IT Firm Who Maintained Hillary’s Server: “Highly Likely A Full Backup Was Made” And Deleted Emails “May Still Exist”





Platte River Networks, the Denver-based cybersecurity firm Hillary Clinton hired in 2013 to maintain her old email server, says it is “highly likely” a full backup of the device was made and that the thousands of emails Clinton deleted may still exist, ABC News is reporting.

On Wednesday, Platte River gave the FBI the server Clinton used as secretary of state. The Democratic presidential candidate had stated numerous times prior to that that she would not relinquish control of the server to a third party.

But the FBI became interested in the hardware after the revelation that the Intelligent Community inspector general had determined that two emails that traversed the server contained “top secret” information. While Clinton is not believed to have sent the emails in question, the finding undermines her claims at the onset of the email scandal in March that no classified information ever landed on her server.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/16/report-highly-likely-that-theres-a-full-backup-of-hillarys-email-server-video/

Backers fear old weaknesses stalk Clinton campaign





It was supposed to be different this time. After the wounds of 2008, many of them self-inflicted, Hillary Rodham Clinton rebooted for 2016 with a new message, new advisers and new energy.

But two dynamics have crystallized this month, suggesting the New Hillary is hobbled by old weaknesses. Once again, worried supporters see signs of a bunker mentality in response to bad news about her e-mail server and other controversies, and they see a candidate who can seem strangely blinkered to the threat posed by a lesser-known challenger.

“A lot of the people who were hired by the campaign were new to the Clintons,” said a prominent Democrat who counts both Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton as friends. “I kind of assumed it would be different. But it hasn’t changed.”

That Democrat and other supporters requested anonymity in order to discuss the shortcomings of a candidate whom they still overwhelmingly support and think can win the White House. Several supporters said that while no one is pulling the fire alarm, they see worrisome patterns emerging.

Among them: insularity, rigidity and a sense that the operation is tone-deaf to changes happening around it.

The concerns come as Hillary Clinton is weakened by forces both within and outside her control, allies outside the campaign said. And if her campaign is doing some things well — raising money and organizing in early states — Clinton has not been able to shake off basic questions about her skills as a candidate.

Her campaign has been slow off the mark in responding to the surprising surge in national support for Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, several Democrats said. That’s one reason Vice President Biden and his allies are pondering a challenge to Clinton.

Meanwhile, the confusing saga of Clinton’s private e-mail system took what many Democrats saw as a chilling turn last week, with more news about the FBI’s investigation into the potential mishandling of classified material on Clinton’s home computer server. Clinton is not the target of the investigation but, in the words of one Democrat, no one wants their candidate’s name in the same sentence as “FBI.”

Clinton the fighter
One Democrat with past experience in presidential campaigns said Clinton and her advisers need to be risk-takers.

“They need to show her being bold and being a fighter and breaking out of this carefully constructed, opportunistic package that people think she is,” said another Democrat.

“There’s clearly emotion out there and she’s just not going anywhere near it, and she needs to find a way to.”

Her campaign staff protests that they are doing just that and cautions that any freak-out is vastly premature.

“We’re spending the next two weeks on pretty intensive political education” among supporters, said communications director Jennifer Palmieri. “Explain the facts, but also the political context that they have to look at this through. We’ll handle it. Fight back.”

Clinton has been feistier on the stump lately, delivering a partisan barn-burner of a speech to Iowa Democrats on Friday night. She framed the e-mail issue as part of a sustained Republican attack on everything Clinton.

“It’s not about e-mails or servers,” Clinton said. “It’s about politics.”

She pledged to “do my part to provide transparency to Americans,” but she skimmed over the messy details, including the fact, reported by The Washington Post, that she did not turn over her private server and a thumb drive containing her e-mails until after the Justice Department asked for them two weeks ago.

“I won’t get down in the mud with them,” Clinton said. “I won’t pretend that this is anything other than what it is — the same old partisan games we’ve seen so many times before.”

The echoes of the old “vast right-wing conspiracy” that she once said was out to get her and President Clinton were hard to miss, and the crowd at the annual “Wing Ding” dinner ate it up.

Hillary Clinton has not taken on Sanders directly, and she deferentially says Biden’s choice should be his to make. Her campaign says she will confront Sanders in due time, and certainly at the first Democratic debate in October, and is up to the challenge of both a primary and a general election fight.

“You can’t take this woman down,” Palmieri said. “On most days she has 19 candidates attacking her. I doubt that any other candidate on either side could withstand that kind of incoming as well.”

