Though the primary election did not play out as the coronation many pundits initially forecast, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has reportedly amassed the 2,383 delegates needed to become her party’s presumptive nominee. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has proved a popular alternative among left-leaning voters, was not able to make up for the deficit he faced among Democrat-exclusive superdelegates.
Reports indicate the Puerto Rico primary, along with late support from uncommitted superdelegates, put Clinton over the threshold.
According to the Associated Press, 571 of the 714 Democratic superdelegates — a group made up of influential party leaders — supported Clinton, with less than 100 still uncommitted. These members of the Democratic Party’s elite have played a pivotal role in securing Clinton’s presumptive nomination.
One superdelegate, Alabama Democratic Party chairwoman Nancy Worley, pledged her vote to Clinton recently in an effort to wrap up the primary election and allow Clinton to focus on her race against presumptive general-election rival Donald Trump.
“We really need to bring a close to this primary process and get on to defeating Donald Trump,” she said.
Another superdelegate, Michael Brown of Washington, D.C., explained the reason for his late-in-the-game support for the former first lady.
“It’s time to stand behind our presumptive candidate,” he declared. “We shouldn’t be acting like we are undecided when the people of America have spoken.” (For more from the author of “Latest Primary Has Big Impact on Clinton Campaign” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-121.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-07 02:54:372016-06-07 02:54:58Latest Primary Has Big Impact on Clinton Campaign
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton declined to say if she thinks the Second Amendment guarantees the constitutional right to bear arms during an interview Sunday with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
Stephanopoulos asked Clinton, “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?”
“I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulations,” she replied. “So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment” . . .
“I said, do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?” he pressed.
“If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations, and what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms,” Clinton said. (Read more from “Here’s How Clinton Answered When Asked If the Right to Bear Arms Is a Constitutional Right” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-123.jpg7201280Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-07 02:52:212016-06-12 01:04:49Here’s How Clinton Answered When Asked If the Right to Bear Arms Is a Constitutional Right
Hillary Clinton is now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, but she simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office. From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. So I must speak out.
I had no animosity toward the Clintons. Out of a sense of loyalty to our First Family I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president. The blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds. But I could not keep from asking myself how our nation’s leaders could be so reckless, so volatile, and so dangerous to themselves and to our nation. And yes, to me and my family.
I want you to hear my story. It’s about the men and women risking their lives to protect this nation. And more important, it’s about how the Clintons must never again be allowed to put them or you and your children—at risk.”
– Gary Byrne, former secret service agent.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is scrambling as details emerge of a shocking “tell-all” book written by an ex-Secret Service agent, Gary Byrne, who protected the Clintons during the 1990s.
Former secret service agent Gary Byrne was posted outside Bill Clinton’s Oval Office in the 1990s, and has decided that since “the Clintons must never again be allowed to put your children at risk”, to write a tell all book titled “Crisis of Character”, exposing the Clintons’ dirty laundry.
As Drudge Report notes (whose article has shot the book to the top spot of all Amazon book sales), the secret project is causing deep concern inside of Clinton’s campaign. Specific details of the agent’s confessional are being held under tight embargo, although numerous pages have been disclosed in the promo to the book (see below).
“What I saw in the 1990s sickend me,” Byrne explains. “I want you to hear my story.”
His expose, scheduled to be published on June 26, just weeks before the Democratic primary, is set to rock the Clinton’s campaign and comes as Hillary finds herself within touching distance of securing the Democratic nomination.
Because I was there – in the spotlight, in the crosshairs — I realize better than most Americans that we have pretty much forgotten what an amateur-night, three-ring circus the Clinton White House was.
In the book, Byrne provides a firsthand account of the scandals – known and unknown – and daily trials ranging from the minor to national in scale.
“Having witnessed the personal and political dysfunction of the Clinton White House – so consumed by scandal and destroying their enemies, real and imagined – Byrne came to understand that, to the Clintons, governing was an afterthought.
He now tells this story – before voters go to the polls – in the hopes that Clinton supporters will understand the real Hillary Clinton.
The book titled Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate is set to hit shelves on June 28. The Democratic convention, where Hillary could be confirmed as the nominee, will take place a month later.
I have not written a word of this book with a political agenda. Whether the Clintons were Democrats or Republicans, I saw what I saw; I heard what I heard. Politics do not change unpleasant truths. Politicians only think they do.
