More email woes for Clinton

Just when you thought it was going to fade away . . .

Just when you thought the e-mail story couldn’t get worse for Hillary Clinton … - The Washington Post

 

Absolutely, positively nothing to see here, folks, keep moving.

 

The absolute characteristic about TRUTH … it NEVER changes. :smokin:

 

If there IS something to see, I'm fine with that. Until then, it just looks like a hassle that other public officials haven't been subjected to. Mitt Romney buying the servers in Massachusetts and then destroying them. Jeb Bush erasing his e-mails. Many politicians using private accounts.

There are two differences in this case. First, setting up a server seems like a purposeful effort to evade legitimate scrutiny. That feeds into the second difference, that there's one made-up scandal after another regarding the Clintons. But this may--or may not--have traction because of that private server. She's her own worst enemy on this one. I doubt it will matter--criminally or politically--but this one's on her.

 

Neither Mr. Romney or Mr. J. Bush held the office of Secretary of State with associated clearance and mandated annual training. She is, indeed her worst enemy.

 

Hillary would have never been objectively capable to be granted a TS security clearance excepting for the political appointee (SOS) route. A reckless and corrupt individual in my view … and WAY beyond a qualified capacity while SOS. Aren’t governmental senior-level political appointments clearly a magnificent practice…?

 

Not a thing that would prevent a clearance.

 

It would be for legitimate /investigated security clearance vs the political appointee give away allowance. Hillary was not truly vetted. Where’s she at now regarding personal servers, missing emails, mishandling of classified information, etc., etc.?

 

Perfectly legal under the laws of Massachusetts.

Perfectly legal under the laws of Florida.

Most politicians aren't in a very, very high Cabinet-level position (4th in line for Presidential succession) and/or privy to matters of national and international security.

What I don't understand is the absolutely blind loyalty of the Democrats. Hillary could say the sky is green, and and the sheep would be lining up with emerald-colored glasses to agree with her. I'm the first one to admit when a politician screws up, even when I personally like them (for the record, I'm unenrolled, which is MA-speak that means I don't belong to any political party).

 

I remember the Romney thing, that got quite a bit of play around 2011. I really only hear about Hillary when someone posts something from a right-wing centered blog and perhaps the occasional update on CNN/Yahoo.

 

Not at all surprising; with one exception (Fox News), the mainstream media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.

 

I do not believe this to be.

I believe they have a parasitic relationship. They will turn on and attempt to devour each other if the goals are not sufficiently aligned.

The media is the US's third political party.

 

Reiterating what I posted earlier … First and foremost: Hillary was well beyond her capacity to serve as SOS (unqualified). A real vetting process vs the watered down political appointee process she was afforded, would have more likely concluded she did not possess the basic experiences nor character traits to be entrusted with the high-position office. Consider her mismanagement of sensitive, high to highest security information, etc. Her record on these matters independently makes this quite obvious.

My speculation re the missing /erased emails, exclusively using a private server—obfuscations, changing explanations, contradiction upon contradiction, narrative changes , etc., etc., etc.:

Neither Hillary or Bill remotely want the public to be acquainted with her email correspondences with those individuals and entities (including the foundation’s resuming the soliciting and accepting of foreign donations following Hillary’s presidential campaign announcement) who contributed to she and Bill’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt “charitable” organization (BILL HILLARY & CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION) while petitioning /accepting funds while using her position and influence as SOS. And because the foundation is a 501(c)(3) public charity, the entity is not required to disclose the names of its donors and the amount they are giving the Clinton Foundation. Moreover, consider the astronomical speaking fees paid to Bill, Hillary, and even daughter Chelsea are unequalled among politicians and celebrities. One could objectively deliberate the strong prospect of the motivation toward personal enrichment, power, influence peddling, and/or even potential bribery during Hillary’s term as SOS—along with, State Dept. security breaches. A person possessing the prerequisite for integrity would certainly recognize, at minimum, the appearance of such possible conflicts of interests, AND would ensure the prevention of such circumstances. Seemingly, not a representative attribute of Hillary or Bill Clinton. Furthermore, in that Chelsea Clinton (35) is no longer a child and is most assuredly not operating in a vacuum (Vice Chair), she should not receive a pass either…

Remember that big donors (aimed at any Political Party or candidate) do not contribute to political figures without expecting a ROI (past, present and/or future). To reason otherwise, please reflect on a verse included in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth:

1 Corinthians 13:11(NKJV)...

“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

A curious read:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.VgV6hX22Irc

 

My own opinion is that her proponents will minimize this issue just as her detractors will maximize it. I am content to wait and see what happens. There are so many people looking at this that I'm confident that she will neither get away with anything nor get railroaded. And, of course, the lawyers get richer.

 

Latest saga (9/25/15) re Hillary contradiction/s…

“…NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Mrs. Clinton whether it was fair to question Mrs. Abedin’s taking a salary from both the State Department and Teneo.”

“Do you think he had a point in raising the question of whether it was appropriate for her to be taking a State Department salary and also be paid by an outside company closely associated with your husband and by you?” Ms. Mitchell asked.”

“Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that,” Mrs. Clinton replied. “But everything that she did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.”

“….Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly involved in arranging a new government position for a top aide that allowed the aide to begin working for a private consulting firm while remaining at the State Department, according to documents released on Thursday.

The documents, released by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, show that Mrs. Clinton personally signed forms establishing a new title and position for the aide, Huma Abedin, in March 2012. The forms were part of a broader process in which Ms. Abedin, then Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, was transitioning to a role as a “special government employee,” which allowed her to collect salaries from the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the private firm, Teneo, which was co-founded by a former aide to President Clinton.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton needs to explain this - is there an innocent explanation? click - Gretawire

Yep. Hillary Clinton was very involved in Huma Abedin’s job at State « Hot Air

Newly Released Documents Contradict Hillary Clinton’s Claim on Top Aide Huma Abedin:

 

Huma Abedin's Email Trail...

"Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton on the State Department’s latest release of emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server."

Re: WSJ Video 9/25/2015 1:41PM
Opinion Journal: Huma Abedin's Email Trail

 

E-mail is like a virus. It shows up in the most unusual places, at the most inconvenient times, even when you got rid of your own infection.

Nothing really big will happen to her.

 

Well if you consider the even chance Hillary won’t get the Democratic Party nomination as “…nothing really big…” :scratchchin:

 

Opinion Journal: Hillary's Version of Transparency
WSJ 10/1/2015 2:16PM

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton on the five-month gap in the emails the presidential candidate turned over to the State Department.

[video]http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-hillary-version-of-transparency/E635F64F-E4AD-4722-A551-E27DAD824A03.html[/video]

 

I appreciate the soon-to-be Speaker's diligence in exposing the e-mail issue (and the Benghazi investigations) for the political sham it is. Such leadership! He'll go far.