Hitlery: “Muslims Are Peaceful And Tolerant People, And Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism” (Video)

Hillary Clinton: Muslims Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism – Right Scoop

There are Muslim terrorists all over the world committing atrocities towards those they hate, whether it be Jews, Christians, other religious minorities, or even other Muslims with whom they disagree. And they are doing it in the name of the Allah and the Prophet Muhammad, using the Qu’ran to justify their evil acts.

We’re not just talking about ISIS. Nor Al-Qaeda. Just look in Israel where Muslims are coming out of the woodwork to stab Jews to death.

But somehow these terrorists who call themselves Muslims, who profess belief in Allah and the Prophet Muhammad and who say they are adherents to Islam, are actually NOT Muslims according to Hillary Clinton.


Since when is Hillary Clinton a foremost expert on Islam? Because her good friend is Huma Abedin and believes all Muslims are like her?

The ISIS caliph, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, has a DOCTORATE in Islamic studies. Yet Hillary claims he’s not a Muslim? He’s not Islamic?

Just another reason this lying criminal and Muslim propagandist should never win the presidency.



Thin-Skinned Hitlery Goes After Laugh Factory Comedians For Making Fun Of Her

Clinton Goes After Laugh Factory Comedians For Making Fun Of Her – Judicial Watch


In what appears to be a first for a serious presidential contender, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is going after five comedians who made fun of the former Secretary of State in standup skits at a popular Hollywood comedy club.

A video of the short performance, which is less than three minutes, is posted on the website of the renowned club, Laugh Factory, and the Clinton campaign has tried to censor it. Besides demanding that the video be taken down, the Clinton campaign has demanded the personal contact information of the performers that appear in the recording. This is no laughing matter for club owner Jamie Masada, a comedy guru who opened Laugh Factory more than three decades ago and has been instrumental in launching the careers of many famous comics. “They threatened me,” Masada told Judicial Watch. “I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

Practically all of the country’s most acclaimed comedians have performed at the Laugh Factory and undoubtedly they have offended politicians and other well-known personalities with their standup routines. Tim Allen, Jay Leno, Roseanne Bar, Drew Carey, George Carlin, Jim Carrey, Martin Lawrence, Jerry Seinfeld and George Lopez are among the big names that have headlined at the Laugh Factory. The First Amendment right to free speech is a crucial component of the operation, though Masada drew the line a few years ago banning performers – including African Americans – from using the “n-word” in their acts.

The five short performances that Clinton wants eliminated include some profanity and portions could be considered crass, but some of the lines are funny and that’s what the Laugh Factory is all about. The video features the individual acts of five comedians, four men and a woman. The skits make fun of Clinton’s wardrobe, her age, sexual orientation, the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the former First Lady’s relationship with her famous husband. The Laugh Factory has appropriately titled it “Hillary vs. The First Amendment.”

Masada told Judicial Watch that, as soon as the video got posted on the Laugh Factory website, he received a phone call from a “prominent” person inside Clinton’s campaign. “He said the video was disgusting and asked who put me up to this,” Masada said. The Clinton staffer, who Masada did not want to identify, also demanded to know the names and phone numbers of the comedians that appear in the video. Masada refused and hung up. He insists that the comedy stage is a sanctuary for freedom of speech no matter who is offended. “Just last night we had (Emmy-award winner) Dana Carvey doing Donald Trump and it was hilarious,” Masada said.



Clinton Crime Update: Embassy Classified Information Unprotected Under Hitlery

Beyond Emails: Embassy Classified Info Unprotected Under Hillary Clinton – Breitbart


Just when she thought she had skated by on Benghazi and her email infractions, it now appears that Hillary Clinton’s woes on these issues may be far from over.

There is a largely unknown security scandal emerging, which centers not on the doomed U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, but on the American Embassy in Tripoli about 400 miles away.

This scandal, combined with classified information on Clinton’s private server and sensitive material looted from the dangerously unprotected Benghazi compound, may spell trouble in Hillary Clinton-land, especially in regard to the presidential candidate’s national security credentials.

The larger stack of evidence, presented here by Breitbart Jerusalem, shows the astonishing scope of the Clinton State Department’s apparent failure to protect highly sensitive – at times classified – national security secrets.

In at least one case, sensitive information was likely obtained by our terrorist enemies in Libya, as a federal indictment charges.

In another case, classified communications equipment and hard drives housed at a dangerously insecure U.S. embassy reopened by Clinton were protected, embarrassingly, by a female office manager and other staffers – not by U.S. marines.

Forget Benghazi… take a look at Tripoli embassy security

The U.S. diplomatic facility in Tripoli was first upgraded to embassy status in 2006. Due to security concerns, Clinton temporarily shut it down during the 2011 revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. In September 2011, after Gadhafi fell, the embassy was reopened.

The story begins in 2012, immediately after the embassy received notice of the first assault on the Benghazi mission.

Largely ignored in the firestorm surrounding the Benghazi attacks is the fact that – like the Benghazi mission – the U.S. embassy in Tripoli did not meet the State Department’s minimum security standards for a diplomatic outpost established without a security waiver from the Secretary of State.

These security standards were established by the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or SECCA, which was passed in the aftermath of two embassy bombings in Africa in 1998.

Rep. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a Benghazi investigator who was the fifth highest ranking member of the House GOP leadership, declared on the House floor on January 15, 2014:

It was known in the State Department and at the highest levels that neither facility in Libya – the one in Tripoli or the one in Benghazi – met the minimum physical security standards set after our embassy was attacked in Kenya in 1998. Who made the decision to put so many American diplomats in those facilities that did not meet that standard?

Eric Allan Nordstrom, a former regional secretary officer in Tripoli who is now the supervisory special agent with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, confirmed that the Tripoli embassy did not meet the minimum standards.

At an October 10, 2012 congressional hearing on Benghazi, Nordstrom said:

Neither the buildings in Benghazi nor the buildings in Tripoli met those standards, nor was there a plan for the next phase of construction, what was called the interim embassy, would they meet the standards either. That interim embassy was scheduled to be on the ground for approximately 10 years. That was a major cause of concern, and that was the main physical security issue that we continued to raise.

Contrary to a misleading claim propagated by Clinton herself, there was no Marine Security Guard (MSG) contingent protecting the Tripoli embassy during the 2012 attacks. They were only deployed in the aftermath of the fatal Benghazi assault.

In her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton claims there were marines guarding the Tripoli embassy:

So while there were Marines stationed at our embassy in Tripoli, where nearly all of our diplomats worked and which had the capability to process classified material, because there was no classified processing at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, there were no Marines posted there.

