20. Is your opinion of Donald Trump favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
--Quinnipiac
Hillary Clinton trails Sanders in New Hampshire, even without Joe Biden in the race
Sanders has the backing of nearly half of those who say they plan to vote in the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary next year -- 46% support him -- while just 30% say they back Clinton.
==
Now I would like to point out the favorability ratings (they are often referred to as 'internals') in this "voter poll" but I admit this will confuse rank idiot vittard who may very well make 5 posts falsely asserting someone posted a "favorable poll"
Ok:
Democratic Favorability Ratings
Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is now the most popular Democrat running for President. More than three-quarters (78%) of likely Democratic Primary voters have a favorable opinion of Sanders, only 11% have an unfavorable opinion of him, 8% are neutral, and 3% don’t know enough about him to say. Sanders’ net favorability rating is a very high +67%.
Vice President Joe Biden has the second highest favorability ratings with a +52% net favorability rating while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a +44% net favorability rating.
Sanders’ net favorability rating have steadily increased over 2015 from +34% in February, to +67% in September. Clinton’s have eroded through the same period, from +74% in February to +44% in September
FEEL THE BERN!
Sanders has the backing of nearly half of those who say they plan to vote in the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary next year -- 46% support him -- while just 30% say they back Clinton.
==
Now I would like to point out the favorability ratings (they are often referred to as 'internals') in this "voter poll" but I admit this will confuse rank idiot vittard who may very well make 5 posts falsely asserting someone posted a "favorable poll"
Ok:
Democratic Favorability Ratings
Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is now the most popular Democrat running for President. More than three-quarters (78%) of likely Democratic Primary voters have a favorable opinion of Sanders, only 11% have an unfavorable opinion of him, 8% are neutral, and 3% don’t know enough about him to say. Sanders’ net favorability rating is a very high +67%.
Vice President Joe Biden has the second highest favorability ratings with a +52% net favorability rating while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a +44% net favorability rating.
Sanders’ net favorability rating have steadily increased over 2015 from +34% in February, to +67% in September. Clinton’s have eroded through the same period, from +74% in February to +44% in September
FEEL THE BERN!
NBC’s Chuck Todd Can’t Believe Hillary Is Down Double Digits In New Hampshire [VIDEO]
“Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd could not believe how bad Hillary Clinton is doing in the polls in New Hampshire on Friday’s “Morning Joe.”
A recent WMUR/CNN poll shows Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton 46 percent to 30 percent in New Hampshire. Joe Biden has 14 percent. Clinton’s poll numbers are down 12 points since July. Even more strikingly, Clinton has fallen 26 percent to become tied with Bernie Sanders at 42 percent on who is most likely to win the state.
Joe Scarborough: What’s the feeling inside the Clinton camp? How low can this go, and what’s the plan to stem the bleeding?
Chuck Todd: I don’t know if they have a plan to stem the bleeding right now. I think part of it is to put her out there more. You know, I’ve got her on the show this Sunday. I think she’s doing a town hall with the “Today” show a week later. That seems to be part of their plan.
Scarborough: How bad do those numbers look to you, Chuck?
Todd: I saw them yesterday, and I said, ‘Double digits? She’s down double digits in New Hampshire?’ Can we take a minute here and realize Hillary Clinton is down double digits to Bernie Sanders? … I thought I was misreading it. I know he’s doing well in New Hampshire.
Scarborough: Sixteen points. Sixteen points.
Todd: That’s an astounding number. You take Biden out, and he’s still ahead. I mean, you combine Clinton and Biden, and Sanders is still ahead.
Chuck Todd: I don’t know if they have a plan to stem the bleeding right now. I think part of it is to put her out there more. You know, I’ve got her on the show this Sunday. I think she’s doing a town hall with the “Today” show a week later. That seems to be part of their plan.
Scarborough: How bad do those numbers look to you, Chuck?
Todd: I saw them yesterday, and I said, ‘Double digits? She’s down double digits in New Hampshire?’ Can we take a minute here and realize Hillary Clinton is down double digits to Bernie Sanders? … I thought I was misreading it. I know he’s doing well in New Hampshire.
Scarborough: Sixteen points. Sixteen points.
Todd: That’s an astounding number. You take Biden out, and he’s still ahead. I mean, you combine Clinton and Biden, and Sanders is still ahead.
@)
Flashback:
Acting in response to a request from a federal judge, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday submitted her first official, formal certification under penalty of perjury that she had all her work-related email turned over to the State Department.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...handover-but-aides-demur-212074#ixzz3mmQLLFVc
OOPSIE:
Acting in response to a request from a federal judge, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Friday submitted her first official, formal certification under penalty of perjury that she had all her work-related email turned over to the State Department.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...handover-but-aides-demur-212074#ixzz3mmQLLFVc
OOPSIE:
‘MEET THE PRESS’ FORCES HILLARY CLINTON TO WATCH VIDEO OF ALL HER POLITICAL FLIP FLOPS!
Posted by soopermexican on Sep 27, 2015 at 7:59 PM in Politics | 48 Comments
By soopermexican
The one thing Chuck Todd did right in the interview of Hillary Clinton was making her respond to a great video about all her flip flops.
You gotta watch this:
[video=youtube;3BDligh5Ivg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=145&v=3BDligh5Ivg[/video]
This is exactly why the American people trust her so little and why she’s dropping in the polls. And her long rambling answer didn’t help LOL!
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/meet-the-p...f-all-her-political-flip-flops/#ixzz3mzxYcI9Y
Posted by soopermexican on Sep 27, 2015 at 7:59 PM in Politics | 48 Comments
By soopermexican
The one thing Chuck Todd did right in the interview of Hillary Clinton was making her respond to a great video about all her flip flops.
You gotta watch this:
[video=youtube;3BDligh5Ivg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=145&v=3BDligh5Ivg[/video]
This is exactly why the American people trust her so little and why she’s dropping in the polls. And her long rambling answer didn’t help LOL!
