Justice Department Seizes Hillary’s Server

The time has finally come. At long last, after playing games with a congressional investigation, Hillary Clinton is turning her private server over to the Justice Department. Clinton said on multiple occasions that she would not take this step, but as this becomes less about politics and more about potential wrongdoing, she has changed her tune. Clinton claims she has “pledged to cooperate” with the government’s investigation. From the outside, though, it appears she may be out of options when it comes to stonewalling.

Along with the server, Clinton also gave the Justice Department flash drives containing copies of emails she sent and received while serving as secretary of state. These drives were in the possession of Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall. But as it becomes clear that there is classified and sensitive information contained in the emails, the FBI decided to confiscate them.

Chief among the problems with these emails? The FBI has found no indication that Clinton used any form of encryption on the server, meaning her correspondence would have been easily readable to a third-party hacker.

The news comes as Senator Chuck Grassley said that there were at least two emails on Clinton’s server marked “Top Secret, Sensitive Comparted Information,” one of the highest levels of classification. This revelation is likely why federal officials are stepping up the investigation.

Prosecution?

The Clinton campaign, the Justice Department, and the FBI are all denying that this is a criminal investigation, but that’s to be expected. After all, this could be the next president of the United States. That’s the kind of heat you don’t need. Investigators will need to find something incontrovertible and damning to consider bringing charges against the former secretary of state.

That said, it wouldn’t be surprising. There is far too much smoke here for there not to be a fire somewhere. Clinton was grossly negligent in her casual approach to national security, a fact that should disqualify her from the presidency at the very least. One doubts that investigators have found the last classified email.

What’s interesting now are the unknowns. Why did she do this? It wasn’t just for “convenience” obviously. She had a reason for wanting her emails on a private server. She had a reason for destroying thousands of emails without reading them, in direct defiance of a congressional order. Is there some innocuous excuse for all of this? An affair she was trying to hide? Maybe. She learned from the best, after all.

Regardless of the reason, what she did was inexcusable. And by the time the FBI finishes looking through that server, Clinton’s political ambitions may be over.

Well, we can hope.

About Admin

104 comments

  1. Unfortunately, the Injustice department will slow walk this the same way they slow walked the IRS scandal,
    This is just another example of Democrats that are above the law.

    • So the low info conservative doesn’t know that the GOP investigated the IRS,
      AND FOUND NOTHING?

      I guess that makes you a typical conservative.

      Just another example of how ill-informed conservatives really are

      • What they found was that the IRS did target conservative groups more than liberal groups.

        Only and ideological moron would come to any other conclusion. Just look at the numbers.

        • If you look at the numbers, you should know that con groups applied in HUGE amounts compared to liberals groups.

          post a link and lets look at them together.

          • You are too stupid to converse with, you only blather and bleat like the good little liberal communist you are. Take your stupidity to one of your idiotic rallies, your kind hold so many.

          • Only one of us would be conversing.
            You the vacant con, is demonstrating the low intellectual abilities of the right wing.

            I thought conservatives pretended they were always after the truth?

            I guess that’s just another right-wing talking point

      • That is a flat out liberal lie, they did in fact find fault, and a faulty congress and senate refused to do anything about it. The injustice dept. did nothing by order of the once white house. So take your lies and put them where the sun doesn’t shine.

    • If Hillary wins the election it will be time to water the tree of liberty.

      • Hillary will not win the election…
        Unfortunately, Hillary’s machine counts the votes and you know how trustworthy she is..
        The fox is watching the hen house… Even the Democrats will be disenfranchised this time.

    • Michael Dennewitz

      Don’t blame it only on the dumbocrats! The damned repuklicans got their “power” and then shoved it up our asses, becoming far worse than the Demoncrats!

      • I do not believe they were Republicans in truth. They were liars, they were despicable spies, people with zero morals. Does that sound like a Republican to you? It doesn’t fit any of the Republicans I know.
        I call them socialists in Republican clothing.

  2. Hillary is so much worse that Nixon….
    Hillary is so much worse than Bill..
    Hillary is as bad as 0bama, and she hasn’t even started yet.

    • “Hillary is so much worse that Nixon….”

      More proof that you’re a blithering idiot was really not necessary, But thank you anyway.

      • Troll, we know where you stand… with your nose firmly planted in corruption… And that is a nice way of saying, Hillary’s ARSE…

        • if you knew where I stood, you would know I am a Bernie guy.
          In fact, I stated it above.
          How friggin out to lunch are you?
          stop embarrassing yourself.

          • You think Hillary will let you vote for Bernie???
            Perhaps you do not understand how corrupt the machine is…
            This is how it will go down…. Hillary does not want her “election” in the primary to be a coronation. The media will call it close, boy oh boy nobody expected Bernie to do so well.
            All you lemming will run out and vote for Bernie, it could be 100% of all Dems could vote for Bernie….
            Low and behold, Hillary will win by a margin of 52% to 48%… You will be sad… Hillary will be doing her ugly corrupt end zone dance…. Nobody will question the results, because the media called it close….And they turned out to be right…

            Hillary’s machine is counting the votes! fool.

            “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
            Joseph Stalin

            Now tell me, I am a moron, and you are way too smart to fall for that trick, and come back here after Hillary wins and apologize to me.

          • Michael Dennewitz

            ANY comment you make on this little socialist troll is just feeding his ego ! !

          • Reality check is probably a Global Warming Nut, & if so he is taking up valuable air.

          • I couldn’t agree with you more!

          • Another stupid socialist, just what we need, right comrad? What a dufuss.

          • So you’re for socialism. Bernie is a socialist. Bernie is a wimp. Bernie couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag. He let 2 black women take a microphone away from him. Bernie would let islam walk in and take our country from us with nary a shot fired. Go hide with Bernie when the shooting starts. You’ll find him under his bed. Socialism does need a reality check. It has never worked and never will.

          • Social Security is Democratic socialism
            Medicare is Democratic socialism
            public libraries are Democratic socialism
            national parks are Democratic socialism
            national highways are Democratic socialism

            I can go on

            your problem is you are being lied to by the Right Wing Propaganda cause they want to control you and make you are angry at Dems.

          • Take a hike, communist troll!

          • as for Bernie and 2 black bimbos, did you want him to deck her?
            maybe tackle her?
            Bernie is a class act.

            Trump is an ass.

            why is violence the first choice for cons?

            Black lives matter is now working with Bernie and speaks at the beginning of Bernie rallies
            which draw crowds way bigger than trump the flip flopping socialist.

            now Trump likes Planned Parenthood.
            only 5 days to flip on that.

          • Bernie is wimpy with a capital W. Move to the Ukraine. I hope he does get the nomination. Any GOP nominee will win then. He’s a loser and you know it. But, who else is coming along to take charge? No one of any substance. NO one wants anything to do with Liberal Dim rat socialists. You’ve all gone so politically correct it’s coming out with your bowel movement. Let the mudslinging begin.

          • “Socialism does need a reality check. It has never worked and never will.”
            first of all it’s Democratic socialism.
            and Northern Europe takes issue with that.

            In fact Forbes, you know the Conservative economic mag, thinks socialist countries like those are the best place to open a business.
            go figure.

          • That’s because all the businesses they had in socialist countries went bankrupt! You can get their commercial real estate for pennies. The difference is the penalties and regulatory taxes that will gobble all the profits up. Hiring the locals that demand health insurance, paid sick leave, child care, paid holidays, thirty minute breaks every 3 hours, retirement pay after 15 years of just showing up and a laundry list of other perks that bankrupted the ones who where there before. You cats are stupid. Each following the other in a doomed illusion that always fails. The only businesses that make money in a socialist country is the Alcohol and drug business and the prostitution business. these that are right up at the top of a liberal socialist dream.

          • We are already living in a socialist country. Look at Mexico that’s capitalism to the core. You have the wealthy and everybody else. If your in the latter group you do whatever you can to survive. In this country (America) a person or couple has to make above 80,000.00 dollars a years. Even in a small house with a couple of children that would not be enough. So you say socialism needs a check. Are you a freedom welfare hound? Have you been in the military? Probably not. Why I would ask. You want someone else to take care of your responsibility. Has Limbaugh, Hannity or just about all politicians been in the military? Where is their responsibility to protect their country. They only cared for money. Not right or wrong just cash flow. Then you wonder why people can’t find a decent paying job. BTW I was in the army on active duty. I was in the National Guard during Desert Storm. Those politicians only care about who’s filling their wallets.

          • I served in the Navy. I worked as a Aviation boatswain’s mate on the flight deck of the mighty USS America. I helped launch and recover over 42 thousand aircraft. Without a lost time accident. That job is one of the ten most dangerous jobs in the world. I received an Honorable discharge. Your right about the amount of money it takes to raise a family. There are still good jobs out there. You just have to be there when opportunity knocks. Currently I have a good Job that I happen to like. I’ve had it for 35 years and am still working right along. I have never drawn welfare. I made my first million at the age of 36. That’s going over my SSN wages from their statement.
            As for protecting the country, I’ve been conscripted by the government to watch for any and all suspicious activity in and around the areas that I work. I’m not fond of Islam. I not fond of stupid protests that promote violence and thievery. I have taken every care of my responsibility to my God, My family and my country. I am the American dream.

          • WOW you support an avowed Socialist/Commie? You are whacked out.

      • another stupid comment, is your single brain cell lonely?

      • Michael Dennewitz

        And the asswipe trolls are on the loose again!!

      • IDIOTIC MORONIC LIBTURD TROLL

      • Nixon erased 15 minutes of tape and resigned. Hillary deleted thousands of emails, lied numerous times and is still trying to become president. Yes, I’d have to agree with MAHB001.

        • Nixon did a hell of a lot more than that fool.

          at the moment you and MAHB001 are basing a lot on the rumors of the right wing Propaganda machine that has NEVER been right in the past 6 years.

          Besides, I want her to drop out. Bernie is going to be Pres.

          I can hear the heads popping all over America.
          that will create jobs too.

          • You’re an idiot. First you can’t name another thing Nixon did and think that Sanders will use socialism, which has failed every time it has been used, will create jobs. Can anyone say useful idiot? Drink a lot of kool-ade do you?

      • Exactly

    • Beside being a low life criminal sleaze she is the slang word for vagina.

  3. How low can Hillowry go….

  4. How desperate can cons get.
    How many Republican presidential candidates are currently federally indicted?

    Doesn’t seem to bother conservatives.

    Hillary is a long way from getting a federal indictment.

    I would NOT celebrate too soon, especially considering the conservative record for accuracy.

    take away Hillary and Bernie becomes the nominee.

    Hillary is at least a corporate Democrat.

    Bernie is a socialist Democrat.
    If you thought your heads were going to explode with Hillary….

    • How can you even dress yourself? Have you no brain at all? If the writing is on the wall can you not see it? A blind follower of fools is in fact a fool himself. Good luck with that.

  5. Hillary you have just drawn your Go to Jail card….

  6. Tom Buyea -- Fla.News service

    Hillary is finished unless she can serve from prison ?

    • It would make my day & many others to see this slang word for vagina in prison. An all female prison she would have a great time.

  7. She kept her Server long enough to cleans it of any incriminating material. following Her past practices of destroying evidence while claiming innocence! If you can’t prove it I must be Innocent!

    • Maybe, but I am not sure she was smart enough to do it. Whoever did it for her is going down. And Hillary will probably dance on his/her grave.

      That woman is evil.

    • “If the glove does not fit you can’t convict”. Even though the glove was soaked in water to shrink it.

      • I have always wondered why the prosecution never brought the fact that wet leather shrinks as it dries.The glove was not only wet with blood, but had been found outside Simpsons property and was also wet because it had rained that night.

    • Yup, she stalled long enough that anything incriminating was wiped off her server. If there was nothing to hide, why not have turned it over months ago? I’m sure it’s spotless by now.

    • Reports: Deleted Hillary Emails May Be Salvageable, Top
      Secret Emails Discussed Drone Program

      The core question of the Hillary email scandal is, what’s
      she hiding? What could she possibly have
      anticipated being so damaging to her career that she was willing to justify
      risking national security and tangling herself up in an embarrassing web of
      lies? We may never know, the argument
      has gone, because Hillary’s lawyers unilaterally destroyed more than 30,000
      emails — some of which dealt with her work as Secretary of State,
      contradicting her assurances. They trashed those messages without any
      independent oversight, then wiped the server clean. Or did they? Via Bloomberg,
      hmmm:

      The FBI is seeking to determine whether data from Democratic
      presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server may still exist
      elsewhere, a U.S. official said. After acquiring the server on Wednesday,
      agents are attempting to determine whether e-mails may have been backed up on
      another machine, said the official, who asked for anonymity. The official said
      it’s one of the next logical steps in the agency’s investigation into whether
      the former secretary of state’s private e-mail account handled classified
      information. Barbara Wells, an attorney for Platte River Networks, a Denver-based
      company that has managed Clinton’s private e-mail since 2013, said in a phone
      interview Thursday that the server turned over to the Federal Bureau of
      Investigation “is blank and does not contain any useful data.” But Wells added
      that the data on Clinton’s server was migrated to another server that still
      exists. She ended the interview when questioned further, declining to say
      whether the data still exists on that other server and who has possession of
      it…Subsequent calls and e-mails to Wells and the Clinton campaign went
      unanswered…The suggestion that some of the data Clinton said she erased from
      her private e-mail server might still exist came as the Democrat turned over
      her server to government officials, who are investigating whether classified
      material might have been improperly exposed. Clinton and some of her closest
      aides used private e-mail accounts while she was the nation’s top diplomat.

