Reply With Quote
How is this to change your self-appointed Hillary sperm shielder status?
You've designated yourself as THE Hillary sperm shielder; that definitely ain't changing no matter how much you want to deflect.
CHECKMATE
How is this to change your self-appointed Hillary sperm shielder status?
How is this to change your self-appointed #1 original Hillary sperm shielder status?
Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted
New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.
From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.
These emails must have involved some classified information, given the nature of consultations between presidents and secretaries of state, the broad outlines of Obama’s own executive order defining classified intelligence (see EO 13526, section 1.4), and the fact that the Obama administration adamantly refused to disclose the Clinton–Obama emails. If classified information was mishandled, it was necessarily mishandled on both ends of these email exchanges.
If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges. That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen.
The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point. For the moment, I want to put aside the latest controversy — the FBI’s failure to retain five months of text messages between Strzok and Page, those chattiest of star-crossed lovers. Yes, this “glitch” closes our window on a critical time in the Trump-Russia investigation: mid December 2016 through mid May 2017. That is when the bureau and Justice Department were reportedly conducting and renewing (in 90-day intervals) court-approved FISA surveillance that may well have focused on the newly sworn-in president of the United States. (Remember: The bureau’s then-director, James Comey, testified at a March 20 House Intelligence Committee hearing that the investigation was probing possible coordination with Trump’s campaign and Kremlin interference in the election.)
The retention default has been chalked up to a technological mishap. Assuming that this truly was an indiscriminate, bureau-wide problem — that lost texts are not limited to phones involved in the Trump-Russia investigation — it is hard to imagine its going undetected for five months in an agency whose business is information retention. But it is not inconceivable. Attorney General Jeff Sessions maintains that an aggressive inquiry is underway, so let’s assume (for argument’s sake, at least) that either the texts will be recovered or a satisfactory explanation for their non-retention will be forthcoming.
For now, let’s stick with the Clinton–Obama emails. We now know that Comey’s remarks had been in the works for two months and were revised several times by the director and his advisers. Only July 5, 2016, Comey held the press conference at which he delivered a statement describing Mrs. Clinton’s criminal conduct but nevertheless recommending against an indictment. We now know that Comey’s remarks had been in the works for two months and were revised several times by the director and his advisers. This past weekend, in a letter to the FBI regarding the missing texts, Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) addressed some of these revisions. According to Senator Johnson, a draft dated June 30, 2016 (i.e., five days before Comey delivered the final version), contained a passage expressly referring to a troublesome email exchange between Clinton and Obama. (I note that the FBI’s report of its eventual interview of Clinton contains a cryptic reference to a July 1, 2012, email that Clinton sent from Russia to Obama’s email address. See report, page 2.) The passage in the June 30 draft stated: We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account. On the same day, according to a Strzok–Page text, a revised draft of Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki. It replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.” This effort to obscure Obama’s involvement had an obvious flaw: It would practically have begged congressional investigators and enterprising journalists to press for the identification of the “senior government official” with whom Clinton had exchanged emails. That was not going to work. Consequently, by the time Comey delivered his remarks on July 5, the decision had been made to avoid even a veiled allusion to Obama. Instead, all the stress was placed on Clinton (who was not going to be charged anyway) for irresponsibly sending and receiving sensitive emails that were likely to have been penetrated by hostile intelligence services.