But the former head of Africa Command, General Carter Ham, testified before Congress on June 26, 2013 that “There was no Marine security detachment in Tripoli.”

Breitbart Jerusalem has confirmed with the press office of the U.S. Marines that no marine contingent was deployed in Tripoli on September 11, 2012.

These details are relevant because the primary duty of the MSG is to protect classified information and equipment vital to U.S. national security.

So who was safeguarding the classified information processed by U.S. officials in Tripoli under Clinton’s watch? In one case, it seems, one guard was a female office manager.

‘She was smashing hard drives with an ax’

In May 2013, Gregory N. Hicks – the No. 2 at the Tripoli embassy the night of the attacks – testified before Congress that about three hours after the first attack on the Benghazi mission, his staff in Tripoli was alerted to Twitter feeds asserting the terror group Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. Other tweets warned of a pending attack on the embassy in Tripoli.

Hicks described a scene in which the office staff began to destroy classified materials for fear of an attack.

“We had always thought that we were… under threat, that we now have to take care of ourselves, and we began planning to evacuate our facility,” he testified.

“When I say our facility, I mean the State Department residential compound in Tripoli, and to consolidate all of our personnel… at the annex in Tripoli.”

Hicks said he “immediately telephoned Washington that news afterward and began accelerating our effort to withdraw from the Villas compound and move to the annex.”

He recalled how his team “responded with amazing discipline and courage in Tripoli in organizing withdrawal.”

Continued Hicks: “I have vivid memories of that. I think the most telling, though, was of our communications staff dismantling our communications equipment to take with us to the annex and destroying the classified communications capability.”

“Our office manager, Amber Pickens, was everywhere that night just throwing herself into some task that had to be done. First she was taking a log of what we were doing,” he said.

“Then she was loading magazines, carrying ammunition to the – carrying our ammunition supply to… our vehicles, and then she was smashing hard drives with an ax.”

The vivid scene, however, was not mentioned once during Clinton’s Benghazi testimony last month or during her testimony on the subject in 2013. This despite Clinton being directly asked about the response by the Tripoli embassy during last month’s testimony.

The dramatic incident in Tripoli was also not referenced in the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board probe of the Benghazi attack.

Terror kingpin obtains sensitive documents… why not classified?

Major questions linger about why Hillary Clinton’s State Department did not classify the reportedly sensitive documents and material that ran through the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. The material was clearly not adequately protected, as the assault on the mission summarily exposed.

During Clinton’s Benghazi testimony to lawmakers last month, Clinton claimed that unlike the Tripoli compound, Benghazi did not house classified material. She conceded that some unclassified material was left behind after the attacks.

It is instructive to focus on what materials were housed in Benghazi, especially in light of a November 2012 report by Fox News quoting sources in Washington and on the ground in Libya, including a witness, confirming computers were stolen during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.

Also, two days after the compound was looted, the London Independent reported documents inside the U.S. mission were said to “list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups.”

And the Washington Post three weeks later reported documents inside the U.S. mission contained “delicate information about American operations in Libya.”

The Post revealed that one of its own journalists visited the vacated facility weeks after the attack and personally found scattered across the floors “documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission.”

Stevens’ itinerary at times also reportedly passed through Clinton’s private email server, including his exact whereabouts and movements while he was stationed in the Libya danger zone.

The 2012 Fox News report also divulged that after the U.S. mission was looted, some of the Libyans employed there received death threats via text message. It is unclear whether the threats were prompted by the stolen documents and computers.

Some of the sensitive information was obtained by the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group, which was implicated in the Benghazi attacks.

Breitbart Jerusalem reviewed the 21-page, 18-count federal indictment against Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the Benghazi-based leader of Ansar al-Sharia.

The extensive indictment charges that Khatallah stole “documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information” from the Benghazi mission. The charge sheet further accuses Khatallah of conspiring to “plunder property from the Mission and Annex, including documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information.”

In other words, according to the federal indictment, Khatallah was partially motivated to storm the Bengahzi compound in order to obtain sensitive documents – materials that were ripe for the plundering in the unsecured Benghazi mission.

Echoing her e-mail controversy, during her Benghazi testimony last month Clinton was confronted about her seemingly ambiguous definition of sensitive and classified materials stored at the Benghazi mission.

One particular exchange on the matter may be telling:

CLINTON: We know it through our own investigation about what documents were at Benghazi, and there were no classified materials, to the best of our information.

POMPEO: Yes, ma’am. Do you know if there was sensitive information?

CLINTON: I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as sensitive information. There was information there and some of it was burnt, either wholly or partially. Some of it was looted. And some of it was recovered eventually.

POMPEO: Madam Secretary, do you know where that material that was looted went? Do you know into whose hands it fell? And do you know the nature and contents of that material? You seem very confident it wasn’t classified. I don’t share your confidence. But nonetheless, do you know where that material went?

CLINTON: I think that it – it is very difficult to know where it ended up. But I want to just reiterate the point that I made. This was not a facility that had the capacity to handle classified material. And there was, to the best of our information, Congressman, no classified material at the Benghazi facility.

POMPEO: Ma’am, the fact that it wasn’t capable of handling classified material doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any classified material there. Is that correct?

CLINTON: Well, the procedure is not to have classified material at such a facility. And again, to the best of our knowledge, there was not any there.

POMPEO: Yes, ma’am. You’re not supposed to have classified e- mail on your private server either.

CLINTON: And I did not, Congressman.



Leftist Corruption Update: Clinton Foundation Failed To Report $20M In Donations From Foreign Governments

Clinton Foundation Failed To Report $20 Million In Donations From Foreign Governments – Weasel Zippers


Gee, I wonder why she left that out?

Via Free Beacon:

The Clinton Foundation failed to report $20 million in donations from governments to the Internal Revenue Service, newly refiled tax returns show.

Reuters reported that the foundation disclosed the $20 million it received from governments, most of them foreign, between 2010 and 2013 when it and a spin-off organization refiled tax returns from six years to fix errors.

The Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation did not previously separate out its donations from governments on old tax returns as is mandated by the IRS.

The foundation refiled tax returns from 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 and a charity spun off from the foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, refiled its own returns from 2012 and 2013 after both were found to have made errors reporting funds from foreign governments. The revelations about inaccuracies came just as Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate for president, endured scrutiny for the millions of dollars that her family foundation has received from foreign governments.

