The last impediment to Hillary Clinton reaching the presidency.
Will he do what is right?
Or will he allow DC politics to intercede and push him aside?
It’s up to you, Director Comey.
But I would say this.
Both you and I know what is right and what is wrong.
Choose wisely.
And if you choose wrongly, I will know it.
As will all the rest of the national sheepdogs.
I am a sheepdog.
BZ
Control. And secrecy.
And more proof that not only is Hillary Clinton a liar with regard to her emails, so is the State Department.
From the NYPost.com:
‘This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying
by Paul Sperry
The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal emails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency email address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.
Read that again: “The State Department is lying,” and “because it (the State Department) never set up an agency email address for her (Hillary Clinton) in the first place.”
Meaning: the State Department already had knowledge that she was going it alone for email. And had no need for theirs.
“This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 2005 to 2008.
The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a state.gov email address like previous secretaries.
To me this is clearly indicative of planning aforethought. Purposeful planning.
Mr Krongard confirms my thoughts.
“That’s a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private email server until later,” Krongard said in an exclusive interview. “How else was she supposed to do business without email?”
“How else was she supposed to do business without email?”
Krongard becomes even more focused in his rightful and informed accusations.
“It’s clear she did not want to be subject to internal investigations,” Krongard said. An email audit would have easily uncovered the secret information flowing from classified government networks to the private unprotected system she set up in her New York home.
Why no audit?
Would it surprise you to know that, during Mrs Clinton’s time as secretary of state, from 2009 to 2013, there was no internal Inspector General for the State Department? That was the longest period of time any federal department has gone without an IG.
Coincidence?
Read what Mr Krongard has to say about the appearance of classified information on her private server.
He (Krongard) says “the key” to the FBI’s investigation of Emailgate is determining how highly sensitive state secrets in the classified network, known as SIPRNet, ended up in Clinton’s personal emails.
“The starting point of the investigation is the material going through SIPRNet. She couldn’t function without the information coming over SIPRNet,” Krongard said. “How did she get it on her home server? It can’t just jump from one system to the other. Someone had to move it, copy it. The question is who did that?”
“Someone had to move it, copy it. The question is who did that?”
But first, Clinton insisted that the “homebrew” server was in her house in Chappaqua, New York, in some kind of closet, allegedly guarded by USSS agents. Her house, not the server.
However, privately hired hackers for Fox News figured out Clinton lied about the physical location of the server.
Now, working with publicly available tools that map network connectivity, experts have established that the last “hop” before the mail server’s Internet Protocol, or IP, address (listed as 64.94.172.146) is Internap’s aggregator in Manhattan (listed as 216.52.95.10).
“This is a very strong indication that the clintonemail.com server is in Manhattan,” the source told Fox News.
Well, now isn’t that interesting?
But wait; there’s more!
According to an Ars Technica investigation, however, Clinton’s email server was located in Alabama at one point while she served as America’s chief diplomat. Moreover, its substandard security left it vulnerable to a series of common hacking techniques.
It defies logic to believe that a high value target like the secretary of state’s electronic communications were not probed by foreign intelligence services over the course of her tenure in the president’s Cabinet, and reports increasingly suggest that those agencies did not encounter many obstacles in their effort to compromise her communications.
One can only logically conclude that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a congenital liar and wouldn’t know the truth if it removed a beefy piece of cankle. Krongard also continues to blow Clinton’s stories out of the water.
Either way, there would be an audit trail for investigators to follow. The SIPRNet system maintains the identity of all users and their log-on and log-off times, among other activities.
“This totally eliminates the false premise that she got nothing marked classified,” Krongard said. “She’s hiding behind this defense. But they [emails] had to be classified, because otherwise [the information in them] wouldn’t be on the SIPRNet.”
Hillary Clinton herself said she went to her own private server for convenience.
Because she is a Clinton.
In truth, the answer to “why” is this: Hillary knew there would be no Inspector General for the Department of State. She knew she could keep that position unfilled in perpetuity during her tenure. Her comms were even more critical when she became involved in Benghazi.
With the Clintons, it’s all about control, secrecy and power. Clinton, knowing there was no IG oversight, realized she had carte blanche to run roughshod over whatever set of rules she wished. She is a Clinton. Rules are for little people, the unwashed, the proles, the serfs, the groundlings.
We also now know that Obama sent emails to her server. No one knows what kinds of communications transpired between the two, however. Yet.