Many of the most shocking revelations are being withheld but below are some of the key excerpts released so far:
I witnessed firsthand the Clintons’ personal and professional dysfunction: So consumed were they by scandal, so intent on destroying their real or imagined enemies, that governing became an afterthought. The First Couple wasted days obsessing over how to “kill” a forthcoming book (one alleging that Bill Clinton’s mother ran a brothel) or in squashing yet another tabloid revelation. Their machinations and their constant damage control diverted them from the nation’s real business. Good people like Leon Panetta, Betty Currie, and Evelyn Lieberman had to pick up the slack and bear it for as long as they could.
I saw how the Clinton Machine’s appalling leadership style endangered law enforcement officers, the military, and the American people in general. And with Hillary Clinton’s latest rise, I realize that her own leadership style—volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else hasn’t changed a bit.
…Though portrayed as the long-suffering spouse of an unfaithful husband, whose infidelities I personally observed or knew to be true, the Hillary Clinton I saw was anything but a sympathetic victim. Those loyal to her kept coming back for her volcanic eruptions.
Or when Byrne “disposed of sordid physical evidence” (because the “blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds”) to help keep Bill’s job:
I had no animosity toward the Clintons. Out of a sense of loyalty to our First Family I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president. The blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds. But I could not keep from asking myself how our nation’s leaders could be so reckless, so volatile, and so dangerous to themselves and to our nation.
And yes, to me and my family. Only under federal subpoena—and later a ruling by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist—did I reveal to Ken Starr’s prosecutors the true story of President Bill Clinton’s false testimony and misstatements.
Or when Hillary gave Bill a black-eye:
One morning in late summer 1995, I entered the White House to assume my post just outside the Oval Office officially Secret Service Post E-6. Things were stirring, and I wanted to know why.
Everyone on post that night, Secret Service agents (SAs), Secret Service Uniformed Division (UD) officers like myself, the houseman, and the ushers couldn’t help but hear the First Couple arguing as sounds from their fracases traveled through the old building. Mrs. Clinton had a booming voice, and their yelling matches easily traversed the living quarters’ private elevator, vents, and staircase. Many housemen eased away, but the SAs and UD couldn’t leave their posts. This was especially a big argument that ended with a crash. SAs were obligated to respond and found its cause, a vase on the other side of the room. A houseman picked up the damage. The First Couple couldn’t just sweep up and toss out the remains because everything in the White House is logged and recorded, befitting its role as a national landmark and a veritable museum.
I peeked into the curator’s small, windowless ground-floor office across from the China Room and the Diplomatic Reception Room. It was cluttered with blueprints and history books on the every detail of the White House: fabrics, furniture, artifacts. Sure enough, there was a box containing a light blue vase smashed to bits. The rumors were true!
“Can I help you?”
The White House’s official curator looked up from what she was reading, clearly annoyed and already tired of people checking out the box. “Can I help you, Officer?” she said again.
“No thanks,” I said.
The president entered around nine. His arrival times fluctuated. I couldn’t believe my eyes: a black eye! I was well accustomed to his allergy-prone, puffy eyes. But this was a shiner, a real, live, put-a-steak-on-it black eye. I was shocked. Minutes later, I popped into the office of Betty Currie, the president’s personal secretary. Nancy Hernreich, his personal scheduler, was already there.
“What’s the black mark on the president’s face?” I asked.
I felt real tension.
“Oh, uh, he’s allergic to coffee,” said Nancy, turning toward her office.
“An allergy to coffee shows in just one eye?”
Betty smiled. She burrowed down into her work, chuckling, but looking busy. As I departed, I added, “I’m also allergic to the back of someone’s hand.”
I wanted to send a message. We knew what the mark was from, and it wasn’t right. Surely the Clintons must realize how close we are to them, I thought, how deeply we feel about our responsibilities for their safety. Didn’t they feel the same? It wasn’t just that we protected them 24/7, but we were extremely loyal. We didn’t do our job for the paychecks. Each man and woman protecting them had their reasons, but the Clintons were the focal point of every reason.
What might happen if she had sucker-punched him? Or if that vase had hit its target? If his head hit a countertop corner, my entire life’s work would have been for nothing.
