Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 67. (Read 234761 times)

Draft Biden group circulates pro-Joe memo to DNC members



Ahead of the Democratic National Committee summer meeting in Minneapolis later this week, the Draft Biden campaign is circulating a memo to DNC members and party leaders, asking them to keep an open mind about a possible presidential run for Joe Biden.

In the two-page memo, titled, “The Case for Joe Biden,” a senior adviser to the group, Josh Alcorn, writes, “Our ask for you today is not financial: we are asking you to keep an open mind and consider a Biden candidacy. Our country, the Democratic Party, and yes, the Vice President deserves nothing less. The more you consider it, the more sense it makes.”

The letter was sent five days before all five declared Democratic presidential candidates are set to make their case to party leaders and superdelegates at the DNC gathering. Hillary Clinton is speaking at the meeting on Friday before heading back to the Hamptons, where she has been vacationing and attending fundraisers. Biden is not scheduled to attend the meeting.

Clinton supporters stressed the importance of the audience for the Democratic front-runner, who in 2008 won the popular vote but did not win enough delegates to win her party’s nomination.

The memo from the Draft Biden group to DNC members makes no explicit reference to the email controversy that is dogging Clinton and helping to create an opening for a Biden run. But it warns them that it is too early to get behind a presumed nominee.

“It’s important to remind ourselves of how conventional wisdom and early polling leaders in past primaries have fallen short,” the Draft Biden memo states. “It is way too early to bet on 2016 polls. In the late summer/early fall of 2003 and 2007, party activists were still being courted and the eventual nominee was not leading in the polls.”

The letter also argues that Biden shares the same characteristics that have helped to rally huge crowds and support for Republican front-runner Donald Trump and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “Americans are looking for a president who tells it like it is,” the memo states. “Everyone knows Joe Biden’s straightforward style and authentic approach to politics. But combine those likable qualities with a heavyweight resume – decades in the United States Senate and six and a half years executive experience in the White House – and the case for Joe Biden is clear as day.”

Alcorn, the former chief of staff to Joe Biden’s late son Beau, notes in the memo that since 2000, caucus and primary-goers have never coronated an “inevitable nominee in the year before those contests take place.” And it points to the fact that in 2007, the polls “made then-Senator Hillary Clinton look like a sure thing for the 2008 Democratic nomination.”

The memo also attempts to address questions of how Biden would build the campaign infrastructure necessary for a serious run.

“Draft Biden 2016 has already assembled a who’s who of staff talent focusing on deft media strategy, aggressive fundraising, innovative digital outreach, and a dynamic field operation that aims to be up and running in all 50 states by September,” the memo says.

In reality, the Draft Biden movement began as a ragtag group of junior operatives working out of a collective office space in downtown Chicago. But in the past 10 days, it has begun to attract some seasoned political operatives to its cause. When Alcorn signed on, it also lent the group the patina of a Biden-family blessed enterprise.

To some recipients, it showed “a lot of assertions without anything backing them up,” said one DNC meeting attendee after reading the letter. “If this is the way his campaign would be run, then he shouldn’t enter the race.”

A Draft Biden spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/draft-biden-group-pro-joe-memo-dnc-members-121682.html

Josh Earnest: The president has indicated his view, that the decision he made, I guess seven years ago now, to add Joe Biden to the ticket as his running mate was the smartest decision he ever made in politics. And, I think that should give you some sense of the president’s view of Vice President’s Biden aptitude for the top job.

Reporter Jonathan Karl: So I assume that means the president would support Vice President Biden to run since it were a better decision than the Secretary of State he chose? You said it was the best decision he made…

Josh Earnest: Yeah. It was.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuIiH1wlCac

Jeez trust in those runners is not good at all, can you not see (have you all been blinded)

Here in the UK we have a new revolutionary candidate for PM he will sort the corrupt out

Defence Diversification  JEREMY CORBYN

And he will not bow down to the whims of the USA

Jeremy Corbyn MP: How do we stop endless war waged by United States and its allies?

