Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 57. (Read 234741 times)

yes.

Is sanders a candidate for the democrat party?

I seriously think the only candidate who has the best shot of winning is going to be Sanders... there is so much support from him amongst the young democratic voters.  This notion of electing Hillary just because she is a woman is starting to disappear, and the democratic voters are actually starting to look more into Hillary's history... which could be considered a good/bad thing for the republican party.  I think if Hillary would be elected it would be a shoe in to get a republican candidate elected for the presidency, because they will non stop call her out on all the bad things she's done over the years... While Sanders has a pretty clean history with radical socialist ideas, that I think a majority of the young people want... for some reason I don't really understand.

Hillary drops 10 points in just 1 week: http://www.businessinsider.com/clintons-support-plunged-10-points-2015-10

Clinton's support among Democratic voters fell 10 points within less than a week.

From October 4 to October 9, Clinton saw her support tumble from 51 percent of Democratic support to just 41 percent.

Her nearest competitors, Vermont Senator Sanders and Vice President of the U.S. Joe Biden, who has yet to decide whether he will run, both made gains. Support for Sanders jumped from just over 24 percent to 28 percent, and Biden rose from 16 percent to a even 20 percent in the same time period.

We´re always being outnegotiated because our people are babies, says The Donald. How true. And the 70-year old man-children. Oh, my gosh. Some of them are probably dying to have their dicks chopped off.
Sounds crazy, but nowadays I´m probably the crazy one for daring to mention that having mentally unstable people in charge can be extremely dangerous.

Donald Trump: 'Let Russia fight ISIS'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJHgA4_0CAo

On a lighter dick note, here´s a little story from the great Lance Henriksen, one if the very best movie             scumbags that I´ve loved to hate


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000448/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

Can Clinton's Email Scandal Get Worse? It Already Is


Corruption: Hillary Clinton has complained about the steady "drip, drip, drip" of revelations about her email troubles. This week, the drips became a torrent. Will her presidential aspirations drown in a flood of scandal?

The news cycle turned Tuesday night on reports that a second server handling Clinton's State Department emails has been found, raising questions about just how many people had access to the classified material on her emails.

How much did her negligence increase the country's vulnerability to espionage?

How widely did she expose herself to blackmail?

For months we've known that Clinton used Platte River Networks in Colorado to manage her email server — which had been in her house while she was secretary of state — after she left the State Department.

Now we know that Datto Inc. in Connecticut has been used as a second data storage site for her emails.

This came to light Tuesday when Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, asked Datto in a letter to turn over any Clinton emails that it has.

That doesn't hold up, though, unless it turns out that a concerned Platte River Networks employee is a Republican operative.

When this employee noticed that Clinton representatives had asked "Datto to reduce the amount of her emails it was backing up," he or she became suspicious, the McClatchy Washington bureau reported. The employee sent off an email that said "this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) sh*t."

Another Platte River Networks employee — or possibly the same one, it isn't clear — sent an email saying "this is a problem" when "Platte River employees discovered that her private server was syncing with an offsite Datto server," McClatchy reported.

Apparently, the Clinton camp wanted to be sure some emails weren't going to be saved.

That raises another question, one that has been asked many times throughout this scandal but never satisfactorily answered:

What is Clinton trying to hide?

The morning after the Datto news broke, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the FBI has seized four State Department servers in its probe of Clinton's personal email system. Investigators want to know "how top secret material was sent to Clinton's private email by State Department aides."

Remember, Clinton has said multiple times that there was never classified material in her personal email. Yet there it is, and the FBI wants to know why.

Clinton has also said constantly that she has turned over all the emails that investigators and officials have asked for. She even signed a statement in which she swore "under penalty of perjury" that she had produced all emails that were, or potentially were, federal records.

Yet, as we have noted, officials keep asking for more emails because they don't think Clinton has handed over everything. So we naturally wonder if she perjured herself when she signed the statement.

Clinton could have avoided all this if she had simply elected to use the State Department's secure email rather than her own account managed by a private server located in her personal residence.

But she didn't, and voters need to know why, just as much as they need to know what her involvement in the Benghazi disaster was.

