Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy?

[Wilikon]

Does this topic make any sense at all? Asking whether Hillary Clinton is Trustworthy, is like asking whether ISIS can be considered as a charity organization or like asking whether we should consider Ted Bundy to be a role model for the American males.

it is what can be said in this topic.politics is for having money,fame and power easily not for doing good things.if you want to achieve you do anything for them , mostly and basically you lie.first lie is to serve country ,no you just want something else.it is same in every country.

Are you saying a politician should lie if he wants to do good thing for his country?

[thinkinger]

no politician do good for country firstly.their first try is doing good for themselves , the country may be second if there isnt left any other wishes.he comes to that position by giving promises about the country.but first job is always his job. .you can easily lie in order to eat some food when hungry.it is same for politicians too.

[Wilikon]

no politician do good for country firstly.their first try is doing good for themselves , the country may be second if there isnt left any other wishes.you come to that position by giving promises about the country.but first job is always yours .you can easily lie in order to eat some food when hungry.it is same for politicians too.

Then hillary clinton is a very good politician because she lies so much...

[thinkinger]

no politician do good for country firstly.their first try is doing good for themselves , the country may be second if there isnt left any other wishes.you come to that position by giving promises about the country.but first job is always yours .you can easily lie in order to eat some food when hungry.it is same for politicians too.

Then hillary clinton is a very good politician because she lies so much...

yep it is the truth

[Wilikon]

Hillary Clinton cache of emails has two months missing

WASHINGTON — About two months of emails from the start of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state are missing, and federal officials haven’t been able to recover them.

An archive of records that Clinton, the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential front-runner, turned over to the State Department doesn’t begin until March 18, 2009, though she took office as secretary of state in late January of that year. The missing emails raise more questions about her stewardship of official documents during her tenure and whether there is a complete record of the early diplomatic efforts of President Barack Obama’s administration.

The potential significance of the missing emails, which Clinton’s aides acknowledge and say she no longer can retrieve, came to light last week when a chain of online correspondence between her and former Gen. David Petraeus was found on Defense Department servers. Those messages, which included work-related personnel matters, dated to the period missing from Clinton’s records.

The email gap came years before the 2012 attack on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, which is the subject of a congressional probe that unearthed Clinton’s use of a personal email server.

On Wednesday, the department released more Clinton emails, about 6,000 pages mostly from 2010 and 2011, to comply with a judge’s order as part of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-cache-of-emails-has-two-months-missing-2015-10-01

[Betwrong]

no politician do good for country firstly.their first try is doing good for themselves , the country may be second if there isnt left any other wishes.you come to that position by giving promises about the country.but first job is always yours .you can easily lie in order to eat some food when hungry.it is same for politicians too.

Then hillary clinton is a very good politician because she lies so much...

I would put it like this:

Hillary for President because she lies so much and we know it!

A candidate who is lying in such a subtle way that we have no clue is a real peril.

)

[Lenore]

lol.   either way shes a lair.  Has been.

She goes in I wonder if someone will say she was on her knees under someone desk?

[Pentax]

lol.   either way shes a lair.  Has been.

She goes in I wonder if someone will say she was on her knees under someone desk?

She tried to get under Bill's desk, but it was too crowded.....

[Lenore]

lol.   either way shes a lair.  Has been.

She goes in I wonder if someone will say she was on her knees under someone desk?

She tried to get under Bill's desk, but it was too crowded.....

LOL that is awesome.  Guess its time they get a bigger desk in the oval office.  One with small seats under the desk maybe even collapsible.

[Pentax]

lol.   either way shes a lair.  Has been.

She goes in I wonder if someone will say she was on her knees under someone desk?

She tried to get under Bill's desk, but it was too crowded.....

LOL that is awesome.  Guess its time they get a bigger desk in the oval office.  One with small seats under the desk maybe even collapsible.

yeah, or maybe a pit like for an orchestra fronting a stage. 

The prez could then 'direct' to his liking while discussing important things, like how to fleece public and look like he cares.

In the case of a female prez tossing some stirrups in should be no problem....

[Lenore]

lol.   either way shes a lair.  Has been.

She goes in I wonder if someone will say she was on her knees under someone desk?

She tried to get under Bill's desk, but it was too crowded.....

LOL that is awesome.  Guess its time they get a bigger desk in the oval office.  One with small seats under the desk maybe even collapsible.

yeah, or maybe a pit like for an orchestra fronting a stage. 

The prez could then 'direct' to his liking while discussing important things, like how to fleece public and look like he cares.

In the case of a female prez tossing some stirrups in should be no problem....

Very true it can go either way.   Emm we should send a letter of recommendation for a new oval office design.  and all meeting even public ones nee to happen from the oval office.   lol  would be interesting.

[Wilikon]

Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Hillary
How noncitizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year.


Illegal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.

The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House.

The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such “whole number of persons.”

