrong call thereby seeming untrustworthy. That's just part of humanity's natural condition.
 
Also, this question should not be assigned to a single politician if you ask me. Doing so presupposes that one politician's trustworthiness is more important than another's. We, the electorate, will want all of our candidates to demonstrate qualities of honesty and trustworthiness. In this way, the answer is really a resounding, "No!" It doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton is individually honest and trustworthy any more than it matters for any politician in the field.

Hillary Clinton proposes tax 'surcharge' on Americans who earn over $5m

The Democratic presidential candidate’s plan, which would increase tax rate to 4% for only 0.02% of Americans, was criticized by Sanders’s campaign

Hillary Clinton would add a 4% tax “surcharge” on Americans who earn more than $5m a year and close “egregious” tax loopholes if she became president, expanding on her campaign promise to ensure that the super-rich pay a rate higher than middle-class families.

“My plan is kind of simple: we go after the wealthy to pay for what the middle class, working class and poor people need,” the Democratic frontrunner said at a campaign event in Ames, Iowa, on Tuesday.

Her surcharge proposal, unveiled on Monday, would take the top tax rate to its highest since 1986, though it will only apply to 0.02% of Americans.

“Right now we’re behind and we need to get the wealthy and the corporations to pay for their fair share, so I can keep my promise, which is I will not raise taxes on the middle class,” Clinton told hundreds of voters at a campaign stop in Waterloo, Iowa, on Monday.

On Tuesday, Clinton’s campaign released details of two additional ways the Democrat would ensure that the “wealthy pay their fair share”. Clinton would close what it is calling the “Bermuda reinsurance loophole”, a scheme in which high-income money managers have set up insurance companies in low-tax countries to avoid paying higher taxes in the US.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/12/hillary-clinton-tax-surcharge-wealthy-proposal

Let's hope this will be her favorite color at supermax eventually.

the last one is the most accurate description of all

FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track


EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data. 

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled. 

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter.

It is unclear which of the two lines of inquiry was opened first by the FBI and whether they eventually will be combined and presented before a special grand jury. One intelligence source said the public corruption angle dates back to at least April 2015.  On their official website, the FBI lists "public corruption as the FBI's top criminal priority."

Fox News is told that about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment,” or TDY. The request to sign a new NDA could reflect that agents are handling the highly classified material in the emails, or serve as a reminder not to leak about the case, or both.

"The pressure on the lead agents is brutal," a second source said. "Think of it like a military operation, you might need tanks called in along with infantry."

Separately, a former high-ranking State Department official emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate non-use of her government email address may be increasingly “significant.”

“It is virtually automatic when one comes on board at the State Department to be assigned an email address,” the source said.

“It would have taken an affirmative act not to have one assigned ... and it would also mean it was all planned out before she took office. This certainly raises questions about the so-called legal advice she claimed to have received from inside the State Department that what she was doing was proper."

On Sunday,  when asked about her email practices while secretary of state, Clinton insisted to CBS News’ "Face The Nation," "there is no there, there."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

Sorry Hillary – Obama Will Not Endorse Candidate in 2016 Dem Race

Obama turns his back on former Secretary of State.







U.S. President Barack Obama will not publicly endorse a candidate before the 2016 Democratic primary election, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said on Sunday.

"We'll do exactly what has been done in the past," McDonough said on NBC's "Meet the Press." He said Obama will be "out there" campaigning after the primary election to help support the Democratic candidate.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-obama-idUSKCN0UO0L720160110

Storm Clouds Form Over Clinton's Email Troubles

John Fund, National Review January 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal has been a difficult one for the public to understand and for journalists to explain. But Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter who helped uncover Watergate 40 years ago, clarified things a lot on Fox News Sunday today when he said that an e-mail in the most recently released batch shows Hillary trying to “subvert the rules” that she expected others to follow.....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/01/11/storm_clouds_form_over_clinton039s_email_troubles_373629.html

They hanged Joachim von Ribbentrop, German Foreign Minister. Not for any war crimes or mass murder but for helping start a war of aggression on false pretenses. What about Colin Powell? Hillary Clinton? John Kerry. Enough for starters, you could go farther back.

