Clinton and her private emails.....

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration requirements -- "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

The lesson we should learn from this is lawyers are the worst kind of public servants. Lawyers live in the margins, parse words, and endlessly hide behind what the meaning of 'is" is..

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration requirements -- "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."

The lesson we should learn from this is lawyers are the worst kind of public servants. Lawyers live in the margins, parse words, and endlessly hide behind what the meaning of 'is" is..

Just as nothing was done to her treasonous husband who committed perjury, Mrs. Clinton will somehow escape this episode. Her fawning mainstream media buddies will look the other way and take the "nothing to see here" approach to this. Additionally, the "do nothing" GOP leadership will continue to cower in fear of her and will make no attempt to prosecute her.


This post was edited on 3/4 9:11 AM by bigbadjohn45

This post was edited on 3/4 9:11 AM by bigbadjohn45

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Awkward Petraeus precedent as Hillary may face criminal liability over her secret email system



It must have seemed like a good idea at the time to prosecute General David Petraeus over The Hill:
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on Wednesday questioned whether Hillary Clinton improperly shared classified information like former CIA Director David Petraeus.

Asked on "Fox and Friends" whether Clinton's exclusive use of a personal email address during her time as secretary of State raised national security concerns, Chaffetz said, "It does beg the question: Were there any sort of classified pieces of information that were flowing through her personal email account?"

"Which is something you can't do and something yesterday Gen. Petraeus had to plead guilty to, or was going out in a deal, dealing with his personal email and interaction with somebody who didn't have a classification," Chaffetz added.

Petraeus reached a plea deal, the Justice Department announced Tuesday, over charges he failed to turn over for archiving small record books kept while commanding U.S. forces in Afghanistan, instead providing them and their classified information to his mistress, Paula Broadwell, who wrote a biography of the Army general.[/QUOTE]
Uh-oh! That does sound a lot like what Mrs. Clinton did, only on a potentially much larger scale. That is, assuming her emails dealt with classified material. And how could they not, since she didn't use an official email account at all? To suggest that she never touched on any classified matters in email during her entire term in office as SecState is difficult to believe, as she was famously traveling extensively while in office. Was she electronically incommunicado the entire time? Did she only use officially scrambled voice systems? There are all those pictures of her using her Blackberry on her plane. Are we to believe she was exchanging recipes with Chelsea and nothing else?

Actually, Hillary faces a lot of legal liability, as explained by two authors in National Review. First, Shannen Coffin elucidates:
The Federal Records Act requires the preservation of any official "record," which is defined functionally to require preservation whenever a record relates to the performance of a federal official's duties. There is little question that Hillary Clinton was conducting official business on her private e-mail account, and her turning over 55,000 pages of documents only after she left office all but concedes that (but may not concede the full scope of her use of that account). There is also little doubt, given this functional definition, that e-mail has been covered by the Federal Records Act since its adoption by the federal government during the Clinton administration. As Ian Tuttle correctly notes, the State Department's own manual has plainly provided, since 1995, that e-mail records must be preserved under the Federal Records Act.[/QUOTE]
This is serous stuff:
…a federal criminal law makes it a felony when any custodian of official government records "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same." The crime is punishable by up to three years in prison. And interestingly, Congress felt strongly enough about the crime that it included the unusual provision that the perpetrator shall "forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."[/QUOTE]
The fact that a war hero of the magnitude of General Petraeus was prosecuted for not properly archiving his notebooks would make it awkward to pass on prosecuting Hillary. Nevertheless, in the real world, where laws and regualtions are for the little people, not the Clintons:
The requirement for specific intent in this criminal law - "willfully and unlawfully" - and the fact that Loretta Lynch would ultimately decide whether to bring prosecution, makes it doubtful that charges would be filed.[/QUOTE]
I have to say that going to the trouble of setting up an email system based on a server in your private home does show a level of willfulness. But then again, we are talking about someone for whom the law is an inconvenience.

