quote:

...here is some of the devastation likely caused by Clinton’s exposure of SAP secrets:

quote:

The fact that Hillary Clinton hasn’t been indicted at least once in her life is, in itself, an indictment of our legal system. She has certainly lived a charmed life on the edge of disaster.

Rather than seeking to have Hillary defeated in the primaries, Republicans should be praying that she’s picked as the Democrats’ nominee...

This column is dedicated to Hillary and Bill Clinton’s alleged financial crimes that, in and of themselves, should anger enough of the hard-working electorate that her defeat in a presidential election would seem likely.

The only question in my mind is whether the Democrats will allow themselves to walk into that trap.

In the late 1990s, I spent a lot of time looking into Bill and Hill’s antics and I was convinced by sources working with the Whitewater investigation that the two were the Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow of Arkansas politics — minus the guns, of course.

There wasn’t a financial scam they would not run in their home state or a coverup that was beneath them. They gravitated toward shady real estate deals, although too-good-to-be-true commodities transactions were also a specialty...

As you know, there was a massive investigation into the Clintons in the ’90s by Whitewater Special Prosecutor Ken Starr.

But that probe got sidetracked and veered in a totally different direction because of the salacious accusations regarding a young White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.

Lewinsky may have saved Bill and Hillary by diverting attention from the financial scams.

Indicting a sitting president would have been impossible — that’s what impeachment is for. But the wife of a sitting president has no protection and Hillary came very, very close to the business end of a grand jury’s true bill.

Here’s what I wrote in a column in May 1998: “Meanwhile, sources say Starr is fighting his staff’s efforts to indict Hillary Clinton. One source says the disagreement is heated, but another said it was merely a professional difference of opinion.”

My column continued: “It’s a division of views among reasonable people,” said one source with intimate knowledge of the investigation. “The final decision is in Ken [Starr’s] hands. I think I know which way it’s coming out.”

There were even rumors at the time that a document for Hillary’s indictment had been drafted. But she wasn’t charged because — as I said — Starr probably saw Lewinsky as a quicker way of dealing with Bill.

But here’s the thing: All of the evidence gathered by Starr’s team is sitting somewhere, waiting to be revisited.

And there are plenty of people who worked on that investigation — and/or know about the Arkansas crimes — who are still living and who probably aren’t bound by either conscience or the law from telling what they know.

I’m already trying to get some of my old sources on the phone.

But the conservative political group Judicial Watch is way ahead of me. In late January, the group released details from a memo written by Starr that laid out criminal charges against Hillary.

There were numerous real estate scandals — all of which I covered in the ’90s — and not just the one we know as Whitewater.

Judicial Watch is also suing to get a copy of Hillary’s draft indictment, which it seems to think is at the National Archives.

There were also plenty of rumors about Hillary’s private life that I didn’t write about back then and won’t now because they don’t belong in a column like this.

But you can bet on one thing: Nothing will be off limits if Hillary becomes the Democrats’ nominee.

And this is why I’ve said for at least the past year that I didn’t think she’ll end up being her party’s choice.

Whether it’s Bernie Sanders, or Vice President Joe Biden riding to the rescue — or someone else (Michael Bloomberg comes to mind) coming off the bench — the Democrats’ nominating process could get very interesting.

If Hillary does somehow become the choice, she’ll be fighting two strong opponents come Election Day on Nov. 8: the Republican nominee and all those skeletons locked up in some far-off closet that are just now starting to make some noise.

quote:

One of the classified email chains discovered on Hillary Clinton’s personal unsecured server discussed an Afghan national’s ties to the CIA and a report that he was on the agency’s payroll, a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document told Fox News [oh no comrades, fox news!].

The discussion of a foreign national working with the U.S. government raises security implications – an executive order signed by President Obama said such unauthorized disclosures are “presumed to cause damage to the national security."...

