Hitlery Campaign Goes Full-Blown Psychotic, Pretends She Hasn’t Already Announced Her Candidacy

Ready For Hillary Wants A “Do-Over”, Will Announce Her Candidacy June 13th – Weasel Zippers

.

.
Another Scooby van tour.

Via BPR

The Hillary Clinton campaign wants Americans to get excited – again – because the former secretary of state will be making her first campaign announcement speech – again.

That’s right.

It seems the Clinton team wants a “do-over” to its botched campaign start – perhaps to magically erase the constant blunders, scandals, and poorly staged “impromptu” events that have marked the effort since its April kickoff.

Apparently it’s time to pretend the whole thing never happened.

On June 13, it will become “official?” How dumb does the Clinton tribe think the American people are?

As informed citizens know, Clinton made her announcement Sunday, April 12. The New York Times proudly sang her praises and featured Clinton’s announcement video.[…]

The whole thing boggles the mind, and plenty of Twitter users had to vent to clear their heads.

Keep reading

.

.

Your Daley Gator Hitlery Clinton News Roundup

Hillary Discussed Highly Sensitive Information, Now Classified “Secret,” On Her Private Email, As We Predicted – Andrew C. McCarthy

.

.
Well, you heard it here first.

Today, the State Department released Benghazi-related email from the private server and one of the (at least) two private email accounts on which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official business – recklessly and in violation of laws and guidelines relating to the exchanging and preservation of electronic communications. Within hours, the Obama administration was forced to concede that at least one of the emails contained classified information.

Mrs. Clinton has previously and dubiously claimed that she did not discuss classified information on her private email account(s). Despite today’s disclosure, she is standing by that claim as, apparently, is the State Department. Her rationale is that the information in question – which relates to suspects in the Benghazi attack and remains highly sensitive ­- was not classified “secret” at the time of the email exchange. Instead, it was upgraded to “secret” status just today by the FBI, which was plainly alarmed at the prospect of its disclosure.

I warned about this situation back in March, when Mrs. Clinton’s violation of federal laws and guidelines in connection with using private email to conduct official business first surfaced. The problem with the rationalization offered by Mrs. Clinton and the administration is twofold.

First, at the time of the Benghazi attack, Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and an old hand at dealing with classified information. She thus had to have known at the time of the communication in question that information of the type she was dealing with should have been classified as “secret” even if it had not been so classified yet. Obviously, the FBI instantly recognized the significance of the information upon learning that it was about to be disclosed.

Second, it is frequently the case that highly sensitive information is not classified (or not yet classified); nevertheless, government officials are instructed that it is not to be disclosed publicly and not to be discussed on non-government email systems.

As I explained back in March:

Mrs. Clinton [in her press conference] stressed that she never stored classified documents on her private e-mail system. To the uninitiated, this sounded like the strongest point in her defense. Mostly, however, it is a red herring, exploiting the public’s unfamiliarity with how classified information works – and fueling no small amount of irresponsible speculation over the last few days about how the nature of her responsibilities meant classified material must have been stored on her private system. In the government, classified documents are maintained on separate, super-highly secured systems… [I]n general, Mrs. Clinton would not have been able to access classified documents even from a .gov account, much less from her private account – she’d need to use the classified system… That said, there are two pertinent caveats.

First, since we’re dealing with Clintonian parsing here, we must consider the distinction between classified documents and classified information – the latter being what is laid out in the former. It is not enough for a government official with a top-secret clearance to refrain from storing classified documents on private e-mail; the official is also forbidden to discuss the information contained in those documents. The fact that Mrs. Clinton says she did not store classified documents on her private server, which is very likely true, does not discount the distinct possibility that she discussed classified matters in private e-mails…

Second, most of the important but mundane information exchanged in government is not classified. It is a truism that too much information in Washington is classified. Still, it is also true that, for government officials, dealing with classified information is very inconvenient – you are usually not allowed to read it on your office computer, certainly not on your personal computer, not while commuting to work, not at home, etc. Thus, much of the information that government officials deal with is categorized as “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU).

