Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 68. (Read 234761 times)

'um', 'uh' 11 times in 97 seconds...


The Clinton campaign is still groping for two sentences to put together to explain why Hillary’s email server was wiped clean.

Campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri appeared on CNN moments ago to try again to come up with an answer. Instead, it was largely rambling and incoherent.


“When did she decide to delete all — you know, half of the emails she effectively engaged in during her four years as secretary of state,” Wolf Blitzer asked Palmieri.

“She had her, um, she had — what happened was she — state department came to all the former secretaries of state last fall to ask for — to ask for whatever records they may have because they realized that, um, uh, they didn’t becau- because, uh, not just Hillary Clinton but other secretaries of state may have used personal email they may not have captured everything.

“So she had, she asked, uh, her lawyers to look at this so she had some legal minds on the case to see which emails were state department and which were personal and, uh, turned over the state department ones, uh, anything that was business related and, and then chose not to retain the ones that she, the ones that were personal,” Palmieri said.

“On that point,” Blitzer responded, “why wouldn’t she want to keep her own email records — maybe there were some fun, cute emails — why would she need to wipe all that clean?”

“She deglided, um, because she didn’t, I mean, these are, these are personal emails and I think that everyone understands even Hillary Clinton gets a zone of privacy and she decided that she, uh, she retains a couple months-worth of emails so you can, you know, so she can, uh, uh, find personal emails she needs to but after that, she doesn’t need them anymore. So, she made this decision, I think is, obviously, you know, she was former secretary of state, so we want to be sure people understand, uh, how she handled classified information when shew as secretary of state, she was very careful with it, she didn’t deal with it online, she dealt with it on hard copy, in meetings, not on the computer,” Palmieri said.


http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-spox-stumbles-and-mumbles-over-deleted-emails/

Hillary T. Clinton.   

State Department Issues New Rules In Bid To Stop Employees From Talking To Press About Hillary’s Email Scandal…



The State Department has quietly issued a new policy that some insiders view as designed to keep employees from freely speaking to Congress or the press about Benghazi and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email controversy.

The State Department issued 19 pages of revised rules about official clearance for speaking, writing and teaching on July 27.

The new rules, first reported by Diplopundit, a blog that unofficially watches State Department leadership and management issues, say in part: “Employee testimony, whether in an official capacity or in a personal capacity on a matter of Departmental concern may be subject to the review requirements of this subchapter. Employees should consult with the Department of State’s Office of the Legal Adviser or [U.S. Agency of International Development’s] Office of the General Counsel, as appropriate, to determine applicable procedures.”


http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/19/state-department-clamps-down-on-speaking-to-congress-or-press/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


--------------------------------------------
Hillary's turd spreads up...

Clinton Spokesperson Absurdly Claims “Absolutely Nothing Controversial” About Clinton Emails






------------------------------------
Hillary needs better liars with a better poker face. Did you see how he was slightly bobbleheading at the end? Very proud of himself...

 

Surely democrats did not vote for Romney as they never supported him either...  Why would you want to support someone who told you to shut up?

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both-of-them-2015-1


0bama is the definition of narcissism. Look it up. You do not have to believe me.

Well I guess Hillary has made nice moving then, which she could got many supporters for now. Surely Republicans never support Obama, thats why most of them didnt vote for him.

Latest pro-Hillary spin: Classifications are dumb, y’all





Old and busted: You can trust Hillary Clinton with national security. New hotness: National security protections are so overrated! With the FBI probing the data trail from Hillary’s secret e-mail server and more than 300 e-mails flagged as possibly containing classified material, the strategy now is to claim that the material was overclassified from the start. Longtime Clinton defender David Brock told Politico that he wants to push the idea that classification is “elastic,” a term that has suddenly popped up more than once in the media of late.

In another Politico piece, Matthew Miller claims that the “real Clinton e-mail scandal” is classification itself. He claims that the appearance of classified material in more than 300 e-mails out of 6,000 is “far less scandalous than the headlines make it appear,” and that the true failure is overclassification of material that should be in the public domain:



As a former Department of Justice official who regularly dealt with classified information, I am glad a team of officials from the FBI, the intelligence community and other agencies is not currently reviewing every email I sent and received while I worked in government. If they did, they would likely find arguably classified information that was transmitted over unclassified networks—and the same thing is undoubtedly true for other senior officials at the White House, the State Department and other top national security agencies.