But that is not the end of Hillary’s potential legal liability. Also on National Review, Andrew McCarthy writes:

…the embezzlement statute (Section 641 of the federal penal code – Title 18) may also be relevant. Embezzlement generally refers to the theft of money, but the federal statute extends the concept to cover government records and other property as well. Specifically, the statute makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, for anyone (does not have to be a custodian or even a government official) to embezzle, steal, purloin or knowingly convert for the use of herself or others “any record … or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.” It similarly criminalizes the receipt, concealment or retention of such embezzled or purloined government records. Under federal law, emails constituting government business conducted by government officials are government records.[/QUOTE]
As McCarthy notes, whatever the Justice Department under incoming AG Loretta Lynch decides, congressional committees are free to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and compel testimony. All of this could be going on while Hillary runs for president, assuming Democrats continue on their current trajectory towards nominating her.




This post was edited on 3/5 4:13 PM by nashvillegoldenflash

Hillary may face criminal liability

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

My fellow Americans,

I told you recently that I would not participate in another election. These words were true.

Because of the recent departure of Hillary Clinton to Leavenworth, it would not be fair to the Democrats to hold an election in 2016. There is only a mediocre governor, a bumbling idiot of a Vice President, a fake Indian, and an octogenarian Socialist to run the Democratic side.

Therefore I have decided to suspend the election of 2016, and stay in power for four more years, or until my party is ready to replace me. Past experience has shown that the Congress will not oppose this move with anything more than ineffectual grumbling.

Sincerely,

Barry Soetoro[/I]

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

In light of the revelation by the New York Times that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account to exclusively conduct her government business, away from the prying eyes of the public, the question arises as to whether this flagrant attempt at subverting federal law should disqualify her from the presidency.

It should be evident to any critically thinking person that the motive behind this premeditated move was to distance herself from any communications which might be used against her in a campaign.

And the move was, indeed, premeditated. Clinton set up the account, in a pseudonym's name, through an email server at her home, the day she was confirmed as Secretary of State by the US Senate. She never set up a government email account. Her aides did not archive her communications, as dictated by federal law, saying now that they figured those receiving the communications would do so.

The greatest irony of Clinton's subversion of the Federal Records Act, is that the breach was discovered by the House Select Benghazi Committee, which she and Democrats derided as a "witch hunt." It is no wonder the committee could find nothing linking Hillary with the horrific events of that night on September 11, 2012, when Libyan Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods were massacred at the compound in Benghazi. In the wake of the murders, the Administration put forth a story which stated that it occurred as a protest against an anti-Muslim video, yet no evidence can be located to determine who came up with that preposterous excuse.
Others gave warnings that impending signs of the Benghazi terrorist attack came to her office, along with Stevens' continued requests for more security as terrorists trained nearby. We now know that Clinton lied directly to the parents of the Benghazi dead as she stood in front of their sons' caskets, perpetuating the story of the video.

Use of government email accounts is required as a security measure. Archiving of emails by officials conducting government business is required to preserve contemporaneous communications without officials being able to "sanitize" them later.

Clinton may claim, like so many in the Obama Administration that there is not even a "smidgeon of corruption" in all of this. But even the leftist media is now questioning her actions.

The Benghazi Committee has stated it will subpoena Clinton's emails, and now the AP is threatening to sue for access. It is increasing clear that Clinton's corrupt attempts to ensure that no paper trail was left behind to throw a wrench in her hopes to become president, and hide her culpability in Benghazi, should disqualify her from the office.

Should Email-Gate Disqualify Hillary for President

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Here we go again. Just when it looked as though Hillary Clinton was set to roll to the Democratic nomination, fresh peccadilloes involving her and Bill are surfacing. They may be waved off as manifestations of CDS--Clinton derangement syndrome--but that would be a mistake. The fact is that that the Clintons have a penchant for skirting not just the spirit but also the letter of the law when it comes to their own perks and prerogatives.

