Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[superbeets]

[h=2]Hillary Clinton expected to get Bern-ed in West Virginia tonight as Sanders slows her march to the Democratic nomination [/h]

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders looks poised to slow Hillary Clinton's march to the Democratic nomination again tonight with a likely win in West Virginia, where voters headed to the polls today.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Hillary Rakes in Nearly $75,000 From Justice Department Employees[/h]Calls continue for appointment of a special counsel
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Hillary Clinton / AP​

BY: Joe Schoffstall
May 10, 2016 4:58 am

Hillary Clinton has received nearly $75,000 in political contributions from employees at the Department of Justice, the agency that would decide whether or not to act if the FBI recommended charges against Clinton or her aides following its investigation into her private email server.
Justice Department employees have given Clinton far more money than her rivals, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Donald Trump, according to a review of federal campaign contributions for the 2016 presidential cycle.
Clinton collected $73,437 from individuals who listed the “Department of Justice” as their employer. Twelve of the 228 contributions were for $2,700, the maximum individual amount allowed by law.
The fundraising haul marks a dramatic increase over Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential run in 2008, when she took in 23 contributions totaling $15,930 from employees at the agency, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Trump, by comparison, has received little help from Justice Department employees, recording justtwo contributions for a total of $381.
Sanders has taken 51 donations totaling $8,900 from Justice Department employees.
David Bossie, president of the watchdog group Citizens United, told the Washington Free Beaconhe is not surprised by the donations, and renewed his call for Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint a special counsel to handle Clinton’s case.
“I’m not surprised in the least to see more evidence that shows the politicization of the Justice Department,” Bossie said in a statement to the Free Beacon. “How can Democrat political appointees fairly investigate someone who is about to become their nominee for president? That’s why last July I called on Attorney General Lynch to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate the private Clinton email server.”
“Today, I renew my call that Attorney General Lynch must appoint a special counsel to determine if Hillary Clinton or her agents broke the law and compromised our national security,” he continued. “This investigation needs to be conducted free of political influence once and for all.”
Bossie has questioned whether Lynch could remain impartial due to her past political donations. Lynch gave $10,700 in contributions to Democratic candidates between 2004 and 2008.
Howard Krongard, who was inspector general for the State Department from 2005 to 2008,predicted earlier this year that even if the FBI referred Clinton’s case to the Justice Department for prosecution it would “never get to an indictment.”
Krongard said the case would have to go through “four loyal Democratic women,” including Lynch, top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who heads the department’s criminal division.
The FBI is expected to interview Clinton in the coming weeks about her email practices. Clinton maintains that she has not been contacted by the FBI about an interview. However, the FBI has interviewed Clinton’s aides, including top adviser Huma Abedin.
The Justice Department did not return a request for comment.
Update 05/10/16: After publication, former U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker, who directs the watchdog group Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, called for a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton.
“The report out today that Hillary Clinton received almost $75,000 in political contributions from Justice Department employees is yet another reason why the Justice Department cannot and should not decide whether to bring a case against Hillary Clinton for her reckless handling of classified information while Secretary of State,” Whitaker said in a statement. “The decision of whether or not to bring a case against Clinton will be a difficult one for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as I don’t believe she has the fortitude to oppose President Obama, who has publicly said Clinton’s behavior didn’t put our national security at risk. Since this Administration has shown no ability to be impartial, looking the other way at every turn of this investigation, I’m renewing an urgent call for the appointment of a special counsel in this case.”

 

[Dave007inVegas]

^^^


Hillary Clinton has received nearly $75,000 in political contributions from employees at the Department of Justice.


Wouldn’t that be considered a conflict of interest?

 

[superbeets]

Hopefully there is an extra seat for Lying Loretta Lynch.

 

[superbeets]

Well done Bernie on winning West Virginia.

 

[Coldweather]

Hillary Clinton is no good for America. She hates the white men and is a big fat liar. Imo that is!

 

[superbeets]

The White Man hates Hilary more.

She can't win the White Man vote.

 

[superbeets]

Follow

New York PostVerified account‏@nypost
​

​

​

Stop the coronation! Hillary unravels as Bernie Sanders picks up another win http://nyp.st/27cdU4L

 

[roadreeler57]

Probably the only post youll ever see from me sticking up for Hillary.....A guard at a place I deliver to said yesterday he heard Hillary Clinton & Sarah Palin went to bed together...I told him hes reading too many bullshit internet sites...

 

[ScottL]

Probably the only post youll ever see from me sticking up for Hillary.....A guard at a place I deliver to said yesterday he heard Hillary Clinton & Sarah Palin went to bed together...I told him hes reading too many bullshit internet sites...

