Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 74. (Read 234741 times)

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell: Media Underestimated Impact of Clinton Email Scandal (video)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S45CoCgW71M


-------------------------------
No kidding...

Lots of opportunities to use any of them next time? Have I got news for you, in 2015 the 0 is president right now. Since US presidents are all the same to you anyway...

 

Have I got news for you, plenty of them here lol

Hillary Clinton: “I Love The Bike Racks Here”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IldCI72w5S8

I understand finding an image of Drone Obama next to the Israeli flag is impossible...?

Would be better if you did worry, the US policy makers are warmongers, very fookin dangerous I must say.

It's those brain dead supporters of not just him, also others before him, and the present day.

No need to worry then...

Who cares. Whatever the results of the next elections,
US will continue to be a police-state shitcountry with
many community roblems and issues. The US will still
promote their "we patrios will protect our country against any external threat" dogma
Those external threats change over time to promote the interests of the elite.
Currently we are concetrated against "medieval rights" Russia China, andextremists in middle east.
Excesive militarization and worldwide financial dominance.
So, no need to worry.
Every US president was, is, and will be the same.

'HAVE YOU BEEN SEXUALLY HARASSED BY BILL CLINTON?'

Kathleen Willey launches anti-Hillary website





Bill Clinton sexual-harassment accuser Kathleen Willey has launched an anti-Hillary Clinton website titled “A Scandal A Day.”

The site is partially aimed at recruiting other women who may have been assaulted by the former president.

Calling Hillary Clinton “without a doubt the most corrupt politician that this nation has ever seen,” Willey announced the launch of her new website Sunday on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM and online.

Willey, the former volunteer aide to Bill Clinton who says she was sexually harassed by the president in the 1990s, explained the website is part information-oriented and part political activism.

“The Clintons have made it extremely easy for me,” she said in the radio interview. “I don’t have to do a lot of research, because it’s not just a scandal a day. It’s about two or three scandals a day. So what I’m doing is kind of a compilation of these scandals and explaining them in simple terms so most people can understand what’s going on, and what they’re up to and why they are lying every day.”

One section of Willey’s website asks readers: “Are you being harassed, stalked, intimidated or persecuted by a person in position of power or public trust?”



http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/bill-clinton-sex-accuser-launches-anti-hillary-website/

Hillary faces dangerous enemy in the Obama administration







If Hillary Clinton were a cartoon character, she’d be Snidely Whiplash, forever muttering to herself, “Curses, foiled again.” And she’d be right.

The lady in waiting will have to keep waiting. Probably forever. Fate has spoken.

Already threatened by a growing trust deficit with voters, her would-be majesty now faces an even more lethal adversary. It’s called the truth, though she probably sees it as a vast, left-wing conspiracy.

The news that two inspectors general from the Obama administration want the Justice Department to investigate her handling of classified material is a potential game changer. For many Democrats, it will serve as final proof she is ­fatally flawed.

Her standing will further erode, turning her coronation plans into a long, hot summer. The drip, drip, drip of details will produce new polls showing a bleeding of support, which will entice other candidates into the race. Look for Vice President Joe Biden to jump in soon, and lefty Sen. Elizabeth Warren might also take the leap.

Meanwhile, Clinton must play ­defense against her former colleagues in the State Department and intelligence agencies.

Actually, it’s worse. She’s almost certainly up against the White House.

Somebody very high in the food chain leaked the memos requesting the probe. The New York Times, which broke the story, identified its source only as “a senior government official.”

My money is on Valerie Jarrett, the Obamas’ Rasputin, who is known to despise Clinton. If it was Jarrett, she would not do this against the president’s wishes.



http://nypost.com/2015/07/26/hillary-has-a-dangerous-enemy-in-the-obama-administration/

Clintons’ Charities Got Over $77 Million Of British Taxpayer Cash…



Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money has been siphoned through charities linked to Hillary Clinton, it emerged last night.

British politicians – including Gordon Brown – stand accused of diverting huge amounts of cash through the organisations after falling under the spell of the US presidential candidate and her husband Bill.

At least £50 million of taxpayer-funded foreign aid money has gone to Clinton charities, which are at the centre of allegations in the US that foreign governments used donations to buy influence.

