Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

Search

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
Clinton email headache is about to get worse


AddThis Sharing Buttons

5.8K


11


12622
By Julian Hattem - 05/28/16 06:09 AM EDT
inform_75x27.png
New Discoveries Surface In Clinton Email Scandal
Inform
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]















Hillary Clinton’s email headache is about to get even worse.
A scathing inspector general’s report this week was just the first in what is likely to be a series of official actions related to her private server stemming from the FBI, a federal courthouse and Capitol Hill.
ADVERTISEMENT


Clinton’s presidential campaign has failed to quiet the furor over the issue, which has dogged her for more than a year.In the next few weeks — just as the likely Democratic presidential nominee hopes to pivot towards a general election — it will face its toughest scrutiny yet.
“All of that feeds into this overarching problem of public distrust of her,” said Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University.
“To put it in slang terms, she’s got a pretty deeply held street rep at this point. This fits the street rep,” he added.
The State Department’s watchdog report was especially damaging, given the official nature of its source. The report claimed that Clinton never sought approval for her “homebrew” email setup, that her use of the system violated the department’s record-keeping rules and that it would have been rejected had she brought it up to department officials.
Clinton’s allies attempted to paint the office as partisan in the weeks ahead of the report’s release, but the effort failed to leave a lasting impact.
For months, Clinton and her team have failed to offer a convincing explanation for the use of the private server, and she has steadfastly refused to apologize.
“I thought it was allowed,” she said in an interview on CNN’s “The Situation Room” this week, after the watchdog’s report became public. “I knew past secretaries of state used personal email.
“It was still a mistake. If I could go back, I'd do it differently,” she said.
Clinton and many of her top aides declined to take part in the inspector general’s probe. But they won’t have that option going forward.
On Friday, Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills was interviewed behind closed doors as part of a court case launched by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch. In coming weeks, longtime aide Huma Abedin, former IT specialist Bryan Pagliano and other officials are scheduled to answer questions under oath for sessions that could last as long as seven hours.
A federal judge this week preemptively blocked Judicial Watch from releasing videotapes of the upcoming depositions.
But the group this week released the transcript from its first interview, with longtime State Department veteran Lewis Lukens. And it plans to do the same thing following each of the upcoming depositions, providing fodder for weeks to come from some of the closest rings of Clinton’s inner circle.
The court has said that Clinton herself may be forced to answer questions under oath, which would dramatically escalate the brouhaha surrounding the case.
At some point in the next month, the House Select Committee on Benghazi is also set to release its long-awaited report about the 2012 terror attack, which has been linked to Clinton.
The committee has pursued Clinton’s emails to the extent that they relate to the violence in Libya, and the report is likely to stoke new ire about the matter. However, its two-year investigation has been marred by partisan bickering, and the report will likely be shrugged off by Democrats.
What is potentially profoundly more damaging for Clinton is the looming FBI investigation, exploring the possibility that she or her aides mishandled classified information.
More than 2,000 emails that Clinton gave the State Department from her private server have been classified at some level, and 22 were marked as “top secret” — the highest level of classification — and deemed too dangerous to release publicly even in a highly redacted form. However, none of the emails were marked as classified at the time they were sent, complicating the investigation into whether her setup thwarted any laws.
Abedin, Mills and other Clinton aides have reportedly been interviewed as part of the FBI case. And Clinton herself is due up for questioning at some point.
Legal experts appear skeptical that the Justice Department would hand down a criminal charge against Clinton, due to both the high legal hurdles involved and the intense political scrutiny surrounding the likely presidential nominee.
But that won’t end the matter.
Republicans appear primed to cry foul if the FBI closes its investigation without handing down indictments or offering a public explanation. Senior lawmakers have already excoriated the Justice Department for failing to appoint a special prosecutor.
“It’s clear that the attorney general, who serves at the pleasure of President Obama, is going to have very little incentive or intention to pursue the appropriate investigation,” Sen. John Cornyn(Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said on the chamber floor this week.
Other Senate Republicans, including Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) have launched their own investigations related to Clinton’s email. Some of their findings, Grassley said this week, were at odds with those of the State Department’s inspector general report.
“I will follow up to get to the bottom of these discrepancies because misrepresenting the facts to Congress is unacceptable,” Grassley pledged.
How much the email issue hurts Clinton’s electoral hopes remains an open question. Results of the June 7 primary contest in California, the nation’s largest state, could offer some clues about whether the email scrutiny hurts her polling.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), her primary opponent, has stubbornly refused to address the issue, memorably declaring in October that people “are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”
Recent events have disproved that claim.


