Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[vitterd]

You're a documented liar. "I wasn't here that weekend." "I've never seen you post plays." "I have a master's degree."

Anyhow, I'll bet you any amount you like that the RFP I sent was accepted. I'll document it with proof that I started work on that project last month.

How about $100k? You ready to play a man's game? Step up to the plate, dick sucker.

Im not betting you. You're a proven liar and I have no confidence you will stick to the deal. Sound familiar?

But I will give you a chance to prove yourself....post your nba playoff picks and I will post mine. If you stick to that bet then I will consider your offer. Hurry, games start at 7pm.

 

[JDeuce]

Im not betting you. You're a proven liar and I have no confidence you will stick to the deal. Sound familiar?

But I will give you a chance to prove yourself....post your nba playoff picks and I will post mine. If you stick to that bet then I will consider your offer. Hurry, games start at 7pm.

This is different. Real money on the line. Not some ridiculous forum ban.

$100k. Yes or no? Man up, you fucking pussy coward.

 

[vitterd]

Lmao, just pure entertainment. The guy is a pathetic piece of shit. Just imagine if the highlight of your life was getting an RFP email and exchanging secret futures with the likes of Dave... you'd be an evil, racist, hateful person also. Dude needs a hug.

He keeps getting caught in his non stop lies and is now melting down.

He is a proven loser and the truth is hard for him.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Im not betting you. You're a proven liar and I have no confidence you will stick to the deal. Sound familiar?

But I will give you a chance to prove yourself....post your nba playoff picks and I will post mine. If you stick to that bet then I will consider your offer. Hurry, games start at 7pm.

Who you got tonight?

 

[vitterd]

This is different. Real money on the line. Not some ridiculous forum ban.

$100k. Yes or no? Man up, you fucking pussy coward.

If I accept your bet for 100k then you accept my bet for 200k that I have a masters degree. You did say I'm lying about it.

There....now you accept mine and I accept yours.

 

[vitterd]

Who you got tonight?

I didn't play either game. I would post picks if jdeucebag accepted a bet but I truthfully don't like either game enough to play it. You play anything?

 

[akphidelt]

He keeps getting caught in his non stop lies and is now melting down.

He is a proven loser and the truth is hard for him.

Complete meltdown, lmao!! Poor kid. All over the fact he's too big of a pussy to post picks on a sports betting site. You got to be some kind of mental to be scared of that. You got military hero Ace who probably jumped on grenades to save a million people scared of posting picks, racist shit talking JDouche scared like a little bitch, Psycho Joe scared out of his mind although I don't even think he cares about sports betting on a sports betting site... just hilarious stuff man. These are the people conservative cult leaders love... Weak and soulless!

 

[akphidelt]

I didn't play either game. I would post picks if jdeucebag accepted a bet but I truthfully don't like either game enough to play it. You play anything?

Rocking the Over like a pimp!! Have a feeling Lebron is going to play aggressive and push the ball. Bulls are a little faster these days also.

 

[JDeuce]

If I accept your bet for 100k then you accept my bet for 200k that I have a masters degree. You did say I'm lying about it.

There....now you accept mine and I accept yours.

You're deflecting. You've run from every bet I've ever offered you. Coward. Pussy. Friendless loser.

 

[vitterd]

You're deflecting. You've run from every bet I've ever offered you. Coward. Pussy. Friendless loser.

Lmao your bet is accepted....once you accept mine. Very simple.

Cant post picks and can't accept bets....that's jdeucebag

 

[JDeuce]

Lmao, just pure entertainment. The guy is a pathetic piece of shit. Just imagine if the highlight of your life was getting an RFP email and exchanging secret futures with the likes of Dave... you'd be an evil, racist, hateful person also. Dude needs a hug.

Who the fuck asked you anything, you fat alcoholic piece of red liposuction?

Wanna jump on my offer? $100k says I'm working for the company which sent me the RFP. Go on...run from the offer like your bed wetting adolescent lover just did.

 

[vitterd]

Complete meltdown, lmao!! Poor kid. All over the fact he's too big of a pussy to post picks on a sports betting site. You got to be some kind of mental to be scared of that. You got military hero Ace who probably jumped on grenades to save a million people scared of posting picks, racist shit talking JDouche scared like a little bitch, Psycho Joe scared out of his mind although I don't even think he cares about sports betting on a sports betting site... just hilarious stuff man. These are the people conservative cult leaders love... Weak and soulless!

