Bitcoin Forum
July 02, 2024, 03:29:52 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 91 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy?  (Read 234698 times)
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 19, 2015, 05:21:31 PM
 #461

So both Hillary and Trump are the strongest candidates for next US president so far. But seems Obama is still much better than all candidates. Unfortunately he can be elected for next period.


Obama Says He Could Win Again - True or False?



[..]
Just 30% of Likely U.S. Voters say they would vote for the president if he ran for a third term. Sixty-three percent (63%) would not. . . .

Most Democrats (57%) would vote to give Obama a third term. Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party – and 32% of Democrats – would not.

Voters also favored leaving the two-term limit in place by a margin of 4 to 1.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2015/obama_says_he_could_win_again_true_or_false


FALSE


Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 19, 2015, 05:31:57 PM
 #462




Latest pro-Hillary spin: Classifications are dumb, y’all





Old and busted: You can trust Hillary Clinton with national security. New hotness: National security protections are so overrated! With the FBI probing the data trail from Hillary’s secret e-mail server and more than 300 e-mails flagged as possibly containing classified material, the strategy now is to claim that the material was overclassified from the start. Longtime Clinton defender David Brock told Politico that he wants to push the idea that classification is “elastic,” a term that has suddenly popped up more than once in the media of late.

In another Politico piece, Matthew Miller claims that the “real Clinton e-mail scandal” is classification itself. He claims that the appearance of classified material in more than 300 e-mails out of 6,000 is “far less scandalous than the headlines make it appear,” and that the true failure is overclassification of material that should be in the public domain:



As a former Department of Justice official who regularly dealt with classified information, I am glad a team of officials from the FBI, the intelligence community and other agencies is not currently reviewing every email I sent and received while I worked in government. If they did, they would likely find arguably classified information that was transmitted over unclassified networks—and the same thing is undoubtedly true for other senior officials at the White House, the State Department and other top national security agencies.

The sheer volume of information now considered classified, as well as the extreme, and often absurd, interpretations by intelligence officials about what is and is not classified, make it nearly impossible for officials charged with operating in both the classified and unclassified worlds to do so without ever mixing the two.

From the intelligence community’s perspective, the border between these two worlds looks like a brick wall. Many intelligence officials spend their entire day working inside so-called Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, designed to be impenetrable to eavesdropping, and using only separate, classified email systems to communicate with others in government. In these hermetically sealed environments, there is no need to ever sort through the differences between classified and unclassified information.

But for officials charged with dealing with the public, the media and other governments, the lines become much harder to draw.




This glosses over a couple of very important points. First, the proper way to reclassify material is to have the issuing authority review it. That duty does not fall to the Secretary of State or her aides, but to the agencies that produced the data, and their direct chain of command, all the way to the President. Not even Congress can declassify material, at least not directly. Users of this material have a positive responsibility to protect it, are briefed constantly on how to handle it while it remains classified, and face severe consequences for violating those protocols and laws, most definitely including prosecution when it involves willful violations or gross negligence (18 USC 793, especially in (f)(1), the application of which is not limited to classified material).

Second, while much of the e-mails flagged (so far) are classified at Confidential and Secret levels — where overclassification is a chronic issue — two e-mails contained information that the issuing agencies considered Top Secret and compartmented. That data came from the NSA and other signals intelligence operations, including satellite-gathered data. Those kinds of information carry high classifications for very substantial reasons, including the protection of our methods of collecting it.

Finally, all of this starts and ends with the exclusive use of an unsecured and unauthorized communications system located in Hillary Clinton’s house, effectively an unauthorized retention of classified material (a crime under 18 USC 1924). There is no valid reason for a federal official with compliance requirements not just for secure transmission of sensitive materials but also with the Federal Records Act to conduct official business through a home-brew server. It was a deliberate attempt to circumvent both responsibilities, and largely succeeded at the latter until the existence of the server became public. As a result, the State Department made numerous misrepresentations in courts in response to FOIA demands that involved communications from Hillary and her team that were required to be part of the public record.

Classifications are not “elastic” either, not to those who handle the material, and especially not when it comes to signals intelligence. They are required to handle it according to the markings no matter what they personally think of its necessity. If Hillary and her staff had a problem with the classification levels cited, then they should have requested a review of the material — and there is no indication that anyone ever did. Even if they had, Hillary and her team were still were required to comply with the laws and protocols while the material was still classified.

Overclassification may be a problem, but it’s not this problem.  This problem is that a high-ranking public official secretly evaded legitimate constitutional oversight from Congress and the courts with this e-mail system, which recklessly endangered US national security for four years to service her own personal motives.

