Another issue that Clinton is not truthful or honest

[Guest]

Self explanatory:

Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin job arrangement - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/clinton-abedin-state-job-approved-214038#ixzz3mh4iS4Aq)

Eventually some of the higher ups in the democratic party are going to say enough is enough. The woman is just not ethical. She needs to not represent the democratic party in general or her gender in specific.

Irrepairably damaged person and character.

[Guest]

:agree:

[Guest]

Self explanatory:

Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin job arrangement - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/clinton-abedin-state-job-approved-214038#ixzz3mh4iS4Aq)

Eventually some of the higher ups in the democratic party are going to say enough is enough. The woman is just not ethical. She needs to not represent the democratic party in general or her gender in specific.

Irrepairably damaged person and character.

I agree with you, HOWEVER......Trump has handed her the Presidency !!

[Guest]

I agree with you, HOWEVER......Trump has handed her the Presidency !!

So you are going to stick with what I view as flawed logic/thinking.

You would vote for an unethical, untrustworthy, lying, coniving, self promotional phony instead of a blow hard billionaire who says what most Americans think.
I don't think so!

I do not think the average American, THAT VOTES, will go along with that.

Even if there was a possibility they might consider voting for her, the unpleasant experience and disappointment of the previous 8 years has sensitized them to not trust another made up unqualified, phony.

[Guest]

So you are going to stick with what I view as flawed logic/thinking.

You would vote for an unethical, untrustworthy, lying, coniving, self promotional phony instead of a blow hard billionaire who says what most Americans think.
I don't think so!

I do not think the average American, THAT VOTES, will go along with that.

Even if there was a possibility they might consider voting for her, the unpleasant experience and disappointment of the previous 8 years has sensitized them to not trust another made up unqualified, phony.

:agree:

[Guest]

So you are going to stick with what I view as flawed logic/thinking.

You would vote for an unethical, untrustworthy, lying, coniving, self promotional phony instead of a blow hard billionaire who says what most Americans think.
I don't think so!

I do not think the average American, THAT VOTES, will go along with that.

Even if there was a possibility they might consider voting for her, the unpleasant experience and disappointment of the previous 8 years has sensitized them to not trust another made up unqualified, phony.

You read much into my post that I never said.

Trump will NOT get the nomination, nor should he. I would suggest really listening to him and you will find a man who is only for one thing, and that is Trump. Because he stirs the pot that you want to stir, you ignore two things. We already have someone like that in the WH and Trump is delivering a self serving egoist message, at best.

He will not get the nomination, and one of two things will occur.

He will run independent and siphon off the votes from the Republican Party giving the WH to Clinton.

OR

He will "sulk" and insult, and anyone left will stay home next November giving the WH to Clinton, and voter turn out is huge.

Trump has an ego so large..he will never ever support the Republican candidate unless it is him. He is not a good loser.

I am NOT voting for Clinton. While I understand the mindset of those who are enabling Trump, I am afraid they are being very short sighted. Responsible and good candidates are being shut out and shut down, and those enablers will adopt the Trump mentality which is it is either me or nobody.

That is how I get to the giving over of the WH to Clinton.

[Guest]

You read much into my post that I never said.

Trump will NOT get the nomination, nor should he. I would suggest really listening to him and you will find a man who is only for one thing, and that is Trump. Because he stirs the pot that you want to stir, you ignore two things. We already have someone like that in the WH and Trump is delivering a self serving egoist message, at best.

He will not get the nomination, and one of two things will occur.

He will run independent and siphon off the votes from the Republican Party giving the WH to Clinton.

OR

He will "sulk" and insult, and anyone left will stay home next November giving the WH to Clinton, and voter turn out is huge.

Trump has an ego so large..he will never ever support the Republican candidate unless it is him. He is not a good loser.

I am NOT voting for Clinton. While I understand the mindset of those who are enabling Trump, I am afraid they are being very short sighted. Responsible and good candidates are being shut out and shut down, and those enablers will adopt the Trump mentality which is it is either me or nobody.

That is how I get to the giving over of the WH to Clinton.

Trump may be the cause of a Dem in the White House, but I doubt it will be Clinton, unless she can get away with all the laws she has broken. If so, then America deserves her and should fall. Once America is in pieces and crumbling to ash, then the strong will come back and make it great again. They can be more detailed in re-writing the constitution so that there won't be any room for misinterpreting it for the socialists that sprout up in every culture. Then America can be stronger than ever, and the lazy will either work or get out. No more coddling of the lazy. And I do consider liberals to be lazy and thoughtless.

