First, Fox News revealed the contents of a Defense Intelligence Agency report written one day after four Americans were killed in Benghazi in 2012.

According to the report, “the attack was planned ten or more days prior to approximately 01 September 2012.

“The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the US killing of Aboyahiye (Alaliby) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings.”

No YouTube video. No spontaneous demonstration.

It was a planned attack by an al Qaeda affiliate, and the administration knew it.

Either Mrs. Clinton flat-out lied about this when she testified before Congress, or she was, for months, spectacularly uninterested in the facts surrounding the slaughter of our ambassador in Libya along with three American contractors.

Second, The New York Times revealed Mrs. Clinton had a secret private email account through which she communed with her longtime consigliere, Sidney Blumenthal, despite having sworn (though not under oath) she’d only had the one.

Third, Politico reported yesterday that a federal judge has ordered the State Department to start releasing Mrs. Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state — or whatever’s left of them following the mass destruction of tens of thousands of such communications.

Foggy Bottom had tried to claim it couldn’t possibly begin to do so until next year.

Drip, drip, drip.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Nearly 20 years ago, the late columnist William Safire of The New York Times described Hillary Clinton as a "congenital liar." The list of her whoppers was long then and it has been growing ever since. She claimed that as a novice investor in Arkansas she made a 10,000% killing trading cattle futures by reading The Wall Street Journal. Something one observer said was akin to "driving to Hawaii."

She said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996. She didn't.

She said her daughter was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. She wasn't.

She even once claimed that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary after he became the first man to climb Mount Everest. But that didn't happen until five years after she was born.

More recently she claimed she'd turned over all her job-related e-mails from her days as Secretary of State. But more work-related e-mails have since turned turned up that the State Department didn't have. And she claimed the notorious Sidney Blumenthal was just an old friend with whom she kept in touch and who sent her unsolicited e-mails. Turns out as we've heard she was reaching out to him in the dark of night during the first year of the Obama administration and her e-mails make clear she welcomed and encouraged his advice. With such a record of mendacity, and there are numerous other examples, one thing is clear, it's a good thing for Hillary Clinton that she's not a Republican.

Question .
Why is it that when millions are given to a PAC of a candidate there is no investigation into the quid quo pro expected and/or received in return for the donation?
But when the donation goes to a charity there is?

A tax-exempt group formed by allies of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said on Monday that it was preparing to spend upward of $20 million on issue advertising, money whose source the group is not required to disclose.

The organization, the Conservative Solutions Project, said it had raised $15.8 million from donors since it was established last year, more than two Republican contenders, Ben Carson and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, have said they have raised for their actual campaigns. The group said it had spent $3.3 million on television and radio advertising, with early spots focusing on Mr. Rubio’s attacks on the Obama administration’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran — a critical issue for some of the most generous Republican donor

The nonprofit groups are technically supposed to be devoted to promoting what the Internal Revenue Service calls “social welfare,” rather than candidates. But the rules governing how much social welfare groups can engage in campaigns are unclear, and strategists have begun to use them in place of or alongside super PACs

rickyp wrote:rickyp

Question .
Why is it that when millions are given to a PAC of a candidate there is no investigation into the quid quo pro expected and/or received in return for the donation?
But when the donation goes to a charity there is?

Perhaps the following indicates why the Clinton Foundation hasn't really become an issue...

A tax-exempt group formed by allies of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said on Monday that it was preparing to spend upward of $20 million on issue advertising, money whose source the group is not required to disclose.

The organization, the Conservative Solutions Project, said it had raised $15.8 million from donors since it was established last year, more than two Republican contenders, Ben Carson and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, have said they have raised for their actual campaigns. The group said it had spent $3.3 million on television and radio advertising, with early spots focusing on Mr. Rubio’s attacks on the Obama administration’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran — a critical issue for some of the most generous Republican donor

The nonprofit groups are technically supposed to be devoted to promoting what the Internal Revenue Service calls “social welfare,” rather than candidates. But the rules governing how much social welfare groups can engage in campaigns are unclear, and strategists have begun to use them in place of or alongside super PACs

.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... lded/?_r=0

A swamp.

. . . when Clinton was secretary of state, there were not already in place State Department rules on how to handle e-mails and whether to use a personal e-mail account. While Clinton says that other secretaries “did the same thing,” none had set up an exclusive and private e-mail server for all of their departmental communications. (In fact, only Colin L. Powell has ever said he sent e-mails from a personal account, so Clinton’s use of plural is misleading.)

The rules also quickly became clearer. In 2009, just eight months after Clinton became secretary of state, the U.S. Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records was updated: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system.” The responsibility for making and preserving the records is assigned to “the head of each federal agency.”

On top of that, when Clinton was secretary, a cable went out under her signature warning employees to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.”

The issue thus becomes whether Clinton cooperated in the spirit of the laws and rules in place at the time. Clinton suggests that “when I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system” and so that signified compliance with the requirement to maintain federal records. But her practice made it difficult to locate records in response to specific requests, because Clinton’s e-mail would be in another official’s inbox — but would not exist in the federal system as part of Clinton’s outbox. An official’s outbox would be the first place that people seeking records would look. . . .

