Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[russ1945]

[h=2]Release of Clinton Documents Delayed After State Department Discovers ‘Thousands’ of Unsearched Records[/h]Citizens United, Judicial Watch lawsuits affected by development
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Hillary Clinton / AP​

BY: Alana Goodman
March 4, 2016 3:35 pm

The State Department’s recent discovery of thousands of unsearched records from Hillary Clinton’s tenure has delayed several public records lawsuits and could keep many of the documents out of the public sphere until next fall.
The watchdog groups Citizens United and Judicial Watch, which are suing the State Department for Clinton-related records, are two plaintiffs that have been affected by the discovery. The State Department said the new documents could take months to process, a time period that extends well beyond its court-ordered deadlines.
Citizens United said the State Department has yet to explain how the electronic files were overlooked for the past two years, raising questions about whether this was a stonewalling effort. The group is seeking records related to Clinton donors Gilbert Chagoury and Rajiv Fernando.
“With this 11th hour revelation, the State Department has missed its court-ordered deadline to finish the production of documents in this case,” said David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United. “These newly discovered records could impact document production in other Citizens United FOIA lawsuits as well as cases involving other plaintiffs.”
On Jan. 14, the State Department disclosed in a Judicial Watch case that officials had recently found shared and individual electronic files in the executive secretary’s office that were not previously searched in response to the lawsuit. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit last May.
Although the court had ordered the State Department to turn over all relevant records by last October, attorneys said they would need until this spring to process the new documents.
State filed a nearly identical status report in the Citizens United lawsuit on Feb. 29, the same day as its court-ordered deadline to turn over all requested documents.
Attorneys for the department told Citizens United the discovery of unsearched records could set back the processing schedule until next fall. The State Department said it had not informed Citizens United earlier because its attorneys did not know about the new sources of records until Feb. 11—even though they had been disclosed to Judicial Watch in early January.
“Neither State’s agency counsel nor undersigned counsel for State was aware of this issue until February 11, 2016,” said the State Department in a Feb. 29 court filing.
According to court statements, the new sources of information come from the executive secretary’s office, which acted as the liaison between Secretary Clinton’s office and the rest of the State Department, the White House, and national security agencies.
One of the new sources is a series of “shared office folders,” computer folders that were used by multiple staff members. State Department public records officials said they first discovered this source in November. They said the files had previously been overlooked because they had been “retired” and removed from the executive secretary’s office last year.
The second new source is “individual folders,” which contain word documents, PDF documents, and the emails of Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan. These emails had already been processed, but officials said they did not realize until last December that there were other types of documents in these folders.
The late findings have impacted at least two additional Judicial Watch lawsuits, according to court documents. The House Benghazi Committee last week received over 1,600 pages of documents related to Libya from the new files, which the committee said it had requested nearly a year ago.
The State Department said it could not comment on whether other public records lawsuits could be impacted, or why Citizens United wasn’t informed about the new files at the same time as Judicial Watch.
“The State Department does not comment on matters in litigation,” a State Department official said. “We can confirm that State recently located documents from electronic sources not previously searched that are potentially responsive to certain FOIA cases involving records originating from the Office of the Secretary during Secretary Clinton’s tenure. As a result, the Department is undertaking additional searches of those files.”
“These unsearched materials include a variety of file types, but do not include the email accounts of former Secretary Clinton’s senior staff, which we have been searching for some time,” the official said.
The State Department noted that it has been taking steps to improve records management and hired a transparency coordinator last fall.
Sources also pointed to another recent personnel change at the State Department—the departure of attorney Catherine Duval, who had been involved in processing Clinton’s emails for release last year. Duval was previously in charge of document production at the IRS when many of the agency’s emails were destroyed. Congressional Republicans have accused Duval of obstructing their efforts to obtain Clinton documents.
Duval left the State Department last September. A few weeks later, the Republicans on the House Benghazi Committee released a statement praising increased transparency at the State Department.
“It’s curious the Department is suddenly able to be more productive after recent staff changes involving those responsible for document production,” committee spokesman Jamal Ware said in a Sept. 25, 2015 press release.
But the latest disclosure of unsearched records will still have an impact on groups like Citizens United, which first filed its public records request in 2014 and could be waiting until after the presidential election before it receives all its documents.
In light of the new discovery, the court pushed back the State Department’s production deadline until next August. Citizens United said it would not be surprised by additional delays.
“The public has a right to inspect records that are in the possession of their government,” Bossie said. “These delay tactics by the Obama Administration look like nothing more than an assist to former Secretary Clinton.”
“This latest declaration is more of the constant ‘drip, drip, drip’ that [D.C. District Court] Judge Sullivan spoke of last week,” he added. “Unfortunately, when dealing with the State Department, it’s not a matter if this will happen again, it’s a matter of when.”