Keep reading



Clinton Crime Update: Hitlery Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties For Mishandling Of Classified Info

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties For Mishandling Of Classified Info – Washington Free Beacon


As the nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary Clinton was responsible for ascertaining whether information in her possession was classified and acknowledged that “negligent handling” of that information could jeopardize national security, according to a copy of an agreement she signed upon taking the job.

A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information.

Experts have guessed that Clinton signed such an agreement, but a copy of her specific contract, obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute through an open records request and shared with the Washington Free Beacon, reveals for the first time the exact language of the NDA.

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation,” the agreement states.

Clinton received at least two emails while secretary of state on her personal email server since marked “TS/SCI” – top secret/sensitive compartmented information – according to the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general.

The State Department said in September that Clinton’s private email system, set up at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was not authorized to handle SCI.

The Democratic presidential frontrunner defended her unauthorized possession of SCI and her sending of emails containing classified information by claiming that the information was not marked as classified when it was sent or received.

The language of her NDA suggests it was Clinton’s responsibility to ascertain whether information shared through her private email server was, in fact, classified.

“I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department… in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI,” the agreement says.

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NDA.

According to government security experts, the type of information that receives a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such.

“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.”

Additional emails on Clinton’s server contained information that was “born classified,” according to J. William Leonard, who directed the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office from 2002 to 2008.

“If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it’s in U.S. channels and U.S. possession,” Leonard told Reuters in August.

Clinton’s NDA spells out stiff criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure of SCI.” The FBI is currently investigating whether Clinton’s private email server violated any federal laws.

In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting “negligent handling of classified information,” requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.

It adds, “I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization” from the proper authorizes.

Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, Clinton’s two top aides, also signed copies of the classified information NDA.

Mills sent classified information to officials at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2012, an email released by the State Department in September shows.

Mills’ NDA required her to inquire about the classification of information in her possession if she was unsure about its status. However, her attorney said that she “presumed” that the information she sent to the foundation was unclassified because it had been sent to her at her unclassified State Department email address.



Clinton Perjury Update: New State Department Emails Conflict With Hitlery’s Benghazi Testimony

New State Department Emails Conflict With Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony – Right Scoop


More evidence that Hillary Clinton used Sidney Blumenthal as her advisor has come to light as new State Department emails have emerged, despite her testimony that Blumenthal was never her advisor:

FOX NEWS – Newly released emails conflict with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 11-hour testimony before the Benghazi Select Committee, according to a review of the transcripts and public records.

One of the conflicts involves the role played by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal.

Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: “He’s a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn’t, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya.”

But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, “U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities.” The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan with the question, “What do you think of this idea?”

A second email from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in March 2011 also advocated for a no-fly zone, with Blair stating, “Please work on the non-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned. Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive.”

In the end, Clinton advocated for the no-fly zone and was able to gather support within the Obama administration to implement it.

In another email from March 5, 2012, Clinton appears to use Blumenthal as what is known in intelligence circles as a “cut out,” a type of intermediary to gather information, allowing the policymaker plausible deniability. In this case, the emails focused on the increasingly chaotic and fragmenting political landscape in Libya after dictator Muammar Qaddafi was removed from power.

In the one-page document, Blumenthal writes that Jonathan Powell, a former senior British government adviser to Blair, is “trying to replicate what we did in Northern Ireland by setting up secret channels between insurgents and government, and then, where appropriate, developing these negotiations.” This type of backchannel discussion helped bring about the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland.

Clinton responded two hours later. “I’d like to see Powell when he’s in the building,” with her staff responding, “Will follow up.” In both instances, Clinton’s actions further undercut sworn testimony to the Select Committee that Blumenthal was “not at all my adviser on Libya.”


Hey nothing to see here. Hillary had a great week, so said the media, when Republicans grilled her and exposed that she lied about Benghazi. So that’s what matters here, not getting to the truth.

So move along.



*VIDEOS* Jim Jordan And Trey Gowdy Go After Hitlery And Committee Leftists At Benghazi Hearing






*LIVE STREAMING* Hitlery Testifies Before House Select Committee On Benghazi (10/22/15 – 10am EDT)

………………………..Click on image above to watch stream.



Related video:



State Department Suddenly Discovers 1,300 Emails From Ambassador Stevens Just 2 Days Before Hitlery’s Testimony

State Dept. Suddenly Discovers 1,300 Emails From Ambassador Stevens 2 Days Before Hillary’s Testimony – Gateway Pundit


The Obama State Department suddenly discovered and turned over 1,300 pages of emails from former Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The emails were delivered just two days before Hillary’s testimony before the Benghazi committee.

Benghazi Committee

#BREAKING: The State Dept *just* delivered nearly 1,300 printed pages of new emails from Ambassador Chris Stevens. #Benghazi

1:12 PM – 20 Oct 2015

None of the seven previous congressional investigations on Benghazi had access to Ambassador Stevens’ emails.

And they were just released after more than a year of requests.

Benghazi Committee

#FACT: The @HouseBenghazi Select Committee is the first & only #Benghazi investigation to include thousands of Ambassador Stevens’ emails.

3:40 PM – 20 Oct 2015

The Politico reported:

The House Select Committee on Benghazi got a special delivery on Tuesday, two days before its high-profile hearing with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton – 1,300 more pages of emails from the State Department.

The Republican-led panel took to Twitter to vent about the seemingly late-in-the-game document dump of messages from Christopher Stevens, the ambassador to Libya who died in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the consulate, along with three other Americans.

For months, the State Department has been releasing tens of thousands of pages of emails to the committee, but the GOP has consistently complained that the agency has dragged its feet in handing over all the relevant documents. State, for example, only a few weeks ago gave the committee about 900 Libya-related emails from Clinton, which the committee says it asked for at the start of its investigation well over a year ago.



Clinton Campaign Aide: Hitlery Throwing Childlike Tantrums; Headed For Serious Meltdown

Clinton’s Camp Says She ‘Could Have A Serious Meltdown’ – New York Post


Hillary is furious – and while Clinton advisers think that may save her, it’s making the lives of those who work for her hell.

“Hillary’s been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work,” says a campaign aide. “She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she’s become shrill and, at times, even violent.”

In one incident, Hillary berated a low-level campaign worker for making a scheduling mistake. When the girl had the nerve to turn her back on Hillary and walk away, Hillary grabbed her arm.

Hillary’s anger may be stoked by fear: Her poll numbers have slipped by 10 points in one week on the eve of the Democratic debate.

Bill Clinton and Hillary’s campaign team are concerned that her anger may surface at the wrong time. They are concerned that she could have a serious meltdown in front of TV cameras, which would make her look so out of control that voters would decide she doesn’t have the temperament to be commander in chief.