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/meet-the-p...f-all-her-political-flip-flops/#ixzz3mzxYcI9Y
[h=2]Clinton Aide Shared Classified Information With Foundation, Email Shows[/h]Cheryl Mills sent information marked ‘confidential’ to Clinton Foundation in 2012
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Alana Goodman
September 28, 2015 5:00 am
A member of Hillary Clinton’s staff at the Department of State emailed classified information about the government in Congo to a staffer at the Clinton Foundation in 2012, according to a copy of the correspondenceobtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, sent the email to the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director, Amitabh Desai, on July 12, 2012.
The message, which was originally obtained by the group Citizens United through a public recordsrequest, is partially redacted because it includes “foreign government information” that has been classified as “Confidential” by the State Department.
Although the information was not marked classified by the State Department until this past summer, intelligence sources tell the Free Beacon that it would have been classified at the time Mills sent it because “foreign government information” is considered classified from inception.
The message could add to concerns from congressional and FBI investigators about whether former Secretary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while at the State Department.
The email, which discussed the relationship between the governments in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, was originally drafted by Johnnie Carson, the State Department’s assistant secretary for African affairs, who sent it to Mills’ State Department email address.
Mills later forwarded the full message to Desai along with “talking points for Presient [sic] Clinton” shortly before Bill Clinton was scheduled to visit the region.
About half of the forwarded message was redacted due to its classified nature before the State Department released it to Citizens United last month. Although it is not clear what the redacted section includes, the State Department said in a court motion filed last week that it “concerns both foreign government information and critical aspects of U.S. foreign relations, including U.S. foreign activities carried out by officials of the U.S. Government.”
The State Department added that the “disclosure of this information has the potential to damage and inject friction into our bilateral relationship with African countries whose cooperation is important to U.S. national security.”
The Clinton Foundation and the State Department did not respond to request for comment about the email, or say whether Desai—a non-government employee who has worked at the foundation since 2007—would have been authorized to view “Confidential” information.
Mills currently sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation. She previously served on the board until a month after she joined the State Department in 2009.
An attorney for Mills said that she never knowingly transmitted classified information, and would presume that any information sent to her unclassified State Department email address—as opposed to through the department’s secure email system—was unclassified.
“When a subject matter sent the information on the unclassified system, [Mills] presumed it was unclassified,” said the attorney. ”She never knowingly transmitted classified information.”
Mills’ spokesperson also disputed the notion that the information would have been classified when it was sent. The attorney said that some information is not deemed classified until it is transmitted outside of the State Department.
“Information that is considered unclassified when discussed inside the State Department can later be deemed classified when it is being released outside of the Department,” said the attorney.
Intelligence experts have told the Free Beacon and other media outlets that “foreign government information” is one of the few categories of information that is automatically presumed classified from the time the U.S. government receives it, because it is so diplomatically sensitive.
Foreign government information is “born classified,” J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office, told Reuters in August.
The controversy over Clinton’s use of a private email server while at the State Department has been dogging her presidential bid since it was first revealed by the New York Times earlier this spring.
The Democratic frontrunner has turned over many of her emails in response to a State Department request and congressional inquiries. However, she has said that any emails that were deemed “personal” were deleted from her server.
The FBI is currently attempting to recover the deleted emails as part of an investigation into her server, according to reports.
Clinton declined to say whether the FBI investigation could uncover additional damaging revelations, during an interview with Chuck Todd of Meet the Press on Sunday.
“All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process [of deleting personal emails], I did not participate,” said Clinton.
Clinton is scheduled to testify before Congress on the email issue in October.
SHARE
TWEET
Cheryl Mills / AP
BY: Alana Goodman
September 28, 2015 5:00 am
A member of Hillary Clinton’s staff at the Department of State emailed classified information about the government in Congo to a staffer at the Clinton Foundation in 2012, according to a copy of the correspondenceobtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, sent the email to the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director, Amitabh Desai, on July 12, 2012.
The message, which was originally obtained by the group Citizens United through a public recordsrequest, is partially redacted because it includes “foreign government information” that has been classified as “Confidential” by the State Department.
Although the information was not marked classified by the State Department until this past summer, intelligence sources tell the Free Beacon that it would have been classified at the time Mills sent it because “foreign government information” is considered classified from inception.
The message could add to concerns from congressional and FBI investigators about whether former Secretary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while at the State Department.
The email, which discussed the relationship between the governments in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, was originally drafted by Johnnie Carson, the State Department’s assistant secretary for African affairs, who sent it to Mills’ State Department email address.
Mills later forwarded the full message to Desai along with “talking points for Presient [sic] Clinton” shortly before Bill Clinton was scheduled to visit the region.
About half of the forwarded message was redacted due to its classified nature before the State Department released it to Citizens United last month. Although it is not clear what the redacted section includes, the State Department said in a court motion filed last week that it “concerns both foreign government information and critical aspects of U.S. foreign relations, including U.S. foreign activities carried out by officials of the U.S. Government.”
The State Department added that the “disclosure of this information has the potential to damage and inject friction into our bilateral relationship with African countries whose cooperation is important to U.S. national security.”
The Clinton Foundation and the State Department did not respond to request for comment about the email, or say whether Desai—a non-government employee who has worked at the foundation since 2007—would have been authorized to view “Confidential” information.
Mills currently sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation. She previously served on the board until a month after she joined the State Department in 2009.
An attorney for Mills said that she never knowingly transmitted classified information, and would presume that any information sent to her unclassified State Department email address—as opposed to through the department’s secure email system—was unclassified.
“When a subject matter sent the information on the unclassified system, [Mills] presumed it was unclassified,” said the attorney. ”She never knowingly transmitted classified information.”
Mills’ spokesperson also disputed the notion that the information would have been classified when it was sent. The attorney said that some information is not deemed classified until it is transmitted outside of the State Department.
“Information that is considered unclassified when discussed inside the State Department can later be deemed classified when it is being released outside of the Department,” said the attorney.
Intelligence experts have told the Free Beacon and other media outlets that “foreign government information” is one of the few categories of information that is automatically presumed classified from the time the U.S. government receives it, because it is so diplomatically sensitive.
