Nobody wants to watch Communists argue over who’s the rightful heir to Marx.
MSNBC’s feisty debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton received high marks from political observers, but not high ratings from ordinary viewers.
It was the lowest-rated debate of the 2016 election cycle by far, according to preliminary Nielsen data. The debate had a 3.3 household rating in Nielsen’s metered markets.
The prior low was a 6.0 household rating for ABC’s Democrat debate on the Saturday night before Christmas.
Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.
The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted.
The announcement fueled criticism of Clinton’s handling of highly sensitive information while secretary of state, even as the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification. But the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.
The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time – from shortly after the server’s 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.
Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.
“There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. “Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”
Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party.
“Anytime our national security team determines that there’s a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out,” Pompeo said.
On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials and stressed that they weren’t marked.
“There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me,” she said, adding that “Republicans are going to continue to use it [to] beat up on me.”
Clinton was pressed in the same ABC interview on her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement which acknowledged that markings are irrelevant, undercutting her central explanation. The agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked… including oral communications.”
Clinton pointed to her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”
But according to national security legal experts, security clearance holders are required to speak up when classified information is not in secure channels.
“Everybody who has a security clearance has an individual obligation to protect the information,” said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. “Just because somebody sends it to you… you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”
These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”
The Clinton campaign is now calling for the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails to be released, but this is not entirely the State Department’s call since the intelligence came from other agencies, which have final say on classification and handling.
“The State Department has no authority to release those emails and I do think that Secretary Clinton most assuredly knows that,” Pompeo said.
Meanwhile, the release of other emails has revealed more about the high-level exchange of classified information on personal accounts. Among the latest batch of emails released by the State Department is an exchange between Clinton and then-Sen. John Kerry, now secretary of state. Sections are fully redacted, citing classified information – and both Kerry and Clinton were using unsecured, personal accounts.
Further, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit – and first reported by Fox News – suggests the State Department ‘s senior manager Patrick Kennedy was trying to make it easier for Clinton to check her personal email at work, writing to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a “stand-alone separate network PC is… [one] great idea.”
“The emails show that the top administrator at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, who is still there overseeing the response to all the inquiries about Hillary Clinton, was in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.
Hillary Clinton was finally asked on Sunday about a non-disclosure agreement she signed in Jan. 2009 which completely undermines the defense she uses to downplay the existence of classified information on her private email server. But as is often the case with the Democratic presidential candidate, she dodged the question and gave an inconsistent answer.
“You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified,” said ABC News “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos.
“But the non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state said that that really is not that relevant,” he continued.
He was referring to the “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” – or Standard Form 312 – that Clinton signed on Jan. 22, 2009, a day after taking over as secretary of state.
“It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of your training to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference,” said Stephanopoulos, describing the document.
Clinton responded to Stephanopoulos but did not address the meat of his question. In fact, she appeared to reject the language of the SF-312, saying that “there has to be some markings” on classified information.
“I take classified information very seriously,” Clinton said. “You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system, no matter what that system is.”
“We were very specific about that and you – when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”
However, as the SF-312 makes clear, classified information does not have to be marked as such in order to require being handled as classified information. The document applies not just to physical documents and emails but also to oral communications.
Clinton revised her defense of the classified information on several occasions, as federal agencies release more damaging information about her home-brew email system.
“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials,” she said in March, when news of her personal email account and server first broke.
In July, after the State Department began retroactively classifying many of Clinton’s emails, she revised her claim saying that she was “confident” that she “never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”
Days later, she changed her tune again, adopting the now-familiar claim that she did not send or receive information that was “marked” as such. That was after it was reported that the Intelligence Community’s inspector general had found highly classified emails which were classified when originated.
Clinton’s statement to Stephanopoulos about the inability to transfer “information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system” also fails to hold water.
Earlier this week, Fox News reported on a 2013 video showing Wendy Sherman, who served as Clinton’s Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, discussing how State Department officials often used Blackberries during overseas negotiations to send and receive information that “would never be on an unclassified system.”
Hillary Clinton’s private server housed emails containing information at an even higher classification level than previously believed, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III has found.
According to Fox News, McCullough informed the heads of two congressional committees in an unclassified Jan. 14 letter that his agency had discovered “several dozen” classified emails, including messages containing what’s known as “special access programs” (SAP) information.
As Fox notes, SAP information is created when “the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” and when “the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved.”
SAP information is classified at an even higher category than the “top secret” emails which McCullough found on Clinton’s server last summer. That discovery triggered a Justice Department investigation into Clinton’s peculiar email arrangement and prompted the FBI to seize her server in August.
Only officials with a “need-to-know” are privy to SAP information because exposure would likely reveal sources and methods of intelligence collection.
“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” reads McCullough’s letter, which, according to Fox, was sent to the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the State Department’s inspector general and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the agency that manages special access programs.
It remains to be seen how Clinton, the Democratic party’s presidential front-runner, will respond to the new report. When “top secret” emails were found on her server, she was forced to revise her initial claims that she did not send or receive classified information when she served as secretary of state. Clinton now says that none of the classified emails found on her server were “marked” classified when they were originated. In addition to the “top secret” and SAP emails, the State Department has retroactively classified 1,340 emails Clinton sent or received.