Sure, seeing a president’s black eye is strange but standing at my post I couldn’t escape the sinking feeling that this didn’t make sense.
This wasn’t how it was supposed to be. I loved my job and I believed in it, but I couldn’t make sense of any of it.
It was a circus. Yet I never lost a sense of wonder and excite- ment. Even when the First Lady hollered and cursed and demanded firing thousands of people who protected her—and we spent more hours ensuring the Clintons’ protection than we spent with our own families—I loved every minute of most every day. Law enforcement — protecting others — is my passion. Protecting a president is an incredible honor. I low, I kept asking myself, did a kid from Ridley, Pennsylvania, ever get to the White House? I wanted to stay for the rest of my life.
Reality destroyed my dream—in ways I never imagined.
More damning accusations from Byrne:
On 9/11 we vowed “Never forget.” But we always somehow do. And because I was there—in the spotlight, in the crosshairs—I realize better than most Americans that we have pretty much forgotten what an amateur-night, three-ring circus the Clinton White House was. But I haven’t forgotten.
* * *
I remember Monica, sure. But I remember Hillary, too: the shortcuts she took, the methods she employed, the yelling, the screaming, her disdain for “the little people,” Bill’s black eye—the country’s black eye.
You want to know something? I wanted to forget it all myself I needed to forget it all. d had enough of the whole damned mess— the sleepless nights, the Protective Privilege bullshit, the lawyers, C-SPAN… the cuddling up at night with a loaded pistol just in case. Satchel Paige said: “Don’t look back, something might be gaining on you.” I didn’t want to look back. I wanted to move forward, to shut the door on the Clintons and their whole sordid operation.
To never look back.
But there’s another saying: “It ain’t over t ill it’s over,” and now it’s 2016, and Hillary is running for president again. I faced a choice in 1998: Would I keep silent? Or tell the truth about what I knew, what I saw?
I spoke up. I testified truthfully.
Not everybody did. Some people’s memories got really faulty. Maybe you can’t blame them. They got scared. They had mortgages and careers. They had kids.
People who swore an oath to the Constitution and the law, people who pledged to lay down their lives for principle, people who strapped iron on their hips . . . got scared.
And they conveniently forgot things.
Byrne continues to slam a Hillary who would have been “too busy swapping gossip” with Sidney Blumenthal to hold herself accountable:
Character in leadership comes down to two questions: Would you trade places with anyone under your command? Do you hold yourself to the same level of accountability as those for whom you bear responsibility? Would Mrs. Clinton have been willing to trade places with Chris Stevens and Sean Smith?
No. She was too busy swapping gossip and classified information with Clinton loyalist Sidney Blumenthal.
Finally in a crushing afterword, Byrne exclaims:
Over a twenty-nine-year career serving my country in the military and in federal law enforcement, I’ve encountered both heroes and villains.
I’ve observed human character at its greatest heights and lowest depths. In any organization, character is defined at the top; it percolates down to the top executives of an organization, to the middle managers, and to the grunts at the front lines.
Hillary Clinton is now poised to become the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, but she simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office. From the bottom of my soul I know this to be true. So I must speak out.
Perhaps this sums up best what America would have to look forward to… “The Clintons treat running the free world like a damn part-time job.” (For more from the author of “Hillary Campaign Rocked by Secret Service Agent Book Exposing Clintons’ Dirty Laundry” please click HERE)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) slammed the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of donations from foreign governments in an interview on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday.
Sanders was critical of the the foundation’s getting money from foreign governments, specifically Saudi Arabia. The Clinton Foundation has come under criticism in the past for taking donations from foreign governments while Clinton was Secretary of State.
Host Jake Tapper asked Sanders, who has previously held his tongue about the Clinton Foundation, how he felt about it taking money from foreign governments which don’t respect American values while Clinton was at the State Department.
“You have not been critical of the Clinton Foundation but there are those who say that there’s something inherently wrong with an American charity, especially one with ties to a secretary of state, taking money from the Saudis and other foreign governments that don’t represent our values. Is that a fair criticism?” Tapper asked.
