Wednesday, April 27, 2016

More Email Skullduggery at

Judicial Watch has been pounding the pavement for more than two years now in search of information about her communications during her time as Secretary of State and this week they found out that there was a rather serious “oversight” on the part of State in that process. When their original request for Clinton’s emails from July of 2014 was answered, one document was mysteriously left out of the delivery, and just by happenstance (I’m sure) it happened to be the one which would have revealed the existence of her private email server. (Fox News)
The State Department withheld a vital Hillary Clinton email for two years that would have exposed the existence of her private email server before she wiped it, a conservative watchdog claimed Tuesday.
Judicial Watch, the group that successfully sued in federal court for Clinton’s emails, claims the Sept. 29, 2012 email was withheld from them in 2014 by the State Department because it showed she was not using a government account for State Department business. They received the document last week from the State Department.
“Upon further review, the Department has determined that one document previously withheld in full in our letter dated November 12, 2014 may now be released in part,” the letter, dated April 18, said.
So what made this email so difficult to release? Was it highly classified, containing information which could put American security or personnel at risk? No… it was a memo from Jake Sullivan laying out some talking points on Benghazi for an upcoming conference call. But the key factor here is that it was sent to the then unknown private email account which Clinton maintained on a server in her home. So how did it slip through the cracks? It was an “oversight.”
. . .
Oops. Damn the bad luck.
. . .
You can call this an oversight if you like, but some things are simply too convenient to be written off to mere coincidence. If this email had been released along with the initial trove the public would have been made aware of the existence of the private server before Clinton had the chance to delete tens of thousands of documents which she deemed “personal” in nature and most likely have the drive wiped clean and overwritten. But the delay meant that Clinton’s team had months of time to sort through everything and destroy any documents which she didn’t want the public to see.
The State Dept. Is Still Covering for Clinton and Obama’s Benghazi Lies
In March, the State Department quietly released records relevant to the Obama administration’s response to the September 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack. Included were transcripts of the telephone call then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had on September 12 -- only hours after the attack ended -- with then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil.

As explained by Judicial Watch, whose Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the “most transparent administration in history” forced the belated disclosure, Mrs. Clinton flatly told Mr. Kandil:
We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack -- not a protest.
Kandil responded:
You’re not kidding. Based on the information we saw today, we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this is affiliated with al-Qaeda.
Of course, “the film” Clinton was referring to is Innocence of Muslims, an obscure anti-Islamic video trailer that she, President Obama, and the administration tirelessly blamed for the attacks despite -- let’s quote Clinton again -- “know[ing] the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.”
Even one time Obama voter Ann Althouse is amused to watch Debbie Wasserman Schultz try to write off Hillary's email troubles:

If I may boil all that down: What's ludicrous is to think that at this point in the process of selecting a President, the email controversy can turn into a criminal matter that waylays the party's frontrunner.
From the comments:
The thing about the e-mail server issue is this--if Hillary had simply violated protocol by having business e-mails sent to a personal account (like gmail) when she was remote and couldn't access her State Dept. server, this would be understandable--if she assumed the e-mails had nothing classified and did this as a periodic convenience. It'd be a technical violation, but one which most people could sort of understand (cutting around red tape). But she went through the trouble of setting up a private server to do all her business through it--and obviously no other Secretary of State did anything like that. It took plenty of planning, thought and expense, so this wasn't an inadvertent ad hoc sort of thing--it boggles the mind that she would never check to make sure this was kosher, and thus we can only conclude that since she presented no legitimate reason to do this that she was up to something criminal.

That's what Hillary's grappling with and that's what this country is about to put into the White House.
White Lies Matter
. . .It remains to be seen whether the FBI will indict her for compromising national security, though I rather doubt that will happen. There is no smoking gun. The emails themselves show Clinton to be a tech ignoramus, a workaholic, harried by the pace of events, self-interested, paranoid, dependent on a few close advisers. Nothing we didn’t already know.

But that didn’t stop Clinton from lying about it. Never does. “The secrecy and the closed nature of her dealings generate problems of their own, which in turn prompt efforts to restrict information and draw even more tightly inside a group of intimates,” wrote Sarah Ellison last year in Vanity Fair. “It is a vicious circle.” And the person responsible for keeping the circle going is none other than the candidate herself: circumspect, wary, so damaged by her years in the public eye that she trusts no one. And receives no trust in return.
Just a minor quibble. The FBI cannot indict anyone, much less Hillary Clinton. They can only recommend indictment to Obama Department of Justice.

The Clinton Doomsday scenario
Unless she's indicted by the Justice Department for her role in mishandling classified information.

Yes, that potentiality — an extremely small one, based on what we know the facts to be, but one that does exist — is what animates a lot of this catastrophic thinking.
Hillary Clinton backs the highest soda tax ever proposed Poor people, minorities and children to be hurt worst, of course.

And despite her wins in the Acela Primary yesterday, her support among a key constituency, women, continues to fade.

Conservatives are getting ready to tackle Clinton's likely VP pick, Labor Secretary Tom Perez. Likely Hillary VP Opposes First Amendment
. . . In July 2012, Perez -- then the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, was asked by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ):

Will you tell us here today that this administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?
Perez could have simply answered yes, and maybe even cited the First Amendment. Instead, Perez refused to answer the question directly. Franks persisted, ultimately asking it four times.
Perez at one point responded that it was a “hard question.” He simply refused to affirm that the Obama Justice Department would not attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam.
Much, much more at Read the Radical Resume of Tom Perez, Possible Hillary VP. And you thought Sarah Palin was scarey?

No comments:

Post a Comment