Comey made no reference to Clinton’s correspondent: We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. The decision to purge any reference to Obama is consistent with the panic that seized his administration from the moment Clinton’s use of a private, non-secure server system was revealed in early March 2015. I detailed this reaction in a series of 2016 columns (see, e.g., here and here). What most alarmed Obama and Clinton advisers (those groups overlap) was not only that there were several Clinton–Obama email exchanges, but also that Obama dissembled about his knowledge of Clinton’s private email use in a nationally televised interview. On March 4, just after the New York Times broke the news about Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, John Podesta (a top Obama adviser and Clinton’s campaign chairman) emailed Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s confidant and top aide in the Obama State Department) to suggest that Clinton’s “emails to and from potus” should be “held” — i.e., not disclosed — because “that’s the heart of his exec privilege.” At the time, the House committee investigating the Benghazi jihadist attack was pressing for production of Clinton’s emails. As his counselors grappled with how to address his own involvement in Clinton’s misconduct, Obama deceptively told CBS News in a March 7 interview that he had found out about Clinton’s use of personal email to conduct State Department business “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”
Perhaps he was confident that, because he had used an alias in communicating with Clinton, his emails to and from her — estimated to number around 20 — would remain undiscovered. His and Clinton’s advisers were not so confident. Right after the interview aired, Clinton campaign secretary Josh Scherwin emailed Jennifer Palmieri and other senior campaign staffers, stating: “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it on the news.” Scherwin’s alert was forwarded to Mills. Shortly afterwards, an agitated Mills emailed Podesta: “We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.” (That is, Obama had emails from Clinton, which he had to know were from a private account since her address did not end in “@state.gov” as State Department emails do.) So how did Obama and his helpers ‘clean this up’? So how did Obama and his helpers “clean this up”? Obama had his email communications with Clinton sealed. He did this by invoking a dubious presidential-records privilege.
The White House insisted that the matter had nothing to do with the contents of the emails, of course; rather, it was intended to vindicate the principle of confidentiality in presidential communications with close advisers. With the media content to play along, this had a twofold benefit: Obama was able (1) to sidestep disclosure without acknowledging that the emails contained classified information and (2) to avoid using the term “executive privilege” — with all its dark Watergate connotations — even though that was precisely what he was invoking. Note that claims of executive privilege must yield to demands for disclosure of relevant evidence in criminal prosecutions. But of course, that’s not a problem if there will be no prosecution. The White House purported to repair the president’s disingenuous statement in the CBS interview by rationalizing that he had meant that he learned of Clinton’s homebrew server system through news reports — he hadn’t meant to claim unawareness that she occasionally used private email. This was sheer misdirection: From Obama’s standpoint, the problem was that he discussed government intelligence matters with the secretary of state through a private email account; the fact that, in addition, Clinton’s private email account was connected to her own private server system, rather than some other private email service, was beside the point. But, again, the media was not interested in such distinctions and contentedly accepted the White House’s non-explanation. Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered Comey to use the word “matter” rather than “investigation” to describe the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s email practices.
This ensured that the Democratic administration’s law-enforcement agencies were aligning their story with the Democratic candidate’s campaign rhetoric. If there was no investigation, there would be no prosecution. In April 2016, in another nationally televised interview, Obama made clear that he did not want Clinton to be indicted. His rationale was a legally frivolous straw man: Clinton had not intended to harm national security. This was not an element of the felony offenses she had committed; nor was it in dispute. No matter: Obama’s analysis was the stated view of the chief executive. If, as was sure to happen, his subordinates in the executive law-enforcement agencies conformed their decisions to his stated view, there would be no prosecution. Within a few weeks, even though the investigation was ostensibly still underway and over a dozen key witnesses — including Clinton herself — had not yet been interviewed, the FBI began drafting Comey’s remarks that would close the investigation. There would be no prosecution.
On June 27, Lynch met with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, on an out-of-the-way Arizona tarmac, where their security details arranged for both their planes to be parked. Over the next few days, the FBI took pains to strike any reference to Obama’s emails with Mrs. Clinton from the statement in which Comey would effectively end the “matter” with no prosecution. On July 1, amid intense public criticism of her meeting with Bill Clinton, Attorney General Lynch piously announced that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI director and career prosecutors made about charging Clinton. As Page told Strzok in a text that day, “This is a purposeful leak following the airplane snafu.” It was also playacting. Page elaborated that the attorney general already “knows no charges will be brought.” Of course she did: It was understood by all involved that there would be no prosecution. Knowing that, Lynch had given the FBI notice on June 30 that she’d be announcing her intention to accept Comey’s recommendation. Fearing this just might look a bit choreographed, the FBI promptly amended Comey’s planned remarks to include this assertion (which he in fact made on July 5): “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.” But they did not need to participate in drafting the statement, and they did not need to know the precise words he was going to use. It was not Comey’s decision anyway.