“We’re having some success in giving her some chill pills,” said a campaign adviser.

The goal is to channel her anger and make her focus on Republicans, not on her campaign aides and fellow Democrats.

“Hillary’s always at her most effective when her back is to the wall,” says one of her longtime political advisers. “After weeks of pounding and pummeling by the press, she’s mad as hell and isn’t going to take it anymore.”

The plan is already in play. Over the past two weeks, she has slammed the Benghazi hearings as nothing more than a Republican-instigated political witch hunt aimed at suppressing her poll numbers.

She’s bashed the Supreme Court and the National Rifle Association over the Second Amendment.

She’s thumbed her nose at President Obama by coming out against one of his major foreign-policy goals – the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

And with her approval, her opposition research team has been collecting dirt on Vice President Joe Biden, which Hillary’s camp is prepared to release to the media if Biden enters the nominating race following his family summit this weekend.

“She’s beginning to understand that she can use her righteous anger and indignation to good effect,” said the adviser. “After all, her anger is in keeping with the mood of the American electorate.”



Hitlery Not Only Received CIA Source Name, But Forwarded It Over Unsecure Email

Clinton Not Only Received CIA Source Name, But Forwarded It Over Unsecure Email – Weasel Zippers


The information was inherently classified. Can we say Valerie Plame, folks? I knew we could…

Via Yahoo:

On March 18, 2011, Sidney Blumenthal – Clinton’s longtime friend and political adviser – sent the then secretary of state an email to her private account that contained apparently highly sensitive information he had received from Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official with whom Blumenthal at the time had a business relationship.

“Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods],” the email states, according to Gowdy’s letter.

The redacted information was “the name of a human source,” Gowdy wrote to his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, and was therefore “some of the most protected information in our intelligence community.”

“Armed with that information, Secretary Clinton forwarded the email to a colleague – debunking her claim that she never sent any classified information from her private email address,” wrote Gowdy in a letter to Cummings.

Clinton has repeatedly said she never sent or received classified information on her private email server “that was marked classified at the time that it was sent or received.” But the FBI, at the request of the inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department, is investigating the handling of classified information on the private server.

And while there is nothing that indicates that the email from Blumenthal (who was not a government employee) was marked classified at the time Clinton received it, the sensitive nature of its contents should have been a red flag and never should have been passed along, according to a former veteran CIA officer.

“She is exposing the name of a guy who has a clandestine relationship with the CIA on her private, unprotected server,” said John Maguire, who served for years as one of the CIA’s top Mideast officers.

Keep reading



Hitlery Ignored Mandatory Cyber-Security Training At State Department

Hillary Ignored Mandatory Cyber-Security Training At State Department – Daily Caller


Glaring shortcomings in cyber-security training throughout the State Department on former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s watch reflected a pervasive anti-security “culture” she encouraged there, according to multiple former intelligence and military officials.

Acting State Department Inspector General Harold W. Geisel issued six critical reports that charged top officials did not submit themselves to the department’s mandatory “security awareness training” during Clinton’s tenure. The training covers procedures for properly handling of sensitive and classified government documents and how to secure digital communications.

Senior officials from deputy assistant secretaries to chiefs of missions at U.S. embassies did not submit themselves to regular training sessions as required by the department and government-wide standards, according to Geisel.

Geisel first warned in November 2010 mandatory security training was not being given to senior department officials. A highly redacted November 2012 audit by the IG found in a random check of 46 officials that “all 46 employees had not taken the recommended role-based security-related training course in the time-frame (that is, 6 months) as recommended in the Information Assurance Training Plan.”

Annual IT security training is mandatory throughout the U.S. military and within all intelligence agencies and is required by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which sets government-wide security standards.

“A strong IT security program cannot be put in place without significant attention given to training agency IT users on security policy, procedures, and techniques, as well as the various management, operational, and technical controls necessary and available to secure IT resources,” according to NIST publication 800, the “bible” for government security.

“Failure to give attention to the area of security training puts an enterprise at great risk because security of agency resources is as much a human issue as it is a technology issue,” NIST warned.

“When you get the training, they give you lots of scenarios and lots of duplicate and redundant situations where you see the impact of security violations,” said Col. James Waurishuk, who retired in August 2014 from the U.S. Special Operations Command.

“If you don’t take the training, you don’t see it, so you don’t understand it.” he said.

Waurishuk, a 30-year military veteran, was also critical of Clinton for hiring Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer with her unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign, in the department’s Bureau of Information Resources Management as a “strategic advisor.” Pagliano had no national security experience and no security clearance for handling classified documents.

“Here’s a person brought in for his campaign expertise, but doesn’t have knowledge, training or grasp of the national security environment, the threats and the gravity of failing to ensure secure environments. To put somebody at that level in charge without that degree of experience, that’s reckless,” Waurishuk said.

Other former military and intelligence officials blame Secretary Clinton for setting a poor example when she decided to conduct official government business on a private email account and a private server located at her home in New York.

“There was a corporate culture among the highest echelons of State Department that she perhaps deliberately chose to ignore these security protocols. And consequently, they just were not enforced,” said James Williamson, a former Special Forces and counter-terrorism officer who is now president and CEO of Global Executive Management. His firm offers crisis management, diplomatic and security services to its clients.

“I would hold Mrs. Clinton directly responsible for inculcation of this culture within her organization,” Williamson said.

Brig. Gen. (Ret.) General Kenneth Bergquist said effective government security awareness starts at the top.

“What you have is a culture that emanates from the top,” said Bergquist. He was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the first president of the new Joint Special Operations University. He was assigned after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to the U.S. Central Command as special operations staff director.

Clinton and her inner circle of aides and advisers “have no experience whatsoever or cultural reference to security of documents and security of information. They had never really been involved in any aspects of what I call the culture of security awareness. So they were starting out from a basis of ignorance,” said Bergquist, who also worked at the Central Intelligence Agency told the DCNF.

Geisel said in a November 2010 audit that the State Department “should improve methods to identify individuals with significant security responsibilities, ensure that they take the required training every 3 years, record the training records in the Office of Personnel Management-approved centralized system, and provide management with tools to monitor compliance with the training requirement.”

In July 2011 the IG found that there was a ‘lack of maintenance of classified information nondisclosure agreements” for security training.

The November 2011 IG audit found that “The Department is not tracking and documenting Significant Security Responsibilities (SSR) training attendance.”

In a redacted November 2012 audit, the IG warned that training for top State Department officials was widespread.

The IG’s office added that top line officials who held “significant security responsibility” personnel did not appear to be getting training.

