"People should and do trust me" - Hillary Clinton

[kscarbel2]

The State Department employee who helped Hillary Clinton set up her controversial private email server will dodge giving testimony to Congress.

Brian Pagliano, who worked at the Department when Clinton decided to install the insecure, homebrew technology, has been asked to appear before the Benghazi committee.

But, according to the Washington Post, he will plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving any testimony.

[kscarbel2]

What ordinarily prudent individual would cast a vote for president to an individual that doesn't "stop and think" ???

Of course, this is yet another "damage control" fabricated excuse, as we all know it is federal policy for all members of the State Department to use it's own e-mail system.........for obvious security reasons*.

* Whether our government's always one-step behind computer security measures are secure is another matter.....but Hillary's were not as her e-mails are for sale on the internet.

And, always arrogant, she still refuses to simply admit that she was wrong, rather she says that she "made a different choice".

(So the next time you employer says you were wrong, you can reply "no", explaining that you simply made a different choice)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clinton: I didn't 'stop and think' about email system

"You know, I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world," Clinton said. "I didn't really stop and think what kind of email system will there be?"

But Clinton did not apologize for her decision when asked directly, "Are you sorry?" Instead, she again said she wishes she had "made a different choice" and that she takes responsibility for the decision to use a private email account and server based at her home in suburban New York.

Clinton added it was a choice that should not raise questions about her judgment.

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-didnt-stop-think-email-system-163911547--election.html#

[kscarbel2]

The Clinton campaign has reached the end of the road. Hillary is actually grovelling.

After saying for weeks that she would not apologize, refusing to admit that she was wrong, she is now saying that she's sorry and her action was a mistake.

Only a last ditch effort can cause this arrogant woman to humble herself before the public.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/07/clinton-says-no-email-apology-what-did-was-allowed/

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-says-sorry-for-using-private-email-at-us-state-dept/ar-AAe4NkW

[Ray Kaczar]

I dont trust either Party, I have had it with them, I been a Libertarian for 2 years now. they are about Liberty, and are the 3rd largest party now

[41chevy]

Her being humble and an "ashamed " woman will probably boost her in the eyes obamanites and free loaders.

The media compared her to Nelson Mandela's persecution (?). . . I do too, so lets put her arse in jail for 27 years like him, see how she disdains the American people than. Paul

[41chevy]

New York Times September 8.2015

Adam Schiff, a liberal California Democrat appointed to the Benghazi Committee by Nancy Pelosi, is planning to move to have the committee disbanded.

In a New York Times interview, Adam Schiff called for the committee to be disbanded, and he attacked it smearing it as "a terrible mistake," and "a dangerous precedent." MSNBC host Rachel Maddow picked up where Schiff ended calling for Congress to "end the charade" and "disband the Benghazi panel."

Even getting the committee formed was a struggle...
Congressman Frank Wolf first introduced a resolution calling for a committee to investigate Benghazi, but Boehner refused to act on it.
Then, Congressman Steve Stockman used a procedural move called a "discharge petition" to put pressure on Boehner to form the committee.
Finally, after months of pressure from grassroots conservatives, Boehner finally gave in and formed the Benghazi Committee.
Now a motion to disband the committee may actually get a vote in Congress.

The last thing insiders want is to be blamed for Hillary losing the election...
...or going to prison.

[41chevy]

[kscarbel2]

The Clinton campaign has reached the end of the road. Hillary is actually grovelling.

After saying for weeks that she would not apologize, refusing to admit that she was wrong, she is now saying that she's sorry and her action was a mistake.

Only a last ditch effort can cause this arrogant woman to humble herself before the public.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/07/clinton-says-no-email-apology-what-did-was-allowed/

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-says-sorry-for-using-private-email-at-us-state-dept/ar-AAe4NkW

Update: It turns out that Hillary isn't sorry after all for throwing U.S. State Dept. policy to the curb and keeping classfied information on her personal server at home. She's only sorry for creating "confusion".

Yesterday she elaborated "I am sorry for all the confusion that has ensued".