According to one expert on national security law and security clearance matters, Clinton should have recognized any SAP information that she received and had been briefed on.
“Assuming Secretary Clinton had actually been briefed on this particular Special Access Program, she almost certainly should have recognized the information (even unmarked) as such and taken action,” Bradley Moss, a Washington-based national security attorney, told The Daily Caller.
“That aside, whomever originally sent these emails most certainly should not have been discussing classified information on any unclassified server, official or personal, and is in for a world of hurt.”
Moss, who is handling lawsuits filed against the State Department for failing to turn over Clinton’s emails, also added that the discovery of the highly-sensitive emails shows that the agency is “abysmally incompetent” when it comes to security protocol.
“There are a lot of details that need to be fleshed out still in terms of the IG’s findings but the one unmistakable point that has emerged from all of this is how abysmally incompetent State has been in handling security protocols,” said Moss. “Its failure to protect its own information at such a systematic level violates the most basic tenets of information security and is inexcusable.”
The State Department declined during Tuesday’s daily press briefing to comment on McCullough’s letter.
“We are focused on and remain focused on releasing he remainder of former Secretary Clinton’s emails,” agency spokesman John Kirby said, adding that he does “anticipate more upgrades throughout the release process.”
Well it looks like Hillary didn’t have much regard for protecting sensitive data after all, telling her top advisor in an email to strip the ‘secure’ markings from the fax and send it to her nonsecure:
DAILY CALLER – On June 16, 2011, Hillary Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, was having trouble sending his boss a list of talking points that contained sensitive – and possibly classified – information. Sullivan told Clinton there were issues “sending secure fax,” an email released by the State Department early Friday shows.
So Clinton offered a shocking solution: remove the markings identifying the information as sensitive and send it by regular fax.
“Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton instructed Sullivan.
This falls right in line with how Hillary conducted herself, insecure email and all. Who knows what secret information was on this secure fax.
Well we could ask hackers in Russia or China as they most definitely will know.
Anytime an American defends, and advocates for self-defense the Left comes down with Selective Outrage Syndrome, surely these comments will cause such an outbreak
The president of Liberty University, a popular pilgrimage site for presidential candidates, urged students during the school’s convocation Friday to get their permits to carry concealed weapons.
In his remarks, President Jerry Falwell Jr., son of the late religious right leader Jerry Falwell Sr., pressed students at the Christian school in Lynchburg, Va. to carry weapons on campus following Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif.
“It just blows my mind that the president of the United States [says] that the answer to circumstances like that is more gun control,” he said to applause.
“If some of those people in that community center had what I have in my back pocket right now…,” he said while being interrupted by louder cheers and clapping. “Is it illegal to pull it out? I don’t know,” he said, chuckling.
“‘I’ve always thought that if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in,” he says, the rest of his sentence drowned out by loud applause while he said, “and killed them.”
Of course the Left will take his remarks out of context, accuse him of Islamaphobia, and call him an extremist. But what reasonable person would find his call for students at Liberty to arm themselves, and train in order to be better able to defend themselves and others? Certainly the gun control measures being pushed by the Left will do nothing to protect anyone. Hillary Clinton, of course, is outrageously outraged
Johnathan Merritt, writing at The Atlantic, seems to think the Bible forbids self-defense
Falwell’s comments are the latest in a string of proclamations by conservative Christians appealing to religious authority and yet apparently devoid of biblical reflection. Can they claim the Bible as their chief authority if they ignore it when politically expedient?
Falwell Jr. inherited the leadership of the school from his better-known father, but Liberty (my alma mater) has remained a popular stop for conservative politicians. Former Republican Senator Jim DeMint, the president of the Heritage Foundation, spoke in chapel prior to Falwell’s comments, which included a criticism of President Obama’s push for more gun control. While the school claims to put Jesus at the center of its curriculum, its president never referred to the Prince of Peace’s teachings in his remarks about gun violence. The absence is unsurprising. It’s hard to imagine how the Jesus’s teachings could support his case.
See! Self-defense is not biblical, so says some hack at the Atlantic. I would suggest that anyone who thinks, and I use the term think very loosely, that Christians should not defend themselves, or that God wants them NOT to defend their lives is deluded at best. Not defending yourself, your family, is not Christian, it is the opposite. Not only will those pursuing such a course condemn themselves, but will allow others to be killed as well. In short, this call for pacifism is not only not biblical, it is, in my estimation, evil.
Shane Claiborne, writing at Religion News Service adds more delusion to the attacks on Falwell
As I listened to the words of Mr. Falwell, I could not help asking, “Are we worshipping the same Jesus?”
The Jesus I worship did not carry a gun. He carried a cross. Jesus did not tell us to kill our enemies. He told us to love them.
Jesus blessed peacemakers and the merciful. He encouraged responding to evil, not with more evil, but with love. And he modeled that enemy-love on the cross as he prayed, “Father, forgive them,” crying out in mercy even for the terrorists who nailed him to the cross. I see in Jesus a God of scandalous grace, who loves evil-doers so much he dies for them–and for us.
