Hillary Unclassified


Not exactly a packed house for @HillaryClinton women’s event in Columbus.

https://twitter.com/ktumulty/status/641973289334779904/photo/1

Why Are Women Ditching Hillary?
Earlier this year Hillary Clinton seemed to have the female vote locked down, so why is she now having to work so hard to convince them to support with her campaign?

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/13/why-are-women-ditching-hillary.html

Q_ball
1:15 PM EDT

Remember when shrillary tried to name one of her own accomplishments:
“My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I’m glad you asked. My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know. The remnants of prior situations and mindsets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture and we didn’t do that. Very proud. I would say that’s a major accomplishment.”

Wallenstein
1:17 PM EDT

Holy smokes! Is that a real quote?

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-clinton-voters-see-a-long-resume-but-a-short-list-of-accomplishments/2015/09/09/fff3fc60-573e-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

The Clinton campaign puts the ‘moron’ into oxymoron

Miss Bardahl
1:17 PM EST

Democratic candidates are civil to each other, have ideas, have policy, and know how much a bunch of nines are.
Our Goobers are uncivil, pee in the rug, have weird hair, attack each other endlessly, and use ignorance of a way of attracting voters.
Who would any thinking person vote for?

dsilc001
1:12 PM EST

If you have to spend all of this money to make yourself seem honest and likable it logically follows that you aren’t honest and likable. “Just let her be herself” probably isn’t a good idea.


www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clinton-campaign-puts-the-moron-into-oxymoron/2015/09/11/8ba14572-5895-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html

Under the law, it is the responsibility of the author of e-mails to properly mark them as classified and to make sure they avoid discussing classified material over a non-government or personal device. Because the State Department deals in so many sensitive secrets, many employees use two computer networks for their daily communications: a non-classified system called the “low side” and a more secure classified system called the “high side.” But Clinton had no official State Department e-mail address and exclusively used a personal domain and personal server set up in her home for electronic correspondence.

Jeremiah-Berentsev
8:22 PM EDT [Edited]

The Clinton defense is the usual (depending of course on what “is” is):
1) nothing happened
2) nothing was illegal
3) it was so long ago
4) everybody does it
5) this is prejudice and discrimination and hatred
6) it’s a massive right wing conspiracy
7) prove it.
8) look over there…there…not here….look over there!!
9) prevaricate, dissemble, lie low, till the MSM loses interest.
10) mobilize the sheep baaaing, slogan chanting, little red book waving crowd

www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-batch-of-clinton-e-mails-due-monday-minus-150-deemed-classified/2015/08/31/dcbdcbbc-501e-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a message, she has ambition. Her obsession with becoming president has overshadowed any reason that anyone might have to vote for her. She offers no hope and less change. Her candidacy is historic…but only for her. There is no promise she can make that anyone will believe.

www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259944/last-days-hillary-daniel-greenfield

It was supposed to be different this time. After the wounds of 2008, many of them self-inflicted, Hillary Rodham Clinton rebooted for 2016 with a new message, new advisers and new energy.

But two dynamics have crystallized this month, suggesting the New Hillary is hobbled by old weaknesses. Once again, worried supporters see signs of a bunker mentality in response to bad news about her e-mail server and other controversies, and they see a candidate who can seem strangely blinkered to the threat posed by a lesser-known challenger.

“A lot of the people who were hired by the campaign were new to the Clintons,” said a prominent Democrat who counts both Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton as friends. “I kind of assumed it would be different. But it hasn’t changed.”

…Meanwhile, the confusing saga of Clinton’s private e-mail system took what many Democrats saw as a chilling turn last week, with more news about the FBI’s investigation into the potential mishandling of classified material on Clinton’s home computer server. Clinton is not the target of the investigation but, in the words of one Democrat, no one wants their candidate’s name in the same sentence as “FBI.”


www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-campaign-same-old-problems-clinton-hurt-by-familiar-shortcomings/2015/08/15/ce80e2d8-42ad-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

No, Hillary Clinton is not spiraling downward

hatful
1:47 AM EDT

hillary’s problem, as exemplified by this story, is being seen as boring, same old same old and the (or an) establishment candidate. none of this has anything to do with ability. but politics has little relation to that quality.


www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/17/no-hillary-clinton-is-not-spiraling-downward/


Hacked Emails Show Hillary Clinton Was Receiving Advice at a Private Email Account From Banned, Obama-Hating Former Staffer

http://gawker.com/5991563/hacked-emails-show-hillary-clinton-was-receiving-advice-at-a-private-email-account-from-banned-obama-hating-former-staffer

The first candidate to speak, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, harkened back to the 1990s and the “vast right wing conspiracy” she once railed against in describing the investigation of her emails and use of a “homebrew server”while leading the State Department.

DatelessNerd
1h ago

Hillary Clinton is Richard Nixon in a pantsuit.

ImaHack
2h ago

“I did not have email relations with that server. Not once, not ever.”