This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College. Using citizen-only population statistics, American University scholar Leonard Steinhorn projects California would lose five House seats and therefore five electoral votes. New York and Washington would lose one seat, and thus one electoral vote apiece. These three states, which have voted overwhelming for Democrats over the latest six presidential elections, would lose seven electoral votes altogether. The GOP’s path to victory, by contrast, depends on states that would lose a mere three electoral votes in total. Republican stronghold Texas would lose two House seats and therefore two electoral votes. Florida, which Republicans must win to reclaim the presidency, loses one seat and thus one electoral vote.

But that leaves the electoral math only half done. The 10 House seats taken away from these states would then need to be reallocated to states with relatively small numbers of noncitizens. The following ten states, the bulk of which lean Republican, would likely gain one House seat and thus one additional electoral vote: Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216


---------------------------------------------
The plan. All along.

[Lenore]

Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Hillary
How noncitizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year.


Illegal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.

The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House.

The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such “whole number of persons.”

This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College. Using citizen-only population statistics, American University scholar Leonard Steinhorn projects California would lose five House seats and therefore five electoral votes. New York and Washington would lose one seat, and thus one electoral vote apiece. These three states, which have voted overwhelming for Democrats over the latest six presidential elections, would lose seven electoral votes altogether. The GOP’s path to victory, by contrast, depends on states that would lose a mere three electoral votes in total. Republican stronghold Texas would lose two House seats and therefore two electoral votes. Florida, which Republicans must win to reclaim the presidency, loses one seat and thus one electoral vote.

But that leaves the electoral math only half done. The 10 House seats taken away from these states would then need to be reallocated to states with relatively small numbers of noncitizens. The following ten states, the bulk of which lean Republican, would likely gain one House seat and thus one additional electoral vote: Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216


---------------------------------------------
The plan. All along.

Illegals shouldnt be allowed to vote.  Same goes for people here on green cards.

[Bit_Happy]

Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Hillary
How noncitizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year.


Illegal immigrants—along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.

The right to vote is intended to be a singular privilege of citizenship. But the 1787 Constitutional Convention rejected allowing the people to directly elect their President. The delegates chose instead our Electoral College system, under which 538 electoral votes distributed amongst the states determine the presidential victor. The Electoral College awards one elector for each U.S. Senator, thus 100 of the total, and D.C. gets three electors pursuant to the 23rd Amendment. Those electoral numbers are unaffected by the size of the noncitizen population. The same cannot be said for the remaining 435, more than 80 percent of the total, which represent the members elected to the House.

The distribution of these 435 seats is not static: they are reapportioned every ten years to reflect the population changes found in the census. That reallocation math is based on the relative “whole number of persons in each state,” as the formulation in the 14th Amendment has it. When this language was inserted into the U.S. Constitution, the concept of an “illegal immigrant,” as the term is defined today, had no meaning. Thus the census counts illegal immigrants and other noncitizens equally with citizens. Since the census is used to determine the number of House seats apportioned to each state, those states with large populations of illegal immigrants and other noncitizens gain extra seats in the House at the expense of states with fewer such “whole number of persons.”

This math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College. Using citizen-only population statistics, American University scholar Leonard Steinhorn projects California would lose five House seats and therefore five electoral votes. New York and Washington would lose one seat, and thus one electoral vote apiece. These three states, which have voted overwhelming for Democrats over the latest six presidential elections, would lose seven electoral votes altogether. The GOP’s path to victory, by contrast, depends on states that would lose a mere three electoral votes in total. Republican stronghold Texas would lose two House seats and therefore two electoral votes. Florida, which Republicans must win to reclaim the presidency, loses one seat and thus one electoral vote.

But that leaves the electoral math only half done. The 10 House seats taken away from these states would then need to be reallocated to states with relatively small numbers of noncitizens. The following ten states, the bulk of which lean Republican, would likely gain one House seat and thus one additional electoral vote: Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/illegal-immigrants-could-elect-hillary-clinton-213216


---------------------------------------------
The plan. All along.

Illegals shouldnt be allowed to vote.  Same goes for people here on green cards.

Illegals are not allowed to vote directly, but there huge numbers in certain states give those states more electoral power.

[bryant.coleman]

Illegals are not allowed to vote directly, but there huge numbers in certain states give those states more electoral power.

That is worrying. There are some 11 million illegals in the United States (conservative estimation), accounting for as much as 3.5 percent of the total population. And this represents a total of 19 electoral votes, out of 538. In a close election, these 19 votes can prove to be decisive, even more so if they are distributed in deep blue/red states such as California and Texas.

[Wilikon]

Hillary Clinton’s legal adviser warns her — Time to lawyer up


One of the Clintons’ oldest and most trusted legal advisers has urged Hillary to hire a criminal defense attorney to represent her in case she’s indicted for mishandling classified documents on her private e-mail server and for lying under oath.

The adviser, who has been a Clinton confidant for more than 30 years, laid out his concerns about Hillary’s legal exposure in a wide-ranging interview.

“This e-mail thing is spiraling out of control,” he said. “To paraphrase John Dean of Watergate fame, it’s a cancer on her candidacy.

“Frankly,” he continued, “I am used to my advice on legal matters being taken very seriously and acted upon by the Clintons. I’ve told them repeatedly that this FBI e-mail investigation could go in a very dangerous direction very quickly.

“I think Bill takes the matter seriously. But Hillary is still acting as though it’s a political smear job by right-wing zealots.”