 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[h=2]E-fail: Hillary Clinton didn't use password to protect her PC and used unsecure personal BlackBerry to send private emails 'because she's clueless with computers'[/h]
34BC731400000578-0-image-a-4_1464478043578.jpg
The ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton's alleged misuse of her family's private email account for official business might lead some to believe that she is pretty tech-savvy. But in recent days a number of reports have emerged that suggest the the former Secretary of State is clueless when it comes to desktop computers. In fact, she's so out of touch with modern technology that she declined to use specially set up secure computers just so she could keep using her Blackberry to send emails, Hot Air reported Friday.

 

New member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
78,682
Tokens
[h=1]E-fail: Hillary Clinton didn't use password to protect her PC and used unsecure personal BlackBerry to send private emails 'because she's clueless with computers'[/h]
  • Clinton would only use her personal BlackBerry for emails, staff said
  • She had no idea how to use desktop computers provided for that purpose
  • That posed a problem as mobile devices were banned in her suite
  • A secure room was set up next to the suite for her to use her BlackBerry in
  • But instead she frequently just sent emails from the corridor outside
  • She also refused to use a government-provided BlackBerry
  • And she didn't have a password on her stand-alone PC, staff added
By JAMES WILKINSON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 00:47, 29 May 2016 | UPDATED: 02:43, 29 May 2016



34BC6C0D00000578-3614589-image-a-2_1464477517338.jpg

  • SHARE PICTURE


+3



PC gone mad: Clinton is technologically illiterate and can't use desktop computers to send emails, one of her staff said in a deposition. She refused to use computers set up for her and didn't use a password, he said

34BC6C1600000578-3614589-image-a-7_1464478073193.jpg


+3



Black mark: Clinton's insistence on using her personal, over-the-counter BlackBerry for emails was a thorn in the side of colleagues. She even refused to use a government-provided BlackBerry



34BC6C2D00000578-3614589-image-a-1_1464477514803.jpg

  • SHARE PICTURE


+3



Text addict: She was given a secure room to use her BlackBerry in, but was seen using it in the corridor outside. The claims emerged as she is under scrutiny for using her personal email account for state business



 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
[h=2]RNC Ad: Crooked Hillary Gets Caught Lying Again[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
May 27, 2016 3:09 pm


The Republican National Committee released a new political ad Friday calling Hillary Clinton a “crooked” liar after a new State Department inspector general report released this week contradicted her long-held defense of her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state.
The ad begins by showing the words “Crooked Hillary is at it again” on screen next to a picture of Clinton, with her own words playing in the background of past arguments she has made justifying her email practices.
“The laws and regulations in effect when I was secretary of state allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed,” Clinton can be heard saying as the video cuts to her making the statement at the United Nations last year.
The ad then shows the image of a USA Today news article titled “Clinton Broke Email Security Rules” and the excerpt “use of a private server … did not seek permission, would have been denied” from a New York Times story published May 25. A news anchor in the background can be heard reporting on the story.
The ad proceeds to cut back and forth between clips of Clinton defending her private server as being allowed by the State Department and excerpts on screen from the IG report, news stories, and other statements disproving those claims.
In the last screen shot, an image of Clinton is shown on screen with the statement “We‘ve had enough of crooked Hillary’s lies’” next to her. As the ad ends, a recording can be heard in the background saying, “You have to step back and remember, this was her State Department. It’s the IG in her department that is making this determination.”
The IG report, written by the State Department watchdog appointed by President Obama, says that Clinton failed to comply with National Archives and Records Administration regulations on the use of personal email accounts by senior administration officials.
“She did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the document reads. “Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary.”
The IG report appears to undercut Clinton’s argument that her home-brewed server did not violate State Department rules, which may prove troublesome on the campaign trail as she seeks the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
she's clueless with computers-should have stopped at clueless.