Just sick, demented people. Scared to post picks on an anonymous forum. Think how deranged you have to be. Hahahahaha.

 

[MantisToboggan]

I didn't play either game. I would post picks if jdeucebag accepted a bet but I truthfully don't like either game enough to play it. You play anything?

Haven't played anything yet. I might take Houston. I don't think Paul plays, and I think you see an aggressive Harden and a focused Rocket team.

 

[akphidelt]

Just sick, demented people. Scared to post picks on an anonymous forum. Think how deranged you have to be. Hahahahaha.

The funniest thing about it all is how they don't realize how much more pathetic they look being scared of making picks than actually losing when they make picks. Like wholly shit, how bad is your life, that you are afraid of people seeing you lose at picking a team to win some game? When you are that scared of people seeing you fail, you are hiding some serious shit. These kids are Internet warriors. All of them have 6 packs, make millions of dollars, mbas, law school, huge houses, tons of hot chicks, etc etc. Yea fucking right. People that actually do have that are like Seymour and Gas Man. Big time d bags but they don't give a fuck if people see them lose at sports betting. Only people like Ace, JDouche, and Joe have those kind of demons in their closet.

Very fun to watch him meltdown like this though. Scary how any of the normal conservatives can support that racist piece of shit. One of Willie's good friends, no surprise.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]'Emailgate' will go to court as watchdog group files SEVEN federal lawsuits for the release of emails held by Hillary Clinton and her 'co-conspirators'[/h]

• Judicial Watch sued the State Department after it failed to respond to FOIA requests
• The group wants emails and records related to Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a home-brew private email server while she was secretary of state
• Also demands the names of other State Department employees who had outside email addresses that they used for work
• One lawsuit concerns a private email account hosted on the Clinton server for Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide

By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 19:50, 6 May 2015 | UPDATED: 20:39, 6 May 2015




The 'emailgate' saga that tripped up Hillary Clinton's earliest preparations to run for president has arrived in federal court, as a right-leaning watchdog group has sued the State Department for email messages and other records it says should be open to public view.
Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C. group known for its voluminous Freedom Of Information Act requests – and for filing lawsuits against government agencies that drag their feet – filed seven separate lawsuits on Wednesday.
The group's president, Tom Fitton, said the legal actions were meant to help the public see through efforts by Clinton and her 'co-conspirators' to shield her personal emails, her activities related to the 2012 Benghazi, Libya terror attack, and any conflicts of interest that may have influenced her decisions impacting foreign donors to her family foundation.
The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

+5


LAWSUIT: Judicial Watch sued the State Department fora host of emails and other records that the agency has apparently withheld in violation of the Freedom of Information Act 0 all related to Hillary Clinton's time as the cabinet department's leader

+5


HUMA@CLINTONEMAIL.COM: Huma Abedin (left), a longtime Clinton aide who is now her presidential campaign's chief of staff, had a private email address on Clinton's home-brew server but the State Department has not acknowledged receiving any work-related emails from that account






They demand that the cabinet-level department Clinton ran from 2009 to 2013 release a trove of paperwork included in FOIA requests that the State Department has slow-walked, according to the group.
'This historic legal effort shows Judicial Watch is the only game in town when it comes to stopping and exposing government corruption,' Fitton said.
'There is a rule-of-law and transparency crisis in Washington. But our new FOIA lawsuits show that Mrs. Clinton and her co-conspirators in the Obama administration will be held accountable for the violations of transparency law, criminal destruction and mishandling of government records, their Benghazi lies, and the Clintons’ abuse of office for personal and political dollars.'
Clinton acknowledged this year that she never had a 'state.gov' address during her tenure, but claimed that she later turned over about half of the messages stored on her personal server, housed at her Chappaqua, New York home.
She deleted more than 32,000 messages without State Department input, however, insisting during a contentious March 10 press conference that they were all 'personal' in nature.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have demanded that she deliver the server to a neutral third-party investigator, such as the State Department's inspector general, to determine if messages related to her official duties were among them.
Clinton's State Department deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, who now serves as her presidential campaign's chief of staff, also used a private email account on the Clintons' household server, in addition to her 'state.gov' address.
No government agency has acknowledged receiving copies of emails from that account.