Recall, for example, Bill and Hillary looting the White House, during the last days of his presidency, sending $28,000 of furnishings, registered to the National Park Service, to their New York home before they had to depart the place. Or there was Hillary piously announcing that the Clintons, after they left the White House, were "dead broke"-even though she had just signed an $8 million book deal.

The Clintons, in other words, don't get caught up in difficulties. They are surrounded by a miasma of scandal, both real and imagined. The latest one was broken by the New York Times and is engulfing the nascent Clinton presidential campaign, just as it was trying to deal with one broken a few days earlier by the Washington Post about allegations of malversation at the Clinton Foundation. In short, the new Hillary turns out to be the old one, and not a few Democrats are suffering their personal political version of PTSD over it all.

Hillary Clinton serenely says, in a twitter message, from on high: "I want the public to see my email." No, she doesn't. But the bad publicity surrounding her extensive effort to conceal her messages from the public by, in effect, running her own email exchange out of her Chappaqua home is forcing her to cough them up. The House Select Committee, which is investigating Benghazi, has now subpoenaed the State Department for her emails.

Whether they contain anything embarrassing or even scandalous is an open question. If anything they will likely reveal further evidence of her good points, such as they are (humorless drudge), and bad ones (petty and peevish), but no major bombshells. The attempted cover up is more interesting, to put it another way, than what she was actually covering up.

Still, the question of what she was trying to conceal exists because of her own furtiveness. As Sam Tanenhaus pointed out at a luncheon at the Center for the National Interest on Wednesday, historians rely on a reliable and accurate record of documents such as the State Department's distinguished Foreign Relations of the United States series. Clinton's actions violate both the spirit and letter of the law that cabinet officials leave behind a clear and comprehensible documentary record.

In June 2011 White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "all of our work is conducted on work email accounts; that's part of the Presidential Records Act." What's more, the Federal Records Act requires that she have a government email and preserve her messages. Of course she didn't.

Hillary Clinton's Wild Sense of Entitlement

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

BBJ, even Larry O'Donnell of MSNBC is kicking the snot out of Hillary over her secret e-mail system (see link).


According to some Democrats, Hillary Clinton's scandalous refusal to abide by federal law by refusing to use a secure email system while she served as secretary of state is no big deal.


"Voters do not give a sh-t about what email Hillary used," CNN contributor and Democratic strategist Paul Begala told his network's reporters when he was asked to weigh in on the scandal. "They don't even give a fart."


Maybe. There are certainly more than a handful of conservatives who would agree that the public has grown so inured to politicians behaving unscrupulously that they would hardly bat an eye over the allegations that dog Clinton. It remains to be seen, though, if the American voting public is as unperturbed by Clinton's careless disregard for American national security and government oversight.


Not all Democrats are, however, as forgiving of Clinton's display of contempt for the law in pursuit of the preservation of her own privilege. On Thursday, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell revealed his frustrations with Clinton's actions in strikingly stark terms. He asserted that, not only is this a real scandal and a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law, but it is a violation of the principles that serve as the foundations of liberalism itself.


In a segment with fellow MSNBC host Alex Wagner, O'Donnell castigated his fellow liberals who are attempting to defend Clinton by insisting that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's selective disclosure of the emails that he sent via unsecured private accounts absolve the former secretary of state. Beyond the fact that this is an untoward example of liberal hypocrisy, O'Donnell said, there is simply no comparison between these two episodes.


"Bush's e-mails were legally available to everyone," O'Donnell said. "Hillary Clinton's system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law."

That's a rather blunt condemnation of Clinton's actions.

Why such a strong censure? Because Clinton's misdeeds undermine what he said was a "decade's long liberal crusade" to pass transparency laws like the Freedom of Information Act. "The regulation that Hillary Clinton was defying is a liberal regulation," O'Donnell averred. "It is of a liberal spirit."

