The Clinton Chronicles
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
Clinton's inescapable cloud of corruption
By LISA BOOTHE (@LISAMARIEBOOTHE) • 8/24/16
While many in the media have declared the presidential election all but over, damning accusations of pay to play at the Clinton Foundation and reports that the FBI found 15,000 work-related documents that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over represent the political land mines that still lie between her and the presidency. Multiple ongoing Freedom of Information Act civil suits, perjury allegations, an IRS probe and alleged joint U.S. Attorney-FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation represent the inescapable cloud of corruption that could be the Democratic nominee's undoing.
As the drip, drip, drip of information highlighting the intersection between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department surfaces, the political fallout for Hillary Clinton is unavoidable. The newly exposed emails demonstrate another lie told by the Clinton campaign. Despite her lawyers stating that only 30,000 emails on her server were related to work, the 15,000 puts that number closer to 45,000. But more importantly, it paints a clearer picture of what Hillary Clinton was attempting to hide by setting up private servers in the first place and attempting to wipe them clean.
What is particularly troubling for Clinton is that liberal publications like the Huffington Post and Boston Globe are calling for the Clinton Foundation to shut down. The calls will undoubtedly grow louder as reports continue to expose the overlap between top foreign donors to the foundation and the access it gained them to Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. That access puts into question the impartiality of the decisions Secretary Clinton made while in office and the potential conflicts of interest she would be confronted with as commander in chief. The Wall Street Journal has reported that "At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation." And according to the Associated Press, 55 percent of Clinton's meetings and calls with people outside of the government were donors to the Clinton Foundation.
More than 40 percent of the Clinton Foundation's top donors are based in foreign countries, prompting the Washington Post to write, "Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments." Many of those foreign governments have a history of human rights abuses. It is estimated the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from Middle Eastern countries.
Emails recently released by Judicial Watch and reports by Fox News demonstrate the close level of communication between State Department and Clinton Foundation officials. Judicial Watch recently released 725 pages of State Department documents showing coordination between Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Douglas Band, a former longtime aide of President Bill Clinton and employee of the Clinton Foundation, who worked together to grant access to then-Secretary Clinton for high-dollar donors like Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain.
After failing to set up a meeting with the secretary of state through State Department channels, Salman, who contributed $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, went through the Clinton Foundation and successfully set up a meeting 48 hours later. Fox News has also reported on the close ties between the two entities. State Department call logs for Cheryl Mills, who served as chief of staff for Hillary Clinton at the State Department, show at least 148 messages from Laura Graham, the Clinton Foundation's chief operating officer. It was also discovered that Mills traveled to New York to interview job applicants for the foundation. Whether taxpayers footed the bill or not is still in question.
The New York Times has reported on other sketchy donors like "the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists" as well as a "Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests." But it is donor Rajiv Fernando who illustrates the kind of favors donors were able to curry with the secretary of state.
Fernando, who served as a bundler for the Democratic Party and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, was appointed to the International Security Board at the Department of State even though he didn't have any national security credentials. The board, which advised the State Department on nuclear weapons, consisted of nuclear scientists, former cabinet officials and members of Congress. The State Department reportedly worked overtime to get Rajiv Fernando a high-level security clearance.
In the article titled "Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company," the New York Times also documented the details of a deal Hillary Clinton approved as secretary of state that "gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States." Several of the individuals with ties to the company, Uranium One, contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation initially failed to publicly disclose those donations.
With so much information still left to unravel, Hillary Clinton's campaign will continue to be dogged by corruption and scandal. But one question remains: If this is how she conducted herself as the nation's top diplomat, what kind of damage could she do in the White House?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-inescapable-cloud-of-corruption/article/2600018
By LISA BOOTHE (@LISAMARIEBOOTHE) • 8/24/16
While many in the media have declared the presidential election all but over, damning accusations of pay to play at the Clinton Foundation and reports that the FBI found 15,000 work-related documents that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over represent the political land mines that still lie between her and the presidency. Multiple ongoing Freedom of Information Act civil suits, perjury allegations, an IRS probe and alleged joint U.S. Attorney-FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation represent the inescapable cloud of corruption that could be the Democratic nominee's undoing.
