Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy?

[freemind1]

It was she who ordered when her husband was president, hence the manner of operation would be the same.

[Wilikon]

Email bombshells from Hillary's secret account show she didn't know when cabinet meetings were held, was dumbfounded by a fax machine and emailed aides to fetch her iced tea


Hillary Clinton's emails have been a subject of partisan finger-pointing and hand-wringing since the revelation in April that she had used a private home-brew server to store her messages during the four years she was secretary of state.

On Tuesday the State Department released the first in a series of document-dumps comprising about 3,000 of the 55,000 pages Clinton turned over to State late last year.

They describe the ordinary and the shocking – everything from ordinary meeting recaps to the involvement in the agency of Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton's 2008 election hatchet-man who had officially been exiled from the administration.

They also paint the onetime first lady and New York senator as technologically maladroit – she was all thumbs with an office fax machine – and distant enough from her husband Bill that their aides kept each informed about the other's doings.

She used her email to let aides know she was thirsy. 'Pls call Sarah and ask her if she can get me some iced tea,' one message read.

And then there's 'Santa' – an unknown person apparently on Clinton's meeting schedule.

'I'm seeing Santa at 8:30,' she wrote her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin six months after taking office, 'so won't take off until closer to 9:30.'

Despite the collective shock inside the D.C. beltway when news surfaced that Clinton had a secret email account, many of Washington's most influential Democrats were already in on it.

Political operative David Axelrod had her email address almost from the start, but claimed just weeks ago that he was unaware of it.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel wrote to her at the now-infamous 'HDR22@clintonemail.com.'

So did outgoing Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, liberal think tank chief John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, and lawyer-lobbyist Lanny Davis – who was later shamed for taking millions from West African strongmen.

Missing, so far, is any evidence of wrongdoing in the Benghazi saga.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far there is no trace of any communication between the secretary of state and ANYTHING regarding/related to benghazi or the death of his "good friend" ambassador steven... not even a simple "OMG!"

Nothing. How strange.

[Wilikon]

FLASHBACK: When David Axelrod said he didn't know anything about Clinton's private server



Former White House senior adviser David Axelrod said in June he was unaware Hillary Clinton conducted business from a personal email server when she served as secretary of State – but a State Department document dump Tuesday evening raises questions about how much he knew.

Asked last month in an interview whether he knew anything about Clinton's "homebrew" system when they worked together in the Obama administration, Axelrod responded, "I didn't know."



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2567391

[Wilikon]

An Inside Look at How Hillary Clinton Plays the Media

"Greta...is malleable."



Reines replied with a lengthy email explaining why the narrative was not as "dire as it seems in the moment." He noted that President Barack Obama would be delivering a major speech in the Middle East the following day that would "blanket coverage and extinguish the Cuba stuff, so we just need to weather the night."

He wrote:

we are suffering from two significant tactical problems: 1) you are here and removed 2) our press corps was out of position today and in flight, so the people we worked on all week and the ones likely to skew our way were replaced by reporters not connected to us. The two issues above will be rectified tomorrow in your two interviews - especially Greta who is malleable. We can use that to make a strong case on the principle, and the simple fact Cuba wasn't in the OAS yesterday, and won't be tomorrow. Everyday that passes reinforces that point. The time difference to East Coast will help us in moving whatever is said in these interviews tomorrow.

In his email, Reines was referring to an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, which aired the following day. The topic of the OAS meeting did indeed come up:

VAN SUSTEREN: I know you've been to Honduras. The OAS, after you left—it looks like Cuba's going to be invited back in.

CLINTON: No, that wasn't the outcome.

VAN SUSTEREN: It wasn't the outcome? What happened?

CLINTON: Well, we were very adamantly opposed to those who wanted to lift the 1962 suspension and leave it at that. That was not acceptable to the United States. That's, unfortunately, the path that they were on earlier. And we made the case to many countries and found a receptive audience that we could agree to lift something from so long ago that was really part of the cold war, but we had to reaffirm the values and principles of the OAS. We had to explicitly reaffirm democracy and human rights. And then we had to have a process.

So yes, you can lift the suspension, but that's the beginning, that's not the end. Then Cuba has to decide whether it wishes to become a member of the OAS. And then the OAS must, according to its practices, purposes and principles, enter into a dialogue with Cuba and make a decision.