Speaking directly to the Paul Begalas of the left, though, O'Donnell went on to note that the tribal impulses that govern modern political dialogue will prompt Democrats to rally to Clinton's side even despite the fact that here actions erode the intellectual foundations of liberalism.

When put in terms as severe as those, it becomes clear why this latest Clinton scandal has the potential to be catastrophically damaging to her political future. Her behavior has jeopardized the liberal project itself. Can Hillary Clinton continue to serve as the embodiment of the Democratic Party's future if she is taking a sledgehammer to the achievements of its past?



This post was edited on 3/6 7:09 AM by nashvillegoldenflash

Has Hillary lost MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell?

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Even shameless Chris Matthews couldn't believe a Hillary Clinton supporter's answer on the Email question (see link).


The story of Hillary Clinton's private email account used during her tenure as secretary of state dominated conservative media on Wednesday. It also appeared on liberal outlets, and in many cases, was dismissed by them as a distraction or a non-story.
However, on Wednesday night's edition of MSNBC's "Hardball," host Chris Matthews took on the topic with a balance uncharacteristic for the unabashedly left leaning network.
Opening his show with a panel featuring the Washington Post's Carol Leonnig, Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union and Emily's List spokeswoman Jess McIntosh, Matthews spent more than 12 minutes on what he referred to as "front page news."

Matthews wondered aloud about the validity of the controversy, "Is this a major one, a minor one or one concocted by her critics?"
After quoting stories about the email controversy from the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press, Matthews asked McIntosh, "Where do you put this: No offense, small offense or a concoction?"
McIntosh responded, "Every secretary of state prior to Hillary Clinton used a private account for their emails."
She continued: " I think more importantly, can you possibly imagine any American family, at any kitchen table across the country, sitting down and saying, 'Wow, I am concerned that she used private accounts instead of state accounts. And where was the server located?' No! Because there are major economic questions that Americans are facing."
Matthews interrupted McIntosh saying, "Now you're changing the subject right now."
The conversation moved to whether McIntosh thought it was appropriate for Mrs. Clinton to set up her own private email server and be able to control all of her emails during the time she was secretary. Matthews wanted to know if it was OK that Clinton was the only one to decide "when and if and what she was going to release to anybody asking for it."

Again, the Emily's List spokeswoman defended Clinton without answering Matthews' question, "Lots of public officials have set up their own servers, Jeb Bush did the same thing."
Matthews continued to press her again, "So you think it's right for her to keep it all private, if she wants to?"
"Yeah," said McIntosh, "I mean, I think she should be able to disclose things that ought to be disclosed and keep things private that ought to be kept private."
Once again trying to get a specific answer about the issue of Clinton controlling her emails, Matthews asked, "Should she be allowed to decide what she discloses?"
"I think she should follow the letter and spirit of the law," said McIntosh.
A frustrated Matthews kept pushing, "Yeah, that's their language that they use. I'm just asking, do you think it's OK for a public servant at the level of secretary of state to carry on correspondence -- official correspondence -- but keep it to themselves, if they choose to?" Adding, "Because that's the option she has now, since it's all her account."
"I think, that at that level, it's important they follow the law. I also think that if we spend the next few months debating how long something was kept on a server, the American electorate is going to flock to a third party," McIntosh responded.
With McIntosh deflecting the question and minimizing what Matthews believed to be an important issue, the host supported his thinking by reading from the Washington Post's front page story that declared, "Hillary Clinton appears to have violated or operated in violation of what the White House said Tuesday -- that's yesterday -- was very specific guidance that members of the Obama administration use government email accounts to carry out official business."
Matthews pressed McIntosh again, asking, "What do you make of that headline?"
"I think that she is talking about issues that matter to the American electorate," said McIntosh. "I think she'll have lots of opportunities to…"
"So, you're changing the subject?" replied Matthews.
After moving the discussion to the two other panelists, Matthews came back to McIntosh one last time, asking, "Hasn't she given Trey Gowdy and his committee an excuse?" Adding, "They've given them now a case, that there was something bad she did by simply putting up a wall that allowed her to get rid of stuff -- even if she didn't do it."
"I don't think there's any way she could have conducted herself as secretary of state that would not have told Republicans…"
Matthews interrupted McIntosh saying, "Anything that's said against Hillary Clinton, you're just going to move on from. This reminds me of moveon.org."
He closed the segment with a backhanded compliment to the Emily's List spokeswoman, "You're a good defender, but changing the subject, ain't gonna work."