Early Christians understood that act as the final deathblow to weapons believing Jesus’ words to Peter were meant to disarm every Christian. No longer could any Christian legitimately justify violence toward anyone–even enemies. There is not a single Christian in the first 300 hundred years of the faith who justifies violence or makes a case for self-defense. Instead, history records the opposite. Early Christians insisted that for Christ we can die, but we cannot kill. We can die on behalf of others, but we cannot kill for them. Why? Because Christ has abolished the sword once and for all.
So what can a Christian do? We can lay down our lives. We can put our bodies in the way of violence. It was Jesus who said, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down his life for his friends.” We can die in the name of Christ, but we dare not kill in the name of Christ.
It’s hard to imagine Jesus enrolling for the concealed weapons class at Liberty University. And it is even harder imagining Jesus approving of the words of Mr. Falwell as he openly threatens Muslims.
So, there you are, it is moral to allow innocents to be killed according to this Liberal. Not only is it moral somehow, it would be immoral to defend innocent life. How deluded can one be? Allowing evil to go uncontested will lead only to more evil, more suffering, and more death.
The latest Quinnipiac poll, arriving one year before Election Day, shows all of the top Republican candidates except Donald Trump running ahead of Hillary Clinton.
Dr. Ben Carson, who is effectively tied with Trump as the GOP front-runner in the poll, wallops Clinton by 10 points, 50 percent to 40 percent. Sen. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) beats Clinton 46 percent to 41 percent, as does GOv. Chris Christie. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) beats her 46 percent to 43 percent.
But Clinton has a 3-point edge over Donald Trump in the poll, 46 percent to 43 percent.
Interestingly, the second tier among primary voters is also a virtual tie between Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. No other Republican candidate was able to score over 3 percent, and quite a few of them fell below 1 percent to become asterisks.
Qunnipiac finds the Republican contenders lined up as follows:
Trump at 24 percent and Carson at 23 percent.
Rubio at 14 percent and Cruz at 13 percent
Jeb Bush 4 percent, Chris Christie 3 percent, Carly Fiorina 3 percent, John Kasich 3 percent, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) 2 percent, Mike Huckabee 1 percent and Rick Santorum 1 percent.
No other candidate scored high enough to be counted at 1 percent in the poll.
Tim Mallow, Qunnipiac’s assistant director described Carson’s lead over Clinton as a contest of character. “Clinton gets crushed on character issues, pounded by Carson and closely challenged by Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio,” he said.
Also noteworthy is that Carson is effectively tied with Clinton among women. Women were split 45 percent to 44 percent for Carson versus Clinton.
As with other recent polls, Quinnipiac found Clinton’s approval rating underwater with registered voters, 42 percent favorable to 52 percent unfavorable. She scores especially badly on the “honesty” metric, 36 percent to 60 percent.
Conversely, Carson has a tremendous favorable rating, 49 percent to 25 percent, with a sizable 25 percent saying they haven’t heard enough about him to form an opinion. His plus-24 approval spread is the best in the field, followed by plus-14 for Rubio and plus-10 for Fiorina.
Carson’s biggest weakness, unsurprisingly, comes from voters who worry that he “does not have the right kind of experience to be President.”
That seems like a much easier problem for his campaign to address than Clinton’s baked-in honesty deficit, especially since honesty and trustworthiness were rated as the most important attributes overall. Carson also scores best among all candidates in the “cares about my needs and problems” category, which is scored as the second most important attribute this time around, and was seen as perhaps the most important in the 2012 election. Clinton is underwater on this metric as well, at 44 percent to 53 percent.
The lowest approval rating among candidates in the Q-poll was held by Jeb Bush, whose 25 percent to 58 percent score gave him a Titanic-like minus-33 rating.
The Obama administration officials – with the awareness of the Secretary of State – were involved in violating a ban on arming rebels in Syria in an operation that mirrors the Iran-Contra Scandal during the Reagan Administration. But while the news media initiated a feeding-frenzy on Iran-Contra, they’re either yawning or helping the Obama administration in covering up the Benghazi-to-Syria arms transfers.
During Thursday’s House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing, the news media and the Democratic Party information machine appeared to be creating their desired narrative: the GOP is on a witch hunt to stop Hillary Clinton’s inauguration as President. But the hearings did manage to force the release of documents that were being hidden by the alleged conspirators.
Some of the many documents released by a watchdog group that investigates and exposes corruption and criminal activity by government officials and agencies provides evidence that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other senior officials, as well as President Barack Obama, deceived the American people regarding the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi U.S. consulate massacre. The pages released show that top administration officials were handed intelligence reports within hours of the attack that stated the Islamic terrorists’ actions had been planned up to 10 days before the attack and the goal was simply to to assassinate as many Americans as possible.
The documents also confirms the suspicions that U.S. government officials were well aware of weapons being shipped from Benghazi to Syria for use by rebel forces against the Al-Assad regime, according to Judicial Watch. In addition, the document-release contains an August 2012 analysis of intelligence that predicted the meteoric rise of al-Qaida in Iraq terrorists who morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It also the predicted failure of Obama’s foreign policy aimed at regime change in Syria.