[Guest]

Trump may be the cause of a Dem in the White House, but I doubt it will be Clinton, unless she can get away with all the laws she has broken. If so, then America deserves her and should fall. Once America is in pieces and crumbling to ash, then the strong will come back and make it great again. They can be more detailed in re-writing the constitution so that there won't be any room for misinterpreting it for the socialists that sprout up in every culture. Then America can be stronger than ever, and the lazy will either work or get out. No more coddling of the lazy. And I do consider liberals to be lazy and thoughtless.

It will be Clinton, and the only impediment is IF she is indicted for breaking a law.

The Democratic party is not about to keep Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton from getting the nod unless she is indicted and then they will make excuses for her as they are now.

Just step back........they already support her, party wise.....and she is a proven...well, we all know about that, but she is still the favorite of the insiders who will make this call.

No, unless she is indicted, she is in, and even then do not count her out.

Understand something....what Trump is doing to the Republican party is blackmail. Either make me the candidate or I will blow your party up and he will so weaken the party that EVEN under indictment Clinton has a shot.

I really think everyone is underestimating what is happening here.

Trump is NOT going quietly.

[Guest]

I find it amazing and pretty hypocritical of Dems to vote for Hilary when most of them hate her. At least she is pretty hated in D.C. She is well known for treating her staff and associates with disdain and contempt. They so want to win, that they will swallow the poison and vote for her. What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Guest]

I find it amazing and pretty hypocritical of Dems to vote for Hilary when most of them hate her. At least she is pretty hated in D.C. She is well known for treating her staff and associates with disdain and contempt. They so want to win, that they will swallow the poison and vote for her. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Apparently a lot of Democrats are starting to recognize, and resent, the obvious .... Hillary is a lousy liar. They viewed Bill as an "authentic phony" but loved it when he could always tweak and beat the Republicans. However, Hillary is seen as simply a "phony phony" or, in other words, inept.

Hillary Clinton, Bad Liar | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424619/democrats-wake-how-bad-liar-hillary-john-fund)

Since liberals usually have to lie about getting their crazy a** agenda implemented (ie sane people would reject it if described honestly in advance), the ability to lie effectively is important for Democrats. Thus, Hillary may be doomed.

[Guest]

Good thread. I actually agree with most of what has been said here. I do think the Dem's would run away with the election if they could find a viable candidate. I even think Biden would fair very well.

I really wanted to just say I was surprised how everything is on the up and up. I know something like this will soon degenerate into name calling and finger pointing…..very soon.

[Guest]

I am still hoping that Trump is just putting on a show to draw all the wrath to him, while the legitimate candidates sneak by with hardly a scratch. It would be a great win on his part and he would be a hero if he just steps out of the race in the last few weeks. One can wish, can't they? I doubt he wants to be known as the one that destroys the Republican party. He would be ostracized and hated, and you know how he has to be adored. His ego is rivaled only by Obama, or maybe Billy Clinton.

[Guest]

Dear Guest

The posting regarding Mrs. Clinton being hated in Washington has no merit whatsoever.

The posts regarding Trump being the death knell (so to speak) of this election for the Republicans are absolutely right.

We have blown it big time and will just have to put up with Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton, or Mr. Biden for the next 4 years - at least.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I am still hoping that Trump is just putting on a show to draw all the wrath to him, while the legitimate candidates sneak by with hardly a scratch. It would be a great win on his part and he would be a hero if he just steps out of the race in the last few weeks. One can wish, can't they? I doubt he wants to be known as the one that destroys the Republican party. He would be ostracized and hated, and you know how he has to be adored. His ego is rivaled only by Obama, or maybe Billy Clinton.

I have been saying since the first week he entered the race that this has no good ending.

Those who are and have been fawning over Trump are complicit in giving the WH back to the Democrats. It is that simple and it is too late to change it now.

If you think Trump would ever, ever, ever support any of the Republican candidates you are dreaming funny dreams.

[Guest]

Dear Guest

The posting regarding Mrs. Clinton being hated in Washington has no merit whatsoever.

The posts regarding Trump being the death knell (so to speak) of this election for the Republicans are absolutely right.

We have blown it big time and will just have to put up with Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Clinton, or Mr. Biden for the next 4 years - at least.

Personal Best Regards:

Why do you say that? It's well known that Hilary is despised by many in her party in D.C. and only gets special treatment because of Billy. If not for Bill, Hilary would only be a flyspeck in the history books, if that.