This is a pathetic attempt at spin, especially given the progression of defenses that have been offered over the last six months. The RNC’s James Hewitt notes the moving goalposts of Hillary defenders:






http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/19/latest-pro-hillary-spin-classifications-are-dumb-yall/



jayce
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1513


Pie Baking Contest: https://tinyurl.com/2s3z6dee


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2015, 12:16:07 PM
 #463

So both Hillary and Trump are the strongest candidates for next US president so far. But seems Obama is still much better than all candidates. Unfortunately he can be elected for next period.


Obama Says He Could Win Again - True or False?



[..]
Just 30% of Likely U.S. Voters say they would vote for the president if he ran for a third term. Sixty-three percent (63%) would not. . . .

Most Democrats (57%) would vote to give Obama a third term. Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party – and 32% of Democrats – would not.

Voters also favored leaving the two-term limit in place by a margin of 4 to 1.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2015/obama_says_he_could_win_again_true_or_false


FALSE




Well I guess Hillary has made nice moving then, which she could got many supporters for now. Surely Republicans never support Obama, thats why most of them didnt vote for him.

R


▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄▄
████████████████
▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀█████
████████▌███▐████
▄▄▄▄█████▄▄▄█████
████████████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀▀
LLBIT
  CRYPTO   
FUTURES
 1,000x 
LEVERAGE
COMPETITIVE
    FEES    
 INSTANT 
EXECUTION
.
   TRADE NOW   
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 03:45:11 PM
 #464

So both Hillary and Trump are the strongest candidates for next US president so far. But seems Obama is still much better than all candidates. Unfortunately he can be elected for next period.


Obama Says He Could Win Again - True or False?



[..]
Just 30% of Likely U.S. Voters say they would vote for the president if he ran for a third term. Sixty-three percent (63%) would not. . . .

Most Democrats (57%) would vote to give Obama a third term. Ninety-three percent (93%) of Republicans, 68% of voters not affiliated with either major party – and 32% of Democrats – would not.

Voters also favored leaving the two-term limit in place by a margin of 4 to 1.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2015/obama_says_he_could_win_again_true_or_false


FALSE




Well I guess Hillary has made nice moving then, which she could got many supporters for now. Surely Republicans never support Obama, thats why most of them didnt vote for him.


Surely democrats did not vote for Romney as they never supported him either...  Why would you want to support someone who told you to shut up?

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both-of-them-2015-1


0bama is the definition of narcissism. Look it up. You do not have to believe me.


Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 04:07:06 PM
 #465




Clinton Spokesperson Absurdly Claims “Absolutely Nothing Controversial” About Clinton Emails






------------------------------------
Hillary needs better liars with a better poker face. Did you see how he was slightly bobbleheading at the end? Very proud of himself...

 Cheesy

Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 06:59:26 PM
 #466




State Department Issues New Rules In Bid To Stop Employees From Talking To Press About Hillary’s Email Scandal…



The State Department has quietly issued a new policy that some insiders view as designed to keep employees from freely speaking to Congress or the press about Benghazi and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email controversy.

The State Department issued 19 pages of revised rules about official clearance for speaking, writing and teaching on July 27.

The new rules, first reported by Diplopundit, a blog that unofficially watches State Department leadership and management issues, say in part: “Employee testimony, whether in an official capacity or in a personal capacity on a matter of Departmental concern may be subject to the review requirements of this subchapter. Employees should consult with the Department of State’s Office of the Legal Adviser or [U.S. Agency of International Development’s] Office of the General Counsel, as appropriate, to determine applicable procedures.”


http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/19/state-department-clamps-down-on-speaking-to-congress-or-press/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed


--------------------------------------------
Hillary's turd spreads up...

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3836
Merit: 1373


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 08:38:39 PM
 #467

Hillary T. Clinton.    Roll Eyes

Cure your cancer at home. Ivermectin, fenbendazole, methylene blue, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are chief among parasite drugs. Find out that all disease is based in parasites or pollution, and what you can easily do about it - https://www.huldaclark.com/, https://thedrardisshow.com/, https://thehighwire.com/.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 20, 2015, 09:34:47 PM
 #468




'um', 'uh' 11 times in 97 seconds...


The Clinton campaign is still groping for two sentences to put together to explain why Hillary’s email server was wiped clean.

Campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri appeared on CNN moments ago to try again to come up with an answer. Instead, it was largely rambling and incoherent.


“When did she decide to delete all — you know, half of the emails she effectively engaged in during her four years as secretary of state,” Wolf Blitzer asked Palmieri.

“She had her, um, she had — what happened was she — state department came to all the former secretaries of state last fall to ask for — to ask for whatever records they may have because they realized that, um, uh, they didn’t becau- because, uh, not just Hillary Clinton but other secretaries of state may have used personal email they may not have captured everything.