      Was the data “migrated” prior to the mass deletion
      by Team Hillary, or after? We may get
      answers to some of these questions after all.
      Godspeed, FBI computer forensics team. May you thrive in your
      investigative mission and fulfill the Clinton campaign’s risible stated desire
      for ‘all the facts to come out,’ or whatever.
      Meanwhile, we may have a clearer picture of the subject matter discussed
      in those two top secret emails discovered (thus far) on her unsecure private
      server. Officials tell the Associated Press that Clinton aides, but not Clinton
      herself, discussed the government’s highly secretive drone program in emails
      found on Mrs. Clinton’s server:

      The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private server
      that an auditor deemed “top secret” include a discussion of a news
      article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could
      point back to highly classified material in an improper manner or merely
      reflect information collected independently, U.S. officials who have reviewed
      the correspondence told The Associated Press…The officials who spoke to the
      AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They
      wouldn’t detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about
      classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information
      herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear
      reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or
      any other form of sensitive sourcing. The drone exchange, the officials said,
      begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that
      targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is
      well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified
      information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in
      a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several
      officials, however, described this claim as tenuous. But a second email
      reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general,
      appears more suspect. Nothing in the message is “lifted” from classified
      documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in
      it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified
      material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the
      government calls “parallel reporting” — different people knowing the
      same thing through different means.

      Some Hillary defenders will seize on these details as a
      partial vindication. The true secrecy of the ‘top secret’ material may be in
      dispute, and Mrs. Clinton wasn’t the individual who transmitted it. But she is the person solely responsible for
      the creation and operation of her unsecure personal server. She is responsible for what passed through
      that server, and for the actions of her inner circle, to whom she grated server
      access. Despite what her campaign keeps
      saying, aided by Hillary’s friends at State, two different Inspectors General
      made clear that the classified contents discovered on her server were
      classified at the time, not after the fact.
      Also recall that the DOJ investigation, referred to the feds by those
      IGs, arose from a review of a tiny sample of her emails. Four of the 40 messages they examined
      contained classified information. It’s
      not unreasonable to assume that huge reams of sensitive and classified data
      lurk in the tens of thousands of Hillary emails — both saved and destroyed —
      the IGs didn’t inspect. The State
      Department is reportedly resisting calls by the intelligence community to turn
      over all of the emails Hillary belatedly submitted to her former agency. Of course nobody is in possession of her
      thousands of deleted emails, at least not yet. I’ll leave you with this:

      In a poll of voters in the six make-or-break swing states,
      Hillary Clinton now trails a generic Republican opponent by 13 points – a jump
      from last month’s 8-point deficit. The poll, which will be released later
      today, was conducted for the pro-GOP group American Crossroads by pollsters Vox
      Populi. The telephone survey included 1,908 registered voters in Colorado,
      Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia. While the Republican nominee will
      certainly have greater liabilities than a generic standard bearer – though
      likely some advantages, as well – a deficit of this size is bad news for
      Clinton as she looks to head off other potential intra-party rivals.

      Major caveat: This is a partisan GOP poll, the results of
      which are bleaker for Hillary than other mainstream polling has found. But nonpartisan pollsters have also found
      Mrs. Clinton sucking wind in important battleground states, with her
      favorability, trustworthiness and empathy ratings slumping nationally, too.

      Guy Benson | Aug 14, 2015

      Townhall.com

  8. Michael Dennewitz

    Shiittt, every damned one of these politicians work together to hide things. With the HTNIC buying them off, day after day, nothing will happen to the bitch, and I think WE ALL know that!!!

  9. We’ll se if Washington “D.C.”……….{ District of Crime }……..has any integrity left…….
    “BATH HOUSE BARRY”, WILL “PROBABLY” PARDON HER!
    {& BOTH OF THEM CAN BE EXILED FOR TREASON }!……………………..:o}}}}

  10. If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing. I hope she along with the POTUS goes to jail.

  11. She cleared most of her server off, are people still really that stupid to vote for her !

  12. I would like the be the proverbial “mouse in the corner” so I can watch the next president seeing all the crap that Obama has done secretly to destroy our country. I can just imagine someone like Cruz or Fiorina in that office and seeing all of that, and how stunned they would be, even after all we know already, and we are not even in that office to see the details. It will make future historians realize just how close we came to the precipice of losing America altogether.

    Hillary, pillary, now why do those two seem to go together? LOL

  13. clinton just couldn’t let the crony State and DOINJ and “executive privilege” stonewall and destroy every national security and federal disclosure law request, like obama and everyone under him!
    No, she thought laws don’t apply to her and decided to stonewall and destroy herself, and with no IG under her entire tenure, she thought she was above America!
    But America doesn’t like traitors, so why is obama still in office!?!
    So the FBI was finally forced to protect top secret information and had to act,
    otherwise the DOINJ would be blamed for everything, and they should still be!!!
    But by now everything has been deleted off the server?!?

    obama/mills/abedin/barr/kerry/et al. all knew about clinton’s criminal behavior!!!
    THEY MUST BE SWORN IN AND GRILLED IN A PUBLIC HEARING.

  14. At least the Justice Department looks like it is doing something. They’re still trying to keep us thinking we have a government responsive to us.

  15. Democrat DOJ window dressing, Queen Hillary will be cleared from all wrong doings before the election.

  16. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN THE DOJ. IT’S A LYNCH MOB RUN BY COMMUNISTS.

  17. Here is my question….because she stonewalled this for SO LONG is is possible they were able to delete info or keep important info from the FBI or Justice Department it seems that she had ENOUGH TIME to mess with the server to change information. She must not be allowed to run for President due to what she did PERIOD!

  18. Think it is a little late for her to turn over her server. Besides what is this “turning over her server”? It should have been confiscated on day one. The DOJ is as corrupt & criminal as the Executive, Legislative, Judicial (especially the SCOTUS) branches of government. An ordinary citizen would have had the server confiscated & been in jail by now without the dog & pony shows.

  19. IF ANYTHING WAS to become of this fiasco….there would have been ACTION a looooooooong time ago…but it is sufficiently covered up by now…so the murdering bottomfeeder will get away with her lies once again.

  20. Let me get this straight: In this country we now have two sets of laws, one for presidential candidates and one for the rest of us. A candidate for president can lie, cheat, disregard the law and commit perjury. all violations that we would go to jail for. The Clinton’s have shown that they disdain the law commoners must follow as they have been involved in scandal after scandal and escaped prosecution. And people wonder why non politicians are getting such traction with voters. Americans hate the flagrant way politicians disregard the law and the cavalier way they laugh and make light of their transgressions. Hillary Clinton is a liar and should be a convicted felon. Will she face her crimes? Ask that joke of an Attorney General

    • You got it straight-but not only can a candidate for president lie, cheat, disregard the law and commit perjury, but our sitting president has done ALL those things and more, and –wait for it–is STILL in office. Sad sad state of affairs!

  21. I think the best bet is going to be the Colorado firm that was hired to manage her server. Hopefully they did what most good companies do for their clients and backed up her data. FBI is on it. I don’t think anyone in that company will want to go to jail for destroying evidence, especially for a low-life like Hillary.

  22. Billy Bob Johnson

    The Justice Dept. didn’t seize anything. Mrs. Clinton gave it to the Justice Dept. You right wing extremists nut jobs really crack me up. The way you turn a story around to meet your agenda is like what the playground bully does when confronted with his evil deeds. We all have you figured out.

    • Oooh, scared. NOT!– You are delusional at best-stupid at worst. Why quibble over the word “seize” when the issue at hand is criminal charges and boo hoo, no candidate for president!! Wise up and vote for somebody who is at least not a PROVEN liar, cheat, etc etc.

  23. Now the Justice Dept has a blank server that Miss Loretta can truthfully say has no incriminating evidence on it. After one year of scrubbing and deleting and wiping and snarling, Hillary Clinton will get a pass and remain a scandalized candidate. A victim in her own eyes. An underdog who will cry foul. A thieving liar and megalomaniac. You think that she and miss Loretta haven’t been talking? Miss Loretta might see some extra cash money coming her way. Cash she can hide and spend at her leisure. Or Hillary has made her an offer she can’t refuse. These are dirty people who play dirty.

  24. So, Hillary’s server has been handed over to Obama’s Justice Dept………and that’s a good thing ???

  25. Hillary is a freaking Criminal , we put people in prison for doing what she did . America wants justice !

  26. Dominic Roy Accampo

    I earnestly pray that they will get enough information to nail that wench to a cold cell cot for a long time to come and it will be even better if her leader is in the cell that is right beside hers.

  27. It’s time for justice. How do you expect the negros in Ferguson to obey the law when the queer president and Demoncrat don’t have to? Lady justice doesn’t pick and choose who’s guilty and who isn’t. She wears a blindfold and hold a scale.She treats all equally. Seems that they put her in the closet and let all the queers out.

  28. Hillary for Prison 2016

  29. Reports: Deleted Hillary Emails May Be Salvageable, Top
    Secret Emails Discussed Drone Program

    The core question of the Hillary email scandal is, what’s
    she hiding? What could she possibly have
    anticipated being so damaging to her career that she was willing to justify
    risking national security and tangling herself up in an embarrassing web of
    lies? We may never know, the argument
    has gone, because Hillary’s lawyers unilaterally destroyed more than 30,000
    emails — some of which dealt with her work as Secretary of State,
    contradicting her assurances. They trashed those messages without any
    independent oversight, then wiped the server clean. Or did they? Via Bloomberg,,
    hmmm:

    The FBI is seeking to determine whether data from Democratic
    presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server may still exist
    elsewhere, a U.S. official said. After acquiring the server on Wednesday,
    agents are attempting to determine whether e-mails may have been backed up on
    another machine, said the official, who asked for anonymity. The official said
    it’s one of the next logical steps in the agency’s investigation into whether
    the former secretary of state’s private e-mail account handled classified
    information. Barbara Wells, an attorney for Platte River Networks, a Denver-based
    company that has managed Clinton’s private e-mail since 2013, said in a phone
    interview Thursday that the server turned over to the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation “is blank and does not contain any useful data.” But Wells added
    that the data on Clinton’s server was migrated to another server that still
    exists. She ended the interview when questioned further, declining to say
    whether the data still exists on that other server and who has possession of
    it…Subsequent calls and e-mails to Wells and the Clinton campaign went
    unanswered…The suggestion that some of the data Clinton said she erased from
    her private e-mail server might still exist came as the Democrat turned over
    her server to government officials, who are investigating whether classified
    material might have been improperly exposed. Clinton and some of her closest
    aides used private e-mail accounts while she was the nation’s top diplomat.

    Was the data “migrated” prior to the mass deletion
    by Team Hillary, or after? We may get
    answers to some of these questions after all.
    Godspeed, FBI computer forensics team. May you thrive in your
    investigative mission and fulfill the Clinton campaign’s risible stated desire
    for ‘all the facts to come out,’ or whatever.
    Meanwhile, we may have a clearer picture of the subject matter discussed
    in those two top secret emails discovered (thus far) on her unsecure private
    server. Officials tell the Associated Press that Clinton aides, but not Clinton
    herself, discussed the government’s highly secretive drone program in emails
    found on Mrs. Clinton’s server:

    The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private server
    that an auditor deemed “top secret” include a discussion of a news
    article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could
    point back to highly classified material in an improper manner or merely
    reflect information collected independently, U.S. officials who have reviewed
    the correspondence told The Associated Press…The officials who spoke to the
    AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They
    wouldn’t detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about
    classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information
    herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear
    reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or
    any other form of sensitive sourcing. The drone exchange, the officials said,
    begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that
    targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is
    well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified
    information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in
    a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several
    officials, however, described this claim as tenuous. But a second email
    reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general,
    appears more suspect. Nothing in the message is “lifted” from classified
    documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in
    it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified
    material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the
    government calls “parallel reporting” — different people knowing the
    same thing through different means.

