Short Definition of Addiction:
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.
Addiction is characterized by inability to consistently abstain, impairment in behavioral control, craving, diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships, and a dysfunctional emotional response. Like other chronic diseases, addiction often involves cycles of relapse and remission. Without treatment or engagement in recovery activities, addiction is progressive and can result in disability or premature death.
Nothing has changed on this end. What Hillary did was wrong - emails and Benghazi. Now just waiting for the Foundation to get focused on. It is a never ending story. The tard does not get it and he never will. None of this means she was not guilty just that she was given a green light to continue to be above the law.
"Kenyan-born" Obama
fast and furious
Obamacare
Loretta Lynch
Eric Holder
Lois Lerner
targeting Dinesh D'Souza
ugly dyke at the EPA
Hildabeast emails
Benghazi
Clinton Foundation
The corruption is neverending...
Keep connecting the dots, even though our ruling class in both parties couldn't give a shit.
What happened here is glaringly obvious. It is the tawdry by-product of a criminal justice mentality in which – as I documented in my 2011 bookWith Liberty and Justice for Some – those who wield the greatest political and economic power are virtually exempt from the rule of law even when they commit the most egregious crimes, while only those who are powerless and marginalized are harshly punished, often for the most trivial transgressions.
Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked with Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection. But Hillary Clinton is the opposite of unimportant. She’s the multi-millionaire former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State, supported by virtually the entire political, financial and media establishment to be the next President, arguably the only person standing between Donald Trump and the White House.
[FONT=TIActuBetaMono-Regular_web]
Glenn Greenwald[/FONT]
[FONT=TIActuBetaMono-Regular_web]July 5 2016, 2:58 p.m.[/FONT]
Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked with Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection. But Hillary Clinton is the opposite of unimportant. She’s the multi-millionaire former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State, supported by virtually the entire political, financial and media establishment to be the next President, arguably the only person standing between Donald Trump and the White House.
[FONT=TIActuBetaMono-Regular_web]
Glenn Greenwald[/FONT][FONT=TIActuBetaMono-Regular_web]July 5 2016, 2:58 p.m.[/FONT]
[h=1]Two More Ways Hillary Clinton Committed Perjury at Benghazi Committee[/h]
by JOEL B. POLLAK6 Jul 20161,871
[h=2]Hillary Clinton appears to have perjured herself before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in at least three ways: first, by stating that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the government; second, by insisting there was “nothing marked classified on my e-mails”; and third, by telling the committee that her attorneys “went through every single e-mail.” FBI director James Comey’s statement Tuesday suggests none of those statements were true.[/h]On Tuesday, Breitbart News published the relevant portion of the transcript of Clinton’s testimony dealing with the question of whether she had turned over her work-related emails. The other two instances in which Clinton perjured herself arose in her statements to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) [emphasis added]:
1744
16
by JOEL B. POLLAK6 Jul 20161,871
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]Hillary Clinton appears to have perjured herself before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in at least three ways: first, by stating that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the government; second, by insisting there was “nothing marked classified on my e-mails”; and third, by telling the committee that her attorneys “went through every single e-mail.” FBI director James Comey’s statement Tuesday suggests none of those statements were true.[/h]On Tuesday, Breitbart News published the relevant portion of the transcript of Clinton’s testimony dealing with the question of whether she had turned over her work-related emails. The other two instances in which Clinton perjured herself arose in her statements to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) [emphasis added]:
JORDAN: This is — and it has everything to do, because we want the record, so we can get to the truth, and maybe if the gentleman — if the gentleman from Washington would have shown up for more than just one hour of one interview, he might know a little more about the situation as well, and the lack of getting the record.
Of course, this second statement, the revised statement, was after this committee had contacted Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, Philippe Reines, asking for their personal accounts, which of course you knew would mean we would get their e-mails.
And that first statement in March was not accurate. In March, you said no classified information was sent or received on your personal accounts. You later revised your statement and said no information marked classified was sent or received on your personal account.
And once again, your revised statement was after the inspector general for the intelligence community had examined your e-mails and determined that, yes, some indeed were classified.
Secretary Clinton, seems like there’s a pattern, pattern of changing your story. In March you say one thing, the truth comes out, weeks and months later, you say something else.
That’s not being the most transparent person ever. That’s not even being transparent.