To listen to the commentary over the past week, and to listen to Mrs. Clinton yesterday, one would think there are only two realms of government information: something is either a national defense secret or the seating chart for Chelsea’s wedding reception. Most information, though, is neither classified nor private. When I was a federal prosecutor, for instance, the SBU information I routinely dealt with included: grand-jury transcripts, the secrecy of which must be maintained by law; investigative reports by the FBI, DEA, NYPD, and other investigative agencies; wiretap affidavits that disclosed that investigations were underway, the suspects, the evidence, the wiretap locations, and the identity of government undercover agents, informants, and witnesses; memos outlining investigative or litigation strategies to deal with organized crime and terrorism organizations; plans to orchestrate arrests in multi-defendant cases where flight risk was a concern; financial information of subjects of investigations; personal information (sometimes including family financial and medical information) of lawyers and staff whom I supervised; contact information (including home addresses) of agents with whom I worked on cases often involving violent crime and public corruption; contact information (including home addresses) of judges in the event it was necessary to get a search warrant after hours; and so on.

None of that information was classified. I was permitted to – and needed to – have it ready to hand, but it was also my duty to maintain it in a secure, responsible manner… a duty that became even more important once I was a boss and was expected to set an example for junior lawyers and staff to follow. And mind you, I was just a government lawyer. I was not the secretary of state.

The inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of SBU can do enormous damage. It can even get people killed. That is why the State Department has elaborate rules about SBU – rules that include instructing State Department employees to conduct their e-mail business via government e-mail accounts on government communications systems that have “the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of resident information” (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, vol. 12, sec. 544.3 ). As Fox News relates, it was on the basis of these concerns that Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, directed State Department employees in June 2011 to “avoid conducting official Department [business] from your personal e-mail accounts.”

Thus far, there has been disclosure of only a fraction of Mrs. Clinton’s existing private email – i.e., the email that she did not unilaterally delete despite being on notice that it was relevant to government investigations. Yet it is already clear that, as secretary of state, she did business in a way that was, at a minimum, grossly irresponsible… and quite possibly worse. She had to have realized the near certainty that an official of her stature would have been targeted for surveillance of her private emails by foreign intelligence services. Yet, in her determination not to leave a paper trail that might damage her political prospects, she ignored the risks. The Justice Department, which has prosecuted high government officials for mishandling national defense information, should be investigating – and that includes acquiring custody of Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Krauthammer Sounds Off On Hillary Email Dump, Explains Why He Thinks ‘Whole Release Is A Farce’ – The Blaze

Conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer reacted to the release of the first batch of Hillary Clinton emails, calling the “whole release” a “farce.”

“This is an echo of what her own press secretary said, who said there isn’t a shred of evidence. And as I’ve said there is no shred of evidence because she shredded the evidence. This whole release is a farce,” the syndicated political columnist said. “What is being released now… is stuff that was scrubbed and cleansed and decided upon, chosen by her own people, acting in her own interest, rather than… people with obligation to the public.”

“So we are getting the cleaned up version,” he continued. “And I think they are succeeding, the Clinton people. Because everybody is hungrily looking through stuff pre-scrubbed. They are not going to find anything. The Clinton’s are secretive and deceptive, but they are not stupid.”

Krauthammer then explained how he thought the process will benefit Clinton in the presidential election.

“Whatever is indicating has been scrubbed and removed. So we are going to have this long saga of the release. She will take the credit for, ‘I asked for it to be released, I wanted it to be released.’ But it’s the wrong stuff. And when people attack her later in the campaign, she will say it’s all been released, the press has looked at it,” he said.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Hillary Slept Through Security Briefing On Benghazi Attack – Gateway Pundit

Figures.

Hillary Clinton slept through the president’s daily briefing on Benghazi. She didn’t wake up until 10:45 AM.

.

.
What difference does it make?

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Hillary Didn’t Even Know Ambassador’s Name After He Was Murdered In Benghazi – Right Scoop

The State Department is releasing a batch of the Hillary emails, because the best way to make sure no one notices is to do it on the beginning of Memorial Day weekend. Hidden in one email is a pretty deplorable absence of interest and care from Hillary.

From the Washington Times:

The night a U.S. ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Hillary Clinton sent a message three senior State Department officials.

The recepients were Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to then-Secretary of State Clinton, Cheryl Mills, an adviser to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary, and Victoria Jane Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

“Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?” Clinton says in the email, time stamped 11:38 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012.