Who hired Larry Sinclair to be a guard ;-)

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Who hired Larry Sinclair to be a guard ;-)

Valerie Jarrett

 

[russ1945]

BIDEN: 'I Would Have Been Best President'...
Latest Sanders Victory Jars Clinton Supporters...
Hillary loses 2/3 of support from 2008!
'DOOMED'...

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Blumenthal Can’t Explain Why Hillary Clinton Used a Private Email Server[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: David Rutz
May 11, 2016 11:05 am

Longtime Hillary Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal couldn’t explain Wednesday why Clinton had elected to use a private email server as secretary of state.
Blumenthal, whose emails to Clinton on a variety of issues appeared all over the email dump by the State Department, also wouldn’t say this week whether the FBI had interviewed him in its criminal investigation into the server.
“Why did she set up a personal server?” CNN host Alisyn Camerota asked on New Day. “That’s beyond just using one device for personal and professional emails. Why did she need the personal server?”
“Well, that’s a question I don’t know the answer to, and it’s a question that, uh, uh, she’s, uh, explained, so you’d have to, um, go to her explanation about that,” Blumenthal said.
Clinton has repeatedly referred to the FBI probe as a security review, and she reiterated last weekend on CBS that she wants it to be “wrapped up” soon. She has acknowledged it was a “mistake” to use the unsecured server, but she has denied any criminal wrongdoing or mishandling of classified material.
“I ask you because the emails that have been released show that you were in regular contact with her. You were giving her advice on all sorts of policy things and political things,” Camerota said. “Did you talk to her about setting up a personal server?”
“Oh, no,” Blumenthal said. “I had nothing to do with that.”
Camerota asked if he would have told her it was as bad idea if he knew she was using a personal server.
“I have no idea,” Blumenthal said. “We’re old friends, and when you’re a friend of somebody who’s in the middle of politics, you get caught up in politics, too.”

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Former DOJ Official: Email Case Against Hillary Clinton ‘Stinks To High Heaven’[/h]

2029​

18​

by PATRICK HOWLEY11 May 20163,008
[h=2]WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton is coming under pressure, as federal investigators question her top aides about the private email scandal that is haunting the former Secretary of State’s campaign for the presidency.[/h]Clinton is still reeling from news that her former staffer Bryan Pagliano’s emails are not in the possession of the State Department. Pagliano, who installed Clinton’s private server, pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination in the growing criminal investigation.
“The Department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email pst file and has not located one that cover the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” a State Department spokesman said Monday. Pagliano’s missing emails are raising transparency alarms among observers of the case.
“The whole thing stinks to high heaven,” said Dan Metcalfe, the founding director of the Office of Information and Privacy within the Department of Justice and onetime chief DOJ official for overseeing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) matters.
As 147 FBI agents work on the investigation, Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills is feeling the heat. Mills and her attorney reportedly left her interrogation by the FBI, regrouped, and later came back when the FBI went off script. According to the Washington Post:

Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said…
The questions that were considered off limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.
​

Clinton has yet to be called by investigators.
It’s now been nine months since Breitbart News broke the story that Clinton had multiple classified “Top Secret” emails on her private server, and that she had classified emails on her homebrew server that were classified when “originated.” As America waits to find out if the FBI will recommend indictment, and whether the Department of Justice under Loretta Lynch will indict, the case against Clinton seemingly grows more solid.
The case hinges on whether or not Clinton violated the Espionage Act of 1913 (18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) by possessing national defense information and allowing it “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”
Here are key pieces of evidence that could lead to a whole lot of trouble for Hillary Clinton:
Exhibit A: The Non-Secure BlackBerry
Hillary Clinton used a BlackBerry to send and receive classified emails during her time as Secretary of State, even though her device was so non-secure that she wasn’t even allowed to use it in her “Mahogany Row” offices on the seventh floor of the State Department.
Clinton did not get her BlackBerry from the Department. It appears that her aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills actually did get their devices from the Department, but those devices were destroyed. The State Department testified in a civil court filing:

“[The State Department] does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department…
…Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed.”
​

Now here’s where the BlackBerry issue really becomes important. Clinton was warned in 2009 to stop using her BlackBerry because her device suffered a security “vulnerability” when she visited East Asian countries, including China, on her first official State Department trip.
On March 11, 2009, a State Department official, whose name is redacted, sent an email to another State Department official, whose name is redacted. That email, obtained in a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, might be the smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton email case – at least as it pertains to Clinton possibly losing information due to “gross negligence.”
According to the official, Hillary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and asked him about BlackBerry use. Specifically, Clinton asked about the fact that the Department had “intelligence concerning the vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”
The official wrote:

After this mornings “management meeting” with the A/Secys, Secretary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and mentioned that she had read the IM and that she “gets it.” Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (DS) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.
Secretary Clinton has asked Ambassador Boswell for this information. Please prepare a short informal paper OR provide the A/Secy with a briefing on this matter. Your assistance is appreciated. The Secretary did not provide a “due date”…BUT the Ambassador would like to close this loop as soon as possible.
​