In an overly redacted copy of a memorandum dated Sept. 12, 2012 – the day after the Bengahzi slaughter of four Americans including a U.S. ambassador – the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported to Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the White House National Security Council and the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff that the Islamic terrorists planned their attack about 10 or more days prior to the slaughter that occurred on the day the U.S. acknowledged the 11th Anniversary of the attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania that killed about 3,000 people.
The terrorists intended to attack the sparsely protected U.S. diplomatic mission and to assassinate as many American officials as possible. The motive for the attack appeared to be revenge for U.S. killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a high-level Al Qaida terrorist killed by U.S. drone strikes in North Waziristan.
According to Judicial Watch’s analysis of the documents, the Benghazi attack was planned and perpetrated by members of the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR). BCOAR is also responsible for past attacks on the Red Cross in Benghazi and the attack on the British Ambassador, they have approximately 120 members.” Rahman [a/k/a “The Blind Sheik”] is currently locked up in a federal prison in New York for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center which killed six people in New York. He is serving a life sentence.
The redacted DIA memo identified the leader of BCOAR as being Abdul Baset (AZUZ). The memo reveals that he was sent to Libya to “core” al-Qaida’s replacement for Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawhari, to being creating al-Qaeda bases and training camps in Libya. Baset is described as not being “a charismatic leader, but rather just a violent radical.” The memo also states that the majority of BCOAR’s members are “under the age of 28 with a large number between the ages of 17-21 years of age.”
The DIA reported that BCOAR built their headquarters and a training facility in Libyan city of Derna. “They train in the mountains surrounding Derna where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these weapons are disguised as feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS, as well as unidentified missiles over two meters in length,” the memo states.
Judicial Watch, a group that has been successful in breaching the government’s “stonewalls,” obtained the documents after U.S. District Court Judge Katanji Brown Jackson ordered their release after the watchdog group’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Defense had been denied. Judicial Watch was then forced to file a lawsuit for the requested documents and related material.
The documents totally contradict statements made by Hillary Clinton and other national security and diplomatic officials appointed by President Obama about the Benghazi attack.They claims the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the destruction of American property was a result of anger by Muslim civilians who were enraged by obscure YouTube video by an American filmmaker that denigrated the Muslim religion.
“These documents… point to [the] connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton.
It wasn’t until faced with overwhelming evidence that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other members of the administration finally conceded that the attack was perpetrated by a group of Islamic terrorists.
In response to the documents, Judicial Watch’s President Tom Fitton said, “These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda?”
“These documents also point to [the] connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
Vice President Joe Biden’s announcement on Wednesday that he would not run for president of the United States made it a foregone conclusion that the media would worship at the shrine of Hillary Clinton during her Benghazi testimony on Thursday.
They have no other choice. The precious must be protected at all costs, which means covering up for her lies, her calculated obfuscations, and her charmless faux-gravity.
Already the narrative has been set: Hillary Clinton was a victim of a political Benghazi committee dedicated to her destruction. Every Congressional committee in history has entailed some political motivation – would anyone argue that the Watergate investigations were completely apolitical? – but the media myopically focused on the idiotic comments of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) before Hillary’s testimony, crafting the story of her victimization before it had even taken place.
Hillary, as always, is the poor, put-upon victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy. She set up a private email server and deleted relevant emails from it for purely political reasons; she pressed for a pointless invasion of Libya for political reasons, chortled at its conquest for political reasons, watched it descend into chaos while doing nothing for political reasons, and then allowed her ambassador to twist in the Libyan tornado without proper security for political reasons; finally, she covered up that disaster by lying about its causes for political reasons. But those who ask questions about such matters are partisan politicians.
As Charles Krauthammer rightly observed on Thursday evening, “We’re not going to get the facts, we’re not going to get the real story underlying it. We’re living in an age where what you say and its relation with the facts is completely irrelevant.”
But after 11 hours of lying – which is only slightly longer than the hours Hillary and her boss’ administration did virtually nothing as Americans died under fire in Benghazi – we may as well examine Hillary’s most important lies.
Hillary Cared Deeply About the Human Cost.
Hillary kept claiming that she cared deeply about her good friend Chris Stevens. At one point, she whipped out her pre-planned righteous indignation to complain, “I would imagine I’ve thought more about what happened than all of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together.” This was salt in the wound, the equivalent of Johnny Cochrane lamenting his worries over the fate of Nicole Brown Simpson.
Hillary admitted in her testimony on Thursday that her good friend Chris Stevens did not have her private email address, and that she could recall no conversations with him after he became ambassador to Libya. The night of his death, she wrote an email with the subject line: “Chris Smith,” conflating his death with that of diplomat Sean Smith. She didn’t bother speaking with survivors of the attacks until days later.
As to the notion that Hillary lost sleep, she apparently didn’t the night of the attack – she went home instead of sticking around at the State Department or heading over to the White House, because, she said, she had to prepare for what would be a rough rest of the week. She didn’t talk to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey. We do know that she spent the night alone, a fact which led her to chortle. Hillary may have lost sleep over her failures later – clearly, she spent some time coming up with lies about a YouTube video.