FBI Director James Comey has had his agents working the Clinton server angle for some time, assembling everything necessary for a proper case. When he believes he has sufficient probable cause, he will submit the case to DOJ for an indictment and prosecution. That means the case will go to Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who heads the department’s criminal division; Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; and top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.
And Barack Hussein Obama will be the ultimate arbeiter.
So what if there happens to be information of a compromising nature relating to Mr Obama on Hillary Clinton’s private server? Information he doesn’t wish made public?
I think you can see where I’m going with this.
BZ
The lack of concern about an incredible security breach by Hillary Clinton continues by the American Media Maggots — covering Hillary’s ass as is their duty, being fellow Leftists.
7800 pages of emails.
999 emails amongst those pages containing classified information. From Hillary Clinton’s private server. Much, much more serious than General David Petraeus’s incident with Broadwell and the emails of their affair. We can be sure that whatever those emails contained is now privy to Russia, China, North Korea and other nation-states who are not our friends.
Clinton should be prosecuted. No one else would get the pass that she is; the argument for Clinton is simply an AMM shibboleth.
I suspect that James Comey is assembling the most sure-and-watertight case against Hillary Clinton that he is allowed, physically and politically. I’m sure that Comey has been subject to numerous counts of intimidation by the Obama Spite House. He watched the Clintons go after former Director Louis Freeh and knows the power of their wrath.
Comey is the linchpin. Will he and can he do his job? From TheHill.com:
FBI chief is wild card for Clinton
by Bob Cusack and Ian Swanson
FBI Director James Comey is the pivotal figure in the 2016 presidential race that no one is talking about.
Comey, a Republican appointed by President Obama who enjoys a stellar reputation on both sides of the aisle, is investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of State.
Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination next year and is expected to be a tough candidate for any Republican to face in 2016.
Yet the controversy surrounding her private email account remains an Achilles’ heel.
The Hill still can’t fail to throw its own dig, however.
The GOP-created House Benghazi Committee flopped in October when Clinton testified for 11 hours. That hearing failed to produce anything newsworthy about her use of a private server and attracted criticism from liberals and conservatives alike.
Its failure makes it clear that the FBI will have the final say on whether Clinton did anything wrong or illegal. And whatever the verdict is, both parties will have to accept it because Comey is, in many ways, untouchable.
But has Comey been allowed to “work the case,” was he given the information he needs, and what kind of obstructions from the Obama Spite House were thrown into the mix?
One positive note.
“My folks don’t give a rip about politics,” the 6-foot-8-inch Comey said earlier this year. “We’re competent, we’re independent and we’re honest.”
Comey also has a pattern in independence. He’s said that Syrians cannot be vetted appropriately. He agreed (as I do) that the “Ferguson Effect” is in fact having a deleterious impact on law enforcement and stands as one reason why crime is increasing. Comey disagreed with Obama on the Major Hasan mass killing, that it was related to Islam and not “workplace violence.”
This is the most highly politicized federal DOJ in the history of the United States. The DOJ sits on information, refuses to prosecute anyone on the Left or involved with the Obama Administration, refuses to prosecute New Black Panthers, refuses to do its job.
The jury is out on this one.
I still remain hopeful.
BZ
Here, Hillary shows she’s familiar with Federal Bureau of Prisons coverall colors.
I have to tell you, it’s good clean fun to watch.
And it happened today as The Queen deigned to walk out of the throne room when she was asked one too many questions by subjects she thought were once loyal to the Her Royal Realm.
First the video, captured in all its YouTubely glory:
From TheHill.com (oh, the buttery goodness of it all):
Clinton pulls plug on testy presser over server questions
by Ben Kamisar
Hillary Clinton dismissed the controversy surrounding her private email server and defended her conduct as legal during a press conference Tuesday in Las Vegas.
“What I did was legally permitted, number one, first and foremost,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in response to a question from Fox News reporter Ed Henry. “We turned over everything that was work-related, every single thing.”
Hillary Clinton made the consequential mistake on Tuesday of not taking the events seriously and it did not play well. Instead, it sounded dismissive, cavalier and arrogant.
Asked if the server, which has been turned over to the Department of Justice, had been wiped clean, Clinton initially shrugged and later joked: “Like with a cloth or something?”
“I don’t know how it works digitally at all,” she added.
Hillary Clinton didn’t answer one question directly. Not one. Then she became dismissive and cavalier.
Guess what?
That’s not playing very well any more.
