The Clinton Chronicles
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
Clinton’s Disturbing Connections To Racists And Tyrants Remains Unexplained
Hillary Clinton may have just accused Donald Trump of the same type of bigotry she is guilty of.
In a remarkable speech on Thursday in Reno, Nevada, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton devoted a surprisingly significant amount of time attempting to link Donald Trump to the “alternative right.” The Southern Poverty Law Center defines the alt-right as “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.”
After Trump attacked Clinton at a rally in Mississippi where he called her a “bigot” who “sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings,” Clinton told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Trump is “taking a hate movement mainstream” and suggested Trump has “courted” white supremacists.
Regardless of who Trump is and who he has associated himself with, two facts remain crystal clear: First, Hillary Clinton has a long history of being connected to or saying she admires bigots, racists, and tyrants who do not support individual liberty or equality under the law for minorities, and second, the mainstream media has largely ignored all of this as part of its effort to help Clinton win the White House in November.
Her ‘Admiration’ for Margaret Sanger, a Racist Population-Control Advocate
In March 2009, Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood, which was founded by Sanger as the American Birth Control League in 1921. During her acceptance, Clinton stated, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”
Sanger has long been championed as a hero of the left for her role in promoting birth control, but few in the media have reported how Sanger was also a champion of a far more sinister belief: the use of eugenics to limit minority populations, including African-Americans and those with disabilities.
Sanger wrote in Woman and the New Race, “Birth control itself … is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
In 1932, Sanger requested Congress create a “Parliament of Population” to “control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness, and interest of the individuals.” In 1939, she wrote in a private letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population …”
Sanger even delivered a presentation at a Ku Klux Klan meeting in Silver Lake, New Jersey, which she recounted fondly in her autobiography, calling the group “good” and “passionate.”
Despite Sanger’s objectionable and abhorrent past, Clinton has never distanced herself from Sanger. In fact, when asked about her support for Sanger at a congressional hearing by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Clinton defended her and related her admiration for Sanger to her respect of the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson.
Top Aide Connected to Bigoted Islamic Journal
Clinton’s praise for the population-control queen Sanger isn’t her only questionable connection to bigotry. The New York Post recently reported Clinton’s top aide and close advisor Huma Abedin previously worked under her mother at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. In 1996, Abedin, then the assistant editor, published an article in the journal titled “Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights,” which argued in the words of Post reporter Paul Sperry, “single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.
After a week of reporting on the story, Clinton still refuses to comment in detail about Abedin’s relationship to the controversial and bigoted journal, which is still being run by Abedin’s mother.
Clinton Foundation Does Business with Anti-Gay, Anti-Women’s Rights Nations
According to numerous reports, the multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation—which has recently come under much media scrutiny for possibly selling access to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state—has taken millions upon millions of dollars from countries and world leaders that restrict women’s rights and persecute people who are gay.
For instance, the Clinton Foundation has received $5 million to $10 million from Kuwait, where men can be imprisoned for up to seven years for engaging in a same-sex relationship. Saudi Arabia has given the foundation $10 million to $25 million, and it addresses same-sex relationships using a wide array of barbaric punishments, including flogging, execution, and in the case of non-Muslims, stoning.
In some of the nations that have donated to Clinton Foundation, women aren’t allowed to travel without a man’s permission, and in many places, women must remain covered at all times in public.
Where’s the Outrage?
Despite these disturbing connections to racists, bigots, human-rights violators, and tyrants who oppose individual liberty, much of the media has remained relatively quiet and refuses to ask Clinton about her record.
Hillary Clinton says she supports freedom and minority rights, but her past suggests she only does so when it’s convenient. Clinton needs to explain why she’s maintained these relationships and why voters should trust her stated commitment to liberty.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/29...n-bigots-racists-tyrants-remains-unexplained/
Hillary Clinton may have just accused Donald Trump of the same type of bigotry she is guilty of.
In a remarkable speech on Thursday in Reno, Nevada, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton devoted a surprisingly significant amount of time attempting to link Donald Trump to the “alternative right.” The Southern Poverty Law Center defines the alt-right as “a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that ‘white identity’ is under attack by multicultural forces using ‘political correctness’ and ‘social justice’ to undermine white people and ‘their’ civilization.”
After Trump attacked Clinton at a rally in Mississippi where he called her a “bigot” who “sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings,” Clinton told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Trump is “taking a hate movement mainstream” and suggested Trump has “courted” white supremacists.