Foreign government information is “born classified,” J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office, told Reuters in August.
The controversy over Clinton’s use of a private email server while at the State Department has been dogging her presidential bid since it was first revealed by the New York Times earlier this spring.
The Democratic frontrunner has turned over many of her emails in response to a State Department request and congressional inquiries. However, she has said that any emails that were deemed “personal” were deleted from her server.
The FBI is currently attempting to recover the deleted emails as part of an investigation into her server, according to reports.
Clinton declined to say whether the FBI investigation could uncover additional damaging revelations, during an interview with Chuck Todd of Meet the Press on Sunday.
“All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process [of deleting personal emails], I did not participate,” said Clinton.
Clinton is scheduled to testify before Congress on the email issue in October.
[h=2]Hillary Clinton Attends Fundraiser At Home of Convicted Felon[/h]FLASHBACK: Geraldine Ferraro's son sold cocaine to undercover cop
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
September 25, 2015 3:21 pm
Hillary Clinton attended a fundraiser on Thursday evening at the New York City home of John Zaccaro, who was convicted on felony drug charges after he sold cocaine to an undercover cop.
Zaccaro, the son of failed Democratic vice president candidate Gerraldine Ferraro, became the subject of national attention in the 1980s when he was charged with selling drugs at Vermont’s Middlebury College.
Zaccaro’s family lawyers requested that the charges be dismissed, but it was an uphill climb due to the overwhelming amount of evidence collected by police.
Zaccaro, 22 at the time, made the mistake of selling cocaine to an undercover police officer. A search of his house following the arrest uncovered various additional drugs and equipment such as electronic scales used by drug dealers.
Students at Middlebury claimed that Zaccaro was known as “the Pharmacist” on campus.
Lawyers for Zaccaro argued that it was entrapment, claiming that it was a pretty policewoman that convinced him to make the cocaine sale.
The argument failed. Despite pleas sent to the judge from many politically connected Democrats, including Ferraro’s running-mate Walter Mondale, a Vermont judge handed down a four month prison sentence to Zaccaro.
Many in Vermont came away upset at how much leniency was showed to Zaccaro—he was allowed to spend his prison term in a $1,500-a-month luxury apartment, equipped with a maid service and cable. It was advertised by the building as having the advantages of living in a hotel.
The prosecutor in the case complained that Zaccaro was living better in prison than “99.9 percent” of people.
“This guy is a drug felon and he’s living in conditions that 99.9 percent of the people of Vermont couldn’t afford,” said Vermont prosecutor John Quinn.
It was such an outrage that Vermont’s Democratic governor at the time, Madeleine Kunin, asked that the program that allowed Zaccaro to serve his prison term at home be reviewed by the state.
“We have to send a very strong message to drug dealers,” said Kunin.
Even after Zaccaro’s term was served, his lawyers fought to get his charge reversed and clear him of a criminal record. Justices on the Vermont Supreme Court voted unanimously to reject that motion.
Despite the fact that Zaccaro remains a convicted felon, he has managed to establish himself as a go-to fundraiser for Democrats.
He was a member of Ready for Hillary’s national finance council, contributing $5,000 to the group in 2014. He has been making consistent political contributions to Hillary Clinton since her 2000 Senate campaign, and has made nearly $100,000 worth of political contributions to Democratic candidates and groups over the years.
SHARE
TWEET
Hillary Rodham Clinton / AP
BY: Brent Scher
September 25, 2015 3:21 pm
Hillary Clinton attended a fundraiser on Thursday evening at the New York City home of John Zaccaro, who was convicted on felony drug charges after he sold cocaine to an undercover cop.
Zaccaro, the son of failed Democratic vice president candidate Gerraldine Ferraro, became the subject of national attention in the 1980s when he was charged with selling drugs at Vermont’s Middlebury College.
Zaccaro’s family lawyers requested that the charges be dismissed, but it was an uphill climb due to the overwhelming amount of evidence collected by police.
Zaccaro, 22 at the time, made the mistake of selling cocaine to an undercover police officer. A search of his house following the arrest uncovered various additional drugs and equipment such as electronic scales used by drug dealers.
Students at Middlebury claimed that Zaccaro was known as “the Pharmacist” on campus.
Lawyers for Zaccaro argued that it was entrapment, claiming that it was a pretty policewoman that convinced him to make the cocaine sale.
The argument failed. Despite pleas sent to the judge from many politically connected Democrats, including Ferraro’s running-mate Walter Mondale, a Vermont judge handed down a four month prison sentence to Zaccaro.
Many in Vermont came away upset at how much leniency was showed to Zaccaro—he was allowed to spend his prison term in a $1,500-a-month luxury apartment, equipped with a maid service and cable. It was advertised by the building as having the advantages of living in a hotel.
The prosecutor in the case complained that Zaccaro was living better in prison than “99.9 percent” of people.
“This guy is a drug felon and he’s living in conditions that 99.9 percent of the people of Vermont couldn’t afford,” said Vermont prosecutor John Quinn.
It was such an outrage that Vermont’s Democratic governor at the time, Madeleine Kunin, asked that the program that allowed Zaccaro to serve his prison term at home be reviewed by the state.
“We have to send a very strong message to drug dealers,” said Kunin.
Even after Zaccaro’s term was served, his lawyers fought to get his charge reversed and clear him of a criminal record. Justices on the Vermont Supreme Court voted unanimously to reject that motion.
Despite the fact that Zaccaro remains a convicted felon, he has managed to establish himself as a go-to fundraiser for Democrats.
He was a member of Ready for Hillary’s national finance council, contributing $5,000 to the group in 2014. He has been making consistent political contributions to Hillary Clinton since her 2000 Senate campaign, and has made nearly $100,000 worth of political contributions to Democratic candidates and groups over the years.
[h=2]MSNBC: Clinton’s Claim to Not Participate in Deleting Her Emails Inconsistent With Earlier Statement[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: David Rutz
September 28, 2015 7:28 am
Hillary Clinton’s claim on Meet The Press that she did participate in the “exhaustive process” of deciding which emails were personal or work-related conflicts with statements she made earlier on the subject, MSNBC’s Morning Joe pointed out Monday.