Hillary Thought The Attacks Had Something to Do With a YouTube Video.
Hillary maintained on Thursday that she believed the attack still had something to do with the YouTube video, “The Innocence of Muslims.” But the night of the attack, she emailed Chelsea Clinton and told her that an al-Qaeda-like group had killed the ambassador. As Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said to Clinton, “You tell the American people one thing. You tell your family an entirely different story.”
In fact, Hillary told the Egyptian Prime Minister the day after the attacks, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack. Not a protest.” Hillary tried to state that she had actually told people that some people were pinning the attack on the video, but she herself pinned the attacks on the YouTube video in videos released in Pakistan. She lied, because it was obvious that she had failed in her central duty to protect her diplomats in the most dangerous part of the world – a part of the world she had made more dangerous with her favorite invasion.
Hillary Didn’t Use Sidney Blumenthal As an Advisor.
Hillary Clinton had reams of email exchanges with hitman Sidney Blumenthal. Blumenthal had been banned from the Obama administration for his corruption and Clintonian loyalties. Hillary said that the emails were unsolicited. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) shot that idiocy down easily: “You wrote to him, ‘Thanks and please keep them coming,’ ‘Greetings from Kabul and thanks for keeping this stuff coming, any other info about it?’ ‘What are you hearing now?’” Hillary then tried to amend her statement by saying they began as unsolicited emails. Hillary used Blumenthal as an advisor, and she routinely corresponded with him. Any implication to the contrary is absolutely false.
Hillary Was Transparent About Her Emails.
Hillary insisted again on Thursday that she’d been fully transparent about her emails. Even the State Department has rejected that nonsense repeatedly. The hearings did provide some perspective into just why Hillary might have deleted 30,000 emails, however, she claimed that her correspondence about Libya, which dropped dramatically from 2011 to 2012, was not because she cared less about the country – it was because she had people shuttling documents to her in suitcases. In fact, she said, she didn’t even have a computer in her office. A State Department email address could have confirmed whether any of that was true. Now we will presumably never know.
Chris Stevens Was Responsible for His Own Death.
The most despicable lie of the day came from Hillary’s defense of her own conduct via ripping Chris Stevens, the dead ambassador. She spent virtually the entire day suggesting that Stevens knew the risks of his job, that he accepted those risks, and that he died knowing those risks. She even said that Stevens “felt comfortable” on the ground. If that is true, it’s certainly odd that the State Department team in Libya asked for more security over 600 times. Hillary said she didn’t receive any of those requests and blamed her security team for not granting more security – all the while saying she took responsibility for what had happened.
Then, the capper: Hillary said that when Stevens wrote an email asking about whether the Benghazi compound would be closed, he was just being a sly jokester. She said, “One of the great attributes that Chris Stevens had was a really good sense of humor, and I just see him smiling as he’s typing this because it’s clearly in response to the email down below talking about picking up a few ‘fire sale items from the Brits.’” When told that those “fire sale items” were security barricades, Hillary answered, “Well, I thought it showed their entrepreneurial spirit.” Disgusting.
Hillary Clinton was largely responsible for a pointless invasion of Libya, which promptly turned into a terrorist-run hellhole. She was responsible for the security of her diplomats in Libya, but she didn’t provide for it. She had no correspondence with those diplomats on the ground but plenty of time for Sidney Blumenthal. When those diplomats and those who ran to help them were killed, she blamed a YouTube video. And finally, she used her jerry-rigged email server to selectively edit the material the public would see.
But don’t worry – Hillary’s the victim. Republicans are the perpetrators. And Chris Stevens is just one more bump in the road on her journey to the White House.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Thursday.
The committee is investigating the events surrounding the terrorist attacks at the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.
Four Americans lost their lives in the attack including Hillary’s “close friend” Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Many of the Republicans on the committee came across as ignorant and ill-prepared for the widely anticipated testimony by the former Secretary of State. The Republican panelists, with the exception of Chairman Trey Gowdy, Rep. Mike Pompeo and Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, wasted their minutes droning on about trivial items. They could have stayed home and no one would have missed them. And by wasting time on insignificant material they only made serial liar Hillary Clinton look more poised and presidential.
What a waste of oxygen.
You’d think that the GOP would have done their research before the hearing but obviously that was too much to ask.
Here are three damning items the House Republican members forgot to mention during the 11 hour hearing.
1.) Al-Qaeda presence in Benghazi was undeniable.
The Islamist group held a MASSIVE MILITARY PARADE in Benghazi weeks before the deadly attack.
Radical Islamist groups including Shariah Guardians Brigade, an Al-Qaeda linked group, held a massive military parade in Benghazi just weeks before US Ambassador Chris Stevens was slaughtered at the US Consulate.
In June hundreds of people staged a mass demonstration in Benghazi’s Liberation Square in a show of force to demand the adoption of Islamic law (Sharia).
Waving black flags embossed with “I bear witness there is no God but Allah” and “Mohamed is the prophet of Allah,” Sharia guardians rallied for Islamic law.