A change in the air
Still, saving all her firepower for Republicans leaves Clinton open to criticism from her own partisans that she is misreading the primary terrain.

Clinton designed a strategy founded on economic populism. Clinton argues that she has the experience and the temperament to be a champion for those who feel left out of a changing economic landscape and an imperfect economic recovery.

Sanders and Republican Donald Trump are tapping into something related but more visceral — a grass-roots, antiestablishment anger that is hard for Clinton to address with wonky policy prescriptions.

That may not be her fault, supporters said, but they want to see her acknowledge and adjust for it.

Another Democrat, also a veteran of presidential politics, said what the campaign needs is a more intense approach rather than a total overhaul. Clinton has campaigned episodically and often in controlled environments but not for sustained periods in more free-form settings.

“What do you do about the restiveness” among Democrats? the strategist asked. “The answer is you plunge in” by campaigning hard and doing so face-to-face with voters.

Democrats not directly involved in the Clinton campaign agreed that many of her events lack energy and emotion at a time when voters are responding to the blunt rabble-rousing messages of Sanders or Trump.

Many criticized the roundtable discussions Clinton is fond of holding as stilted and artificial, although some have yielded lively discussions of race, gun violence and drug addiction, among other topics.

What she needs, outside critics said, are events where she can show greater spontaneity.

Such agility is what her campaign advisers promised when they began in the spring, and it’s what Sanders appears to be showing now.

‘Unprecedented headwinds’
The Clinton campaign has sought to address supporters’ concerns about the Sanders threat and the e-mail issue, holding quiet sessions with influential Democrats over the past two weeks and distributing reassuring messages via e-mail.

Senior campaign officials have met with Democrats at the campaign headquarters in Brooklyn and in Washington. They have also made calls to what the campaign refers to as “talkers,” or partisans who talk to reporters or appear on television.

“Like any presidential campaign, we face our share of challenges,” campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in a “state of the race” memo distributed last week and obtained by The Post.

“In the face of these unprecedented headwinds, we’ve made a strategic decision to fight back and set the record straight,” Mook wrote.

His memo is mostly a recitation of what he identifies as the weaknesses and failings of the Republican field, plus an itemization of Clinton’s impressive fundraising, field organizing and social-media statistics. He stresses Clinton’s still-comfortable lead in national head-to-head polls against Republicans.

There is no direct mention of either the e-mail issue or Sanders’s summer surge, but Mook’s message is clear: There is no reason to panic.

“The fact remains, the Democratic primary will be competitive. History guarantees it,” Mook wrote.

Palmieri wrote to supporters after news last week that the FBI would take possession of the server Clinton had kept in her Chappaqua, N.Y., basement.

“Look, this kind of nonsense comes with the territory of running for president,” Palmieri wrote. “We know it, Hillary knows it, and we expect it to continue from now until Election Day. It’s OK. We’ll be ready. We have the facts, our principles, and you on our side.”

The e-mail issue has dampened Clinton’s support in New Hampshire, which holds the nation’s first primary, on Feb. 9. Sanders rose to a statistical tie there in the latest statewide poll, to the shock of some longtime Clinton backers. She is on safer ground in Iowa, which will hold the nation’s first presidential selection vote in the Feb. 1 caucuses.

Democrats in Washington fret that the e-mail liability is something Clinton brought on herself and has managed from a defensive crouch. The decision to operate a separate e-mail system parallel to the regular State Department system has resulted in an investigation that is now out of the control of Clinton and her campaign advisers.

Political strategists who have been through past such episodes note that an investigation like this can go in unexpected and damaging directions.

“I don’t think there’s a big smoking gun,” one Democrat said. “But it’s hard to explain why you had a private server, why you just now turned it over. . . . Shouldn’t you have had better judgment?”

Echoes of scandals past
The e-mail issue also recalls scandals of Clintonworld past and involves some of the same players, such as longtime Clinton attorney and confidant David Kendall.

Kendall has negotiated with congressional Republicans over access to Clinton’s e-mails and her forthcoming congressional testimony. Clinton entrusted him with a portable computer storage drive containing copies of her work-related e-mails.

Clinton and Kendall share a penchant for secrecy and a resistance to disclosure. But the best legal strategy is not always the best political one, Democrats said.

“She gave up her server,” one seasoned Democratic operative said. “Think how good it would have been if she had done it five months ago.”