Indeed, well before this directive was issued — and before Clinton joined the Obama administration — the Foreign Affairs Manual made it clear that before a senior official (such as a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee) departs government service, he or she must prepare an inventory of personal papers that are proposed for removal. The manual states that “correspondence or e-mail received or sent in an employee’s capacity as a Department official is not personal.”

Clinton certainly failed to live up to that requirement, as she had retained those e-mail records for nearly two years after she left office before returning them to the State Department. The Clinton campaign suggests she could determine what actually was a federal record, but her State Department-related emails did not fall in that category. . . .

In reality, Clinton’s decision to use a private e-mail system for official business was highly unusual and flouted State Department procedures, even if not expressly prohibited by law at the time. Moreover, while she claims “everything I did was permitted,” she appears to have not complied with the requirement to turn over her business-related e-mails before she left government service. That’s a major misstep that she has not acknowledged.

We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but Clinton’s excessive spin finally tipped us toward Three. She goes too far in suggesting her actions were ordinary – -and did not stretch the limits of existing laws and regulations.

You really can't be so dumb as to compare CGI with political organizations, can you

In reality, Clinton’s decision to use a private e-mail system for official business was highly unusual and flouted State Department procedures, even if not expressly prohibited by law at the time

Politico: Former Secretary Of State Colin Powell Did Not Save Private Emails Sent During His Tenure. Politico reported that Powell "did not keep a cache of" those emails:

Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Powell responded to revelations that he used a personal email account, rather than a government one, when he was in charge of the State Department. Questions about his email use arose last week when it was disclosed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account during her tenure.

"I don't have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files," Powell said. "A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don't know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not. [Politico, 3/8/15]

The way things are going, the House Select Committee on Benghazi will never release the testimony of Sidney Blumenthal, who, let us make no bones about it, is solemnly accused of being a friend of Hillary Clinton’s. Of that he is no doubt guilty, caught red-handed by his leaked emails to her, her responses to him, a vast public record, his utterances in public and private, his employment by the Clinton Foundation, his work in the Clinton White House and other such matters. But in one of the incriminating emails, Blumenthal urged Clinton to “help Clio now” and become more public about her role in the overthrow of Moammar Gaddafi, late of Libya (and of this world), understandably triggering the quivering suspicions of Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan. Who or what is this Clio? he inquired.

The Greek goddess of history, Blumenthal responded under oath.

For this and other reasons, it is not likely the transcript will be made pu

rickyp wrote:fate

You really can't be so dumb as to compare CGI with political organizations, can you

Whats the same/
Money goes from donors to an organization . Same.

Pacs and Super Pacs pay salaries for friends and family of the politicians. Friends and family of Clintons are large recipients of CGI salaries .

Pacs and Super Pacs influence the policies of the candidates. You claim, without demonstrating any thing substantive, that CGI donors influence Hilary's policies.

CGI has made substantial claims about the use of proceeds benefiting the economic and health development in third world locations. PACS and Super Pacs are supposed to be promoting "social welfare". When in fact all they do is pay for political activity and pay staffers and family members acting as staff.

CGI donors are known. The identity of Super PAC donors is usually anonymous.

Money corrupts. You claim money going to CGI is corrupting Hillary.
I claim that PAcs and Super PAcs have the same effect on candidates. (Including Hillary)
In fact Pacs and Super Pacs are direct influences, whereas the CGI links are at best removed and more probably non-existent. (Certainly unproven to date).

You think the PAcs and Super Pacs are a positive influence on the political process do you?

rickyp wrote:This is turning into another of those tiresome "scandals" built upon some imagined crime that is never substantiated... Either Clinton is amazing at cleaning up evidence, or there never was any. Usually the simpler answer is right.

She lied.

rickyp wrote:fate

She lied.

Of course she did...
Nice to see you've replaced your Obama Derangement Syndrome with HDS.

In the end, the appeal to Clinton scandals is supposed to be damaging Hill in her run up to the general election. So far it doesn't seem to be denting her appeal
Based on these polls (below) she'll comfortably win against anyone the republicans choose. And Republicans are doing more damage to their brand and their candidates every day then the scandal seeking has managed in years...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

rickyp wrote:fate

She lied.

Of course she did...
Nice to see you've replaced your Obama Derangement Syndrome with HDS.

In the end, the appeal to Clinton scandals is supposed to be damaging Hill in her run up to the general election. So far it doesn't seem to be denting her appeal
Based on these polls (below) she'll comfortably win against anyone the republicans choose. And Republicans are doing more damage to their brand and their candidates every day then the scandal seeking has managed in years...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... _race.html

Were you being sarcastic, or are you agreeing that she lied?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Were you being sarcastic, or are you agreeing that she lied?

Everybody lies.
But I'm being sarcastic.
The great hope for many republicans is that somehow, somewhere they are going to find a scandal that generates political heat. There have been so many attempts by right wing Media (Fox, Breitbart etc), so many hearings by simple minded vindictive types like Darryl Issa. So much energy and treasure wasted trying to prove Hillary lied or mislead or some how acted criminally ...
Time after time, the efforts come up with nothing. But it doesn't stop those fixated on her from continuing to make the effort.
And people from Fate like jumping on the band wagon each time an effort begins....only to wonder why, 6 weeks later, there's nothing in the media about it anymore...

The media would not care if there was video of her killing Vince Foster

Hillary may win. However, it won't be because anyone actually trusts her