– Hillary Clinton


www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/15/hillary-clinton-mocks-email-scandal-as-democrat-hopefuls-meet-the-faithful

In 1996, the late, great New York Times columnist William Safire published a column, “Blizzard of lies,” in which he laid out a series of falsehoods by Hillary Rodham Clinton and declared “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.”


www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-blizzard-of-lies/2014/10/13/7acc3d22-52e4-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html

The Democrats desperately need more serious, viable candidates in the race, or at least poised to jump in at a moment’s notice. (And it sure would be great if they were more appealing than Al Gore.) The point wouldn’t be to catch up to her in a mad dash. The point would be to serve as a strong back-up for when the nearly inevitable happens.

http://theweek.com/articles/571567/hillary-clinton-democratic-partys-ticking-time-bomb

The Dems Try to Spell ABC
Posted on August 2, 2015

“Anybody But Clinton” — or “ABC” — is now the battle cry of the Dems in the presidential campaign.

Here in swing state Colorado, and in other swing states as well, recent polls show Hillary Clinton badly trailing unknown Republican candidates. In particular, her scores on trustworthiness have plunged as people see her record of mendacity.

I’m not talking about the stale scandals of her husband’s presidency 15 years ago — the ones that Hillary attributed to a “vast right-wing conspiracy” until a certain stained blue dress turned up.

No, I’m talking about fresh ones. Just recently, Hillary:

  • Set up a homebrew computer system on which she illegally intermingled government business as secretary of state, foundation business and personal business;
  • Deleted 34,000 emails from that system after Congress requested them;
  • Falsely maintained that there was no Congressional subpoena to produce those emails, and
  • Falsely claimed that her email system did not transmit any classified government information. (The New York Times recently reported that in fact, it did. Two inspector generals — both appointed by President Barack Obama — are calling for a Justice Department investigation.)
  • Even prominent Dems such as Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein has publicly declared that Hillary has a “difficult relationship with the truth.”

    While some of her lies are unethical if not criminal, and some threaten national security (foreign governments undoubtedly hacked into her homebrew email system and have possession of all her emails, even though Congress and the American people do not), other lies are banal. For example, she:

  • Falsely claimed that all her grandparents were immigrants (three of the four were not);
  • Falsely claimed that she was named after the first man to summit Mt. Everest (but Everest was not summited until five years after she was born); and
  • Falsely claimed that she was the object of sniper fire when landing in Bosnia.
  • In short, she lies even when she doesn’t have to. In the words of Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist William Safire, she’s not just a liar but a “congenital” one.

    Lying is her nature.

    In those polls, she also scores badly on the question of whether she’s a “strong leader.” Maybe that’s because people won’t follow leaders who are more concerned about their own money than about the people they want to lead.

    Accepting mammoth “donations” from foreign governments while entrusted with the responsibilities of secretary of state isn’t the trait of a strong leader. Accepting a 10,000 percent profit in the cattle futures market from “advice” given by a giant company that was regulated by the state of which her husband was governor isn’t the trait of a strong leader. Charging charitable institutions $250,000 for a one-hour speech isn’t the trait of a strong leader.

    Those are the traits of a greedy and corrupt one.

    Unlike her husband, she’s not even likable. The best that Obama could say is that she is likable “enough.”

    Even the left-leaning press is not charmed, as she isolates herself from them (literally with a rope in one recent instance). When she finally gave an interview recently, it was with an unknown reporter who was a friend of a Hillary aide.

    This is a candidate for president who wants reporters to cover her but not question her.

    And so the “ABC” movement is growing among Dems. But to whom can they turn? Well, there’s an obscure 73-year-old self-described socialist from Vermont named Bernie-something. But this Bernie has never held a steady job outside of politics, advocates a 90 percent tax rate and wasn’t even a Dem until he decided to run for president as one.

    Then there’s a former governor named Martin O’Malley. He recently told Dem partisans, “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” For uttering the second and third sentences, those Dem partisans booed him off the stage.

    There is even talk of a challenge from Vice President Joe Biden, known mostly for inappropriate statements and, more recently, for inappropriate touching.

    Is that all they’ve got? Surely the Dems can spell “ABC” better than that. How about:

  • Al Sharpton. As an 80-time guest at the White House, he already knows his way around. Moreover, if he were president, the IRS might forgive his $4 million tax delinquency (not that the IRS would ever do anything politically motivated).
  • Elizabeth Warren. She made a living on her false claim to be a female Native American, but at least she didn’t take bribes.
  • Cher. Her campaign slogan can be, “You got me, babe.”
  • Hmm. Come to think of it, the Dems apparently don’t have an ABC who could plausibly run for president on the Dem ticket.

    And there isn’t “Anybody Who IS Clinton” who can plausibly run either, since the Constitution prohibits another term by Bill (though I suppose Obama might overturn that by executive order).