As the drip, drip, drip of information highlighting the intersection between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department surfaces, the political fallout for Hillary Clinton is unavoidable. The newly exposed emails demonstrate another lie told by the Clinton campaign. Despite her lawyers stating that only 30,000 emails on her server were related to work, the 15,000 puts that number closer to 45,000. But more importantly, it paints a clearer picture of what Hillary Clinton was attempting to hide by setting up private servers in the first place and attempting to wipe them clean.
What is particularly troubling for Clinton is that liberal publications like the Huffington Post and Boston Globe are calling for the Clinton Foundation to shut down. The calls will undoubtedly grow louder as reports continue to expose the overlap between top foreign donors to the foundation and the access it gained them to Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. That access puts into question the impartiality of the decisions Secretary Clinton made while in office and the potential conflicts of interest she would be confronted with as commander in chief. The Wall Street Journal has reported that "At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation." And according to the Associated Press, 55 percent of Clinton's meetings and calls with people outside of the government were donors to the Clinton Foundation.
More than 40 percent of the Clinton Foundation's top donors are based in foreign countries, prompting the Washington Post to write, "Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments." Many of those foreign governments have a history of human rights abuses. It is estimated the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from Middle Eastern countries.
Emails recently released by Judicial Watch and reports by Fox News demonstrate the close level of communication between State Department and Clinton Foundation officials. Judicial Watch recently released 725 pages of State Department documents showing coordination between Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and Douglas Band, a former longtime aide of President Bill Clinton and employee of the Clinton Foundation, who worked together to grant access to then-Secretary Clinton for high-dollar donors like Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain.
After failing to set up a meeting with the secretary of state through State Department channels, Salman, who contributed $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, went through the Clinton Foundation and successfully set up a meeting 48 hours later. Fox News has also reported on the close ties between the two entities. State Department call logs for Cheryl Mills, who served as chief of staff for Hillary Clinton at the State Department, show at least 148 messages from Laura Graham, the Clinton Foundation's chief operating officer. It was also discovered that Mills traveled to New York to interview job applicants for the foundation. Whether taxpayers footed the bill or not is still in question.
The New York Times has reported on other sketchy donors like "the son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption and the murder of journalists" as well as a "Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests." But it is donor Rajiv Fernando who illustrates the kind of favors donors were able to curry with the secretary of state.
Fernando, who served as a bundler for the Democratic Party and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, was appointed to the International Security Board at the Department of State even though he didn't have any national security credentials. The board, which advised the State Department on nuclear weapons, consisted of nuclear scientists, former cabinet officials and members of Congress. The State Department reportedly worked overtime to get Rajiv Fernando a high-level security clearance.
In the article titled "Cash Flowed To Clinton Foundation As Russians Pressed For Control Of Uranium Company," the New York Times also documented the details of a deal Hillary Clinton approved as secretary of state that "gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States." Several of the individuals with ties to the company, Uranium One, contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation initially failed to publicly disclose those donations.
With so much information still left to unravel, Hillary Clinton's campaign will continue to be dogged by corruption and scandal. But one question remains: If this is how she conducted herself as the nation's top diplomat, what kind of damage could she do in the White House?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-inescapable-cloud-of-corruption/article/2600018
Makes one wonder if Assange has lost his 'first mover advantage'. 
Last edited:
Clinton State Department Stonewalled AP for Three Years
by NRO STAFF August 23, 2016 5:59 PM
It was a long wait. Today’s blockbuster report from the Associated Press about Hillary Clinton’s meetings with Clinton Foundation donors during her time as Secretary of State contained the following nugget: “The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.”
Three years ago.
The long wait was in keeping with a practice of slow-walking such requests for information.
In April, the State Department explained the fact that Clinton ignored 237 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by saying that she was sitting Secretary of State at the time the requests were filed.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton received 240 FOIA requests from 2009 to 2013 but only responded to three of them within the legally required timeframe. Among the organizations that filed unanswered requests were the AP, Gawker, Judicial Watch, Citizens United, and Vice News. Some of these groups subsequently sued the State Department for failing to respond to their requests for information from Clinton’s records.
The State Department attempted to justify its delays by claiming that the number and complexity of records requests continued to increase until it was impossible to process them. Of course, the effect of the slow processing was to make it impossible for the A.P. to do the report that rocked the political world this afternoon.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/happe...three-years-state-department-associated-press
by NRO STAFF August 23, 2016 5:59 PM
It was a long wait. Today’s blockbuster report from the Associated Press about Hillary Clinton’s meetings with Clinton Foundation donors during her time as Secretary of State contained the following nugget: “The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.”