The email had as its subject line: “Chris Smith.” The murdered ambassador was Chris Stevens.

The Secretary of State didn’t even know the name of the U.S. ambassador to Libya – even after terrorists stormed an American compound and killed him.

How deplorable is that. And this is who the Democrats want to make president? Disgusting.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
E-mails: Hillary Knew That State Department Asked YouTube To Block Anti-Muslim Movie Overseas – Hot Air

Not that there was ever much doubt. Three days after the Benghazi attack, the White House admitted it had pressured Google and YouTube to yank “Innocence of Muslims” as some sort of terms-of-use violation. Google refused. A week after that, having failed to twist a major corporation’s arm into censoring a politically unhelpful bit of free speech on its behalf, the State Department started running ads in Pakistan denouncing the movie, in hopes that jihadi savages would be appeased by the show of national contrition and not target any more embassies. Also around this time, YouTube did agree to censor “Innocence of Muslims” by blocking it in Egypt and Libya, the two nations that saw the most violent attacks on U.S. diplomats on September 11, 2012. Hillary Clinton had to have known about and signed off on all this, we naturally assumed. And now here’s evidence that she did: Although the message below is vague, I assume it’s referring to the ban that Google imposed on the video in Africa.

Leaning on corporate cronies to suppress Americans’ speech for political ends would be a disqualifying offense for a candidate in a sane world.

.

.
Fun fact: On the very day that e-mail was sent, the man who made “Innocence of Muslims” was arrested by the feds on a “parole violation.” Hillary’s leisure reading in the weeks before that was interesting too:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Clinton Foundation Discloses Millions In Additional Payments Under Pressure – Big Government

From the Washington Post:

The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.

Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.

The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.

The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.

There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.

The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.

In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.

They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.

China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.

The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.

Read the rest of the story here.

.

.

Naked Idiot Whacked Out On Drugs Crashes Stolen Car, Gets Tasered By Cops

Cops: Naked Man Steals Car, Crashes, Says Actor Paul Walker Is In The Trunk – The Examiner

.

.
A naked, intoxicated Pennsylvania man was arrested Saturday morning after he crashed a stolen car into a tree, Towamencin Police say. But his being naked wasn’t the only weird thing about the arrest. No, Tyler Preston Dunhan, who later admitted to authorities that he was under the influence of mind-altering substances, presented police with a series of strange behaviors, not the least of which was begging them to shoot him and claiming that late actor Paul Walker was in the trunk of the crashed car.

The Associated Press reported May 11 that Tyler Dunhan, 19, aggressively confronted officers after he crashed a stolen Honda Fit into a tree in Dresher, Pennsylvania. With his fists clenched, he demanded they shoot him. After using a stun gun on the intoxicated teen, police took him into custody.

According to Montgormery News, Towamencin Police were originally called to the scene when a woman called 911 to report that a naked man had entered here home. He had been confronted by the woman’s father and family dog before running outside. He jumped into the family car, a Honda Fit, which was running, its door already open.

According to a police affidavit, an officer soon tracked the car, still running, crashed into a tree, the naked Dunham still inside. The officer repeatedly commanded Dunham to turn off the car and put his hands on the steering wheel, but the teen was incoherent, taking in “completely unrelated gibberish,” according to the officer. With the driver’s failure to comply, the officer drew his weapon.

That’s when Tyler Dunham told him to shoot. “Shoot me in the (expletive) face!” he reportedly said. The officer told him he had no intention of shooting him. Then, when backup officers arrived, Dunham locked all the doors.

With officers yelling for him to exit the vehicle (and believing the teen was going to attempt to drive away), officers went to break the driver’s side window. Dunham revved the engine but could not manage to get the car to reverse (it is not clear whether this was due to the crash or the driver’s state of intoxication), so police continued to pound on the window.

Dunham finally got out of the vehicle and moved toward one of the officers. A second officer shot him in the back with a Taser, whereupon the officers were able to handcuff the teen.

The affidavit claims that while awaiting medical personnel, Dunham allegedly confided that he had taken “Acid, LSD, protein shakes and grass.” He also admitted to stabbing someone. It was at this time that he also yelled, “Check the trunk! Paul Walker is in the trunk!”