I bet you wish you had someone like this good guy, not like those corrupt business leaders you have.
A political revolution is coming to the UK (win win)

I'd have to say that she's probably the most trustworthy candidate at the moment. She'd beat the pants off of Trump that's for sure. Even given the e-mailgate scandal.

China melting down. It is almost as if china was helping Americans to do the right thing: President Trump!

Look, it's not like that if we just don't hear about and are told what to think.  It's a nice world with nice people all holding hands in a circle and you are a big meanie.

Trump, here we come...

Michael Mukasey, who was the Unites States Attorney General from 2007 to 2009, showed up on Morning Joe today to discuss the Hillary Clinton private server debacle and how it was going to play out. This wasn’t his first cable news hit on the subject and he’d been making the rounds, pointing out that this investigation “is not a witch hunt,” as he said on interviews over the weekend. Most of the information being discussed was nothing new. The panel talked about how Hillary’s decisions to not only have a private server, but to fail to properly classify the contents was a violation of department policy, if not the law. But then, in response to one question from Scarborough, Mukasey went a step further and said that Clinton may have disqualified herself from elected office if the allegations prove to be true.

Now, that’s a phrase we’ve heard before, but generally in a philosophical sense. “If you do this or that bad thing, you’ve essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world.” But when the former AG was pressed on the question, he informed the panel that he was speaking specifically of federal statute.

Joking that it was a common subject around his family’s breakfast table, he said, “Title 18. Section 2071.”

Let’s take a look at what he’s talking about. The statute starts out like this in paragraph (a):

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

That’s along the same lines as things we’ve been discussing all along. But the big news is in paragraph (b). (Emphasis added)

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Wouldn’t wiping classified records (assuming that’s proven by the FBI) from your private server, or directing others to do that to the server while it’s sitting in a bathroom in Colorado, qualify as removing, obliterating or destroying said records?

This may shed some new light on why Hillary Clinton has been so unwilling to answer some very basic questions when facing the press. She has finally been asked directly (by Ed Henry) if she either wiped the server or directed that it be wiped. She tried to write that one off with a joke, saying, “What? You mean with a cloth?” But her legal team has surely been looking this situation over very closely and are doubtless aware of Title 18, Section 2071, paragraph (b). If the answer to that question is actually “yes” and she admits it in public, she could well be literally ending her presidential bid, not to mention opening herself up to the possibility of a fine or jail time. (Or both.)

Is this what will finally bring Clinton down? Don’t bet the ranch on it. It would require the will on the part of those not only investigating, but prosecuting the case to see it through to the end. And there will be people in the State Department as well as the media fighting tooth and claw the entire way to keep claiming that this is all some grand machination of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to derail the hopes of an historic presidential candidate. But at some point the evidence has to build up to the point where the public can’t simply ignore it. So what’s next?

Joe Biden… call your office.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/24/former-attorney-general-clinton-may-have-disqualified-herself-for-elected-office/

Clinton's 'breach of common sense'

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey talks about the Clinton email controversy and says, "you don't put it all on a private server."


http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/clintons-breach-of-common-sense-511857219654

The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal, In Two-and-a-Half Minutes


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV0il-90JnI

No politician, no matter the county is trustworthy.

CBS Boston: Warren In Interview Stiff Arms Hillary Clinton


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DscfO-nX28

Well she didn't has the time to join her husband birthday bash. What she really care is only her country, USA Or maybe she just care the power she will get.