All they needed to know was that there would be no prosecution. All cleaned up: no indictment, meaning no prosecution, meaning no disclosure of Clinton-Obama emails. On July 2, with the decision that she would not be indicted long since made, Mrs. Clinton sat for an interview with the FBI — something she’d never have done if there were a chance she might be charged. The farce was complete with the Justice Department and FBI permitting two subjects of the investigation — Mills and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson — to sit in on the interview as lawyers representing Clinton. That is not something law enforcement abides when it is serious about making a case. Here, however, it was clear: There would be no prosecution. All cleaned up: no indictment, meaning no prosecution, meaning no disclosure of Clinton–Obama emails. It all worked like a charm . . . except the part where Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency and the problem is never spoken of again. — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Ins ute and a contributing editor of National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...indict-hillary
brian haney, tim sabel, william barkley, and scott reynolds died in a helicopter crash in 1993. how is that part of some clinton body count?
Are you saying their deaths weren't su ious?
On the morning of May 19, 1993, Staff Sergeant Brian Haney, Marine Sergeant Tim Sabel, Major William Barkley and Captain Scott Reynolds died in a US Marine Corps helicopter crash in Blossom Point, Maryland. The helicopter was one of a small fleet that transported the president. Archaeologist Frank Owens and his assistant witnessed the helicopter flying over them. Thirty minutes later, they discovered the crash site in a clearing. The local authorities arrived within minutes. The wreckage was scattered across an acre of forest. Within an hour, a heavily armed unit of Marines secured the area. Three months later, the Marines issued its final report on the crash. They concluded that the crash had been caused by mechanical failure due to faulty maintenance.
When Frank Owens read the report, he felt that something was not right. In the weeks following the crash, he had spent time at the crash site erecting a memorial for the crew. The report stated that all debris and jet fuel had been cleaned up from the site. Frank, however, claims that he found and collected forty-three pounds of wreckage from the site. He decided to start his own investigation into the crash. As a result, he attracted the attention of several military and weapons researchers.
Journalist James Pate felt that it was very su ious that the military did not collect all of the wreckage from the crash site. He noted that with the crash of TWA Flight 800, investigators spent weeks picking up wreckage from the ocean floor in order to re-assemble the plane as best as possible. This was not done with the helicopter crash.
According to the official report, the crash was caused by improperly installed roll pins. The pins are two-inch metal rods that connect the transmission with the engine. Frank spoke with the workers who installed the roll pins and they claimed that they properly installed them. An investigator noted that, if the roll pin had been improperly installed, the helicopter would have not been able to fly in the first place.
After studying the flight path of the helicopter, Frank and electronics specialist Craig Coley noticed that the pilot made an extreme u-turn. This meant that the pilot realized that something was wrong with the helicopter and was trying to turn around to make an emergency landing. Despite the fact that there was an open field in front of him, the pilot kept flying and crashed into the woods. Craig wonder if the pilot's vision was impaired by an unknown force.
James Pate believes that the helicopter crashed due to exposure from microwave radiation. Allegedly, a system was developed during the 1980s that used microwave energy. It was designed to disrupt electronic equipment in aircraft and missiles. The helicopter would have been far more susceptible to a microwave weapon because it would directly interfere with the flight control electronics. Tests with microwave energy have shown that a person's vision would most likely be affected first because it heats the fluid in one's eyes.
The Army has apparently experimented with high-power microwave technology. However, most experts say that an actual delivery system is not yet a reality. According to James Benford, president of Microwave Sciences, there are no high-powered microwave weapons in existence yet. The only testing done has been to see if military technology is affected by microwave energy. However, some believe that microwave weapons do exist and were tested at a facility in Blossom Point. The facility was five miles from the crash site.
Frank Owens believes that a high-powered microwave is the only way to explain unusual burn marks on each of the victims' bodies. A burns specialist examined the burn marks and could not say what caused it. The military attributed the marks to chemical burns from spilled fuel. However, the burns specialist does not believe that the fuel could have caused the marks.
