Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy?

[LimitedDev]

She is arrogant and decadent. Stayed with the man that cheated on her. Not the kind of woman that will be the US president.

[Pentax]

CIA review reportedly finds 'Top Secret' info in Clinton email

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/08/cia-review-reportedly-finds-top-secret-info-in-clinton-email/21232904/

According to a report from The New York Times, a special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Clinton received as secretary of state backs the inspector general finding that the emails contained highly classified information.

The special review conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency found that the emails, sent in 2009 and 2011 were "Top Secret." The Clinton campaign and State Department responded to the initial finding from the inspector general by questioning if the emails had been overclassified arbitrarily.

One email apparently pertained to North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

"It is not a surprise that other lawyers in the intelligence community would agree with [the inspector general]," a Clinton campaign official told NBC News.

Although Clinton's campaign statements about the emails have gradually evolved, she's continually denied sending or receiving any classified material.

More than 30,000 emails from Clinton's server are being released in batches, with the next due to be released Sept. 30.

[Blawpaw]

lool! are you serious with that question? Her former Husband may have been the most diplomatic President the US had, but I would put the question another way...

Is the United States Government Trustworthy?

[Wilikon]

lool! are you serious with that question? Her former Husband may have been the most diplomatic President the US had, but I would put the question another way...

Is the United States Government Trustworthy?

lool! are you serious with that question?
Give us the list of governments you believe to be trustworthy on planet Earth...

 

[Wilikon]

State Department Had No Idea That New Email Czar Was A Hillary Clinton Donor

The State Department admitted on Wednesday that it did not know that a career diplomat hired as the agency’s new email and transparency czar donated the maximum allowed under federal law to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Regardless of that potential conflict of interest, agency spokesman John Kirby also acknowledged that the new hire, Janice Jacobs, will likely be involved in processing Clinton’s emails.

Hours after Jacobs’ hiring was announced on Tuesday, it was revealed that she contributed $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign in June.



http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/09/state-department-had-no-idea-that-new-email-czar-was-a-hillary-clinton-donor/

[Wilikon]

State Dept Fails To Turn Over Docs Requested By Fed Judge On Hillary’s Aide, Huma Abedin


WASHINGTON – The State Department has delivered only seven of nearly 70 pages of documents that a federal judge identified as potentially responsive to an Associated Press request for documents relating to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s hiring of longtime aide Huma Abedin as a special government contract staffer.

The department’s response contained only five email documents, two of them partially censored.

Meanwhile, government lawyers asked another federal judge to delay releasing thousands of pages of documents, sought by news media and legal and political organizations, from Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state until January 2016.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/10/state-department-only-turns-over-fraction-requested-documents-about-clinton/?intcmp=hplnws

[operrajunk74]

Yes, she is very trustworthy but most of the younger folks don't know the real life - yet grow up and look again.  She worked 35 years as a rep and also she founded the children left behind long ago. she started it and she was an investigator in watergate and also done her duty as first lady.

[Wilikon]

Yes, she is very trustworthy but most of the younger folks don't know the real life - yet grow up and look again.  She worked 35 years as a rep and also she founded the children left behind long ago. she started it and she was an investigator in watergate and also done her duty as first lady.

The Clinton Campaign Is Literally Collapsing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qensOdm_xv8

"Shake shake shake shake.. Shake it out!..." Boom!
 

[Wilikon]

Yes, she is very trustworthy but most of the younger folks don't know the real life - yet grow up and look again.  She worked 35 years as a rep and also she founded the children left behind long ago. she started it and she was an investigator in watergate and also done her duty as first lady.

Clinton Campaign: “Whatever you can get away with just do it”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhI6bMbhsDE

Hidden cameras capture Clinton campaign staff in Nevada not only skirting election law but mocking it.

Christina Gupana, a Hillary campaign worker and Las Vegas attorney: is caught by Project Veritas Action journalists advising her fellow campaign workers to “do whatever you can, whatever you can get away with just do it.”