So this was the beginning. Unlike what some had hoped, to have a kind of fait accompli, we were able to create a consensus that the majority of countries in the OAS agreed with the United States.

VAN SUSTEREN: So we haven't been snubbed.

CLINTON: Oh, not at all. In fact, this was a very good example of the kind of diplomatic engagement that we want to be involved with.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-emails-greta-van-susteren-leslie-gelb

[Wilikon]

Yes, Clinton lied about her emails




It is rare for news events, even as momentous as the past week's, to drown out absolute proof that a candidate for president has lied willfully to the public and Congress. Yet precisely such proof has emerged, and it has appeared not only in this newspaper but also in The New York Times (albeit with a headline designed not to draw attention).

Americans learned this spring that Hillary Clinton, in contravention of federal records rules and current law, conducted all her State Department business using a private email address, housed in a server at her home in Westchester County, N.Y.

But not to worry — the former secretary of state swore that she had diligently preserved and passed to the State Department every email she had written in the course of her job. Even though she destroyed all the evidence by wiping the server afterward, she assured the public that everything related to her conduct of official business had been kept and turned over, as the law requires.

It turns out that this is not true. Not only did Clinton fail to turn over work-related emails, but she or her staff also edited some of those emails before submitting them, as the Examiner's Sarah Westwood reported Saturday.

The missing materials, which the State Department says it does not have, came to Congress by other means. They include writings about the jockeying for oil contracts in Libya after President Obama engaging in a war without congressional approval to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. This comes among her back-and-forth emails with Sidney Blumenthal, a former staffer who had been barred from employment in the Obama administration, to continue offering his insight and advice on Libya.

It is possible but not plausible to construe these omissions as an honest mistake. The wife of a president who caviled over "what the the meaning of the word 'is' is" will split hairs and dispute what is and what is not a work-related email.

But the proof of intent to deceive comes in the fact that Clinton or her staff actually edited some of the emails and turned over censored versions to State before destroying her copy of the originals.

One of Clinton's emails to Blumenthal, for example, arrived at State missing a description of a telephone call she had with Libya's new president. She also tampered with Blumenthal's words in some cases. For example, she removed his admonition that "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy," and his warning that Libya could soon be ruled by Islamic law.

What was the motive for these excisions? Perhaps the motive was to spare Clinton some embarrassment, because surely she did not expect anyone to know about her reliance on Blumenthal as a source of intelligence.

But that is not the only question. Another is, if Clinton and her staff went over these emails finely enough to edit and remove portions of them, is it not likely that she tampered with others, or just dropped them down the memory hole? Recall that Clinton submitted her communications on paper and not electronically, which is a way of cleaning up any hidden electronic signs of tampering.

There is no way to put a good face on this one: Hillary Clinton lied about her emails. She had something to hide, and she hid it. She deliberately deceived Congress, which asked for her communications on Libya, and she spoke falsely to the public.

Once a public figure can no longer be trusted, Congress has an obligation to restore transparency. Congress should demand physical possession of Clinton's server and let the best minds in the computer world attempt to put the pieces back together again.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-clinton-lied-about-her-emails/article/2567368

[jorjito25]

She is trustworthy as she is Bill Clinton's wife. Bill did not have sex with that other women in the White House, and Hillary did not go for presidency while Bill did not have sex with that other women.

I would trust her and Bill with my private key.

[aikunsatu]

Don't let her gender fool you,  just
She's just as much a man as the rest of them, she'll do what's always been done,  make the biggest promises when votes are needed and then screw the people to protect the money when in power.

[Wilikon]

Emails Show Hillary’s State Department Communicating With Google About Blocked Benghazi Video



Emails among State Department officials show the administration was in contact with Google regarding a blocked YouTube video after President Obama conceded that the Benghazi attack was a preplanned act of terror.

On Sept. 27, 2012, Nora Toiv, a special assistant to the counselor of the Department, sent an email to other State Department officials with the subject line “RE: Google and YouTube.” The email referenced a phone conversation with a person named Sue who assured Toiv a block would remain on an unnamed video at least through Oct. 1, 2012. “Sue just called back and the block will stay through Monday,” Toiv said in the email. “They will not/not be unblocking it before then.”

