Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

Acebb · Jun 23, 2016

CLINTON FAILED TO HAND OVER KEY EMAIL TO STATE DEPARTMENT

[FONT=&quot]WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
...
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clinton has never outlined in detail what criteria she and her lawyers used to determine which emails to release and which to delete, but her 2010 email with Abedin appears clearly work-related under the State Department's own criteria for agency records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dozens of the emails sent or received by Clinton through her private server were later determined to contain classified material. The FBI has been investigating for months whether Clinton's use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. Agents recently interviewed several of Clinton's top aides, including Abedin.[/FONT]

ScottL · Jun 23, 2016

Tags for this Thread severe meat beating

"feverish" > "severe" when describing the beating of meat!

russ1945 · Jun 24, 2016

AP: CLINTON CALENDAR HIDES 75 MEETINGS WITH DONORS...

FAILED TO TURN OVER KEY EMAIL TO STATE DEPT...

Criteria to delete still unknown...

PRUDEN: The Bad Moon Rising...

Author: Hillary's demoralizing behavior drove secret service agents to drink...

russ1945 · Jun 24, 2016

[h=1]CNN’s Clinton Cash ‘Fact-Check’ Ends in Embarrassment for Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel[/h]

24118

77

CNN; Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

by EZRA DULIS23 Jun 20165,073

[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]

CNN Money’s “fact-checkers” Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel ended up with egg on their faces on Wednesday after they rated as “false” a well-established and proven Clinton Cash fact involving Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approving the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government, as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Under the guise of “fact-checking” Donald Trump’s Wednesday speech, Alesci and Frankel purported to verify whether “Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
Alesci (pictured, right) and Frankel (left) rate the claim as “false” and allege “there’s no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” The CNN Money “reporters” also conceded that “CNN several times has asked the Clinton Foundation to confirm whether the nine investors who benefited from the deal also contributed to the foundation, but the foundation has yet to respond.”
Why Alesci and Frankel couldn’t confirm the $145 million in Clinton Foundation donations for themselves is curious. Indeed, in a 4,000-word front page story written over a year ago, the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Jo Becker and Mike McIntire verified the Clinton Cash uranium revelation in stunning detail, including charts and graphs laying out the flow of millions of dollars from the nine investors in the uranium deal who flowed $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation. Since Alesci and Frankel appear unable to perform basic journalistic research, here are the names and amounts they are still waiting on the Clinton Foundation to get back to them on:

Frank Giustra, Canadian mining magnate who created a company that later merged with UraniumOne, gave $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million to the Clinton Foundation
Frank Holmes, a shareholder in the deal who donated between $250,000 and $500,000 (the Clinton Foundation doesn’t report exact amounts, only in ranges) and is a Clinton Foundation adviser
Neil Woodyer, Frank Giustra’s colleague who founded Endeavor Financial and pledged $500,000 as well as promises of “ongoing financial support”
Robert Disbrow, a Haywood Securities broker, the firm that provided “$58 million in capital to float shares of UrAsia’s private placement,” gave the Clinton’s family foundation between $1 and $5 million, according to Clinton Cash
Paul Reynolds, a Canaccord Capital Inc., executive who donated between $1 million and $5 million. “The UrAsia deal was the largest in Canaccord’s history,” reports Schweizer
Robert Cross, a major shareholder who serves as UrAsia Energy Director who pledged portions of his future income to the Clinton Foundation
Egizio Blanchini, “the Capital Markets vice chair and Global cohead of BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, had also been an underwriter on the mining deals. BMO paid $600,000 for two tables at the CGS-GI’s March 2008 benefit”
Sergei Kurzin, the Russian rainmaker involved in the Kazakhstan uranium deal and a shareholder in UrAsia Energy, also pledged $1 million to the Foundation
Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer committed $2.35 million