“All I can tell you is when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I did not participate,” Clinton told NBC’s Chuck Todd Sunday. “I did not look at them.”
“Why?” Todd asked. “I would want to know what emails … Why wouldn’t you want to know?”
“I wanted them to be as clear in their process as possible,” Clinton said. “I didn’t want to be looking over their shoulder. If they thought it was work-related, it would go to the State Department. If not, then it would not.”
However, in August, when Fox News reporter Ed Henry asked her if she tried to wipe the whole server so there would be no emails left, Clinton had a different explanation.
“My personal emails are my personal business, right?” Clinton said. “So we went through a painstaking process and turned over 55,000 pages of anything we thought could be work-related. Under the law, that decision is made by the official. I was the official. I made those decisions, and as I just said, over 1,200 of the emails have already been deemed not work-related.”
Author Mark Halperin said Clinton’s supporters were upset with her over the email scandal already, and their consternation is growing as Clinton gives “inconsistent” answers.
“She’s not doing much to put it behind her, despite her going out and doing lots of interviews,” Halperin said. “I think the number of inconsistencies, the number of questions, amazingly is growing rather than diminishing.”
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein offered a strange defense of Clinton, saying that Clinton deputizing her lawyer to take care of parsing through her emails didn’t constitute an inconsistency with saying she wasn’t “looking over their shoulder.” However, Stein said the scandal had a “drip-drip-drip” quality, which Clinton acknowledged during her interview with Todd.
“It’s tough to see how she breaks away from this,” Stein said.
TWEET
BY: David Rutz
September 28, 2015 7:28 am
Hillary Clinton’s claim on Meet The Press that she did participate in the “exhaustive process” of deciding which emails were personal or work-related conflicts with statements she made earlier on the subject, MSNBC’s Morning Joe pointed out Monday.
“All I can tell you is when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process, I did not participate,” Clinton told NBC’s Chuck Todd Sunday. “I did not look at them.”
“Why?” Todd asked. “I would want to know what emails … Why wouldn’t you want to know?”
“I wanted them to be as clear in their process as possible,” Clinton said. “I didn’t want to be looking over their shoulder. If they thought it was work-related, it would go to the State Department. If not, then it would not.”
However, in August, when Fox News reporter Ed Henry asked her if she tried to wipe the whole server so there would be no emails left, Clinton had a different explanation.
“My personal emails are my personal business, right?” Clinton said. “So we went through a painstaking process and turned over 55,000 pages of anything we thought could be work-related. Under the law, that decision is made by the official. I was the official. I made those decisions, and as I just said, over 1,200 of the emails have already been deemed not work-related.”
Author Mark Halperin said Clinton’s supporters were upset with her over the email scandal already, and their consternation is growing as Clinton gives “inconsistent” answers.
“She’s not doing much to put it behind her, despite her going out and doing lots of interviews,” Halperin said. “I think the number of inconsistencies, the number of questions, amazingly is growing rather than diminishing.”
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein offered a strange defense of Clinton, saying that Clinton deputizing her lawyer to take care of parsing through her emails didn’t constitute an inconsistency with saying she wasn’t “looking over their shoulder.” However, Stein said the scandal had a “drip-drip-drip” quality, which Clinton acknowledged during her interview with Todd.
“It’s tough to see how she breaks away from this,” Stein said.
HILLARY CLINTON ON RAPE: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT BECAUSE ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU… BY THE CLINTONS
1066
21
376
by ROGER STONE & ROBERT MORROW27 Sep 20151,305
In our astounding book The Clintons’ War on Women, which will be published by Skyhorse on October 13th, we demonstrate how shamelessness is a condition that the Clintons have perfected to an art form.
Take, for example, Hillary’s recent pledge, as reported by Ruby Cramer, to crack down on campus rape and her encouraging words to sexual assault survivors: “Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard … to be believed. And we’re with you.” In fact, we argue, Hillary Clinton has enabled rape and denigrated sex victims.
Ironically, Bill Clinton’s first alleged rape was of a 19-year-old coed named Eileen Wellstone. We believe that he was not prosecuted because the State Department did not want a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape.
Hillary is the woman who has been in an arguably sham marriage and a cynical political union with Bill Clinton for 41 years. Hillary was the one who was hiring private detectives, such as Ivan Duda, since 1982 so that she could get the names and addresses of Bill’s girlfriends so that she could “get rid of all these bitches he’s seeing.”
This is the same woman who was allegedly fully aware of Bill’s 1978 alleged rape of campaign volunteer Juanita Broaddrick in real time. As we reveal in The Clintons’ War on Women, according to former Clinton insider Larry Nichols, Hillary came running into the Clinton HQ and said, “You won’t believe what the motherf___r [Bill] just did. He tried to rape some bitch!” That blockbuster quote is just one of many things in the book that the MSM has carefully tried to keep out of your eyesight.
The book is about Bill Clinton’s long history of allegedly raping and sexually assaulting women and Hillary’s long history of allegedly psychologically raping these women in the aftermath in order to silence them lest they interfere with the Clintons’ rise to power.
Bill Clinton supposedly did not just rape Juanita; he allegedly, according to Candice Jackson in Their Lives: The Women Targeted By The Clinton Machine, bit and nearly tore off her upper lip and raped her a second time as she lay frozen on the bed. Bill’s alleged words before he began again were, “My God, I can do it again.”
Hillary believes that rape and sexual assault victims have rights. That is the “right to remain silent,” especially if Bill has allegedly assaulted you, because anything you say “can and will be used against you” by Hillary and Bill Clinton. A few weeks after Bill had allegedly raped and bitten Juanita, Hillary encountered Juanita at a campaign event in the home of a Clinton supporter. Hillary, in cover-up mode, had only one concern, according to Jaunita: keeping Broaddrick quiet during Bill’s race for the governorship in 1978. Juanita described the scene in a 2000 open letter to Hillary:
As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying “we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill.” At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, “Everything you do for Bill.” You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.