Regardless of who Trump is and who he has associated himself with, two facts remain crystal clear: First, Hillary Clinton has a long history of being connected to or saying she admires bigots, racists, and tyrants who do not support individual liberty or equality under the law for minorities, and second, the mainstream media has largely ignored all of this as part of its effort to help Clinton win the White House in November.
Her ‘Admiration’ for Margaret Sanger, a Racist Population-Control Advocate
In March 2009, Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood, which was founded by Sanger as the American Birth Control League in 1921. During her acceptance, Clinton stated, “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”
Sanger has long been championed as a hero of the left for her role in promoting birth control, but few in the media have reported how Sanger was also a champion of a far more sinister belief: the use of eugenics to limit minority populations, including African-Americans and those with disabilities.
Sanger wrote in Woman and the New Race, “Birth control itself … is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
In 1932, Sanger requested Congress create a “Parliament of Population” to “control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness, and interest of the individuals.” In 1939, she wrote in a private letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population …”
Sanger even delivered a presentation at a Ku Klux Klan meeting in Silver Lake, New Jersey, which she recounted fondly in her autobiography, calling the group “good” and “passionate.”
Despite Sanger’s objectionable and abhorrent past, Clinton has never distanced herself from Sanger. In fact, when asked about her support for Sanger at a congressional hearing by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Clinton defended her and related her admiration for Sanger to her respect of the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson.
Top Aide Connected to Bigoted Islamic Journal
Clinton’s praise for the population-control queen Sanger isn’t her only questionable connection to bigotry. The New York Post recently reported Clinton’s top aide and close advisor Huma Abedin previously worked under her mother at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. In 1996, Abedin, then the assistant editor, published an article in the journal titled “Women’s Rights Are Islamic Rights,” which argued in the words of Post reporter Paul Sperry, “single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.
After a week of reporting on the story, Clinton still refuses to comment in detail about Abedin’s relationship to the controversial and bigoted journal, which is still being run by Abedin’s mother.
Clinton Foundation Does Business with Anti-Gay, Anti-Women’s Rights Nations
According to numerous reports, the multi-million-dollar Clinton Foundation—which has recently come under much media scrutiny for possibly selling access to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state—has taken millions upon millions of dollars from countries and world leaders that restrict women’s rights and persecute people who are gay.
For instance, the Clinton Foundation has received $5 million to $10 million from Kuwait, where men can be imprisoned for up to seven years for engaging in a same-sex relationship. Saudi Arabia has given the foundation $10 million to $25 million, and it addresses same-sex relationships using a wide array of barbaric punishments, including flogging, execution, and in the case of non-Muslims, stoning.
In some of the nations that have donated to Clinton Foundation, women aren’t allowed to travel without a man’s permission, and in many places, women must remain covered at all times in public.
Where’s the Outrage?
Despite these disturbing connections to racists, bigots, human-rights violators, and tyrants who oppose individual liberty, much of the media has remained relatively quiet and refuses to ask Clinton about her record.
Hillary Clinton says she supports freedom and minority rights, but her past suggests she only does so when it’s convenient. Clinton needs to explain why she’s maintained these relationships and why voters should trust her stated commitment to liberty.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/29...n-bigots-racists-tyrants-remains-unexplained/
Hillary Clinton’s KKK Smear
The Democratic Party has for years painted the GOP as one giant hate group.
Let’s get this straight. Calling Hillary Clinton a “bigot” has reporters asking every Republican in sight if Donald Trump has gone too far. But the Clinton campaign releases a video saying Mr. Trump is the candidate of the Ku Klux Klan and it’s all okey-dokey?
Then again, Mr. Trump has already been likened to Hitler, Mussoliniand Stalin. Small wonder there’s a collective ho-hum when Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine says Mr. Trump is peddling “KKK values.”
This is what Democrats do.
It didn’t start with Mr. Trump, either. For years Democrats have portrayed the GOP as one giant hate group. Each presidential election, the drill goes like this: After Republicans nominate someone, he immediately finds himself having to prove he’s not a hater—of African-Americans, of women, of gays, etc.
This year Democrats added a twist. Mr. Trump, they claim, represents a break with all those decent and lovable Republicans such as Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush. Of course, this isn’t what they were saying back when these men were running for president.
• In 2000, for example, an NAACP ad recreated the gruesome murder of James Byrd to imply that then-Gov. Bush was sympathetic to lynching black men. Over footage of a chain being dragged by a pickup truck, Mr. Byrd’s daughter says, “So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.”
