[h=1]Behind a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: A $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two[/h]
[FONT="]
Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton. (Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)
Evan Halper
When former presidents and other dignitaries traveled to California to wax nostalgic on the speaking circuit, they may have been demanding, but none insisted on being flown from San Francisco by private jet to a venue just 70 miles down the freeway.
That was before Bill Clinton came along.
Clinton changed the rules of political speech-making for cash. He would push not just corporate hosts but also nonprofits and universities to pay fees well beyond what they were accustomed to. His aides would turn what had been a freewheeling format into tightly scripted events where every question from the audience was screened. He and Hillary Clinton would become so skilled at churning profits out of their lectures that they would net more than $150 million from speaking alone after he left the White House.
Inside the negotiations to secure a Bill Clinton speaking engagement: Bartering, bickering and outsize expense reports
Contracts and internal emails connected to half a dozen speeches Clinton gave in the Bay Area soon after departing the White House offer a glimpse into the unusual demands and outsize expense reports associated with bringing him to town. The events took place as part of a speaker series sponsored by the Foothill Deanza Community College District, another by UC Davis and another run by a for-profit firm. The community college hosted him again in 2012. The documents became public through an open-records request filed by the Republican National Committee amid a presidential race in which the lucrative speaking fees paid to the Clintons are being closely examined.
They show a former president who deftly avoided discussing past scandals by refusing questions that were not screened by his staff in advance. There is the nearly $1,400 bill for a day’s worth of phone calls from San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel and the $700 dinner for two. And they also show that an agency representing Clinton continued to pursue a deal with an event host who emailed a racist remark about audiences and jokingly referred to the male aides Clinton traveled with as his mistresses.
Speechmaking is as politically charged as it is lucrative for the Clintons. Hillary Clinton’s refusal to disclose transcripts from speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs and other large corporations has become a campaign liability. Her husband’s collection of fees from corporations of as much as $750,000 for a single speech is a source of relentless charges of conflict of interest from critics.
By his advisors’ own admission, the former president pushed the limits of what could be charged for speeches when he entered the market in 2001.
Hillary Clinton would later say her family at that time was “dead broke” and deep in debt after years of attorneys’ fees related to impeachment and other Clinton controversies. The going rate for former presidents to deliver remarks in a public venue had been in the range of $60,000 per speech.
Voters are fascinated and repelled by their presidential campaign choices
Event organizers in California were taken aback when Bill Clinton, freshly signed by the Harry Walker Agency, demanded double that amount. They assumed he would ultimately take the $60,000 they had paid to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Jimmy Carter.
He wouldn’t. Bill Clinton collected $100,000 per speech for six events over the course of a week in November 2002. The newly disclosed records offer little insight into the role Clinton himself played in pushing the fees up and demanding unorthodox arrangements for expenses. The former president has been known to leave such money issues to his handlers, often remaining aloof to the day-to-day accounting details involved in the intertwined Clinton business and nonprofit empires.
The fee hardly entitled audiences to a candid interaction with the former president. The contract with the two events at a speaker series affiliated with Foothill-Deanza Community College District demanded all questions receive approval from Clinton’s staff.
“We wish we never had to give in to that,” said Richard Henning, who runs the series, which has hosted all but one former president since Gerald Ford. “He is the only person I can think of that required it. It has never happened before or since.”
He is the only person I can think of that required [question screening]. It has never happened before or since.— Richard Henning, speaker series manager at Foothill-Deanza Community College District[FONT=trb_Icons][/FONT]
Despite the soaring costs, event organizers say the speeches did not drain the budgets of the community colleges or university, which used a combination of ticket revenue and scaling back their spending on other speakers and performers to keep Clinton from breaking the bank. Those interviewed by The Times say they have no regrets about bringing Clinton to their audiences.
But they may have some lingering heartburn.
Henning worked with UC Davis and an entrepreneur named Bruce Vogel, who ran another speaker series in the Bay Area, to hire Clinton for consecutive events each group held independently in 2002. Henning and Vogel seemed to be deeply frustrated as they tried to negotiate with Clinton’s people over what questions would be acceptable to ask him while he was on stage.
“Terrible, and terribly general,” is how Vogel described some queries proposed by the former president’s staff, which included the question: “Is the world a better place now than when you entered politics, with a view to making a difference?”
“I’m almost embarrassed to ask them,” Vogel wrote in an email. Henning had warned in a separate message: “People will fall asleep.”
Apparently, even Clinton agreed. After a lackluster question-and-answer exchange at Henning’s first event, the former president encouraged him to ask some tougher questions the next night.