Underlying that concern is an itchy sense among some Democrats that however skilled and capable Clinton and her husband are politically, they carry baggage that is hard to shake off. Every new controversy is a reminder that this is part of what comes with the Clintons.

“Getting out there and passionately campaigning and interacting with people in a genuine way is how you combat that,” said a Democratic strategist. “I think the absence of presence out there creates a vacuum in which these kinds of questions metastasize.”

The e-mail issue plays directly to public doubts about Clinton’s honesty, trustworthiness and judgment.

Clinton had said in March that she would not relinquish control of the server but relented last week. Clinton has also been forced to amend her initial blanket statement that she never sent any classified material over the home-based server while she was secretary of state. She now maintains that she never sent material that was labeled classified at the time.

Even Democrats who critique the Clinton campaign, however, say she remains formidable, both in the primary and in a general election.

“She’s still in a very, very strong position,” another strategist said. “I don’t think we’re in a free-fall situation here.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-campaign-same-old-problems-clinton-hurt-by-familiar-shortcomings/2015/08/15/ce80e2d8-42ad-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

Sex organs are lies made up by the patriarchy... Go ask any plastic surgeons in Brazil...

 

Surveys are too centralized and go against bitcoin's vision...

 

Unapologetic Capitalism VS Unsustainable Socialism – The Showdown at The Iowa State Fair…



Bernie’s vision for America is a collective society of moonbats sitting around the campfire eating sustainable algae cakes and picking parasites off each other.  Meanwhile Donald Trump arrives via his personal helicopter with a vision for every American to own one.






 There in the center of the sweaty, frothing mob of bodies and cameras and microphones, reaching and shoving and snapping away as state troopers guided the mass along the concourse, was the blonde-haired billionaire, his ruddy, sunken face shaded under the brim of a bright-red ballcap.

For the 45 minutes it took him to walk from Gate 8 to the Iowa Pork Tent, onlookers stood agape, corndogs in one hand and smartphones in the other, shouting, pleading for a handshake, taking it in.

“We love you Donald.”

“Give ‘em hell!”

“Kick Hillary’s ass!”

He’d landed several blocks away in a $7 million helicopter bearing his name. As he braved the sizzling midday heat, walking along in a navy blazer, khakis and shiny white spats, the chopper, still giving rides to groups of fawning children, swirled overhead.

Donald Trump, currently leading the polls for the Republican nomination and ready to spend $1 billion to win it all, was a long way from the gold-plated interior of New York City’s Trump Tower. But as a man who loves nothing more than to bask in the public’s adulation, he had come to the perfect place.

“My crowd is 10 times Hillary’s,” Trump gloated as he walked, having just been told the Democratic frontrunner, also campaigning at the fair Saturday, had taken note of his helicopter flying above.

For many who had come to see the prized heifers or the famed Butter Cow, the spectacle of Trump was the bigger thrill. In the same world in which candy bars are deep-fried, this billionaire Manhattan businessman is suddenly viewed as a blue-collar champion.

He speaks for the common man,” said Jeff Simms, a fairgoer from Grundy Center, Iowa, after watching Trump take a bite of a pork chop on a stick beneath a bright red tent that matched the ‘Make America Great Again’ hat he wore atop his golden mane. “He may be a millionaire, but he’s not beholden to the same special interests. And he tells it like it is.”

Every four years, the Iowa State Fair serves as a proving ground for aspiring presidential candidates, many of whom have tripped up trying to mask their elitism in a setting that requires a common touch. In 2007, Fred Thompson drew flak for showing up in fancy shoes. In 2011, Rick Perry was caught in an awkward photo-op because of the way he ate a corndog. Others have run afoul of voters by cutting long lines, misspeaking atop the famed soapbox, as Mitt Romney did, during encounters with lively spectators or for skipping certain rituals altogether.

Trump, as usual, did it his way — and the crowd ate it up.

“He landed in a helicopter with his name on the side of it,” boasted Chuck Laudner, the veteran GOP operative running Trump’s Iowa campaign, as he walked along the midway on the edges of the mob surrounding Trump. “Watch, the same press that’s harassing him to come up with policies is going to write that he wore fancy shoes. He’s No. 1 in the polls and it ain’t because of his goddamn shoes. It’s that message, baby.”


http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/08/15/unapologetic-capitalism-vs-unsustainable-socialism-the-showdown-at-the-iowa-state-fair/

“It’s me, I am who I am.”