Even those who fully stand behind her political positions should hold back their support until either Clinton comes clean or the investigations are completed.

If the investigations go beyond the next election, that's just the way it is.


http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100715-774536-hillary-email-scandal-get-even-more-scandalous.htm?p=full

Hillary drops 19 points … in California.


http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article38007336.html

cant tell if this is sarcastic or not anymore.

in other news, hillary's popularity seems to be declining: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article38007336.html
looks like people cant ignore the whole email scandal anymore, people need to wake up and start giving a shit; these kinds of people are the ones expected to lead a country ffs.

Yes completely.because she is a politician.and politicians do their jobs by lying.and hillary is one of the most famous poltician.so you can believe in her that she does her job well and tell lies everyday.

Hillary chief of staff e-mailed classified info to the Clinton Foundation — twice





The Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal may have its first target for criminal charges — assuming the Department of Justice takes its job seriously. E-mails produced via a FOIA lawsuit from Citizens United include two instances in which Hillary’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills transmitted classified information to people outside of the government. In fact, as Politico reports, the two e-mails from Mills went to the Clinton Foundation to assist in coordinating with Bill Clinton’s efforts on behalf of the Clinton Global Initiative:

Hillary Clinton’s No. 2 at the State Department twice forwarded information to the Clinton Foundation that was later deemed classified, the latest instance of former Clinton staff transmitting now-classified information.

According to a new email chain shared with POLITICO by Citizens United, Cheryl Mills — Clinton’s former chief of state at State — forwarded State Department background information about Rwanda and the Congo to the Clintons’ philanthropic organization. Citizens United, a conservative activist group, obtained the messages via a Freedom of Information act lawsuit. …

The information in the 2012 emails was classified by the State Department in July of this year because of national security and foreign policy reasons, according to the documents. The classification specifically related to foreign government information and intelligence activities, sources or methods, according to the redaction labels.

If true, this would be a classic violation of 18 USC 793 (f):

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


It’s actually a more clear-cut violation than what has emerged so far. Until now, we have seen evidence of gross negligence in communications of classified information between State Department officials on an unsecured system known to have been penetrated by outsiders at least once, and whose data has been in unsecured and unauthorized hands. These two e-mails show a deliberate communication of classified information to someone fully outside the government, not just within the State Department’s sphere of operations.

Mills’ defenders — both formal and informal — will argue that Mills didn’t intend on transmitting classified information, and that is was either not classified at the time or at least not marked so in the originating materials. None of this is a defense against 18 USC 793, which nowhere requires classification to prosecute. Besides, the kind of information suggested by the redaction would obviously be sensitive enough to protect, and certainly not to be shared with uncleared and unauthorized personnel at a politically connected non-profit. This is precisely what security briefings tell people with clearances not to do. No one at any level would fail to grasp the risks and legal implications of these actions, and certainly not at the high level of clearance employed at the top of the State Department.

On top of that, what was Mills doing in briefing Clinton Foundation officials in the first place? She had a job serving the public at the State Department, a job she took by leaving the Clinton Foundation. Mills returned to the foundation when she left State, too. In between, though, the public had a right to expect that Mills would put her duties at State — which includes the safeguarding of classified material — ahead of any other priorities. Politico’s Rachel Bade asks the same question:

Mills sat on the foundation’s board before becoming the department’s No. 2 official and returned to the board after leaving State in 2013. And she appeared to continue to advise the foundation while at State, according to other emails revealed by the Citizens United lawsuit. Republicans say those connections between Mills and the Clinton Foundation raise questions about whether the relationship was too close.

“The fact that these two email chains — which are now classified — were sent only 16 days apart, makes it appear as if the sharing of sensitive government information with the Clinton Foundation was a regular occurrence,” David Bossie, president of Citizens United, said in a statement. “Time will tell as more emails become public.”

Indeed it will. Until then, Mills may need to seek legal representation, and in any other administration might have already been Mirandized.

Matt Drudge: Media propping up ‘old and sick’ Hillary







Media kingpin Matt Drudge on Tuesday railed against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health and her politics, saying he was worried the nation would end up “with Hillary’s brain in the Oval Office in a jar.”