    This might get interesting.

    http://theaspenbeat.com/2015/08/02/the-dems-try-to-spell-abc/

    One Woman’s Last Wish: Do Not Support Hillary Clinton

    “In lieu of flowers, please do not vote for Hillary Clinton.”


    www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/political-obituaries-hillary-clinton_55d385d3e4b07addcb4458a0?kvcommref=mostpopular

    “That’s the wrong question to focus on,” Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri told me. “The real question is: Do you believe she’s going to fight for you? Her whole campaign is focused on proving that, and we do well on that question.”


    www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0802-mcmanus-hillary-clinton-summer-slump-20150803-column.html

    $221,139, 516: CLINTONS INCOME SINCE LEAVING WHITE HOUSE; NEVER “DEAD BROKE”

    By Eileen McGann On August 1, 2015

    In the 14 years since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in January 2001, they have reported a total gross income of $221,139, 516 — a review of their tax returns for those years’ shows.

    In 2001, the year that Hillary claimed they were “dead broke,” the couple earned a whopping $16,165,110!!!

    Wouldn’t we all like to be that dead broke!!!

    Leaving the White House opened a gravy train that has moved the Clintons to the highest percentage of all U.S. earners. Their annual income puts them in the top 1/2 of 1%. So they are at the very top of the 1%-ers that Hillary often disparages.

    It was a big change from the earlier years of their marriage. The year before they left the White House, in 2000, the Clintons gross income was only $357,629. After taxes of $53,000 that year, while they were “dead broke”, they bought a second home in Washington for $3.7 million, in addition to their $2 million Chappaqua home. On an income of $357,629, their total mortgage and real estate tax payments were over $100,000, almost 1/3 of their take home income. Maybe that’s why Hillary felt like she was dead broke.

    But don’t feel sorry for her. Here’s a breakdown of their income from 2000 to 2014:

  • 2000 = $357,629
  • 2001 = $16,165,110
  • 2002 = $9,556,550
  • 2003 = $8,033,374
  • 2004 = $20,264,179
  • 2005 = $18,056,395
  • 2006 = $16,063, 908
  • 2007 = $21,199,212
  • 2008 = $5,573,351
  • 2009 = $10,223,318
  • 2010 = $13,244,484
  • 2011 = $14,899,484
  • 2012 = $19,993,299
  • 2013 = $27,093,859
  • 2014 = $28,336,212
  • www.dickmorris.com/anatomy-of-hillarys-latest-email-lie/


    www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-in-real-trouble-now/

    www.dickmorris.com/whos-clinton-kidding/


    thehillarydaily.com/hillarys-5-top-lies-on-cnn/

    Hillary Stops Joking About Emails, But Doesn’t Stop Lying
    By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann on August 27, 2015

    Clinton’s crashing poll numbers, along with questions by donors and supporters about her judgment in joking about the email scandal immediately after the FBI seized her private server, are obviously taking a toll.

    She suddenly says she “takes responsibility” for the decision. (Well, who else would be responsible?)

    She’s stopped joking, but she hasn’t stopped lying. Here’s what else she said:

    “I take responsibility for that decision, and I want to be as transparent as possible, which is why I turned over 55,000 pages, why I’ve turned over my server, why I’ve agreed to — in fact, been asking to — and have finally gotten a date to testify before a congressional committee in October.”

    “I’m confident that this process will prove that I never sent, nor received, any email that was marked classified,” she said

    She wants to be as transparent as possible? Looks like she hasn’t really stopped joking after all. She used a secret server and kept all her emails in her house for almost two years after she left the State Department. That’s not transparent.

    When the Benghazi Committee noticed that she was using a private account, it asked the State Department about it, which, in turn, asked her to hand over the emails.

    Her response: delete 30,000 emails that she claims were “private” without a third party reviewing them. That’s not transparent.

    And when the New York Times reported that she had been using a private server throughout her tenure as Secretary of State, she categorically refused to turn it over for any independent review, stating: “The server will remain private.”

    Now she says that she” turned over” her server to the FBI. That sounds voluntary, doesn’t it? But it was anything but voluntary. As soon as the FBI was apprised of the Intelligence Community Inspector General’s finding that there was classified information on her server, it demanded that the company maintaining it bring it immediately to the FBI. So technically, it was turned over — but not voluntarily. It would have taken the FBI five minutes to get a warrant. She was one step ahead of the sheriff.

    As for her claim that there was nothing that she sent or received that was marked as classified, the Inspector General disagrees.

    http://thehillarydaily.com/hillary-stops-joking-about-emails-but-doesnt-stop-lying/


    Hillary Unclassified


    About Jerry Frey

    Born 1953. Vietnam Veteran. Graduated Ohio State 1980. Have 5 published books. In the Woods Before Dawn; Grandpa's Gone; Longstreet's Assault; Pioneer of Salvation; Three Quarter Cadillac
    This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *


    − 3 = three

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>