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]Fire him! Clinton calls for GOP governor of Michigan to resign as she declares that it is 'raining lead' in Flint and Sanders calls water crisis a 'disgrace' in Dem debate[/h]


By FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM IN FLINT, MICHIGAN
PUBLISHED: 01:24, 7 March 2016 | UPDATED: 01:49, 7 March 2016





Hillary Clinton urged Michigan's Republican governor to resign tonight over the Flint water crisis.
'It is raining lead in Flint, and the state is derelict,' she said at a Democratic debate held in the Michigan town.
Sanders called for Governor Rick Snyder's resignation more than a month and a half ago and did so again tonight.
Neither candidate was willing to call tonight for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, however.
Sanders called the lead water a 'disgrace' and said if he were president, he'd send in the feds.

+1


Hillary Clinton urged Michigan's Republican Governor to resign tonight over the Flint water crisis





That children are being poisoned in America in this century, 'that is clearly not what this country should be about,' he said.
Talking after Sanders at the beginning of tonight's debate, Clinton said, 'Amen to that' and took credit for tonight's debate taking place in Flint.
She called on Snyder to resign and threw hew weight behind an effort by the people of Michigan to recall him.
'But that is not enough. We have to focus on what must be done to help the people of Flint,' she added.
The state and federal government should send in emergency aid, she said, and pay Flint residents to deliver the water while the pipes are reconstructed.
Clinton backed up President Barack Obama's efforts so far and called for accountability from EPA. She further touted his efforts to expand Medicaid, so more children have health care, and Head Start.
'I would do even more of that,' the former cabinet secretary said.
The Democratic presidential candidate said she was unsure that head of the national EPA should suffer the same fate as the regional director who oversaw Flint and resigned in January weeks after state of Michigan instituted a state of emergency in response to the toxic water.
'Well I don’t know how high it goes….so I would have a full investigation,' Clinton said tonight.
She said 'yes people should be fired' but maintained that she could not say who exactly should be let go without a closer look at the situation.
Sanders simply said fire anyone 'who knew about what was happening and did not act appropriately.'
The U.S. senator said, 'What is going on is a disgrace beyond belief.'
If the local government does not have the resources to act and the state government refuses to, 'federal government comes, in federal government acts,' he said.



.

 

[superbeets]

Bernie Sanders won the Maine Democratic caucuses on Sunday, his fifth victory in a caucus state, following wins in Nebraska and Kansas on Saturday.
With 77.5% of results counted, the leftwing Vermont senator had 64.2% of the vote to the former secretary of state’s 35.6%.
“With another double-digit victory, we have now won by wide margins in states from New England to the Rocky Mountains and from the Midwest to the Great Plains,” said Sanders in a statement put out by his campaign while he faced Clinton in a debate in Flint, Michigan.
“This weekend alone we won in Maine, Kansas and Nebraska. The pundits might not like it but the people are making history. We now have the momentum to go all the way to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.”



Democratic officials reported unexpectedly high turnout at caucus sites across Maine, especially in Portland, where the party was forced to adjust the process in order to expedite the line, according to the Portland Press Herald.
According to the paper, voters in line were allowed to fill out a paper ballot, in effect an absentee ballot used in primary voting, as opposed to participating in a traditional town meeting style caucus.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]WATCH: Water Pollution Scandal Was Real Issue for Clintons in 1992 Campaign[/h]Flashback: Clintons criticized by Dem opponents, media for close ties to water polluter
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