So if your story about your e-mails keeps changing, then how can we accept your statement that you’ve turned over all work related e- mails and all e-mails about Libya?
CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I take responsibility for my use of personal e-mail. I’ve said it was a mistake. I’ve said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice.
When I got to the department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, and so much else.
E-mail was not my primary means of communication, as I have said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I’ve described how I did work: in meetings, secure and unsecured phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending…
JORDAN: I — I — I appreciate (inaudible).
HILLARY: …a great deal of meetings, and I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related e-mails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released. JORDAN: I appreciate — let — and let’s get into that.
Those 55,000 pages, there were 62,00 e-mails — total e-mails, on your system. You have stated that you used a multi-step process to determine which ones were private, which ones were public, which ones belonged to you and your family, which ones belonged to the taxpayer.
Who oversaw this multi-step process in making that determination which ones we might get and which ones that were personal?
CLINTON: That was overseen by my attorneys and they conducted a rigorous review of my e-mails and…
JORDAN: These are the folks sitting behind you there, Mr. Kendall, Ms. Mills…
CLINTON: Yes, that’s right.
JORDAN: …Ms. Danielsen (ph)? All right.
And you said rigorous. What does that mean?
CLINTON: It means that they were asked to provide anything that could be possibly construed as work related. In fact, in my opinion — and that’s been confirmed by both the State Department…
JORDAN: But I’m asking how — I’m asking how it was done. Was — did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.
CLINTON: They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.
JORDAN: Will you provide this committee — or can you answer today, what were the search terms?
CLINTON: The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.
JORDAN: That’s not answering the question. Search terms means “terms”. What terms did you use…
CLINTON: I did — I did not…
JORDAN: And what were the date parameters? What — what date did you start, what was the end date, and the e-mails in between that we’re going to look at?
CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their shoulder. I did not dictate how they would do it. I did not ask what they were doing and how they made their determinations (ph).
JORDAN: So you don’t know? You don’t know what terms they used to determine which ones were your e-mails and which ones the State Department got, and therefore we might get?
CLINTON: You know, The State Department had between 90 and 95 percent of all the ones that were work related. They were already on the system. In fact, this committee got e-mails…
JORDAN: I’m not asking about those. I’m asking about the 62,000 that were exclusively on your system.
CLINTON: …90 to 95 percent of all work-related e-mails were already in the State Department’s system.
JORDAN: We — we know the National Archive has — Secretary Clinton, we know the National Archive has said 1,250 were clearly personal. No way we should have — no way you should have sent them to the State Department.
And then we also know that 15, you missed, because we got those from Mr. Blumenthal when he came in — was — was — for his deposition.
CLINTON: Thank you.
JORDAN: So if you — you missed 15 you should have given us, and you gave us 1,250 that — not we say, but the national archivist says — you never should have turned over. You erred on both sides. So again, that’s why we want to know the terms. Because if you’ve made a mistake both ways, you may to made — might have made more mistakes. We don’t know.
CLINTON: Well, first of all, you had nine hours with one of my attorneys. And since I think the Democrats just finally released the transcript, I haven’t had a chance…
JORDAN: And I — and I specifically asked Ms. Mills. I did.
CLINTON: …well…
JORDAN: I did. I asked her about this and she gave me the — basically the same kind of answer you’re giving me.
CLINTON: Well, she’ll be happy to supplement the record if (inaudible).
JORDAN: But she’s not on the witness stand today. You are, and I’m asking you.
CLINTON: Well, but I — I asked my attorneys to do it. I thought that was the appropriate way to proceed.
JORDAN: Let me do one other statement. Let me do one other statement, because it sounds like we’re — I — I hope you’ll turn those — I hope we’ll know the terms.
I think the American people would like to know what terms you used to determine what we might get so that we could get all information on Libya and find out what happened, where these four Americans gave their lives. I think that’s — that’s critical.
In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I’m having a hard time figuring this out, because this story’s been all over the place.
But — there was one server on your property in New York, and a second server hosted by a Colorado company in — housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers?
CLINTON: No.
JORDAN: OK.
CLINTON: There was a — there was a server…
JORDAN: Just one?
CLINTON: …that was already being used by my husband’s team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband’s office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that’s when they contracted with the company in Colorado.