[Guest]

I'm not going to declare that the sky is falling until I see some evidence of it. I still say that Trump is not stupid enough to think that he can cross the whole Republican party without repercussions.

[Guest]

Wouldn't it be refreshing to know that our elected officials speak the whole truth. Mrs. Clinton seems to have acquired a reputation that is contrary to the whole truth.

Self explanatory:

Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin job arrangement - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/clinton-abedin-state-job-approved-214038#ixzz3mh4iS4Aq)

Eventually some of the higher ups in the democratic party are going to say enough is enough. The woman is just not ethical. She needs to not represent the democratic party in general or her gender in specific.

Irrepairably damaged person and character.

[Guest]

Wouldn't it be refreshing to know that our elected officials speak the whole truth. Mrs. Clinton seems to have acquired a reputation that is contrary to the whole truth.

Substitute "Lie" for the "truth" and you get a more accurate statement. She is more likely to speak the whole lie, well before telling a truth. It's not in her devious nature.

[Guest]

Well, more of Clintion's emails have been released/recovered. I read some of them, the ones posted and cleaned up. They were definitely, with no doubt marked with classifications, from Confidential to Secret/NOFORN which makes her a major felon if charged. Hard to believe that she hasn't been indicted yet. She has no valid excuse for those classified documents being on an unclassified system. Major violation, big time. If they don't jail her, then they will have to go back and release a lot of violators and reinstate those that were fired for less. She has violated a major national security mandate, and unless someone fabricated those documents, she should go to jail for a very long time.

[Guest]

Well, more of Clintion's emails have been released/recovered. I read some of them, the ones posted and cleaned up. They were definitely, with no doubt marked with classifications, from Confidential to Secret/NOFORN which makes her a major felon if charged. Hard to believe that she hasn't been indicted yet. She has no valid excuse for those classified documents being on an unclassified system. Major violation, big time. If they don't jail her, then they will have to go back and release a lot of violators and reinstate those that were fired for less. She has violated a major national security mandate, and unless someone fabricated those documents, she should go to jail for a very long time.

Speaking from direct experience, when a person is granted a top level security clearance you undergo about an hour of initial training, with annual refreshers, and also have to sign a stack of very thorough and intimidating legal forms that are witnessed, signed, sealed etc. The forms basically say " if you fail to protect this highly classified info, you will be prosecuted and go to prison." Failure to protect is a felony(s) and violates various sections of the US Code.

While it's complicated by politics, her position and the Obama administration's inclination to legally pursue or not, the reality is ... Hillary is at major risk of criminal prosecution. She definitely needs a criminal attorneys services at this point.

On a related point, and in my opinion, there is zero doubt that the other major intel services (Russian, China, etc) have copies of everything because the information security (from the IT sense) on Hillary's server was amateur hour and a no brainer to defeat.

[Guest]

Speaking from direct experience, when a person is granted a top level security clearance you undergo about an hour of initial training, with annual refreshers, and also have to sign a stack of very thorough and intimidating legal forms that are witnessed, signed, sealed etc. The forms basically say " if you fail to protect this highly classified info, you will be prosecuted and go to prison." Failure to protect is a felony(s) and violates various sections of the US Code.

While it's complicated by politics, her position and the Obama administration's inclination to legally pursue or not, the reality is ... Hillary is at major risk of criminal prosecution. She definitely needs a criminal attorneys services at this point.

On a related point, and in my opinion, there is zero doubt that the other major intel services (Russian, China, etc) have copies of everything because the information security (from the IT sense) on Hillary's server was amateur hour and a no brainer to defeat.

Being a retired Information Officer of the State Dept, I can validate what you said.

[Guest]

Being a retired Information Officer of the State Dept, I can validate what you said.

To add to what you just posted, here's what the former Virginia Attorney General said about it ...
======

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.

Ken Cuccinelli is president of Senate Conservatives Fund and the former attorney general of Virginia

[Guest]

To add to what you just posted, here's what the former Virginia Attorney General said about it ...
======

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.

Ken Cuccinelli is president of Senate Conservatives Fund and the former attorney general of Virginia

Good post, but we all know how D.C. works. Protect your own, unless they disown you. I wonder what the odds are that she will or won't be prosecuted. I wouldn't want to put my money down on a bet.

She is getting desperate though. She met with Obama and was quoted as saying "call off your f..ing dogs, Barack!"