    Some Hillary defenders will seize on these details as a
    partial vindication. The true secrecy of the ‘top secret’ material may be in
    dispute, and Mrs. Clinton wasn’t the individual who transmitted it. But she is the person solely responsible for
    the creation and operation of her unsecure personal server. She is responsible for what passed through
    that server, and for the actions of her inner circle, to whom she grated server
    access. Despite what her campaign keeps
    saying, aided by Hillary’s friends at State, two different Inspectors General
    made clear that the classified contents discovered on her server were
    classified at the time, not after the fact.
    Also recall that the DOJ investigation, referred to the feds by those
    IGs, arose from a review of a tiny sample of her emails. Four of the 40 messages they examined
    contained classified information. It’s
    not unreasonable to assume that huge reams of sensitive and classified data
    lurk in the tens of thousands of Hillary emails — both saved and destroyed —
    the IGs didn’t inspect. The State
    Department is reportedly resisting calls by the intelligence community to turn
    over all of the emails Hillary belatedly submitted to her former agency. Of course nobody is in possession of her
    thousands of deleted emails, at least not yet. I’ll leave you with this:

    In a poll of voters in the six make-or-break swing states,
    Hillary Clinton now trails a generic Republican opponent by 13 points – a jump
    from last month’s 8-point deficit. The poll, which will be released later
    today, was conducted for the pro-GOP group American Crossroads by pollsters Vox
    Populi. The telephone survey included 1,908 registered voters in Colorado,
    Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia. While the Republican nominee will
    certainly have greater liabilities than a generic standard bearer – though
    likely some advantages, as well – a deficit of this size is bad news for
    Clinton as she looks to head off other potential intra-party rivals.

    Major caveat: This is a partisan GOP poll, the results of
    which are bleaker for Hillary than other mainstream polling has found. But nonpartisan pollsters have also found
    Mrs. Clinton sucking wind in important battleground states, with her
    favorability, trustworthiness and empathy ratings slumping nationally, too.

    Guy Benson | Aug 14, 2015

    Townhall.com

  30. FBI Said to Examine Whether Hillary Clinton E-Mail Was
    Backed Up

    Aug 13, 2015 10:16 PM EDT

    An official says it’s one of the next logical steps in the
    agency’s investigation into whether the former secretary of state’s private
    e-mail account handled classified information.

    Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

    Chris Strohm

    Del Quentin Wilber.

    Del Quentin Wilber

    The FBI is seeking to determine whether data from Democratic
    presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server may still exist
    elsewhere, a U.S. official said.

    After acquiring the server on Wednesday, agents are
    attempting to determine whether e-mails may have been backed up on another
    machine, said the official, who asked for anonymity. The official said it’s one
    of the next logical steps in the agency’s investigation into whether the former
    secretary of state’s private e-mail account handled classified information.

    Barbara Wells, an attorney for Platte River Networks, a
    Denver-based company that has managed Clinton’s private e-mail since 2013, said
    in a phone interview Thursday that the server turned over to the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation “is blank and does not contain any useful data.” But Wells
    added that the data on Clinton’s server was migrated to another server that
    still exists. She ended the interview when questioned further, declining to say
    whether the data still exists on that other server and who has possession of
    it.

    “Most people don’t understand really what it takes to
    actually delete things from a computer permanently.”

    Peter Toren

    Subsequent calls and e-mails to Wells and the Clinton
    campaign went unanswered.

    Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush declined in
    an e-mail to comment on whether it is aware of the other server and is trying
    to access it.

    “The data on the old server is not now available on any
    server or device that is under Platte River’s control,” Wells said during the
    interview.

    The suggestion that some of the data Clinton said she erased
    from her private e-mail server might still exist came as the Democrat turned
    over her server to government officials, who are investigating whether
    classified material might have been improperly exposed. Clinton and some of her
    closest aides used private e-mail accounts while she was the nation’s top
    diplomat.

    Clinton’s server was held in a secure data center operated
    by “a third-party” in New Jersey when it was handed over to the FBI on
    Wednesday, said Wells. She declined to identify the third party.

    What the Server Might Reveal

    The FBI’s examination of the private e-mail server used by
    Clinton could yield useful information, such as private communications thought
    to be deleted and evidence as to whether the device was hacked.

    Or it could turn up nothing.

    Michael Kortan, a spokesman for the FBI, declined to
    comment.

    The outcome of the FBI’s forensic analysis of the server
    will depend on what steps were taken to delete and overwrite data on it,
    according to former law enforcement investigators and cybersecurity
    specialists.

    “Most people don’t understand really what it takes to
    actually delete things from a computer permanently,” said Peter Toren, a former
    computer crimes prosecutor for the Justice Department. “The FBI has had a great
    deal of training and they’re very good about recovering data from computers
    that people think have been erased or deleted.”

    The FBI took possession of the server on Wednesday after the
    intelligence community’s inspector general determined that the personal e-mail
    account used by Clinton when she was secretary of state contained some
    information that should have been classified and secured.

    Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing and has said she’s
    confident that material in her e-mails wasn’t marked as being classified at the
    time it was sent and received through her server. Republican lawmakers have
    questioned why she used a private e-mail system and whether it jeopardized the
    security of sensitive data.

    What the FBI Got

    An e-mail server is a computer used to send, store, and
    manage electronic communications. Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009
    until February 2013, kept the server in her home in Chappaqua, New York.

    Clinton said she turned over paper copies of 30,490 e-mails
    relating to government business from her tenure. She said another 31,830
    personal messages—including yoga routines and condolence messages—were deleted.
    Clinton’s critics have questioned whether she should have been the one to make
    the call about what to turn over to the government and what to hold back.

    FBI investigators likely will first look to see if the
    deleted e-mails can be recovered, said Toren, a partner with the law firm
    Weisbrod Matteis & Copley Pllc.

    However, the e-mails and any other data on the server could
    have been permanently deleted if the operating disk was overwritten—a process
    known as wiping, said Philip Lieberman, president of Lieberman Software Corp.,
    a cybersecurity company based in Los Angeles.

    “If the disk itself at the lowest level was wiped, it’s
    probably not recoverable,” Lieberman said.

    “If only files were wiped, it’s probably recoverable.”

    Not Just About E-mails

    Investigators also will look at how often files were erased
    or the disk was wiped. If Clinton regularly had the system wiped, that
    indicates a common security practice. If the system was only wiped once, it
    could indicate an effort to hide evidence, Lieberman said.

    If the server is barren, investigators could pursue other
    avenues to try to recover data, Lieberman said. For example, they could check
    if e-mails were sent to people using a service that keeps logs, such as Google
    Inc.’s Gmail. They could also ask if the Internet service provider used by
    Clinton kept logs.

    It’s also not clear if Clinton’s data still exists on a
    backup server.

    The FBI’s inspection of Clinton’s server could also yield
    valuable information into how secure the server was and whether it was ever
    hacked, said Elad Yoran, executive chairman of Koolspan Inc., a communications
    security company based in Bethesda, Maryland.

    “They may be able to tell whether it was hacked and
    thatopens up a whole other set of questions,” Yoran said.

    Toren, Lieberman, and Yoran all said they considered
    Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system and server to be extraordinary and
    weren’t aware of any other government officials doing the same.

    “This wasn’t done because it was convenient for her,” Yoran
    said. “There’s a ton of email services that are available that are actually
    quite secure, easy to use, and you can use them on every device.”

  31. Hillary’s emails WERE backed up to another server – and it
    may still exist – as the FBI works to figure out how well the data was scrubbed

    (IT company that has held Clinton’s private email server
    since 2013 says it ‘migrated’ her data to another machine at some point

    Platte River Networks, Inc. isn’t saying where that machine
    is or who owns it, but insists it has no access to the files now

    It is possible, however, that all of Clinton’s emails,
    including the more than 30,000 she ordered deleted, still exist somewhere and
    can be recovered

    Two emails classified ‘top secret’ were found among those
    Hillary Clinton handed over to the State Department

    A majority of Americans believe the FBI should pursue a.
    criminal investigation into wrongdoing by Clinton and her aides )

    Tens of thousands of emails once housed on former secretary
    of state Hillary Clinton’s private computer server were moved to another device
    after a Colorado company took possession of the device in 2013, leaving open
    the possibility that copies of messages Clinton later chose to delete might
    still exist.

    The FBI seized the server this week in a stunning move,
    signaling a new intensity in the investigation into whether Clinton knowingly
    send or received top-secret classified information through her private address
    while she was America’s top diplomat.

    Bloomberg reported Thursday night that Barbara Wells, an
    attorney for Platte River Networks, Inc., confirmed that while the server
    hardware now controlled by the FBI ‘is blank and does not contain any useful
    data,’ its contents could still be safe and sound elsewhere.

    That’s because the server’s messages were ‘migrated’ to
    another server that still exists, she said, before ending the Bloomberg
    interview without specifying where that device is located and who owns it –
    only that her company no longer has it.

    THE WHO DID WHAT, NOW? Clinton’s deleted emails, numbering
    more than 30,000, may still exist because the IT company hired to manage her
    server made a copy elsewhere – but it’s unknown whether that copy is gone

    ‘The data on the old server is not now available on any
    server or device that is under Platte River’s control,’ Wells said.

    A Monmouth University poll, released Wednesday, shows that
    52 per cent of American voters believe the federal government should pursue a
    criminal investigation in the case.

    That number might soon grow: The Monmouth survey was
    conducted before the server landed in the hands of law enforcement, along with
    three thumb drives held by her lawyer that reportedly contain raw copies of
    30,490 emails she handed over to State Department investigators late last year.

    A random sample of 40 of those messages examined by U.S.
    Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough’s office included
    two that contained information later classified as ‘top secret.’

    Another 31,830 emails, however, were deleted at Clinton’s
    request after her staffers sifted through them and determined that they were
    personal in nature.

    Republicans on Capitol Hill cried foul in March after she
    casually acknowledged during a combative press conference that she had made
    that decision without oversight from anyone in government.

    Clinton and her presidential campaign have insisted, most
    recently in a 4,000-word explanation this week, that those messages were not
    work-related.

    Clinton used an ‘@clintonemail.com’ address exclusively
    during her four years as secretary of state instead of keeping her
    correspondence on a ‘@state.gov’ account. That made it more likely that her
    emails were open to hackers, and made it impossible for the State Department to
    keep a complete archive.

    An aide to a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence
    Committee told DailyMail.com that McCCullough has been pressed to give Congress
    regular updates if more classified information is discovered.

    ‘We’re not letting go of this,’ he said, while denying that
    going after Clinton was a political exercise.

    ‘I don’t care if it’s Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz,’ he said,
    naming a Texas senator who is running for president, but who is not a committee
    member. ‘If we don’t aggressively follow this wherever it leads, what good are
    we?’

    It’s not clear if Clinton’s long-deleted data actually
    exists on another machine, even though Wells says it was once moved there.

    But even if it’s gone for good, the FBI’s digital forensic
    experts may be able to recover some or all of it from the ‘clean’ Platte River
    server – depending on the method that was used to ‘wipe’ it.

    Methods also exist to determine if traces of a malicious
    hack remain behind.

    Hard drives store information in large sections that are
    separate from a ‘directory’ block – a sort of table of contents that tells a
    computer where to find each file’s many constituent pieces.

    When a PC ‘deletes’ a file, that directory entry is
    typically the only part that is actually erased. The larger data remain,
    although the space where they reside is made available for other files.

    So sometimes large portions of files can be recovered and
    reconstructed if they have been overwritten, even though a computer considers
    the device to be empty.

    ‘Most people don’t understand really what it takes to
    actually delete things from a computer permanently,’ Peter Toren, a former
    computer crimes prosecutor for the Justice Department, told Bloomberg.

    ‘The FBI has had a great deal of training and they’re very
    good about recovering data from computers that people think have been erased or
    deleted.’

    TIMELINE: THE CLINTON EMAIL SAGA

    Hillary Clinton’s email troubles began when her private
    address was exposed by a Romanian hacker. Now the resulting scandal threatens
    to torpedo her presidential ambitions.