Among those who were identified by the IG as not getting the security training were the State Department’s chief of mission, deputy assistant secretary, information management specialist, information technology specialist and the office director for the security engineering officer.

Bergquist said that he understood that many in Secretary Clinton’s inner circle did not want to bother with training. “They said, ‘I don’t want to spend four hours going through this type of training. I’ve got more important things to do. That’s low on my priority list,” the general said.

Bergquist called it “hubris. That kind of attitude permeates down.”



Email-gate Update: Top Obama Adviser Throws Hitlery Under The Bus (Video)

Valerie Jarrett Throws Hillary Under The Bus On Email Scandal – Big Government


Obama White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett threw Hillary Clinton under the bus Wednesday at the Washington Ideas Forum, where she told interviewer Andrea Mitchell that the White House gave Clinton guidance forbidding her from using private email.

“Yes, there were. Yeah, absolutely,” Jarrett said when asked if the White House sent guidance to Cabinet secretaries about not using private email. “Obviously we want to make sure that we preserve all government records, and so there was guidance given that government business should be done on government emails and that if you did use a private email that it should be turned over.”

“That’s what she’s doing, as you said as recently as a few minutes ago,” Jarrett added. “And I think she has been asked about this multiple times, including by you Andrea. And I think she said, Look to do it again I probably made a mistake and I wouldn’t do it, and she’s working hard to comply with making sure that everything is pursuant to the Federal Records Act.”



Latest Hitlery Document Release Includes 155 Classified Emails, Bringing The Total To 343

Latest Clinton Document Release Includes 155 Now-Classified Emails – Daily Caller


Among the 6,300 pages of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on Wednesday are approximately 155 messages containing now-classified information that the former secretary of state sent or received on her unsecured, private email server system.

That raises the overall number of emails that contain information deemed to contain classified information to 343. The 155 figure is based on a preliminary analysis of the release.

The emails, most of which were classified as “confidential,” were sent in 2010 and 2011. Two records included in the release contain information that is now marked as “secret,” the second-highest classification category. One was an email Clinton aide Jake Sullivan sent to her on Jan. 21, 2011 regarding diplomatic talks in Turkey.

The State Department has asserted following previous Clinton email releases that information in the emails was not classified at the time the records were sent. But many observers have pushed back against the claim because many of the messages appear to discuss topics that were time- and event-specific.

Many of the emails contained information provided by foreign government officials. Executive orders have determined that such information should be “presumed” to be classified when originated.

Clinton herself has maintained that she did not send or receive emails containing information that was classified when sent. The Intelligence Community’s inspector general has disputed that claim, however, saying that it reviewed at least two emails that traversed Clinton’s server which contained information that was “top secret” at the time they were sent.

Wednesday’s release marks the fifth mass publication of Clinton emails. The first release, which occurred in May, was of nearly 300 pages of Clinton emails related to Libya and Benghazi. The other four releases were ordered by U.S. District Court judge Rudolph Contreras who is presiding over a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold.

According to the State Department, 37 percent of Clinton’s emails have now been released, putting the agency ahead of a timeline set by Contreras.

Clinton turned over approximately 55,000 pages of her work-related emails to the State Department in December, nearly two years after leaving the agency.

Clinton herself sent a number of those now-classified emails. Wednesday’s release shows that Clinton sent at least two emails that contain sensitive information.

One was sent on March 6, 2010 and discussed Indonesia. The other was sent on March 4, 2010 and discussed Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister.

The first four releases contained at least eight emails containing information now deemed classified.

The topics of those heavily-redacted emails included discussions about Iran, Egypt, and Futenma Marine Corps base in Japan.

One of the more mysterious now-classified emails Clinton sent was to her longtime friend and ally, Sidney Blumenthal.

On Nov. 10, 2009 Blumenthal forwarded an email from Joe Wilson, who served as an ambassador during the Bill Clinton administration. In the email, Wilson pitched Clinton on an African energy company for which he was consulting. Clinton’s response to Blumenthal is redacted and has been classified as “confidential.”

Blumenthal himself has been a central figure in the email scandal. He sent Clinton dozens of intelligence reports on her personal email address. Clinton initially claimed that Blumenthal’s emails were “unsolicited.” But Clinton’s responses to her friend indicated that that was not the case. Clinton often encouraged Blumenthal to keep her posted on geopolitical developments.

Clinton was caught in another inconsistency regarding Blumenthal. Though she has claimed that she turned over all of her work-related emails, Blumenthal provided the House Select Committee on Benghazi with at least 15 emails that he exchanged with Clinton which were not included in the trove she gave to the State Department. That gap raised questions over whether Clinton or the State Department failed to turn over the emails.

Last week, the State Department said it recently handed over an additional 900 Benghazi-related emails it has had since December.

It was also reported last week that Clinton failed to turn over an email exchange she had shortly after becoming secretary of state in early 2009 with then-CENTCOM Commander Gen. David Petraeus. Clinton has said that at that time, she was using an email address she used while she was in the Senate. Months into her State Department tenure, Clinton began using an email address hosted on her private server.



*VIDEO* Project Veritas: Hitlery Campaign Using Photos Of Trump To Illegally Register Voters



Inspector General: Hitlery Wrecked State Department’s Post-9/11 Digital Information Security

Clinton Wrecked State Department’s Post-9/11 Digital Information Security – Daily Caller


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official diplomatic business created many national security problems, but they may pale by comparison with the wreckage she left behind in her department’s main digital information security office.

Harold W. Geisel, the State Department’s acting Inspector General, issued eight scathing audits and investigation reports during Clinton’s tenure, repeatedly warning about worsening problems and growing security weaknesses within the Bureau of Information Resource Management, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

Geisel’s critical comments about the deficiencies throughout IRM carry additional weight since he was not considered an “independent” IG. Watchdog groups noted Geisel had served as a U.S. Ambassador for Hillary’s husband, President Clinton, and had never been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In fact, President Obama did not nominate an IG to the State Department during Clinton’s entire term. It was only in September 2013 that the Senate finally confirmed Geisel’s successor, Steve Linick, who currently occupies the the post.

After Clinton left the State Department in 2013, Linick quickly undertook remedial action to save the IRM. Barely two months after his Senate confirmation, he issued a “management alert” to State Department leadership, warning that IRM’s languishing security deficiencies since 2010 were still there.

“The department has yet to report externally on or correct many of the existing significant deficiencies, thereby leading to continuing undue risk in the management of information,” Linick said.

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not respond Sunday to a request for comment.