AP​

BY: Brent Scher
March 4, 2016 3:00 pm

Hillary Clinton has turned the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, into a central issue for her campaign and will look to capitalize on that focus when she faces Bernie Sanders at Saturday’s Democratic debate in the troubled city, but in the 1992 Democratic primary, it was Bill Clinton who was on defense for standing by as Arkansas’ water was polluted.
Former senator Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) went after Clinton during a candidate forum that year for putting himself forward as an environmentalist even though Arkansas was an environmental disaster during his tenure as governor.
“Mr. Clinton, that was a very nice, flowery little speech, but we have to start reading the records and not the lips,” said Harkin, who went on to point out that Arkansas was rated last in environmental policy during his governorship.
Here’s video of the interaction:

Harkin also said that Clinton’s Environmental Protection Agency was “a joke” and that it was “loaded with representatives of the biggest polluter in Arkansas.”
That polluter was Tyson Foods, a powerful political backer of Clinton that contaminated the drinking water supply of more than 300,000 people with roughly 500,000 tons of chicken waste that was dumped into streams. The presence of “fecal bacteria” in the water caused entire towns near Tyson plants to be plagued by chronic dysentery and salmonella.
In one case, it took Clinton 17 months after being notified by health inspectors that a Tyson plant was leaking 1 million gallons of sewage into a town’s water supply to take any action.
This turned into a major issue in the 1992 campaign, and not just for Clinton’s opponents.
After Clinton won his party’s nomination, CNN sent a reporter to Arkansas to examine just how bad the environmental situation was.
Here’s video of the lengthy report:

The report found that state agencies were aware that 3,700 miles of Arkansas waterways were at risk of being destroyed by “agricultural source pollution” and that it took Clinton until 1990 to create a task force to address the problem.
One scientist who focused on the quality of Arkansas water expressed his belief to CNN that the only reason Clinton formed the task force was because of his presidential aspirations.
“I think there is a direct connection between the current emphasis on animal waste and runoff and his bid for the presidency,” said hydrologist Skip Halterman.
Clinton is also criticized by CNN for giving a third of the seats on the task force to members of the poultry industry that was a major source of political contributions for Clinton.
A top adviser for President George H. W. Bush is quoted in the segment saying that “Clinton’s record on the environment as governor of Arkansas is worst in the nation” and that his attempt to gloss over his environmental record “gives new meaning to the word ‘oil slick.’”
CNN said that Clinton was “politically vulnerable” on the issue.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to request for comment on the matter.
Though Hillary Clinton was not mentioned in the segment, she also established strong ties with Tyson and the poultry industry during her time in Arkansas.
She was criticized for making an investment in cattle futures based on the advice of Tyson’s top lawyer James Blair, who, along with his wife Diane Blair, was a close confidante of the Clintons. Clinton made $100,000 on the investment, which took place the year before Clinton entered the governor’s mansion.
Blair admitted to the New York Times that he advised Clinton to make the successful but risky investment. The Times wrote that Clinton was a major ally to Tyson during his time at the helm in Arkansas, noting that he looked the other way on environmental issues.
“During Mr. Clinton’s tenure in Arkansas, Tyson benefited from a variety of state actions, including $9 million in government loans, the placement of company executives on important state boards and favorable decisions on environmental issues,” the Times wrote in 1994.
Clinton was also called out Friday for voting against a 2005 bill in the Senate that was intended to prevent groundwater pollution.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Marlow: Clintons’ ‘Serial Dishonesty’ The ‘Danger of Putting Them Back In The White House’[/h]

12​

0​

by PAM KEY7 Mar 201621
Saturday in Maryland at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC ) held by the American Conservative Union, during a panel titled, “The Seven Deadly Sins of Hillary Clinton,” with moderator Charlie Kirk and co-panelist Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, Breitbart News editor Alexander Marlow said former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton have a “serial dishonesty,” which he argued is the “danger of putting them back in the White House.”
Discussing the Clinton Foundation, Marlow said, “A key to the connective tissue with all of the Clintons — everything they do — and we will talk about this probably in just about all the deadly sins we touch on— is their serial dishonesty. And we can focus on this later. But she did swear that she would disclose all the contributions to the Clinton Foundation. As of now —and again another right wing outlet, “The Washington Post,” says that 1100 donations are so far not disclosed. This is a woman who thinks of the truth as anything that is politically expedient for her . And her husband is the same way. And that is the danger of putting them back in the White House.”