The UK is one of the biggest donors, handing over more than £20 million last year alone to the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), an organisation chaired by former President Bill, 68, and whose board includes the couple’s daughter Chelsea, 35. Since 2011, a total of £48.9 million has gone into the coffers of this charity alone.[…]

But a new book claimed that foreign governments and individuals received favourable treatment from the US government in return for donations to Clinton family charities. The revelations have proved an embarrassment for Mrs Clinton, 67, who has moved to distance herself from the charities.

In 2008, Mr Brown addressed a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton Foundation, the main family charity, revealed that the UK Government had been making donations since the following year – when Mrs Clinton took office as US Secretary of State.

The UK’s donations to the Clinton charities took off after then International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell met Mrs Clinton at a UN summit in New York in 2010.

An examination of published payments over £500 made by DfID in 2014 reveals that CHAI received £20.2 million, with £4.8million spent up to the end of May this year. In 2013, £13.1 million was handed over, with £9.6 million going to CHAI in 2012 and £1.1 million in 2011.

Before this date there are no published figures. It is not known how much went to the Clinton Foundation.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3174033/Clintons-charities-got-50million-British-aid-cash-UK-government-accused-trying-buy-influence-power-family.html

Hillary Operatives Brace for “Clinton Collapse” – Complain of Frequent Mood Swings and Erratic Behavior







Hillary Clinton operatives are bracing for the inevitable “Clinton collapse.”
Hillary handlers are concerned about her frequent mood swings and erratic behavior.
The DC Whispers reported, via Free Republic:


Earlier, D.C. Whispers reported on federal investigators’ request to initiate a full on CRIMINAL investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal due, at least in part, to Mrs. Clinton’s alleged and purposeful destruction of classified material she kept on a private email server.


Apparently this development is but one of several now plaguing a Hillary Clinton campaign that has a candidate who often appears “lost, confused, tired, and angry.”

The term “Clinton Collapse” is apparently an increasingly common one these days for those whose job it is to continue insulating their candidate from media scrutiny and try and push Mrs. Clinton across the eventual finish line that is the Democratic Party nomination – no easy task given Clinton herself appears increasingly unstable, politically speaking…

…A D.C. Whispers source had this to say regarding Mrs. Clinton’s view of the modern media:

“She doesn’t understand how it works. She still thinks the New York Times is the end-all, be-all regarding media coverage and because they (the Clinton Machine) pretty much control how the Times covers them, she feels she controls her own media destiny and when that doesn’t happen, it infuriates her. She gets very angry very quickly and it’s a particularly aggressive kind of nasty on her part.”

Candidate Clinton’s mood swings have become so erratic even those closest to her campaign are said to be hoping for the best while preparing for what some perceive to be the inevitable worst.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
"... Frequent Mood Swings and Erratic Behavior"... That does not sound too good for an elected president.

The press is not any better...
--------------------------------------------------


If you doubt that mishandling classified information is a crime, remember that Gen. David Petraeus — sentenced to serve two years on probation and to pay a $100,000 fine for “mishandling” classified information.

It’s important to note that the Times made a mess of its article we reported on yesterday, which originally stated the “inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.” As we reported, even by the time we wrote about it the Times had softened the article. Today there are even more heavily edited versions of the Times story which is now headlined, ‘Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.’ The Times now has published two separate “corrections”:

This correction in an article using criminal in the headline; ‘Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email’


http://www.redstate.com/2015/07/25/classified-information-found-hillarys-private-email-account/

Is any U.S. Politicain trustworthy, they certainly do nothing for you, they have agendas of their own you know.
All those up on Capitol Hill are corrupt, what have they ever done for you.
Your freedom is taken away a little bit, each time a bill is passed.

The cops are free to roam and kill at will, the Generals in the forces are warmongering Psychopaths, you dont want war do you?
The US is encroaching on Russia from all sides in Europe and to what end?
Who is the bad guy here, certainly not Russia.

Tax dollars are spent and used for corrupt politicians to set up big business through lobbying.
You want to vote? vote for them and its your fault, vote for them and you spoiled you childrens futures.

Have any of you benefited in your lifetime, from politicians?

Is Hillary corrupt, you bet your bottom dolar she is.

Clinton will win because she will encourage american children to become homosexuals.

Obama Admin Restricts Investigative Powers Of Inspectors General







The Obama administration formally announced that inspectors general will have to get permission from their agency heads to gain access to grand jury, wiretap and fair credit information — an action that severely limits the watchdogs’ oversight capabilities, independence and power to uncover fraud.

An opinion, issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, says the Inspector General Act of 1978 — which was written by Congress to create the government watchdogs in order to help maintain integrity within their agencies — does not have the authority to override nondisclosure provisions in other laws, most notably in regard to grand jury, wiretap or fair credit information.