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrived in Des Moines via helicopter on Saturday for the Iowa State Fair. The real estate mogul spoke to the press and then treated some kids to a trip they won’t forget. Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin and ABC’s Martha Raddatz were invited along for the ride. When asked if the helicopter fanfare was a bit too much, Trump said, “It’s me, I am who I am.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2015-08-15/mark-halperin-rides-in-style-with-the-donald-

As long as the cartels buy Made In USA Caterpillar machines for the tunnels...

 

Simple. What is the number one porn site on the web? If you have the analytic data per country (in this case UK) then what are people watching? Is it 50% of gay porn? Is it 25%? Is it 15%? Is it 10%? Is it 3%? Reddit porn LGBTQ subs versus other porn subs. How many subscribers?
What about porn valley, california? Is there a big boom in the gay porn industry? Are women begging for work because no one wants to see them naked and do nasty things anymore?

People will likely lie more and more because they do not want to be labeled as homophobes from now on... But what people are paying for, download and watch online...

Very strong data you could use to make an argument.
So go look it up, then come back and tell us...

 

Number of Hillary Clinton’s emails flagged for classified data grows to 60 as review continues








While media coverage has focused on a half-dozen of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal emails containing sensitive intelligence, the total number of her private emails identified by an ongoing State Department review as having contained classified data has ballooned to 60, officials told The Washington Times.

That figure is current through the end of July and is likely to grow as officials wade through a total of 30,000 work-related emails that passed through her personal email server, officials said. The process is expected to take months.

The 60 emails are among those that have been reviewed and cleared for release under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a open-records lawsuit. Some of the emails have multiple redactions for classified information.

Among the first 60 flagged emails, nearly all contained classified secrets at the lowest level of “confidential” and one contained information at the intermediate level of “secret,” officials told the Times.

Those 60 emails do not include two emails identified in recent days by Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III as containing “top-secret” information possibly derived from Pentagon satellites, drones or intercepts, which is some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets.

State officials and the intelligence community are working to resolve questions about those and other emails with possible classified information, a process that isn’t likely to be completed until January.

That will be right around the time Mrs. Clinton is slated to face voters in the Iowa caucuses in her bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

As the number of suspect emails grows and the classification review continues, it is clear that predictions contained in a notification Mr. McCullough sent Congress this summer is likely to hold true: Mrs. Clinton’s personal emails likely contained hundreds of disclosures of classified information.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/

That would make zero political sense for trump or paul...

University Teaches Students That White People Can’t Be Oppressed


An instructional guide apparently in use at Northeastern University in Boston is teaching the school’s residential assistants that it is impossible for white people or men to be oppressed.

“In order to have the experience of being oppressed one must belong to an oppressed category,” the guide, titled “The Umbrella of Oppression,” says. “Men cannot be oppressed as men, just as whites cannot be oppressed as whites.”


University Teaches Students That White People Can’t Be Oppressed



http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/14/university-teaches-students-that-whites-cant-be-oppressed/#ixzz3itw4tALA

-----------------------------
He can taste it...

How many Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Indus, etc... fight under isis' black flag? Simple question. Simple answer.

Obama, Romney break fundraising records
President Obama raised $1.1 billion for his reelection effort and Republican challenger Mitt Romney pulled in $1.01 billion, final Federal Election Commission figures show.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/07/nation/la-na-campaign-money-20121207

 

Also in the case of 0bama:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/04/02/video-obama-campaign-disables-credit-card-verification-accepts-donation-from-nidal-hasan/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/02/here-we-go-again-obama-website-accepting-contributions-from-phony-donors/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/10/08/exposing_barack_obamas_illegal_foreign_campaign_money_loophole

That's a big hole.

America’s Pervasive Indifference Towards Double Standards Will Let the EPA Off the Hook



You could say President Richard Nixon played a role in my very existence.

You could also say the same of Al Capone (no, really!), but that’s another story for another day.

Forty-one years ago this month a group of teens gathered around a TV set at a youth event, watching our 37th president resign from office after the infamous Watergate scandal.

At one point, a seat opened up next to the cute redhead all the girls had been eyeing—and my mom took the chance.


After 35 years of marriage, four kids and two grandkids later, the rest is history.

So yes, you could say President Nixon played a role in my existence … sort of.

But back to Watergate for just a moment, and bear with me while I connect a few historical dots.

Now a presidential candidate herself, Hillary Clinton once launched her legal career as part of the Watergate investigation, and played a role in Nixon’s ultimate demise.