Toiv’s message, sent at 1:35 pm, was in response to an email sent an hour earlier by Denis McDonough, current White House Chief of Staff who was then the Deputy National Security Adviser. McDonough’s email appears to contain the mobile and office phone numbers of Google CEO Larry Page and YouTube CEO Salar Kamangar. The numbers have been redacted in the copies made available to the public.

The email, which was made public in May as part of the State Department’s release of 296 emails related to the Benghazi attacks, was reported on by the Daily Caller and ABC News.

Although the emails do not name the video that is being blocked, much of the controversy following the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, centered on a YouTube video called The Innocence of Muslims. Hillary Clinton and other State Department and White House officials blamed the Benghazi attack on the video but later backed off the claim.

Radical Islamists in several countries did organize protests over the video, among other issues, including a large demonstration at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, that occurred on the same day as the Benghazi attack.

In her first public remarks after the Benghazi attacks, Hillary Clinton addressed the video. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” she said. “Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”

Charles Woods, father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods who was killed in Benghazi, said in an interview with Glenn Beck that Hillary Clinton promised to arrest and prosecute the person responsible for making The Innocence of Muslims at a memorial for his son. That man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was later arrested and prosecuted in connection to producing the video. The Obama administration bought $70,000 of ads on Pakistani television featuring clips of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton disavowing the video.

In the days after the attacks the White House requested Google remove The Innocence of Muslims under YouTube’s policy against hosting hate speech. Google refused to do so, according to the New York Times. The emails from Toiv and McDonough show the State Department was still in contact with Google well after the White House’s request.

Although Google refused to remove the video from YouTube it did block it for residents of numerous Middle Eastern countries in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. “This video—which is widely available on the Web—is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,” YouTube told CNN. “However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.”

It is unclear if or when Google lifted those blocks on viewing in those countries. However, YouTube remains banned by local governments in several countries including Pakistan.

The emails show the State Department was still concerned about the video after the president declared the attacks in Benghazi were preplanned. “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens,” President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012, two days before the email exchange between McDonough and Toiv.

The State Department declined to comment on the content of the video. “I cannot offer further context on that specific email,” Alec Gerlach, a State Department communications adviser, told the Washington Free Beacon. “But if you’re asking about the Innocence of Muslims video, this has been addressed by the Administration.”

Gerlach then directed the Free Beacon to a May 1st, 2014, press conference by then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

“What we know is that there was an attack, that there were extremists involved, and four Americans were killed,” Carney said in the briefing. “We have been saying that from the beginning.  Again, if you look at the language provided at the time by the IC to members of Congress and the White House, that’s what Ambassador Rice stuck to.”

“And as I said and others, it was based on what we believed to be true at the time, and they were caveating all the time about the fact more information might become available, more details might become available, and as they did there would be more information to provide.”

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Google did not respond to requests for comment.



http://freebeacon.com/politics/emails-show-hillarys-state-department-communicating-with-google-about-blocked-benghazi-video/

[Wilikon]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/press-roped-down-aides-hillary-event_984950.html


-----------------------------------------
Humaliation... Funny but sad as the media will still support her, no matter what. Only one question allowed: what's her favorite ice cream flavor...

[bryant.coleman]

Humaliation... Funny but sad as the media will still support her, no matter what. Only one question allowed: what's her favorite ice cream flavor...

It is the news channel (especially MSNBC and CNN) owners and the news paper CEOs (Washington Post, New York Times.etc) who support her, not the press reporters. The ground staff has hardly any say in the contents of the media. It will be decided by their bosses. And these bosses will be rewarded, once the Pinocchibitch is voted in to power in 2016.

[Wilikon]

Published on Jul 5, 2015

Here’s a great little glimpse at how the media treats Hillary and how she treats them. In this little clip a reporter tosses her a softball about Trump, basically asking her, “go ahead and tell us how bad Trump is.”

But rather than take the offer from her complacent fans in the media, she rebuffs it saying, “I think I’m gonna sit down and have some pie!” This reminds me of Obama’s “Can I just finish my waffle?” moment from 2008. If either had been a Republican, the media would be relentless in attacking instead of offering softball questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XkskGuJGpM

[Wilikon]

Hillary Flashback: Sanctuary Cities Keep Everyone Safe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WoQ8Pcttk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149706/Family-Californian-woman-shot-dead-random-illegal-Mexican-immigrant-deported-FIVE-TIMES-condemn-officials-let-stay.html


San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy is receiving harsh criticism after Wednesday’s murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle by Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a illegal immigrant who has been deported five times and has been convicted of seven felonies.