Recently, Frank Owens indefinitely suspended his investigation out of respect for the victims' families. The Marine Corps considers the case closed.
Suspects: A government cover-up is suspected in the crash. Some believe that a high-powered microwave weapon accidentally caused the helicopter to crash.
i asked you what it had to do with clinton
That was a beautiful wall of text, one of the most beautiful I’ve ever seen.
You should have seen it before I edited itIt copy pasted into a blob.
...
Last edited by RandomGuy; 01-24-2018 at 10:33 AM. Reason: double post
TSA Conflict of interest important now?
I thought you didn't give a about conflicts of interest?
Clinton Foundation Uses Unseen Transactions for Influence Peddling
Huge, unregulated transnational charities provide unique cover for moving money and other considerations as illegal favors
The evolution of the Clinton Foundation since Oct. 23, 1997, proves that gigantic frauds, spread across the globe under the harsh glare of public attention and in the media, are tough to grasp — and tougher still to police.
Who would imagine, for example, that a former president, an aspiring president and a highly educated only child would work together, purposefully gaming controls at supposed “charities,” produce false and misleading public filings, and do so for more than two decades using a bevy of outside professional advisers and world-renowned directors?
Yet close examination of available facts demonstrates the Clinton Foundation and its network of false-front charity “initiatives” and affiliates remains the largest set of unprosecuted charitable frauds in American history.
In a sad sense, international charities are perfect vehicles for such questionable activities. After all, who can check effectively how much money is in truth raised and where discrete portions of these revenues are disbursed in far-flung corners of the world?
And, as you will see, unregulated and unaudited “charities” allow donors to send much more money towards politicians clandestinely than is allowed under national laws concerning political campaigns.
Meanwhile, international charity also provides cover to disguise payoffs that might unlock mining and energy concessions, telecommunications and other licenses, and largesse (grants and subsidized loans, for example) from multilateral organizations, including the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, among others.
Though such frauds began escalating in 2002, it is helpful to begin examining the thread illustrating the internationalization of the Clinton Foundation in 2009. Note that was during the first year of the Obama presidency.
What really was happening with the Russia “reset” starting in 2009? Large contributions to political campaigns come with strings attached.
Evidence already in the public domain shows that certain Russians found common cause with green investors, as Peter Schweizer’s work for the Government Accountability Ins ute explained in “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism.”
Under Obama’s leadership, Hillary Clinton’s role in improving America’s relations with Russia started on the wrong foot in March 2009 in Geneva.
Despite this inau ious beginning, tensions with Russia started to ease. To the consternation of many, the U.S. announced in September 2009 that it would abandon plans to provide a missile defense shield to Poland and other Eastern Europe nations.
By May 2010, Russia surprisingly joined with the U.S. and China to impose fresh sanctions on Iran over that rogue nation’s nuclear programs.
So, after a rocky start, Obama’s rapprochement with Russia seemed to bear tangible fruit. However, the real “gains” likely were occurring for political contributors who also were active investors and financiers for capital projects inside Russia, especially those involving transfers of technology.
Americans deserve to know how assiduously — or not — the IRS carried out its work as the 2016 presidential campaign entered its closing days.
Only now that the Trump administration has won confirmation for key appointments within America’s federal law enforcement agencies will the public begin to learn just how extensively the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) may have been used as a clearinghouse — one in which to trade cash for political favors and access at Skolkovo in Russia, and more broadly around the world.
Starting in July 2016, the Dallas office of the IRS finally began an investigation into Clinton Foundation public filings, prodded by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and other congressional Republicans.
Missing disclosures concerning donations from foreign governments, and other glaring discrepancies, should have been resolved and should have triggered payment of substantial fines, penalties, and interest to government treasuries long ago.
The American public has an absolute right to learn how charities are abused by politically connected bureaucrats. Congress, the FBI and the Department of Justice must expose what really happened with monies sent towards the Clinton family and their foundation, especially including the Clinton Global Initiative.