In other words: keep quiet about what Bill did to you!
By 1992, according to Gail Sheehy in the book Hillary’s Choice, cuckold Hillary and Betsey Wright had a list of 26 women they were positive Bill had adulterous affairs with or who he had sexually assaulted. In the view of Hillary, these women were, at various times, “bitches,” “whores,” “sluts,” and, if they were a threat to talk, they were to be “destroyed.”
Years later, when journalist Melanie Morgan was quizzing him about his role in the 1997 terror campaign to silence Clinton victim Kathleen Willey, private detective Jack Palladino’s alleged cocky answer (though he denies ever making the statement) was, “The only regret that I had about the whole thing was that Hillary did not pay me in a timely fashion… I saved Hillary Clinton’s ass. You’d think she’d be more grateful to me.
[h=1]HILLARY DODGES ON PETRAEUS EMAILS: ‘I’M NOT A TECHNICAL EXPERT’[/h]
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
Hillary Clinton MTP
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important][/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
by PAM KEY27 Sep 20153,026
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton dodge a question asking her to explain a newly discovered email chain between the former secretary of state and then-commander of U.S. Central Command David Petraeus.
The Benghazi-related emails had not been disclosed to the House committee as Clinton had sworn under oath all work related emails had been.
Host Chuck Todd asked, “You had said in a written statement under oath that you turned over everything you believed you had for the federal words those 55,000 e-mails but we have now discovered an e-mail chain between then general Petraeus and yourself that took place a couple of months before these records started. Can you explain the discrepancy there? It was the same e-mail address while at state that you were using with General Petraeus two months before you said everything was out there.”
Clinton answered, “Well, everything we had access to was certainly out there and the reason we know about the email chain with General Petraeus is because it was on a government server. So from my perspective we have a very thorough review process that we conducted and my attorneys supervised it, they went through everything and what we had available at the time was turned over.”
Todd continued, “I guess what I’m trying to figure out is if you said in March that the e-mail system began in March of ’09 but we have the same e-mail address popping up in January, explain that discrepancy.”
Clinton replied, “There was a transition period. I wasn’t that focused on my email account to be clear here.”
Todd continued, “Let me stop you there. you say you weren’t focused on it but this seemed to be — to put an email server at your house is not a — it’s a complicated thing.”
Clinton said, “Yeah, but it was already there. It had been there for years. it is the system that my husband’s personal office used when he got out of the White House so it was sitting there in the basement. It was not any trouble at all. I know there are a lot of people who are questioning that but the fact is that it was there. I added my account to it. It took a little time to do that, so there was about a month where I didn’t have everything on the server. We went back and tried to recover whatever we could recover. It’s also fair to say that there are some things about that that I can’t control. I can’t control the team aspects of it. I’m not a technical expert. I relied on people who were and we have done everything we could in response to the State Department asking us to do this review because they asked all the former secretaries. The reason they asked is because they found gaps in their own record keeping. My assumption — because this system was there before I became secretary, it was there when I left — my assumption anything that I sent to a dot-gov account would be captured.”
7605
2
173
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#FFFFFF !important]
Breitbart Non-Syndicated
[COLOR=#DDDDDD !important][/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
by PAM KEY27 Sep 20153,026
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton dodge a question asking her to explain a newly discovered email chain between the former secretary of state and then-commander of U.S. Central Command David Petraeus.
The Benghazi-related emails had not been disclosed to the House committee as Clinton had sworn under oath all work related emails had been.
Host Chuck Todd asked, “You had said in a written statement under oath that you turned over everything you believed you had for the federal words those 55,000 e-mails but we have now discovered an e-mail chain between then general Petraeus and yourself that took place a couple of months before these records started. Can you explain the discrepancy there? It was the same e-mail address while at state that you were using with General Petraeus two months before you said everything was out there.”
Clinton answered, “Well, everything we had access to was certainly out there and the reason we know about the email chain with General Petraeus is because it was on a government server. So from my perspective we have a very thorough review process that we conducted and my attorneys supervised it, they went through everything and what we had available at the time was turned over.”
Todd continued, “I guess what I’m trying to figure out is if you said in March that the e-mail system began in March of ’09 but we have the same e-mail address popping up in January, explain that discrepancy.”
Clinton replied, “There was a transition period. I wasn’t that focused on my email account to be clear here.”
Todd continued, “Let me stop you there. you say you weren’t focused on it but this seemed to be — to put an email server at your house is not a — it’s a complicated thing.”
Clinton said, “Yeah, but it was already there. It had been there for years. it is the system that my husband’s personal office used when he got out of the White House so it was sitting there in the basement. It was not any trouble at all. I know there are a lot of people who are questioning that but the fact is that it was there. I added my account to it. It took a little time to do that, so there was about a month where I didn’t have everything on the server. We went back and tried to recover whatever we could recover. It’s also fair to say that there are some things about that that I can’t control. I can’t control the team aspects of it. I’m not a technical expert. I relied on people who were and we have done everything we could in response to the State Department asking us to do this review because they asked all the former secretaries. The reason they asked is because they found gaps in their own record keeping. My assumption — because this system was there before I became secretary, it was there when I left — my assumption anything that I sent to a dot-gov account would be captured.”
[h=1]BOMBSHELL: ‘WASHINGTON POST’ CONFIRMS HILLARY CLINTON STARTED THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT[/h]
by JOHN NOLTE26 Sep 20156,529
New analysis from the Washington Post removes any doubt that the anti-Obama Birther movement was started in 2007 and 2008 by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her Democrat supporters.
As Breitbart News reported earlier this month, other left-wing media outlets, like Politico and the Guardian, had already traced the Birther movement back to Democrats and Ms. Clinton. Using his wayback machine on Wednesday, the Post‘s David Weigel took an in-depth look at the origins of the false rumors that President Obama is a practicing Muslim who was not born in a America. Weigel’s reporting contains the final pieces of a very disturbing puzzle.