“In reaching these conclusions, our Office’s role has not been to decide what access [inspectors general] should receive as a matter of policy. Rather, we have endeavored to determine as a matter of law, using established tools of statutory construction, how best to reconcile the strong privacy protections … with the interest in access reflected in … the IG Act,” states the legal counsel’s opinion, which was dated Monday and released Thursday.

“I strongly disagree with the OLC opinion,” Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, said in a statement. “Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight. Without such access, our Office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired, and it will be more difficult for us to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse, and to protect taxpayer dollars.”

Mr. Horowitz has had to seek former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s permission, and now Loretta E. Lynch’s, to gain access to such material. The approval process in obtaining the materials delayed review of Operation Fast and Furious — the failed Mexican drug cartel sting that lost track of more than 1,000 government-issued guns, one of which later was used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol agent — and has delayed other reports the inspector general is set to publish.

At no point has the Justice Department denied any of Mr. Horowitz’s requests, but some in Congress have argued that requiring the inspector general to ask the attorney general for materials represents a direct conflict of interest and impairs the inspector general’s independence.

“The department has long held the position that the inspector general should have access to all the information it needs to perform its essential oversight function,” Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said. “Consistent with this view, department leadership has implemented procedures to ensure that the inspector general receives sensitive law enforcement information in a timely manner.

“Additionally, the department is committed to working with Congress and the inspector general on legislation to address any gaps in the law that may hamper the inspector general’s ability to access such information in a timely manner,” she said.

Still, those assurances don’t sit well with some lawmakers — or the IG community.

“The Office of Legal Counsel’s efforts to reduce transparency will leave the Department of Justice vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct. This is not the type of government the American people deserve,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican and House Judiciary Committee Chairman, in a statement to The Washington Times.

“The House Judiciary Committee will work with other committees of jurisdiction to explore a legislative fix to reiterate Congress‘ intent that the Office of the Inspector General is entitled access to all documents and records within DOJ’s possession,” he said.

Mr. Goodlatte, a lawyer himself, argued the reasoning within OLC’s opinion was the same that produced the Department of Justice’s infamous recess appointments memorandum, which was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in 2014.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican and chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, called the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion “tortured logic,” by which “‘all records’ does not mean ‘all records.’”

“The prospect of the Obama administration using this opinion to stonewall oversight, avoid accountability and undermine the independence of inspectors general is alarming,” he warned.

Not all the Capitol Hill criticism came from Republicans or had a partisan cast though.


Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the Justice Department’s opinion departs from “the plain text of the statute and the intent of Congress when we drafted it.”

But, he warned, “this one memorandum hardly ends the conversation.”

“I suspect that we will work quickly, and likely with overwhelming and bipartisan majorities, to make certain that the Inspector General Act is explicit on this point,” Mr. Conyers said.

As the chairman of the inspectors general council, Mr. Horowitz has been pressing for resolution from either Congress or the OLC in clarifying his and other IGs’ authority in gaining access to agency records — repeatedly saying agencies have proactively tried to stonewall certain investigations by questioning the IG’s power.

In congressional testimony in February, Mr. Horowitz complained the FBI had failed to turn over key records in several whistleblower cases by the deadlines, saying that other laws involving national security and privacy took precedence over his investigation.

Last August, 47 federal inspectors general wrote a letter to Congress complaining about specific cases where some federal agencies such as the Peace Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency refused to hand over documents critical to their independent oversight.

Last year, Kathy Buller, the Peace Corps IG, testified to Congress her agency was refusing to hand over information related to sexual assault investigations, which she’s legislatively tasked with overseeing, because of privacy concerns.

And at the EPA, Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr. confirmed that an EPA employee, who had been accused of sexual harassment of some 16 women since 2004, as well as the inappropriate handling of classified information, retired on the same day he was asked by EPA officials to talk to the IG staff.

“Over the years, the trust piece has been rocked,” Mr. Elkins told website Government Executive this February. In other examples at the EPA, attorney-client privilege has been invoked to get around the IG’s information request.

“There’s no question an inspector general has a difficult but important job to do, and without access to whatever records are involved in the matter the IG is auditing, it’s extremely difficult for an IG to do a thorough job,” said John Malcolm, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

“The devil will be in the details of this opinion as to how debilitating it’s going to be,” he predicted.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/23/obama-restricts-investigative-powers-inspectors-ge/?page=1


---------------------------------------------------
"Coincidence. Nothing to hide. Trust me."