Clinton aides involved with the events at the time said they insisted on screening questions to protect the integrity of a former president at unfamiliar venues controlled by unknown hosts. There was a risk, one said, of it becoming a “circus act” if too much was left to chance.
Henning asked Clinton about his pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who had been indicted in one of the biggest tax evasion cases in history.
As Clinton was delivering a fiery response, according to Henning’s emails, Clinton advisor Doug Band “came out on to the stage, whacked me on the back and said, ‘Get him off the stage; he is dying out there.’”
The negotiations that led to Clinton’s speeches in California would at time take bizarre turns. Vogel inserted a brief racist rant into one of his negotiating emails. “Our audiences are white,” he wrote to the Harry Walker Agency in January of 2001; “some of them actually have morals/ethics.”
He also mockingly referred to Band and another Clinton aide who would be traveling with him as “monica, monica,” a reference to Clinton’s philandering with Monica Lewinsky. The Harry Walker Agency, which represent Bill and Hillary Clinton, did not let any of it interfere with closing a deal.
The agency did not return calls and emails. Reached at his home, Vogel, who has retired, declined to comment beyond saying the emails reviewed by The Times were confidential.
“We never give out that information,” he said. “That’s private information.”
Clinton would demand in his contract to be shuttled by private jet from San Francisco to UC Davis, where he spoke at the Mondavi Center. The center had to appeal to its network of donors to find someone able to fly him the 70 miles, something it had never done and hasn’t since. “That is the one and only time,” said Jeremy Ganter, director of programming at the Mondavi Center.
All things Clinton
The center also found itself, along with the other event hosts on that Clinton swing, in the awkward position of having to pay some oddly large expenses.
Fearful that their costs would get out of hand, the event organizers worked with the Fairmont to discreetly view the charges being rung up by Clinton and his entourage on each of the five days they stayed there. Assurances from the Harry Walker Agency that they were “reasonable expenses for a president traveling on the road for week” and that “we have never had a client complain” provided little comfort to the event hosts.
They ultimately got socked with the $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two.
There were other worries, too, like a limo ride. Who would the president ride with? It so happened that one of the Mondavi Center’s big donors, Angelo Tsakopoulas, is also a whale for the Democrats, so his name emerged. Organizers could not recall whether that limo ride happened.
Then, there were the people to keep away from Clinton. “Are there any restrictions of who introduces him at the lecture?” said notes sent around by UC Davis organizers. There was only one name listed, that of the unpopular governor who within a year would find himself recalled from office: “Gray Davis.”
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Evan Halper
When former presidents and other dignitaries traveled to California to wax nostalgic on the speaking circuit, they may have been demanding, but none insisted on being flown from San Francisco by private jet to a venue just 70 miles down the freeway.
That was before Bill Clinton came along.
ADVERTISING
Clinton changed the rules of political speech-making for cash. He would push not just corporate hosts but also nonprofits and universities to pay fees well beyond what they were accustomed to. His aides would turn what had been a freewheeling format into tightly scripted events where every question from the audience was screened. He and Hillary Clinton would become so skilled at churning profits out of their lectures that they would net more than $150 million from speaking alone after he left the White House.
Contracts and internal emails connected to half a dozen speeches Clinton gave in the Bay Area soon after departing the White House offer a glimpse into the unusual demands and outsize expense reports associated with bringing him to town. The events took place as part of a speaker series sponsored by the Foothill Deanza Community College District, another by UC Davis and another run by a for-profit firm. The community college hosted him again in 2012. The documents became public through an open-records request filed by the Republican National Committee amid a presidential race in which the lucrative speaking fees paid to the Clintons are being closely examined.
They show a former president who deftly avoided discussing past scandals by refusing questions that were not screened by his staff in advance. There is the nearly $1,400 bill for a day’s worth of phone calls from San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel and the $700 dinner for two. And they also show that an agency representing Clinton continued to pursue a deal with an event host who emailed a racist remark about audiences and jokingly referred to the male aides Clinton traveled with as his mistresses.
Speechmaking is as politically charged as it is lucrative for the Clintons. Hillary Clinton’s refusal to disclose transcripts from speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs and other large corporations has become a campaign liability. Her husband’s collection of fees from corporations of as much as $750,000 for a single speech is a source of relentless charges of conflict of interest from critics.
By his advisors’ own admission, the former president pushed the limits of what could be charged for speeches when he entered the market in 2001.
Hillary Clinton would later say her family at that time was “dead broke” and deep in debt after years of attorneys’ fees related to impeachment and other Clinton controversies. The going rate for former presidents to deliver remarks in a public venue had been in the range of $60,000 per speech.
Event organizers in California were taken aback when Bill Clinton, freshly signed by the Harry Walker Agency, demanded double that amount. They assumed he would ultimately take the $60,000 they had paid to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Jimmy Carter.