An undercover video published Thursday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas purports to show Nevada-based Hillary Clinton campaign staffers and volunteers ignoring and knowingly violating Nevada’s voter registration laws. Moreover, the video appears to show that this conduct is being condoned and encouraged by a local attorney who works for the Clinton campaign.

According to the video, it is a felony in the state of Nevada for anyone involved in the voter registration process to “solicit a vote for or against a particular question or candidate; speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot for or against a particular question or candidate.” 

The video appears to show that numerous Hillary Clinton campaign staffers are well aware of the law. Nevertheless, the video shows them laughing at the law and repeatedly bragging about violating it by promoting Hillary Clinton verbally and with campaign literature as they attempt to register potential voters.

The Project Veritas video further appears to show that the Clinton campaign staff solicits voter registration in close proximity to state offices, which may also violate Nevada law

According to the video, when the attorney in question, identified as Christina Gupana, was told about this alleged lawbreaking, she advised the staffers to, “Do whatever you can. Whatever you can get away with, just do it, until you get kicked out like totally.”

More than one staffer says that the campaign’s motto towards these laws is “Ask for forgiveness, not for permission.”


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/10/okeefe-strikes-again-undercover-video-purports-to-show-hillary-campaign-violating-election-law/

[iv4n]

I think there is no trustworthy politican. There must be something in their character that make them behaive so indifferently to world`s biggest problems and to keep pushing in more weapons, army, some wars etc...

[butdabass]

i dont think she is thrustworthy. women is always complicate 

[Wilikon]

Will Hillary Clinton’s Emails Burn the White House?



Counterintelligence specialists suspect that the former secretary of state wasn’t the only member of the Obama administration emailing secrets around.
Hillary Clinton’s email problems are already causing headaches for her presidential campaign. But within American counterintelligence circles, there’s a mounting sense that the former secretary of state may not be the only Obama administration official in trouble. This is a scandal that has the potential to spread to the White House, as well.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation can be expected to be tight-lipped, especially because this highly sensitive case is being handled by counterintelligence experts from Bureau headquarters a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, not by the FBI’s Washington Field Office. That will ensure this investigation gets the needed “big picture” view, since even senior FBI agents at any given field office may only have a partial look at complex counterintelligence cases.

And this most certainly is a counterintelligence matter. There’s a widely held belief among American counterspies that foreign intelligence agencies had to be reading the emails on Hillary’s private server, particularly since it was wholly unencrypted for months. “I’d fire my staff if they weren’t getting all this,” explained one veteran Department of Defense counterintelligence official, adding: “I’d hate to be the guy in Moscow or Beijing right now who had to explain why they didn’t have all of Hillary’s email.” Given the widespread hacking that has plagued the State Department, the Pentagon, and even the White House during Obama’s presidency, senior counterintelligence officials are assuming the worst about what the Russians and Chinese know.

EmailGate has barely touched the White House directly, although it’s clear that some senior administration officials beyond the State Department were aware of Hillary’s unorthodox email and server habits, given how widely some of the emails from Clinton and her staff were forwarded around the Beltway. Obama’s inner circle may not be off-limits to the FBI for long, however, particularly since the slipshod security practices of certain senior White House officials have been a topic of discussion in the Intelligence Community for years.

Hillary Clinton was far from the only senior Obama appointee to play fast and loose with classified materials, according to Intelligence Community insiders. While most counterspies agree that Hillary’s practices—especially using her own server and having her staffers place classified information into unclassified emails, in violation of Federal law—were especially egregious, any broad-brush investigation into security matters are likely to turn up other suspects, they maintain.

“The whole administration is filled with people who can’t shoot straight when it comes to classified,” an Intelligence Community official explained to me this week. Three U.S. officials suggested that Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser, might be at particular risk if a classified information probe goes wide. But it should be noted that Rice has made all sorts of enemies on the security establishment for her prickly demeanor, use of coarse language, and strategic missteps.