“So she had, she asked, uh, her lawyers to look at this so she had some legal minds on the case to see which emails were state department and which were personal and, uh, turned over the state department ones, uh, anything that was business related and, and then chose not to retain the ones that she, the ones that were personal,” Palmieri said.

“On that point,” Blitzer responded, “why wouldn’t she want to keep her own email records — maybe there were some fun, cute emails — why would she need to wipe all that clean?”

“She deglided, um, because she didn’t, I mean, these are, these are personal emails and I think that everyone understands even Hillary Clinton gets a zone of privacy and she decided that she, uh, she retains a couple months-worth of emails so you can, you know, so she can, uh, uh, find personal emails she needs to but after that, she doesn’t need them anymore. So, she made this decision, I think is, obviously, you know, she was former secretary of state, so we want to be sure people understand, uh, how she handled classified information when shew as secretary of state, she was very careful with it, she didn’t deal with it online, she dealt with it on hard copy, in meetings, not on the computer,” Palmieri said.


http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-spox-stumbles-and-mumbles-over-deleted-emails/


Spendulus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2898
Merit: 1386



View Profile
August 20, 2015, 09:54:53 PM
 #469




'um', 'uh' 11 times in 97 seconds...


The Clinton campaign is still groping for two sentences to put together to explain why Hillary’s email server was wiped clean.

Campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri appeared on CNN moments ago to try again to come up with an answer. Instead, it was largely rambling and incoherent.


“When did she decide to delete all — you know, half of the emails she effectively engaged in during her four years as secretary of state,” Wolf Blitzer asked Palmieri.

“She had her, um, she had — what happened was she — state department came to all the former secretaries of state last fall to ask for — to ask for whatever records they may have because they realized that, um, uh, they didn’t becau- because, uh, not just Hillary Clinton but other secretaries of state may have used personal email they may not have captured everything.

“So she had, she asked, uh, her lawyers to look at this so she had some legal minds on the case to see which emails were state department and which were personal and, uh, turned over the state department ones, uh, anything that was business related and, and then chose not to retain the ones that she, the ones that were personal,” Palmieri said.

“On that point,” Blitzer responded, “why wouldn’t she want to keep her own email records — maybe there were some fun, cute emails — why would she need to wipe all that clean?”

“She deglided, um, because she didn’t, I mean, these are, these are personal emails and I think that everyone understands even Hillary Clinton gets a zone of privacy and she decided that she, uh, she retains a couple months-worth of emails so you can, you know, so she can, uh, uh, find personal emails she needs to but after that, she doesn’t need them anymore. So, she made this decision, I think is, obviously, you know, she was former secretary of state, so we want to be sure people understand, uh, how she handled classified information when shew as secretary of state, she was very careful with it, she didn’t deal with it online, she dealt with it on hard copy, in meetings, not on the computer,” Palmieri said.


http://www.theamericanmirror.com/clinton-spox-stumbles-and-mumbles-over-deleted-emails/



Lying fucks.

Classified communications is clearly marked and identified.

http://fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/nimaguide.pdf

Classified information must be protected or stored in a locked security container when not under control or when not located in an area approved for open storage.  Only GSA approved security containers or approved open storage areas are authorized for storage of classified information.

There are three essential markings required on all information classified as national security information.  The following will appear on the face of each classified documen
t, or will be applied to other classified media in an appropriate manner:
a.
Classification Line (at the top and bottom);
b.
Portion Marking;
c.
Classification Block which consists of the following:
1)
The identity, by name or personal identifier and position of the
 OCA;
2)
The agency and office of origin,
3)
Declassification instructions,
4)
Reason for classification. 

A 2013 report to Congress noted that "...criminal statutes that may apply to the publication of classified defense information ... have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it), who make it available to foreign agents.

jayce
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1513


Pie Baking Contest: https://tinyurl.com/2s3z6dee


View Profile WWW
August 21, 2015, 08:41:44 AM
 #470

Surely democrats did not vote for Romney as they never supported him either...  Why would you want to support someone who told you to shut up?

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html


http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both-of-them-2015-1


0bama is the definition of narcissism. Look it up. You do not have to believe me.



Then who would you choose if the candidates for US President are only Obama, Trump, and Hillary? The last two names have made some controversial actions before election. But yeah, Obama can't fulfill all expectations of his people. Maybe Hillary can Roll Eyes

R


▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄▄
████████████████
▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀█████
████████▌███▐████
▄▄▄▄█████▄▄▄█████
████████████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀▀
LLBIT
  CRYPTO   
FUTURES
 1,000x 
LEVERAGE
COMPETITIVE
    FEES    
 INSTANT 
EXECUTION
.
   TRADE NOW   
PaoloSerBit
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 09:00:50 AM
 #471

She´s as trustworthy as any politician  Wink. I don´t understand using expressions like these when speaking about people whose only occupation is to get into position of power.

https://cryptoins.com/es/ - Un Exchange muy bueno
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 01:41:28 PM
 #472






For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

Reuters' findings may add to questions that Clinton has been facing over her adherence to rules concerning sensitive government information. Spokesmen for Clinton declined to answer questions, but Clinton and her staff maintain she did not mishandle any information.