On Sept. 6, 2007 at Dartmouth College while debating during her last attempt to become president, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton supported sanctuary cities saying they help ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.”

Clinton said, “If local law enforcement begins to act like immigration officers what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes. You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government and that’s where it needs to be fixed.”

When pressed if that means she supports the sanctuary cities policy Clinton replied, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice.”


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/07/06/hillary-flashback-sanctuary-cities-keep-all-citizens-safe/

[Will.i.am Shakespeare]

Don't let her gender fool you,  just
She's just as much a man as the rest of them, she'll do what's always been done,  make the biggest promises when votes are needed and then screw the people to protect the money when in power.

People will vote for her just because she's a woman just like they did with Obama because he's black. Hillary will likely be much more war hungry than Bush or Barrack too so I agree don't let her gender fool anyone. Sadly I think she'll likely win but it doesn't matter who gets in nothing will change.

[bryant.coleman]

People will vote for her just because she's a woman just like they did with Obama because he's black. Hillary will likely be much more war hungry than Bush or Barrack too so I agree don't let her gender fool anyone. Sadly I think she'll likely win but it doesn't matter who gets in nothing will change.

Unfortunately, that is 100% true. I have seen at least one user here in the Politics & Society section of Bitcointalk claiming that she will vote for the Pinocchibitch, just because that thing happens to be female. She has already got the LGBT votes in her pocket, as she is bisexual. The Jews will also vote for her, as she has promised that she'll attack Iran. And another group which is going to supprt her is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/hookers-for-hillary_n_7229398.html

[EternalWingsofGod]

People will vote for her just because she's a woman just like they did with Obama because he's black. Hillary will likely be much more war hungry than Bush or Barrack too so I agree don't let her gender fool anyone. Sadly I think she'll likely win but it doesn't matter who gets in nothing will change.

Unfortunately, that is 100% true. I have seen at least one user here in the Politics & Society section of Bitcointalk claiming that she will vote for the Pinocchibitch, just because that thing happens to be female. She has already got the LGBT votes in her pocket, as she is bisexual. The Jews will also vote for her, as she has promised that she'll attack Iran. And another group which is going to supprt her is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/07/hookers-for-hillary_n_7229398.html

The question should be who would be the best canidate to vote for in the Democratic party if you are not in favour of Hillary, although she definitely has some guaranteed votes.
In a sense the real goal should be aimed at putting votes in for a viable contender to keep her out of the office at all cost.
As a sidenote I do wonder if Donald trump decided to become a republican just to mess with them since the Republicans keep mentioning he was originally a democrat.
It would be fun or sad to see a Democrat version of Trump on the stage debating politics with Hillary alas it is not meant to be that said Hookers 4 Hillary is a nice consolation I'm sure Bill would enjoy that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/07/05/brit_hume_if_donald_trump_was_a_democratic_mole_would_his_behavior_be_any_different.html

[J. J. Phillips]

Hillary's long time "aid" Huma Abedin was asked how Hillary's pussy tastes.

Her Answer?

Depends.

[beatophobe]

Hillary's long time "aid" Huma Abedin was asked how Hillary's pussy tastes.

Her Answer?

Depends.

That's not funny! That's unacceptable!

We finally have a chance for an accomplished woman to break through the glass ceiling and become president, and this is the kind of personal attack she has to face.

So what if she is an old lesbian? Is there something wrong with that? And so what if she's incontinent and has to wear adult diapers. This is a natural part of life and getting older, and I, for one, hope we as a nation are beyond discriminating against someone like Hillary simply because she no longer has voluntary control over her urine flow.

I have the same opinion about the other personal attacks on this thread. Has every other former Secretary of State been held to this high standard? Did anyone ask where they stored their emails? Were they attacked this harshly simply because they played a significant role in getting U.S. diplomats killed and then covered it up? Those people asking Hillary about the years-old story of Benghazi at this point might as well be screaming iron my shirt!

And not only is she being attacked simply because of things she did while in office, she's even being attacked for things she said, simply because of positions she may or may not have had in the past and positions she may or may not have now. What difference does it make where her positions are? I'm glad she's avoiding interviews where these "journalists" are waiting with their sexist trick questions intended to get her to state her positions.