Hillary planning to “educate the public” on the natsec classification process





To get in front of these headlines, the Clinton campaign is plotting a three-pronged pushback strategy. The first, described by Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri in an interview with The Huffington Post, is an end-of-summer effort to educate the public on the classification process for national security material. The second, coming when Congress returns from recess, is to aggressively pivot to policy announcements, from economic and women’s issues to President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, which will receive a vote in September. The last is to “go on offense” on Clinton’s record as Secretary of State, which the campaign sees as the ultimate target of her Republican critics…

In attempting to soothe jittery Democrats, aides have begun highlighting Oct. 22 as a moment that could bring clarity — if not some finality — to the email story. Clinton will head to  Capitol Hill that day for testimony before the House committee investigating the 2011 consulate attack in Benghazi. And the presumption that she’ll do well under questioning is matched only by the conviction that House Republicans will grow over-eager under the camera lights.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-clinton-campaign-is-in-the-barrel-they-have-a-plan-to-get-out_55d76df0e4b08cd3359c0858?2ihpvi

You guys keep talking about her email story...

How about the huge role she played in assassinating Gaddhafi, eviscerating Libya and handing the whole country over to ISIS extremists?

She's a fucking warcriminal

For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Reuters' findings may add to questions that Clinton has been facing over her adherence to rules concerning sensitive government information. Spokesmen for Clinton declined to answer questions, but Clinton and her staff maintain she did not mishandle any information.

"I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified," Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday.

Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.

The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.

The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public.

The State Department has said it does not know whether the inspector general is correct. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched an investigation into the security of the copies of the emails outside the government's control.

FOR THE SECRETARY'S EYES ONLY

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.

In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."

Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach, in an initial response to questions on how the department applies classification regulations, said that Reuters was making "outlandish accusations." In a later email, he said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.

"We do not have the ability to go back and recreate all of the various factors that would have gone into the determinations," he wrote.

The Reuters review also found that the declassification dates the department has been marking on these emails suggest the department might believe the information was classified all along. Gerlach said this was incorrect.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

A series of presidential executive orders has governed how officials should handle the ceaseless incoming stream of raw, usually unmarked information they acquire in their work. Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified.

The State Department's own regulations, as laid out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, have been unequivocal since at least 1999: all department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher, according to the version in force in 2009, when these particular emails were sent.

"Confidential" is the lowest U.S. classification level for information that could harm national security if leaked, after "top secret" and "secret".

State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.

Reuters was unable to rule out the possibility that the State Department was now overclassifying the information in the emails, or applying the regulations in some other improper or unusual way.

John Fitzpatrick, the current ISOO director, said Reuters had correctly identified all the governing rules but said it would be inappropriate for his office to take a stance on Clinton's emails, in part because he did not know the context in which the information was given.

A spokeswoman for one of the foreign governments whose information appears in Clinton's emails said, on condition of anonymity to protect diplomatic relations, that the information was shared confidentially in 2009 with Clinton and her senior staff.

If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations.

The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.

Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize, although more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.

With few exceptions, officials are forbidden from sending classified information even via the .gov email network and must use a dedicated secure network instead. The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

She´s as trustworthy as any politician  . I don´t understand using expressions like these when speaking about people whose only occupation is to get into position of power.

Then who would you choose if the candidates for US President are only Obama, Trump, and Hillary? The last two names have made some controversial actions before election. But yeah, Obama can't fulfill all expectations of his people. Maybe Hillary can

Lying fucks.

Classified communications is clearly marked and identified.

http://fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/nimaguide.pdf

Classified information must be protected or stored in a locked security container when not under control or when not located in an area approved for open storage.  Only GSA approved security containers or approved open storage areas are authorized for storage of classified information.

There are three essential markings required on all information classified as national security information.  The following will appear on the face of each classified documen
t, or will be applied to other classified media in an appropriate manner:
a.
Classification Line (at the top and bottom);
b.
Portion Marking;
c.
Classification Block which consists of the following:
1)
The identity, by name or personal identifier and position of the
 OCA;
2)
The agency and office of origin,
3)
Declassification instructions,
4)
Reason for classification. 

A 2013 report to Congress noted that "...criminal statutes that may apply to the publication of classified defense information ... have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it), who make it available to foreign agents.