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-emails-33641286

[41chevy]

Good News: Official Overseeing Release of Hillary Emails is a Maxed-Out Hillary Donor

As Mary Katharine says, they want to "look proactive and responsive," yet the appearance of impropriety doesn't faze them one whit, evidently. Plus, Jacobs made her maximum contribution to Hillary's campaign whole months before taking on this role, so what's the big deal anyway? Speaking of optics, what does it say that the State Department's choice to oversee transparency efforts is an enthusiastic financial supporter of a woman who deliberately side-stepped transparency and national security protocols by installing a private, unsecure email server in her home, through which she improperly conducted all of her sensitive official business? Yeah, Jacobs will be a real stickler. Impartial, too. Which brings us back to Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign finally decided that a simulacrum of an apology was in order. As Katie noted earlier, they released amea culpa email last night, defending Hillary's actions with four bullet points. Much like a recent campaign memo, this faux apology is riddled with intentional misdirection, misleading assertions, and outright falsehoods.
Not quite as bad as allowing Iran to inspect itself at a contentious nuclear site, but perhaps a smidge worse than tapping a generous Obama donor to oversee the Justice Department's investigation of the IRS scandal. This gang pays quite a lot of lip service to accountability and transparency -- sometimes to the point of satire -- but they have zero interest in either. Janice Jacobs and the State Department argue that critics are up in arms over nothing, of course:

Ms. Jacobs said

she made that donation as a private citizen and months before she had entered into conversations with the State Department about her new role

. She retired from the State Department in June 2014; moreover, federal employees aren’t barred from donating to campaigns. “I think that the announcement lays it out pretty clearly what Secretary Kerry has hired me for and it’s not just the Clinton emails, but in general to make sure that the department is as responsive and efficient as it can be in handling the various document requests that come in,” she said. “He just wants to make sure it’s all well-coordinated and that deadlines are met

and that we just look proactive and responsive

.”

Katie dealt with some of these statements in her post, but here are a few more thoughts, one by one:

(1) Hillary "takes responsibility" for something for which she's refused to apologize and still insists was totally above-board and permitted. What do those two words mean in this context anyway? Remember, the problem was not "using a personal account." The problem was using a single, unsecure account for all of her emails, both personal and professional. The problem was deliberately setting up an off-site, unsecure server for this purpose. The problem was habitually mishandling of classified materials. The problem was recklessly compromising top secret information. The problem was not reporting classification "spillage," as required.

(2) This scheme was not permitted under the rules; just the opposite. And her justifications on these points are "laughable," according to an expert on these matters, who happens to be a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Hillary's email arrangement and conduct may well have broken federal law, which is why the FBI is actively investigating potential felony violations.

(3) Hillary Clinton both sent and received (at least) hundreds of classified emails, several of which have been determined to have contained top secret information. Claiming that the messages weren't "marked" classified is a red herring. Officials with security clearances are given extensive training about how to identify and handle sensitive information. Such material is "born classified," so to speak. Hillary pronounced herself "well aware of the classification requirements" earlier this year, meaning she's also well aware that fixating on official email markings is not a valid defense. A timely reminder from a former NSA analyst, steeped in these protocols:


(4) She did not belatedly hand over all work-related emails to the State Department. She withheld an unknown number of them, which we know because one of her top confidant's unsecure, private emails were hacked and leaked. How many of the more than 30,000 "personal" emails she ordered destroyed actually pertained to her official duties? What didn't she want average Americans or investigators to see? The FBI may be able to answer those questions at some point.

[41chevy]

[kscarbel2]

HillaryClinton-Criminal-Attrib-Twitter-Hirene7up.jpg

What is so sad here is........most Americans have little to no interest in this matter (and so many important others). But then again, at the end of the day (actually right at the beginning), they are powerless to do anything about it. The aristocracy will duke it out and decide Hillary's fate, the masses can only glean a few details and watch the show.

[41chevy]

[41chevy]

What is so sad here is........most Americans have little to no interest in this matter (and so many important others). But then again, at the end of the day (actually right at the beginning), they are powerless to do anything about it. The aristocracy will duke it out and decide Hillary's fate, the masses can only glean a few details and watch the show.

Most Americans have no interests in anything that does not benefit them beyond their I phones and i pads or social status. This is the Millennial Generation born in the 1980's-90's a product of the internet, video games and such. Sadly a group who believes if it is on the net it is true. Who's social contact is texting, Twitter, Facebook or other app. I've seen people right next to each other, texting each other... Most are so detached from the events and past history it is pitiful. Current events is the latest stars exploits or the latest app or smart phone. As Pogo said " we have met the enemy and he is us. "

[kscarbel2]

State Department’s account of e-mail request differs from Clinton’s

The Washington Post / September 22, 2015

Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ says Clinton. “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping, but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system.

The State Department also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.