I think Hillary will be a great president. She's a woman, a democrat and a Clinton, and that's good enough for me.

[Pentax]

Hillary's long time "aid" Huma Abedin was asked how Hillary's pussy tastes.

Her Answer?

Depends.

That's not funny! That's unacceptable!

We finally have a chance for an accomplished woman to break through the glass ceiling and become president, and this is the kind of personal attack she has to face.

So what if she is an old lesbian? Is there something wrong with that? And so what if she's incontinent and has to wear adult diapers. This is a natural part of life and getting older, and I, for one, hope we as a nation are beyond discriminating against someone like Hillary simply because she no longer has voluntary control over her urine flow.

I have the same opinion about the other personal attacks on this thread. Has every other former Secretary of State been held to this high standard? Did anyone ask where they stored their emails? Were they attacked this harshly simply because they played a significant role in getting U.S. diplomats killed and then covered it up? Those people asking Hillary about the years-old story of Benghazi at this point might as well be screaming iron my shirt!

And not only is she being attacked simply because of things she did while in office, she's even being attacked for things she said, simply because of positions she may or may not have had in the past and positions she may or may not have now. What difference does it make where her positions are? I'm glad she's avoiding interviews where these "journalists" are waiting with their sexist trick questions intended to get her to state her positions.

I think Hillary will be a great president. She's a woman, a democrat and a Clinton, and that's good enough for me.

No, none of the others had to be asked where they stored their emails, as there are rules that govern that which the others followed, all of which she ignored in an obvious attempt to control information, which is what the Clintons do best.

some of the attacks in this thread have been personal, however, a lot of what is here is speaking to her improper use of power in these e-mails and megabucks going to the Clinton foundation, to Bill for speaking fees, and other ethical improprieties while Sec State, among other things.

What difference does it make indeed.  Another of her favorite phrases when questioned about people being killed on her watch.  How dare Congress ask Hillary the Great questions about people killed on her watch after they'd been ringing the alarm bell on security, were ignored, and ended up dead.  My, the gall of some people.

if you think this POS would be a great president, IMO you wouldn't know a great one if it walked up and bit you in the face.  The fact that anyone is fooled by this narcissistic, power hungry piece of crap whose primary means of accomplishing her goal was accepting that her husband was banging anything that moved, is a pathetic statement on the blindness of the American people, or, as Gruber put it, the stupidity of the American voter.

but you rock on with that indignation that someone said something mean about someone who has been plundering the country for her own benefit.  the hilarity of that is enough to be so amusing that I doubt I'll see anything either as funny or as outright stupid for the rest of the day.

[Wilikon]

Hillary's long time "aid" Huma Abedin was asked how Hillary's pussy tastes.

Her Answer?

Depends.

[Wilikon]

Hillary's long time "aid" Huma Abedin was asked how Hillary's pussy tastes.

Her Answer?

Depends.

That's not funny! That's unacceptable!

We finally have a chance for an accomplished woman to break through the glass ceiling and become president, and this is the kind of personal attack she has to face.

So what if she is an old lesbian? Is there something wrong with that? And so what if she's incontinent and has to wear adult diapers. This is a natural part of life and getting older, and I, for one, hope we as a nation are beyond discriminating against someone like Hillary simply because she no longer has voluntary control over her urine flow.

I have the same opinion about the other personal attacks on this thread. Has every other former Secretary of State been held to this high standard? Did anyone ask where they stored their emails? Were they attacked this harshly simply because they played a significant role in getting U.S. diplomats killed and then covered it up? Those people asking Hillary about the years-old story of Benghazi at this point might as well be screaming iron my shirt!

And not only is she being attacked simply because of things she did while in office, she's even being attacked for things she said, simply because of positions she may or may not have had in the past and positions she may or may not have now. What difference does it make where her positions are? I'm glad she's avoiding interviews where these "journalists" are waiting with their sexist trick questions intended to get her to state her positions.

I think Hillary will be a great president. She's a woman, a democrat and a Clinton, and that's good enough for me.

You want this woman who married a predator, a well known pervert, womanizer in chief, to represent everything you strongly believe in life?

Some people (not me) say bill is the perfect father figure. "I wish he was my daddy..."

I will never understand why...