    2008 – Hillary Clinton acquires a personal email server for
    her use in running for president, and has it installed in her Chappaqua, New
    York home

    January 13, 2009 – Internet records show that the domain
    ‘clintonemail.com’ was created

    January 21, 2009 – Clinton is confirmed by the U.S. Senate
    as President Obama’s secretary of state

    February 1, 2013 – Clinton leaves the State Department

    March 20, 2013 – Clinton’s private email address, hdr22@clintonemail.com,
    is made public when a Romanian hacker named ‘Guccifer’ (whose real name is
    Marcel Lazăr Lehel) hacks into longtime Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL
    email account and leaks images of his inbox – including emails from Clinton

    June 2013 – Hillary’s team shifts control of the email
    domain to an outside IT contractor in Denver called Platte River Networks, and
    sends the original server hardware to a data center facility in New Jersey,
    where it is erased

    August 11, 2014 – Following a congressional subpoena and
    more than a year of delays, the State Department hands over a small number of
    Clinton’s private emails, 10 in all, to a House committee investigating the
    2012 terror attack on a State Department compound in Benghazi, Libya – including
    some emails from the hdr22@clintonemail.com address

    November 2014 – The Benghazi committee asks the State
    Department for a larger batch of Clinton’s emails and receives about 300 that
    relate to the Libya saga, amounting to 850 printed pages

    December 5, 2014 – Clinton’s aides say that in response to a
    request from the State Department, they have handed over about 55,000 pages of
    her work-related emails, comprising 30,490 messages

    February 13, 2015 – The State Department sends the Benghazi
    committee another 850 pages of Clinton’s emails, including some from two
    different accounts on the private ‘clintonemail.com’ server

    February 27, 2015 – State Department staffers tell Benghazi
    committee aides that Clinton had used her private address exclusively during
    her tenure at the agency, and that they don’t have any of her emails other than
    those she provided voluntarily

    March 4, 2015 – The Associated Press reports that it has
    traced Clinton’s private email address back to a private server at her
    Chappaqua, New York home, and that the server was registered under a fake name

    March 10, 2015 – In a contentious press conference following
    a speech at the United Nations, Clinton admits that she deleted more than
    30,000 emails that she says were personal in nature, and says she turned over
    everything work-related to the State Department, while insisting that ‘I did
    not email any classified material to anyone on my email; there is no classified
    material’

    March 11, 2015 – The Associated Press sues the State
    Department to force the release of Clinton’s emails and other documents that
    the agency has failed to turn over following a Freedom Of Information Act
    request

    April 12, 2015 – Clinton launches her second presidential
    campaign with an online video and begins two months of low-key campaigning
    marked by a lack of interaction with reporters

    May 22, 2015 – The first 300 of Clinton’s emails are made
    public by the State Department, revealing a close relationship with Blumenthal
    in the weeks following the Benghazi terror attack; one of them has been
    retroactively classified by the FBI as ‘secret’ but Clinton insists it was
    ‘handled appropriately’

    May 27, 2015 – A federal judge orders the State Department
    to begin releasing all of Clinton’s emails in installments every 30 days,
    setting monthly targets for the agency so the work is completed by January 29,
    2016

    July 23, 2015 – Charles McCullough, the inspector general
    for the U.S. intelligence community tells members of Congress in a letter that
    a random sampling of 40 Clinton emails turned up four that contained material
    classified as secret

    July 24, 2015 – Andrea Williams, spokeswoman for the
    McCulloush, says that the emails ‘were classified when they were sent and are
    classified now.’

    July 25, 2015 – During a campaign appearance in Iowa, Clinton
    modifies her position and tells reporters in Iowa that ‘I am confident that I
    never sent nor received any information that was classifiedat the time it was
    sent and received’

    July 31, 2015 – The second State Department release of
    Clinton’s emails, more than 1,300 in all, includes 41 that were marked
    ‘classified’ before they were made public

    August 4, 2015 – Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill says in a
    statement that the candidate ‘did not send nor receive any emails that were
    marked classified at the time’

    August 11, 2015 – McCullough revises his statement to
    Congress, saying that two of the four emails in question should have been
    classified ‘top secret’ – but were not marked that way – and contained
    information from signal intercepts and keyhole satellite data; he adds that the
    other two emails are still being evaluated

    August 11, 2015 – The FBI takes possession of Clinton’s
    server hardware and three thumb drives in her lawyer’s possession, which are
    said to contain copies of everything she turned over to the State Department

    Read more:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3198323/Hillary-s-emails-backed-server-exist-FBI-works-figure-data-scrubbed.html#ixzz3ittTA6hO

    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  32. .Proof: Despite Denials, White
    House Aides Knew about Hillary’s Private E-Mail Account (

    by BRENDAN BORDELON June 30, 2015
    11:30 PM @BRENDANBORDELON

    New Hillary Clinton e-mails
    released late Tuesday night by the State Department reveal that, despite denials
    to the contrary, top Obama-administration officials were aware, within the
    first nine months of President Obama’s first term, of then–secretary of state
    Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server to conduct government
    business.

    The White House has not said when
    President Obama and his lieutenants first learned of Clinton’s use of a private
    e-mail server, noting only that they became aware in August 2014, after
    Republican lawmakers got hold of the information, that it could become a
    political problem.

    But e-mails from 2009 show that
    chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and senior adviser David Axelrod understood at the
    time that Clinton used a private e-mail account and server for official
    business. Indeed, top officials were forced to explicitly ask Clinton aides for
    her e-mail address.

    Axelrod wants your emails,” read
    the subject line of an e-mail from Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills on June
    8, 2009.

    Clinton replied from her e-mail
    account HDR22@clintonemail.com. “Can you send it to him or do you want me to?”
    she asked. “Does he know I can’t look at it all day so he needs to contact
    me thru you or Huma or Lauren during work hours.”

    But, despite this 2009 e-mail,
    Axelrod told MSNBC host Mike Brzezinski on June 17 this year that he was
    unaware Clinton was using a private e-mail address and server in a government
    capacity. “I was there, I was the senior adviser. I didn’t know that,” he said.
    “I might’ve asked a few questions about that

    A top Emanuel aide also asked
    Clinton’s team for her private e-mail account on September 5, 2009. “The
    Secretary and Rahm are speaking, and she just asked him to email her,” wrote
    Emanuel’s assistant. “Can you send me her address please?” Mills deferred to
    Clinton. “Do you want him to have your email?” she asked. Clinton agreed,
    replying from a different private account, hrod17@clintonemail.com.

    Future Obama counsel John Podesta
    was also aware of Hillary’s private e-mail server. “Tried you a couple days
    ago, but email bounced back,” he wrote to hrod17@clintonemail.com on June 25,
    2009. “Neera [Tanden, president of Center for American Progress] says this is
    the right one. How are you doing?” Podesta was not in the White House when the
    e-mail was sent, so it is unclear whether he understood that Clinton’s account
    was being used for official purposes.

    — Brendan Bordelon is a political reporter for
    National Review Online.

    Read more at: ww.nationalreview.com/article/420573/hillarys-private-e-mail-server-whitehouse-knew-since-2009

  33. CNN Reporter Who Scored First Hillary Interview Attended
    Clinton Aide’s Wedding Two Weeks Ago

    Published July 6, 2015

    By Al Weaver, The Daily Caller

    CNN’s Brianna Keilar just nabbed one of the biggest
    interviews of the year: the first national interview with former Secretary of
    State Hillary Clinton since her campaign launch.

    However (perhaps coincidentally), Keilar was spotted two
    weeks ago at the wedding of a prominent member of the Clinton campaign.

    (Smokedsalmoned comment – Brianna is also scheduled to be
    CNN’s field reporter following Hillary around during the campaign. Look forward to more softball buddy questions
    on the campaign trail. )

  34. Hillary Clinton says businesses don’t create jobs. Uh-oh.

    Editors’ Picks

    ·

    Fortress Israel:
    Can people make peace when they don’t talk?

    ·

    Monitor Breakfast War on Ebola can
    be won … with a big effort, says World Bank chief

    ·

    Photo op: Hubble
    captures Comet Siding Spring as it buzzes Mars

    ·

    Marseille’s
    culture clash: An old hatred acquires a new face

    Hillary Clinton
    said this at a recent campaign event: ‘Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s
    corporations and businesses that create jobs.’ By Linda Feldmann,
    Staff writer October 27, 2014

    Washington — Hillary Rodham Clinton’s
    recent comment about trickledown economics has launched a war of spin.

    First, here’s what
    the likely 2016 presidential candidate said at a campaign event last Friday
    for Martha Coakley,
    the Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate:

    “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses
    that create jobs,” former Secretary of State Clinton said in Boston. “You know
    that old theory, trickledown economics. That has been tried, that has failed.
    It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when
    people say, ‘What did you bring to Washington?’ He says, ‘I brought arithmetic.’

    That first sentence is similar to a gaffe President Obama made in
    his 2012 reelection campaign, when he said: “If you’ve got a business – you
    didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” His GOP opponent, Mitt Romney,
    pounded him mercilessly over that one (though Mr. Romney still lost).

    “It’s Hillary Clinton’s ‘You Didn’t Build That Moment’ – and it’s
    a safe bet that the quote will come back to haunt her,” writes Benjamin Austin at
    FreePatriot.org.

    Regardless of how one interprets Clinton’s comment, there’s little
    doubt the former first lady’s opponents will use it against her in the
    presidential campaign, if she runs.

    It’s not Clinton’s first gaffe of the unofficial 2016 race. This
    past June, when she released her latest book, “Hard Choices,” she said she and
    her husband, the ex-president, came out of the White House in 2001 “dead
    broke.” For a couple that could instantly command multimillion-dollar book
    deals and six-figure speaking gigs, the comment seemed strangely off. PolitiFact. com rated it
    “mostly false.”

    As before, liberal watchdog groups are jumping in to defend her,
    calling for a look at the context.

    “The full transcript of her remarks shows she was making the
    established observation that minimum wage increases can boost a sluggish
    economy by generating demand, and that tax breaks for the rich don’t
    necessarily move companies to create jobs,” writes the group Media Matters.

    Conservative and liberal economists have long been at war over the
    effectiveness of trickledown (or supply-side) economics – the idea that cutting
    taxes and regulations frees up capital and allows businesses to grow –
    including hiring more workers.

    The 2016 race is upon us. Everything Clinton says in public will
    be parsed within an inch of its life — and already is. Politicians often plead,
    “Out of context,” when caught saying something off-key. But in the sound-bite
    reality of political life, Clinton may find it easier just to make sure
    everything she says, sentence by sentence, sounds good on its own.

    (Smokedsalmoned says, Read the story and see the clip and
    the text, despite the “context” she said it and she meant it. If her argument were sound then why not just
    raise minimum wage to 100 a hour)

  35. Hillary’s story — for the children

    Democrats, always thrilled by the stresses within GOP ranks,
    are allowing themselves to be diverted from the increasingly obvious flaws in
    their presumptive nominee.

    I hate to say it so soon, as I will have to say it so often
    between now and next November. But I told them so, at length and in great
    detail in The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second
    Clinton Era.

    The former secretary of state is a dreadful candidate. Her
    catastrophic tenure at Foggy Bottom is the single constant that brings every
    bitter brew from around the world back to her original recipes from 2009 for
    American “soft power,” her resets and fresh starts, as well as her deep silence
    during the brutally repressed Iranian Green Revolution — had it been nurtured
    and encouraged instead of ignored and disdained, it would at least have
    prevented this disaster of a “deal” with Iran.

    Hillary is an anchor around the Democratic Party’s neck
    every bit as heavy as President Obama and Obamacare and the legitimization of a
    nuclear Iran, and just as impossible to escape. Her plummeting poll numbers
    have already shaken all but the delusional, and now this.

    “This” of course is the recognition by two inspectors
    general that the operation and subsequent attempted destruction of Hillary’s
    private email server system probably violated the federal criminal law. This
    revelation has accelerated the growing awareness that her reckless disdain for
    national security compromised every day of her tenure at State.

    Our nation’s national security enemies, which are capable of
    emptying OPM’s data vaults, were also of course surely aware that Hillary had a
    Costco server with Sam’s Club security, and likely had her incoming and
    outgoing communications in real time. She was a bulletin board to the Chinese,
    the Russians and the Iranians of what the United States was hoping to
    accomplish and planning to do.

    Hillary Clinton turns out to have been America’s greatest
    intelligence blunder ever, all because she put her political interests and
    personal paranoia ahead of the country’s safety. Never before have foreign
    enemies of the United States had such a clear picture of what the U.S. intended
    as policy and practice as they would have had with real time access to the
    internal communications of the country’s secretary of state, and the
    probability of that real time access is nearing 100 percent.

    If Putin — or his Chinese or Iranian counterparts — for any
    reason decides he wants to punish Hillary before the election, he need only drop
    a few emails classified “secret” into the public domain — especially if they
    turn out to be among the ones Hillary erased.

    That would blow her out of the race if the mere possibility
    hasn’t already. And the knowledge that our enemies rummaged through our “highly
    protected” spy files and security investigation folders is driving home the
    realities of their capabilities even to those who know little of
    intelligence-world skullduggery.

    Hilary disqualified herself for the presidency the day she
    turned on her homebrew server. Her plummeting numbers show the public is on to
    this. The calls by two inspectors general for a criminal inquiry are just the
    opening horn sounding of the hunt for accountability — a hunt that will
    continue long after Hillary loses if not the Democratic nomination (to Joe
    Biden or … John Kerry?) then after she loses the general election in the fall
    of ’16.

    The server, the server, the server. That is the bell tolling
    for Team Hillary. And they know it. Those who deny it evince a laughable ignorance
    of intelligence gathering and our enemies’ abilities. Those who deny it, in
    short, are children playing at adult games.

    They are loud, they are angry, and they are spread
    throughout the Manhattan-Beltway media elite. But they are children nonetheless.

    Monday, July 27, 2015 |
    posted by Hugh Hewitt

    This column was originally posted on WashingtonExaminer.com.