The U.S. government official's account of the Clinton email chain dovetails with a Feb. 3 interview on Fox News’ “America's Newsroom,” where Republican Rep. Chris Stewart, a member of the House intelligence committee, said, "I have never read anything more sensitive than what these emails contain. They do reveal classified methods. They do reveal classified sources and they do reveal human assets."

Stewart added, "I can't imagine how anyone could be familiar with these emails, whether they're sending them or receiving them, and not realize that these are highly classified."

While the Clinton campaign claims the government classification review has gone too far, Executive Order 13526, in a section called "classification standards,” says, "the unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security."...

As secretary of state, Clinton signed at least two non-disclosure agreements (NDA) on Jan. 22, 2009, and received a briefing from a security officer whose identity was redacted. As part of the NDA for “sensitive compartmented information” (SCI), Clinton acknowledged any “breach” could result in “termination of my access to SCI and removal from a position of special confidence and trust requiring such access as well as the termination of my employment or any other relationships with any Department or Agency that provides me with access to SCI."

It is remains unclear how classified materials “jumped the gap” from a classified system to her personal server.

quote:

grasping at straws
to depend on something that is useless; to make a futile attempt at something

quote:

be firing/shooting blanks - definition and synonyms
to be unsuccessful in what you are trying to achieve

quote:

impotent
unable to do anything effective because of a lack of power

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Lol. You truly are unimpressive. Do you really have any question that clinton signed two non disclosure agreements?

Do you really doubt that the executive order is inaccurately reported?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Lol. You truly are unimpressive. Do you really have any question that clinton signed two non disclosure agreements?

Do you really doubt that the executive order is inaccurately reported?

Do you have a fucking point? You are pathetic and certainly unimpressive, as well as ignorantly and knowingly fucking cretinous, do you doubt that Dubya knowingly lied to congress about Iraq?
Do you doubt that St. Wrinklemeat violated the law openly and knowingly twice in arms for hostages, and drugs for arms deals? And went on TV and said he did, while you nutsuckers beat your dinks?

quote:

Judge Sullivan ordered that discovery can proceed on the Judicial Watch case — which means, as the Washington Post reports, that “State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.”

Sullivan suggested this might include a subpoena for Clinton and Abedin to return all records from their clintonmail.com accounts, not just the emails they personally decided were “work-related.” That would be an interesting request, since Clinton has long maintained she deleted everything that wasn’t “work-related” — meaning that, unless FBI technicians have been successful at recovering them, about half her emails have been atomized...

It is noted that Judicial Watch has not asked to depose Hillary Clinton herself in the case, but the list includes a number of familiar names from the email scandal, including Abedin, Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s lawyer David E. Kendall, and Bryan Pagliano, the staffer from Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up her email server. Pagliano has already invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions from Congress.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton acknowledged that discovery with sworn testimony was unusual for FOIA lawsuits and said his organization did not request it “lightly,” but argued that “if it’s not appropriate under these circumstances, it’s difficult to imagine when it would be appropriate.”

By this he means that Clinton’s secret server rather obviously functioned as a shield against the Freedom of Information Act. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s what actually happened.

The reason Clinton’s server became an issue in this case is that the State Department originally declared itself fully compliant with the FOIA request — and then Clinton’s mail server was discovered, likely containing even more responsive records. The Post notes there are over fifty active Freedom of Information Act lawsuits tied into Clinton’s secret server...

The Hill notes Fitton’s determination to learn “why the State Department and Mrs. Clinton, even despite receiving numerous FOIA requests, kept the record system secret for years,” citing the public’s “right to know.” Judge Sullivan spoke of the same right from the bench.

Hillary Clinton says the public has no such right and will know only what she chooses to disclose when she feels like disclosing it — which, until she was caught red-handed, meant never.

The Obama administration could appeal Judge Sullivan’s order, and even if discovery proceeds, the case will almost certainly continue well beyond Election Day, so Clinton’s cloudy definition of “transparency” may yet prevail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I was aware of her testifying to congress. She is now going to testify in court.. I don't think those are the same.