What Weigel found and re-reported was astounding, details many of us had forgotten or never heard of, including a 2007 bombshell memo from the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist.
What the left-wing Weigel left out of his reporting was even more astounding, including a documented confrontation between Clinton and Obama over the Birther issue, and video of Hillary herself stoking doubt about Obama’s Christian faith.
Because the Washington Post‘s primary job is to protect Democrats, Weigel’s headline and conclusion are an objective lie. Despite the fact that what he uncovered (and chose to not cover) points directly to Ms. Clinton and her campaign, Weigel concludes she had nothing to do with the Birther movement.
Naturally, Weigel’s own facts support the exact opposite conclusion.
His research, however, is all that matters.
25603
164
2701
by JOHN NOLTE26 Sep 20156,529
New analysis from the Washington Post removes any doubt that the anti-Obama Birther movement was started in 2007 and 2008 by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her Democrat supporters.
As Breitbart News reported earlier this month, other left-wing media outlets, like Politico and the Guardian, had already traced the Birther movement back to Democrats and Ms. Clinton. Using his wayback machine on Wednesday, the Post‘s David Weigel took an in-depth look at the origins of the false rumors that President Obama is a practicing Muslim who was not born in a America. Weigel’s reporting contains the final pieces of a very disturbing puzzle.
What Weigel found and re-reported was astounding, details many of us had forgotten or never heard of, including a 2007 bombshell memo from the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist.
What the left-wing Weigel left out of his reporting was even more astounding, including a documented confrontation between Clinton and Obama over the Birther issue, and video of Hillary herself stoking doubt about Obama’s Christian faith.
Because the Washington Post‘s primary job is to protect Democrats, Weigel’s headline and conclusion are an objective lie. Despite the fact that what he uncovered (and chose to not cover) points directly to Ms. Clinton and her campaign, Weigel concludes she had nothing to do with the Birther movement.
Naturally, Weigel’s own facts support the exact opposite conclusion.
His research, however, is all that matters.
The above continued:
Defcon 4: Mark Penn’s March 2007 Strategy Memo
Everything began in March of 2007 when Hillary’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, wrote a now-infamous campaign memo laying out his overall plan to win the election.
Weigel sums up the Birther elements of Penn’s memo as a nothingburger; indeed, according to Weigel, the memo actually proves that the Clinton campaign wanted nothing to do with Birtherism: “But Penn wrote that as a warning, not a strategy,” Weigel writes.
While most of Weigel’s lies in his defense of Clinton are of omission and deflection, the wrist-flicking of Penn’s memo is pure audacity.
Because this is important, I’m not asking anyone to believe my interpretation of the memo. You can read the memo for yourself here. Below are two mainstream media sources. [emphasis added] As you’ll see, the idea that the memo was a warning against “othering” Obama is preposterous:
The Atlantic:
In March of 2007, the campaign could afford to attack Obama’s otherness “subliminally.”
By the following year, as the primary losses mounted, the gloves came completely off.
Defcon 3: Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters Birth ‘Birtherism’
Weigel’s superb reporting uncovered how the Clinton campaign and legions of diehard Clinton supporters took Penn’s othering campaign and the questions surrounding Obama’s faith and birthplace to the next level.
It was no longer subliminal.
By now Clinton’s 2008 presidential aspirations were in serious jeopardy. Pay special attention to what Weigel writes about John Heilemann. Weigel’s lie of omission here is crucial and I’ll address it below: [emphasis added]
1. Weigel uses Bloomberg’s John Heilemann as a witness for the defense of Hillary but intentionally chooses not to tell his readers that a mere two days earlier, on Monday, Heilemann confirmed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that the Birther movement began with the Clinton campaign.
Again, I’m going to quote a left-wing source:
Apparently, it’s only Republicans who are held accountable for the actions of their supporters.
Apparently, only Republicans are capable of coordinating with outside groups to do their dirty work.
Despite more smoke than you’ll find in Jeff Spicoli’s van, Weigel uses that smoke as proof that there is no fire. This isn’t journalism, it’s desperate partisan spin.
4. Weigel says nothing about the Clinton campaign’s shattering silence during this smear campaign.
5. Weigel doesn’t want his readers to know that Barack Obama himself believes Hillary Clinton started the Birther rumors, even though this fact was reported by no less than Weigel’s own employer at The Washington Post:
Defcon 2: The Clinton Campaign’s Obama-Is-a-Scary-Muslim Emails
Weigel writes: “In December 2007, a Clinton campaign worker named Judy Rose sent an e-mail asking whether Obama was a secret Muslim who intended to destroy America from the inside. She was fired and denounced.”
Here’s what Weigel doesn’t tell his readers:
Defcon 1: The Obama-In-a-Turban Photo
Weigel writes: “Three months later, when the Drudge Report claimed that a photo of Obama wearing a turban was sent from “stressed Clinton staffers,” the Clinton campaign denounced it but didn’t find a scalp.”
This is Weigel glossing over one of the most crucial elements in Hillary’s Birther campaign. Here is the photo in question…
…and Weigel not only buries and downplays this seismic campaign moment in the middle of a paragraph; laughably, his witness in defense of Hillary is the Hillary Clinton campaign. Because they couldn’t find who did it — “a scalp” — we’re asked to conclude that the campaign is innocent.
Here’s what Weigel doesn’t tell his readers:
1. The Obama campaign believes the photo came from the Clinton campaign.
Another left-wing source:
After the Drudge splash, Plouffe released the statement above condemning the Clinton campaign at 9:29 am. Less than two hours later, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams shot back with a response that, as Slate notes, “never refuted Drudge’s piece.”
Mushroom Cloud: Hillary’s “As far as I know,” or Weigel’s ‘Big Lie’ of Omission
In his attempt to let Hillary off the hook, it is imperative that Weigel not remind his readers that in March of 2008, in the middle of her campaign’s Birthernado, and on no less than 60 Minutes, Hillary herself stoked the Birther rumors.
Obama is not a Muslim “as far as I know,” Clinton told Steve Kroft.