  36. .CHURCH OF THE STATE: HILLARY WANTS TO RE-WRITE RELIGION TO
    MAKE IT MORE ABORTION-FRIENDLY

    “Far too many women
    are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws
    we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Hillary Clinton
    said at the Women in the World Summit on Thursday night. “Rights have to exist
    in practice, not just on paper. Laws
    have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated
    cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

    Clinton made it emphatically clear she’s not just talking
    about, say, the horrific abuse of women by Islamist extremists: “As I have
    said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and
    girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of
    the 21st century, and not just for women but for everyone… and not just in far
    away countries but right here in the United States.” She pointed at the very
    ground she was standing upon, to emphasize the point.

    As an aside, that has to be one of the strangest, clunkiest
    rhetorical devices I’ve ever heard: “As I have said, and as I believe…”
    Granted, with politicians in general and Clintons in particular, a disclaimer
    that what they’re saying really is what they believe is often necessary, but
    there’s no particular reason to believe such a disclaimer when Hillary Clinton
    delivers it. If she really believed
    everything she was saying at this Women in the World Summit, why was she happy
    to rake in millions of dollars from countries that treat women horribly?

    Quibbles about odd rhetorical devices aside, this vow to use
    government force to rewrite religious belief and make it more contraception-
    and abortion-friendly is deeply offensive, and par for the course with true
    believers in the Church of the State, as both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
    are. Clinton has been at it much longer. Back in the Nineties, she was high on
    the notion of the collectivist State as a spiritual vehicle – the “politics of
    meaning,” as the catch phrase went.

    The difference is that Obama will occasionally use Christian
    symbolism and Scripture to advance his political agenda, as when he insists
    that charity can only be properly administered by the State, and Christians are
    therefore obliged to support high taxes, massive government spending, and
    regulatory power. Obama is also big on using Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for
    Radicals” against Christians, as when he tried to shame them out of criticizing
    his foreign policy by pontificating about the Crusades.

    Clinton, on the other hand, more explicitly views politics
    as absorbing religion, as in this example. Her Church of the State has made
    certain decrees concerning mandatory payment for other peoples’ contraceptives
    and unrestricted abortion; any organized religion that resists must be forcibly
    re-written to accept these judgments.

    Unlike Obama, Hillary isn’t much interested in pretending to
    be a devout Christian. In this speech, she’s creating a continuum between
    Taliban savages murdering girls for daring to go to school, and American
    Christians who don’t want to pay for other peoples’ abortifacient drugs. Genital mutilation, opposition to late-term
    abortion… it’s all the same to her. Religions must be reprogrammed until
    they’re fully compatible with the latest version of radical-feminist code.

    That’s one of the worst problems with the bizarre cult so
    much of modern feminism has degenerated into: they ignore vast amounts of real
    suffering in the most fearsome corners of the world to focus on using their
    notion of “women’s rights” as a cudgel against domestic political opponents.
    Clinton does mention some of those global horrors facing women, but mostly
    because she wants to roll them into an identity-politics scam that mixes a grab
    bag of collectivist political ideas into the very definition of “womanhood.” If
    you disagree with anything in that grab bag, you’re “anti-woman.”

    Of course, voting for female Democrat candidates – most
    emphatically including Hillary Rodham Clinton – is an essential component of
    this politically engineered feminist identity.
    Asking questions about Hillary’s deleted emails or shady finances
    occupies a slightly different point on the same continuum as sexual slavery.
    The worst parts of that continuum lie in parts of the world where weak liberal
    culture has decided aggressive criticism of the “deep-seated cultural codes,
    religious beliefs and structural biases” is politically incorrect, or where the
    diminished American prestige brought about by the foreign policy of Obama and
    Clinton has left America with very little influence. Rest assured you will not
    see the likes of Hillary Clinton rewriting the deep-seated cultural codes of
    Dearborn mosques. When Boko Haram marched hundreds of girls into slavery,
    liberal feminism’s response was a Twitter hashtag.

    Clinton offers a compelling case, as if more evidence was
    needed, that her and Obama’s brand of coercive liberalism is utterly
    incompatible with American ideals of religious freedom. She’s rather directly
    stating that almighty government leaves very little room for individual
    conscience. We’re supposed to have a government that serves the people and
    reflects their values; instead, the Left worships a State powerful enough to
    change the people, hammering square citizens into round holes of ideology.

    We’ll have to rewrite our traditions and religious beliefs
    to comport with your vision, Mrs. Clinton? I think we’ll have to take a pass on
    your vision, then. Just in case you actually gain power, is there any chance we
    can keep our traditions by making generous donations to the Clinton Foundation?

    Shortly after her “rewriting religion” remarks, Clinton
    declared that eliminating the sexual “wage gap” of left-wing mythology would
    generate zillions of dollars in enhanced national wealth. Since almost all of
    that “wage gap” is due to women choosing different career paths than men, what
    she’s actually calling for is frog-marching women into dangerous jobs with long
    hours and little accommodation for motherhood, requiring degrees in subjects
    they’d rather not study. This would require vast amounts of coercive force,
    stamping out the hopes and dreams of girls who prefer to set different courses
    in life, including full-time motherhood. Tell me who’s declaring “war on
    women,” again?

    by JOHN HAYWARD24 Apr 2015281

    Breitbart.com

  37. …Russian media have been poking fun at the US secretary of
    state over a translation error on a gift (restart button) she presented to her
    Russian counterpart.

    Hillary Clinton gave Sergei Lavrov a mock “reset”
    button, symbolising US hopes to mend frayed ties with Moscow.

    But he said the word the Americans chose,
    “peregruzka”, meant “overloaded” or
    “overcharged”, rather than “reset”.

    Daily newspaper Kommersant declared on its front page:
    “Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton push the wrong button.” …

    Relations between Washington
    and Moscow have cooled in recent years over Russia’s role in the war in Georgia, US support for the entry of Georgia and Ukraine
    to Nato, and the planned US
    missile shield based in central Europe.

    ‘Was it right?’

    Efforts to heal the rift got off to an awkward start on Friday
    as the two sides met in Geneva,
    when Mrs Clinton presented Foreign Minister Lavrov with a green box tied in
    green ribbon.

    As reporters watched, the US secretary of state assured her
    Russian opposite number her staff had “worked hard” to ensure it was
    accurate.

    “Was it right?” she inquired with a smile.

    “You got it wrong,” Mr Lavrov responded, also smiling,
    before pointing out the mistake.

    Despite
    the embarrassment,

    the two made light of the moment in front of the cameras and
    pushed the button together to signify a shared hope for better relations.

    At a joint news conference after two hours of talks, both joked
    about the error.

    “We reached an agreement on how ‘reset’ is spelled in both
    Russian and English – we have no differences between us any more,” Mr
    Lavrov said through an interpreter.

    Mrs Clinton put it this
    way: “The minister corrected our word choice. But in a way, the word that
    was on the button turns out to be also true.

    “We are resetting, and because we are resetting, the
    minister and I have an ‘overload’ of work.”

    The gift was a light-hearted reference to US Vice-President Joe
    Biden’s recent remark that the new US
    administration wanted to reset ties with Russia after years of friction.

    3-7-2009

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7930047.stm

    The Georgian
    invasion by Russia occurred
    in mid August of 2008 and by march 2009 Obama and Hillary were giving Putin and
    Russia
    a free pass and a restart. That would be
    followed with a highly favorable, to Russia, START treaty.

    • ,.Eight Problems With
      The Then New Start Treaty. ( 2010 )

      .

      New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options.
      First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it
      accedes to Russia’s
      insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive
      weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly
      refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration
      bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in
      addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the
      treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia.

      .

      The treaty’s
      advocates dismiss the preamble reference as non-binding. But the significance
      of including missile-defense provisions in an offensive-weapons treaty is not
      lost on either signatory. Further, the Russians assert that the preamble does
      indeed constitute a binding limit on our missile-defense program, both in their
      Unilateral Statement and in subsequent public statements. Gen. Yevgeniy
      Buzinskiy, who served as the chief of the International Treaty Directorate in
      the Russian Ministry of Defense during the treaty’s negotiations, insists that
      any increase in our ABM system could be claimed as a breach of the treaty. Such
      ambiguity and pressure, and fear of being accused of violating the treaty,
      could strongly restrain American presidents from aggressively developing and
      deploying missile defense. The 1972 ABM Treaty provides historical precedent
      for such a chilling effect: Fearful that U.S. theater-missile-defens e
      systems would be viewed as violating the treaty, we pulled back from realizing
      the full potential of such systems .

      .

      Further,
      the treaty prohibits our conversion of ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic
      missile (SLBM) launchers for the launching of defensive interceptors. Such conversions
      may well not be part of the Obama administration’s
      current plans, but they could surely be part of a subsequent administration’s.
      Past missile-defense agency directors and naval planners have objected to
      precluding SLBM-launcher conversions, capable as they could be of defending America and our
      allies from diverse and undisclosed locations. Such conversions were prohibited
      by the ABM Treaty during the Cold War — a treaty from which we have withdrawn —
      but the Obama administration is consenting to their renewed prohibition by New
      START. Under its terms, there could be an average of four or more SLBM tubes on
      each of our strategic submarines that no longer contain ballistic missiles but
      may not be converted for defensive interceptors, and so are empty.

      .

      The sixth agreed statement of the treaty’s protocol suggests that
      telemetry data on missiles governed by the treaty is not to be used for
      strategic-missile-defense purposes. In the long term, agreeing to this
      limitation could prove to have been very short-sighted.

      .

      Finally,
      treaty analysts at the Heritage Foundation have opined that “the most serious
      threat to missile defense in the New START treaty is contained in the power
      given to the Treaty compliance forum, the Bilateral Consultative Commission. . . .
      Missile defense is directly within the purview of the BCC.” Treaty proponents
      note that substantive changes to the treaty cannot be made by the BCC. But the
      BCC can — without Senate advice and consent — make changes to the treaty’s
      definitions and agreed statements, including those involving missile defense.
      The treaty Protocol assigns to BCC the defining of missile defense and key
      terms relating to the conversion of ICBM silos for defensive interceptors. An
      administration that wished to further limit missile defense without the advice
      and consent of the Senate could do so through the BCC. In the past, under START
      I, the JCIC, a body comparable to the BCC, did indeed make substantive changes
      to that treaty’s terms without Senate consen t.

      .

      We should not
      countenance Russia’s
      ten-to-one tactical-nuclear-weapons advantage. These weapons constitute a
      real threat to our forces abroad, and to our allies in Europe and Asia. Russian-military spokesmen have asserted that
      they will rely on their tactical nuclear weapons to dominate regional or
      local conflicts near their borders. Cynically, they call the use of such
      weapons “de-escalating” by reasoning that it would end a conflict promptly
      on Russian terms.

      .

      In
      signing the 2002 Moscow Treaty, we similarly ignored Russia’s tactical-nuclear-weapons
      advantage. We accepted it because: 1) the treaty placed no limits on our number
      of launchers — we could have added our own tactical nuclear capabilities
      relatively easily; 2) the treaty was flexible regarding strategic nuclear
      weapons; and 3) Russia
      was believed to be moving toward responsible global citizenship. But under New
      START, launchers are strictly limited and flexibility is removed, while Russia has
      embarked upon a path reminiscent of its Cold War past.

      .

      Note
      also that Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons, including nuclear-armed cruise
      missiles, could be deployed on Russia’s submarine fleet — an option specifically
      raised by the deputy chief of the Russian navy, Vice Adm. Oleg Burtsev —
      thereby posing a direct threat to the United States. And tactical nukes can be
      refabricated or remanufactured for strategic objective s.

      .

      3.
      Under New START, America
      gives and Russia
      gets. Prior to the New START negotiations, the Russian press projected that by
      2012, Russia
      would have fewer than 500 launchers and 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons (using
      New START counting rules) because of the aging of its systems. The New START
      limits therefore do not require a change of course for Russia; with
      regard to launcher limits, Russian officials have confirmed that they will not
      need to make any reductions whatsoever. While New START will not require Russia to reduce its capabilities, the United States
      will have to make what are effectively unilateral reductions. The Obama
      administration heralds this as a negotiating achievemen t.

      .

      4.
      Counting multiple-warhead bombers as only one warhead, as New START does, is a
      problem for America, not a plus. Yes, we currently have more long-range bombers
      than the Russians. But Russia
      has embarked on at least one new long-range bomber program. Russia
      also is developing a new long-range air-launched nuclear cruise missile. We, on
      the other hand, are doing neither. Russia will have modern bombers and
      modern missiles; we will not. It should come as no surprise that they are happy
      to undercount nuclear warheads on bombers.

      .

      Failing
      to count multiple warheads on bombers makes the treaty’s announced warhead
      limits virtually meaningless in any case: Russia can effectively escape the
      limit of 1,550 by deploying long-range bombers with many nuclear weapons.

      .