However, Clinton should take no comfort from the fact that others may be in trouble with the FBI too. Just how many of her “unclassified” emails were actually classified is a matter of dispute that will take months for the FBI to resolve with assistance from the State Department and Intelligence Community. The current figure bandied about, that something like 300 of the emails scanned to date by investigators contained information that should have been marked as classified, is somewhat notional at this point, not least because the Intelligence Community has yet to weigh in on most of them.

Spy agencies typically take a harder line on classification than the State Department does, including a tendency to retroactively mark as classified mundane things—for instance press reports that comment on security matters can be deemed secret—that other, less secrecy-prone agencies might not. That said, there’s little doubt that our intelligence agencies fear that the compromise engendered by Hillary’s email slipshod practices was significant.

Although it will be months before intelligence agencies have reviewed all Clinton emails, counterintelligence officials expect that the true number of classified emails on Hillary’s servers is at least many hundreds and perhaps thousands, based on the samplings seen to date.

Excuses that most of the classified emails examined to date are considered Confidential, which is the lowest level, cut no ice with many insiders. Although the compromise of information at that level is less damaging than the loss of Secret—or worse Top Secret—information, it is still a crime that’s taken seriously by counterintelligence professionals. Most of the classified emails that Hillary and her staff seem to have compromised dealt with diplomatic discussions, which is a grave indiscretion as far as diplomats worldwide are concerned.

“Of course they knew what they were doing, it’s a clear as day from the emails,” opined one senior official who is close to the investigation. “I’m a Democrat and this makes me sick. They were fully aware of what they were up to, and the Bureau knows it.” That Hillary and her staff at Foggy Bottom were wittingly involved in a scheme to place classified information into ostensibly unclassified emails to reside on Clinton’s personal, private server is the belief of every investigator and counterintelligence official I’ve spoken with recently, and all were at pains to maintain that this misconduct was felonious.

It’s clear that many people inside the State Department had to be aware, at least to some degree, of what Clinton and her inner staff were engaged in. How far that knowledge went is a key question that the FBI is examining. The name Patrick Kennedy pops up frequently. A controversial character, Kennedy is the State Department’s undersecretary for management (hence his Foggy Bottom nickname “M”). A longtime Clinton protégé, Kennedy is believed by many to be the key to this case, since his sign-off likely would have been needed for some of Clinton’s unorthodox arrangements.

Described by more than one insider as “the State Department’s J. Edgar Hoover,” Kennedy is a figure of mystery to many. “I’d put talking to him near the top of my list,” explained a retired senior FBI official, a career counterintelligence agent. “Would Kennedy go down for Hillary? Maybe,” he added, “But will some GS [General Schedule] or FSO [Foreign Service Officer],” meaning a career State Department employee, “go down for Hillary? I doubt it. The FBI will get someone to talk, we always do.”

Where the FBI’s investigation of EmailGate is headed is anybody’s guess. The Clintons do have a long history of hanging tough and outlasting scandals. Obama’s Department of Justice may be able to quash prosecutions, no matter what the FBI finds. But it cannot stifle Congress. And more than one committee is interested in Hillary’s emails, far beyond the Benghazi investigation. Congressional investigators are looking into issues beyond classification, to include possible dirty financial deals orchestrated by Hillary when she was at Foggy Bottom, to benefit her husband and the Clinton Foundation.

“This was about a lot more than just some classified emails,” a senior Capitol Hill staffer told me, “and we’ll get to the bottom of it. But we’re happy to let the FBI do the heavy lifting for right now.” Although many on Capitol Hill are frustrated by a lack of information sharing by the White House about EmailGate, and many other matters, “This is different,” the staffer opined, “now the media won’t let go—and the Bureau definitely won’t. I wouldn’t want to be Hillary right now.”