In separate phone conversations with Bill and Hillary, the adviser said he warned them that Justice Department prosecutors handling Hillary’s case expect the FBI probe to wrap up much sooner than expected — maybe as soon as the end of this year.


http://nypost.com/2015/10/03/hillary-clintons-legal-adviser-warns-her-time-to-lawyer-up/

[Wilikon]

Hillary Clinton Supporters Endorse "White Privilege Tax" on All WHITE PEOPLE'S Income! - TAX WHITEY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j1GLsKtpQA

-----------------
Braindead, not good enough for zombies...

[Wilikon]

Matt Drudge: Media propping up ‘old and sick’ Hillary

Media kingpin Matt Drudge on Tuesday railed against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health and her politics, saying he was worried the nation would end up “with Hillary’s brain in the Oval Office in a jar.”

“She’s old and she’s sick,” the Drudge Report founder said in an interview with Alex Jones.

Drudge slammed the media for propping up Clinton’s candidacy.

“She’s not a contender. They’re making her a contender with these propped up Saturday Night Live things. It’s like a head on a stick,” he said, chiding NBC for “giving her endless hours of airtime.”

The media mogul cited Clinton’s hypothyroidism as cause for concern.

“Anybody who is 70 years old who is hypothyroid, you do not elect president, ladies and gentlemen,” he said.

Drudge also alluded to his “long history” with the Clintons, referencing his coverage of the 1990s Monica Lewinsky scandal.

“They’re ugly. They play dirty. They sued me for $30 million last time around,” he said. “Hillary Clinton with the NSA — good luck if you dissent. Snowden, I’ll switch places with you.”



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/256152-matt-drudge-media-propping-up-old-and-sick-hillary

[Wilikon]

Hillary chief of staff e-mailed classified info to the Clinton Foundation — twice

The Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal may have its first target for criminal charges — assuming the Department of Justice takes its job seriously. E-mails produced via a FOIA lawsuit from Citizens United include two instances in which Hillary’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills transmitted classified information to people outside of the government. In fact, as Politico reports, the two e-mails from Mills went to the Clinton Foundation to assist in coordinating with Bill Clinton’s efforts on behalf of the Clinton Global Initiative:

Hillary Clinton’s No. 2 at the State Department twice forwarded information to the Clinton Foundation that was later deemed classified, the latest instance of former Clinton staff transmitting now-classified information.

According to a new email chain shared with POLITICO by Citizens United, Cheryl Mills — Clinton’s former chief of state at State — forwarded State Department background information about Rwanda and the Congo to the Clintons’ philanthropic organization. Citizens United, a conservative activist group, obtained the messages via a Freedom of Information act lawsuit. …

The information in the 2012 emails was classified by the State Department in July of this year because of national security and foreign policy reasons, according to the documents. The classification specifically related to foreign government information and intelligence activities, sources or methods, according to the redaction labels.

If true, this would be a classic violation of 18 USC 793 (f):

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


It’s actually a more clear-cut violation than what has emerged so far. Until now, we have seen evidence of gross negligence in communications of classified information between State Department officials on an unsecured system known to have been penetrated by outsiders at least once, and whose data has been in unsecured and unauthorized hands. These two e-mails show a deliberate communication of classified information to someone fully outside the government, not just within the State Department’s sphere of operations.

Mills’ defenders — both formal and informal — will argue that Mills didn’t intend on transmitting classified information, and that is was either not classified at the time or at least not marked so in the originating materials. None of this is a defense against 18 USC 793, which nowhere requires classification to prosecute. Besides, the kind of information suggested by the redaction would obviously be sensitive enough to protect, and certainly not to be shared with uncleared and unauthorized personnel at a politically connected non-profit. This is precisely what security briefings tell people with clearances not to do. No one at any level would fail to grasp the risks and legal implications of these actions, and certainly not at the high level of clearance employed at the top of the State Department.

On top of that, what was Mills doing in briefing Clinton Foundation officials in the first place? She had a job serving the public at the State Department, a job she took by leaving the Clinton Foundation. Mills returned to the foundation when she left State, too. In between, though, the public had a right to expect that Mills would put her duties at State — which includes the safeguarding of classified material — ahead of any other priorities. Politico’s Rachel Bade asks the same question:

Mills sat on the foundation’s board before becoming the department’s No. 2 official and returned to the board after leaving State in 2013. And she appeared to continue to advise the foundation while at State, according to other emails revealed by the Citizens United lawsuit. Republicans say those connections between Mills and the Clinton Foundation raise questions about whether the relationship was too close.

“The fact that these two email chains — which are now classified — were sent only 16 days apart, makes it appear as if the sharing of sensitive government information with the Clinton Foundation was a regular occurrence,” David Bossie, president of Citizens United, said in a statement. “Time will tell as more emails become public.”

Indeed it will. Until then, Mills may need to seek legal representation, and in any other administration might have already been Mirandized.

[thinkinger]

Yes completely.because she is a politician.and politicians do their jobs by lying.and hillary is one of the most famous poltician.so you can believe in her that she does her job well and tell lies everyday.