Alesci and Frankel claim there’s “no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” Naturally, they fail to note that the legal standard for conflicts of interest and corruption do not require a quid pro quo. Nor do they note that Hillary Clinton deleted and destroyed over 30,000 emails housed on her secret server—the obvious location of any so-called “smoking guns.”
Still, the CNN Money “fact-checkers” correctly note that “the State Department was one of several agencies that needed to sign off on the transaction.” Indeed, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) has nine members, one of which is the State Dept. Yet through willful ignorance or an unusual lack of journalistic curiosity, Alesci and Frankel didn’t think to ask the obvious: which of the eight other agency heads needed to approve the deal were receiving $145 million to their family’s charity at the time of such a pivotal decision? And did Hillary Clinton’s State Department report the glaring conflict of interest before granting its approval of handing over 20 percent of American uranium to Putin’s Russia? Why didn’t Hillary Clinton recuse her agency from voting, knowing that her charity was receiving $145 million from nine investors in the deal?
Those questions apparently did not occur to Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel.
Also, in addition to the $145 million being funneled to the Clinton Foundation before the CFIUS approval, why was a Kremlin-backed bank bankrolling a $500,000 speech in Moscow for Bill Clinton while his wife led the Russian reset? As even the progressive New Yorker magazine put it, “But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” Shockingly, CNN Money fact-checkers Alesci and Frankel make no mention of the Kremlin-backed $500,000 Clinton speaking payment.
Nor did CNN’s crack “fact-checkers” mention that the Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in hidden, undisclosed donations from Ian Telfer, the former head of the Russian government’s uranium company—another fact that multiple liberal news outlets have confirmed.
Indeed, as Bloomberg, Washington Post, New Yorker, ABC News, New York Times, and myriad other Establishment media have all confirmed, Clinton Cash’s most explosive revelations are accurate.
Apparently, CNN’s Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel are among the last to know.

Willie99 · Jun 24, 2016

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

bawawawawaawawawawaawawaw

Russ, libtards don't care about being caught telling lies, they know their fucking idiots will still believe them

that's all that matters to them

russ1945 · Jun 24, 2016

Willie99 said:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

bawawawawaawawawawaawawaw

Russ, libtards don't care about being caught telling lies, they know their fucking idiots will still believe them

that's all that matters to them

Still fun to point out when they get caught telling lies. Libtards live in their own little world that is for sure.

russ1945 · Jun 25, 2016

[h=1]‘Brexit’ Revolt Casts a Shadow Over Hillary Clinton’s Cautious Path[/h]By PATRICK HEALYJUNE 25, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save

32

Photo

A rally for Hillary Clinton in Raleigh, N.C., on Wednesday. Her “Stronger Together” slogan mirrors one used by the “Remain” campaign in the British referendum on leaving the European Union.CreditRichard Perry/The New York TimesFor Hillary Clinton, Britain’s emotionally charged uprising against the European Union is the sort of populist victory over establishment politics that she fears in the coming presidential election.
Mrs. Clinton shares more with the defeated “Remain” campaign than just their common slogan, “Stronger Together.” Her fundamental argument, much akin to Prime Minister David Cameron’s against British withdrawal from the European Union, is that Americans should value stability and incremental change over the risks entailed in radical change and the possibility of chaos if Donald J. Trump wins the presidency.
She offers reasonableness instead of resentment, urging voters to see the big picture and promising to manage economic and immigration upheaval, just as Mr. Cameron did. She, too, is a pragmatic internationalist battling against nationalist anger, cautioning that the turmoil after the so-called Brexit vote underscores a need for “calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House.”
But prudence is cold comfort to people fed up with more-of-the-same.
According to their friends and advisers, Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton have worried for months that she was out of sync with the mood of the electorate, and that her politically safe messages — like “I’m a progressive who gets results” — were far less compelling to frustrated voters than the “political revolution” of Senator Bernie Sanders or Mr. Trump’s grievance-driven promise to “Make America Great Again.”
Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump won a combined 25 million votes during the primary season, compared with 16 million for Mrs. Clinton. And while many of Mr. Sanders’s supporters are expected to support her in November, she has not recalibrated her message to try to tap into the anger that he and Mr. Trump channeled.
Nor does Mrs. Clinton have any plans, advisers say, to take cues from the Brexit campaign and start soft-pedaling her support for globalized markets, or denouncing porous borders, illegal immigrants and the lack of job protections in free-trade agreements.
Much distinguishes the presidential contest from the British fight, of course, including a head-to-head matchup between well-known candidates, a sharply different economic context, and a long and proud history of immigration.
Continue reading the main story

[h=2]Presidential Election 2016[/h][h=3]The latest news and analysis of the candidates and issues shaping the presidential race.[/h]

See More »

[h=2]RELATED COVERAGE[/h]