She falls into the clueless category in general that is for sure. But she knew better about the server and the emails and did it anyway. More than anything she and Bill think they are above the law. As such they think we are clueless. We are not clueless we simply cannot do anything about it on a personal level. The Clintons personify how corrupt politics have become.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
[h=2]Clinton Supporter Backtracks Claim that Other Secretaries Used Private Servers[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: Chandler Gill
May 29, 2016 11:16 am


Maria Cardona defended Hillary Clinton’s private server by stating that other Secretaries of State have done this same practice before and was corrected by Jon Karl on ABC’s This Week on Sunday.
“Well, certainly having that IG report was not fun and that’s why I think she came out smartly to emphasize her apology to emphasize that she knew that it had been a mistake, had she the opportunity to do it again, she wouldn’t do it,” Cardona said. “But, I also think it’s good to have context. What she did was something that others had done. The rules were nebulous at best.”
ABC’s Jon Karl corrected her, citing the IG report.
“No other Secretary of State had their own server at home–” he said.
Cardona immediately backtracked her comments, saying that what Karl said is correct. She then tried to change the conversation, stating that she gave 55,000 emails over to the State Department, which is also something other Secretaries of State did not have to do.
Other Secretaries of State have not been under investigation by both the State Department and the FBI.
“That’s correct,” Cardona said. “That’s correct and that’s why she apologized. But the bottom line is, she turned over 55,000 e-mails, other secretaries did not, and at the end of the day, what she needs to continue to talk to the American people.”
Republican strategist Kevin Madden noted that the IG report is extremely clear and completely discredits the Clinton camp’s main arguments. First, Clinton said it was allowed, which it was not. Second, she said it was no risk to national security, which the report states it was.
“Look, the OIG report was crystal clear,” he said. “It demolishes the two main talking points that Hillary Clinton has been promoting since this controversy was uncovered. The first was that it was allowed. the report clearly says it was against– it was a violation of policy. And the second was that there was no risk to national security. This report clearly says that there was a risk to national security because of the procedures that–”
There were 22 emails that were classified as “top secret.”
Madden cites that the Clinton campaign tries to deflect these questions and demonize the people that bring them up.
“Yet, the Clinton campaign continues to try and deflect, and then they, probably smartly as far as a strategy, try to demonize everybody else,” he said. “But, the American public still has this problem with Hillary Clinton on the issue of trustworthiness and honesty because here she is trying to refute exact points that were laid out in the report.”

 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
51,874
Tokens
After latest email revelations and endless dishonesty, time for Hillary Clinton to head for the hills

If the Democrats want to save themselves the indignity of a total slaughter, Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race. After last week, a Hillary-led ticket has as much chance of winning the White House as Trump has of losing the white vote. Sanders can beat Trump. And Hillary can’t — not anymore.

Too many scandals, too many years of Clinton fatigue, and now, after the latest email revelations, just too many lies chasing her like Van Helsing on Dracula.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...-disaster-time-clinton-drop-article-1.2653391
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
[h=2]Clinton Campaign Manager Silent on McAuliffe FBI Investigation[/h]Robby Mook was at helm of McAuliffe campaign being probed by feds
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Robby Mook / AP


BY: Brent Scher
May 31, 2016 4:59 am


Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, has remained silent on the federal investigation into the campaign he ran previously for Terry McAuliffe in Virginia.
It was announced last week that McAuliffe, the self-proclaimed best friend of Bill Clinton who was chairman of Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign, is under federal investigation for, among other things, a large contribution his gubernatorial campaign received from a Chinese billionaire.
The investigation has the potential to damage Clinton’s presidential campaign despite McAuliffe’s best attempts at damage control—he stated that the investigation has “nothing to do” with the Clintons just as news (and video) broke that he brought the donor in question to a fundraiser at the Clinton’s Washington, D.C. home.
Mook managed McAuliffe’s 2013 campaign so well that he was tapped to do the same for the Clinton campaign. McAuliffe said that Mook was tasked with uniting all the people “in Clinton world” for the presidential bid.
“In Clinton world there are a lot of friends, a lot of people who want to help, and what [Mook] is able to do is direct all of their energy in a positive way,” McAuliffe told Time.
One of those friends was Wang Wenliang. Wang’s donation to the McAuliffe campaign came three weeks before they showed up together for the fundraiser at Clinton’s house. Less than a month later, Wang’s company gave its first $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. It contributed a total of $2 million to the foundation, according to Time.
The Clinton campaign has not responded to multiple inquiries about whether Mook has been contacted by the FBI or whether he plans to comment on the investigation into his previous campaign work.
The Clinton campaign also did not respond to Time. McAuliffe says he hasn’t been in touch with the Clinton campaign.
Much of Mook’s core team on the McAuliffe campaign is now working for the Clinton campaign. Many of the operatives currently employed by the Clinton campaign used positions on McAuliffe’s PAC and in the state party as seat warmers to bridge the gap between the two campaigns, according to the Washington Post.
McAuliffe’s niece, Marisa McAuliffe, was one of the first staffers to be paid by Clinton’s campaign, receiving payments from the campaign before it was officially launched.
McAuliffe is being represented by the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, Marc Elias.