      5. The
      absence of any mention of rail-based launchers should be remedied. U.S. advocates of the treaty say that if Russia again
      inaugurates a rail program, as some articles in the Russian press have
      suggested it might, rail-mobile ICBMs would count toward the treaty’s arsenal
      limits; opponents say that no treaty language supports such an interpretation. Russian
      commentators have said that rail-based systems would be discussed by the BCC.
      Such ambiguity should be resolved before the treaty is approved, not after.

      .

      6. Contrary to our long-held policy objectives, New START gives Russia an
      incentive to MIRV its weapons — that is, equip single ballistic missiles to
      deliver warheads to different targets. START I, on the other hand, limited the
      weight of ballistic missiles as well as MIRV testing and deployment, and by
      doing so significantly restrained MIRVing. Because all these limits are absent
      in New START, virtually the entire Russian nuclear-missile arsenal could be
      MIRVed. This would reverse decades of progress toward reducing highly MIRVed
      ICBMs and could lead to questions about Russian compliance with the treaty’s
      stated nuclear-weapon limit.

      7. The
      New START verification program is inadequate. Examples are numerous. Whereas
      under prior treaties, the destruction of every Russian mobile ICBM and launcher
      could be witnessed by an American observer, under New START we are permitted to
      inspect only half of the debris of destroyed ICBMs. Another example: Russia is
      required to provide telemetry data on ballistic flight tests for only five
      missiles, not all of them. Telemetry data is used by the United States
      to calculate the number of reentry vehicles or warheads the Russian missiles
      can carry. Russia
      can now select telemetry from only its old missile programs for American eyes.
      And Russia
      has a host of new missile programs under way, about which we could be entirely blind.
      Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and
      implementation from 2002 to 2009, is highly critical of New START’s
      verification provisions, noting that these are particularly important because
      the Russians “have violated every agreement we have ever had with them .”

      .

      8. Russia
      has succeeded in restricting not only our strategic nuclear capacity and
      missile-defense program but also our strategic conventional capability. Any of
      our existing land- or submarine-based launchers fitted with conventional
      weapons would count toward New START’s launcher limits. Assuming that we will
      reserve some of these launchers for conventional weapons, our number of
      strategic nuclear launchers will actually have to be lower than the treaty’s
      ceiling.

      .

      Such
      conventional weapons give us the capability to strike time-urgent targets with
      high-explosive warheads. If the Clinton
      administration had had such a system in 1998, it could have launched a single
      conventionally armed ICBM that would have reached Osama bin Laden in less than
      30 minutes. Instead, it launched sea-based cruise missiles, which took hours to
      reach their target — during which time bin Laden departed the target area.

      .

      New
      START is a major victory for Russia.
      One treaty observer, having completed a line-by-line analysis of the agreement,
      concluded that every single provision favors Russia
      or is neutral; not one favors the United States.

      .

      Like
      most Americans, I believe that the world would be safer if there were no
      weapons of mass destruction. But I also believe that the world is safer if America is
      strong. In fact, the stronger we are relative to nations like Russia, the
      safer the world is.

      .

      I also
      believe that missile defense is an urgent priority that we must not allow to be
      restricted.

      .

      New
      START, as currently drafted, should not have be approved by the Senate .

      .


      Mitt Romney

  38. …..Eight Problems With
    The Then New Start Treaty. ( 2010 )

    .

    New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options.
    First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it
    accedes to Russia’s
    insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive
    weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly
    refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration
    bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in
    addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the
    treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia.

    .

    The treaty’s
    advocates dismiss the preamble reference as non-binding. But the significance
    of including missile-defense provisions in an offensive-weapons treaty is not
    lost on either signatory. Further, the Russians assert that the preamble does
    indeed constitute a binding limit on our missile-defense program, both in their
    Unilateral Statement and in subsequent public statements. Gen. Yevgeniy
    Buzinskiy, who served as the chief of the International Treaty Directorate in
    the Russian Ministry of Defense during the treaty’s negotiations, insists that
    any increase in our ABM system could be claimed as a breach of the treaty. Such
    ambiguity and pressure, and fear of being accused of violating the treaty,
    could strongly restrain American presidents from aggressively developing and
    deploying missile defense. The 1972 ABM Treaty provides historical precedent
    for such a chilling effect: Fearful that U.S. theater-missile-defens e
    systems would be viewed as violating the treaty, we pulled back from realizing
    the full potential of such systems .

    .

    Further,
    the treaty prohibits our conversion of ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic
    missile (SLBM) launchers for the launching of defensive interceptors. Such conversions
    may well not be part of the Obama administration’s
    current plans, but they could surely be part of a subsequent administration’s.
    Past missile-defense agency directors and naval planners have objected to
    precluding SLBM-launcher conversions, capable as they could be of defending America and our
    allies from diverse and undisclosed locations. Such conversions were prohibited
    by the ABM Treaty during the Cold War — a treaty from which we have withdrawn —
    but the Obama administration is consenting to their renewed prohibition by New
    START. Under its terms, there could be an average of four or more SLBM tubes on
    each of our strategic submarines that no longer contain ballistic missiles but
    may not be converted for defensive interceptors, and so are empty.

    .

    The sixth agreed statement of the treaty’s protocol suggests that
    telemetry data on missiles governed by the treaty is not to be used for
    strategic-missile-defense purposes. In the long term, agreeing to this
    limitation could prove to have been very short-sighted.

    .

    Finally,
    treaty analysts at the Heritage Foundation have opined that “the most serious
    threat to missile defense in the New START treaty is contained in the power
    given to the Treaty compliance forum, the Bilateral Consultative Commission. . . .
    Missile defense is directly within the purview of the BCC.” Treaty proponents
    note that substantive changes to the treaty cannot be made by the BCC. But the
    BCC can — without Senate advice and consent — make changes to the treaty’s
    definitions and agreed statements, including those involving missile defense.
    The treaty Protocol assigns to BCC the defining of missile defense and key
    terms relating to the conversion of ICBM silos for defensive interceptors. An
    administration that wished to further limit missile defense without the advice
    and consent of the Senate could do so through the BCC. In the past, under START
    I, the JCIC, a body comparable to the BCC, did indeed make substantive changes
    to that treaty’s terms without Senate consen t.

    .

    We should not
    countenance Russia’s
    ten-to-one tactical-nuclear-weapons advantage. These weapons constitute a
    real threat to our forces abroad, and to our allies in Europe and Asia. Russian-military spokesmen have asserted that
    they will rely on their tactical nuclear weapons to dominate regional or
    local conflicts near their borders. Cynically, they call the use of such
    weapons “de-escalating” by reasoning that it would end a conflict promptly
    on Russian terms.

    .

    In
    signing the 2002 Moscow Treaty, we similarly ignored Russia’s tactical-nuclear-weapons
    advantage. We accepted it because: 1) the treaty placed no limits on our number
    of launchers — we could have added our own tactical nuclear capabilities
    relatively easily; 2) the treaty was flexible regarding strategic nuclear
    weapons; and 3) Russia
    was believed to be moving toward responsible global citizenship. But under New
    START, launchers are strictly limited and flexibility is removed, while Russia has
    embarked upon a path reminiscent of its Cold War past.

    .

    Note
    also that Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons, including nuclear-armed cruise
    missiles, could be deployed on Russia’s submarine fleet — an option specifically
    raised by the deputy chief of the Russian navy, Vice Adm. Oleg Burtsev —
    thereby posing a direct threat to the United States. And tactical nukes can be
    refabricated or remanufactured for strategic objective s.

    .

    3.
    Under New START, America
    gives and Russia
    gets. Prior to the New START negotiations, the Russian press projected that by
    2012, Russia
    would have fewer than 500 launchers and 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons (using
    New START counting rules) because of the aging of its systems. The New START
    limits therefore do not require a change of course for Russia; with
    regard to launcher limits, Russian officials have confirmed that they will not
    need to make any reductions whatsoever. While New START will not require Russia to reduce its capabilities, the United States
    will have to make what are effectively unilateral reductions. The Obama
    administration heralds this as a negotiating achievemen t.

    .

    4.
    Counting multiple-warhead bombers as only one warhead, as New START does, is a
    problem for America, not a plus. Yes, we currently have more long-range bombers
    than the Russians. But Russia
    has embarked on at least one new long-range bomber program. Russia
    also is developing a new long-range air-launched nuclear cruise missile. We, on
    the other hand, are doing neither. Russia will have modern bombers and
    modern missiles; we will not. It should come as no surprise that they are happy
    to undercount nuclear warheads on bombers.

    .

    Failing
    to count multiple warheads on bombers makes the treaty’s announced warhead
    limits virtually meaningless in any case: Russia can effectively escape the
    limit of 1,550 by deploying long-range bombers with many nuclear weapons.

    .

    5. The
    absence of any mention of rail-based launchers should be remedied. U.S. advocates of the treaty say that if Russia again
    inaugurates a rail program, as some articles in the Russian press have
    suggested it might, rail-mobile ICBMs would count toward the treaty’s arsenal
    limits; opponents say that no treaty language supports such an interpretation. Russian
    commentators have said that rail-based systems would be discussed by the BCC.
    Such ambiguity should be resolved before the treaty is approved, not after.

    .

    6. Contrary to our long-held policy objectives, New START gives Russia an
    incentive to MIRV its weapons — that is, equip single ballistic missiles to
    deliver warheads to different targets. START I, on the other hand, limited the
    weight of ballistic missiles as well as MIRV testing and deployment, and by
    doing so significantly restrained MIRVing. Because all these limits are absent
    in New START, virtually the entire Russian nuclear-missile arsenal could be
    MIRVed. This would reverse decades of progress toward reducing highly MIRVed
    ICBMs and could lead to questions about Russian compliance with the treaty’s
    stated nuclear-weapon limit.

    7. The
    New START verification program is inadequate. Examples are numerous. Whereas
    under prior treaties, the destruction of every Russian mobile ICBM and launcher
    could be witnessed by an American observer, under New START we are permitted to
    inspect only half of the debris of destroyed ICBMs. Another example: Russia is
    required to provide telemetry data on ballistic flight tests for only five
    missiles, not all of them. Telemetry data is used by the United States
    to calculate the number of reentry vehicles or warheads the Russian missiles
    can carry. Russia
    can now select telemetry from only its old missile programs for American eyes.
    And Russia
    has a host of new missile programs under way, about which we could be entirely blind.
    Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and
    implementation from 2002 to 2009, is highly critical of New START’s
    verification provisions, noting that these are particularly important because
    the Russians “have violated every agreement we have ever had with them .”

    .

    8. Russia
    has succeeded in restricting not only our strategic nuclear capacity and
    missile-defense program but also our strategic conventional capability. Any of
    our existing land- or submarine-based launchers fitted with conventional
    weapons would count toward New START’s launcher limits. Assuming that we will
    reserve some of these launchers for conventional weapons, our number of
    strategic nuclear launchers will actually have to be lower than the treaty’s
    ceiling.

    .

    Such
    conventional weapons give us the capability to strike time-urgent targets with
    high-explosive warheads. If the Clinton
    administration had had such a system in 1998, it could have launched a single
    conventionally armed ICBM that would have reached Osama bin Laden in less than
    30 minutes. Instead, it launched sea-based cruise missiles, which took hours to
    reach their target — during which time bin Laden departed the target area.

    .

    New
    START is a major victory for Russia.
    One treaty observer, having completed a line-by-line analysis of the agreement,
    concluded that every single provision favors Russia
    or is neutral; not one favors the United States.

    .

    Like
    most Americans, I believe that the world would be safer if there were no
    weapons of mass destruction. But I also believe that the world is safer if America is
    strong. In fact, the stronger we are relative to nations like Russia, the
    safer the world is.

    .

    I also
    believe that missile defense is an urgent priority that we must not allow to be
    restricted.

    .

    New
    START, as currently drafted, should not have be approved by the Senate .

    .


    Mitt Romney

  39. Victor David
    Hanson On Kiev – Putin, Russia, Kerry, Ukraine, Clinton,
    CHina CNN
    Reporting Etc. Part 1

    Tuesday, February
    18, 2014 | posted by Hugh Hewitt

    Victor Davis Hanson joined me in
    hour two today to talk Kiev.

    Transcript:

    HH: Incredibly, because I’m a
    little bit stunned by this, CNN just cut away from the Kiev massacre underway in real time to cover
    a Chris Christie fundraiser with Paul Begala providing commentary. I’m joined
    not by a political hack, but by Victor Davis Hanson, historian, classicist, and
    observer of all things Obama. VDH, welcome back, good to talk to you.

    VDH: Thank you, Hugh.

    HH: What do you make of CNN’s
    editorial decision right now?

    VDH: Well, there’s only two ways
    to look at it. One, they’re eyeing the presidential election of 2016, and they
    want to damage Christie, obviously, and help Hillary Clinton. And two, they
    want to get all of our minds off this disastrous reset policy with Vladimir
    Putin. So it was a two-fer.