The days when the Clintons managed to skate on most every issue may be finally at an end. It is beginning to appear that Hillary could face some actual consequences for her actions, even if it only to derail her candidacy.
Hillary tanked in 2008. I submit she is well on her way to a replay of 2008. Hillary Clinton believes it is “her turn” whereas, in truth, Hillary is imploding due to her lies, her arrogance and her being as likable as the average eastern diamondback rattler — and as warm.
At least, as I pointed out, she’s familiarizing herself with FBOP federal jumper colors.
BZ
Hillary Clinton recently spoke to CNN this week about her e-mails, and said that she has never received a subpoena regarding those e-mails. At all. This is unequivocal.
Hillary Clinton: “I’ve never had a subpoena. Let’s take a deep breath here.”
Except that Hillary Clinton lied again.
On the Wednesday edition of the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show, former Representative John Campbell interviewed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who is chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. The conversation between Campbell and Gowdy, transcribed by Duane Patterson, producer of the HHRS, is as follows:
The Transcript:
JC: We have with us on the line now Congressman Trey Gowdy and chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Hey, Trey, great to have you on the show.
TG: Congressman, we miss you, and thank you for having me on.
JC: Well, thank you so much for coming on. Now I’m going to play for you, I’m sure you expected this, the clip from Hillary Clinton yesterday when she was being interviewed on CNN by Brianna Keilar. So please play that clip.
BK: Facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?
HRC: You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are, I’ve never had a subpoena.
JC: I’ve never had a subpoena, her words. Congressman Trey Gowdy, did Hillary Clinton lie yesterday?
TG: Well, she certainly had a subpoena. You know, when you lie, a lie suggests an intent to deceive. I can’t imagine whatever intent she could possibly have. I try not to use the word lie. I can certainly tell you this. It is a fact that there was a subpoena issued to her in March of 2015. But Congressman, it’s also a fact that there was a subpoena in existence from another Congressional committee far before that one. So there are two subpoenas. There are letters from Congress. And there’s a statutory obligation to her to preserve public records. So whether it’s a subpoena in place or whether it’s a statute in place, or whether it’s a Congressional investigation in place, you can’t delete and wipe out public records.
JC: Now Chairman Gowdy, I have the subpoena that your committee sent out, I have a copy of it, sitting in front of me from March of 2015. But you’re now telling me that there was another one prior to that?
TG: Oh, yes, sir. There was, think back right after Benghazi, Jason Chaffetz wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton, in fact, saying Congress has the right and the authority to investigate these attacks. That is tantamount to a ‘do not destroy’ request. And also keep in mind, Congress wrote her directly when she was Secretary of State and asked her specifically, do you ever use personal email. She never answered that question. She never said yes, she never said no. All right, fast forward. The Oversight Committee is looking into Benghazi. They issued a subpoena to the State Department to bring certain documents over to Congress so we can inspect them. It is that subpoena that ultimately led the State Department to give us the first eight emails we got from her.
JC: And when was that?
TG: We got them in August of…
JC: No, but when was that subpoena?
TG: 2013.
JC: 2013?
TG: Yes, sir.
JC: So she, all right, so, because she had this subpoena in March, 2015, and then you’re saying she had another one in 2013.
TG: There was another one to the State Department. In August of 2013, there were two subpoenas sent to the State Department, which are requests for documents. But as a result of that subpoena to the State Department, the State Department then produced to us her emails. So there is no way to claim that there was not some legal process directing that those emails be retained and ultimately produced, because they were.
JC: Yeah, because I’ve read that her trying to weasel out of this is, out of the lie, and I’m going to use that term, and I’m going to get back to it in a minute, but is that well, I thought that the question was whether I was under any subpoenas when the emails were deleted. And so obviously, she had subpoenas. I mean, there is no way that she didn’t have subpoenas. That’s without question. I’ve got them sitting in front of me. But you’re saying that also, there were subpoenas that covered the deletion of those emails?
TG: There are, there were subpoenas in place well before our committee ever existed.
JC: Right.
TG: There were two, one related to ARB documents, and one related to what we call reading room documents. And they were sent to the Department of State asking that Congress be delivered these documents. Where that becomes important is it was as a result of that oversight subpoena that the Department of State first gave us any of her emails. So clearly, her emails were covered by that subpoena, or the Department of State never would have given them to us. Now her out is going to be this, or what she thinks is her out, well, the State Department didn’t have my emails, I did, which then moves us to the law, the statute, the regulation, which places on her an affirmative duty to protect and preserve public records. So whether there’s a subpoena in place or not, the law is and has been in place, you have to preserve public record. She decided on her own what was and was not public record. And John, what’s even worse than that, I mean, think when she left office. She left office in February of 2013, right?