He wouldn’t. Bill Clinton collected $100,000 per speech for six events over the course of a week in November 2002. The newly disclosed records offer little insight into the role Clinton himself played in pushing the fees up and demanding unorthodox arrangements for expenses. The former president has been known to leave such money issues to his handlers, often remaining aloof to the day-to-day accounting details involved in the intertwined Clinton business and nonprofit empires.
The fee hardly entitled audiences to a candid interaction with the former president. The contract with the two events at a speaker series affiliated with Foothill-Deanza Community College District demanded all questions receive approval from Clinton’s staff.
“We wish we never had to give in to that,” said Richard Henning, who runs the series, which has hosted all but one former president since Gerald Ford. “He is the only person I can think of that required it. It has never happened before or since.”
He is the only person I can think of that required [question screening]. It has never happened before or since.— Richard Henning, speaker series manager at Foothill-Deanza Community College District[FONT=trb_Icons][/FONT]
Despite the soaring costs, event organizers say the speeches did not drain the budgets of the community colleges or university, which used a combination of ticket revenue and scaling back their spending on other speakers and performers to keep Clinton from breaking the bank. Those interviewed by The Times say they have no regrets about bringing Clinton to their audiences.
But they may have some lingering heartburn.
Henning worked with UC Davis and an entrepreneur named Bruce Vogel, who ran another speaker series in the Bay Area, to hire Clinton for consecutive events each group held independently in 2002. Henning and Vogel seemed to be deeply frustrated as they tried to negotiate with Clinton’s people over what questions would be acceptable to ask him while he was on stage.
“Terrible, and terribly general,” is how Vogel described some queries proposed by the former president’s staff, which included the question: “Is the world a better place now than when you entered politics, with a view to making a difference?”
“I’m almost embarrassed to ask them,” Vogel wrote in an email. Henning had warned in a separate message: “People will fall asleep.”
Apparently, even Clinton agreed. After a lackluster question-and-answer exchange at Henning’s first event, the former president encouraged him to ask some tougher questions the next night.
Clinton aides involved with the events at the time said they insisted on screening questions to protect the integrity of a former president at unfamiliar venues controlled by unknown hosts. There was a risk, one said, of it becoming a “circus act” if too much was left to chance.
Henning asked Clinton about his pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, who had been indicted in one of the biggest tax evasion cases in history.
As Clinton was delivering a fiery response, according to Henning’s emails, Clinton advisor Doug Band “came out on to the stage, whacked me on the back and said, ‘Get him off the stage; he is dying out there.’”
The negotiations that led to Clinton’s speeches in California would at time take bizarre turns. Vogel inserted a brief racist rant into one of his negotiating emails. “Our audiences are white,” he wrote to the Harry Walker Agency in January of 2001; “some of them actually have morals/ethics.”
He also mockingly referred to Band and another Clinton aide who would be traveling with him as “monica, monica,” a reference to Clinton’s philandering with Monica Lewinsky. The Harry Walker Agency, which represent Bill and Hillary Clinton, did not let any of it interfere with closing a deal.
The agency did not return calls and emails. Reached at his home, Vogel, who has retired, declined to comment beyond saying the emails reviewed by The Times were confidential.
“We never give out that information,” he said. “That’s private information.”
Clinton would demand in his contract to be shuttled by private jet from San Francisco to UC Davis, where he spoke at the Mondavi Center. The center had to appeal to its network of donors to find someone able to fly him the 70 miles, something it had never done and hasn’t since. “That is the one and only time,” said Jeremy Ganter, director of programming at the Mondavi Center.
The center also found itself, along with the other event hosts on that Clinton swing, in the awkward position of having to pay some oddly large expenses.
Fearful that their costs would get out of hand, the event organizers worked with the Fairmont to discreetly view the charges being rung up by Clinton and his entourage on each of the five days they stayed there. Assurances from the Harry Walker Agency that they were “reasonable expenses for a president traveling on the road for week” and that “we have never had a client complain” provided little comfort to the event hosts.
They ultimately got socked with the $1,400 hotel phone bill and $700 dinner for two.
There were other worries, too, like a limo ride. Who would the president ride with? It so happened that one of the Mondavi Center’s big donors, Angelo Tsakopoulas, is also a whale for the Democrats, so his name emerged. Organizers could not recall whether that limo ride happened.
Then, there were the people to keep away from Clinton. “Are there any restrictions of who introduces him at the lecture?” said notes sent around by UC Davis organizers. There was only one name listed, that of the unpopular governor who within a year would find himself recalled from office: “Gray Davis.”