Another cause for concern is the rising number of questions emanating from even generally pro-Clinton media outlets. Now that the Washington Post has reported that Hillary indeed both sent and received classified information on her personal account—despite her protestations that she did no such thing—this is not a scandal that sufficient incantations of Vast Right Wing Conspiracies can make disappear. While Clinton loyalists may defend Hillary to the end, that may be cold comfort given what any rigorous investigation of EmailGate might turn up.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/02/will-hillary-clinton-s-emails-burn-the-white-house.html

Done and done: Justice Dept says Clinton could erase emails if she liked

Prepare to be shocked. Regardless of what turns up in Hillary Clinton’s emails in the weeks and months to come, you won’t need to worry about the Justice Department coming along and dragging the former Secretary of State off in handcuffs. Deleting all of those emails was, in the opinion of the nation’s top cops, absolutely fine and dandy. (ABC News)

The Justice Department is affirming that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had the right to delete personal emails from her private server.

Government lawyers made the assertion in a court filing this week in a public records lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, an advocacy group. The legal filing says “there is no question” that Clinton could have deleted personal emails without agency supervision and could have done so even if she’d been using a government server.


Some additional coverage at Buzzfeed turns up this nugget. (Emphasis added)

The back-and-forth over the preservation order, as part of a narrow FOIA case, does not address the classification issues that still command sustained political coverage about Clinton.

But in terms of the email submission itself, the lawyers argue that, without reason to believe that Clinton was not honest and forthcoming in selecting and turning over her federal records, no government agency would be required to “recover deleted material based on unfounded speculation that responsive information had been deleted.” Such was the case with Clinton, the lawyers say.



That’s a fairly amazing argument summed up in only a few words. On the one hand they offer a nod to the fact that Clinton repeatedly lied about sending and receiving classified data on this account. (Classified? Why would you think that satellite photos of North Korean nuclear installations were classified?) But in the very next breath they argue that retention of all of the emails to sort out what was or wasn’t of value was not required because there was no reason to believe that Clinton was not honest and forthcoming.

The mind doth boggle.

Say… I wonder if the IRS would be willing to allow me to go through all of my tax documents, decide which ones were “relevant” and just toss the rest in the old burn barrel? I mean, there’s no reason to think I wasn’t being honest and forthcoming, so pesky little details such as those should be left to my discretion. Even more to the point, if something of interest to the police takes place on my property and it’s captured by my security cameras, I suppose I can decide which footage is relevant and worthy of retention. This is truly wild.

I’m sure it’s just my suspicious nature cropping up again, but doesn’t it seem like there are some folks in the Justice Department who prefer to take a decidedly hands off approach when it comes to Clinton? It was only this week when we discovered that they had been handed a case which seemed to clearly argue that Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin was going down for embezzlement, but they decided that prosecuting her would be more trouble than it was worth. One has to wonder just how far Clinton can push her luck before their interests are roused to the point of taking action.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/12/done-and-done-justice-dept-says-clinton-could-erase-emails-if-she-liked/

[Wilikon]

Yes, she is very trustworthy but most of the younger folks don't know the real life - yet grow up and look again.  She worked 35 years as a rep and also she founded the children left behind long ago. she started it and she was an investigator in watergate and also done her duty as first lady.

This week’s WaPo mystery: What, exactly, are Hillary’s accomplishments?




To be fair, the Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty doesn’t frame her story on the struggle to find any Hillary Clinton accomplishments as a mystery. The headline reads, “Hillary Clinton tries to show that her record is more than just talk,” and Tumulty approaches it as a race to see whether Hillary can define herself before her political foes do. Having framed it that way, Tumulty notes that voters can’t name any achievements for Hillary other than winning two Senate elections and becoming a State Department frequent flier. And then, Tumulty proceeds to list … no accomplishments at all:

In polls and focus groups, Republicans are sensing a vulnerability in Clinton’s record that could compound the difficulties she is facing with the controversy over her decision as secretary of state to use a private e-mail account and server rather than a government one.

When Bloomberg News posed the question in May to a focus group of 10 Iowa Democrats, they praised Clinton for strength, experience and competence but could not recall a single thing she had done.