JORDAN: And so there’s only one server? Is that what you’re telling me? And it’s the one server that the FBI has?
CLINTON: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.
JORDAN: OK. In your statement, you said, “which is protected by the Secret Service.” Why did you mention the Secret Service?
CLINTON: Well, because…
JORDAN: And — here’s what — could a Secret Service agent standing at the back door of your house protect someone in Russia or China from hacking into your system? Why did you mention the Secret Service agent?
CLINTON: Out of just an abundance of being transparent.
JORDAN: Transparent. I — how — what’s the relevance to protecting from (ph) classified information?
CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received. And I want to respond…
JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used “marked”. That’s the one — that’s what you — you used the revised statement there.
CLINTON: …well — but that’s — well, Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because many — many Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department…
It is a crime to lie under oath, and to lie to Congress.Of course, this second statement, the revised statement, was after this committee had contacted Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, Philippe Reines, asking for their personal accounts, which of course you knew would mean we would get their e-mails.
And that first statement in March was not accurate. In March, you said no classified information was sent or received on your personal accounts. You later revised your statement and said no information marked classified was sent or received on your personal account.
And once again, your revised statement was after the inspector general for the intelligence community had examined your e-mails and determined that, yes, some indeed were classified.
Secretary Clinton, seems like there’s a pattern, pattern of changing your story. In March you say one thing, the truth comes out, weeks and months later, you say something else.
That’s not being the most transparent person ever. That’s not even being transparent.
So if your story about your e-mails keeps changing, then how can we accept your statement that you’ve turned over all work related e- mails and all e-mails about Libya?
CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I take responsibility for my use of personal e-mail. I’ve said it was a mistake. I’ve said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice.
When I got to the department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, and so much else.
E-mail was not my primary means of communication, as I have said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I’ve described how I did work: in meetings, secure and unsecured phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending…
JORDAN: I — I — I appreciate (inaudible).
HILLARY: …a great deal of meetings, and I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related e-mails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released. JORDAN: I appreciate — let — and let’s get into that.
Those 55,000 pages, there were 62,00 e-mails — total e-mails, on your system. You have stated that you used a multi-step process to determine which ones were private, which ones were public, which ones belonged to you and your family, which ones belonged to the taxpayer.
Who oversaw this multi-step process in making that determination which ones we might get and which ones that were personal?
CLINTON: That was overseen by my attorneys and they conducted a rigorous review of my e-mails and…
JORDAN: These are the folks sitting behind you there, Mr. Kendall, Ms. Mills…
CLINTON: Yes, that’s right.
JORDAN: …Ms. Danielsen (ph)? All right.
And you said rigorous. What does that mean?
CLINTON: It means that they were asked to provide anything that could be possibly construed as work related. In fact, in my opinion — and that’s been confirmed by both the State Department…
JORDAN: But I’m asking how — I’m asking how it was done. Was — did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.
CLINTON: They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.
JORDAN: Will you provide this committee — or can you answer today, what were the search terms?
CLINTON: The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.
JORDAN: That’s not answering the question. Search terms means “terms”. What terms did you use…
CLINTON: I did — I did not…
JORDAN: And what were the date parameters? What — what date did you start, what was the end date, and the e-mails in between that we’re going to look at?
CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I asked my attorneys to oversee the process. I did not look over their shoulder. I did not dictate how they would do it. I did not ask what they were doing and how they made their determinations (ph).
JORDAN: So you don’t know? You don’t know what terms they used to determine which ones were your e-mails and which ones the State Department got, and therefore we might get?
CLINTON: You know, The State Department had between 90 and 95 percent of all the ones that were work related. They were already on the system. In fact, this committee got e-mails…
JORDAN: I’m not asking about those. I’m asking about the 62,000 that were exclusively on your system.
CLINTON: …90 to 95 percent of all work-related e-mails were already in the State Department’s system.
JORDAN: We — we know the National Archive has — Secretary Clinton, we know the National Archive has said 1,250 were clearly personal. No way we should have — no way you should have sent them to the State Department.
And then we also know that 15, you missed, because we got those from Mr. Blumenthal when he came in — was — was — for his deposition.
CLINTON: Thank you.