The sheer volume of information now considered classified, as well as the extreme, and often absurd, interpretations by intelligence officials about what is and is not classified, make it nearly impossible for officials charged with operating in both the classified and unclassified worlds to do so without ever mixing the two.

From the intelligence community’s perspective, the border between these two worlds looks like a brick wall. Many intelligence officials spend their entire day working inside so-called Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, designed to be impenetrable to eavesdropping, and using only separate, classified email systems to communicate with others in government. In these hermetically sealed environments, there is no need to ever sort through the differences between classified and unclassified information.

But for officials charged with dealing with the public, the media and other governments, the lines become much harder to draw.



This glosses over a couple of very important points. First, the proper way to reclassify material is to have the issuing authority review it. That duty does not fall to the Secretary of State or her aides, but to the agencies that produced the data, and their direct chain of command, all the way to the President. Not even Congress can declassify material, at least not directly. Users of this material have a positive responsibility to protect it, are briefed constantly on how to handle it while it remains classified, and face severe consequences for violating those protocols and laws, most definitely including prosecution when it involves willful violations or gross negligence (18 USC 793, especially in (f)(1), the application of which is not limited to classified material).

Second, while much of the e-mails flagged (so far) are classified at Confidential and Secret levels — where overclassification is a chronic issue — two e-mails contained information that the issuing agencies considered Top Secret and compartmented. That data came from the NSA and other signals intelligence operations, including satellite-gathered data. Those kinds of information carry high classifications for very substantial reasons, including the protection of our methods of collecting it.

Finally, all of this starts and ends with the exclusive use of an unsecured and unauthorized communications system located in Hillary Clinton’s house, effectively an unauthorized retention of classified material (a crime under 18 USC 1924). There is no valid reason for a federal official with compliance requirements not just for secure transmission of sensitive materials but also with the Federal Records Act to conduct official business through a home-brew server. It was a deliberate attempt to circumvent both responsibilities, and largely succeeded at the latter until the existence of the server became public. As a result, the State Department made numerous misrepresentations in courts in response to FOIA demands that involved communications from Hillary and her team that were required to be part of the public record.

Classifications are not “elastic” either, not to those who handle the material, and especially not when it comes to signals intelligence. They are required to handle it according to the markings no matter what they personally think of its necessity. If Hillary and her staff had a problem with the classification levels cited, then they should have requested a review of the material — and there is no indication that anyone ever did. Even if they had, Hillary and her team were still were required to comply with the laws and protocols while the material was still classified.

Overclassification may be a problem, but it’s not this problem.  This problem is that a high-ranking public official secretly evaded legitimate constitutional oversight from Congress and the courts with this e-mail system, which recklessly endangered US national security for four years to service her own personal motives.

This is a pathetic attempt at spin, especially given the progression of defenses that have been offered over the last six months. The RNC’s James Hewitt notes the moving goalposts of Hillary defenders:






http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/19/latest-pro-hillary-spin-classifications-are-dumb-yall/

Obama Says He Could Win Again - True or False?



[..]
Just 30% of Likely U.S. Voters say they would vote for the president if he ran for a third term. Sixty-three percent (63%) would not. . . .

Most Democrats (57%) would vote to give Obama a third term. Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party – and 32% of Democrats – would not.

Voters also favored leaving the two-term limit in place by a margin of 4 to 1.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2015/obama_says_he_could_win_again_true_or_false

Clinton Refuses To Give Supporter A Hug


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr4DOwk1lWg


It's a hug of love hillary... Love... Look it up.


 

Much better as a destroyer, on any level, that we can agree...

So both Hillary and Trump are the strongest candidates for next US president so far. But seems Obama is still much better than all candidates. Unfortunately he can can't be elected for next period.

Edited

CNN poll: Hillary’s lead over Trump in hypothetical match-up shrinks to just six points





[...]
Here’s my favorite of the many, many photoshops circulating on Twitter after Hillary’s trainwreck press conference yesterday. Oh, by the way: When registered Democratic voters were asked whether Biden should run, 53 percent said yes — which, coincidentally, equals the precise share of the primary electorate that’s not supporting Hillary in this poll. Not Hillary 53, Hillary 47?


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/19/cnn-poll-hillarys-lead-over-trump-in-hypothetical-match-up-shrinks-to-just-six-points/

No, you should use escrow with her.