Some Democrats say that they have only a vague sense of Clinton’s actual accomplishments. Liberal activist Arnie Arnesen was the Democratic nominee for New Hampshire governor in 1992, and she often crossed paths with the Clintons as Bill Clinton made his first bid for the White House. But all these years later, Arnesen said: “I don’t really know Hillary. I know Hillary under Clinton. I know Hillary under Obama. And in the Senate she was a workhorse, not a show horse. What does that mean? It means she didn’t take a leadership role.”


Tumulty actually does list a couple of claims from Hillary and her supporters of accomplishments. Unfortunately, they both belong to others. Most recently, Hillary took credit for agreeing to a key concession that allowed for the deal with Iran, which was to accept the Iranian production of nuclear fuel. This concession took place over three years ago, which means that the concession didn’t actually accomplish much at the time. Barack Obama and John Kerry had to give up a lot more, including anytime-anywhere inspections to ensure that those limits were respected, especially at military sites. Besides, the Iran deal has the support of a whopping 21% of the American public, so hitching one’s wagon to that star has some very obvious problems.

In other words, Hillary wants to claim a piece of someone else’s work. The same is true of the only other potential “achievement” Hillary and her team have claimed, an expansion of health insurance access for children during Bill Clinton’s presidency. That, Tumulty explains, was actually the work of two Senators, and she initially helped Bill shoot it down:

Yet some of what she touts as accomplishments have been disputed. In a five-minute video released on the eve of her campaign’s formal launch in June, she suggested that she was the force behind the expansion of health coverage to children in the 1990s.

After her push for universal health care failed, she said in the video, “I was really disappointed. But you have to get up off the floor and you keep fighting. So I got to thinking, ‘Let’s see what we can do to help kids.’ ”

In fact, however, that legislation was created and driven by two senators, Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). At one point, then-President Bill Clinton turned against it, fearing that it would destroy a balanced-budget deal, and Hillary Clinton defended her husband, saying, “He had to safeguard the budget proposal.”


It was only later, when Kennedy and Hatch brought the bill back up, that Hillary lobbied for its passage. That’s not an “achievement” as much as it is a demonstration of influence on her husband during his presidency. That may be laudable, but if those two stolen moments are all Team Hillary can provide, then it turns this question into a real mystery.

Here’s another mystery on top of that. Given the lack of accomplishment — and all of the scandal surrounding Hillary’s time at State — why do her supporters value “experience” over agreement on issues more than other Democrats or Republicans in general?

CNN asked about the importance of on-the-job experience in determining a vote. In the Republican sample, it fell far short in importance than agreeing on issues, 23/65, and slightly worse among supporters of Donald Trump, 21/71 — even though Trump’s positions on issues are significantly different than the conservative agenda. For Democrats in general, experience takes a more significant position, 40/45, and for Hillary supporters, it’s the main consideration at 58/32.

If those numbers were reversed, their support would make sense. As it is, though, the support for Hillary Clinton is every bit as mysterious as her list of achievements.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/11/this-weeks-wapo-mystery-what-exactly-are-hillarys-accomplishments/

[CoinFoxs]

Americans think Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is about as trustworthy as Donald Trump. According to a new Quinnipiac University poll published Thursday, 57% of voters do not view Clinton as "honest and trustworthy," compared to the 37% who believe that Clinton is trustworthy.

[Wilikon]

Americans think Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is about as trustworthy as Donald Trump. According to a new Quinnipiac University poll published Thursday, 57% of voters do not view Clinton as "honest and trustworthy," compared to the 37% who believe that Clinton is trustworthy.

Don't forget to include the original link.

[CoinFoxs]

Americans think Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is about as trustworthy as Donald Trump. According to a new Quinnipiac University poll published Thursday, 57% of voters do not view Clinton as "honest and trustworthy," compared to the 37% who believe that Clinton is trustworthy.

Don't forget to include the original link.