• When John McCain ran in 2008, Barack Obama warned that Republicans would scare people by saying, “You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.” The McCain campaign fired back, accusing Mr. Obama of playing the race card from the “bottom of the deck.” Funny thing: All those reporters always hearing “dog whistles” from Republicans somehow didn’t hear this one.
• In 2012, when Mitt Romney went to the NAACP and told them face-to-face about his opposition to ObamaCare, the stories were all about how he was really just trolling for the racist vote. Vice President Joe Biden put it more explicitly, telling a largely African-American audience that if Mr. Romney were to win, he’d “put ya’ll back in chains.”
The only difference today is that Republicans now have a nominee giving as good as he gets. It’s often clumsy; it comes late in the day; and his case hasn’t been helped by, say, his belabored moaning that a federal judge’s Mexican heritage meant he couldn’t be unbiased in litigation involving Trump University.
Even so, on one point Mr. Trump is absolutely right. After noting how badly served African-Americans have been by the decades-long failures of liberal Democratic policies, he poses this question to black voters: “What the hell do you have to lose?”
It’s not the Republican Party, after all, whose policies have helped turn so many American inner cities into hellholes for its residents. It’s not the Republicans who effectively cede whole neighborhoods to the thugs making life miserable for law-abiding citizens. Nor is it the Republican Party fighting to ensure that an African-American child stuck in a rotten public school has no escape.
When he tried to make some of these points, Mr. Trump was accused of ignoring the black middle-class. Turns out, however, that the black middle-class has its own illuminating tale.
When Joel Kotkin’s Center for Opportunity Urbanism measured the best cities for racial minorities (by median household income, self employment, housing affordability and population growth), it found something seldom reported. Of the top 15 cities for African-Americans, 13 are in the former Confederacy. Surely this says something about the failure of the progressive, blue-state north.
Mr. Trump could go further. For all the talk about “coded language” and “dog whistles,” the dependency that has debilitated America’s inner cities is not a function of race. We know this because much the same culture is on sad display in, say, Eastern Kentucky, where a population that is almost wholly white has been devastated by the same War on Poverty largess that has proved so debilitating for urban communities.
On Saturday Mr. Trump takes his case to a black church in the heart of Detroit. That’s encouraging. Let’s hope it marks a break with the unspoken rule that looks kindly on Republican minority outreach as fine so long as it is timid, defensive and largely confined to rarefied conferences or think tanks.
Maybe it’s time for a brash salesman to make the case directly to the people themselves. Because the fury Mr. Trump has unleashed with claims that Democrats such as Mrs. Clinton do not care about how their policies harm black Americans has nothing to do with their inappropriateness.
And everything to do with the fear that, after so many years of hearing Democrats cry “racist” about Republicans, Mr. Trump’s call of the Democrat bluff might lead at least some African-Americans to say to themselves: Maybe the man has a point.
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.
Hillary Clinton’s KKK Smear
The Democratic Party has for years painted the GOP as one giant hate group.
Let’s get this straight. Calling Hillary Clinton a “bigot” has reporters asking every Republican in sight if Donald Trump has gone too far. But the Clinton campaign releases a video saying Mr. Trump is the candidate of the Ku Klux Klan and it’s all okey-dokey?
Then again, Mr. Trump has already been likened to Hitler, Mussoliniand Stalin. Small wonder there’s a collective ho-hum when Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine says Mr. Trump is peddling “KKK values.”
This is what Democrats do.
It didn’t start with Mr. Trump, either. For years Democrats have portrayed the GOP as one giant hate group. Each presidential election, the drill goes like this: After Republicans nominate someone, he immediately finds himself having to prove he’s not a hater—of African-Americans, of women, of gays, etc.
This year Democrats added a twist. Mr. Trump, they claim, represents a break with all those decent and lovable Republicans such as Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush. Of course, this isn’t what they were saying back when these men were running for president.
• In 2000, for example, an NAACP ad recreated the gruesome murder of James Byrd to imply that then-Gov. Bush was sympathetic to lynching black men. Over footage of a chain being dragged by a pickup truck, Mr. Byrd’s daughter says, “So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.”
• When John McCain ran in 2008, Barack Obama warned that Republicans would scare people by saying, “You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.” The McCain campaign fired back, accusing Mr. Obama of playing the race card from the “bottom of the deck.” Funny thing: All those reporters always hearing “dog whistles” from Republicans somehow didn’t hear this one.