(CNN)A majority of voters in three key presidential swing states view Hillary Clinton as not honest and trustworthy, according to a new poll out Wednesday.

The Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll finds that by margins of 8 to 14 percentage points voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania are skeptical of Clinton's trustworthiness.

In Florida, 51% of voters hold the negative view of Clinton, compared to 43% who feel she is trustworthy. In Ohio, 53% of voters find Clinton not trustworthy, compared to 40% who do. And in Pennsylvania, 54% of voters don't find her honest, while 40% do.

you can visit on here

http://editi[Suspicious link removed]/2015/06/17/politics/poll-2016-elections-hillary-clinton-trustworthy/

Sailor faces 30 years in prison for keeping pics of classified submarine equipment








Since the issue of classification has emerged in the past day or so again, it’s worth remembering just how important it is for national security. This news item from the Hartford Courant in Connecticut demonstrates just how seriously officials are supposed to protect classified material and systems. The Department of Justice has charged a former Navy submariner with multiple crimes involving his retention of cell-phone pictures of classified systems on his boat. Former machinist’s mate Kristian Saucier faces up to 30 years in prison after serving five years in the Navy (via ChuckJ on Twitter):

The FBI says a sailor took illegal photographs of classified systems on the U.S. Navy’s Groton-based, nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Alexandria and later tried to destroy the evidence when he learned that the Navy and FBI were investigating.

The Navy was alerted to the security breach when the town dump foreman in Hampton found a cellular telephone in a Dumpster and decided to keep it to replace his own. When he noticed that the phone contained photographs, he showed them to a retired Navy chief, who called the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

U.S. Attorney Deirdre M. Daly said Friday that a federal grand jury has charged Kristian Saucier, 28, of Arlington, Vt., with unlawfully retaining photos taken inside restricted areas of a nuclear attack submarine, and obstructing an investigation. …

Naval and FBI investigators said in court filings that Saucier’s telephone contained photographs of the ship’s reactor, reactor compartment and maneuvering compartment, where the nuclear power, steam and electrical systems of the submarine are operated and monitored through control panels.

The investigators said that photographs of the control panels were of such clarity that gauges could easily be read, revealing the Alexandria’s position at the time of the photograph, as well as its maximum speed, which is classified. An engineer reading the photos could “determine significant design characteristics of a U.S. nuclear submarine, including its reactor plant,” the investigators said.
The obstruction charge relates to Saucier’s actions after getting questioned by the FBI. In what seems like an interesting parallel to the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal, the FBI accuses Saucier of trying to destroy his laptop and dump it on his grandfather’s farm. Saucier told his grandfather that he’d used it for target practice, according to the Courant.

Now, 30 years may seem steep for what Saucier allegedly did — Chelsea Manning got 35 years for disseminating as many as 750,000 classified documents to Wikileaks — but submarine security is a top nat-sec priority. Our defense against sea-based nuclear missiles relies heavily on attack subs, which have to be as difficult to spot and track as possible. Disseminating any classified information on those systems would be espionage, but even keeping them on personal and unsecured devices are not just violations, but felonies. Anyone with a security clearance gets repeatedly trained on the proper handling of classified information, the approved methods of storing it, and the restrictions on transmission. Saucier knew better than to take pictures of classified systems for his own personal use — and if that’s what he did, then he deserves to be prosecuted, although he’ll probably get considerably less than 30 years if that’s all it was.

This brings us to the Hillary Clinton scandal. People who have not held clearances on classified information seem to think that “intent” plays a role in whether laws get broken when material gets stored or transmitted improperly, including some in the media:


John Harwood ✔@JohnJHarwood
assume HRC received email that was "classified" even if not marked that way. any evidence/allegation of national security harm as a result?



There are several points in error here, although I believe John is asking this from a lack of experience more than anything else. The issue here isn’t that Hillary Clinton got intelligence that lacked markings, but that Hillary Clinton sent or received classified data on an unsecured transmission at all — and by “unsecured,” I mean a transmission method outside of the control of government or approved contractors. Moreover, the IG’s referral specified that Hillary sent at least four e-mails that contained classified material, not just received them, and that the material was classified at the time it was sent by the intelligence community. Hillary made the choice to exclusively use this unsecured system for her communications, which means that she is the person liable for the violations in that sense as well. As the top-ranking official at State, she was responsible for maintaining the security of sensitive information for her team as well as herself. Intent does not enter into it.