Here is the link buddy https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+Hillary+Clinton+Trustworthy%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
check this out if you want and my apologies

[Wilikon]

Americans think Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is about as trustworthy as Donald Trump. According to a new Quinnipiac University poll published Thursday, 57% of voters do not view Clinton as "honest and trustworthy," compared to the 37% who believe that Clinton is trustworthy.

Don't forget to include the original link.


Here is the link buddy https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+Hillary+Clinton+Trustworthy%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
check this out if you want and my apologies

The Ego is a myth created by the Patriarchy
Asking for apologies would annihilate my strong feminist belief and my infinite trust in hillary clit_on.
Thus, there is no need for my forgiveness...

 

[Wilikon]

WaPo/ABC poll: Majority believe Hillary broke law, covered it up


It’s not the topline result from the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, but it’s an eyepopper anyway. Hillary Clinton still leads the field among Democrats and leaners 42/24 over Bernie Sanders, with Joe Biden getting 21% even without announcing a bid. Without Biden in the race, Hillary picks up most of his support to lead Sanders 56/28. The nearest Democratic option in the latter field is Martin O’Malley at 3%. And yet, a majority believes Hillary broke the law with her secret e-mail server, and a slightly higher majority believes she covered it up:

Here’s another interesting data point in this poll: even with these numbers, a plurality of adults thinks that the e-mail scandal is not a legitimate issue, 44/49 against. That’s rather astounding, and it’s difficult to lay blame for it on the framing of the question, even though the framing is weak. “Use of personal e-mail” makes it sound like she used an official system for unofficial business rather than hiding a private system for more than five years. Still, it’s the same question that got majorities on the other two questions, so the only takeaway from this is that there is a subset of people in this poll that believes a major presidential candidate broke the law while in office, covered it up, and … that’s not a legitimate concern in a run for the presidency.

One might be tempted to call this subset Democrats, but one would be mistaken. It’s independents, or at least a subset of them, that appear to want an end to the e-mail scandal. They believe by a 2:1 margin that Hillary broke the law (54/26), and by almost a 2:1 margin that she covered it up (59/30, almost exactly the flip side of Democrats on that question), and yet, only 48% of independents think it’s a legitimate issue for the election.

The Post’s analysis of the poll shows another big problem for Hillary, though:

In the contest for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton has lost significant ground over the past two months, as she has struggled to manage the controversy over her use of a private e-mail server while secretary of state. She still leads the field of Democrats, but for the first time her support has dropped below 50 percent in Post-ABC surveys, with the biggest decline coming among white women.
Bear in mind that this was the demographic that was supposed to get excited for Hillary. Team Hillary told these voters that this was going to be yet another opportunity to make history by electing the country’s first woman President; Hillary herself has explicitly stated her gender as a leading quality to consider in the race. So far, that argument looks like a flop, and increasingly, so does Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile, the Republican race is pretty much what one expects, with Donald Trump (33%) comfortably leading, and Ben Carson (20%) holding strong in second place. Jeb Bush is a distant third at 8%, only edging out Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who get 7% each. Among women, it’s Trump over Carson at 29/24, with Rubio in third place at 9%. And among independents, it shifts dramatically to … er … Trump 31, Carson 22, and Bush 10. The only real surprise among independents? Scott Walker jumps from 2% to 6% for fourth place.

Finally, one last shiver to send down Democratic spines. In a head-to-head matchup, the WaPo poll (with its D+11 sample) shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by only 46/43. Trump leads among independents, 44/39. That should have some of her donors thinking hard about a Joe Biden option. I’ll have more on that later.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/14/wapoabc-poll-majority-believe-hillary-broke-law-covered-it-up/

[Wilikon]

Judicial Watch: New State Department Documents Reveal Hillary Clinton Email Gap


(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released newly obtained Department of State documents showing a nearly five-month total gap in the emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to return to the State Department late last year.  The documents also show that one key State Department official did not want a written record of issues about the Clinton emails.  The documents also raise new questions about the accuracy of representations made to Judicial Watch, the courts, Congress, and the public by the Obama administration and Clinton.