Even Chris Matthews Couldn’t Believe...

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Hillary and Bill Clinton have always had what can be termed as an "Icarus" problem. Through their years in political office, the scandals swirled around them but seemingly failed to engulf them: Jennifer Flowers (and the other women); Whitewater; Travelgate; the cattle futures killing; Monica Lewinsky; Benghazi; Bill's "business" jaunts courtesy of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein; the Clinton Foundation's foreign donor problem; and now, Hillary Clinton's version of "Emailgate." Through it all the Clintons have soared to the heights of hubris with obfuscation and denial, challenging and daring the sun god of karma. Instead of crash and burn, they've instead repeatedly landed on their feet, quite comfortably.

Until now.

Separating out the Clintons, one finds that most people generally have a favorable impression of Bill. He's the incorrigible rogue, the brother forever getting into trouble, the "Bubba" you can have a beer with, and who as a teen shook hands with an American idol, and then later went on to live in that same White House.

Hillary, on the other hand, has a different persona. She entered the public conscience as the presidential candidate's wife who didn't want to stay home and bake cookies. Throughout her public life, she's been a polarizing figure, you either like her or you don't. There's no grey area with Hillary. Whichever side you come down on, however, very few will disagree that Madame Secretary is not afraid to wield power, keeps score and holds grudges, and at all costs protects the Clinton brand.

And now that Secretary Clinton is on the cusp of announcing her 2016 run for the presidency, it is very interesting that the New York Times decides to break the Hillary email story, and create this "scandale du jour." The silence, until just recently from Secretary Clinton, about her emails and her apparent defiance of the federal records laws shows either hubris or incompetence. Her tweet, "I want the public to see my email" rings hollow, with a slight hint of bubbling desperation.
But does Hillary really understand that this smoldering scandal is not like the others, that 2015 is not the heyday of the 1990s? Apparently not, and apparently Secretary Clinton is finding that her welcome mat is being rolled up. As our favorite former Obama pastor rousingly cried, "the chickens are coming home to roost."

Politics is like no other occupation. The stakes at the presidential level can make the toughest Vegas poker player wince. This is the world that Hillary Clinton has played in for the last two decades, and she has proven herself to be a comparable female version of "House of Cards'" Francis Urquhart, and so far has beaten the political Darwinian odds. While she has enjoyed the limelight for the past few decades, it hasn't come without a price. For every "friend", there is an "enemy."

With the 2014 electoral shellacking the Democrats received at federal, state, and local levels, retaining the White House is foremost in the minds of the Democratic Party power brokers, donors, and grassroots diehards. Hillary's disastrous book tour last year, her silence over major foreign policy events, and now the brewing disaster of "Emailgate" is proving that the Clinton brand and more importantly, Hillary herself, are not as stellar and untouchable as they once were. Hillary is now a blast from the past, and her latest run-in with infamy is showing incompetence at the highest levels to a new voting demographic.

Long a cheerleader, and co-partner in Clinton, Inc., the liberal media smells blood. The swan song of Hillary Clinton can actually be visualized. Many pundits and long-time Hillary watchers may say don't count her out yet, she's a survivor, others have had private email accounts, etc., etc. Not this time. Hillary is now becoming more of a detriment than a crowd-pleaser. She no longer can be counted on to bring home the White House in 2016 for the Democrats.