    HH: It is a two-fer, but it would
    be like cutting away from Tiananmen Square to
    cover a George Herbert Walker Bush event. I mean, it’s insane.

    VDH: Well, I agree with you. I
    can’t decide which was the greater impetus on their decision, whether it was to
    get the attention away from, really, it’s been a disaster with Russia, and Russia’s a second-rate power that’s
    become a first-rate power by bluff and intimidation. And we’re a first-rate
    power that’s become a second by timidity and appeasement. But I don’t know if
    that was the primary objective, or it’s to damage Chris Christie. But either
    one, they were coincided and they were mutually complementary.

    HH: Yeah, I think it’s probably
    the latter with a dash of incoherence. But VDH, put this into context. It’s a
    massacre in Kiev.
    19 are already dead. We won’t know what the real numbers are, and we don’t know
    what this predicts for the future. Charles Krauthammer began the first hour,
    doesn’t believe Putin will send troops in, even if chaos spirals. But I’ll be
    talking next hour with Frank Dowse, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Marine
    Corps who served three years in Kiev.
    And he’s been watching the Crimea and all of
    the Russian troop presence down there.

    VDH: Yeah, I think it’s all
    coming, it’s all connected. Putin is now getting direct, overt help to Iran,
    he’s talking about more help with their reactor. Syria, that so-called U.N.-brokered
    settlement to get rid of the WMD is in shambles. Putin knew that would happen
    all along. The peace talks are in shambles. We’ve forgotten, at this point,
    what we did in Eastern Europe to the Poles with the anti-ballistic missile
    backdown, so if you’re Vladimir Putin, you just look for the series of events,
    and they all form a pattern, a pattern of sort of what we saw with Russia in 1979,
    that we can’t or we won’t say no to them. It’s almost as if they would respect
    us and like us more, but they can’t believe it.

    HH: And today, Leopoldo Lopez in Venezuela
    taken into custody by the fascists there. And Victor Davis Hanson, it’s
    becoming increasingly obvious that this president has nothing in terms of a
    foreign policy, no strategy. John Kerry speaking yesterday about global warming
    being perhaps the greatest weapon of mass destruction, that’s worse than
    stupid. It’s dangerous.

    Victor David
    Hanson On Kiev – Purin,
    Russia, Kerry,
    Ukraine, Clinton, CHina
    CNN Reporting Etc. Part 2

    VDH: Yeah, it is. Yeah, and it’s
    also humiliating that a billionaire who has a propensity to enjoy speedboats,
    SUV’s private jets, travel, would go over to a relatively poor country and
    lecture them on global warming and the sacrifices that they would have to make
    with the understanding that he’s exempt from the ramifications of his own
    ideology, which is sort of characteristic of this administration. But I don’t
    know whether this is incompetence or it’s preconceived, because if you look at,
    you brought up South America, and you think wow, is there any advocacy at all
    from the United States for democratic, transparent capitalism in South America,
    the only hope for that continent. And you look at Ecuador
    and Bolivia and Argentina and Nicaragua,
    Cuba, and you know, this is
    well besides Venezuela,
    and you just get the impression that we like the socialization of the
    continent, or we don’t believe in our own values. And people understand that.
    So if you’re a democratic reformer in those countries and you stand up and say
    something, and you know that not just that the United States won’t say anything
    or won’t worry about you, but might in fact be more sympathetic with the
    socialist forces against you.

    HH: Victor Davis Hanson, a week
    ago today, or yesterday, actually, President Obama made up wholesale changes to
    Obamacare, and it was sort of a scales falling from the eyes moment. A lot of
    people noticed what many of us have been saying for years, that he’s essentially
    lawless and unbound from any Constitutional restriction. And it’s shocked
    people. Do you think Kiev
    is going to shock people into realizing that the emperor has no clothes when it
    comes to foreign policy?

    VDH: Yeah, I think the American
    people sense that, but I’m even more scared that I think even people abroad
    that might have been sympathetic to him, I think people in the Middle East, I
    think people in Europe, they just don’t listen
    to what he says. When he gets on the podium, it’s embarrassing now, Hugh,
    because it’s going to be make no mistake about it, let me be perfectly clearly,
    in point of fact, it’s going to be a little braggadocio, a little touch, macho
    stuff, and then he’s going to brag on something, trash George Bush, and then
    he’s going to pronounce some grand initiative. And nobody’s going to take it
    seriously, because never once in the past has anything he said proved to be
    true or called true. So you know, they’re going to say well, this is the guy
    who gave all the deadlines and the red lines, I should say, to Syria, the
    deadlines to Iran, pulled out of Iraq, played Spades with Reggie Love on the
    night of the bin Laden raid. Come on, they don’t take him seriously anymore,
    and that’s really, it’s kind of sad. I’m worried, because it’s our country.

    HH: Well, it’s three years. It’s
    three years with essentially a vacant Oval Office.

    VDH: That’s a very good point,
    Hugh, because we saw this, some of us our age, with Jimmy Carter and then that
    annus horriblus in late 1979 and ’80, they called all the chips in. And
    suddenly, there communists in Central America, China invaded Vietnam,
    the Russians went into Afghanistan,
    the Shah fell, they took hostages, but that was a four year term. And that
    happened in the last year. We’ve never seen something where we have three more
    years to go to this. It’s going to be really scary, because I think a lot of
    people, regional hegemons, whether it’s Iran or China or Japan, or maybe Turkey
    in the Aegean, they’re going to take risks and take gambles that they otherwise
    wouldn’t do, because they’re convinced it won’t lead to a wider war, because
    the United States, they think, has lost its deterrent effect, so they feel now
    it’s time to get up from the poker table and cash in your chips. And we’re much
    stronger than we seem, and I don’t think that’s quite right, but that’s how
    wars start when people think they can get away with something stupid.

    HH: Now obviously, that brings Taiwan to mind.
    It brings the Baltic republics to mind, maybe even Poland,
    because Putin won’t be satisfied with just Ukraine, will he, Victor Davis
    Hanson?

    Victor David
    Hanson On Kiev – Purin,
    Russia, Kerry,
    Ukraine, Clinton, CHina
    CNN Reporting Etc. Part 3

    VDH: If I was
    Putin, or if I were the Chinese communist leadership, or I was those people in Iran, whoever is actually running Iran, I would
    say you know what? The United
    States has given us a golden opportunity.
    All we have to do is carve out a regional sphere of influence, and avoid a
    wider war, and I think that they’re not going to back up their allies, and
    secretly, they might even sympathize with our regional status. So we’re never
    going to get a time like this again. Let’s start acting. If we can all act in
    concert, if China can go cause trouble with Taiwan or Japan or South Korea, and
    Putin can do what he’s doing in Eastern Europe to the former Soviet republics,
    and Iran can start bullying the Persian Gulf sheikdoms, I think if they did it
    in concert, I think our President would be just bewildered and baffled. What
    would he do?

    HH: Well, if America’s in a coma for three
    years, that means the responsibilities on Netanyahu and Merkel increase, don’t
    they? Those are the real leaders of the West in the period of American
    abdication.

    VDH: You would think so, but you
    have to look at, I mean, they’re not very strong vis-à-vis the global problems
    that face us. Maybe with Iran,
    Israel is, or maybe Germany has
    some financial clout.

    HH: That’s what I’m thinking.

    VDH: But what I’m more worried is
    that they might be forced to cut deals with people they otherwise would not cut
    a deal with, because I think what’s happening especially in the China Sea is
    that China is saying basically the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan,
    maybe even New Zealand and Australia, hey, you guys, do you really want to deal
    with the United States? You’re not under their nuclear umbrella. There’s no
    deterrence there. Why don’t you join us? And that sounds absurd, but they’re
    right, and we’re not there, then what choice do they have being much weaker
    powers?

    HH: Let me draw one good
    conclusion from the last few weeks. The Congress reversed itself when it came
    to the retirement benefits of career military by an overwhelming margin last
    week. And only a few people got that wrong upon reflection. And it might have
    been, Lindsey Graham made the argument on this show that that was a moment of
    clarity vis-à-vis military strength. Do you agree with that?

    VDH: Yeah, I think I do. I think
    people have to realize that whether they’re Democrat or Republican that
    expanding food stamps and disability, and talking about all these new global
    warming initiatives, all of that is minor in comparison to the existential
    threats this country faces. So it’s not morally equivalent to cut one dollar of
    social spending and one dollar in military. There’s also something really weird
    with this country right now. And during the Korean period, 70% of all dollars
    in the budget went to the military 30% or social entitlements. Nobody felt they
    were being shorted. Now, it’s just the opposite. 70% for domestic spending, 30%
    for military, and everybody feels that they’re living in 1800 without a social
    safety net. So it’s a really sick change in perspective and mentality.

    HH: But a great opportunity for
    someone to speak clarity into it. Victor Davis Hanson, thanks for spending time
    with us.

    End of interview.

  40. Hillary Clinton email probe turns to Huma

    Clinton’s top aide is likely to face more questions, not
    least from congressional investigators, about her access to Clinton’s system.

    Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s most trusted confidante, is
    increasingly becoming a central figure in the email scandal that’s haunting her
    boss on the campaign trail, as Republicans and federal judges seek information
    about Clinton’s communications while she was running the State Department.

    The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal
    judge that Abedin — long considered her boss’s keeper and even dubbed her
    “shadow” — had her own email account on Clinton’s now infamous home-brewed
    server, “which was used at times for government business,” Clinton
    acknowledged. That’s an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State
    Department.

    Abedin has hired a team of lawyers, one of whom is a former
    Clinton aide, who are responding to information requests from the courts and
    State. They’ve denied any wrongdoing on the part of their client and said
    Abedin is cooperating with requests for official emails in her possession,
    aiming to turn over all her correspondence by the end of August.

    But her lawyers — Karen Dunn and Miguel Rodriguez — didn’t
    respond to questions about emails on Clinton’s separate server. Dunn is a
    partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and she served as a senior advisor to
    Clinton when she was in the Senate.

    After an inspector general found that Clinton had at least
    two “top secret” emails stored on her unsecured computer network, Abedin is
    likely to face more questions from congressional investigators, and perhaps
    others, about her access to Clinton’s system.

    Abedin had been granted “special government employee”
    status, allowing her to work both for Clinton and the private sector — and it’s
    unclear if she continued using the server that appears to have held classified
    information following her departure from her full-time State gig.

    On Wednesday, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill waved
    off questions about how the two issues — the email server and Abedin’s unusual
    work arrangement — may or may not have overlapped, accusing the right of
    playing politics with this line of inquiry.

    “It’s election season, and congressional Republicans are
    running the same series of plays, just on a different field,” Merrill said in
    an email, later adding that Abedin maintained her security clearance while she
    worked as a State contractor.

    Merrill said SGEs often have clearance and there’s nothing
    unusual about her having such access. He also said that many government workers
    take on such contractor status, adding that Abedin had a green-light from
    State’s legal and human resources departments to do so.

    But Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American
    Scientists’ project on government secrecy, said any former employee’s potential
    access to secret materials could be problematic after they leave the
    government.

    “What happens if [a former government employee] still
    retains access through a prior server, to information that was justified by a
    previous position? That’s not supposed to happen — and that’s one of the
    anomalies that are created by the private server,” Aftergood said.

    Classified materials with national security implications are
    supposed to be stored in a place where no one can gain access to them unless
    they have special clearance.

    The FBI is currently probing Clinton’s email arrangement,
    whereby the former secretary of state used her own technology based out of her
    New York home instead of an official government address that is required by
    transparency rules. A State inspector general, who is also looking at the
    matter, said top Clinton aides would likely also be questioned, though he
    wouldn’t say who exactly.

    At the same time, powerful congressional Republicans are probing
    Abedin’s “special government employee status,” while suggesting that she may
    have had a “conflict of interest.” The Senate Judiciary Committee claims to
    have unnamed tipster who says Abedin is or has been investigated for criminal
    misconduct by the State Department inspector general regarding this very issue.

    The government watchdog wouldn’t comment on the accusations.
    And Abedin’s legal team — which is separate from Clinton’s — says it knows of
    no investigative reports that suggest such misconduct.

    “We are aware only of an IG report focused on her maternity
    leave and vacation and we responded with a letter disputing the report’s
    conclusions, which we gave to members of the media who requested it,” her
    lawyers said in a statement. “Obviously, if the report covered other things,
    our letter would have as well. The IG will have to respond as to his
    investigations.”

    The latest revelations come just as Abedin, the vice
    chairwoman of Hillary for America, is projected to be taking on more
    responsibilities for the campaign, heading up fundraisers and speaking to
    donors on Clinton’s behalf.

    Beyond allegations of conflict of interest, Senate
    Republicans in recent weeks leaked findings by the State Department inspector
    general that Abedin was overpaid nearly $10,000 for “unused” time off that she
    actually took but did not record while working at State — a finding her lawyers
    are currently challenging.