People also seem confused by the issues of “markings.” The information from the intelligence community almost certainly did not come to Hillary unmarked. (If it had, the IG would have passed a referral to the DoJ focusing on who sent the material to her.) The classification of material in documents is heavily noted, with the highest classification on any page marked at the top and bottom. Each paragraph starts with a parenthetical noting the abbreviation for the classification of the information contained within — (U) for unclassified, (S) for secret, (TS) for top secret, etc. When using that material in other forms like a cable or e-mail, the classification markings must follow, and the transmission method restricted to that suitable for the highest classification in the material.

There is simply no way that Hillary or anyone else could have missed the classification markings on the source documents. If none had been present, that should have raised red flags, and once again that would be what the IG would have referred to the DoJ. Those markings had to be included in any other communications, so that anyone who accesses them can make sure they are handled properly and kept from those who do not have the proper level of clearance. The issue in the referral is that Hillary did not include the proper markings in her sent e-mails for the information she included in it, on top of which she then transmitted in an unsecured manner. The harm from all of this is that those communications can be more easily intercepted — and were, as Hillary’s e-mails got hacked — and the material exposed. That’s why we have those laws, and why the DoJ vigorously enforces them.

Thirty years ago, I worked with classified material pertaining to military systems, including some submarine systems, as a technical editor and QA specialist for a defense contractor. The proper methods for handling that material, and the penalties for violating those procedures, got repeatedly drilled into me and everyone else working in that job. Intent relates to espionage, but not into the prosecution for willful violations of those protocols.

The Saucier case poses an interesting conundrum for the Department of Justice and Loretta Lynch. The DoJ is willing to prosecute a former sailor to the full extent of the law for violating the law on classified material, in a situation where there was no purposeful unsecured transmission of classified material. Will they pursue Hillary Clinton and her team, at the other end of the power spectrum from the rank-and-file, for deliberate unsecured transmission of improperly marked classified nat-sec intelligence? Will they pursue the same kind of obstruction of justice charges for Hillary’s wiping of her server as they are for Saucier’s destruction of his laptop? If not, then Lynch should be made to explain why.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/25/sailor-faces-30-years-in-prison-for-keeping-pics-of-classified-submarine-equipment/

Clinton's Conspiracy of Secrecy Worthy of Criminal Probe
Maybe the dog ate her email.

BY RON FOURNIER



July 24, 2015 Who will Hillary Clinton blame now?

That was my first reaction to this New York Times story:

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The answer came quickly (that's why they call it "rapid response") from campaign spokesman Nick Merrill.

"Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials. As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted."

She's blaming the New York Times, which is as pathetic as it is laughable. Post-production revisions of online and wire service stories are standard practice after the parties involve respond. Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Times reporter Michael Schmidt called the revision minor without detailing it. Politico's Dylan Byers described the "small but significant changes." Here's all you need to know: The Clinton campaign doesn't – and can't – deny the nut of this story. Two Obama administration inspectors general want a criminal investigation into whether her personal email system contributed to the release of classified information.

A rogue email system that:

-- violated clear White House policy.

-- shielded her work from congressional oversight, media inquiries, or any accountability.

-- contributed to a conspiracy of secrecy worthy of criminal inquiry. This from the Times:

On Monday, a federal judge sharply questioned State Department lawyers at a hearing in Washington about why they had not responded to Freedom of Information Act requests from The Associated Press, some of which were four years old.

"I want to find out what's been going on over there — I should say, what's not been going on over there," said Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court, according to a transcript obtained by Politico. The judge said that "for reasons known only to itself," the State Department "has been, to say the least, recalcitrant in responding."

When she's not blaming the media, Republicans, bureaucrats, and technology – everything and anything, except the dog who ate her email – Clinton is destroying her credibility.

"There is no classified material," she said. Wrong.

"Everything I did was permitted," she said. Wrong.

"People should and do trust me," she said. Wrong and wrong. A majority of people don't trust Clinton, because a majority of people aren't blindly loyal to her or on her payroll.

Most people can sift through the spin, the lies, and the parsing to see the bottom line: She secreted and deleted her email for reasons we may never know. And she's blaming everybody but the only person responsible for this mess, the only person who can clean it up: Hillary Rodham Clinton.


http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/clinton-s-conspiracy-of-secrecy-worthy-of-criminal-probe-20150724