Right now, there can be little doubt that the lights are burning late into the night in Chappaqua, and the phone lines are burning up as Bill is calling every "FOB," to get needed intel, as he and his coterie decide whether "Emailgate" has rendered Hillary as irrevocable damaged goods. Hillary will not run if there's the remotest chance of another embarrassment on the national stage, as in losing the nomination, let alone the presidency.

Hillary, you've met your Waterloo. It's over.




This post was edited on 3/6 5:49 PM by nashvillegoldenflash

It's Over, Hillary

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Democrats in the capitol have closed ranks around Hillary Clinton as the email scandal mushrooms into a full blow, blood in the water, press feeding frenzy.
Paul Begala, former aide to President Clinton and one of the major faces of Hillary's campaign, put the question in his usual delicate way:
"Voters do not give a s**t. They do not even give a fart," said longtime Clinton ally and Democratic strategist Paul Begala, echoing the sentiments of most Clinton allies who believe the all-but-certain nominee is enough of a defined quantity in voters' eyes that Republican attacks on her email policies cannot sway them - especially not over a year-and-a-half before she faces a competitive vote.
"Find me one persuadable voter who agrees with HRC on the issues but will vote against her because she has a non-archival-compliant email system and I'll kiss your ass in Macy's window and say it smells like roses," he said.[/QUOTE]
I would really, really, really love to hold Begala to that bet.
Begala's contempt for the voters aside, Democrats out in the hinterlands are a lot more worried. Not so much because they think the email scandal will sink the Clinton campaign, but that the entire affair is representative of their biggest problem; if not Hillary, who?
Politico:
In interviews with more than three dozen Democratic activists, donors, and officials from across the country - including many in the influential presidential nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina - some were scathing in their criticism over the revelations, while others admitted to being unnerved.
"I'm very disappointed that yet another person in political power treats the 'rules' as if they do not apply to them," said Matt Tapscott, chairman of Iowa's Winneshiek County Democrats.
"This story doesn't alter my opinion of Hillary," said Martin Peterson, chairman of Iowa's Crawford County Democrats, "but it does alarm me that she is a lightning rod for any type of criticism of invented scandals by the opposition."
At the moment, Democrats continue to present a largely united front in their public support for Clinton and in their belief that the email issue isn't one that will ultimately matter to voters.
But while the overall message of trust in the presumptive frontrunner is clear, the saga is also exposing deep party-wide anxieties about having so much invested in a single candidate, more than 20 months before November 2016.
"It adds more reason to get other people involved in this process, to make sure we have other strong, good candidates running," said Larry Hogden, chairman of Iowa's Cedar County Democrats. "Because, who knows? She could implode totally."
Some locals are "wringing their hands and shaking their heads," said Linda Nelson, chairwoman of Iowa's Pottawattamie County Democrats. "It's just one more straw that can break the camel's back, in their eyes."
For many Democrats - even those who insist the email questions are unimportant to voters and little more than an optics problem for Clinton, ginned up by Republicans and fanned by cable news pundits - the moment has exposed a party that has few presidential prospects organized enough to fully test Clinton, or prepared to step into the void in the event that she falters.[/QUOTE]
I think that Democrats who define this as an "optics problem" are kdding themselves. It isn't the idea that Clinton broke the rules on government emails that has her in deep trouble. It's what might be in thoise emails that could damage her campaign. She may never have dreamed that they would become public. If that's the case, there may be bombshells scattered throughout the email cache waiting to be discovered. And if Clinton is perceived as being less than forthcoming in releasing those emails, speculation on what she's hiding will fuel the scandal further.

An Iowa City blogger summed up the Democrat's dilemma:

"What I'm hearing from other people is that they want an actual primary," said Iowa City activist and blogger John Deeth. "The main problem with this whole email thing is that at the moment there's no real option. Jim Webb is not considered a serious option. [Martin] O'Malley has got the problem of being considered another old white guy. The only viable option I see out there is [Joe] Biden, [Bernie] Sanders, and [Elizabeth] Warren."