For good measure, Americans deserve to know how assiduously — or not — the IRS carried out its work as the 2016 presidential campaign entered its closing days.
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/...ence-peddling/
whataboutism dodge
Either conflicts of interest are important, or they aren't.
You seem to have double standards for when they are important and when they aren't, which is pure sophistry.
Are conflicts of interest important?
trying to call out whataboutism in a thread dedicated to the Clinton Foundation investigation
RandomNonsenseGuy
Hillary lying her ass off.
on it
Wall Street Whistleblower: Clinton Foundation is the ‘Largest Charitable Fraud in American History’
Former investment banker and self-styled Wall Street whistleblower Charles Ortel is one of the foremost experts on Clinton Foundation corruption. According to Ortel, “examination of available facts demonstrates the Clinton Foundation and its network of false-front charity “initiatives” and affiliates remains the largest set of unprosecuted charitable frauds in American history.”
Everything from the charity’s structure to pay-to-play schemes in relation to the ill-fatted Russia “reset,” tell a tale of corruption and cronyism that would make Al Capone blush.
Charles Ortel writes in Lifezette:
In a sad sense, international charities are perfect vehicles for such questionable activities. After all, who can check effectively how much money is in truth raised and where discrete portions of these revenues are disbursed in far-flung corners of the world?
Meanwhile, international charity also provides cover to disguise payoffs that might unlock mining and energy concessions, telecommunications and other licenses, and largesse (grants and subsidized loans, for example) from multilateral organizations, including the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, among others.
What really was happening with the Russia “reset” starting in 2009? Large contributions to political campaigns come with strings attached.
Evidence already in the public domain shows that certain Russians found common cause with green investors, as Peter Schweizer’s work for the Government Accountability Ins ute explained in “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism.” […]
To the consternation of many, the U.S. announced in September 2009 that it would abandon plans to provide a missile defense shield to Poland and other Eastern Europe nations. […]
Starting in July 2016, the Dallas office of the IRS finally began an investigation into Clinton Foundation public filings, prodded by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and other congressional Republicans.
Missing disclosures concerning donations from foreign governments, and other glaring discrepancies, should have been resolved and should have triggered payment of substantial fines, penalties, and interest to government treasuries long ago.
According to recent reports, the FBI is investigating millions of “mishandled taxpayer” dollars funneled to the dubious non-profit from Australian taxpayers.
Zerohedge reports via LifeZette:
The FBI has asked retired Australian policeman-turned investigative journalist, Michael Smith, to provide information he has gathered detailing multiple allegations of the Clinton Foundation receiving tens of millions of mishandled taxpayer funds, according to LifeZette.
“I have been asked to provide the FBI with further and better particulars about allegations regarding improper donations to the CF funded by Australian taxpayers,” Smith told LifeZette.
Of note, the Clinton Foundation received some $88 million from Australian taxpayers between 2006 and 2014, reaching its peak in 2012-2013 – which was coincidentally (we’re sure) Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s last year in office.
The news comes amid a recent report by The Hill’s John Solomon alleging the FBI is launching a new investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Is this the probe Solomon was referring to?
As The Gateway Pundit‘s Cristina Laila reports, one witness, who spoke on the condition of anonymity has already been interviewed by the FBI. The witness described the interview to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision.
One report after another from various media outlets have shown strange coincidences involving the Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Foundation would receive huge donations from donor X only to have donor X magically get favorable decisions by Hillary Clinton’s State Department around the same time.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018...rican-history/
Yeah, there's no way Canada would've gotten an arms deal with the United States otherwise.
That tweet is pretty much the definition of "post hoc propter hoc" fallacy.
If they were important, you could have easily said so.
You didn't.
The only reasonable conclusion is that you don't think conflicts of interest are important.
This thread is about a conflict of interest.
Therefore, you don't care about this thread. You have provided easy proof that you don't even believe your own bull .
QEDMF
THE UNITED STATES WOULD NEVER SELL ARMS TO THEIR ALLIES UNLESS THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS BRIBED WITH CHARITY DONATIONS
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
