Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:19 pm**

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I think just making certain that any inquiries directed at me were made publicly would be sufficient.

Probably. But it wouldn't have expressed exactly how untrustworthy I think these people are. They're almost all proven bad actors.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:37 pm**

FBI recovered work-related emails deleted from Hillary's server.

So she deleted work-related emails. Which means she lied about only deleting personal emails. Destroying federal documents is a federal crime ... much more serious than altering marriage licenses. I eagerly await Vraith's outrage for Hillary's mishandling of government documents. Since this seems to be important to him for county clerks in KY, he must be vastly more outraged over Hillary's illegal handling of government documents as our nation's highest diplomat handling classified info that could damage national security. We'll see.

Posted: **Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:13 pm**

Bring on Biden!

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:23 am**

I am not sure that is the verb I would use to begin that sentence, Cail.

Posted: **Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:09 pm**

Zarathustra wrote: I eagerly await Vraith's outrage for Hillary's mishandling of government documents.

I probably will be, if there is anything there.
What if they're just copies of stuff she did turn over?
What if it's--
"Hey, Hil, are we still having dinner at blahblah? Bluhbluh and blehbleh had to cancel.
Oh, BTW, I sent you an email on Benghazi, did you read it yet?"
Is that work related?

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:37 am**

Savor Dam wrote:I am not sure that is the verb I would use to begin that sentence, Cail.

badump dump dump.

who knows what might have gone missing in Mrs. Clinton's e-mails. I am just saddened that to the media it doesn't seem to matter. how much clearer does the media's lean have to be?

and how many more examples do we need to see of the media pulling for Hillary over Bernie? Wasserman-Schultz should be fired for promoting the Clinton brand over whoever the Democrats actually elect for the position.

and whenever I ask a liberal why they support Obama when the hung Bush jr in effigy for positions that Obama now supports - I get them still blaming George for things being a mess. claiming the Right fouled things to such an extent that Obama would need a life time in office to fix it.

when I ask about the Democrats having a majority and not fixing all of these things, I am still told it is all the Republicans fault.

I remember when the Left still believed in the first amendment.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2015 2:44 pm**

sgt.null wrote: when I ask about the Democrats having a majority and not fixing all of these things, I am still told it is all the Republicans fault.

Exactly. For all of 2009 and 2010 they had the White House and majorities in both Houses of Congress--the Democrats could have passed whatever they felt like passing...only....they didn't. For some reason, they chose to do nearly nothing. I suspect the reason for this is that if anything they did turned out badly they would get all the blame for it--they needed Republican support so they could subsequently claim that the Republicans derailed it, which is why things turned out badly. I may not like Republicans more than Democrats but at least Republicans will try to do what they say they want to do whether Democrats support it or not. If you want x and you have the ability to implement x then do it.

In tangentially-related news, it appears that Ms. Clinton did sign off of giving special status to Huma Abedin, allowing her close friend to work at the State Department, for a consulting firm whose clients included members and donors to the Clinton Foundation, and at the Foundation itself all at the same time. This sort of situation probably didn't break any rules but it sure did open the door for potential conflict of interest. Ms. Clinton always goes out of her way to try and shield Ms. Abedin from any sort of scrutiny whatsoever.

Posted: **Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:48 pm**

neither party seems interested in doing anything but blaming the other side.

Posted: **Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:31 am**

That's politics.

--A

Posted: **Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:06 pm**

The Dept. of Defense states that it has found at least one more e-mail chain that Ms. Clinton failed to disclose. In her defense, the e-mail chain occurred just before and just after she assumed the post of SecState and don't really deal with classified material...but she still failed to disclose it. Her claim of "we provided all of them" is demonstrably false at this point, hence the ongoing FBI investigation.

Good news for Hillary supporters: if the DNC had its convention today she would probably get the nomination

Bad news for Hillary supporters: by the time the DNC has its convention she will likely not receive the nomination. This will be attributable directly to the e-mail disaster, a train-wreck of her own design. In the end, she will have to realize that she derailed her own desires to become President simply because she wanted to keep her goings-on at State as far away from her boss as possible.