Yet in addition to worrying that she is out of step, Mrs. Clinton is somewhat hemmed in by her record: She supported her husband’s North American Free Trade Agreement, which caused significant economic pain in the industrial Midwest after it went into effect in 1994. And her nuanced views about free trade are a harder sell to many voters than Mr. Trump’s fire-breathing vows to trash bad trade deals and use tariffs as economic weapons of national defense.
While Mrs. Clinton is counting on Mr. Trump’s history of racist and sexist remarks to doom his candidacy, Thursday’s Brexit referendum was an unnerving reminder that voter anger is deeper and broader than many elite politicians and veteran pollsters realize. In swing states like Ohio, many Democrats and Republicans yearn for an economic comeback and are not confident that Mrs. Clinton understands their frustrations or has the ideas and wherewithal to deliver the sort of change that could satisfy them.
“Brexit is clearly a cautionary tale for the Clinton campaign not to get too complacent with a potential victory,” said David B. Cohen, a professor of political science at the University of Akron. “Trump, Sanders and those in Great Britain who ran the Leave campaign are tapping into an anger and anxiety that is clearly festering. Working-class folks in the United States are similar to working-class folks in Europe. And a lot of those working-class people feel as if the international economic system is not working for them and strangling the middle class.”
Mike DuHaime, a Republican strategist, said the British vote was the clearest sign yet that “the intensity against the status quo is far more real than many are still willing to acknowledge.”
“If the Trump victory in the primary wasn’t enough of one, the Brexit vote serves as a major wake-up call indicating just how frustrated average voters are with those in power,” Mr. DuHaime said.
Several Democrats cautioned against drawing too many lessons from the Brexit vote, saying mass immigration and economic malaise were bigger problems in Britain and the European Union than in the United States. They also said many British voters were revolting against a bureaucracy in Brussels that they regarded as bloated, overpaid and prone to interfering in the affairs of sovereign countries.
Yet the Democrats acknowledged that the worldview held by Mrs. Clinton and many of the party’s elites was not as attractive to many voters as it once was.
Photo

Mrs. Clinton was not surprised that Britain had voted to leave the European Union, her advisers said on Friday, even though she argued for the connection to continue. CreditRichard Perry/The New York Times“Liberal internationalism seems to have been dying for a while,” said Mark S. Mellman, a Democratic pollster who is not involved with the Clinton campaign. “But while that may be the animating philosophy of foreign policy intellectuals the world over, it is not the animating philosophy of America, nor of our domestic politics.”
For Sean Harrington, a husband and father of three who owns the Town Pump Tavern in downtown Detroit, the support for free-trade deals and international markets cannot die fast enough. Taking a break from his bookkeeping duties on Friday, he said President Clinton’s economic policies were still “ruining the economy” by giving benefits to large corporations that move jobs overseas, while in states like Michigan, “the average work force loses.”
“If my fellow Americans were doing better, there would be more money around and traded in and out of my pockets,” said Mr. Harrington, a registered independent who is undecided between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.
On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton regularly pledges to “make sure our economy works for everyone, not just those at the top,” as she put it on Wednesday in Raleigh, N.C., where she also promised to reject “bad trade deals and unfair trade practices.” She also argued in favor of Britain’s remaining in the European Union.
But she was not surprised that the “Leave” campaign won, her advisers said Friday, because she understands the extent of voter anger. Her advisers said they were confident the referendum in Britain did not mirror the presidential election in the United States.
“These are two different countries, with very different circumstances and demographics, facing different choices,” said Jennifer Palmieri, Mrs. Clinton’s communications director. “We believe American voters are looking for concrete solutions to address their economic frustrations and unlikely to find the turmoil, economic uncertainty and roiling of markets caused by the Brexit vote particularly appealing.”
Frank Luntz, a Republican expert on political messaging, said Mr. Cameron and the “Remain” camp had failed to “personalize, individualize or humanize their campaign.” The “Stronger Together” slogan shared by the “Remain” campaign and Mrs. Clinton feels bloodless and overly intellectual compared with the more emotional, country-first appeals of Mr. Trump and the “Leave” movement, he said.
“The problem with the concept of ‘together’ is that it promotes groupthink rather than individual pursuits,” Mr. Luntz said. “We are in an age of individual action, not collective responsibility.”
Mrs. Clinton’s arguments against Mr. Trump often require a great deal of explanation to voters, which can sometimes turn them off.
While Mr. Trump thrills his audiences with big promises — without saying much about how he would fulfill them — Mrs. Clinton can get caught in the gears of policy. One recent exception was a foreign policy speech in early June, when she hit a rhythm and ripped into Mr. Trump with memorable lines like “He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.”
But when Mrs. Clinton takes pains to explain why Mr. Trump’s promises and policies do not add up, or are too risky, she runs a risk of her own: that she will sound as though she is instructing or talking down to her audience. Not many voters want a lecturer as president.
“A slogan and a message must be aspirational — either give people hope things will get better or that the bad stuff will stop — both,” said Ruth Sherman, a political communications analyst who is not affiliated with any campaign. Referring to one of Mrs. Clinton’s taglines, she said: “Hillary’s ‘I’m with her’ — I remember thinking when I first saw it, ‘Really?’ It’s not my job to be with her. She should be with me.”
If Mr. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” is resonant — “by far the best slogan of all the candidates,” Ms. Sherman said — Mrs. Clinton is counting on voters to appreciate policy ideas that are more strategic than feel-good.
She argued in Raleigh, for instance, that markets like the European Union “work best when all the stakeholders share in the benefits.” While that statement was hardly in the aspirational vein that Ms. Sherman recommends, it set a clear goal and was less divisive than Mr. Trump’s comments on the British referendum.
32COMMENTSThe American electorate has tilted this year toward presidential candidates who make them feel as much as think, but Mrs. Clinton and her allies hope that voters will reflect on the vote in Britain and opt for the steadiness and predictability that she promises.
“I don’t think the average American who has a retirement account right now is thrilled about Donald Trump’s support of Brexit,” said Thomas R. Nides, who was a deputy secretary of state under Mrs. Clinton. “Hillary Clinton understands we always need to change — but change that doesn’t cause unintended consequences for the average American.”