—
—
Hillary Clinton Is Birther Zero
My singling out of Weigel is a bit unfair. But it was his reporting that put the final details into place. And what he’s attempting to do is what most of the mainstream media is attempting to do: protect Hillary from her own racist past with half-truths and the omission of facts.
Once you do what the mainstream media refuses: put all the facts together as I did here, only those who don’t believe in science would let Hillary off the hook.
Here are the facts:
Defcon 4: Mark Penn’s March 2007 Strategy Memo
Everything began in March of 2007 when Hillary’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, wrote a now-infamous campaign memo laying out his overall plan to win the election.
Weigel sums up the Birther elements of Penn’s memo as a nothingburger; indeed, according to Weigel, the memo actually proves that the Clinton campaign wanted nothing to do with Birtherism: “But Penn wrote that as a warning, not a strategy,” Weigel writes.
While most of Weigel’s lies in his defense of Clinton are of omission and deflection, the wrist-flicking of Penn’s memo is pure audacity.
Because this is important, I’m not asking anyone to believe my interpretation of the memo. You can read the memo for yourself here. Below are two mainstream media sources. [emphasis added] As you’ll see, the idea that the memo was a warning against “othering” Obama is preposterous:
The Atlantic:
[Penn] wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”
Bloomberg
The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. … Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it. … Penn wrote: … “[H]is roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”
Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”
Bloomberg adds: “Penn was not a birther.”Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”
His memo didn’t raise the issue of Obama’s citizenship. Furthermore, he was acutely aware of the political danger that a Democrat would court by going after Obama in this way, even subliminally: “We are never going to say anything about his background,” he wrote.
That is what the memo said. The truth, though, is that the attacks on Obama’s background would come the following year, and those attacks would not only come from Hillary’s supporters but directly from her own campaign and her own mouth during a nationally televised 60 Minutes interview.
In March of 2007, the campaign could afford to attack Obama’s otherness “subliminally.”
By the following year, as the primary losses mounted, the gloves came completely off.
Defcon 3: Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters Birth ‘Birtherism’
Weigel’s superb reporting uncovered how the Clinton campaign and legions of diehard Clinton supporters took Penn’s othering campaign and the questions surrounding Obama’s faith and birthplace to the next level.
It was no longer subliminal.
By now Clinton’s 2008 presidential aspirations were in serious jeopardy. Pay special attention to what Weigel writes about John Heilemann. Weigel’s lie of omission here is crucial and I’ll address it below: [emphasis added]
According to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin in Game Change, the most ludicrous “othering” theory that Clinton allies engaged in was that a tape existed, somewhere, of Michelle Obama denouncing “whitey” — and that Clinton herself believed it when consigliere Sid Blumenthal talked about it.
But the Clinton campaign never pursued the idea that Obama was literally not American, and therefore ineligible for the presidency. A small group of hardcore Clinton supporters did. Specifically, anyone reading the fringe Web in the summer of 2008 could find the now-defunct blog called TexasDarlin, the now-defunct blog PUMAParty, and the now-conservative blog HillBuzz posting updates on the hunt for a birth certificate. It was a thin reed, and they knew it.
“It looks like Obama was born in Hawaii, based on a recently discovered birth announcement found in a Hawaiian newspaper,” one HillBuzz blogger wrote in July 2008. “It also looks like the reason Obama refuses to produce his actual birth certificate is that it very likely records dual Kenyan and U.S. citizenship at Obama’s birth.”
Weigel’s sleight of hand here is genius. Let’s unpack the lies of omission.But the Clinton campaign never pursued the idea that Obama was literally not American, and therefore ineligible for the presidency. A small group of hardcore Clinton supporters did. Specifically, anyone reading the fringe Web in the summer of 2008 could find the now-defunct blog called TexasDarlin, the now-defunct blog PUMAParty, and the now-conservative blog HillBuzz posting updates on the hunt for a birth certificate. It was a thin reed, and they knew it.
“It looks like Obama was born in Hawaii, based on a recently discovered birth announcement found in a Hawaiian newspaper,” one HillBuzz blogger wrote in July 2008. “It also looks like the reason Obama refuses to produce his actual birth certificate is that it very likely records dual Kenyan and U.S. citizenship at Obama’s birth.”
1. Weigel uses Bloomberg’s John Heilemann as a witness for the defense of Hillary but intentionally chooses not to tell his readers that a mere two days earlier, on Monday, Heilemann confirmed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that the Birther movement began with the Clinton campaign.
Again, I’m going to quote a left-wing source:
Host Joe Scarborough called Clinton’s attack on Trump “rich,” saying, “For Hillary Clinton to come out and criticize anybody for spreading the rumors about Barack Obama, when it all started … with her and her campaign passing things around in the Democratic primary[.] … This started with Hillary Clinton, and it was spread by the Clinton team in 2008.” …
Heilemann, author of the insider account of the 2008 election Game Change, said it was the case that Clinton spread the rumors. “It was the case,” he said. “I’m affirming the Scarborough-Brzezinski assertion.”
2. Weigel also chose not to report:Heilemann, author of the insider account of the 2008 election Game Change, said it was the case that Clinton spread the rumors. “It was the case,” he said. “I’m affirming the Scarborough-Brzezinski assertion.”
It was not until April 2008, at the height of the intensely bitter Democratic presidential primary process, that the touch paper was properly lit.
An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs. Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.
3. Pretending to be naïve, Weigel uses these third party Democrat attacks on Obama’s identity as proof! that Hillary’s hands are clean, you know, because it’s her supporters raising the conspiracy, and not Hillary.An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs. Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.
Apparently, it’s only Republicans who are held accountable for the actions of their supporters.
Apparently, only Republicans are capable of coordinating with outside groups to do their dirty work.
Despite more smoke than you’ll find in Jeff Spicoli’s van, Weigel uses that smoke as proof that there is no fire. This isn’t journalism, it’s desperate partisan spin.