[/FONT]
[h=1]Hillary’s Great Escape: How FBI Email Scandal Dismissal Put Clinton Above the Law[/h]
The Associated Press
by JAMES ZUMWALT11 Jul 2016126
[h=2]Bryan Nishimura must have been shocked to learn about Hillary Clinton’s “great escape” from an indictment for her “extremely careless” handling of classified material on her private email servers.[/h]A year ago, the FBI helped convict Nishimura — a U.S. Navy reservist and Afghan war veteran — of committing the same crime for which Hillary will not be indicted. The FBI criminally prosecuted Nishmura for having classified material on at least one personal electronic device — its use unauthorized by the U.S. government.
Specifically, Nishmura’s charge was having “handled classified materials inappropriately” — to which he pled guilty. The FBI recommended prosecution without any evidence he intended to distribute the information. Nishmura’s crime, just like that of Clinton and her aides, was extreme carelessness in using an unauthorized electronic device for transmitting classified material.
Comey made a patently false representation during his Hillary-not-to-be-indicted statement — one a review of his own FBI files would have reflected. He asserted of other cases where the FBI opted to prosecute:
Another person undoubtedly surprised by the FBI’s decision is former CIA spy-turned-traitor Edward Snowden, who tweeted: “Break classification rules for the public’s benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be president.”
While opting not to prosecute, Comey also did not give Hillary a free pass. He left no doubt her actions were inexcusable. As one critic summed up Comey’s fifteen minute drubbing of the former Secretary of State’s conduct: “…Here, in detail, is how Hillary Clinton spilled state secrets and lied about it non-stop since March 2015. Regardless, she should walk away scot-free.”
Just as in the Nishmura case, intent was not a requirement for prosecution in Hillary’s case. Many legal scholars make clear Comey’s reliance upon intent is simply unfounded. One of them, long-time Comey friend and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, noted: “There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey…Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18).”
McCarthy stated Comey’s assertion intent is required is a complete misinterpretation of the law.
Perhaps to toss a crumb to those suffering distress over his decision, Comey added:
House Speaker Paul Ryan has suggested Comey’s condemnation of Hillary should result in her being denied access to classified information as a presidential candidate.
While all of this leaves many wondering whether the word “Equal” in the creed appearing above the main portico of the U.S. Supreme Court building, “Equal Justice Under Law,” should be deleted, the FBI announcement is accompanied by two examples reflecting further bad judgment by Hillary and/or the Obama Administration.
The first involved Bill Clinton’s private meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at a Phoenix, Arizona, airport, days before the FBI’s decision. It was irresponsible on the part of both participants to engage in conduct suggesting impropriety. Furthermore, the Secret Service ordering a press blackout on the meeting only added to perceptions something just did not smell right.
The second involved Hillary’s location at the time Comey issued his statement. She wasabout to board Air Force One with President Barack Obama to go to Charlotte, North Carolina, for a campaign rally.
While the President obviously would have been briefed on the FBI’s decision beforehand, nonetheless, it gives the outward appearance of inappropriateness and possible conspiracy that Obama would have made prior arrangements to travel with Hillary at such a time.
The conspiracy theory is also supported by Hillary’s confident assurances, given a month earlier, she would not be indicted despite conduct clearly violating Section 793(f)’s specific standard of “gross negligence” (i.e., extremely careless) in the handling of classified information.
At Hillary’s rally, Obama said: “I’m here today because I believe in Hillary Clinton. There has never been a man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton. Ever. And that’s the truth.”
It was an oddly-timed observation by Obama after Comey had provided a litany of reasons why Hillary was unqualified to hold the office. Is Obama suggesting we accept Comey’s decision not to indict Hillary but ignore all else he said about her?
Of course, Obama did leave himself an out, claiming, “And that’s the truth.” We now know, based on disclosures by Obama’s own foreign policy guru, Ben Rhodes, the administration’s standard for truth is non-existent. This was evidenced by Rhodes’ boast the administration lied to the media to help move the nuclear deal with Iran forward.
Telling the truth about U.S. national security has never been a requirement for Obama. Such an unequivocal statement about Hillary’s qualifications should be taken in that vein.
Nor should it be ignored a criminal investigation into Hillary’s conduct is still ongoing as to allegations Clinton Foundation donors paid-to-play. Hillary’s actions concerning foundation donors, while possibly criminal, has prompted a separate investigation of conduct which—at a minimum—reflects further bad judgment by her.
Such judgment endangers our national security, tying up dozens of FBI investigators who could better focus their attention on identifying potential security threats, such as that presented by Orlando mass killer Omar Mateen.
As one pundit suggests, Hillary has made the FBI’s Least-Wanted List.