russ1945 · Jun 25, 2016

[h=2]STATE DEPARTMENT[/h][h=1]Top IT official: Disabling security for Clinton server laid out 'welcome mat' for hackers[/h]

[FONT=&quot]By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne
Published June 25, 2016 [FONT=&quot] FoxNews.com[/FONT]

[/FONT]
Facebook[FONT=&quot]6324 Twitter[FONT=&quot]2511[/FONT] livefyre[FONT=&quot]9263[/FONT] Email Print

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]NOW PLAYING[FONT=&quot]Clinton aide invokes 5th Amendment more than 125 times[/FONT]

Never autoplay videos

[FONT=&quot]A 2010 decision temporarily disabling State Department security features to accommodate Hillary Clinton’s private server effectively laid out a "welcome mat" for hackers and foreign intelligence services, a leading IT official who oversaw computer security at the Defense Intelligence Agency told Fox News.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"You're putting not just the Clinton server at risk but the entire Department of State emails at risk," said Bob Gourley, former chief technology officer (CTO) for the DIA. "When you turn off your defensive mechanisms and you're connected to the Internet, you're almost laying out the welcome mat for anyone to intrude and attack and steal your secrets."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He was referring to revelations from new court-released documents in a lawsuit by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch. They show the State Department temporarily turned off security features in 2010 so that emails from then-Secretary of State Clinton's personal server would stop going to the department's spam folders. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gourley, who has more than two decades of cybersecurity experience and is now a partner with strategic consulting and engineering firm Cognitio, noted the Russians did breach the State Department system at some point – though it’s unclear when, and whether disabling the security functions in 2010 played a role.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He said, though, that when the Russian presence was detected in 2014, there were indications “they had been there for quite a while … [and] also hacked into unclassified systems in the White House.” He said the Russians would have tried “everything possible to get in.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gourley said: "A professionally run system is going to keep their defenses up all the time to at least make it hard on them.”[/FONT]
2016 Election Headquarters
[FONT=&quot]The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.See Latest Coverage →[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The court-released emails show State Department IT staffers struggled to resolve the issue in December 2010, and it was considered an urgent matter. "This should trump all other activities," Ken LaVolpe, a senior technical officer, wrote on Dec. 17, 2010.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The disabled software was designed to block so-called phishing emails that could insert viruses into the system. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was personally checking in for status reports on the progress. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The State Department inspector general's report released in May found Clinton's personal server used exclusively for official State Department business violated government rules. It also reported that in early January 2011 -- a month after the security feature shut-down -- an IT worker shut down the server because he believed "someone was trying to hack us." The individual, who was not identified by name in emails released by the IG, reported a second incident only hours later, writing, "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An email also from this time period documented Clinton's concern about getting a government email account. In November 2010, Clinton wrote to Abedin: "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible.” Though Clinton said all her work-related emails were turned over, this document was provided not by Clinton but by Abedin.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While Clinton swore under oath last fall all records had been provided, campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement that Clinton did not have all the emails. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"We understand Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have," he said. He asserted the November 2010 email shows that “contrary to the allegations of some, Secretary Clinton was not seeking to avoid any use of government email. As indicated in this email, she was open to using a state.gov account but she simply wanted her personal emails to remain private, as anyone would want."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The FBI is investigating Clinton's emails practices. Agents are looking into whether classified information was taken outside secure government channels, and whether the server was compromised by a third party. Fox News first reported in January the FBI investigation had expanded to public corruption and whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, according to three intelligence sources.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This week, the head of WikiLeaks Julian Assange told a British television network that he was in possession of Clinton emails that have not yet been released, indicating the system was compromised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In an interview with British Television Network ITV, Assange said he has Clinton emails that are not public, and there is "enough evidence" for criminal charges, including regarding the Clinton Foundation, though he claimed she was too protected by the Obama administration for an indictment to go forward.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"There's very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation," Assange said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Clinton campaign has dismissed claims the server was compromised by a third party, including those of Romanian hacker "Guccifer." Fox News was first to report his claims that he accessed the server with ease in March 2012. The Justice Department extradited the hacker to Northern Virginia where he recently agreed in a plea deal to cooperate in future investigations and testify before a grand jury.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]An NSA whistleblower said the Assange claim should be taken seriously, given WikiLeaks’ track record of releasing authentic documents.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"It just says that she put all this material on a server that was insecure, that anyone in the world could access it and break in," said Bill Binney, a former National Security Agency specialist who spoke out against the agency's broad surveillance programs. Binney was investigated by the FBI, though there was no evidence he mishandled classified information.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Binney said there is a double-standard at play in the Clinton case, given more than 2,100 emails on her server containing classified information have been identified. He called her files “vulnerable [to] attack [from] all people in the world -- hackers, governments, everybody." [/FONT]