JORDAN: So if you — you missed 15 you should have given us, and you gave us 1,250 that — not we say, but the national archivist says — you never should have turned over. You erred on both sides. So again, that’s why we want to know the terms. Because if you’ve made a mistake both ways, you may to made — might have made more mistakes. We don’t know.
CLINTON: Well, first of all, you had nine hours with one of my attorneys. And since I think the Democrats just finally released the transcript, I haven’t had a chance…
JORDAN: And I — and I specifically asked Ms. Mills. I did.
CLINTON: …well…
JORDAN: I did. I asked her about this and she gave me the — basically the same kind of answer you’re giving me.
CLINTON: Well, she’ll be happy to supplement the record if (inaudible).
JORDAN: But she’s not on the witness stand today. You are, and I’m asking you.
CLINTON: Well, but I — I asked my attorneys to do it. I thought that was the appropriate way to proceed.
JORDAN: Let me do one other statement. Let me do one other statement, because it sounds like we’re — I — I hope you’ll turn those — I hope we’ll know the terms.
I think the American people would like to know what terms you used to determine what we might get so that we could get all information on Libya and find out what happened, where these four Americans gave their lives. I think that’s — that’s critical.
In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I’m having a hard time figuring this out, because this story’s been all over the place.
But — there was one server on your property in New York, and a second server hosted by a Colorado company in — housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers?
CLINTON: No.
JORDAN: OK.
CLINTON: There was a — there was a server…
JORDAN: Just one?
CLINTON: …that was already being used by my husband’s team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband’s office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that’s when they contracted with the company in Colorado.
JORDAN: And so there’s only one server? Is that what you’re telling me? And it’s the one server that the FBI has?
CLINTON: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.
JORDAN: OK. In your statement, you said, “which is protected by the Secret Service.” Why did you mention the Secret Service?
CLINTON: Well, because…
JORDAN: And — here’s what — could a Secret Service agent standing at the back door of your house protect someone in Russia or China from hacking into your system? Why did you mention the Secret Service agent?
CLINTON: Out of just an abundance of being transparent.
JORDAN: Transparent. I — how — what’s the relevance to protecting from (ph) classified information?
CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received. And I want to respond…
JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used “marked”. That’s the one — that’s what you — you used the revised statement there.
CLINTON: …well — but that’s — well, Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because many — many Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department…
You can be successful at connecting some, or all of the dots, and end up with nothing but a picture to hang on the fridge or laundry room tacky board. Such is the world we live in. If the purpose of the thread is to show what a POS Hillary is it has suceeded. But it can't really graduate into anything beyond that. If the purpose of the thread was to put her in cuffs it was a real longshot and nothing posted next will change that. It's all a matter of how someone wants to use their time. Russ could stop, sure. But should he decide to continue there's no reason to break his balls for it.
What it boils down to is that the dots are all there, the liberals can't connect them. Should this thread end, hell no. The purpose of this thread was not to put her in cuffs because that is beyond my ability. However I do feel a responsibility to show her for what she is. The libtards on here cannot connect a dot if it has to do with one their own. Hillary is liar and has been caught more times than anyone can count. Nope this thread will continue on as long as Hillary continues to cheat and lie.
[h=1]Andrew McCarthy: ‘FBI Rewrote the Statute’ to Give Hillary Clinton a Pass[/h]
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
by DAN RIEHL6 Jul 2016Washington, DC143
[h=2]Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow at National Review and former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, spoke with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon Wednesday about FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend an indictment for Hillary Clinton.[/h]McCarthy said he was “disheartened” by Tuesday’s events, adding, “It was a spotlight on what is no longer a nation of laws, not of men.”
He continued:
50
1
by DAN RIEHL6 Jul 2016Washington, DC143
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow at National Review and former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, spoke with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon Wednesday about FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend an indictment for Hillary Clinton.[/h]McCarthy said he was “disheartened” by Tuesday’s events, adding, “It was a spotlight on what is no longer a nation of laws, not of men.”
He continued:
I thought the case [Comey] laid out was as bulletproof as it gets. And it seemed to me when he got all the way down the field, he moved the goalposts. So he added elements that the government doesn’t have to prove under the statute as Congress has written it in order to shrink from recommending that charges be brought. To my mind, that’s difficult to square on a lot of levels.
McCarthy also penned a piece for National Review arguing that Comey basically rewrote the statute to get around indicting Hillary:
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