Hillary managed a great escape once; will she do so again?
89
3
by JAMES ZUMWALT11 Jul 2016126
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]Bryan Nishimura must have been shocked to learn about Hillary Clinton’s “great escape” from an indictment for her “extremely careless” handling of classified material on her private email servers.[/h]A year ago, the FBI helped convict Nishimura — a U.S. Navy reservist and Afghan war veteran — of committing the same crime for which Hillary will not be indicted. The FBI criminally prosecuted Nishmura for having classified material on at least one personal electronic device — its use unauthorized by the U.S. government.
Specifically, Nishmura’s charge was having “handled classified materials inappropriately” — to which he pled guilty. The FBI recommended prosecution without any evidence he intended to distribute the information. Nishmura’s crime, just like that of Clinton and her aides, was extreme carelessness in using an unauthorized electronic device for transmitting classified material.
Comey made a patently false representation during his Hillary-not-to-be-indicted statement — one a review of his own FBI files would have reflected. He asserted of other cases where the FBI opted to prosecute:
All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Apparently, Comey’s files do not go back twelve months to the Nishmura case.
Another person undoubtedly surprised by the FBI’s decision is former CIA spy-turned-traitor Edward Snowden, who tweeted: “Break classification rules for the public’s benefit, and you could be exiled. Do it for personal benefit, and you could be president.”
While opting not to prosecute, Comey also did not give Hillary a free pass. He left no doubt her actions were inexcusable. As one critic summed up Comey’s fifteen minute drubbing of the former Secretary of State’s conduct: “…Here, in detail, is how Hillary Clinton spilled state secrets and lied about it non-stop since March 2015. Regardless, she should walk away scot-free.”
Just as in the Nishmura case, intent was not a requirement for prosecution in Hillary’s case. Many legal scholars make clear Comey’s reliance upon intent is simply unfounded. One of them, long-time Comey friend and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, noted: “There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey…Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18).”
McCarthy stated Comey’s assertion intent is required is a complete misinterpretation of the law.
Perhaps to toss a crumb to those suffering distress over his decision, Comey added:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
Yet why, then, were such sanctions—rather than persecution—not sought for Nishmura?
House Speaker Paul Ryan has suggested Comey’s condemnation of Hillary should result in her being denied access to classified information as a presidential candidate.
While all of this leaves many wondering whether the word “Equal” in the creed appearing above the main portico of the U.S. Supreme Court building, “Equal Justice Under Law,” should be deleted, the FBI announcement is accompanied by two examples reflecting further bad judgment by Hillary and/or the Obama Administration.
The first involved Bill Clinton’s private meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at a Phoenix, Arizona, airport, days before the FBI’s decision. It was irresponsible on the part of both participants to engage in conduct suggesting impropriety. Furthermore, the Secret Service ordering a press blackout on the meeting only added to perceptions something just did not smell right.
The second involved Hillary’s location at the time Comey issued his statement. She wasabout to board Air Force One with President Barack Obama to go to Charlotte, North Carolina, for a campaign rally.
While the President obviously would have been briefed on the FBI’s decision beforehand, nonetheless, it gives the outward appearance of inappropriateness and possible conspiracy that Obama would have made prior arrangements to travel with Hillary at such a time.
The conspiracy theory is also supported by Hillary’s confident assurances, given a month earlier, she would not be indicted despite conduct clearly violating Section 793(f)’s specific standard of “gross negligence” (i.e., extremely careless) in the handling of classified information.
At Hillary’s rally, Obama said: “I’m here today because I believe in Hillary Clinton. There has never been a man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton. Ever. And that’s the truth.”
It was an oddly-timed observation by Obama after Comey had provided a litany of reasons why Hillary was unqualified to hold the office. Is Obama suggesting we accept Comey’s decision not to indict Hillary but ignore all else he said about her?
Of course, Obama did leave himself an out, claiming, “And that’s the truth.” We now know, based on disclosures by Obama’s own foreign policy guru, Ben Rhodes, the administration’s standard for truth is non-existent. This was evidenced by Rhodes’ boast the administration lied to the media to help move the nuclear deal with Iran forward.
Telling the truth about U.S. national security has never been a requirement for Obama. Such an unequivocal statement about Hillary’s qualifications should be taken in that vein.
Nor should it be ignored a criminal investigation into Hillary’s conduct is still ongoing as to allegations Clinton Foundation donors paid-to-play. Hillary’s actions concerning foundation donors, while possibly criminal, has prompted a separate investigation of conduct which—at a minimum—reflects further bad judgment by her.
Such judgment endangers our national security, tying up dozens of FBI investigators who could better focus their attention on identifying potential security threats, such as that presented by Orlando mass killer Omar Mateen.