[/FONT]

russ1945 · Jun 25, 2016

[h=1]EXCLUSIVE–Darrell Issa: There Is Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton[/h]

55

1

by PATRICK HOWLEY25 Jun 2016115

[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]

[h=2]WASHINGTON, D.C. — Republican California Rep. Darrell Issa said that there is enough evidence to indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling national security information on her private email server.[/h]“There is more than enough for an indictment,” Issa, the former House Oversight Committee chairman, told Breitbart News Saturday on Sirius/XM Patriot Channel 125. Issa explained:

The statute about classified material holds you responsible not to transmit in an unsecured environment or to a person not cleared. It holds you accountable not to do that. Not based on whether there’s the word ‘Secret’ all over it, but based on the presumption that you would recognize that classified material. She transmitted things like — I don’t want to disclose anything — like a mayor in Afghanistan who was working with us, and if that material becomes available to the wrong people, she gets killed. You don’t have to ask whether that’s classified. As an army lieutenant years ago, I knew that would be classified because it goes to sources and methods.

Breitbart News exclusively reported that Clinton posted and shared the names of CIA-protected American intelligence sources in foreign countries on her non-secure server, which was repeatedly breached by Russia-linked hack attempts and suffered a security vulnerability in East Asia. Sources report that the Russian government intercepted and plans to release some of Clinton’s private emails, which convicted hacker Guccifer also claims to have obtained. Issa said:

We know that Hillary Clinton broke the law with malice and forethought, for her own nefarious reasons including Clinton Cash, and the deals she and her husband were pocketing in hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign money. She wanted that to be kept behind closed doors. And she also wanted everything she did in an official capacity to be behind closed doors that were never available to this president even. She did that because she doesn’t know where the line is and she didn’t want to take the chance that her official side would expose her corrupt behavior in her personal life.