But Clinton continued to use her BlackBerry as late as 2011, two years after this warning, according to former State Department official Wendy Sherman. Sherman spoke Clinton’s BlackBerry use in a speech that was quietly recorded on video and released right before the Iowa caucus, which Clinton barely won over Bernie Sanders.
Exhibit B: White House Less Than Supportive
The Obama White House’s refusal to go to bat for Clinton publicly during this ordeal has been one of the most intriguing narratives of the election. Though President Obamahelped her out a bit by saying that he didn’t think Clinton jeopardized national security, the Obama operatives who still remember the vicious 2008 primary season aren’t doing her any favors.
Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett dropped a relevant bombshell when she said that the White House sent official guidance to Clinton telling her to use a government email account. Clinton’s decision to ignore the White House’s warning does not bode well for her defense against the “gross negligence” portion of the Espionage Act.
Remember that brief, bizarre stretch of the campaign right around the February 1 Iowa caucus when Clinton was going out of her way to say nice things about Obama? That might not have been just a ploy to make her seem more electable than Bernie Sanders. It might have also been a ploy to protect her own legal interests by cozying up to a man with pardon power who oversees the Department of Justice.
“She wants to get protected. That’s the only reason she’s nice to him,” Trump said of Clinton’s relationship with Obama.

Exhibit C: Russian Hackers
Clinton’s server was highly vulnerable to attack, including the kind that occurred to several of her email contractors and could have happened to her when she opened a virus-infected email from her friend.
Clinton confidante Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, sent Clinton a summer 2011 email with a spam link and the lines “Look what I’ve found” and “Here is a very nice offer. Enjoy!”
In her reply, Clinton indicated that she opened the spam link.
“Neera–did you send me this? If not, I think your email address book has been hacked. If so, why? Anyway, hope you’re well,” Clinton wrote back to Tanden.
On at least five documented occasions, Clinton received emails in her personal inbox that came from hackers, including hackers from Russia as part of a scheme in which victims’ personal data ended up getting sent to foreign computers including in Russia.
Here’s another very important piece of the puzzle: In September 2011, Clinton’s inbox was reviewed by outside IT professionals as part of a formal analysis of the security of her private email account. Those IT professionals found that Russian hackers had at least repeatedly attempted to get into Clinton’s information.
Why did Clinton have IT experts in to review her email account just weeks after Tanden sent her “hacked” email to Clinton?
One thing is clear: if those Russian hackers did gain entry to Clinton’s information, they would have had a field day. Why? It turns out Clinton’s server had an open webmail portal that gave potential hackers unrestricted access to Clinton’s personal information.
Exhibit D: She Avoided Signing Non-Disclosure Form
As Breitbart News exclusively reported, Hillary Clinton did NOT sign a mandatory OF-109 “Separation Statement” when she left the State Department.
That statement would have required her to affirm that she had returned all classified materials in her possession. Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills also avoided signing a separation statement.
Citizen researcher Larry Kawa provided to Breitbart News the most clear-cut evidence that Clinton avoided going through mandatory channels to return classified government information.
Clinton signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” on January 22, 2009. This document is known as an SF-312. It is standard for government employees to sign an SF-312 when they begin working in a role that gives them access to classified information. But she was also required to sign an OF-109, or “Separation Statement,” when she left the job.
That OF-109 document would have required her to affirm the following:

I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively controlled documents and material with which I was charged or which I had in my possession. I am not retaining in my possession, custody, or control, documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished to me during the course of such employment or developed as a consequence thereof…
​

But Clinton never signed an OF-109, even though the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual requires all employees to do so.
A Separation Statement exists for top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, and a copy of it was quietly released by the State Department. But the statement was never signed, by Mills or anyone else.
It was left blank.
Exhibit E: The Clinton Foundation
Breitbart News reported that Clinton’s server was operating on the same email network, and was housed in the exact physical space, as the server for the Clinton Foundation, indicating that they were sharing a server. That space was in New York City, not in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, New York, home, as she claimed. Daughter Chelsea Clinton’s office was also using the email network.
Numerous Clinton Foundation employees used the clintonemail.com server for their own email addresses, which means that they were using email accounts that, if hacked, would have given any hacker complete access to Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails, as well.
No wonder then that the FBI expanded its investigation to scrutinize possible public corruption on the part of the Clinton Foundation. And no wonder then that Rep. Marsha Blackburn asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review the Clinton Foundation’s charitable status.