The documents were produced under court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Judicial Watch filed on May 6, 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00687)).   The lawsuit was filed after the Obama State Department violated federal law and failed to respond to two separate FOIA requests, including a request for records about the actual production of the emails records by Clinton to the State Department.

The first batch of documents obtained by Judicial Watch contains a heavily redacted email from State Department official Eric F. Stein to Margaret P. Grafeld, dated April 21, 2015, with the subject “HRC Emails.”  Stein is deputy director of global information systems at the State Department and Grafeld is deputy assistant secretary of global information systems. Stein reports to Grafeld that the “gaps” in Clinton’s emails include:

Jan. 21 – March 17, 2009 (Received Messages)
Jan. 21 – April 12, 2009 (Sent Messages)
Dec. 30, 2012 – Feb. 1, 2013 (Sent Messages)
In addition, Stein notes Clinton’s employment timeline as follows:

Secretary Hillary Clinton
Appointed:  January 21, 2009
Entry on Duty: January 21, 2009
Termination of Appointment: February 1, 2013
The email also contains a chart detailing the first and last emails both sent and received to Clinton’s email address, as documented in the records turned over by Clinton’s lawyers.  This chart, information from which is chopped off, reveals a non-state.gov email address Cheryl Mills evidently used to conduct government business.  The email address, “cherylmills@gmail.com,” received the last email the State Department currently has from the Clinton’s non-state,gov account.

The chart shows a significant email gap lasting 40 days before Miguel Rodriguez, with the email address “Miguel_Rodriguez @clinton.senate.gov,” sends Clinton’s account an email on March 18, 2009.  Rodriguez worked in the Clinton State Department and is now a private attorney representing Clinton aide and confidante Huma Abedin in Clinton email-related litigation.  This “email gap” information was forwarded to other top officials in the State Department, including Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy.

These emails raise questions about whether Clinton told the truth last month when she declared, under penalty of perjury, “I have directed that all of my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State….”  Clinton made this statement in response to a court order Judicial Watch obtained in separate FOIA litigation.

Another new State Department email shows that one of the agency’s top officials for records management and public disclosure did not want to create a written record about issues.  State Department FOIA official Peggy Grafeld, in an October 20, 2014, email wrote to her colleagues,“Fyi. I’d prefer to discuss, rather than email. Thx.”  The State Department redacted details about what caused Grafeld’s desire for secrecy.

The State Department almost completely redacted several September 25, 2014, “high” importance emails about Clinton’s emails, including information about “earlier conversations and fact finding.”

A February 9, 2015, document, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Email Appraisal Report,” describes the emails that Clinton returned in December 2014 “as approximately 60,000 to 70,000 pages of email correspondence printed to paper and stored in twelve bankers boxes.”  The “records document major foreign policy issues as well as the administration and operation of the Department and inter-agency activities.  They reflect the highest level of decision-making and activity in the Department and contain significant documentation.”

The “Appraisal Report” shows the State Department had concerns that Clinton’s government email correspondence would not be found:

This record series is the only comprehensive set of Secretary Clinton’s email correspondence.  Some of Secretary Clinton’s email correspondence may be available elsewhere in the Department either as duplicate copies or scattered among record-keeping systems and other government officials’ email accounts.  However, of the sample examined, many of the emails were from Secretary Clinton’s personal email account to official Department email accounts of her staff.  Emails originating from Secretary Clinton’s personal email account would only be captured by Department systems when they came to an official Department email account, i.e., they would be captured only in the email accounts of the recipients.  Secretary Clinton’s staff no longer work at the Department, and the status of the email accounts of Secretary Clinton’s staff (and other Department recipients) is unknown at this time.

The report confirms Clinton’s alleged personal emails from her non-state.gov account are government records:

This collection contains instances of personal communications.  Nevertheless, the fraction of personal communications is small and does not affect the overriding archival value of this collection. This records series meets all of the relevant considerations for archival retention under NARA Directive J 441.