Press TV reported:
Libyan Islamic groups, who played a major role in the revolution that unseated former dictator Gaddafi, were severely repressed under his rule. They believe the revolution was first started as part of Jihad against God’s enemies and that process is ongoing until the whole country is totally and utterly liberated from non-Islamic values.
The parade was held just days after the US Consulate in Benghazi was first bombed by an IED.
Ambassador Stevens joked that he may have to ask Qatar to help with security.
In his final journal entry the day of the attack Ambassador Stevens once again requested more security. He was murdered that night.
Hillary said they were “good friends.”
Some friend, huh?
3.) There is email evidence first reported at Judicial Watch that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton plotted to blame the Benghazi terrorist attack on the “God versus Allah” video by Pastor Jon Courson before they settled on the “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube video.
Not only did they lie about a video – They didn’t even know what video to lie about!
Before Hillary and Obama blamed “Innocence of Muslims” and jailed its director the Obama administration was going to blame the 9-11 massacre on “God Vs Allah” by Pastor Jon Courson.
Here is that video – It was not pulled by YouTube:
But they settled on “Innocence of Muslims” and jailed its director.
It was all a huge lie.
Besides being untrustworthy and unlikable, Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem is convincing people that she is competent. On numerous occasions she has been asked to list her accomplishments and her answer is always: “Er, um, uh…” In a hilarious effort to show us that she can get the job done, she has published a list of her accomplishments, and let’s just say they are underwhelming.
Seven of Hillary Clinton’s biggest accomplishments showed up an Hillary’s website telling us:
Over her decades-long career in public service, Hillary has taken on her share of tough fights. Here are just a few of the biggest things she’s accomplished.
Just a few, eh? If this is what she wants to highlight, I shudder to think of what she’s holding back. Let’s see what monumental things she has accomplished:
1. Fought for children and families for 40 years and counting.
After law school, Hillary could have gone to work for a prestigious law firm, but took a job at the Children’s Defense Fund. She worked with teenagers incarcerated in adult prisons in South Carolina and families with disabled children in Massachusetts. It sparked a lifelong passion for helping children live up to their potential.
Fighting for something is not the same thing as accomplishing something. If she had done anything of substance here, she would have mentioned it. Instead, she just says it sparked a lifelong passion. That is not an accomplishment. The Beastie Boys fought for our right to party, but it doesn’t mean they secured that right.
2. Helped provide millions of children with health care.
As first lady of the United States, Hillary fought to help pass health care reform. When that effort failed, she didn’t give up: Hillary worked with Republicans and Democrats to help create the Children’s Health Insurance Program. CHIP cut the uninsured rate of American children by half, and today it provides health care to more than 8 million kids.
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was passed in 1997. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with it other than she was in favor of it. Her husband Bill, who was President at the time, signed it into law. This particular “accomplishment” of Hillary’s is that she was married to a guy that signed something that was drafted and passed by other people. Also note that part of this ground-breaking effort includes her failure to do something.
3. Helped get 9/11 first responders the health care they needed.
When terrorists attacked just months after Hillary became U.S. senator from New York, she worked to make sure the 9/11 first responders who suffered lasting health effects from their time at Ground Zero got the care they needed.
Really? How did she do that? By voting for a bill that everyone voted for? She didn’t author or sponsor any legislation related to this as a Senator. How does that qualify as an accomplishment?
4. Told the world that “women’s rights are human rights.”
Standing in front of a U.N. conference and declaring that “women’s rights are human rights” was more controversial than it sounds today. Many within the U.S. government didn’t want Hillary to go to Beijing. Others wanted her to pick a less polarizing topic (you say polarizing, we say half the population). But Hillary was determined to speak out about human rights abuses, and her message became a rallying cry for a generation.
Much like fighting for something is not an accomplishment, neither is telling people something. Could you imagine if someone put something this sad on his or her résumé? You don’t list things you’ve said to other people; you put down things that you’ve actually done.
5. Stood up for LGBT rights at home and abroad.
As secretary of state, Hillary made LGBT rights a focus of U.S. foreign policy. She lobbied for the first-ever U.N. Human Rights Council resolution on human rights and declared that “gay rights are human rights.” And here at home, she made the State Department a better, fairer place for LGBT employees to work.
Except that she was against LGBT rights until a couple of years ago. Also, standing up for stuff is not an accomplishment in the same way that fighting for stuff and telling people stuff isn’t.
6. Helped expand health care and family leave for military families.
Hillary worked across the aisle to expand health care access for members of the National Guard and reservists – making sure those who served and their families had access to health care when they returned home. And she worked to expand the Family Medical Leave Act, allowing families of those wounded in service to their country to take leave in order to care for their loved ones.
Again, she voted for a popular bill that she didn’t draft or sponsor. She was a US Senator. They’re supposed to vote for things.
7. Negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
As our nation’s chief diplomat, Hillary didn’t back down when the stakes were high. As Hamas rockets rained down on Israel, Hillary went to the region immediately. Twenty-four hours after she landed, a ceasefire went into effect – and that year became Israel’s quietest in a decade.
Yeah? How’s that cease-fire working out?