 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
[h=1]EXCLUSIVE — Huffington Post Writer: Editors Deleted My Article on Hillary’s Imminent Indictment, Disabled Me from Writing[/h]
8965


84




hillary-big-sister-afp-e1426135156233-640x479.jpg
Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

by PATRICK HOWLEY30 May 20162,888
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]





[h=2]WASHINGTON, D.C. — A writer for The Huffington Post is still waiting for an explanation as to why editors deleted his piece reporting that the FBI will pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton.[/h]Huffington Post freelance contributor Frank Huguenard, a scientist and public speaker, wrote a report for the liberal site Sunday entitled “Hillary Clinton to be Indicted On Federal Racketeering Charges.” But the piece was not up for long before the Huffington Post pulled it down and replaced it with a “404” Error screen.
“Huffpo has yet to respond to my request for an explanation,” Huguenard tweeted at this Breitbart News reporter Monday morning. “I’ve got my sources, they never asked.”
Huguenard later told Breitbart News, “I want to do another story but my HuffPo account has been temporarily disabled. Not sure what’s happening with them.”
Huffington Post Politics senior editor Sam Stein told Breitbart News that he doesn’t know why the piece was pulled.
“Sorry. I don’t know. I’d direct your question to a blog editor,” Stein said.
Pressed to provide contact information for the blog editor in question, Stein did not respond further.
Huguenard, an apparent Bernie Sanders supporter judging by his Twitter account, wrote that the FBI will recommend indicting Hillary Clinton on racketeering charges. Huguenard wrote:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.
A note at the bottom of the original article explains that “This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.”
The Huffington Post media team did not return a request for comment.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
The Espionage Act states that whoever is “entrusted” with state secrets must ensure this data isn’t “removed from its proper place of custody” and that “gross negligence” isn’t a defense:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) 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, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
51,874
Tokens
EXCLUSIVE — Huffington Post Writer: Editors Deleted My Article on Hillary’s Imminent Indictment, Disabled Me from Writing
8
8
hillary-big-sister-afp-e1426135156233-640x479.jpg
Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

by PATRICK HOWLEY30 May 20162,888
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER





WASHINGTON, D.C. — A writer for The Huffington Post is still waiting for an explanation as to why editors deleted his piece reporting that the FBI will pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton.

Huffington Post freelance contributor Frank Huguenard, a scientist and public speaker, wrote a report for the liberal site Sunday entitled “Hillary Clinton to be Indicted On Federal Racketeering Charges.” But the piece was not up for long before the Huffington Post pulled it down and replaced it with a “404” Error screen.
“Huffpo has yet to respond to my request for an explanation,” Huguenard tweeted at this Breitbart News reporter Monday morning. “I’ve got my sources, they never asked.”
Huguenard later told Breitbart News, “I want to do another story but my HuffPo account has been temporarily disabled. Not sure what’s happening with them.”
Huffington Post Politics senior editor Sam Stein told Breitbart News that he doesn’t know why the piece was pulled.
“Sorry. I don’t know. I’d direct your question to a blog editor,” Stein said.
Pressed to provide contact information for the blog editor in question, Stein did not respond further.
Huguenard, an apparent Bernie Sanders supporter judging by his Twitter account, wrote that the FBI will recommend indicting Hillary Clinton on racketeering charges. Huguenard wrote:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.
A note at the bottom of the original article explains that “This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.”
The Huffington Post media team did not return a request for comment.