4. Weigel says nothing about the Clinton campaign’s shattering silence during this smear campaign.
5. Weigel doesn’t want his readers to know that Barack Obama himself believes Hillary Clinton started the Birther rumors, even though this fact was reported by no less than Weigel’s own employer at The Washington Post:
Obama and Clinton were both at Reagan National Airport on their way to Iowa for a [2007] debate, and the candidates met on the tarmac for what became a brief but heated conversation. Then-Obama personal aide Reggie Love witnessed the event and describes it in his new memoir:
[Obama] very respectfully told her the apology was kind, but largely meaningless, given the emails it was rumored her camp had been sending out labeling him as a Muslim. Before he could finish his sentence, she exploded on Obama. In a matter of seconds, she went from composed to furious. It had not been Obama’s intention to upset her, but he wasn’t going to play the fool either.
Why Weigel chose to leave all of this crucial information out is obvious.[Obama] very respectfully told her the apology was kind, but largely meaningless, given the emails it was rumored her camp had been sending out labeling him as a Muslim. Before he could finish his sentence, she exploded on Obama. In a matter of seconds, she went from composed to furious. It had not been Obama’s intention to upset her, but he wasn’t going to play the fool either.
Defcon 2: The Clinton Campaign’s Obama-Is-a-Scary-Muslim Emails
Weigel writes: “In December 2007, a Clinton campaign worker named Judy Rose sent an e-mail asking whether Obama was a secret Muslim who intended to destroy America from the inside. She was fired and denounced.”
Here’s what Weigel doesn’t tell his readers:
- The email wasn’t meant for public consumption. It was an internal email sent to just a handful of Democrats.
- Rose was only fired after the media discovered the email.
- Rose wasn’t merely a “Clinton campaign worker,” she was the volunteer chair of the Clinton campaign in Jones County, Iowa.
- A second Clinton staffer resigned just a few days later for the same offense.
- The emails were sent just a little more than a month before the crucial January of 2008 Iowa Caucus, which Hillary lost.
Defcon 1: The Obama-In-a-Turban Photo
Weigel writes: “Three months later, when the Drudge Report claimed that a photo of Obama wearing a turban was sent from “stressed Clinton staffers,” the Clinton campaign denounced it but didn’t find a scalp.”
This is Weigel glossing over one of the most crucial elements in Hillary’s Birther campaign. Here is the photo in question…
…and Weigel not only buries and downplays this seismic campaign moment in the middle of a paragraph; laughably, his witness in defense of Hillary is the Hillary Clinton campaign. Because they couldn’t find who did it — “a scalp” — we’re asked to conclude that the campaign is innocent.
Here’s what Weigel doesn’t tell his readers:
1. The Obama campaign believes the photo came from the Clinton campaign.
Another left-wing source:
Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, described it as “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election”. Obama has had to spend much of the campaign stressing he is a Christian not a Muslim and did not study at a madrassa. …
Plouffe described circulation of the picture as part of “a disturbing pattern.” “It’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties,” he said.
2. Again, Weigel ignores crucial information published by one of his own employers, in this case his former-employer Slate.Plouffe described circulation of the picture as part of “a disturbing pattern.” “It’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties,” he said.
After the Drudge splash, Plouffe released the statement above condemning the Clinton campaign at 9:29 am. Less than two hours later, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams shot back with a response that, as Slate notes, “never refuted Drudge’s piece.”
Then, at 10:54 a.m., Clinton’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams, pierced the quiet with her own release. “Enough,” she wrote. “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.” She goes on to say Obama is trying to “distract from the serious issues.” Note that they never refuted Drudge’s piece. (More detail on that piece of the story is trickling in .)
Let’s take a moment to review: Obama’s campaign thinks Clinton is trying to be divisive by encouraging the Obama-is-a-Muslim myth. Clinton’s campaign thinks the Obama campaign is being divisive because it thinks Clinton’s campaign is being divisive.
The Clinton campaign would eventually deny sending the photo, but only after it became obvious that the release of the photo was blowing up in their face.Let’s take a moment to review: Obama’s campaign thinks Clinton is trying to be divisive by encouraging the Obama-is-a-Muslim myth. Clinton’s campaign thinks the Obama campaign is being divisive because it thinks Clinton’s campaign is being divisive.
Mushroom Cloud: Hillary’s “As far as I know,” or Weigel’s ‘Big Lie’ of Omission
In his attempt to let Hillary off the hook, it is imperative that Weigel not remind his readers that in March of 2008, in the middle of her campaign’s Birthernado, and on no less than 60 Minutes, Hillary herself stoked the Birther rumors.
Obama is not a Muslim “as far as I know,” Clinton told Steve Kroft.
—
—
Hillary Clinton Is Birther Zero
My singling out of Weigel is a bit unfair. But it was his reporting that put the final details into place. And what he’s attempting to do is what most of the mainstream media is attempting to do: protect Hillary from her own racist past with half-truths and the omission of facts.
Once you do what the mainstream media refuses: put all the facts together as I did here, only those who don’t believe in science would let Hillary off the hook.
Here are the facts:
- More than a full year before anyone would hear of Orly Taitz, the Birther strategy was first laid out in the Penn memo.
- The “othering” foundation was built subliminally by the Clinton campaign itself.
- Democrats and Clinton campaign surrogates did the dirtiest of the dirty work: openly spread the Birther lies.
- Staffers in Hillary’s actual campaign used email to spread the lies among other Democrats (this was a Democrat primary after all — so that is the only well you needed to poison a month before a primary).
- The campaign released the turban photo.
- Hillary herself used 60 Minutes to further stoke these lies.
[h=1]Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law[/h]By Ken Cuccinelli
September 27, 2015 | 9:16pm
Modal Trigger
Hillary ClintonPhoto: AP
Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.
Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)
On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.
According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”
The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?
Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.
She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.
Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).
Two examples demonstrate this point.
When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.
Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.
Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”
While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.
There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.
Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.
The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.
It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.
Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.
Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.
September 27, 2015 | 9:16pm
Modal Trigger
Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.
Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)
On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.
According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”
The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?
Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.
She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.
Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server). She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).
Two examples demonstrate this point.
When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.
Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.
Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”
While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.
There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.
Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.
The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.
It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.
Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.
Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.