.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]State Department official says Hillary Clinton's secret email practices are 'not acceptable' as Republicans say rule-breakers should be FIRED[/h]

• Clinton kept all her work emails on a private home-brew server during the four years she was America's top diplomat, circumventing archive systems
• The State Department's top Freedom Of Information Act official said during a hearing on Wednesday that her behavior was wrong
• Republican senator said anyone who does what Clinton did should be fired
• Hillary acknowledged deleting more than 32,000 emails after she decided – with no State Dept. input – that they were 'personal' in nature
• White House again refused to say whether it believes Clinton's behavior was 'acceptable'

By ASSOCIATED PRESS and FRANCESCA CHAMBERS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 16:49, 6 May 2015 | UPDATED: 20:40, 6 May 2015




A State Department assistant secretary said Wednesday it's 'not acceptable' for any agency employee to conduct government business on a private email server as former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did.
Joyce Barr, the agency's chief freedom of information officer, made the comment under questioning from Republican senators who used a Senate Judiciary hearing on open records laws to attack Clinton over her email practices.
Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a Republican, said that anyone who took such an approach should be fired, and asked Barr whether it would be considered acceptable.
Asked after the hearing if the White House House believes Clinton's behavior was 'acceptable,' the president's spokesman, Josh Earnest, again refused to travel down that path with the press.

+4


WHO, ME? Hillary Clinton kept her emails on her own server while she was secretary of state, something her old agency says it was 'unacceptable' for her to do

+4


Joyce Barr, the State Department's chief freedom of information officer, testified in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, May 6






He instead said: 'The guidance that we received is to use....our government email when carrying out official activities.'
Pressed by ABC News' Jon Karl to give a direct response to the question that reporters have been trying to get the White House to answer since the email scandal broke, Earnest dodged.
'The guidance that we continue to give administration officials is that they should use their government email when they are conducting the official business of the United State government,' he said, effectively shutting down that line of questioning.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Bill Clinton Puts Blame for Family’s Scandals on Accountant[/h]Clinton: ‘The guy that filled out the forms made an error’


EMAIL

Bill Clinton / AP​

BY: Brent Scher
May 7, 2015 5:00 am

Bill Clinton put the blame for his foundation’s foreign donor scandal on the accountant who filed its taxes in his Monday interview with NBC News.
“There was no attempt to hide [donations],” Clinton said from Kenya. “The guy that filled out the forms made an error. The guy put it on the wrong form … I can’t explain why they didn’t do it—all I can do is fix it.”
In the wake of the scandal surrounding the foundation’s foreign donors, chief executive officer Maura Pally said mistakes were made in tax filings and that multiple years of tax forms will “likely” have to be re-filed after an external review is completed.
It is unclear which accountant is responsible for the errors.
Laura Parello, the managing director of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PWC) exempt organization tax services division, signed off as the “paid preparer” of the foundation’s most recent tax filing.
When asked how the accountant responsible for preparing the Clinton Foundation’s tax filing felt about being blamed by the former president for the current scandal, PWC said it was unable to comment due to company policy.
PWC also would not comment on whether it was conducting the current external review of the Clinton Foundation’s financial reports.
In addition to preparing the document, PWC also conducted an independent audit of the 2013 reportand wrote that its opinion was that the information was presented “fairly.” The auditor’s note, however, says it is the foundation’s management that is responsible for presenting financial statements that are “free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.”
The 2013 filing says Hillary Clinton spent 20 hours per week working for the foundation, in addition to five hours per week of work for related organizations.
The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a request for confirmation on whether she worked the number of hours stated in the audited document. Nor did they respond to a request for clarification on who Clinton was referring to as “the guy” who “made an error.”
Also signing off on each year of Clinton Foundation tax returns is Andrew Kessel, the foundation’schief financial officer, a position he has held since 2004.
PWC was hired to handle the foundation’s taxes in 2013. Prior to that, BKD LLC in Little Rock, Arkansas, handled the foundation’s taxes since at least 2009.
BKD did not respond to a request for comment on the comments made by Clinton to NBC.
The Clinton Foundation failed to disclose 1,100 foreign donations it received.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged Bill Clinton, Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton, Taxes. Bookmark thepermalink.