As one pundit suggests, Hillary has made the FBI’s Least-Wanted List.
Hillary managed a great escape once; will she do so again?
[h=1]Meet the ‘Little People’: Those Punished for Far Less Than What Clinton Did[/h]
by EDWIN MORA11 Jul 2016448
[h=2]Several people have been punished for a similar or lesser offense than what Hillary Clinton is getting away with — being “extremely careless” in handling “very sensitive, highly classified information,” as FBI Director James Comey has said.[/h]In announcing that the FBI will not recommend charges in the Clinton email scandal, Comey appeared to suggest that if someone other than the Democratic presidential nominee mishandles classified information, that person would be punished.
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” he conceded. “To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Comey noted:
The Political Insider provides 10 examples of people who have been punished for a similar or lesser offense than what Clinton did:
709
12
by EDWIN MORA11 Jul 2016448
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]Several people have been punished for a similar or lesser offense than what Hillary Clinton is getting away with — being “extremely careless” in handling “very sensitive, highly classified information,” as FBI Director James Comey has said.[/h]In announcing that the FBI will not recommend charges in the Clinton email scandal, Comey appeared to suggest that if someone other than the Democratic presidential nominee mishandles classified information, that person would be punished.
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” he conceded. “To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Comey noted:
Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
He argued that there was no recent precedent for bringing a criminal case against Clinton without evidence of willful intent or gross negligence.
The Political Insider provides 10 examples of people who have been punished for a similar or lesser offense than what Clinton did:
Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser guilty of Destroying Documents in National Archives: ‘Sandy Berger … pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.’
State Department Official Fired and Security Clearance Revoked After Linking to Classified Wikileaks Document: Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton…
Bill Clinton’s CIA Director Was Pardoned During Plea Negotiations for Storing Classified Data on Home Computer: John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband.
Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material: Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pled guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials during stints in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008…Nishimura was sentenced to two years probation, fined $7,500, and had to surrender his security clearance.
Sailor Smuggles Classified Docs off Ship: ‘A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.’
Low Level Submarine Shipmate Prosecuted for Less Serious Crime than Clinton: Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier allegedly used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation. He was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice.
Marine Corps. Major Caught Sending Classified Documents to Superiors Using Personal Email: Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps when he ‘accidentally took home 14 documents on his personal computer, some of which were classified.’ According to the report, Brezler was ‘in a graduate school class when he received an urgent email from military officials in Afghanistan and sent a specific document in response, using his personal email account.’
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility: Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to ‘knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.’
NSA Manager gives Classified Info to Newspaper: A National Security Agency manager was indicted on allegations of willful retention of ‘national defense’ or classified information, obstruction of justice and making a false statement, after he allegedly ‘passed classified information to a Baltimore Sun reporter who wrote stories exposing NSA mismanagement.’ Charges were dropped and the NSA manager pleaded to a misdemeanor, in what was called a victory against the Obama administration whom had attempted to use dated laws to prosecute leakers of classified information…
State Dept. Official Steals Classified Docs: Donald Willis Keyser earned over a year in prison when he ‘pled guilty to a three-count Criminal Information in which he admitted that he willfully and unlawfully removed classified documents and digital memory devices from the Department of State to his residence.’ United States Attorney Chuck Rosenberg stated that… ‘His (Keyser’s) sentence of imprisonment is a warning to others in positions of public trust.’
State Department Official Fired and Security Clearance Revoked After Linking to Classified Wikileaks Document: Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton…
Bill Clinton’s CIA Director Was Pardoned During Plea Negotiations for Storing Classified Data on Home Computer: John Deutch, CIA director under President Clinton, was found to have classified information on a government-owned computer in his home several days after he left the CIA. He had to be pardoned in the middle of plea negotiations by Hillary’s husband.
Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material: Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pled guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials during stints in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008…Nishimura was sentenced to two years probation, fined $7,500, and had to surrender his security clearance.
Sailor Smuggles Classified Docs off Ship: ‘A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.’
Low Level Submarine Shipmate Prosecuted for Less Serious Crime than Clinton: Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier allegedly used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation. He was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice.
Marine Corps. Major Caught Sending Classified Documents to Superiors Using Personal Email: Maj. Jason Brezler was dismissed from the Marine Corps when he ‘accidentally took home 14 documents on his personal computer, some of which were classified.’ According to the report, Brezler was ‘in a graduate school class when he received an urgent email from military officials in Afghanistan and sent a specific document in response, using his personal email account.’
Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility: Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to ‘knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.’