A buffoon, a socialist, and an anti-capitalist radical. The Democrats are in the very best of shape if Clinton bows out, yes?


This post was edited on 3/6 5:49 PM by nashvillegoldenflash

Democrats sweating buckets over Hillary email

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Hillary Clinton just proving more and more how much of a liar, hypocrite, and corrupt politician she is every single day.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Yet another liberal, Maureen Dowd, writes about the sliminess of the Clintons (see link).

With the Clintons, Only the Shadow Knows

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

From the article

Given all the mistakes they've made, why do they keep making them? Why do they somehow never do anything that doesn't involve shadows?

And why do people continue to support this family?

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mike, the reason why people continue to support the Clintons is simple. Just as we saw with Obama, 45% of the 52% will vote for her unconditionally. The other 7% don't care, just look at the libs on this forum, white men (I assume), who have been part of the system, either as beneficiaries or worker bees, who have all kinds of hang ups about capitalism, the free enterprise system, spirituality, American values, etc. Who will they vote for -- Hillary or some Republican -- of course it will be her. None of the 52% use any logic, morality, ethics, or make a choice based on qualifications when they vote. It's based on hate, jealousy, anger, and envy of the rest of us. And so they vote based strictly on hurting the other 48%. Never mind if by doing so they hurt themselves, as we have seen under the Obama administration, that's irrelevant to them. Now that liberals have control, they are going to pound it to the rest of us. It doesn't matter if the country goes down the toilet and them with it. And then throw in the gender vote from the 48% females, who will vote just based on a woman running for President. As I have stated, it doesn't matter that we disclose and expose how corrupt and lawless this woman is, if she stays in the race, she will win the Presidency. All the slugs have come out from under the rocks, and right now they control things. It's sad and wrong, but it's true. Perhaps the only solution is secession. Divide up the red and blue states and then take all the red states and make a new country for those of us who want to work and produce and take care of ourselves and others who actually need to be taken care of, who want to abide by laws, and who want a government run by citizens that benefits its constituents. Unfortunately, that may be the only way this thing is ever going to get turned around.


This post was edited on 3/8 9:39 AM by nashvillegoldenflash

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Hillary Clinton is currently trying to juggle this whole email fiasco. Oddly enough, the mainstream media has given it quite a bit of coverage. (Sucks when the media doesn't have your back, huh Hillary?)

Hillary has enough gaffes and scandals to last us a life time- her "innate ability to change dialects to match her audience.


Pitiful.

Remember that one time she said she was "the most transparent person in public life?"

Ah, good times.

I'm assuming this is what she meant by "transparent."

Political Cartoon Perfectly Shows The Transparency

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Hillary lied, Americans died.

Emails obtained from a federal lawsuit prove two top aides to Hillary Clinton were running interference internally during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

Don't worry though guys, Hillary has promised us she is the most transparent and trustworthy person in politics.

From Fox News:

The aides were Philippe Reines, widely described as Clinton's principal gate-keeper, and Cheryl Mills, who has been at Clinton's side for decades.

The emails show that while receiving updates about the assault as it happened, Mills told then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to stop answering reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was missing and later found dead.

Also littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group. A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.

The effort to stop Nuland from answering reporter questions also may have contributed to confusion over the nature of the attack. Clinton that night had put out the first statement wrongly linking the attack to a supposed protest sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video - but that was never updated that night.

"Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.[/QUOTE]

So what if they lied about Benghazi? What difference does it make?

This post was edited on 3/8 10:11 AM by nashvillegoldenflash

Hillary Clinton’s top aides ran interference

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

It seems each day we are getting more evidence against HilLIARy (see link).



'Huge gaps' in Clinton email record

 

[MTLynn]

This is clearing the way for warren and jeb.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Yes, Hillary Clinton Broke the Law (see link).