 

[Acebb]

Note to Hillary: Clintonomics Was a Disaster for Most Americans

What was Clinton’s overall record with respect to improving living standards for working people and the poor? During the eight full years of Clinton’s presidency, the average real wage for non-supervisory workers, at $13.60 an hour (in 2001 dollars), was 2 percent lower than the average under Reagan and Bush and nearly 10 percent less than under Jimmy Carter’s “years of malaise.” The average individual poverty rate under Clinton, at 13.2 percent of the population, was modestly better than the 14 percent rate under Reagan and Bush. But it was worse than the 11.9 percent figure that was maintained, on average, under Nixon and Ford, as well as Carter.

^ The author is as left wing as they come.

 

[russ1945]

Napolitano Blasts Hillary Clinton’s Email Defense As A ‘Word Game’

STEVE GUEST
Media Reporter

10:22 AM 03/08/2016​

1771
101

​

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton answers a question from the audience during a Democratic Town Hall event in Detroit, Michigan, March 7, 2016. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

​

Judge Andrew Napolitano destroyed the defense that Hillary Clinton has used for having classified information on her private email server arguing that for Clinton to say she never received anything “marked” classified is a “word game.”


Appearing on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday, Napolitano argued that Clinton set up a private email server in the first place because she “wanted to hide from the rest of the State Department what she was doing in Libya, because she wanted to hide from us via the Freedom of Information Act, what she was doing as Secretary of State.” (RELATED: Clinton Says FBI Has Not Informed Her She Is Target Of Investigation [VIDEO])




When asked about the defense Clinton used for having classified information on her private email server during Fox News’ Democratic town hall event Monday night, Napolitano said, “For her to say, ‘I neither sent nor received anything classified’ is a word game because nothing is marked classified. It is marked confidential, secret or top secret.”



Clinton “signed an oath her first day in office. In which she said, I understand my legal obligation is to know what is secret, whether it is marked secret or not. I also understand that the failure to recognize that could be criminal in nature. So what makes something confidential, secret or top secret is not a stamp marked on it, it’s the essence of the e-mail,” Napolitano said. (RELATED: State Dept. Releases 19 ‘SECRET’ Hillary Emails, The Most So Far)

Sponsored Links by​

Napolitano then rhetorically asked, “Does it contain information, the revelation of which could harm national security? Let’s see. Would photographs of a North Korean nuclear facility if disseminated, harm national security? Would the names of American spies particularly moles working for more countries than the U.S., would that harm national security? Would Ambassador Stevens’ itinerary in Libya in the two days before he was murdered harm national security?”


“Guess what,” Napolitano said, Clinton “emailed all of that in a non-secured server. And she had a legal obligation to know that that would affect national security.” (RELATED: Napolitano: Hillary Clinton Should Be ‘Terrified’ IT Guy Was Given Immunity [VIDEO])


Napolitano then suggested that it would have been okay for Clinton to send that information on the secure State Department servers to other State Department accounts, but not her private email server.


Co-host Brian Kilmeade then asked if it would have been okay for Clinton to send that classified information from a secure State Department account to a non-secure personal email account, giving the example, “SteveDoocy.com” and Napolitano said if Clinton did that, she would be committing a crime. (RELATED: Napolitano: Case For Prosecuting Hillary For ‘Espionage Is Well Known, Well Documented’ [VIDEO])

​

Kilmeade followed up, “Could she honestly say, that she didn’t know what was classified and was not classified or that they over-classify at the State Department?”


“No,” Napolitano said, arguing, “Because this is a rare federal crime where the government doesn’t have to prove intent. You can commit the crime by gross negligence. If she’s going to tell the jury there were 2,000 emails that she sent or received that had confidential, secret or top secret information there and she didn’t know it, only the most hardened Hillary Clinton supporters would believe that. No federal prosecutor would believe it, no FBI Agent would believe it, no grand juror would believe, no trial juror would believe it.”




Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/08/n...s-email-defense-as-a-word-game/#ixzz42MjDPm00

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Architect of NYC’s New Public Urination Policy Is Hillary Clinton Surrogate[/h]Clinton endorser Melissa Mark-Viverito wrote bill that forced NYPD policy change
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Melissa Mark-Viverito / AP​

BY: Brent Scher
March 9, 2016 5:00 am

The woman behind a policy change that allows people in New York City to commit crimes such as public urination and drinking in public without being arrested is a Hillary Clinton supporter who has appeared with her at official campaign events.
New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito served as author and lead cheerleader for legislation that eases enforcement of so-called “quality-of-life offenses.” The policy change was officially implemented this week.
Mark-Viverito announced her endorsement of Clinton in September and stated her hope that she could play an “important role” to help her campaign reach Latinos in 2016. Mark-Viverito, who was born and raised in Puerto Rico, published her endorsement in Spanish.
Just last week, Mark-Viverito was invited to deliver a speech at Clinton’s rally at New York City’s Jacob Javits Center.
Mark-Viverito came on stage at the end of the rally and “Mrs. Clinton grabbed Ms. Mark-Viverito close,” according to an account by the New York Times. Here’s video of the embrace captured by a local reporter:


Mark-Viverito expressed hopes to the New York Daily News this week that a Clinton victory in 2016 could lead to a job for her in the White House.
Though Mark-Viverito was successful in her effort to change the NYPD’s policy towards what she deems “minor crimes,” her critics say this will prove to be “a mistake” for the city that has come a long way from the days when subway cars were covered in graffiti.
Matthew Hennessey, an editor of New York’s City Journal, wrote recently that the smell of urine in the city will “linger in the minds of those who remember a time when New York was a city in decline.”
“The smell of urine is the olfactory equivalent of the sight of litter in the street, graffiti on the subway, or a building with broken windows,” wrote Hennessy. “All send the same message: No one cares about public spaces in this city, so do as you please.”
Viverito didn’t grow up in New York City, but fellow Democrat Scott Stringer did, and he says it is knowing what New York used to be that makes him against the change.
“Having grown up in this city in the 70s and 80s, I am not in favor of people urinating in the street, jumping turnstiles, or creating dangerous situations by being drunk,” said the city comptroller.
Clinton is yet to directly address the city’s new policy and did not return a request for comment for this story.
Though the new policy has many critics, it is far from the most controversial issue surrounding Mark-Viverito, who has been criticized in the past by New York politicians on both sides of the aisle.
The most stinging critiques came in 2014 after she refused to stand up during the pledge of allegiance at a September 11 memorial service at the World Trade Center. A fellow Democrat in New York said that Mark-Viverito “doesn’t care about America” and that she is a “communist from Puerto Rico.”
After Mark-Viverito attempted to excuse herself for the incident, another fellow Democrat said that Mark-Viverito told her that it was a symbolic “protest” of the United States due to the fact that Puerto Rico hasn’t been granted independence.
She continues to fight for the release from prison of Puerto Rican terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera, who is believed to have been behind a 1975 bombing in New York City that killed four. Rivera was offered a presidential pardon by President Bill Clinton, but turned it down because he refused to denounce terrorism.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Company that Paid Hillary Clinton $335K for Speech Slapped With SEC Bribery Suit[/h]Clinton’s address to Qualcomm focused on ‘empowering girls and women’
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

AP​

BY: Alana Goodman
March 8, 2016 3:15 pm

A tech company that paid Hillary Clinton $335,000 to give a speech in 2014 settled a dispute last week with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which claims the corporation repeatedly bribed foreign political officials to promote its products and gain a business advantage.
Qualcomm, a wireless telecommunications company based in San Diego, paid $7.5 million to settle the SEC probe. In astatement announcing the settlement last week, the commission accused the company of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act between 2002 and 2012 by hiring unqualified relatives of Chinese officials and providing them with luxury gifts that had “no valid business purpose.”
These allegations were echoed in a civil lawsuit filed by Qualcomm’s shareholders last month, which also accused the company’s executives of defrauding investors.
Clinton spoke at Qualcomm’s Wireless Reach conference in October 2014. Critics noted that the $335,000 speech payment was more than Bernie Sanders’s entire net worth.
According to Qualcomm’s website, Clinton’s address “captivated” the audience and focused on “the importance of empowering girls and women to believe they can succeed in any field.”
Qualcomm has also worked closely with the Clinton Global Initiative, and contributed between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company’s co-founder, Irwin Jacobs, is a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Super PAC. Jacobs retired from Qualcomm’s board in 2012, and he is not named as a defendant in the civil suit.
The ongoing civil suit by Qualcomm shareholders claims that the company’s stock prices were artificially inflated because executives failed to correct false and misleading statements about the firm’s business prospects. It also “seeks to remedy damages caused to the Company by the Individual Defendants’ violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”
The SEC settlement did not include an admission or denial from Qualcomm.
“From 2002 through 2012, Qualcomm provided things of value to foreign officials … to try to influence these decision makers to favor and/or promote Qualcomm-developed technology in an evolving international telecommunications market, thereby providing Qualcomm with a business advantage,” said the SEC.
Clinton has come under scrutiny for her paid speeches to corporations and the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of large donations. Last year, Peter Schweitzer detailed connections between Clinton Foundation donations, Bill Clinton’s paid speaking gigs, and Hillary Clinton’s actions at the State Department in the book Clinton Cash.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