The report next confirms that all of Clinton’s emails are “Federal records.”  A section entitled “Record status” states:

This records series meets the statutory definition for Federal records. Recorded information has record status if 1) ”made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business” and 2) “preserved or appropriate for preservation.” The sent and received email messages of the Secretary of State used for review, comment, information, or other reason fall under the first part of that definition. As the person holding the highest level job in the Department, any email message maintained by or for the immediate use of the Secretary of State is “appropriate for preservation.” This record series cannot be considered personal papers based on the definition of a record in 44 U.S.C. 3301 or Department policy found in 5 FAM 443.

The report suggests that all of the emails that Clinton returned, including personal emails, are subject to review and retention retained by the National Archives (NARA).  A section titled a “Note On Personal Papers” states:

This record series contains instances of personal communications that relate solely to Secretary Clinton’s personal and private affairs. The Agency Records Officer conducted a page-by-page review of approximately 1,250 pages of received messages for the period March 15, 2010 through April 30, 2010 to determine the prevalence of personal communications in a random sample of material. The Agency Records Officer identified 30 messages (approximately 30-40 pages) in the sample set as solely personal in nature. These messages were interspersed with significant documentation relating to Haiti, Mexico, Israel, Afghanistan, Russia, and South Africa. Since NARA possesses the legal authority to make the final determination of record status under the Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014, all final decisions must be made by NARA at the time of archival accessioning.  [Emphasis in original]

The report also confirms that all of Clinton’s emails are subject to “line by line review” for release under FOIA.

State Department rules “specify that personal records of a departing Presidential Appointee may not be removed from the government until the State Department ‘records officer…’ approves of the removal, a process which ‘generally requires a hands-on examination of the materials,’” as Judicial Watch noted in litigation seeking preservation, recovery, and search of personal emails from Clinton has not turned over to the State Department, FBI, or Justice Department.

The “Appraisal Report” is at odds with claims by Clinton and the Obama administration that Clinton can delete over 30,000 personal emails from non-state.gov email accounts she used for government business. In fact, the “Appraisal Report” suggests that all of Clinton’s personal emails are Federal records subject to “line by line” review for possible disclosure in response to FOIA and other document requests.

Finally, the documents reveal the State Department raised concerns about classified information in Clinton’s possession back in March.  A March 23, 2015, letter to Clinton attorney David Kendall states, in part:

We understand that Secretary Clinton would like to continue to retain copies of the documents to assist her in responding to congressional and related inquiries regarding the documents and her tenure as head of the Department.  The Department has consulted with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and believes that permitting Secretary Clinton continued access to the documents is in the public interest as it will help promote informed discussion…In the event that State Department reviewers determine that any document or documents is/are classified, additional steps will be required to safeguard and protect the information.  Please note that if Secretary Clinton wishes to release any document or portion thereof, the Department must approve such release and first review the document for information that may be protected from disclosure for privilege, privacy or other reasons.

“Judicial Watch’s discovery of the Clinton email ‘gap’ may take a place in history next to the discovery of the Nixon tapes,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have taken their cover-up of the email scandal too far.  I suspect that federal courts will want more information, under oath, about the issues raised in these incredible documents.”

Judicial Watch has 20 federal lawsuits against the State Department in which the Clinton email issue is implicated.  Judicial Watch seeks discovery and additional requests for court relief are planned.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-state-department-documents-reveal-hillary-clinton-email-gap/

[Pentax]

Some of her latest ramblings on this indicate that classified stuff went through a gubmint server/account and only low level shit went through this server.

but then how did she only carry one device?  that was her original reasoning, if I recall.

Did she just go back to the office and grab it if she got an e-mail alert then I wonder.

"Turn this fucking plane around.  I've got to check my e-mail"


This is exactly what happens to liars.  They trip over their own tongues and prior lies.  As slick and pathological as this crazy bitch is she is starting to contradict herself and forget her own stories.