Libtards love free speech and are totally tolerant of different views - providing it's inside the Hillary echo chamber.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
[h=1]Former State Dept. watchdog debunks central Clinton email claim[/h]

By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne
Published May 31, 2016 FoxNews.com


Facebook3688 Twitter908 livefyre16891 Email Print


EXCLUSIVE: The State Department’s former top watchdog, in an interview with Fox News, rejected Hillary Clinton’s repeated claims that her personal email use was in line with her predecessors’ – while saying he would have immediately opened an investigation if he caught wind of a secretary of state using such an account.
Howard Krongard, a George W. Bush administration appointee who served as the State Department inspector general from April 2005 to January 2008, cited his own experience in challenging Clinton’s insistence that her practices were nothing out of the ordinary.
“Certainly to my knowledge at least, Secretary [Condoleezza] Rice did not have a personal server. I certainly never either sent an email to one or received an email from one,” said Krongard, who served during Rice’s tenure.
Further, he said, “I would have been stunned had I been asked to send an email to her at a personal server, private address. I would have declined to do so on security grounds and if she had sent one to me, I probably would have started an investigation.”
Krongard noted that during Clinton’s four-year term, from January 2009 to January 2013, there was no Senate-confirmed inspector general in place. Suggesting the Clintons show a pattern of avoiding oversight, Krongard indicated that Hillary Clinton benefited from the fact there was no IG during her term.
"I would’ve been the most unpopular person in that building [had I been there]," Krongard said, emphasizing that the inspector general has broad powers and the ability to rein in even the most senior political appointees. "They are the people who enforce the rules, and there was no one enforcing the rules during that time."
Krongard spoke with Fox News before the current State Department inspector general’s office, led by Steve A. Linick, issued an extensive report on email practices of previous secretaries of state.
The day that report was issued, Clinton said in an interview that her use of personal email was consistent with predecessors Colin Powell and Rice.
"Just like previous secretaries of state, I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented," she said.
But, as Krongard indicated, the May 25 IG report clearly stated that Rice did not use personal email for government business. It said Powell used personal email on a limited basis to connect with people outside the department, and he worked with the State Department to secure the system. The report found Clinton did neither.
The report concluded Clinton’s use of a private server and account was not approved, and broke agency rules. The report said by the time she became secretary, the rules had repeatedly been updated, and were “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated.”
Krongard resigned from the IG position in December 2007 after accusations he blocked Iraq-related investigations, charges he denied.
Regarding the 2,100 emails on Clinton’s server found to have contained classified information -- and another 22 “Top Secret” messages containing intelligence deemed too damaging to national security to make public – Krongard questioned how that material got there. He said it would take a deliberate act for the intelligence to "jump the gap" between the classified computer networks and Clinton's personal server.
"It could be done by taking a screen shot with … a camera of a classified email, take a screen shot and send it to an unclassified network. It could be copied, but there are restrictions in the State Department and elsewhere as to what copiers can work from a classified network and it can only be a secure copier. So that may not have been easy," Krongard said.
Asked if it could happen by accident, Krongard simply said, "No."
He also challenged Clinton and State Department claims that the emails in question were “retroactively classified.”
"I don't understand it, because it was either classified by the creator or it was classified by reason of where it came from or what network it was on,” Krongard said.
Clinton consistently has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time. While technically correct, this distinction also appears misleading. A January 2009 non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton confirms her understanding that "classified information is marked or unmarked.”
Rather, it is the content and source that determine classification. Former intelligence officials say the emails were improperly handled by Clinton and her team and, once reviewed by the authority that originated the information, the emails were given proper classification markings.
While there is no public confirmation the Clinton server was breached, former senior military and intelligence officials -- including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Mike Flynn – have said they believe foreign intelligence services targeted Clinton's email system.
In a recent interview with Fox News, the Romanian hacker who goes by the name Guccifer said he accessed the Clinton server with ease in March 2013. Anonymous government officials were quick to dismiss the hacker's claims, while admitting he was very skilled and breached the accounts of 100 Americans, including Powell.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,799
Messages
13,559,809
Members
100,689
Latest member
fb68itcom1
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com