NSA Manager gives Classified Info to Newspaper: A National Security Agency manager was indicted on allegations of willful retention of ‘national defense’ or classified information, obstruction of justice and making a false statement, after he allegedly ‘passed classified information to a Baltimore Sun reporter who wrote stories exposing NSA mismanagement.’ Charges were dropped and the NSA manager pleaded to a misdemeanor, in what was called a victory against the Obama administration whom had attempted to use dated laws to prosecute leakers of classified information…
State Dept. Official Steals Classified Docs: Donald Willis Keyser earned over a year in prison when he ‘pled guilty to a three-count Criminal Information in which he admitted that he willfully and unlawfully removed classified documents and digital memory devices from the Department of State to his residence.’ United States Attorney Chuck Rosenberg stated that… ‘His (Keyser’s) sentence of imprisonment is a warning to others in positions of public trust.’
[h=1]Congress Moves to Ban Private Email, Server Use at State Department[/h][h=2]New legislation aims to fix security fallout over Clinton emails[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Adam Kredo
July 12, 2016 5:00 am
Congress will introduce legislation to ban all State Department officials from using private email accounts and servers to conduct any official business, the Free Beacon has learned.
The legislation, to be introduced Tuesday by Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.) and viewed by the Free Beacon, comes in direct response to the repeated disclosure of sensitive classified materials as a result of Democratic presidential frontrunner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
U.S. officials familiar with the legislation characterized it as a sweeping reform effort meant to ensure that U.S. officials never again jeopardize national security through the use of private email accounts and servers like those used by Clinton.
The FBI recently decided not to recommend prosecution for Clinton’s “extremely careless” actions, and there is no formal ban to stop State Department officials from utilizing a similar setup in the future. Experts have warned that this type of system interferes with transparency and can leave sensitive information subject to hacking attacks.
Perdue told the Free Beacon that the new legislation would help avoid a similar scandal in the future.
“Isn’t it obvious that the federal government should not be sending sensitive and classified information through insecure channels?” Perdue asked in a statement provided to the Free Beacon. “All records should be properly preserved to ensure full integrity and transparency. This bill will restore accountability at the State Department by improving management protocols so our country’s classified information remains secure.”
The State Department continues to suffer from major oversight and security flaws, according to Perdue, who said his legislation would help close these gaps.
“There are serious and systemic security management problems at the State Department that span the tenure of several secretaries,” said Perdue, chair of the Senate subcommittee overseeing the State Department. “Most recently during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, these security weaknesses were amplified by the use of private email servers and non-governmental email accounts.”
The FBI and other government authorities, including the State Department’s own inspector general, have determined that “the State Department is lacking when it comes to cyber security for data communications,” Perdue added. “It is unacceptable for an agency that handles our nation’s security secrets to be so vulnerable.”
The legislation’s most significant reform would prohibit the use of all communications systems not owned and managed by a government agency. This prohibition would extend to private email domains. The legislation additionally directs the State Department’s inspector general to enact a plan to ensure all employees are complying with the reform.
The legislative proposal would require all employees holding security clearances to attend mandatory training sessions on how to handle classified information.
Random quarterly email audits would also be conducted to ensure that classified information is not being inappropriately handled, according to the legislation.
Methods to archive information sent over official servers would be strengthened by the legislation, which would ensure that all officials sign sworn affidavits guaranteeing that information and documents have been properly archived.
Congressional oversight of the State Department also would be strengthened under the legislation, which would require the department to submit annual reports to Congress detailing every security violation that occurred over the year.
TWEET
Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.) / AP
BY: Adam Kredo
July 12, 2016 5:00 am
Congress will introduce legislation to ban all State Department officials from using private email accounts and servers to conduct any official business, the Free Beacon has learned.
The legislation, to be introduced Tuesday by Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.) and viewed by the Free Beacon, comes in direct response to the repeated disclosure of sensitive classified materials as a result of Democratic presidential frontrunner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
U.S. officials familiar with the legislation characterized it as a sweeping reform effort meant to ensure that U.S. officials never again jeopardize national security through the use of private email accounts and servers like those used by Clinton.
The FBI recently decided not to recommend prosecution for Clinton’s “extremely careless” actions, and there is no formal ban to stop State Department officials from utilizing a similar setup in the future. Experts have warned that this type of system interferes with transparency and can leave sensitive information subject to hacking attacks.
Perdue told the Free Beacon that the new legislation would help avoid a similar scandal in the future.
“Isn’t it obvious that the federal government should not be sending sensitive and classified information through insecure channels?” Perdue asked in a statement provided to the Free Beacon. “All records should be properly preserved to ensure full integrity and transparency. This bill will restore accountability at the State Department by improving management protocols so our country’s classified information remains secure.”