Fast forward nearly half a century, and Clinton’s reckless State Department email trickery make Nixon’s sins look like child’s play. And for anyone else, it would be cause for a swift ticket to federal prison. Yet a combination of Clinton’s political clout and a broad acceptance of double standards will probably guarantee that Clinton gets away with it. With all of it.

Ok, so what do Richard Nixon, Watergate, and Hillary Clinton have to do with the Environmental Protection Agency?

(Other than the fact, incidentally, that Nixon created the EPA.)

Not unlike how Hillary Clinton will probably get away with lying and Nixon didn’t, the double standard that is so pervasive in our political culture will all but guarantee that the EPA gets away with a toxic spill that would probably ruin a private entity.

This isn’t just about the “gotcha” moment. It’s not just about preaching to the choir.

It’s about illuminating the double standard; the “get out of jail free” card that only a chosen few possess.

In what is now a disaster three times as large as originally reported, the EPA is responsible for spilling several million gallons of toxic waste (rife with things like arsenic and mercury at incredibly high levels) into a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado—ultimately exposing residents in three states to “an array of health problems from cancer to kidney disease to developmental problems in children.”

(And this, by the way, is the same agency tasked with enforcing the sweeping climate regulations I wrote about last week. Go figure.)

Sure, there’s been some outcry. However (save for those really paying attention or directly affected) it sure seems like it’s barely news. While the effects of this accident have the potential of being far more detrimental in the long run than say, the BP oil spill, it’s receiving a fraction of the coverage (and a fraction of the outrage).

You see, they’re on the safe side of the double standard.

And, once the river’s yellow hue has fully faded, so will the story. And the EPA will continue on with business as usual—wasting no time in coming down hard on individuals and companies purportedly guilty of environmental sins infinitely smaller by comparison.

It’s a glaring double standard.

Remember when the EPA sued Navistar International Corporation for violating the Clean Air Act in 2010, after Navistar “sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered engines that did not satisfy emissions standards applicable to model-year 2010 engines”? It could potentially cost the company $37,000 a day, per violation.

Remember when the EPA sued Edge Products for “manufacturing and selling electronic devices that allowed owners of model year 2007 and later diesel pickup trucks to remove emission controls from their vehicles”? That suit sought $500,000 in civil penalties.

Remember when the EPA accused Wyoming welder Andy Johnson of violating the Clean Water Act by building a pond in his back yard? The EPA’s threats in that case included a $75,000 a day fine.

Remember when the EPA tried to subject the Sackett family of Idaho to a similar $75,000 a day fine over claims that the construction of their new home was interfering with wetlands?

I’m not saying that the EPA will face zero blowback over this river spill. At least for now, certain groups plan to file lawsuits (and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time the EPA’s been sued).

The difference, however, is that the EPA has the full force of the federal government behind it.

And unlike the companies and families the EPA has targeted, the EPA doesn’t have to worry about much—regardless of one or a million lawsuits levied against it. (If anything, the unelected agency will grow increasingly stronger as they enforce the president’s sweeping Clean Power regulations.)

Not only is it unlikely that the EPA will experience a taste of its own medicine, but the agency is actually taking an active role in trying to prevent that from happening. Specifically, the agency has tried to coax members of the Navajo Nation to “waive rights to future compensation for damages incurred by the toxic spill.”

In other words, the EPA knows darn well that the spill’s consequences are far from over, despite claims that the river is “back to pre-spill quality.” Waiving rights to future compensation just saves the agency future headaches.

You see, it can do whatever it wants—no consequences—because by virtue of its position as part of the federal government bureaucracy, it’s on the favorable side of the double standard.

After all, what else explains the fact that this agency—whose sole existence is ostensibly to protect the environment—is responsible for an accident that left the riverbeds in three states laced with poisonous toxins like arsenic and lead to be stirred up for years to come, yet it’s hardly a blip on the news cycle?

Imagine for a moment if a private company had caused the spill.

There would be an all-hands-on-deck, full-fledged investigation. Every shred of evidence would be combed through, particularly claims that such a spill would be convenient for “superfund site” designation, and that a leak of precisely this nature would achieve exactly that.

I’m not holding my breath, because on this side of the double standard, you don’t have to answer for your actions outside of a few public appearances and apologies.

Believe it or not, it really does matter. A pervasive, persistent indifference to double standards lets bad behavior keep right on rolling.

I realize I’m not telling most of you something that don’t already know. Yup, there’s double standards in government. (Insert collective snore here.)

So seriously—when are we going to start caring?


http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/americas-pervasive-indifference-towards-double-standards-will-let-the-epa-off-the-hook/