Three years ago.
The long wait was in keeping with a practice of slow-walking such requests for information.
In April, the State Department explained the fact that Clinton ignored 237 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by saying that she was sitting Secretary of State at the time the requests were filed.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton received 240 FOIA requests from 2009 to 2013 but only responded to three of them within the legally required timeframe. Among the organizations that filed unanswered requests were the AP, Gawker, Judicial Watch, Citizens United, and Vice News. Some of these groups subsequently sued the State Department for failing to respond to their requests for information from Clinton’s records.
The State Department attempted to justify its delays by claiming that the number and complexity of records requests continued to increase until it was impossible to process them. Of course, the effect of the slow processing was to make it impossible for the A.P. to do the report that rocked the political world this afternoon.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/happe...three-years-state-department-associated-press
Hillary Clinton’s run-out-the-clock strategy
The Democrat aims to ignore the email and Foundation controversies, seeing a shrinking calendar as her friend.
By Annie Karni
She is not planning on sitting for another televised armchair confessional to rehash regrets about a private email server. Nor is the campaign setting up the kind of war room employed last year to discredit a book that aimed to expose a quid-pro-quo relationship between Clinton Foundation donors and State Department officials.
With 75 days until Election Day and new emails once again casting a pall over her campaign, Hillary Clinton aims to “run out the clock,” confidants say, on the latest chapters of the overlapping controversies that have dogged her campaign since the start.
According to allies and operatives close to the campaign, Clinton’s team thinks “they can ride out” any negative reaction to a set of new emails that show Clinton Foundation officials trying to set up State Department meetings for donors during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat.
“That doesn’t mean no response,” one Clinton team insider said, “but a muted one rather than a five-alarm fire.”
It's a strategy borne, in part, of a belief held deeply by Clinton herself that the email controversy is a fake scandal and that voters are as sick of it as the candidate herself — and by the profound weaknesses of Clinton's opponent.
In the campaign’s view, the emails that surfaced this week do not advance the foundation storyline; while emails obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch shed light on the open line of communication between Clinton’s top aides and foundation officials, there is no proof positive that donors received special access or treatment from the government.
Plus, the campaign thinks Clinton’s commanding lead over Donald Trump in both national and battleground state polls gives her freedom to not comment — indeed, largely ignore — the disclosure this week that the FBI found nearly 15,000 new emails Clinton did not voluntarily hand over to the State Department last year.
While those emails could be released to the public as early as October, Clinton allies predicted that the State department’s tedious review process means the release is more likely to affect a Clinton reelection campaign in 2020 than derail her this fall.
“It’s going to be there forever,” said Clinton ally James Carville of the email controversy, holding that there was nothing new for the candidate or her campaign to add to the discussion. “They should go about their business,” he advised.
Clinton’s more pressing concern, her donors said, is raising money for the expensive ground organization she will need to deliver a win. On Tuesday, she ignored the new chapters of her old controversies while attending a star-studded fundraiser at Justin Timberlake’s mansion in Los Angeles, followed by a pair of big-money events in Laguna Beach.
Some Democrats, including close Clinton allies, have started to warn that their nominee might be underestimating the danger lurking in the fall as Trump and Republicans prepare to launch negative ads on these twin controversies and remind American voters just how little they trust the former secretary of state. Their best hope is that Trump continues to veer wildly off script.
Clinton remains, as one ally described, as decidedly and defiantly “puritan” as she was 17 months ago that the email investigation is nothing more than a partisan attack. Close allies characterize her as frustrated by the ongoing focus on the issue of her email server because she still fundamentally believes she did nothing to bend the rules. She is also resentful that Trump is only trailing by single digits in national polls when she thinks there is no comparison between her baggage and his and that a Clintonian double standard is at play.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-trump-email-strategy-227347#ixzz4IMYJ9H3L
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
The Democrat aims to ignore the email and Foundation controversies, seeing a shrinking calendar as her friend.
By Annie Karni
She is not planning on sitting for another televised armchair confessional to rehash regrets about a private email server. Nor is the campaign setting up the kind of war room employed last year to discredit a book that aimed to expose a quid-pro-quo relationship between Clinton Foundation donors and State Department officials.
With 75 days until Election Day and new emails once again casting a pall over her campaign, Hillary Clinton aims to “run out the clock,” confidants say, on the latest chapters of the overlapping controversies that have dogged her campaign since the start.