Paul Walker is the late actor most famous for starring in the “Fast and Furious” movie series. He was killed in 2013 when the driver of the car he was riding in lost control and crashed.

.

.

Hitlery Personally Took Money From Companies That Sought To Influence Her

Hillary Clinton Personally Took Money From Companies That Sought To Influence Her – Vox

.

.
Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company’s interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm’s mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.

During Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family’s foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different than the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions. Her federally required financial disclosure was released to media late Friday, a time government officials and political candidates have long reserved for dumping news they hope will have a short shelf life.

Together, Hillary and Bill Clinton cleared $25 million on the lecture circuit over the last 16 months, according to a Hillary Clinton’s personal financial disclosure required of presidential candidates. A lot of the focus will naturally go toward the political argument that Clinton’s wealth makes her out of touch. The US has had plenty of good rich presidents and bad rich presidents. What’s more important is whether they are able to listen to all of the various interests without being unduly influenced by any of them.

There’s a reason government officials can’t accept gifts: They tend to have a corrupting effect. True, Hillary Clinton wasn’t a government official at the time the money was given. But it is very, very, very hard to see six-figure speaking fees paid by longtime political boosters with interests before the government – to a woman who has been running for president since the last time she lost – as anything but a gift.
Who gave and gave and gave and lobbied?

Corning’s in good company in padding the Clinton family bank account after lobbying the State Department and donating to the foundation. Qualcomm and salesforce.com did that, too. Irwin Jacobs, a founder of Qualcomm, and Marc Benioff, a founder of salesforce.com, also cut $25,000 checks to the now-defunct Ready for Hillary SuperPAC. Hillary Clinton spoke to their companies on the same day, October 14, 2014. She collected more than half a million dollars from them that day, adding to the $225,500 salesforce.com had paid her to speak eight months earlier.

And Microsoft, the American Institute of Architects, AT&T, SAP America, Oracle and Telefonica all paid Bill Clinton six-figure sums to speak as Hillary Clinton laid the groundwork for her presidential campaign.

.

.
And that list, which includes Clinton Foundation donors, is hardly the end of it. There’s a solid set of companies and associations that had nothing to do with the foundation but lobbied State while Clinton was there and then paid for her to speak to them. Xerox, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, in addition to Corning, all lobbied Clinton’s department on trade matters and then invited her to earn an easy check.

By this point, most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn’t have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story. The knee-jerk eye-roll response to the latest disclosure will be that there’s nothing new to see here. But there’s something very important to see that is different than the past stories. This time, it’s about Hillary Clinton having her pockets lined by the very people who seek to influence her. Not in some metaphorical sense. She’s literally being paid by them.

That storyline should be no less shocking for the fact that it is no longer surprising. The skimpy fig leaf of timing, that the speeches were paid for when she was between government gigs, would leave Adam blushing. And while most Democrats will shrug it off – or at least pretend to – it’s the kind of behavior voters should take into account when considering whether they want to give a candidate the unparalleled power of the presidency. It goes to the most important, hardest-to-predict characteristic in a president: judgment.

Read Clinton’s full financial disclosure report here.

.

.

Oklahoma Man Pleads Guilty To Killing His Stepfather With An ‘Atomic Wedgie’

Man Pleads Guilty To Manslaughter By ‘Atomic Wedgie’ – Daily Caller

.

.
Many people have fallen victim to a wedgie, the yanking of one’s underpants up from behind by the elastic waistband. Fewer have fallen prey to the dreaded “atomic wedgie,” which Urban Dictionary defines as “When one is still in undewear (sic) and someone pulls up on the waistband and tries to pull it over the recivers (sic) head.”

While both wedgies are usually attempted in jest, one atomic wedgie turned deadly in Oklahoma.

Brad Davis, 34, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his stepfather Denver Lee St. Clair, 58, after a fight between the two that led to Davis administering an atomic wedgie on St. Clair that caused his death.

.
…………………..

.
After the fight, which end with St. Clair being rendered unconscious, Davis administered the atomic wedgie. Davis pulled the elastic waistband all the way over St. Clair’s head and around his neck, causing asphyxiation.