“She’s old and she’s sick,” the Drudge Report founder said in an interview with Alex Jones.

Drudge slammed the media for propping up Clinton’s candidacy.

“She’s not a contender. They’re making her a contender with these propped up Saturday Night Live things. It’s like a head on a stick,” he said, chiding NBC for “giving her endless hours of airtime.”

The media mogul cited Clinton’s hypothyroidism as cause for concern.

“Anybody who is 70 years old who is hypothyroid, you do not elect president, ladies and gentlemen,” he said.

Drudge also alluded to his “long history” with the Clintons, referencing his coverage of the 1990s Monica Lewinsky scandal.

“They’re ugly. They play dirty. They sued me for $30 million last time around,” he said. “Hillary Clinton with the NSA — good luck if you dissent. Snowden, I’ll switch places with you.”



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/256152-matt-drudge-media-propping-up-old-and-sick-hillary

Hillary Clinton Supporters Endorse "White Privilege Tax" on All WHITE PEOPLE'S Income! - TAX WHITEY




-----------------
Braindead, not good enough for zombies...

Hillary Clinton’s legal adviser warns her — Time to lawyer up


One of the Clintons’ oldest and most trusted legal advisers has urged Hillary to hire a criminal defense attorney to represent her in case she’s indicted for mishandling classified documents on her private e-mail server and for lying under oath.

The adviser, who has been a Clinton confidant for more than 30 years, laid out his concerns about Hillary’s legal exposure in a wide-ranging interview.

“This e-mail thing is spiraling out of control,” he said. “To paraphrase John Dean of Watergate fame, it’s a cancer on her candidacy.

“Frankly,” he continued, “I am used to my advice on legal matters being taken very seriously and acted upon by the Clintons. I’ve told them repeatedly that this FBI e-mail investigation could go in a very dangerous direction very quickly.

“I think Bill takes the matter seriously. But Hillary is still acting as though it’s a political smear job by right-wing zealots.”

In separate phone conversations with Bill and Hillary, the adviser said he warned them that Justice Department prosecutors handling Hillary’s case expect the FBI probe to wrap up much sooner than expected — maybe as soon as the end of this year.


http://nypost.com/2015/10/03/hillary-clintons-legal-adviser-warns-her-time-to-lawyer-up/

That is worrying. There are some 11 million illegals in the United States (conservative estimation), accounting for as much as 3.5 percent of the total population. And this represents a total of 19 electoral votes, out of 538. In a close election, these 19 votes can prove to be decisive, even more so if they are distributed in deep blue/red states such as California and Texas.

Illegals are not allowed to vote directly, but there huge numbers in certain states give those states more electoral power.

Illegals shouldnt be allowed to vote.  Same goes for people here on green cards.

Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Hillary
How noncitizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year.


Illegal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.

The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House.

The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such “whole number of persons.”

This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College. Using citizen-only population statistics, American University scholar Leonard Steinhorn projects California would lose five House seats and therefore five electoral votes. New York and Washington would lose one seat, and thus one electoral vote apiece. These three states, which have voted overwhelming for Democrats over the latest six presidential elections, would lose seven electoral votes altogether. The GOP’s path to victory, by contrast, depends on states that would lose a mere three electoral votes in total. Republican stronghold Texas would lose two House seats and therefore two electoral votes. Florida, which Republicans must win to reclaim the presidency, loses one seat and thus one electoral vote.

But that leaves the electoral math only half done. The 10 House seats taken away from these states would then need to be reallocated to states with relatively small numbers of noncitizens. The following ten states, the bulk of which lean Republican, would likely gain one House seat and thus one additional electoral vote: Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216


---------------------------------------------
The plan. All along.

Very true it can go either way.   Emm we should send a letter of recommendation for a new oval office design.  and all meeting even public ones nee to happen from the oval office.   lol  would be interesting.

yeah, or maybe a pit like for an orchestra fronting a stage. 

The prez could then 'direct' to his liking while discussing important things, like how to fleece public and look like he cares.

In the case of a female prez tossing some stirrups in should be no problem....

LOL that is awesome.  Guess its time they get a bigger desk in the oval office.  One with small seats under the desk maybe even collapsible.