JC: Right.
TG: She didn’t delete and wipe clean that server until the fall of 2014, 20 months later, after she left.
JC: Indicating to me an intent, and I’m not a lawyer, but an intent to deceive.
TG: Well, at a minimum, that timing is curious, isn’t it?
JC: Yeah.
TG: We’re to the point where the Benghazi Committee is up and running, and they’re putting pressure on the State Department. We want the rest of her emails. And next thing we know, she’s swapping letters with the State Department, not telling us about it, she wipes her server clean. Then the story breaks in 2015, hey, all she used is personal email and she had her own server. That’s when we sent the second subpoena. But that first subpoena was clearly sufficient to cover her emails or the State Department wouldn’t have given them to us.
JC: So Chairman Gowdy, what do you do now? If she destroyed evidence under subpoena, and if, and she is now deepening that lie, what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it?
TG: Well, my first, you know, I had another job before I got to Congress…
JC: Yes.
TG: And that one had certain powers, and different powers than the one I have now. My obligation now is to write the final definitive accounting of what happened in Benghazi, which is why I’m interested in her records. I could care less about yoga and bridesmaids dresses. I want the documents that relate to Benghazi. She claimed that she turned the full record over to the State Department, but we learned a week or so ago that there are at least 15 emails or portions thereof that she did not turn over.
JC: Right.
TG: So you know, at some point, the Speaker has a decision to make, or another committee of Congress has a decision to make. I don’t have the authority to subpoena her server. We have asked her to turn it over to a neutral third party so that person, an archivist, and expert in federal records, can make sure that everything that should be in the public domain is in the public domain. I do not care about her personal stuff. I do care about every document that the media, the public, and Congress is entitled to. And we’ll never know the answer to that question until somebody other than her lawyers looks at the server.
JC: Yeah, and I mean, you know, when she says oh, I turned over, I mean, that’s like in any case, the accused saying well, I made the decision about what evidence might be used or not. No, you don’t make that decision. All the evidence has to be presented, right?
TG: Well, look at the three explanations she’s come up with so far. First thing she said was I used a single device for convenience. Well, we know that’s not true. Then she said oh, those emails from Sidney Blumenthal were unsolicited. Well, we now know that’s not true. But the big thing she said is you don’t need to worry about my email arrangement, because I gave everything to the State Department. I erred on the side of inclusion. And next thing we know, we’re getting emails from Sidney Blumenthal that involve her that she never even turned over to the State Department. So we know what she turned over was not complete, just in the area of Libya. About other countries and other issues when she was the Secretary of State, it’s outside my committee’s lane, but I would think the public and the media and Congress would be interested in whether or not there’s a full record of her tenure as Secretary of State. We know it’s not. We just don’t know how deficient the record is.
JC: Chairman Gowdy, I know you’re reluctance to use the word lie. I had that same reluctance when I wore the Congressional pin. You know, oh, this is not true, it’s a falsehood, it’s blah, blah, blah, all that. There’s so much of this, and so much evidence from this woman now, and she was running for president, and the intent is clearly there that she doesn’t want people to know what she did, I think she is lying.
TG: Well, I typically use the phrase demonstrably false. It is false. I can prove that it’s false, and I can prove that you should have known it was false at the time. What I cannot do is climb into someone’s head. I just can’t do it. But for my purposes, it is enough that I know it was false, it was false at the time you said it, and I can make a pretty good circumstantial case that you should have known it was false.
JC: And there’s an awful lot of them there. Congressman Gowdy, Chairman Gowdy, good luck with whatever you can do and whatever you can do to bring to America the truth about Hillary Clinton, because you will never, ever, ever get it from her.
End of interview.
(Thanks to Duane Patterson and Hugh Hewitt.)
The back-and-forth between Gowdy and Clinton is, naturally, described in the stories of the American Media Maggots as much ado about nothing, conducted by biased persons who have no evidence. Salon magazine calls it an “anti-Hillary witch hunt.”
Why do Republicans and Conservatives and Gowdy continue on with Benghazi? Because four good Americans died at that consulate, the US deserves to know the truth, and too many people are refusing to speak about it or are outright lying about it.
This is why some people will not let Benghazi rest.
BZ