According to allies and operatives close to the campaign, Clinton’s team thinks “they can ride out” any negative reaction to a set of new emails that show Clinton Foundation officials trying to set up State Department meetings for donors during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat.
“That doesn’t mean no response,” one Clinton team insider said, “but a muted one rather than a five-alarm fire.”
It's a strategy borne, in part, of a belief held deeply by Clinton herself that the email controversy is a fake scandal and that voters are as sick of it as the candidate herself — and by the profound weaknesses of Clinton's opponent.
In the campaign’s view, the emails that surfaced this week do not advance the foundation storyline; while emails obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch shed light on the open line of communication between Clinton’s top aides and foundation officials, there is no proof positive that donors received special access or treatment from the government.
Plus, the campaign thinks Clinton’s commanding lead over Donald Trump in both national and battleground state polls gives her freedom to not comment — indeed, largely ignore — the disclosure this week that the FBI found nearly 15,000 new emails Clinton did not voluntarily hand over to the State Department last year.
While those emails could be released to the public as early as October, Clinton allies predicted that the State department’s tedious review process means the release is more likely to affect a Clinton reelection campaign in 2020 than derail her this fall.
“It’s going to be there forever,” said Clinton ally James Carville of the email controversy, holding that there was nothing new for the candidate or her campaign to add to the discussion. “They should go about their business,” he advised.
Clinton’s more pressing concern, her donors said, is raising money for the expensive ground organization she will need to deliver a win. On Tuesday, she ignored the new chapters of her old controversies while attending a star-studded fundraiser at Justin Timberlake’s mansion in Los Angeles, followed by a pair of big-money events in Laguna Beach.
Some Democrats, including close Clinton allies, have started to warn that their nominee might be underestimating the danger lurking in the fall as Trump and Republicans prepare to launch negative ads on these twin controversies and remind American voters just how little they trust the former secretary of state. Their best hope is that Trump continues to veer wildly off script.
Clinton remains, as one ally described, as decidedly and defiantly “puritan” as she was 17 months ago that the email investigation is nothing more than a partisan attack. Close allies characterize her as frustrated by the ongoing focus on the issue of her email server because she still fundamentally believes she did nothing to bend the rules. She is also resentful that Trump is only trailing by single digits in national polls when she thinks there is no comparison between her baggage and his and that a Clintonian double standard is at play.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-trump-email-strategy-227347#ixzz4IMYJ9H3L
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Charles Krauthammer: The Clinton Bribery Standard
Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to deal in things so tawdry and straightforward.
Sanders failed to understand that Clinton scandals are sprawling, multilayered, complex things. They defy time and space. They grow and burrow.
The central problem with Hillary Clinton's emails was not the classified material. It wasn't the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.
That's a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and -- in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions -- demonstrating her arm's-length relationship with the truth.
But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question wasn't classification but: Why did she have a private server in the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn't convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?
Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it -- as she did 30,000 emails -- at will.
But destroy what? Remember: She set up the system before even taking office. It's clear what she wanted to protect from scrutiny: Clinton Foundation business.
The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc. Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons' lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration.
Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago, emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation "friends." Say, a meeting with the State Department's "substance person" on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.
Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until -- drip, drip -- the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.
To be sure, Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn't have to go through a foundation -- to which his government donated at least $50,000 -- to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling.
Now, a further drip: The Associated Press found that over half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton -- 85 of 154 -- were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.
Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo.
What a long way we've come. This is the very last line of defense. Yes, it's obvious that access and influence were sold. But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors received something tangible of value -- a pipeline, a permit, a waiver, a favorable regulatory ruling -- in exchange.
It's hard to believe the Clinton folks would be stupid enough to commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath.
On the face of it, it's rather odd that a visible quid pro quo is the bright line for malfeasance. Anything short of that -- the country is awash with political money that buys access -- is deemed acceptable. As Donald Trump says of his own donation-giving days, "when I need something from them ... I call them, they are there for me." This is considered routine and unremarkable.
It's not until a Rolex shows up on your wrist that you get indicted. Or you are found to have dangled a Senate appointment for cash. Then, like Rod Blagojevich, you go to jail. (He got 14 years.)
Yet we are hardly bothered by the routine practice of presidents rewarding big donors with cushy ambassadorships, appointments to portentous boards or invitations to state dinners.