The State Department continues to suffer from major oversight and security flaws, according to Perdue, who said his legislation would help close these gaps.
“There are serious and systemic security management problems at the State Department that span the tenure of several secretaries,” said Perdue, chair of the Senate subcommittee overseeing the State Department. “Most recently during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, these security weaknesses were amplified by the use of private email servers and non-governmental email accounts.”
The FBI and other government authorities, including the State Department’s own inspector general, have determined that “the State Department is lacking when it comes to cyber security for data communications,” Perdue added. “It is unacceptable for an agency that handles our nation’s security secrets to be so vulnerable.”
The legislation’s most significant reform would prohibit the use of all communications systems not owned and managed by a government agency. This prohibition would extend to private email domains. The legislation additionally directs the State Department’s inspector general to enact a plan to ensure all employees are complying with the reform.
The legislative proposal would require all employees holding security clearances to attend mandatory training sessions on how to handle classified information.
Random quarterly email audits would also be conducted to ensure that classified information is not being inappropriately handled, according to the legislation.
Methods to archive information sent over official servers would be strengthened by the legislation, which would ensure that all officials sign sworn affidavits guaranteeing that information and documents have been properly archived.
Congressional oversight of the State Department also would be strengthened under the legislation, which would require the department to submit annual reports to Congress detailing every security violation that occurred over the year.
Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury because "he knew or should have known who Valerie Plame was two weeks before he said he knew who she was", because her name was mentioned at a meeting he attended.
Throw in the fact that the investigation was about a crime that never occurred, and baddafuckingbing, youse have the epitome of hypocrisy
Bubba Clinton committed perjury while defending himself in front of the federal court, then the little blue dress resulted in an instantaneous out of court settlement. Did he go to jail?
Hillary now is obviously committing perjury in an attempt to cover up an actual crime she herself committed, do you think the fucking idiots think she should go to jail?
There is the Clinton double standard, made possible by the democratic propaganda machine (a/k/a the media) and the incredible ignorance and hypocrisy of her base
Throw in the fact that the investigation was about a crime that never occurred, and baddafuckingbing, youse have the epitome of hypocrisy
Bubba Clinton committed perjury while defending himself in front of the federal court, then the little blue dress resulted in an instantaneous out of court settlement. Did he go to jail?
Hillary now is obviously committing perjury in an attempt to cover up an actual crime she herself committed, do you think the fucking idiots think she should go to jail?
There is the Clinton double standard, made possible by the democratic propaganda machine (a/k/a the media) and the incredible ignorance and hypocrisy of her base
[h=1]Bill Clinton's alleged ex-lover comes out with bombshell claims[/h]
AOL.COM EDITORS
Jun 12th 2016 5:00AM
An alleged ex-lover of Bill Clinton is providing an racy inside look at the relationship between the former president and current presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton-- including Bill Clinton being a self-described "sex addict"
The reveals are from a new bombshell book titled "Hillary the Other Woman."Author and former Dallas attorney Dolly Kyle claims to have been in a "a decades-long affair that lasted despite marriages and politics all the way to the threshold of the White House when she became a political liability."
Now, Kyle is spilling all the beans in the controversial tell-all book.
See some of the women who've made scandalous claims about Clinton
SEE PHOTOS9 PHOTOS
According to Kyle the former president told her that he had sex with around 2,000 women, and that he and Hillary needed to have a child so they would "appear to be a normal couple."
Kyle claims she began having relations with Bill Clinton after high school, with their affair continuing until he moved into the White House.
Regarding the former secretary of state, Kyle alleges that when she met her she was wearing a 'misshapen, brown, dress-like thing that must have been intended to hide her lumpy body.'
AOL.COM EDITORS
Jun 12th 2016 5:00AM
X
An alleged ex-lover of Bill Clinton is providing an racy inside look at the relationship between the former president and current presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton-- including Bill Clinton being a self-described "sex addict"
The reveals are from a new bombshell book titled "Hillary the Other Woman."Author and former Dallas attorney Dolly Kyle claims to have been in a "a decades-long affair that lasted despite marriages and politics all the way to the threshold of the White House when she became a political liability."
Now, Kyle is spilling all the beans in the controversial tell-all book.
See some of the women who've made scandalous claims about Clinton
According to Kyle the former president told her that he had sex with around 2,000 women, and that he and Hillary needed to have a child so they would "appear to be a normal couple."
Kyle claims she began having relations with Bill Clinton after high school, with their affair continuing until he moved into the White House.
Regarding the former secretary of state, Kyle alleges that when she met her she was wearing a 'misshapen, brown, dress-like thing that must have been intended to hide her lumpy body.'