“Yes, it is,” Sanders said. “If you ask me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships, you don’t have a lot of civil liberties or democratic rights in Saudi Arabia. (Read more from “Sanders Blasts Clinton Foundation’s Donations From Foreign Government” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/20707554580_7018c0e1dc_b-1.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-06 02:32:492016-06-06 02:32:49Watch: Sanders Blasts Clinton Foundation’s Donations From Foreign Government
With a State Department Inspector General’s report concluding that Hillary Clinton was not, and would not have been, permitted to use a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state, the mainstream media have been forced to finally wake up and take notice of this persistent Clinton scandal. But instead of reporting that the revelations demonstrate how unfit Mrs. Clinton is for president, these news reports largely focus on the claim that it was merely record-keeping policies, or rules, which were broken.
“When two IT staffers raised concerns in 2010 that the system might not properly preserve records, the official said the system had been reviewed by attorneys and chided the staffers ‘never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again,’ the report says,” according to The Washington Post. “The IG’s office said it could not find evidence of such a legal review.”
In other words, the IT department was strong-armed into accepting Hillary’s dangerous email setup.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, writing for National Review, points out that Mrs. Clinton’s transgressions were not merely violations against “policies” and “procedures,” as the IG report suggested, but “that these policies and procedures were expressly made pursuant to, and are expressly designed to enforce compliance with, federal law,” something the IG report at least acknowledged. And what were those “serious violations of federal law,” according to McCarthy?
“Mrs. Clinton’s withheld tens of thousands of government records (the e-mails) for nearly two years after she departed the State Department. She failed to return all government-related e-mails upon demand. She destroyed (or at least attempted to destroy) tens of thousands of e-mails without consultation with the State Department. And she did it all malevolently: for the manifest purpose of shielding her communications from the statutory file-keeping and disclosure requirements.”
Fortune magazine has listed a number of Mrs. Clinton’s misstatements, and shown how the IG report has exposed them as such. For example, Mrs. Clinton said: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.”—AP interview, September. But what the report said was that there was “‘No evidence’ that Clinton asked for or received approval to conduct official government business on a personal email account run through a private server in her New York home. According to top State Department officials interviewed for the investigation, the departments that oversee security ‘did not — and would not—approve’ her use of a personal account because of security concerns.”
But an even bigger story here goes beyond Mrs. Clinton’s blatant attempts to subvert the Freedom of Information Act, and the fact that she did not archive her emails properly for record-keeping purposes. The bigger story is that this has been a national security scandal, placing classified sources and methods at risk. Mrs. Clinton wrote 104 emails that are considered classified, and sent or received at least 2,000 more emails containing material that was later classified. There were 22 emails that were considered “Top Secret” and too highly classified to be released to the public.
She and her apologists have claimed at various times that nothing was classified at the time she sent or received it and that nothing that passed through her server was marked classified. But it’s the material itself that matters, not the markings, and it was her responsibility to recognize material as classified.
Of course, Mrs. Clinton and her staffers declined to be interviewed for the Inspector General’s investigation, after previously stating that she would fully cooperate. “So what conceivable legal privilege do Clinton, Mills, Sullivan, and Abedin have that would allow them to refuse to answer investigators’ questions?” asks McCarthy in another article for National Review. “Only one: the Fifth Amendment privilege—i.e., the refusal to answer on the grounds that truthful responses might be incriminating.”
“The report is devastating,” writes McCarthy, adding that “although it transparently strains to soften the blow.”
“For example,” he writes, “it concludes that State’s ‘longstanding systemic weaknesses’ in recordkeeping ‘go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State.’” However, Mrs. Clinton’s homebrew server was singular in its ability to breach national security.
Even CNN host Wolf Blitzer questioned why Mrs. Clinton did not cooperate with investigators. “But if she has done nothing wrong, if she’s done nothing wrong and she has nothing to hide, why not at least cooperate with the inspector general?” asked Blitzer on his CNN show, The Situation Room.
Pointing out that there was no Senate-confirmed inspector general during Mrs. Clinton’s four years as secretary of state, Howard Krongard, the State Department IG from 2005 to 2008 under President George W. Bush, told Fox News that “I would have been stunned had I been asked to send an email to her at a personal server, private address. I would have declined to do so on security grounds and if she had sent one to me, I probably would have started an investigation.”
Mrs. Clinton has uttered so many lies that she and her campaign are practically drowning in them, causing even The New York Times to take time to fact check her campaign rhetoric. Yet Mrs. Clinton continues to blame “Republicans and their allies” for damaging her presidential chances. “Thus far, this ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ has entailed several left-leaning media outlets, the Obama-appointed intelligence community Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” writes Guy Benson for Townhall.