 

[russ1945]

State Department will not review Clinton ethics pledge breaches

By Jonathan Allen13 hours ago



.

View photo​

Clinton Foundation iPad covers are seen for sale at the Clinton Museum Store in Little Rock, Arkansas, …



By Jonathan Allen



(Reuters) - The U.S. State Department will not review the breaches of the 2008 ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed in order to become secretary of state after her family's charities admitted in March that they had not complied, a spokesman said on Thursday.
Clinton, now the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential election, had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation's top diplomat.
She also promised that the charities would let the State Department's ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations.
In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton's four years at the State Department.
The State Department "regrets" that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, but does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.
"The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton's tenure," Rathke told reporters.
The broken ethics agreement has made it harder for Clinton to deflect accusations in recent weeks that foreigners banned from donating to U.S. political campaigns can instead curry favor with her by giving to the charity that bears her name.
The charities accepted new donations from at least six foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state: Switzerland, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Rwanda, Sweden and Algeria.
The governments of Australia and the United Kingdom, which were already funding projects at the time Clinton signed her ethics agreement, increased their funding by millions of dollars during this period.
The charities never told the State Department about the new and increased donations. In two instances, the charities said this was the result of "oversights"; for the other six, they said those donations were exceptions to the agreement for various reasons.
The charities also stopped publishing full donor lists from 2010 onwards; the annually updated list omitted donors to the foundation's flagship health initiative.
Rathke, the State Department spokesman, said the department was not aware of donations having an undue influence on U.S. foreign policy. When reporters asked how the department could know this without reviewing the belated disclosures, he declined to comment further.
(Reporting by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Leslie Adler)


(from the above)
When reporters asked how the department could know this without reviewing the belated disclosures, he declined to comment further.

Comment so when something is reported as needing an investigation the timing of when the possible irregularities occurred is not relevant. Liberal thinking all the way. The ends justify the means.

 

[russ1945]