 

[The Guesser]

Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server

Saved to Reading Li​

Hillary Clinton in Detroit. (Charlie Neibergall/Associated Press)

By Ruth Marcus Columnist March 8
​

For those of you salivating — or trembling — at the thought of Hillary Clinton being clapped in handcuffs as she prepares to deliver her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention this summer: deep, cleansing breath. Based on the available facts and the relevant precedents, criminal prosecution of Clinton for mishandling classified information in her emails is extraordinarily unlikely.
My exasperation with Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state is long-standing and unabated. Lucky for her, political idiocy is not criminal.
“There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. “This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.”
Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly — absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.
There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924, a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to “knowingly remove” classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”
What we learned from Hillary Clinton's emails

Prosecutors used this provision in securing a guilty plea from former CIA director David H. Petraeus, who was sentenced to probation and fined $100,000. But there are key differences between Petraeus and Clinton.
Petraeus clearly knew the material he provided to Paula Broadwell was classified and that she was not authorized to view it. “Highly classified . . . code word stuff in there,” he told her. He lied to FBI agents, the kind of behavior that tends to inflame prosecutors.
In Clinton’s case, by contrast, there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.
The government used the same statute in 2005 against former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who was sentenced to probation and fined $50,000. Here, too, the conduct was more evidently egregious than what the public record shows about Clinton’s. Berger, at the National Archives preparing for the 9/11 investigations, twice took copies of a classified report out of the building, hiding the documents in his clothes.
For Clinton, the worst public fact involves a 2011 email exchange with aide Jake Sullivan. When she has trouble receiving a secure fax, Clinton instructs Sullivan to “turn [it] into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” But Clinton has said she was not asking for classified information. In any event, it does not appear her instructions were followed.
Another possible prosecutorial avenue involves the Espionage Act. Section 793(d) makes it a felony if a person entrusted with “information relating to the national defense” “willfully communicates, delivers [or] transmits” it to an unauthorized person. That might be a stretch given the “willfully” requirement.
Section 793(f) covers a person with access to “national defense” information who through “gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust.” The government has used the “gross negligence” provision to prosecute a Marine sergeant who accidentally put classified documents in his gym bag, then hid them in his garage rather than returning them, and an Air Force sergeant who put classified material in a Dumpster so he could get home early.
Takeaways from Hillary Clinton’s e-mails

The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.
My point here isn’t to praise Clinton’s conduct. She shouldn’t have been using the private server for official business in the first place. It’s certainly possible she was cavalier about discussing classified material on it; that would be disturbing but she wouldn’t be alone, especially given rampant over-classification.
The handling of the emails is an entirely legitimate subject for FBI investigation. That’s a far cry from an indictable offense.

 

[superbeets]

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Department of Justice officials have impaneled a federal grand jury in the Hillary Clinton email case and FBI agents have launched a second, separate investigation on political corruption involving the former secretary of state’s official activities and the Clinton Foundation, a former U.S. attorney told The Daily Caller News Foundation.


Joseph E. diGenova, who served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for four years, said Wednesday he believes the FBI is investigating two separate Clinton scandals.


DiGenova said it was clear to him if a federal grand jury had been impaneled after Justice Department officials acknowledged they had issued statutory immunity to Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s former IT chief.


“It is inconceivable to me that they could have done that without subpoenaing documents from third parties,” he told TheDCNF, “You cannot declare immunity except in the grand jury context if it was statutory immunity.”