Well, that’s it. In almost 25 years in public service, Hillary Clinton has voted for 2 bills that she had nothing to do with crafting. That’s as pathetic of a list as you will find. How is it even possible for someone to be First Lady, a US Senator, and Secretary of State and have next to nothing to show for it? It’s like she’s gone out of her way to do nothing in all of her years. I guess that’s kind of an accomplishment. Nobody has done less than Hillary.
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton told a cheering Silicon Valley audience, “There is a special spot in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
If there is such a place in hell, Hillary has reserved parking there. It’s hard to think of any other politician who has done as much to exploit women while doing so little for them. Except maybe her husband.
While Hillary pontificated about the glass ceiling, the tabloids were filled with new allegations of sexual abuse about Clinton pal Jeffrey Epstein by one of his former “slaves”. Bill Clinton had taken frequent rides on Epstein’s private jet which had been nicknamed the “Lolita Express” because of its transportation of underage girls for the use of Epstein and some of his friends and associates.
Hillary Clinton was lecturing on feminism while new allegations were coming out about the former slave’s meeting with Bill Clinton on the “Lolita Express” and the favors that Bill owed Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein was good at cashing in his favors. Despite buying girls as young as twelve, he served a year in the private wing of a Palm Beach prison with “work release” for six days a week and sixteen hours a day which he used to fly the Lolita Express back to his private island.
That island was a special place in hell for some little girls, but not one that Hillary Clinton was interested in doing anything about.
Now Hillary has decided that she stands with rape victims.
“I want to send a message to all of the survivors,” she said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.”
But the right to be believed didn’t extend to the twelve-year-old Arkansas girl who was beaten into a coma and raped.
Hillary Clinton defended her rapist by hurling false accusations at the little girl, claiming that she was mentally ill and sought out older men. She accused the girl, who had been beaten into a coma, of romanticizing “her sexual experiences”.
On tape, Hillary Clinton can be heard laughing about her client failing a lie detector test. She had known all along that it was the rapist who was lying.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said.”You are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
If there’s a special spot in hell, Hillary belongs there.
Hillary’s right for rape victims to be believed doesn’t apply once she is being paid to lie about them. And she still continues to break new ground for her special spot in hell by covering up her donors’ rapes.
When one of her donors, Howard Gutman, was made ambassador to Belgium in exchange for his generous donations and fundraising for Hillary and Obama, whistleblowers who reported that he had escaped his security detail to “solicit sexual favors from minor children” were targeted.
Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, oversaw a cover-up of the Gutman case, just as she had on Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton stood with the abuser as she had always done in her personal life and her political life.
Kathleen Willey, one of her husband’s victims, responded to Hillary’s “Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault,” ad by saying, “She believed what happened for sure. She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”
“She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”
Hillary didn’t stand with victims then. Instead she ran a “war room” targeting the women her husband had harassed in a repulsive political cleanup operation. But for her, the agenda has always come first. And women have come last. When Senator Bob Packwood was facing sexual harassment charges, Hillary told a friend that she was “tired of all those whiney women” because she needed HillaryCare to pass.
To Hillary Clinton, victimized women are just “whiney”. That’s the way it was. That’s the way it is.
Hillary Clinton is trying to win back the female voters abandoning her sinking campaign by promising to fight for women the way she claims to have done as Secretary of State. But if there’s a special hell for women, it’s Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia was Hillary’s own special spot in hell.
Hillary Clinton traveled to a lot of countries, but one of her favorite destinations was Saudi Arabia. The Saudis weren’t just allies; they had donated as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation which Hillary would be using to help launch her presidential campaign.
The constant visits to Saudi Arabia, a country where little girls are married off, gang rape victims go to jail and women can’t travel without permission from their male guardians, were in sharp contrast to the image of an advocate for women that the Clinton Foundation was buying for her using Saudi money.
A kingdom where women can’t even drive was helping fund Hillary Clinton’s fake image as a feminist.
But Saudi rape problems didn’t just stay in Saudi Arabia. When Hillary Clinton visited Saudi Arabia in 2012, a rape trial against a member of the entourage of a Saudi prince had just wrapped up in New York. The victim, who had been drugged and raped, later sued the prince claiming that the rapist had been hired to lure women to the hotel.
The Plaza Hotel, where the assault took place, was more concerned for the rapist than his victim. But then it was owned by yet another Saudi prince who had also had a rape accusation leveled against him.
In 2010, Saleha Abedin, the mother of close Hillary aide Huma whose organization supported child marriage, female genital mutilation and marital rape, welcomed Hillary Clinton to her college in Saudi Arabia. Abedin assured Hillary that “no goats or sheep or camels will be offered for the lovely hand of your daughter, Chelsea”.
Hillary responded by praising Abedin and the Saudi king for recognizing “the fundamental importance of the education of women.” Then Hillary blamed the “American media” for its “unidimensional view of Saudi women.” Instead of challenging the Saudi king, Hillary Clinton blamed America.
And that is what she always does.
Whether it’s Bill Clinton or the Saudi King, Howard Gutman or some Arkansas rapist, Hillary Clinton panders to male abusers at the expense of the women and girls they hurt. It’s what she has always done to take her career to the next level.