Davis was originally charged with first-degree murder, but the plea bargain saw him plead guilty to first-degree manslaughter.

Davis, a former Marine, “had been bullied all his life by this guy (St. Clair),” according to Davis’s lawyer, and he “was just tired of taking it.”

The altercation occurred on Dec. 21, 2013, after the pair had been drinking and St. Clair allegedly made disparaging remarks about Davis’ mother, from whom St. Clair was estranged.

Davis, facing between four and 35 years for manslaughter in the case, will remain held without bond until his sentencing in July.

.

.

Waffle House Masturbator (And Likely Obama Supporter) Finally Arrested

Man Caught Pleasuring Self At Macon Waffle House Arrested – WMAZ

.
………………….

.
A Waffle House employee who was caught on video pleasuring himself turned himself in Monday afternoon to the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office.

Emanuel DeWayne Williams Sr., has been charged with public indecency, probation violation and violation of the sex-offenders registry, according to Lt. Sean DeFoe.

Williams did not have any restrictions as far as being around people, but Williams failed to register his Waffle House employment with the sheriff’s office, DeFoe said.

Williams was fired from Waffle House on Pio Nono Avenue last week after a viral Facebook video, recorded by another employee, showed him pleasuring himself.

The second employee, according to the original incident report, said she and Williams were the only two in the restaurant around lunchtime. Williams told the second employee he was about to masturbate. The female employee pulled out her phone to record because she didn’t believe him, the report states. The video “somehow” ended up on Facebook, the employee stated in the report.

She stated in the report “as she was recording him, she was telling him the whole time that she was recording him and he was a pervert. She stated that he responded by saying he wasn’t a pervert; he was just a ‘freak.'”

According to the Sex Offenders Registry, he registered in 2009 for a rape conviction.

A warrant for his arrest was sought last week.

.

.

Anti-Gun Democrat Arrested After Running Out Of His House Naked And Shooting At His Ex-Wife 10 Times

Anti-Gun Democrat Arrested For Shooting At His Ex-Wife – Downtrend

.

.
Virgil K. Smith is a democrat in the Michigan state legislature. As a Representative, and now as Senator, he has made a career out of opposing the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, earning himself a 0% rating from the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership and a “D” rating from the NRA. Over the weekend, this anti-gun crusader showed some typical liberal hypocrisy by firing at least 10 shots at his ex-wife following a domestic dispute.

The Detroit Free Press reports that Smith was at home getting busy with a lady friend when hisangry ex-wife showed up. First she was banging on his bedroom window, and then went to the front door. Smith opened the door and his ex-wife pushed her way in. She ran to the bedroom and began attacking Smith’s girlfriend.

Smith tackled his ex-wife and they knocked over a TV. He told his ex-wife to leave, and despite her previous irrational behavior, she complied. Maybe it’s because Smith threatened her with a gun, but that’s not how he tells it. Once outside, the ex-wife threw a chair at Smith’s house. Why there was a chair outside for throwing purposes is anyone’s guess.

At this point, Smith came outside, reportedly naked, with a .22 caliber rifle. As his wife tried to drive off, he shot at her, hitting her Mercedes 10 times. Luckily, she was not struck by the gunfire. He put so much lead into her car that police initially thought he blasted it with a shotgun.

Smith was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault with a gun and malicious destruction of property. He is currently being held in the Detroit Detention Center as police continue their investigation. For Smith’s part, he told police that it was the stupidest thing he’d ever done.

Besides being an anti-gun hypocrite and a terrible shot, it turns out Smith has a lengthy career as a failed criminal as well. He has 2 DUIs (or the Michigan equivalent of driving while intoxicated) that resulted in his license being revoked. He was caught stealing a textbook from the college bookstore and then lied to police about his identity. He was convicted of disorderly conduct and giving false information. He was also busted trying to steal a bottle of tequila and was convicted of retail fraud, which I guess is what they call shoplifting in Michigan.

Cases like this make me understand why democrats are so anti-gun; they can’t be trusted with firearms and they know it. And they figure if they can’t be trusted with firearms; nobody should be trusted with them. I think democrats, liberals, and anti-gun fanatics should voluntarily disarm instead of going after our rights. It would be easier, more Constitutional, and everyone would be much safer.

.

.