Shush()* :hanging:

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Benghazi Victim’s Mother: ‘Special Place In Hell’ For People Like Hillary, “I Hope She Enjoys It There’[/h]

23751​

27​

by IAN HANCHETT10 Mar 20163,515
Patricia Smith, whose son Sean was killed in the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, responded to Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement about her being “absolutely wrong” by saying there’s “a special place in hell” for people like Clinton “and I hope she enjoys it there” on Thursday’s broadcast of the Fox Business Network’s “Intelligence Report with Trish Regan.”
Smith said, “She lied to me. She told me it was a fault of the video. … And she knew full well it wasn’t at that time. And then she says, she was going to check, and if it’s any different, she would call me back. She would let me know. She has never once spoken to me, or her office. The only thing I ever got out of them is that I am not a member of the immediate family, and I don’t need to know.”
She later added, “I want Hillary to talk to me personally, and tell me why there was no security there, when they were asked for it. I know this, because I spoke to my son. That day, he says he was really scared, because he saw the 17 people — 17 November, whatever it was, that they were walking around taking pictures. And he was afraid. He says it didn’t look very good. And he was afraid. And that he asked for security, and he was turned down.”
When asked about criticisms that the matter had been politicized, Smith stated,”All I want is for Hillary to tell me what happened. What’s political about that? I think that as a mother, I deserve to know. And as a woman, as she says, she always talks about a woman, I am a woman too. I think I deserve to know why my son is dead.”
Smith also stated that while she wasn’t surprised that Clinton was accusing her of lying, she didn’t want her government to call her a liar.
Smith concluded, “I want to speak to her personally, and I want to be able to ask her what happened, and I want her to be able to tell me what happened. I don’t believe she’s got the guts to do that. As Madeleine Albright said, there’s special place in hell for people like her, and I hope she enjoys it there.”

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Napolitano: Clinton’s Answer to Indictment Question Demonstrates Ignorance and Deceit[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: Chandler Gill
March 10, 2016 11:58 am

On Fox News Thursday, Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed Hillary Clinton’s answer to being asked about her email server and possible indictment during the Univision Democratic presidential debate the prior night. He said that her answers to these questions showed her natural inclination to not tell the truth, as well as her ignorance of the law.

Clinton was asked by moderator Jorge Ramos, “The question was, ‘who gave you permission? Was is President Barack Obama?’”
To which she responded, “there was no permission to be asked. It had been done by my predecessors. It was permitted. I didn’t have to ask anyone.”
“If you are indicted would you drop out?” Ramos asked back.
“For goodness– it’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.”
​

Napolitano’s reaction to this was to point out that there is a difference between the emails and the private server itself. He stated that her two predecessors, Former Secretary Powell and Former Secretary Rice, “did not have servers in their home.”
“The Secretary of State has two email streams,” Napolitano said. “A regular email stream and a secret email stream. Mrs. Clinton hired, at her own expense, an information technologist to divert both email streams to her home server. Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice did nothing of the sort.”
He finished, “You’re really comparing apples and oranges here.”
Host Bill Hemmer questioned Judge Napolitano about if the public is asking the wrong question to Clinton. Should they be asking about the emails she sent or the server that was installed in her home?
Napolitano responded praising the moderator saying he “has an excellent understanding of what happened and asked the right question.” He continued to explain how she inadvertently showed the FBI her inclination to not tell the truth when asked about this issue.

“In one of her answers, Bill, she revealed inadvertently, I think, to the FBI, which watches her debates, a proclivity to mislead. Because she said to Mr. Ramos just as she has been saying for a year now, ‘I neither sent nor received any email that was marked classified.’ We know and the FBI knows and she knows that nothing is marked classified. And yet, she continues to mislead the questioner, thereby sending, if you will, a dog whistle, to the FBI her natural inclination is not to tell the truth.”
​

Napolitano continued to say he didn’t think that he would have phrased the question as ‘who gave you permission,’ but her answer was extremely important.
“But when she said I didn’t need permission […] she is revealing an ignorance of the law.”
He explained that the issue no longer is national security law but who owns the emails of a government worker. Since the emails were passed through a government instrument, the government owns them. So, when emails are demanded, the person holding the account cannot decide which emails are made public and which emails are to remain private. The government decides which emails are government and which are private.
Napolitano ended the interview saying that, “if she believes this will go away, that belief is a false belief.”