Issa said that while there is enough evidence to indict, the American people will have to play judge and jury in November’s election.
“It’s not even a high bar. To be considered to be president of the United States, you are supposed to be completely free of this kind of treachery against your country,” Issa said.
Before he stepped down from his chairmanship due to term limits, Issa waged the prosecution of the IRS targeting scandal, holding Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress in a full House vote. Issa also monitored the Fast and Furious scandal and other Obama administration ethical quagmires. Since Issa was replaced by Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz — who defeated conservative Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan for the chairmanship with the help of Republican House leadership — the Oversight Committee has declined as an investigative tool and political weapon for the Republican Congress.

superbeets · Jun 25, 2016

ShotgunPete · Jun 25, 2016

russ1945 said:
EXCLUSIVE–Darrell Issa: There Is Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton

Don't tease us just do it and get rid of the hag!!

superbeets · Jun 25, 2016

[FONT=&quot]Hillary has no shame! The Benghazi attacks were a preventable tragedy disgraced further by Hillary’s web of lies.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]She knew within hours that the attacks in Benghazi were a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest due to a You Tube Video. But she lied anyways. She stood in front of the flag-draped coffins of four Americans that died serving their country and peddled the lie that the video was to blame both to the victims’ families and the American public.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But she didn’t only lie about what she knew about the Benghazi attack; she had the gall to say that she never told the Benghazi victims’ families that the video was to blame – essentially calling THEM liars.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]One family member, Charles Woods – father of Tyrone Woods, a retired Navy Seal killed in the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012 –recalls that Hillary told him, “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.” Patricia Smith, grieving mother of victim Sean Smith, remembers clearly what Hillary told her as well and says she never received a real explanation from Clinton or the Obama administration on what happened.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The truth is that massive security failures at the highest levels of the Obama administration and Clinton’s State Department put the Benghazi mission at grave risk as terrorist threats grew daily. Her incompetence cost lives and her attempt to cover up the truth is an indignity on the memory of the fallen heroes in Benghazi.[/FONT]

SheriffJoe · Jun 25, 2016

Shotgun Pete said:
Don't tease us just do it and get rid of the hag!!

No shit.

I'm so sick of this endless RINO grandstanding.

russ1945 · Jun 26, 2016

[h=1]Clinton Campaign “In Problems” After Soros Loses $2 Billion In Anti-Brexit Gambling[/h]POLITICS
June 25, 2016A+A-

EMAIL
PRINT

[FONT=&quot]

Breitbart News reported that George Soros had served as “The Puppet Master” of the E.U. “remain” campaign by mobilizing British elites to spread fear that a vote to “leave” would cause the pound to be devalued by 15 to 20 percent and GDP per household to fall by $6,321. With the pre-election polls showing the “remain” leading and London bookies offering 13 to 1 odds against the “Brexit,” the shock and awe of the leave vote winning by 52 to 48 percent sent UK stock prices crashing down harder than the initial September 15, 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers hit US markets.Long story short, Soros is now faced with a $2 billion loss following the risky gamble. And the trouble is, he is a major contributor to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. An unnamed source from the campaign told Breitbart News that “everybody was shocked by the results of the campaign, but that’s not all. Soon after, Hillary Clinton herself gathered us around in a room and broke the bad news. She said the entire presidential campaign was in jeopardy because of the fact that one of its main financiers had cancelled their support.”

Soros was decidedly pro-“remain,” because of the obvious effect the “leave” outcome would have on his fortune. However, Hillary Clinton didn’t seem to be worried about the risk at all. Days before the vote, she told ABC News that “the United Kingdom has always been a country that is a leader, that has conquered the world at one point in history and that, if anybody knows what they’re doing, it’s the Queen.” Apparently, little did Clinton realize that George Soros had pocketed a cool $1 billion in the early 90s by betting against the UK’s pound.“I’m really worried about this whole situation,” the source, who requested anonymity, added. “Not because I’ll be out of a job, that’s the lesser concern. I’m worried because a lack of funding could mean that Hillary Clinton might withdraw from the presidential race and that would be devastating for America. When you look at the alternative, what are we supposed to do? As a citizen, my options are very limited. I’m certainly not going to vote for Donald Trump for obvious reasons. But, if the Democratic Party is left with Bernie Sanders, I might as well move to Canada or Mexico.”The source also added, “Besides, we wouldn’t even be in this mess if it wasn’t for the fact that the Clinton campaign costs so darn much. I mean, we’re blowing almost half the budget on Hillary’s hairdresser’s appointments and a private, secure email server. It’s easy for Donald Trump, all the money he’s using is his own, so he doesn’t really have to worry. When it comes to the Democratic Party, I remember they told us at the very first meeting, they were like, ‘Okay guys, this is it. You’ve got our moral support, but that’s all you’re getting. We need to save money for Obama’s presidential send-off in November. The Trump-shaped custom piñata is going to be a b*tch to pay for.’ So, you kinda get why this is such a big deal.”[/FONT]