Hillary Rodham Romney

Column: The battle to define Hillary Clinton is on—and she’s losing


EMAIL


BY: Matthew Continetti
May 8, 2015 5:00 am

Hillary Clinton is moving so quickly to the left that it’s hard to keep up. Her aides are telling the New York Times she wants to “topple” the One Percent, she’s pledging solidarity with union bosses over lunch meetings at Mario Batali restaurants in Midtown, she supports a constitutional amendment to suppress political speech, she’s down with a right to same-sex marriage, she’s ambivalent over the Keystone Pipeline and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, she’s calling for an end to the “era of mass incarceration,” she wants to go “further” than President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty. It’s called pandering, but the press is too frazzled or sympathetic to call her on it. There’s desperation to Clinton’s moves, an almost panicked energy, to close the gap between her and her party’s base. If Elizabeth Warren called for full Communism, Clinton would be at the barricades the next day.
Warren’s the reason for the policy shuffle. Clinton is so terrified of losing the Democratic primary—again—that she’s willing to trade consistency for security against an insurgent from the left. But she may be trading electability too. The Democrats have an advantage in presidential elections, but last I checked the country hasn’t turned into a really big MSNBC greenroom. One day Clinton will have to defend her positions against a non-witch Republican, and she’ll have eight years of Obama to answer for as well. She doesn’t have the gall, the rakishness, or the aw-shucks charm that allowed her husband to slither out of such difficulties, and judging from Bill’s most recent interviews he’s losing his abilities too. Indeed, the politician Hillary Clinton reminds me most of lately isn’t her husband or Warren. It’s Mitt Romney.
Like Clinton, Romney ran twice. Like Clinton, he established his political profile under a different set of circumstances than when he ran for president. He got his start as the modern, technocratic Republican, fixing the Olympics, delivering universal health insurance to Massachusetts, and projecting moderate sensibilities on many issues. But the dynamics of Republican presidential primaries forced him to swerve right, mix up his identity. He’s not Disraeli so the moves caused him trouble. The press mocked his “severely conservative” remark, his desire to “double Guantanamo” (a fantastic idea, by the way), and his support for the “self-deportation” of illegal immigrants. There had always been a false assuredness to Romney, the Eddie Haskell feeling that he was putting you on, trying a little too hard. The policy shifts played into this aura of inauthenticity, and by the time Eric Fehrnstrom was likening Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch, the battle to define the Republican nominee was close to lost. Super Pac ads over the summer and the 47 percent remark in September made things worse. No way Romney could connect.
Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are both wealthy, well-meaning overachievers who have a habit of saying things they come to regret. Charles Krauthammer says Hillary has “authentic inauthenticity,” which is a good way to sum up many people’s view of Romney. Clinton hasn’t had a good week of press in years. Her book launch was immediately sunk by controversies over her paid speeches and her remark that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House. She’s under investigation for her response to the Benghazi attack, for her private (and deleted) email server, and bestselling authors are picking through foreign donations to her family charity. Her response has been to go underground, leave the explaining to Bill—an effort he immediately sabotaged by telling NBC News he didn’t understand why people had their doubts about the foundation, and that he would keep making paid speeches because “I gotta pay our bills.”
Romney lost for many reasons. The economy wasn’t as bad as he said it was, he was trying to defenestrate America’s first black president, he never had a gut connection with the public like Reagan or Dubya or Obama. Another reason showed up in the exit poll: Romney beat President Obama on such candidate attributes as “shares my values,” “is a strong leader,” and “has a vision for the future,” but for those who said what matters most is a president who “cares about people like me,” Obama won 81 percent to 18 percent. Voters didn’t think Romney cared about them because he had inadvertently played into the Democratic line of attack: His flip-flopping, career in private equity, and writing off of almost half the electorate reinforced the image peddled by Plouffe, Messina, and Axelrod of an aloof and somewhat goofy plutocrat.
Clinton might as well be telling Republicans how to run against her. This week’s Wall Street Journal / NBC poll reported that her favorable and unfavorable ratings are now even, and contained the stunning finding that only 25 percent of voters find her “honest and straightforward.” If the Republicans can’t see the opening here to define Clinton for the public as dishonest, untrustworthy, tricky, and foul, then they don’t really deserve to win, which they might not anyway. Hillary may find it’s hard to convince someone she “cares about people like me” when there’s the possibility she’ll sell that someone out.
And selling out two decades of political centrism is exactly what Clinton has spent the last two weeks doing. The coming attack ads are obvious: clip reels of Hillary being on every side of every issue. If Clinton wins the nomination, as seems likely, and tries to “shake the Etch-a-Sketch,” she’ll still be dragging her primary baggage behind her: income inequality, climate change, immigration, and the criminal justice system are just not major concerns of the general public, which is more interested in jobs, wages, and national security. Clinton’s leftward drive is undermining her general election message—she’ll be too busy explaining, badly, all of her different positions, all of the latest foibles and accusations.
“Many factors allowed [Bill] Clinton to survive questions about his character: satisfaction with overall peace and prosperity, respect for his skill and effectiveness, and distaste for critics who repeatedly seemed to overreach,” writes Ronald Brownstein. “But his most important shield may have been the belief that he understood, and genuinely hoped to ameliorate, the problems of ordinary Americans.” Brownstein’s evidence is the 1996 exit poll, in which voters said they didn’t trust Clinton but re-elected him with 49 percent of the vote anyway. It’s a clever article but not all that relevant: the electorate of 20 years ago is not the same as today, Hillary is not her husband, there is no “satisfaction with peace and prosperity,” her “skill and effectiveness” is, to say the least, a matter of dispute, and odds are the Republican nominee next year is going to do better on the empathy question than Bob Dole.
Brownstein’s piece actually is confirmation of Clinton’s dilemma: It cites two polls that asked whether she understands average Americans, and she scored less than 50 percent in each. A candidate’s honesty and ability to empathize are related: The more reasons you give a voter to doubt you, to worry you’re more concerned with appeasing an ideological base than working for the public interest, the less he’ll think you understand where he’s at. Over 60, white, affluent, famous, desperate to seem in touch, and oh so bad on the trail—Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are one hot match, one genuine power couple.

This entry was posted in Columns and tagged 2016 Election, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney. Bookmark the permalink.


(from the above) The coming attack ads are obvious: clip reels of Hillary being on every side of every issue.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]SCHWEIZER ON MEGYN KELLY: CLINTONS’ DEALS ‘CRYING OUT FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION’[/h]