“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” says State Department spokesman John Kirby. “State Department officials contacted her representatives during the summer of 2014 to learn more about her email use and the status of emails in that account.”

Kirby added that the agency then recognized “that we similarly did not have extensive email records from prior Secretaries of State and therefore included them when we requested their records in October 2014.”

The State Department also realized it was not automatically preserving internal communications, with some other senior officials’ e-mails missing.

By casting her actions as part of a routine agency review, Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for the White House, has sought to play down any suggestion that her decision to use a private e-mail system was unusual or problematic. She has said repeatedly that it was “permitted” by the State Department and widely known in the Obama administration.

But the early call from the State Department is a sign that, at the least, officials in the agency she led from 2009 to 2013 were concerned by the practice — and that they had been caught off guard upon discovering her exclusive use of a private account.

There was a lot going on behind the scenes before the State Department sent a formal request for work records to Clinton and former secretaries Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine K. Albright in a Nov. 12, 2014, letter, according to documents and interviews with senior officials.

In the spring and summer of 2014, while it was in the process of trying to find records sought by the newly formed House Select Committee on Benghazi, the State Department’s congressional affairs office found Clinton’s personal e-mail address listed on a few records in a batch of Benghazi documents but no government e-mail account for her.

“We realized there was a problem,” said a State Department official who until that moment had not been aware of Clinton’s private e-mail setup. The official, like some others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.

The department knew that the Republican-led committee would ask about the private e-mail domain — clintonemail.com — listed on some of the documents. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who was also learning about her exclusive use of the e-mail account for the first time, was eager to “rip off the Band-Aid,” as two key aides described it, and to make sure the agency provided the Benghazi panel with any records it properly requested.

State Department staffers were trying to figure out where her work e-mails were stored and how they might try to assemble them.

The issue has led to frustrations within the State Department in recent months, as some officials have grown tired of having to answer for a political controversy not of their making, according to three senior officials.

While some of Clinton’s predecessors used private e-mail addresses, none took the additional step of conducting all of their business over a personal account housed on a private server. Clinton used a server that was kept for a time in her New York home.

[41chevy]

Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who was also learning about her exclusive use of the e-mail account for the first time

Interesting, BBC, Polsat and the Washington Post, (the only paper here who ran with it) all hinted the inside sources at the State Department laid the blame on Kerry for preventing or delaying the release of information on the E mails and blocking testimony by her former aides

[Super Duty John]

A vote for her means Gina McCarthy (unmitigated disaster) will stay in charge of the EPA and you will no longer have a 2nd amendment right either. She will just pick up right where O'mackdaddy leaves off.

You think you've lost some freedoms and are overly taxed now? You aint seen nothing yet. The real question though... If she and Bill get elected, then will they bring back the Whitehouse tableware they took with them (stole) when Bill left office? Of course remember Hilary said they were "dead broke." Such a hard life for them, brings tears to my eyes/

Yeah, no shit!

She and Bill are now worth more than Romney in their "Foundation", and are both lying scumbags.

[Outbehindthebarn]

She ain't no Angela Merkle

[41chevy]

Hillary can't do the job, hell she had to get Monica to help out with her other obligations . . .think what she'll do a prez.

[carlotpilot]

Most Americans have no interests in anything that does not benefit them beyond their I phones and i pads or social status. This is the Millennial Generation born in the 1980's-90's a product of the internet, video games and such. Sadly a group who believes if it is on the net it is true. Who's social contact is texting, Twitter, Facebook or other app. I've seen people right next to each other, texting each other... Most are so detached from the events and past history it is pitiful. Current events is the latest stars exploits or the latest app or smart phone. As Pogo said " we have met the enemy and he is us. "

pogo-enemy-791213.jpg pogo knows what hes talking about

[Outbehindthebarn]

Dipshit >>>>>Kevin McCarthy.....

[kscarbel2]

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton revises history in Democratic debate

Hillary Clinton revised history in the Democratic debate when insisting she's not a flip-flopper on a trade deal she promoted as secretary of state but turned against as a presidential candidate.

A look at some of Clinton's claims in the debate:

CLINTON on the Trans-Pacific Partnership: "I did say, I hoped it would be the gold standard'" of trade agreements.

THE FACTS: Clinton did not say anything about mere hope in her speeches around the world in support of the trade deal. She roundly endorsed the deal taking shape.

In a November 2012 speech in Australia, she declared the Trans-Pacific deal "sets the gold standard in trade agreements," a sentiment she echoed in many venues.