    Abedin, who’s been with Clinton for about two decades,
    started working for Clinton as a 19-year-old intern in the former first lady’s
    office.

    At State and during the 2008 campaign she was considered
    Clinton’s “body woman,” never far from Clinton’s side and often seen watching
    her boss intently, ready to scramble to her aid at any minute. Top politicians,
    and even Bill Clinton, would phone her to reach Hillary, and emails released in
    recent months showed she enjoyed access to Clinton at her private home, too,
    dropping items off on her counter and instructing her how to dress and keeping
    her schedule.

    In 2013, news broke that Abedin had been given a special
    government employee status, allowing her to be simultaneously on the payroll
    for the philanthropic Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm founded
    by former Clinton White House adviser Doug Band. She previously had not
    disclosed the dual employment.

    Abedin has said she stepped back from government work and
    became a contractor so she could be with her family and her newborn son. But
    since then, critics have questioned her about whether she had a conflict of
    interest while working at State and alongside close friends of the Clinton
    family.

    For two years now, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
    Grassley, a bullish Iowa Republican who’s very active in a number of mundane
    executive branch oversight issues, has been asking for more details about her
    employment situation but has received little in the way of answers.

    He’s recently escalated his demands for more information
    after a source told the panel that the State Department inspector general had
    probed Abedin not only for overpayment issues but also over a potential
    conflict of interest. The source was able to specify that Abedin and Band were
    on more than 7,000 emails together while she worked at State and detailed an
    apparent October 2013 letter to the FBI that clarified that the watchdog’s
    probe was looking at potential criminal misconduct.

    Abedin’s lawyers believe many of the 7,000 emails are likely
    just Clinton schedules or other types of automatic notices that have both of
    their emails on a distribution list together, not direct communications.

    Grassley has asked the FBI, State inspector general and
    State Department for more information about this probe — including whether it
    even exists.

    He has also asked Abedin’s lawyers about the matter but has
    not heard back.

    “Much of the information sought by Senator Grassley’s letter
    will need to be produced by the State Department and we have been in touch with
    State,” Dunn said in an email.

    Clinton on Monday declared under penalty of perjury that she
    handed over all her work emails to the State Department for record-keeping
    purposes; Abedin declined a judge’s request to do the same.

    Dunn said Abedin, who was among 10 State Department
    officials asked by their former agency to hand over any work-related messages
    on personal emails, expects to turn over all her official correspondence to the
    State Department by Aug. 28. On Wednesday, Dunn declined to say whether Abedin
    will then do the same as Clinton and swear under penalty of perjury that she
    has handed over all official records.

    It is unclear whether all her official emails on Clinton’s
    server were saved.

    By RACHAEL BADE

    8/13/15 5:05 AM EDT

    Getty

    POLITICO MAGAZINE

    //www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-email-probe-turns-to-huma-121314.html#ixzz3ipZvt96x

  41. Hillary’s Sniperless Bosnia Adventure

    -Hillary Clintons story about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, running to the car
    with her and Chelsea’s
    heads down and a canceled greeting rang as very inspirational and possibly
    Presidential. Too bad Sinbad and others on the trip began to speak out
    and claim it was all a farce. Hillary and her daughter discounted their
    stories and insisted it was true. We have documented news footage that it
    wasn’t true.

    – The truth is that Hillary and Chelsea strolled off the
    plane, were met by greeters on the tarmac, remained there to hear a little
    girls sing and then posed for photo opportunities with nary a sniper to worry
    about.

    – When the footage surfaced she called her repeated
    statements a misstatement.

    – When troops are
    being shot at and dying over seas, she makes false statements about imagined
    moments under fire. I guess that says it all. I guess 12
    years ago and the lies she told now says everything you need to know about her
    character. She was not only too inexperienced for Secretary of State she
    has proven to be an embarrassment as well.

    – The Fact that the media lets here get away with this and
    remains gushingly in love with Hillary is a sick joke and a sad commentary on
    an “independent & unbiased media”.

    (See video clip within
    article attached link /newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/16/flashback-2008-hillary-clinton-exposed-lying-about-being-under-sniper
    )

    First posted 3-24 08
    relating to statements Hillary made during that Presidential Primary Campaign

    ,

  42. Can You Really See
    Russia From Alaska?

    Yes, but only the
    boring parts.By Nina Rastogi

    In her Sept. 11
    interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Sarah Palin had this to say about Russia:
    “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land
    here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” Is that true?

    Yes. Russia and
    Alaska are divided by the Bering Strait, which is about 55 miles at its
    narrowest point. In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely
    populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little
    Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two
    islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on
    a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other. The Diomede Islands are
    often blanketed by persistent fog, which makes visibility difficult. On a clear
    day, though, a person standing at sea level can see a little less than three
    miles across the ocean. You can see farther if you go higher—at the highest altitude
    on Little Diomede (919 feet), you can see for about 37 miles. (Between
    mid-December and mid-June, when the water between the two islands freezes, an
    intrepid explorer can just walk from one to the other.)

    Advertisement

    The tactical
    importance of this proximity is debatable, however:Big Diomede has no permanent
    population though it does house an important weather station. Alaskans can,
    however, see into the future from Little Diomede since Big Diomede (or Ratmanov
    Island, as it’s known to the Russians) is on the other side of the
    International Date Line.

    You can also see
    Russia from other points in Alaska. According to a New York Times article
    written in the waning years of the Cold War (when the Alaska-Siberia border was
    known as the “Ice Curtain”), if you stand on high ground on the tip
    of St. Lawrence Island—a larger Alaskan island in the Bering Sea, southwest of
    the Diomedes—you can see the Russian mainland, about 37 miles away. The same
    article claims that you can see Russia from the Tin City Air Force facility at
    Cape Prince of Wales, which is the westernmost point of the mainland
    Americas.The station chief at Tin City confirms that, for roughly half the
    year, you can see Siberian mountain ranges from the highest part of the
    facility.

    It’s not as if
    Alaskans can see into the heart of the Kremlin, though. The region you’d be
    seeing from these vantage points is the Chukotka autonomous district, a
    massive, desolate expanse of about 285,000 square miles with a population of
    about 55,000. (That’s an area roughly the size of Texaswith a population the
    size of Pine Bluff, Ark.) Chukotka has fewer than 400 miles of road and no
    railroad infrastructure; the population is mostly employed in mining and
    subsistence hunting. The more strategic areas of the Russian coastline,
    militarily speaking—the Kamchatka Peninsula, home to a nuclear submarine base,
    or Vladivostok, headquarters of the Russian Pacific Fleet—are not visible from
    Gov. Palin’s home state.

    Palin does have
    Obama beat, though: The closest foreign territory to Hawaii is the Micronesian
    Republic of Kiribati, but at more than 1,000 miles away, it’s not remotely
    visible with the naked eye.

    Got a question about
    today’s news? Ask the Explainer.

    Explainer thanks
    Stephen Blank of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College,
    Greg Durocher of the Alaska Science Center, Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings
    Institute, and Vance Spaulding of the Tin City Long Range Radar Site.

    SlateExplainerAnswers to your questions about the news.Sept.
    15 2008 5:25 PM

    (Smokedsalmoned Comment: Sadly the left and Obama lied to
    you or they were too stupid to know the truth so they shouted it down. No wonder their foreign policy is worsening
    the situation because they shout down anyone who differes from them, even those
    who are right / correct.)..

  43. Newly Released Documents Indicate Key Hillary Clinton
    Claim on Emails Was Not True

    May.
    18, 2015 6:57pm Oliver
    Darcy

    Emails published by the New York Times Monday
    indicate that Hillary Clinton used more than one private email address during
    her time as secretary of state, contradicting previous claims from the
    Democratic presidential contender’s office.

    Multiple emails show Clinton used account
    “hrod17@clintonemail.com” while serving in the Obama administration as
    secretary of state.

    Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, had previously told
    Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) that that particular address had not “existed during
    Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.”

    Another statement from Clinton’s office said she only used
    one address during her time at the State Department.

    “Secretary Clinton used one email account during her
    tenure at State (with the exception of her first weeks in office while
    transitioning from an email account she had previously used),” it said. “In
    March 2013, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so
    she had to change the address on her account.”

    Clinton served as secretary of state from January 2009 to
    February 2013. The emails she sent through “hrod17@clintonemail.com” were sent
    in 2011 and 2012, according to the documents released by the Times.

    A representative for Clinton’s office did not immediately
    respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.

    Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus tweeted Monday
    evening that the news proved Clinton “misled public about the use of only one
    secret email address.”

    Earlier
    this year, it was reported that Clinton may have violated
    federal rules by exclusively using a personal email address to conduct all
    official government business while serving as secretary of state.

    Follow Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) on Twitter

    Go to ww.breitbart.com/video/2015/05/22/bolton-released-emails-prove-hillary-responsible-for-murder-of-americans-in-benghazi/ for images of the emails

  44. The idea that the Justice department “seized her server” is ludicrous. It was there for months while DOJ knew about it and now they are to take any credit for “seizing” it?
    .

  45. Come along with me as I track the facts of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

    At the end I believe you will agree there is evidence she violated the law, and she cannot and must not become president of the United States.

    So Hillary decides to conduct State Department business not on “state.gov” but on a personal email in her Westchester home. The reason? Convenience. Why carry all those pesky Blackberrys?

    Has she been truthful?

    Fact: January 2009. Confirmed as Secretary of State, she is responsible for making and preserving State Department records. The federal records act of 1950. A few months later, the regulations updated – requiring that if someone uses a non-agency email, they must ensure they are preserved. CFR-1236 Point 22.

    Fact: Nine days after the Benghazi attack in 2012, congress seeks all information related to that attack. Nothing is handed over by her or the state department.

    Fact: While the state department is receiving thousands of FOIA requests by the courts, the press and citizens like you, State Department lawyers swear there’s nothing of Hillary’s to provide and took no steps to preserve or ask for records.

    Fact: Congressman and ex-US attorney subpoenas Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi documents. She even denies she was subpoenaed.

    Hillary denies there are any Benghazi emails.

    In spite of photos showing her using her Blackberry on the way to Libya. When Hillary’s friend Sidney Blumenthal complies with his subpoena, he produces several Benghazi related emails with Hillary, putting truth to the lie that she had none.

    Hillary now in panic mode.

    She with her aides goes through more than 61 thousand emails– deleting 31 thousand she says are personal. Of the 30 thousand she hands over, she says there is no classified information.

    But the inspector general says in a sampling of just 40 emails, four contained classified information.

    Her defense? They weren’t marked classified–nothing to see here folks, move along.

    The truth? They couldn’t be marked classified because by not using government servers, she actually prevented the government from reviewing her emails. Had she done so, they would have been seen as classified and she would not have been able to hit send.

    Did Hillary Clinton make a false statement when she appeared before congress and said there was no classified information on her emails? Which Cheryl Mills confirmed in a letter to a federal judge. If this is a lie, it’s a violation of 18 USC 1001.

    This week, it’s revealed the marking top secret in an email including satellite locations and drones had been removed before it was sent to Hillary.

    More panic.

    The inner circle — Huma Abedin and lawyer Cheryl Mills — all three communicating via the private server-have their emails subpoenaed. Did one of them remove the marking? And if so-why? Are they co-conspirators in this elaborate effort to prevent government records from being captured?

    And why was Huma Abedin paid by the state department, a Clinton connected company, and the Clinton foundation? Was that trio on the same server to provide plausible deniability to Hillary so she could raise hundreds of millions of dollars through her so-called not for profit Clinton foundation?

    If Hillary made classified information available to a person not entitled to receive it in a manner detrimental to the United States, it’s a federal class a felony under 18USC-798.

    If Hillary kept classified information at an unauthorized location, she has committed a misdemeanor under 18USC-1924–the statute used to prosecute General Petraeus.

    Some argue there was no intent. Then why did she issue a warning to all State Department employees to not conduct State Department business on personal emails?

    If there was no intent, why did she refuse to allow inspector generals with oversight into the State Department. Forget intent. It is a federal crime to negligently handle classified information. 18USC-1924.

    And finally Hillary why did you wipe your server clean? Did you delay so you could get rid of evidence? That’s called obstruction and tampering. And what took the FBI so long to get it? Hillary if that server has been scrubbed so clean that even FBI experts can’t reconstruct the emails that tells me you did everything you could to prevent anyone from knowing what you were doing.

    My verdict based on the evidence is guilty. What’s yours? ~ Judge Jeanine

    Lots of good points…
    Lots of questions…
    It’s just the answers Hillary are giving… just seem shy of answering the questions
    I guess Hillary thinks we’re not smart enough to see through her…

    “I did not have classified information with that Server” ~ to Para quote the other Criminal Clinton

  46. Hey, I thought the NSA had all the emails ever sent in their snoop files. If they have copies of Aunt Gladys gossiping with Maybelle they surely have Hillary discussing whatever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*