The bright line seems to be outright bribery. Anything short of that is considered -- not just for the Clintons, for everyone -- acceptable corruption.
It's a sorry standard. And right now it is Hillary Clinton's saving grace.
http://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/charles-krauthammer-the-clinton-bribery-standard/
Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to deal in things so tawdry and straightforward.
Sanders failed to understand that Clinton scandals are sprawling, multilayered, complex things. They defy time and space. They grow and burrow.
The central problem with Hillary Clinton's emails was not the classified material. It wasn't the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.
That's a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and -- in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions -- demonstrating her arm's-length relationship with the truth.
But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question wasn't classification but: Why did she have a private server in the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn't convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?
Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it -- as she did 30,000 emails -- at will.
But destroy what? Remember: She set up the system before even taking office. It's clear what she wanted to protect from scrutiny: Clinton Foundation business.
The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc. Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons' lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration.
Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago, emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation "friends." Say, a meeting with the State Department's "substance person" on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.
Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until -- drip, drip -- the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.
To be sure, Bahrain, home of the Fifth Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn't have to go through a foundation -- to which his government donated at least $50,000 -- to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling.
Now, a further drip: The Associated Press found that over half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton -- 85 of 154 -- were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.
Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo.
What a long way we've come. This is the very last line of defense. Yes, it's obvious that access and influence were sold. But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors received something tangible of value -- a pipeline, a permit, a waiver, a favorable regulatory ruling -- in exchange.
It's hard to believe the Clinton folks would be stupid enough to commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath.
On the face of it, it's rather odd that a visible quid pro quo is the bright line for malfeasance. Anything short of that -- the country is awash with political money that buys access -- is deemed acceptable. As Donald Trump says of his own donation-giving days, "when I need something from them ... I call them, they are there for me." This is considered routine and unremarkable.
It's not until a Rolex shows up on your wrist that you get indicted. Or you are found to have dangled a Senate appointment for cash. Then, like Rod Blagojevich, you go to jail. (He got 14 years.)
Yet we are hardly bothered by the routine practice of presidents rewarding big donors with cushy ambassadorships, appointments to portentous boards or invitations to state dinners.
The bright line seems to be outright bribery. Anything short of that is considered -- not just for the Clintons, for everyone -- acceptable corruption.
It's a sorry standard. And right now it is Hillary Clinton's saving grace.
http://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/charles-krauthammer-the-clinton-bribery-standard/
Clinton went overboard in deleting her emails. She scrubbed the entire server.
Clinton team used special program to scrub server, Gowdy says
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ecial-program-to-scrub-server-gowdy-says.html
Hillary Clinton’s team used more than just a “cloth” to scrub her private server – employing a special program known as BleachBit to delete her private emails and try to prevent their recovery, a senior Republican on the House oversight committee who has read the FBI’s investigative file told Fox News.
“They didn't just push the delete button. They had them deleted where even God can't read them,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Thursday.
The account is striking considering that Clinton, at a rare press conference last year in Las Vegas, seemed to claim ignorance when asked by Fox News whether she wiped her server.
“What, like with a cloth or something?” Clinton quipped, adding: “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
Yet Gowdy said her team was using BleachBit, which is like an electronic shredder that permanently scrambles data.
In reference to the kinds of emails Clinton has claimed were private and not worth turning over, Gowdy said, “You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails, or for bridesmaids emails. When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”
(More at above url)
Clinton team used special program to scrub server, Gowdy says
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ecial-program-to-scrub-server-gowdy-says.html
Hillary Clinton’s team used more than just a “cloth” to scrub her private server – employing a special program known as BleachBit to delete her private emails and try to prevent their recovery, a senior Republican on the House oversight committee who has read the FBI’s investigative file told Fox News.
“They didn't just push the delete button. They had them deleted where even God can't read them,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Thursday.
The account is striking considering that Clinton, at a rare press conference last year in Las Vegas, seemed to claim ignorance when asked by Fox News whether she wiped her server.
“What, like with a cloth or something?” Clinton quipped, adding: “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
Yet Gowdy said her team was using BleachBit, which is like an electronic shredder that permanently scrambles data.
In reference to the kinds of emails Clinton has claimed were private and not worth turning over, Gowdy said, “You don't use BleachBit for yoga emails, or for bridesmaids emails. When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see.”
(More at above url)