Hillary Clinton is not here because of her talents. She’s here because she helped powerful men cover up their crimes, from her husband to the Saudi royal family. She has only gotten power by serving power and sacrificing other women to its demands.
She isn’t here to help women, men or children. Not unless they can get her closer to what she wants. Hillary is no philanthropist. She doesn’t do anything without a reason. Every move is calculated to get her a check or a favor owed.
What Hillary Clinton wants most of all is power. And like the men she has served, she will do anything and hurt anyone to get it.
Bernie Sanders continues to cut into Hillary Clinton’s once-commanding lead among Iowa Democrats, closing to just 7 points of the party front-runner in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, a new poll has found.
A survey released late Saturday afternoon by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics finds that Sanders, the fiery progressive senator from Vermont, trails Clinton 37% to 30%. The former secretary of state has lost one-third of her supporters since May.
Sanders’ support owes more to voters’ enthusiasm for his candidacy than opposition to Clinton, the poll found. A whopping 96% of his backers say they support him and his ideas, with just 2% saying their vote is motivated by a desire to stop a Clinton candidacy. As for the controversy surrounding Clinton’s use of email while leading the State Department, 61% of likely Democratic caucusgoers say the issue is not important to them.
Sanders has a deeper reservoir of support, the poll found. Thirty-nine percent of likely caucusgoers say their feelings about Sanders are very favorable, with just 8% having a negative view of him. That’s a sharp contrast to Clinton: 27% view her very favorably, but 19% view her negatively.
Saturday’s poll marks a remarkable eight-month climb for the self-proclaimed Democratic socialist from Vermont, who is garnering support in part from his anti-establishment rhetoric. Back in January, half of likely Democratic caucusgoers were unfamiliar with Sanders, and he was pulling in just 5% of support.
“What this new poll shows is that the more Iowans get to know Bernie, the better they like him and what he stands for. We’ve seen the same thing in New Hampshire and across the country,” Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden, who has not declared whether he’ll seek the Oval Office next year, captured 14% of the vote, easily distancing himself from former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (3%), former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb (2%) and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee (1%).
Speculation has heated up in recent weeks about whether Biden, 72, will join the race. He faces several obstacles in a potential run, including the need to raise enough campaign cash to compete with the Clinton machine and carving out enough support among key Democratic voting blocs. And he’s still grieving over the loss of his son, Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer three months ago; in a conference call with Democrats this week, Biden said he was still determining whether he had the “emotional fuel” to run.
But the vice president’s hesitation didn’t prevent his supporters from responding enthusiastically to Saturday’s poll.
“These results are the latest sign that voters respect and trust the Vice President and are looking for a candidate who speaks authentically and openly about the issues important to them,” according to a statement from “Draft Biden.” “They make clear the Vice President would have the support needed to mount a strong, competitive campaign.”
Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in a new poll of “usual” New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. According to Public Policy polling, a Democratic firm, Sanders has 42 percent support to Clinton’s 35 percent support.
The Vermont senator also has great favorability ratings among New Hampshire Democrats, with 78 percent viewing him favorably and just 12 percent viewing him unfavorably. Compare that to just 63 percent who say they have a favorable view of Clinton and 25 percent who say they have an unfavorable view.
PPP notes that Democrats of different ideological groups appear somewhat evenly split between Sanders and Clinton, but the former secretary of state is hurting among Democrats under the age of 65. Clinton leads with seniors, 51 percent to Sanders’s 34 percent, but Sanders does much better with younger voters, 45 percent to Clinton’s 29 percent.
This isn’t the first poll to show Sanders leading in New Hampshire, and according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Clinton’s lead in the Granite State has shrunk to just one point.
Vice President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Washington, D.C.’s Naval Observatory on Saturday for a confidential talk with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), CNN reported.
Biden’s return to the District comes amid buzz he is seriously weighing a 2016 Oval Office bid.
CNN said that two sources confirmed the pair’s face-to-face, the biggest indicator yet that Biden is seriously tempted by an Oval Office bid next year.
“The vice president traveled last minute to Washington, D.C. for a private meeting and will be returning to Delaware,” an aide told CNN. Biden spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff declined further comment on the alleged rendezvous.
CNN initially reported Saturday that Biden arrived in Washington around 11 a.m. and had planned on returning home to Wilmington, Del., later in the weekend.
Warren, a beloved figure in progressive circles, has resisted calls to mount her own presidential candidacy. She reportedly told WBZ radio in Boston on Friday that she considers the 2016 Democratic primary up for grabs.
“I don’t think anyone has been anointed,” said Warren, who has not yet endorsed a candidate.
Hillary Clinton, the heavy favorite for the party’s nomination, is currently grappling with sinking poll numbers amid voter concerns that she is neither a transparent nor trustworthy candidate.
Biden, 72, began mulling a third White House run following the death of his son Beau Biden in late May after a battle with brain cancer.
The vice president is widely expected to make a final decision next month. His entrance into the 2016 campaign would expand the Democratic field to six contenders.
Multiple national polls show Biden would have significant support from Democratic voters should he pursue the presidency next election cycle.
He previously ran for president in 1988 and 2008, both times dropping out early in the Democratic primary process.