That FBI investigation could derail Mrs. Clinton’s presidential run if FBI Director James Comey decides to refer the case to the Department of Justice. However, this State Department IG report is having an immediate effect. “This is a bad day for Clinton’s presidential campaign. Period,” wrote Chris Cillizza for the Post on May 25. “For a candidate already struggling to overcome a perception that she is neither honest nor trustworthy, the IG report makes that task significantly harder.”
Clinton’s biggest primary challenge comes not from the right, but from the left, with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) refusing to concede to her. Sanders has said that he will challenge Mrs. Clinton all the way to the Democratic convention. Meanwhile, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz may lose her position because she is perceived as “too divisive a figure to unify the party in 2016,” reports The Hill.
While the Democratic Party is divided, Mrs. Clinton remains the frontrunner and likely presidential nominee. However, it is becoming more and more clear that she has endangered government secrets.
“One of the more shocking parts of this report was the fact that after she thought she was being hacked, she complained to her staffers,” said CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez on Blitzer’s Situation Room on May 25. “In the report, it says their solution was simply to unplug the server.” Mrs. Clinton and her staff failed to report the incident to security officials, Perez said.
This damaging IG report demonstrates that Mrs. Clinton and her staff violated policy, lied about a legal review, and placed national security at risk. It is almost certain that her server was hacked by foreign governments. While mainstream media outlets would prefer to report this as a paperwork or records scandal, Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal remains a national security debacle, and a serious threat to end her dream of moving back into the White House. (For more from the author of “”DEVASTATING”: Inspector General Report Effectively Terminates Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Aspirations” please click HERE)
Why, yes, come to think of it, this does sound like a Marco Rubio speech with a few paragraphs in support of the Iran deal tossed in. I’m sure plenty of hawkish Republicans noticed too. And I’m sure it was written with that very much in mind.
Although, given the way Rubio is going these days, he may volunteer to deliver the nationalist rebuttal at the convention.
The video is long but you’ll find a transcript here. The indictment of Trump early on is especially bruising. Here’s the dilemma for a #NeverTrumper in this election: On the one hand, everything Guy Benson says about Clinton’s own myriad foreign-policy failures in the following passage is dead on . . .
[Hillary speaking about Donald Trump:]
He is not just unprepared – he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.
This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes – because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.
(Read more from “Hillary’s Foreign Policy Speech: Trump Is Dangerously Unfit for Office” HERE)
Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, finally had her deposition released and in it were some bombshells.
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: But what [Mills] did say is that Mrs. Clinton used exclusively her Blackberry. She didn’t have a laptop, she didn’t have a desktop, she didn’t have a tablet, she just used the Blackberry. Her Blackberry, not a government issued Blackberry. Because it was not government issue, it was blocked on the 7th floor of the State Department where her office is. What does that mean? That means that when she was in her office, she did not have the means to communicate electronically to her people all around the world for the entire time she was there. How did she do it? Take a security team, go from the 7th floor to the 6th floor where her Blackberry worked. Or she would have one of her aides come in and use a — you’ll like this cause you’re a historian — 19th Century technology, read the document to me. Read it aloud. So when people are saying she was incompetent as a Secretary of State, they’re absolutely correct and right on the mark because of this alone. She has ambassadors all around the world trying to communicate with her and she’s cut herself off.
Mills’ testimony revealed that one of Mrs. Clinton’s defenses was a lie.
NAPOLITANO: Mrs. Clinton in her press conferences, the few that she’s given, said “don’t worry about it because everything was stored and its searchable, all of my emails.” Cheryl Mills revealed in the deposition earlier this week, it was not searchable, that they couldn’t find this stuff because it had gone through Mrs. Clinton’s private server. What does this mean? All of this means that she frustrated the ordinary operations of the State Department, which she was in charge of because she was terrified of the president, the rest of the State Department, the media and the public knowing what she was doing. It is crystal clear that the motivation for all of this was her incredible desire to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, to keep from the president, the rest of the State Department and the public what she was doing as Secretary of State, which is a violation of the law.