"I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified," Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday.

Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.

The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.

The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public.

The State Department has said it does not know whether the inspector general is correct. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched an investigation into the security of the copies of the emails outside the government's control.

FOR THE SECRETARY'S EYES ONLY

Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.

The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.

In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."

Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach, in an initial response to questions on how the department applies classification regulations, said that Reuters was making "outlandish accusations." In a later email, he said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.

"We do not have the ability to go back and recreate all of the various factors that would have gone into the determinations," he wrote.

The Reuters review also found that the declassification dates the department has been marking on these emails suggest the department might believe the information was classified all along. Gerlach said this was incorrect.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

A series of presidential executive orders has governed how officials should handle the ceaseless incoming stream of raw, usually unmarked information they acquire in their work. Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified.

The State Department's own regulations, as laid out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, have been unequivocal since at least 1999: all department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher, according to the version in force in 2009, when these particular emails were sent.

"Confidential" is the lowest U.S. classification level for information that could harm national security if leaked, after "top secret" and "secret".

State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.

Reuters was unable to rule out the possibility that the State Department was now overclassifying the information in the emails, or applying the regulations in some other improper or unusual way.

John Fitzpatrick, the current ISOO director, said Reuters had correctly identified all the governing rules but said it would be inappropriate for his office to take a stance on Clinton's emails, in part because he did not know the context in which the information was given.

A spokeswoman for one of the foreign governments whose information appears in Clinton's emails said, on condition of anonymity to protect diplomatic relations, that the information was shared confidentially in 2009 with Clinton and her senior staff.

If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations.

The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.

Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize, although more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.

With few exceptions, officials are forbidden from sending classified information even via the .gov email network and must use a dedicated secure network instead. The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821


Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 02:03:24 PM
 #473









chopstick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 992
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 21, 2015, 04:01:29 PM
 #474

You guys keep talking about her email story...

How about the huge role she played in assassinating Gaddhafi, eviscerating Libya and handing the whole country over to ISIS extremists?

She's a fucking warcriminal
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 22, 2015, 12:08:01 AM
 #475

You guys keep talking about her email story...

How about the huge role she played in assassinating Gaddhafi, eviscerating Libya and handing the whole country over to ISIS extremists?

She's a fucking warcriminal





Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 22, 2015, 12:19:14 AM
 #476




Hillary planning to “educate the public” on the natsec classification process





To get in front of these headlines, the Clinton campaign is plotting a three-pronged pushback strategy. The first, described by Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri in an interview with The Huffington Post, is an end-of-summer effort to educate the public on the classification process for national security material. The second, coming when Congress returns from recess, is to aggressively pivot to policy announcements, from economic and women’s issues to President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, which will receive a vote in September. The last is to “go on offense” on Clinton’s record as Secretary of State, which the campaign sees as the ultimate target of her Republican critics…

In attempting to soothe jittery Democrats, aides have begun highlighting Oct. 22 as a moment that could bring clarity — if not some finality — to the email story. Clinton will head to  Capitol Hill that day for testimony before the House committee investigating the 2011 consulate attack in Benghazi. And the presumption that she’ll do well under questioning is matched only by the conviction that House Republicans will grow over-eager under the camera lights.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-clinton-campaign-is-in-the-barrel-they-have-a-plan-to-get-out_55d76df0e4b08cd3359c0858?2ihpvi

jayce
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1513


Pie Baking Contest: https://tinyurl.com/2s3z6dee


View Profile WWW
August 22, 2015, 04:33:19 AM
 #477










Well she didn't has the time to join her husband birthday bash. What she really care is only her country, USA Cool Or maybe she just care the power she will get.

R


▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄▄
████████████████
▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀█████
████████▌███▐████
▄▄▄▄█████▄▄▄█████
████████████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀▀
LLBIT
  CRYPTO   
FUTURES
 1,000x 
LEVERAGE
COMPETITIVE
    FEES    
 INSTANT 
EXECUTION
.
   TRADE NOW   
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 23, 2015, 01:39:07 AM
 #478




CBS Boston: Warren In Interview Stiff Arms Hillary Clinton


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DscfO-nX28





wxa7115
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 2772
Merit: 718


View Profile
August 23, 2015, 03:53:46 AM
 #479

No politician, no matter the county is trustworthy.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
August 23, 2015, 03:27:19 PM
 #480




The Hillary Clinton Email Scandal, In Two-and-a-Half Minutes


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV0il-90JnI


Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 ... 91 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!