Well, can The Country be ran from a jail cell?

Maybe it can.  Maybe we'll see.

One could only fucking hope


Welcome our next fucking president.

She's all but been guaranteed the presidency by the globalists.

Hillary clinton the criminal wiped the hard drives before turning them in 

Put this b*** in jail please

Todd: Three letters that changed the Hillary server saga — F, B, I



Whatever Hillary Clinton is selling, the panel on Morning Joe ain’t buying. The presumed Democratic frontrunner tried turning the Saga of the Secret Server into a joke this weekend, and then made it part of the Hillary fantasy of the vast right-wing conspiracy in further remarks. Not only does that not fly with the commentariat, Chuck Todd told the panel this morning, it’s no longer working on Democrat voters in Iowa, all thanks to three letters — F, B, and I:

Joe Scarborough: Forget the first problem, which was as you were saying, deciding to set up your own serve outside the State Department.

Chuck Todd: That’s why we’re here.

Scarborough: Let’s just go to last night. She’s in a fundraiser, this is much ado about nothing. And she is doing Snapchat jokes while the FBI is expanding their investigation, and now 305 emails and beyond, where all of us, who report the news, who you know read the news, look at it and go, well, that’s plainly not true. Just look at what se did last night and she’s digging herself if deeper in a a hole. By destroying her credibility. Why is she doing it?

Todd: You know, this is the only explanation is, it’s how they’ve handled these situations for the last 25 years.

Scarborough: But she’s fighting The New York Times, not Breitbart.

Todd: They believe they have been fighting The New York Times, by the way, for 50 years.

Scarborough: Let me say this, it’s the FBI, not Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

Todd: Which by the way, those three letters, because, look, I found the same thing. In my three days in Iowa when I was talking to Democrats out there and not just Democrats who want a job, right, Democrats who just simply are voting and taking their kids to the fair. The letters FBI is what changed this story. This is the difference between us and Washington and New York saying and her effectively a month ago being able to say this is you guys in the media that care about this, voters don’t. That was true a month ago. The three letters FBI totally changed the game.




http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/18/todd-three-letters-that-changed-the-hillary-server-saga-f-b-i/

Question To Hillary: Did You Wipe The Server? Hillary: “You Mean Like With A Cloth Or Something?”

Hillary Clinton Is Rooting for Jeb Bush

Thhere is an obvious subtext to the panicked effort to purge the GOP of Donald Trump: to allow the party’s true hero to emerge to vanquish Hillary Clinton and restore peace and justice throughout the land. To most GOP elites, of course, the savior is Jeb Bush, complete with the Clark Kent glasses and aw-shucks good guy demeanor. The Chamber of Commerce crowd is so convinced that Jeb is the man that it (so far) has placed a bet of more than $100 million on that proposition.
There’s just one problem—the Clintons want Jeb Bush to be the GOP nominee, too.

It was Trump himself who picked up on this fact when Hillary Clinton singled out Bush for criticism over his remark that “I’m not sure we need a half a billion dollars for women’s health issues.” Bush later said he “misspoke.” (This is supposed to be the safe, gaffe-free candidate, right?) By going after Jeb directly, and far from the first time, the Clintons want to “elevate” him, Trump charged, because they know they can beat him.

Here’s something you don’t hear, well, ever, in Washington: Donald Trump is right.

Regardless of whether Clinton survives her primary battle with a growing list of potential foes—that before long may include Joe Biden, blast-from-the-past Al Gore and heck, at this rate, maybe even Michael Dukakis—Republicans ought to think hard about the reasons why Bush might be the easiest of the serious GOP contenders for the Clintons to beat. And it’s not just because they’ve done it before.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-is-rooting-for-jeb-bush-121452.html#ixzz3jCyXRJNt

I’m a Hillary Clinton fan. But I hope she bows out with grace

Hillary Clinton has a fundraising pot that is overflowing. She appears to be cruising to the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination: and then, if the stars align in her favour, on to a well-deserved place in history as the first female president of the United States.

Her supporters have wished it for so long, it seems almost impossible that it might not come to pass. And I would count myself among those supporters, ever since – as a Washington-based correspondent – I watched the lobbyists gang up to defeat her health plan, and observed how she toughed out the sordid revelations about her husband and “that woman, Miss Lewinsky”.

More...http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/17/hillary-clinton-white-house-too-much-baggage