(For more from the author of “Newest Details Revealed in Clinton Aide Deposition Expose This About Hillary” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/459271639_07cb09817a_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-02 23:23:252016-06-12 01:05:38Newest Details Revealed in Clinton Aide Deposition Expose This About Hillary
The Hillary Clinton email investigation is entering a critical phase. The FBI has already interviewed some of Mrs. Clinton’s key aides when she was secretary of state and reports have said they will soon be interviewing Mrs. Clinton herself. At this juncture, it’s not a question anymore of whether any crimes were committed, because it has been well reported that Mrs. Clinton’s reckless use of a private email server and her gross mishandling of classified information was criminal behavior. I believe that what the FBI is really honing in on now, or should be examining, is the revolving-door State Department access that Mrs. Clinton gave her top donors and closest friends.
When the FBI interviews Mrs. Clinton and her aides, they will be able to question her about both the substance of the emails and the use of the private email and server. With respect to the substance of the emails, there has been plenty of focus on the classified ones, but there are also several that pose very serious ethical challenges.
From granting special access to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and Clinton Foundation donors, to assisting her son-in-law’s business contacts, there are numerous examples demonstrating quid pro quo. Here is a look at some of the emails that my organization, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, have documented in this area:
• Hillary Clinton intervenes for son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky: On Aug. 22, 2012, Mrs. Clinton acted on a request from her son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, for the State Department to assist one of his business contacts that also had ties to a Clinton Foundation donor. This apparent special access to the State Department was given based upon relationships with Mrs. Clinton’s family members and Clinton Foundation donors.
• Billionaire George Soros’ access to the State Department: On May 12, 2012, Neera Tanden, a longtime Clinton confidante and president of the Center for American Progress, emailed Mrs. Clinton to tell her that George Soros, billionaire activist and major Clinton Foundation donor, said he was “impressed” with the level of access he had to Mrs. Clinton at the State Department.
• Clinton Foundation and the Red Cross: Clinton Foundation donors getting preferential treatment wasn’t the only arena in which foundation and State Department business overlapped. A Jan. 19, 2010 email from Mrs. Clinton to chief of staff Cheryl Mills recommended that the State Department work with the Clinton Foundation and the Red Cross on an education initiative for Haiti. As grounds for her recommendation, she noted that the foundation and the Red Cross have “Unencumbered $.” Mrs. Clinton’s motives may have been pure, but she should have been conscious of the conflict of interest posed by actively pushing the department to work with the foundation.
• Hillary Clinton gives former chief campaign consultant special access: Mrs. Clinton’s political allies also enjoyed special access. Her longtime pollster and chief consultant on her 2008 presidential race, Mark Penn, emailed Mrs. Clinton on Feb. 22, 2010, demanding “why no one called” him to help get corporate sponsors for the Shanghai Expo, an event Mrs. Clinton was deeply involved in at the time. Mrs. Clinton thanked Mr. Penn and forwarded his email to an aide, Kris Balderston, who set up a call with Mr. Penn for the following day. Days later, Mr. Balderston reported back to Mrs. Clinton in an email listing major corporations, including Boeing, Citi and Blackstone, that had agreed to provide financial support for the Shanghai Expo.
These emails demonstrate a disturbing narrative with the way Mrs. Clinton handled State Department business. If someone wanted access to her, they needed to be a top donor to her campaigns or philanthropic efforts. This is not the kind of treatment offered to ordinary citizens.
I know FBI Director James Comey. He is a competent, ethical person, and I am confident he will do the right thing in this case. The challenge, though, is that he can only make a recommendation to the Department of Justice about whether or not to bring a case against Mrs. Clinton.
The decision to bring a case ultimately rests with the Justice Department. It’s a decision the department cannot and should not be able to make, especially after it was reported this week that Hillary Clinton received almost $75,000 in political contributions from Justice Department employees, the most given to any of the current presidential candidates by Justice staff.
Furthermore, I am not sure Attorney General Loretta Lynch has the fortitude to oppose President Obama, who has publicly said Mrs. Clinton’s behavior didn’t put our national security at risk. In fact, the Obama administration recently stated that Hillary is qualified to be president, with White House spokesman Eric Schultz saying Mrs. Clinton “comes to this race with more experience than any other non-vice president in recent campaign history.”