Yes, Hillary Clinton Broke the Law

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Experts: Hillary Broke the Law (see link)

Experts: Hillary Broke the Law

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Even the New York Times admits "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules".







This post was edited on 3/9 5:08 PM by nashvillegoldenflash

Possibly Breaking Rules

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

White House confirms Obama knew Hillary Clinton was using her private email address (see link).



Obama knew Hillary was using her private email

 

[MTLynn]

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently spoke out about the email scandal that's currently slapping her around in the political sphere, stating she used private accounts because she wanted to avoid using two devices.
Apparently using two phones is pretty strenuous, mentally speaking, and Clinton's fragile thought box couldn't handle the stress of using both hands at the same time.

Well this tweet featuring a picture of Sarah Palin with a phone in one hand, baby in the other AND a phone on the table, is the perfect response to Clinton's lame "convenience" excuse.
This will make you chuckle.
http://www.youngcons.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/palin1.jpg


Epic. Simply epic.

The left takes great delight in slamming Sarah Palin, usually poking fun at her intelligence-sorry to burst their bubble but she's one smart lady-but hey, at least our gal can do three things at once.



Hillary and her inability to handle two devices

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Did three Hillary Clinton aides use the private 'clintonemail.com' server while she ran the State Department? Two news outlets say it's so (see link).




Three Hillary Clinton aides used private server

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Originally posted by MTLynn:

Look at her, she looks old and tired. I watched the press conference as I was running at the gym. It struck me how she looked. I really think she will struggle to win.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mike, you might be right. Facts show that Hillary may not slither out of her e-mail scandal so easily (see link).

FACT CHECK: Clinton and her emails

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Originally posted by Blueraider_Mike:

Originally posted by MTLynn:

Look at her, she looks old and tired. I watched the press conference as I was running at the gym. It struck me how she looked. I really think she will struggle to win.

Furthermore, her answers were read from a carefully constructed script.

Good luck with anyone getting their hands on that private server of hers. And even if they did, I can assure you it's been scrubbed clean of any incriminating evidence.

 

[MTLynn]

"Jokingly referring to her as "former president Hillary Clinton" at the beginning of the segment, Stewart started by taking aim at Clinton's claim that it was more convenient to use only one device while serving as secretary of state."

Jon Stewart Skewers Hillary Clinton

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Hopefully, there are millions more who feel the same way about Hillary.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

An Obama adviser is behind the leak of Hillary's E-mail scandal (see link).

Obama adviser behind leak of email scandal

 

[bigbadjohn45]

1) Mrs. Clinton, did you sign an OF-109 form before stepping down as Secretary of State?
1a) If so, where is it?
1b) If not, why not?
1c) If so, and you have the document, why not produce it?
1d) If so, you have the document, and you plan to produce it, why the stonewalling?
1e) If you signed it, why not turn over your server to an independent authority?



A 10-year-old could come up with such obvious questions. Start there, lapdog media--then ask her about the Clinton Foundation taking dirty money from Rilin Enterprises which lobbied Congress and the State Department while Hillary was Secretary of State.

The woman is a corrupt POS and liar. Grow some decency, liberals.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Congressman Trey Gowdy, who is chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, confirmed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won't comply - of course - with the committee's subpoena to turn over her server to an independent third party for review.
Clinton used a private server to host a personal email account to conduct official business as secretary of State.
"After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis.
"We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.

Let's see. Clinton's server was not wiped clean as of October 28, 2014, which is two years since she left office. A few months later she falls under attack for using a personal email for official business, and suddenly the liar's server is wiped clean. Incredible coincidence! Right?[/B]

"Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest."[/B]
"In light of the Secretary's unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete all emails and because the equities at stake involve not only those of the Select Committee and Congress more broadly, but also those of the American people and their right to the full record of her tenure as secretary of State, we will work with the leadership of the House of Representatives as the Committee considers next steps. But it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails."

Clinton Confirms She Recently Deleted All Emails