Clinton said in the debate that when she looked at the final agreement last week, "it didn't meet my standards."

The final agreement, however, dropped or changed some provisions that liberal activist groups - the wing of the party she is assiduously courting at this stage of the campaign - had strongly criticized.

---

CLINTON on her email practices: "I have been as transparent as I know to be. ... I said I have answered all the questions."

THE FACTS: Clinton has yet to explain how the server was set up and serviced, whether she informed the State Department about her decision to use the private system and, most important, how it was protected from hacking attempts.

Russia-based hackers tried at least five times to trick her into infecting her computer system with malware in 2011, The Associated Press learned, and her server was hit by attempted cyber intrusions in 2014 from China, South Korea and Germany.

Her server also was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. But her campaign has repeatedly declined to address these details.

--

CLINTON: "My plan would enable anyone to go to a public college or university tuition-free. You would not have to borrow money for tuition."

THE FACTS: Free for the students, but someone has to pay.

Clinton would shift more college costs onto taxpayers and away from parents and students.

The Clinton plan is bound to cost more than the $35 billion per year over 10 years projected by her campaign. This is because more students would probably switch to public universities on the potential to graduate without debt, raising costs for the government and potentially leaving many modestly endowed private institutions in the lurch.

The potential of a debt-free education would also depend on states providing reliable money streams and controlling costs - both major sources of uncertainty. But the Clinton plan would also expose a sharp generational divide. New college students would be helped, but the 40 million Americans who already owe a combined $1.2 trillion in education debt would receive little aid other than refinancing at lower rates.

Clinton did not speak about the costs to the treasury of what she proposes.

---

CLINTON on her Syria strategy as secretary of state: "What I said was we had to put together a coalition ... and yes, it included Arabs, people in the region, because what I worry about is what will happen with ISIS gaining more territory, having more reach, and frankly posing a threat to our friends and neighbors in the region and far beyond."

THE FACTS: Clinton is ignoring much of the context of her coalition-building effort in Syria: It was designed to push Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, not target the Islamic State or other extremist groups fighting among the opposition.

As secretary, Clinton helped spearhead meetings of the U.S. and various Arab and European countries frustrated by the escalating conflict in Syria. The coalition was concerned primarily with helping armed opposition groups better defend themselves and directing political groups to coalesce behind a common, inclusive platform for a post-Assad Syria.

At that time, the Islamic State didn't exist. But al-Qaida and other terrorist groups did. And even as they gained a foothold and became increasingly prominent among the anti-Assad rebels, the coalition Clinton worked on didn't come up with a military plan for combating them.

[kscarbel2]

“Foreign” governments lobbying to cause the direction of “our” government? (Sure, Israel has done it for years….but that has also been wrong all along)

Conflict of interests?

Unethically profiting from former positions in government?

Yes, the reality is John.P America has no power to stop these developments which stink to high heaven. But he should know and care that it’s happening, all the same.

In the fictional TV special, The Presidential Elections, televised every four years, the public is constantly told that Hillary is the front runner, even though every person in your universe deeply resents the woman. It's amazing how a controlled media can dupe the public.

No reason to get excited about all this though, the aristocracy already chose the next president a few months ago at The Greenbrier, their meeting place since 1778.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary moneyman highlights new Saudi connection

Reuters / October 17, 2015

The Saudi government, under increasing criticism over civilian casualties from its airstrikes in Yemen and a harsh crackdown on political dissidents at home, has just hired a powerhouse Washington, D.C., lobbying firm headed by a top Hillary Clinton fundraiser — an arrangement that critics charge raises fresh questions about the influence that foreign government lobbyists could have on her campaign.

The Saudi contract with the Podesta Group, owned by veteran Washington lobbyist and Clinton campaign bundler Tony Podesta, calls for the firm to provide “public relations” and other services on behalf of the royal court of King Salman.

It included an initial “project fee” payment of $200,000 last month and unspecified further sums over the course of the next year, according to documents recently filed with the Justice Department Foreign Agents Registration Act office.

The retention comes at a time when the Saudis are being condemned by United Nations officials over reports that their bombings against Houthi strongholds in Yemen’s civil war have resulted in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of innocent civilians, including children.

Adding to the international pressure, the Saudis are also facing criticism from human rights groups over their continued refusal to allow basic rights to women (e.g., the freedom to drive cars). They are also being criticized for their hard-line domestic suppression of political dissidents, with draconian punishments such as the sentence — by beheading — recently given to a 20-year-old Shiite political protester.