In retrospect, Obama probably should have chosen someone else as SecState but at the time he had to appease Hillary supporters in the Party. She was never really under his control--she was much more politically savvy than he was.

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:26 am**

the fix is Hashi - they want her and will get what they want. Wasserman-Schultz is grinding for this. the debates are set up for Hilary's advantage. and then they threaten to ban anyone running who dares to debate elsewhere.

does anyone remember when the Left in America were for free speech? now they want to tell us what words we can and can not use. what we can think and not think.

Posted: **Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:06 pm**

Judge Nepolitano pointed out last night that Hillary was required to swear under oath--under the explicit penalty of perjury--that she had turned over all emails. So it looks like she can add perjury to her list of crimes here. In case you didn't already know she's a liar, it's now official. Both her and Bill.

Posted: **Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:36 pm**

Zarathustra wrote: In case you didn't already know she's a liar, it's now official. Both her and Bill.

Shocked. like totally. This is a total outrage!
How dare they (the unwashed) make such charges.
How dare the truth comes out.
Makes me want to go out and spit.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:32 am**

Shakespeare was wrong...it's not the lawyers we need to kill, it's the politicians.

--A

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:29 pm**

Avatar wrote:Shakespeare was wrong...it's not the lawyers we need to kill, it's the politicians.

--A

How much difference is there, really?
Shark v Piranha?
Alien v Predator?

[[[not to mention the quibble that S. was being more than a little satirical with the line.]]]

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:14 pm**

I'll need to find the article (but let's face it, every time I say that, I never intend to follow through

) but it looks like there were at least five instances when Hillary's private server was targeted by Russian hackers.

Here's one article from the Slate: www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09 ... eding.html

And one from USA Today:
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/20 ... /73122712/

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:43 pm**

Huma Abedin had access to Hillary's personal e-mail profile and, apparently, permission to use it in situations when Hillary was too busy to respond to something in person. Her job title was not "Executive Assistant to the Secretary of State", a person who would have access to that e-mail profile, so we are left to wonder how many of Hillary's other e-mail messages did Huma read or reply to?

In other words, she had access to information for which she was not cleared.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:48 pm**

Coupling all these things together, and we have what any normal company would consider a "huge security risk".

So the "Russian hackers" were just phishing e-mails that Hillary would clearly know not to click on... but what about Huma Abedin? What training is there on such matters? How often does it happen, when did it happen?

These small indiscretions do add up and would not fly in any company handling sensitive information, let alone state sensitive information.

Posted: **Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:05 pm**

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
In other words, she had access to information for which she was not cleared.

Why? IIRC, she was a chief or deputy chief of staff. As such she would have security clearances, and broad-based need to know access.
The rules can get all kinds of complicated...but a position like that, she'd have clearance for a whole lot of stuff...and likely almost everything that would/could be done by email.
Anything that was allowed to be done by email, she almost certainly had clearance for.
Now...if things were being sent by email that weren't supposed to be, that's a different issue...and Abedin's access a problem, but not the really important problem in that situation. But that's a matter of regulations and format/method, not of clearance.

Orl---from my experience [and people might find this troublesome], it is more likely than not that staff and aides [including Abedin] had MORE training/knowledge of such than the Boss. And not just Clinton, or State.
I'd bet you all I own and then some that there are clerk/typists at Homeland Security with more training and knowledge of those things than the people who run it.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:20 am**

The FBI probe has taken on a new dimension: public corruption relating to deals via the Clinton Foundation while she was SecState.

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.

Clinton, speaking to the Des Moines Register, on Monday pushed back on the details of a second investigative track. According to reporter Jennifer Jacobs, Clinton said Monday she has heard nothing from the FBI.

"No, there’s nothing like that that is happening," Clinton said, according to a tweet from Jacobs.

Experts including a former senior FBI agent said the bureau does not have to notify the subject of an investigation.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter.

This is definitely news that is not going to make her or her people happy. That, I suppose, is good news for the rest of us. Unfortunately, those in power at the DNC aren't going to care--they are going to proceed as if Ms. Clinton's nomination is essentially guaranteed simply by virtue of who she is.

Kevin's Watch

Hillary's Email Scandal