Exhibit F: Server Went Down Three Times
Clinton’s server went down at least three times during her tenure as secretary of state, including weeks after the Benghazi terrorist attack. Clinton never even told her own IT Help Desk at the State Department that she was using a private server, keeping them in the dark about her activities.
Furthermore, Clinton went so far as to hide the identity of the people running her private server, paying a company called Perfect Privacy, LLC. That company, based in Jacksonville, enters its own meaningless contact information into official Internet databases so that its clients’ identities will not be exposed.

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

+3


'Do not moan to me about Hillary Clinton's problems,' Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders told NBC's Andrea Mitchell during an interview today


.

 

[superbeets]

Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver made that case again today in an email to supporters, saying if the Democrats nominated Clinton it would be a 'disaster.'




Weaver pointed to three early polls out of three swing states – Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida – that showed Trump to be competitive.



'Because we must do everything we can to defeat Trump in November, our mission is to win as many pledged delegates as we can between now and June 14,' Weaver said.




'Then we're going to have a contested convention where the Democratic Party must decide if they want the candidate with the momentum who is best positioned to beat Trump, or if they are willing to roll the dice and court disaster simply to protect the status quo for the political and financial establishment of this country.'


.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Offshore Tax Haven Leak Implicates Seven-Figure Pro-Clinton Donor[/h]Donald Sussman listed as director of Virgin Islands-based shell company
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Donald Sussman / AP​

BY: Lachlan Markay
May 10, 2016 2:25 pm

One of the Democratic Party’s largest 2016 donors directs an offshore entity named in a massive leak of information on foreign corporations used by the world’s wealthiest people to shield their assets.
Hedge fund manager Donald Sussman has donated more than $7 million since last year to Democratic candidates, party organs, and outside spending groups supporting Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential bid.
Sussman, until recently the husband of Rep. Chellie Pingree (D., Maine), is the fifth most prolific donor to Democrats this cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
According to information leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists,Sussman is a director of Simply Radiant Ltd., a company based in the British Virgin Islands.
Sussman’s firm, Paloma Partners, is a Simply Radiant shareholder, as are Paloma subsidiariesGolden Mountain Partners and Sunrise Partners, ICIJ data show. Paul Wolansky, a former managing director at the Paloma Partners, is listed as a Simply Radiant director.
An individual named Harry S. Campbell is also listed as a director. He was previously a director of Cathay Investment Fund Ltd., in which Paloma is a major shareholder.
It was not immediately clear what exactly Simply Radiant is or does. Paloma did not respond to requests for additional information on the company.
Its ties to Simply Radiant were revealed through a leak of information from the Singapore-based corporate law and accounting firm Portcullis TrustNet, which maintains Simply Radiant’s records.
The release, which ICIJ dubbed “Offshore Leaks,” exposed thousands of companies registered by, and often incorporated at, one of TrustNet’s seventeen global offices.
Offshore Leaks was a predecessor to the more recent Panama Papers leak, which has exposed additional information about how the world’s wealthiest use offshore corporations to shield their involvement in offshore tax havens.
“The main product that TrustNet sells can be summarized in one word — secrecy,” according to ICIJ.
“The firm helps ensure names, finances, business interests and political links remain hidden. It does this using a variety of methods, such as creating maze-like layers of companies and financial trusts in multiple countries and in many cases helping clients open overseas bank accounts in the names of anonymous companies rather than in their own names.”
The use of offshore tax havens has become a rallying cry for Democrats such as presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who derides companies that use them to shield assets from U.S. tax collectors.
“Hillary will crack down on companies that shift profits overseas to avoid paying their fair share in U.S. taxes,” Clinton’s campaign website says.
Sussman previously faced scrutiny over his apparent efforts to claim tax breaks in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Despite that controversy and his ties to TrustNet’s network of offshore corporate entities, he has been one of the most prolific supporters of groups backing Clinton’s candidacy.
According to Federal Election Commission records, Sussman has donated $4 million to pro-ClintonSuper PAC Priorities USA Action; $1.5 million to Women Vote, a pro-Clinton Super PAC affiliated with the group Emily’s List; and $100,000 to Correct the Record, a Super PAC coordinating directly with Clinton’s campaign.
Sussman has given another $600,000 to various arms of the Democratic Party, and smaller sums to a host of Democratic congressional candidates. They included the maximum legal contribution to Pingree, who announced last year that she and Sussman were seeking a divorce.
Sussman is a board member of the Center for American Progress, a pro-Clinton group that hasheavily criticized corporations and individuals implicated in ICIJ leaks. He is also affiliated with the Democracy Alliance donor club, which helps finance CAP.
Other donors to Clinton and the groups supporting her have also been implicated in the Panama Papers and related leaks. Jim Simons, another hedge fund manager and seven-figure Priorities USA donor, has benefitted from the types of tax schemes identified by the leaks.
The Podesta Group, a lobbying firm founded by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and his brother, a Clinton campaign fundraiser, represents the U.S. arm of a Russian bank implicated in the Panama Papers.