Clinton put Bryan Pagliano, her 2008 presidential campaign IT director, in the IRM in early 2009 as a “strategic advisor” who reported to the department’s deputy chief information officer. Pagliano had no prior national security experience or a national security clearance.

One of Pagliano’s jobs while working at the IRM was overseeing Clinton’s private email account and server. He recently refused to testify before Congress about his work for Clinton, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The IRM was established in 2002 by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell after the 9/11 Commission identified failure among government agencies like the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense and the State Department to exchange anti-terrorist intelligence. Powell and his successor, Condeleeza Rice, built the IRM to ensure secure communications among all U.S. embassies and consulates.

As Clinton entered the State Department, the IRM was the central hub for all of the department’s IT communication systems.

Geisel explained IRM’s primary role in one report, noting its “personnel are responsible for the management and oversight of the department’s information systems, which includes the department’s unclassified and classified networks” and “handles all aspects of information security for the department’s intelligence systems.”

Clinton instead allowed the IRM to degenerate into an office without a mission or strategy, according to multiple IG reports issued during and after her four years as the nation’s chief diplomat.

The seriousness of Clinton’s failure was summarized in a 2012 audit that warned, “the weakened security controls could adversely affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems” used by U.S. officials around the world.

Geisel’s July 2013 inspection report issued after Clinton’s departure was so damning that the IRM became the butt of caustic comments throughout the IT world.

Network World, an IT review site, for example, headlined one of its articles on the issue with “FAIL: Your Tax Dollars at Play: the US State Department’s Bureau of Information of Resource Mis-Management.” The article charged that the IRM had become “a total joke.”

Another news outlet told its readers that the editors would “like to be able to tell you what the IRM does, but a new report from the Office of Inspector General concludes that it doesn’t really do anything.”

IRM “is evidently an aimless, over-funded LAN party with no real boss or reason to exist,” concluded reporter Jordan Brochette when the 2013 IG report was released.

Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, reviewed the IG reports for DCNF and concluded that “State’s IT security record is littered with questionable management, insecure systems, poor contract oversight, and inadequate training. The State IG’s reviews show a pattern of significant deficiencies and few, if any, corrections.”

Geisel issued his first audit of IRM in November 2009, eight months into Clinton’s term. It also was the first audit issued after Pagliano arrived at the bureau. Geisel identified many serious IT security deficiencies that year. Unfortunately, most of the problems would continue to be uncorrected throughout Clinton’s term.

One troubling observation early in Clinton’s secretaryship was that the IG found the State Department and even embassy chiefs of mission suffering from a lack of IT security training, including the lack of “security awareness training.”

The lack of IT security awareness by top State Department officials may partly explain why Clinton and her top aides saw no problems with the use of a personal email server.

Geisel also warned in late 2009 that at the IRM, he found “there were no Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for managing IT-related security weaknesses.”

In an audit about IRM in February 2010, the IG reviewed how well IRM officials were implementing Secretary Rice’s 2007 modernization and consolidation progam.

It was in this 2010 audit that the first hints emerged of poor management at the IRM. Geisel concluded the bureau’s leadership failed to satisfy vulnerable IRM field staff deployed at embassies and consulates. He called them IRM’s “customers.”

The IG “found a significant level of customer dissatisfaction among bureaus about the quality and timeliness of IT services after consolidation.”

In November 2010 Geisel issued yet another warning about shortcomings within IRM. In this report, the IG repeated that IRM “needed to make significant improvements” to address “security weaknesses,”

Once again, he emphasized that IRM had failed in providing mandatory “security awareness training” to all top security personnel. He also noted a failure to require all contractors to undergo mandatory security authorization.

“The department did not identify all employees who had significant security responsibilities and provide specialized training,” the IG charged.

The IG discovered other worrisome problems in 2010. It found officials failed to provide corrective patches for security problems in a third of the cases examined by his office. The IG also pointed to more than 1,000 “guest” IT accounts within the department’s IT systems that could provide entry paths for hackers.

Geisel further reported that the IRM had 8,000 unused email accounts and that department officials never changed the passwords on 600 active email embassy and consulate accounts.

There were also “24 of 25 Windows systems tested [that] were not compliant with the security configuration guidance.”

The damning IG reports continued in July 2011 when Geisel detailed serious problems afflicting a new IRM program called eDiplomacy that Clinton unveiled earlier that year.

Geisel was blunt: “eDiplomacy lacks a clear, agreed-upon mission statement that defines key goals and objectives. With the absence of performance measurement process, management has few means to evaluate, control, budget, and measure the success of its projects.”

Geisel painted an alarmingly negative assessment in a November 2011 audit on the IRM’s overall information security program. Specific details were redacted but the report warned for the first time of “additional security breaches,” saying “we identified weaknesses that significantly impact the information security program controls. If these control weaknesses are exploited, the department could be exposed to additional security breaches. Collectively, these control weaknesses represent a significant deficiency.”

If the breaches weren’t quickly fixed, the consequences would be harmful to “the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems.”

The IG noted in this 2011 audit that a relatively new program called OPNET suffered from nearly 10,000 defective user accounts that could be breached by hackers.

Geisel also identified another flaw in the audit – the failure of IRM officials to do “continuing monitoring” of Oracle for “control weaknesses.” Oracle is the department’s most widely used internal database management system.

A November 2012 audit repeated the earlier IG audi that with the mounting IRM deficiencies, “the department could experience security breaches. Collectively, the control weaknesses represent a significant deficiency, as to enterprise-wide security.”

The same report again pointed out that, under Clinton, IRM “had not fully taken corrective action to remediate all of the control weaknesses identified in the FY 2011 report. The weakened security controls could adversely affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems.”

The November 2012 report again noted that training lagged and at times was non-existent. Among the positions that had not received IRM training were the department’s Chief of Mission, a deputy assistant secretary, information management specialists, information technology specialists and security engineers.

Again Geisel noted that within the bureau,“we found that all 46 employees had not taken the recommended role-based security-related training course in the [six month] time-frame, as recommended in the Information Assurance Training Plan.”

Another area of repeated failure was risk management. “The department’s risk management program for information security needs improvement at the system level.”

Geisel’s final – and most denunciatory – report on the IRM was issued in July 2013 and focused on Clinton’s final year in the department.

The report said that after years of deteriorating service, the IRM no longer performed a vital role in the department, with many of its duties usurped by other offices or simply ignored. The bureau “does not have a lead role in most of the functions it does perform and, for the most part, only compiles information generated by others,” Geisel concluded.

The IRM “does not have a mission statement outlining a vision for the office,” and “no document provides a clear connection between the work of IRM and the high-level goals outlined by the Chief Information Officer in the department’s IT Strategic Plan for FYs 2011-13.”