“They are very nervous about an American policy change, and so they are betting on the horse they think will win — Hillary Clinton,” said Ali Al-Ahmad, a Saudi analyst with the Institute for Gulf Affairs, and a frequent critic of the regime, about the hiring of the Podesta Group.

The Podesta Group is now on a roster of a half-dozen D.C. lobbying firms representing the Saudis, including the giant international law firm DLA Piper and the firm Hogan Lovells, whose principal on the Saudi account is former Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, who chairs the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super-PAC that is a major source of House GOP campaign funds. (Former Texas congressman Tom Loeffler, a top bundler for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign, for years represented the Saudis, but his current firm, Akin Gump, now lobbies for the United Arab Emirates, among other foreign clients.)

But the retention of the Podesta Group has gotten attention in Washington lobbying circles because of its unusually close ties to Hillary Clinton’s campaign: Tony Podesta is the brother and former business partner of Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. He is also a prolific Democratic Party fundraiser who is among 43 Washington lobbyists (many of whom also represent foreign governments) listed as Clinton campaign bundlers in reports filed by the campaign with the Federal Election Commission.

The reports disclose that Podesta had raised $140,175 for the Clinton campaign through Sept. 30. Two weeks ago, just days after filing its Saudi contract with the Justice Department, Podesta held a Clinton campaign fundraiser at his home that offered fine Italian food cooked by five gourmet chefs, including himself and his brother, the campaign chairman.

The Podesta Group point man on the Saudi account is David Adams, who previously served as assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs in 2011 and 2012, making him Clinton’s chief Capitol Hill lobbyist for her last two years as secretary of state, according to Justice Department filings reviewed by Yahoo News.

But Tony Podesta, while calling himself “a proud Clinton bundler,” vigorously denied that the Saudi contract had anything to do with his efforts to elect her president. “I’ve never had a conversation with Hillary Clinton or anybody in the campaign about the work of the firm,” Podesta said when reached by Yahoo News on his cellphone while he was dining at a restaurant in Sicily. “We represent a dozen foreign governments around the world — we do good work for them. And it has nothing to do with the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

.

[kscarbel2]

I don't know one single American in my universe that would vote for Hillary Clinton. And you probably don't either.

Clinton has only been successful at becoming loathed by one and all.

And yet, the news is spinning a tale that polls indicate she is considered the most likely candidate to become president.

Can a person that nobody would vote for get elected to the office of president?.............only in America.

[Outbehindthebarn]

I don't know one single American in my universe that would vote for Hillary Clinton. And you probably don't either.

Clinton has only been successful at becoming loathed by one and all.

And yet, the news is spinning a tale that polls indicate she is considered the most likely candidate to become president.

Can a person that nobody would vote for get elected to the office of president?.............only in America.

Cult of Personality. plain and simple. I know a girl who just adores her. She admitted to me, "I know there were some shenanigans involving that email, but. . .[she's my candidate and the Right has made more of it than it deserves]. I am showing crude sexism here, but WOMEN are responsible for keeping this duplicitous charlatan in the news. It was the same women who re-elected that ignorant, big-eared, pacifist, buffoon we have now. America's road to perdition has been paved with deeply indebted, college educated, foolish women and un-wed mothers.

And just to show I'm not entirely biased, I think any nation that would elect a man (Bill), then sixteen years later elect his wife; OR a man, then his son, then his other son (see Bush dynasty) would be considered a corrupt 'Banana Republic' in the eyes of any rational outsider. ..

And one more thing while I'm shouting from on high, did anyone notice Ben Carson is black? Me neither. What does that say about the racist republicans?

[41chevy]

The Senate hearing today with Hillary answering questions (with the Senator Gowdy asking them and helping with her answers) The Benghazi Security ''problem" was all put on an underling named Lamb. Hillary had no complicity in the decision. Gowdy agreed the Republicans made a big deal out of it.

Funny because Gowdy's opening statement was all about getting to the truth of her actions, seemed to rapidly change as questions were asked. In fact Gowdy told fellow Republicans to "Shut up talking about things you don't know anything about."

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said on CNN on Tuesday Good luck trying to break Hillary Clinton, she is not somebody who is going to break".

Clinton is spending more than $1 million to blanket the cable news networks with ads attacking the committee on Wednesday and Thursday in key

early-voting states and in Washington.

Looks to be all smoke and mirrors for the sheeple.