Secondly, in a Fox News interview earlier this year, she wasn’t forthcoming about her role in the decision to prosecute the case. When asked if she was the one who would ultimately decide whether to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Lynch answered, “It depends.” The fact that the one person who will ultimately make the decision about an indictment evades routine questioning clearly demonstrates that this administration has shown no ability to be impartial with this investigation, as they have looked the other way at every turn. For this reason, I am renewing my call for the appointment of a special counsel in this case.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not citizens who feel they are entitled to disregard them. That was the foundation upon which our country was built. In the coming weeks, we will find out if those principles hold true in this case. (For more from the author of “I’m Guessing That the Days of the Clinton Crime Family Are Numbered” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/maxresdefault-68.jpg7201200Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-02 01:39:182016-06-05 00:00:41I’m Guessing That the Days of the Clinton Crime Family Are Numbered
This past week has been a milestone of sorts for those who closely follow the continuing saga of Hillary Clinton’s wrongful use of email systems during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the kind of milestone it was depends on where you stood when the week began.
For those of us who recognized from the outset that Ms. Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email system for all her official business (not to mention her unprecedented use of a private server atop that) was a clear violation of the Federal Records Act (“FRA”), the findings of the State Department’s Inspector General (“IG”) to that effect in his May 25 report were no surprise. In fact, on the admitted facts of the case, no other conclusion was possible, and it was simply another “shoe waiting to be dropped.”
To us, knowing that there are no applicable penalties within the FRA (or in the FOIA, for that matter, which Ms. Clinton also blatantly circumvented), the primary significance of the IG report is that it so flatly and persuasively belies nearly every public “defense” that she has uttered on the matter, from her extraordinary news conference at the United Nations on March 10 of last year to even her initial stunned reactions to the IG report itself this past week.
No, her self-serving email set-up was not “allowed” under the State Department’s rules. No, she was not “permitted” to use a personal email system exclusively as she did. No, what she did was hardly just a matter of her “personal convenience.” No, there is no evidence that any State Department attorney (other than perhaps Secretary Clinton herself) ever gave “legal approval” to any part of her special email system. No, everything she did was not “fully above board” or in compliance with the “letter and spirit of the rules,” far from it. Yes, she was indeed required by the FRA to maintain all official emails in an official system for proper review, delineation, and retention upon her departure. Yes, her private server equipment was in fact the subject of multiple attempted intrusion attempts (i.e., hacks), including by foreign nations. The list goes on and on. (Note that this does not even include Ms. Clinton’s many serious “misstatements” about her handling of classified or potentially classified information.) (Read more from “Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/3114480676_1162c04150_b.jpg7681024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-06-01 02:14:542016-06-01 02:18:20Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down
A report by the State Department’s inspector general revealed that Hillary Clinton refused the use of her government-issued email to avoid making her personal records “accessible.”
The report further went on to state that Clinton’s decision to maintain the use of her personal email account, as it pertained to official government use, not only presented a threat to national security, but ignored multiple warnings in the process.
Now, even the White House is refusing to defend the Democratic presidential candidate’s actions, as White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest opted to dodge questions at a press conference Tuesday, directing reporters to the Clinton campaign instead.
“I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to offer some reaction [to the report],” began a reporter. “It was clear that she did not … seek approval, that she never demonstrated that her BlackBerry met minimum requirements, security information requirements. Does the president still stand by the statement that he’s certain that Clinton did not endanger national security?”
“The president certainly stands by what he has said in the past on this,” responded Earnest, before pivoting. “When the president was given the opportunity to talk about this in Asia, he referred questions to Secretary Clinton’s campaign. They can obviously discuss the decisions that she made as secretary of state, as they relate to her use of email.”
Earnest was later asked if the White House believes Clinton should have cooperated with the Inspector General’s Office in its investigation, to which Earnest continued to deflect.
“Does the White House think she should have participated and cooperated in the IG investigation?” the reporter went on to ask.
“Well again, I’d refer you to Secretary Clinton’s team for how she handled those questions,” said Earnest, adding that the State Department has since changed its methods of record keeping to be in compliance with the IG’s recommendations. (For more from the author of “White House Press Secretary Dodges Questions on Clinton Email Scandal” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Josh_Earnest.png8801574Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-05-31 19:57:232016-05-31 19:57:23White House Press Secretary Dodges Questions on Clinton Email Scandal