Under Clinton’s watch, new technologies and even social media were ignored by IRM, Geisel said, in the 2013 report that, “IRM policies do not mention the latest technologies and efforts within the department. For example, there is little mention and guidance for handling social media.”

And after four years under Clinton, the systems overseen by the IRM were still not considered user friendly.

“System owners described IRM tools as difficult to use and not user-friendly. Many commented that the tools would lock up while entering content, requiring information to be reentered. System owners attempted to share their frustrations with IRM, but to no avail.”

Perhaps Geisel’s most surprising criticisms, however, were that the “IRM is not engaged with IT strategic planning in the department,” and many of the department’s IT regulations had not been updated since 2007.

The State Department IG also compiled five classified audits of the IRM during Clinton’s tenure that were never made public.



New Emails Prove Hitlery Committed Perjury… Among Other Crimes

Emails Between Hillary Clinton And Petraeus Discovered, Contradicting Her Sworn Statement – Big Government


Who ever knows how, or if, “the law” will apply to Democrat royalty? It sure looks as if Hillary Clinton committed perjury with her sworn statement that she turned over all of the official correspondence from her secret email server, and deleted only the yoga routines, cookie recipes, wedding reception plans, and so forth.

What the Associated Press reported on Friday afternoon sounds like the “game over” moment Democrats have been fearing since the Clinton email scandal came to a boil:

The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner’s unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.

The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus when he headed the military’s U.S. Central Command, responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don’t appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton’s claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account.

Hillary Clinton didn’t just “claim” she turned over all of her work-related emails. She signed a sworn statement to that effect in August, under penalty of perjury, and submitted it to a federal court. It’s the same statement her top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills refused to sign.

Many observers thought the proverbial Other Shoe would drop on Clinton when the FBI started recovering deleted emails from the server she thought was wiped clean, but it doesn’t sound like we’ve even gotten to that closet full of Other Shoes yet. The AP report says this previously undisclosed string of Clinton emails was “first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department’s inspector general.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby said these emails were received “in the last several days” and confirmed they “were not previously in the possession of the department.” He added that the State Department has forwarded the documents to Congress.

Also, try to contain your surprise, but Clinton and her campaign have been lying about when she started using her homebrew email server. These new emails between her and Petraeus “start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 – a week after her swearing in – she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.”

The laughable “frequently asked questions” page produced by Clinton’s campaign claims she didn’t start using the homebrew server until March 18, 2009.


Related article:

Hillary Clinton Personally Signed Off On Decision She Said She Was Not Involved In – Daily Caller

A newly uncovered document shows that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton personally signed off on a questionable employment decision she previously claimed she was not involved with.

Top Clinton aide Huma Abedin was able to work for the Clinton Foundation, Department of State and the private consulting firm Teneo Strategies as a Special Government Employee (SGE). When questioned about the arrangement, Clinton denied any involvement, but new documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that Clinton personally signed off on the position change.

Clinton signed the document March 23, 2012 to approve the change in title, according to the documents first reported by Politico.

The employment arrangement for Clinton’s deputy chief of staff raised questions about possible conflict of interest, particularly given allegations that Clinton used her position at the State Department to help the Clinton Foundation.

On top of that, the document appears to contradict statements Clinton made earlier about the arrangement.

In an interview with Andrea Mitchell at NBC that aired earlier this month, Mitchell asked Clinton about Abedin holding jobs at the Clinton Foundation, State Department, and Teneo, a firm started by a former Bill Clinton aide.

“Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that,” Clinton answered. “But everything that [Abedin] did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.”

Either Clinton does not think giving personal approval via her signature was being “directly involved,” or she was dishonest with Mitchell.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has been critical of Abedin’s multiple interests and the lack of transparency.

“How can the taxpayer know who exactly SGEs are working for at any given moment?” Grassley said in a statement in late August. “How can the ethics officer at the State Department know?”



Hitlery Started Editing Emails 8 Months Earlier Than Thought

Clinton Started Editing Emails 8 Months Earlier Than Thought – Washington Examiner


Hillary Clinton and her aides began collecting Clinton’s private emails in February of last year, eight months before the State Department formally requested copies of her work-related records.

The process of separating Clinton’s official communications from her personal ones therefore lasted nearly ten months, as her aides did not provide 55,000 printed pages of emails to the State Department until Dec. 2014.

On Feb. 15, 2014, Clinton paid Platte River Networks, the technology company hired in June 2013 to move her emails onto a new server, to set up a “separate archive email box” for her records.

Nearly two weeks later, she paid the company to shift emails from the archives onto a new system, according to Sen. Ron Johnson.

Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, wrote to Patrick Kennedy, State’s top records official, asking for documentation of the agency’s contact with Clinton aides prior to its official email request on Oct. 28, 2014.

The Wisconsin Republican suggested in his letter Tuesday that either the State Department or Clinton herself had misrepresented the nature of the agency’s initial request for Clinton’s emails.

Clinton has maintained her decision to hand over work-related emails was prompted by a routine housekeeping inquiry from the State Department, which she said had sent the same request to other secretaries of state.

However, John Kirby, State Department spokesman, told the Washington Post Tuesday the State Department only asked Clinton for her emails after discovering she never used a government account.

Officials made the discovery after unsuccessful attempts to locate Clinton’s records in response to congressional requests from the newly-formed House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Johnson cited a March statement from Clinton that implied she did not begin screening her emails until after the State Department approached her in October.

“After I left office, the State Department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related emails from our personal accounts,” Clinton said in a press conference just days after the New York Times first broke news of her private email use.

“I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totaled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though I knew the State Department already had the vast majority of them,” she said.

But Johnson said new information obtained by congressional investigators cast doubt on Clinton’s account of the exchange.

“[F]rom the information obtained by the committee, it appears that Secretary Clinton’s archiving and review of her emails were in fact aspects of a multi-month-long process that began as early as eight months prior to the State Department’s formal request,” he wrote.

Johnson said the discrepancy raises questions about the “rationale for and timing of” the agency’s decision to contact Clinton for her emails.

The new information about how long Clinton’s staff spent filtering her emails appears to have come from a pair of invoices for technical services that Platte River billed to Clinton Executive Services Corporation, a private company registered in New York, state records show.

Clinton’s team downplayed reports Wednesday that Clinton and the State Department had given conflicting accounts of the agency’s email request, repeating her defense that everything she has ever done in regards to her emails was legal and similar to actions taken by her predecessors.