Hillary: By ordering “identifying headings” removed, I meant “don’t transmit classified info,” or something






“Aren’t you ordering [Jake Sullivan] to violate the laws on handling classified material there?” John Dickerson confronted the Friday e-mail release from Hillary Clinton’s secret e-mail server head-on in an interview with the former Secretary of State yesterday on Face the Nation. Hillary responded by attempting to spin, leaving Dickerson unconvinced at best. “As the State Department said just this week,” Hillary replied, “that didn’t happen.” Actually, what the State Department said was that they had no records to show what happened, but … forget it, she’s rolling. Dickerson presses onward:

    The sensitive nature of the crisis was underscored by one June 15 email Princeton Lyman, the special envoy to Sudan, sent to a group of State Department officials, including Sullivan, apprising them of developments in the region. The bulk of the email is classified as confidential. It is unclear if any of that information was included in the talking points Sullivan was preparing for Clinton.

    On June 16, Sullivan emailed Clinton: “Still inching toward an Abyei deal.”

    He also stated that State Department staff were asking that Clinton might call both Salva Kiir, South Sudan’s vice president at the time and a leader of the SPLA, and Nafie al Nafie, al-Bashir’s assistant.

    As Clinton’s email traffic shows, at 5:51 p.m. on June 16, 2011 Sullivan forwarded Clinton an email from Matthew Spence, who then worked at the National Security Council. The email is redacted, but Sullivan added a note to Clinton telling her, “you’ll get tps this eve.” …

    Other email traffic shows that Clinton was seeking the talking points just minutes before she was scheduled to talk to Salva Kiir.

    “And kiir is now locked for 830 am,” one Clinton aide wrote.

At almost the same time, Bob Woodward told Fox News Sunday that Hillary’s living in a bubble. Clearly she wanted to “subvert the rules,” but the big question is whether the DoJ will allow Hillary to continue to live in that bubble. Woodward also explains that the “nonpaper” effort is itself a dodge around the rules (via John Fund):

    BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST:  Well, because here you have the secretary of state in 2011 saying let’s subvert the rules, which say you’ve got to send — presumably — I mean, it’s very clear from the earlier e-mails that this was a security issue, and I’ve written about nonpapers or no papers, and this is the way people in the government take the heading off and create something that exists.

    WALLACE:  Explain that, explain that to the rest of the world here.  What’s a nonpaper and what is taking the heading off?

    WOODWARD:  By taking it off, it’s just a piece of paper that has a bunch of paragraphs.  And there’s no classification, there’s no subject, so it’s not in the system, so no one can discover it through Freedom of Information Act or some sort of subpoena.

    I mean, look, here is Hillary Clinton, somebody who worked on the staff of the Nixon impeachment committee, and what was the lesson, one of the lessons from that?  Never write anything down.

    She did years of Whitewater investigations where she was the target, and here, many years later, she’s saying oh, let’s subvert the rules and writing it out herself?  You know, whether that’s some sort of crime I think is not the issue.  The issue is, it shows she kind of feels immune, that she lives in a bubble, and no one is ever going to find this out.  Well, now we have.





In other words, it’s a deception all the way down. Is it a crime? If Sullivan balked at doing this, then not in and of itself, but we don’t know whether he did or not — and neither does State. But it demonstrates that Hillary was well aware of the import of classified markings and had ordered her aides to defeat that system. That makes her “none of it was marked classified” excuse moot, and gives any prosecutor within six weeks of passing a bar exam plenty of evidence to pursue a case in federal court — especially when more than 1300 other examples of classified transmission and storage through unsecured means exist in the system Hillary forced everyone else to use.


http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/11/hillary-by-ordering-identifying-heading-i-meant-dont-transmit-classified-info-or-something/

I mean, 70 years ago people were hanged for starting a war of aggression on false pretenses. At the very least their current colleagues should be taken out of circulation.