 

[superbeets]

 

[russ1945]

But Obama had to get ready for his trip to Las Vegas which was much more important right. Hillary had referenced Steven's itinerary many times, wonder if she did it that time also. And it is obvious that both Obama and Hillary knew that Steven's request for more and better security was not worth their attention. Stand down is still echoing all over DC and Libya.

 

[russ1945]

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Report: Clinton Computer Staffer a ‘Devastating Witness’ in Email Probe[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Hillary Clinton / AP​

BY: Morgan Chalfant
March 11, 2016 4:46 pm

Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department computer staffer who has been granted immunity by the Justice Department in the Clinton email probe, has reportedly given the FBI details on how Clinton’s private email server was set up, including who had access to the system.
Fox News, citing an intelligence source, reported that Pagliano, who set Clinton’s server up in her New York home in 2009, has also told FBI investigators when these individuals had access to the former secretary of state’s system and what devices they used. The former staffer also offered details that allowed investigators to connect emails with other evidence, which could help them determine possible gaps in Clinton’s email record.
“Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton’s] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized,” the source was quoted as saying.
The latest revelations come about a week after it was reported that Pagliano received immunity from the Justice Department and was cooperating with the FBI, months after he pled the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before congressional lawmakers on Clinton’s server setup. Pagliano worked on Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign and went on to work in the State Department’s IT department during her tenure as secretary of state.
Clinton’s presidential campaign has described the news about Pagliano as a positive development.
The FBI began investigating Clinton’s email setup after the intelligence community inspector general determined that at least two emails on her server contain top secret information. According to reports last week, the probe has become criminal in nature, though Clinton has described it as a “security review.”
The State Department, which reviewed and released Clinton’s work-related emails under court order over a period of months, was forced to withhold 22 emails from release in January because they contain top secret information. The intelligence source told Fox News that the FBI is “extremely focused” on these emails. It is unclear whether the emails contain information that was classified when the messages originated on Clinton’s email.
In total, over 2,000 of Clinton’s emails–none of which were marked classified on her system–have been found to contain classified information. Clinton has defended herself by insisting that she never sent or received information marked classified, while critics have argued that she compromised national security by using unsecured email to conduct sensitive State Department business.
The controversy surrounding her email use has waged for a year, created problems for Clinton as she tries to secure the Democratic nomination for president. Polls have consistently shown that the American public does not view Clinton as trustworthy.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Hillary Clinton: NY Banks Biggest Winner in Bailout[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

/ AP​

BY: Jack Heretik
March 14, 2016 11:46 am

In October 2008, then-Senator Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) told a radio station about her reasoning for voting for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
“I think the banks of New York and our other financial institutions are probably the biggest winners in this, which is one of the reasons why in the end, despite my serious questions about it, I supported it,” Clinton said.
At a Democratic Party dinner in Ohio on Sunday, Clinton defended her stance, according to ABC News.
“There was a bill that mixed money for the auto rescue and money for other bailouts. That was not an easy vote, and I respect those who voted against it. But I’ll tell you this—I voted for it,” Clinton said. “Then President-Elect Obama asked us to vote for it. I decided it was more important to save the auto industry and save our economy, and I am so glad I did.”
At times, though, Clinton’s words have not matched her actions.
“Look what happened in ’08, AIG, Lehman brothers an investment bank, helped bring our economy down… I’ve said, if the big banks don’t play by the rules, I will break them up,” Clinton said in January.
Over the last couple of years, Clinton’s relationship with Wall Street banks and investment firms seems pretty close as she gave several speeches to these firms behind closed doors for very large sums of money. During the current Democratic primary, there has been a large push for her torelease the transcripts from these speeches, which she has so far refused to do.
Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), has criticized Clinton for her stance on TARP, which also included provisions for American car manufacturers who were also going bankrupt.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Does Hillary want to lose swing State Ohio?


Sure seems like it.


Personal politics aside, it's hard to argue that, at a fundamental level, Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton hasn't always struggled with connecting to the working and middle class. And remarks made this weekend in America's heartland are only going to drive that very point home.


During CNN’s Democrat townhall in Ohio on Sunday, Hillary Clinton mirrored the Obama administration's anti-coal stance and said she intends to hit the industry and its workers hard.


Clinton declared that if president, she would "put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."


Go granny go!