Hitlery Cover-Up Update: FBI Refuses To Cooperate In Email Server Probe

FBI Refuses To Cooperate In Hillary Clinton Email Server Probe – Wadhinton Times


The FBI refused to cooperate Monday with a court-ordered inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email server, telling the State Department that they won’t even confirm they are investigating the matter themselves, much less willing to tell the rest of the government what’s going on.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had ordered the State Department to talk with the FBI and see what sort of information could be recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s email server, which her lawyer has said she turned over to the Justice Department over the summer.

The FBI’s refusal, however, leaves things muddled.

“At this time, consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation, nor are we in a position to provide additional information at this time,” FBI General Counsel James A. Baker wrote in a letter dated Monday – a week after the deadline the Justice Department had set for the FBI to reply.

Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that is pursuing at least 16 open records cases seeking emails from Mrs. Clinton and her top aides, said at this point it’s not even clear what Mrs. Clinton provided, since all that’s been made public at this point are the former secretary of state’s public comments and some assertions, made through her lawyer, to the State Department.

Judicial Watch is prodding the courts to try to delve more deeply into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and the group said a number of questions persevere about both Mrs. Clinton and top aides such as Huma Abedin, who did public business on an account tied to the server Mrs. Clinton maintained.

“We still do not know whether the FBI – or any other government agency for that matter – has possession of the email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department,” Judicial Watch said.

“We also do not know whether the server purportedly in the possession of the FBI – an assumption based on unsworn statements by third parties – is the actual email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department or whether it is a copy of such an email server. Nor do we know whether any copies of the email server or copies of the records from the email server exist,” the group said in its own court filing Monday afternoon.

Judicial Watch did release more than 50 pages Monday of emails it obtained from Ms. Abedin’s account on Mrs. Clinton’s server, and said it was clear she was talking about “sensitive” topics that shouldn’t have been discussed on an insecure account.

Many of those were details of Mrs. Clinton’s movements overseas, such as hotels she was staying at.

“These emails Judicial Watch forced out through a federal lawsuit show that Huma Abedin used her separate clintonemail.com account to conduct the most sensitive government business, endangering not only her safety but the safety of Hillary Clinton and countless others,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

He questioned what reason Ms. Abedin – who did maintain an account, huma@clintonemail.com, on State.gov servers – would have for using the other account for important business. Mrs. Clinton said she kept only one account, the one on the clintonemail.com server, because it was more convenient, but that reasoning does not appear to apply to Ms. Abedin.

The State Department is making all of Mrs. Clinton’s emails public under order of Judge Rudolph Contreras. But the department has said it won’t make all of the emails public from Ms. Abedin or other top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills or Philippe Reines. Instead the department only plans to release those messages specifically requested in open records demands.

Mrs. Clinton turned over about 30,000 email messages in December, while her aides turned over more than 100,000 pages between them, with the final set only being returned, by Ms. Abedin, earlier this month, the department said in court filings.

Without those documents in hand, the State Department has been unable to do full and complete searches in response to subpoenas, congressional inquiries or Freedom of Information Act requests.

The State Department has asked for dozens of cases to be put on hold while it tries to get a single judge to coordinate all of its searches in more than two dozen cases. But the people requesting the records have objected, and say the State Department has nobody to blame but itself.

“The State Department acts as if Ms. Abedin’s and Ms. Mills’ documents fell from the sky on the eve of the State Department’s production deadline, but that is not remotely the case,” Citizens United, one of the plaintiffs who has sued under the FOIA, said in a filing late last week.

Citizens United says the State Department missed its own deadline for producing Ms. Mills’ and Ms. Abedin’s documents.

The Obama administration countered that it went above and beyond its duties under the law by asking Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills to return their records and then to search them in response to open records requests. The State Department says it’s moving as quickly as possible, but says the sheer number of documents – and the number of requests for them – calls for a stay in most cases.

But of the 26 requests where the State Department has sought to halt proceedings, six have already been denied. Only one has been granted, one was granted in part and denied in part by the same judge, and another is being held in abeyance.

The State Department told one of the federal judges Monday that it’s facing nearly 100 different open records lawsuits – not all of them related to Mrs. Clinton’s email server – that have stretched officials to their limit.

Monday’s FBI letter underscores the tangled situation Mrs. Clinton’s emails have produced. The letter was addressed to Mary McLeod, a lawyer at the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI – and which means, in effect, that the FBI is refusing to talk to its own parent department about the matter.

Mr. Baker pointedly noted in his letter that he was aware the response would be submitted to the court, which would presumably make it public.

Earlier this month the Justice Department, in another pleading, insisted Mrs. Clinton didn’t do anything wrong in being the one who decided which of her messages were official business records that must be returned to the government and which were purely personal and able to be expunged.

Judicial Watch said that raises thorny questions for a department that is supposedly investigating Mrs. Clinton.

Last week Sen. John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, called for Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to name a special counsel to oversee the investigation, citing too many potential conflicts of interest.



Even Leftists At The Boston Globe Think Hitlery Is A Heartless Sociopath

Boston Globe Slams Hillary Clinton’s Inability To Show Empathy To Voters – Daily Caller


A Boston Globe reporter attended a Hillary Clinton campaign event in New Hampshire and wrote an absolutely merciless take down of Clinton.

The article centers around Clinton’s inability to show empathy by using the story of a woman who spoke about her son’s suicide at the event.

The woman tearfully explained her son’s struggle with mental illness and his eventual suicide. The reporter says the entire room was visibly affected by the gut-wrenching story. But Hillary? Not so much:

Hillary Clinton physically backed up closer to a wall as she listened and nodded. When the woman finished her story, the leading Democratic presidential contender retrieved a microphone, turned away, and began asking another panelist to respond.

Then she stopped herself. ‘I’m very sorry,’ said Clinton, who followed with a bland observation. ‘We’re not doing enough on mental health treatment.’

No real show of compassion. No hug or even a touch on the hand.

The article includes a quote that sums up Clinton’s problem:

Claire Helfman put it on Saturday in Manchester clutching a ‘Ready for Joe’ sign: ‘Clinton just doesn’t have the spark.’

The article goes on to include more favorable quotes about Clinton and says that she can actually be good in one-on-one conversations, though she won’t get that chance with most voters. But the embarrassing Clinton response to the suicide story, high up in the article, says it all.

Clinton has taken big hits in the polls largely because of her email and personal server scandal during her time as secretary of state.

A recent poll shows that more than half of likely voters believe Clinton broke the law in her email scandal. On top of that, a poll earlier this month showed that Clinton popularity among Democrat-leaning white women has dropped 29 percent in the past eight weeks.