• In 2012, when Mitt Romney went to the NAACP and told them face-to-face about his opposition to ObamaCare, the stories were all about how he was really just trolling for the racist vote. Vice President Joe Biden put it more explicitly, telling a largely African-American audience that if Mr. Romney were to win, he’d “put ya’ll back in chains.”
The only difference today is that Republicans now have a nominee giving as good as he gets. It’s often clumsy; it comes late in the day; and his case hasn’t been helped by, say, his belabored moaning that a federal judge’s Mexican heritage meant he couldn’t be unbiased in litigation involving Trump University.
Even so, on one point Mr. Trump is absolutely right. After noting how badly served African-Americans have been by the decades-long failures of liberal Democratic policies, he poses this question to black voters: “What the hell do you have to lose?”
It’s not the Republican Party, after all, whose policies have helped turn so many American inner cities into hellholes for its residents. It’s not the Republicans who effectively cede whole neighborhoods to the thugs making life miserable for law-abiding citizens. Nor is it the Republican Party fighting to ensure that an African-American child stuck in a rotten public school has no escape.
When he tried to make some of these points, Mr. Trump was accused of ignoring the black middle-class. Turns out, however, that the black middle-class has its own illuminating tale.
When Joel Kotkin’s Center for Opportunity Urbanism measured the best cities for racial minorities (by median household income, self employment, housing affordability and population growth), it found something seldom reported. Of the top 15 cities for African-Americans, 13 are in the former Confederacy. Surely this says something about the failure of the progressive, blue-state north.
Mr. Trump could go further. For all the talk about “coded language” and “dog whistles,” the dependency that has debilitated America’s inner cities is not a function of race. We know this because much the same culture is on sad display in, say, Eastern Kentucky, where a population that is almost wholly white has been devastated by the same War on Poverty largess that has proved so debilitating for urban communities.
On Saturday Mr. Trump takes his case to a black church in the heart of Detroit. That’s encouraging. Let’s hope it marks a break with the unspoken rule that looks kindly on Republican minority outreach as fine so long as it is timid, defensive and largely confined to rarefied conferences or think tanks.
Maybe it’s time for a brash salesman to make the case directly to the people themselves. Because the fury Mr. Trump has unleashed with claims that Democrats such as Mrs. Clinton do not care about how their policies harm black Americans has nothing to do with their inappropriateness.
And everything to do with the fear that, after so many years of hearing Democrats cry “racist” about Republicans, Mr. Trump’s call of the Democrat bluff might lead at least some African-Americans to say to themselves: Maybe the man has a point.
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.
Hillary Clinton’s KKK Smear
A fresh reminder that the Clintons never play by the rules
How about that: Among the 14,900 “new” Hillary Clinton e-mails uncovered by the FBI are 30 or so that concern the Benghazi attack — the most controversial single episode in Clinton’s four years running the State Department.
So much for Clinton’s claim that she’d handed over all her work-related e-mails. Heck: So much for any remaining illusion that she even tried to provide a complete record.
But, as someone once asked: What difference, at this point, does it make? Can Hillary’s “trust deficit” get any deeper?
In part, that depends on what’s actually in the e-mails, which may not be released until the end of September.
But it also seems to up the odds that the overall FBI “dump” will have some kind of bombshell. Benghazi’s been a matter of prime public and congressional interest for the last four years. If Clinton wouldn’t even make a good-faith effort to hand over everything on that topic, then she wasn’t trying for full disclosure on any front.
Bigger picture: This is a taste of what a Hillary presidency would bring, just as Bill’s did back in the ’90s — endless low-level scandal, occasionally flaring up into something far larger.
It’s no mystery why. The Clintons just refuse to play by the rules — whether it’s “renting out” the Lincoln Bedroom to big campaign donors in Bill’s White House, or giving preferential access to big Clinton Foundation donors at Hillary’s State Department.
And when they get caught, they never, ever just apologize and come clean. Instead, they circle the wagons and stonewall. Finally they answer the drip, drip, drip of fresh damning details with chants of “old news” and “let’s move on.”
It’s how they’ve rolled for four decades in the public eye. At 68 and 70, they’re not going to change. A vote for Hillary is a vote for another tarnished presidency.
You’ve been warned — again.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/30/a-fresh-reminder-that-the-clintons-never-play-by-the-rules/
How about that: Among the 14,900 “new” Hillary Clinton e-mails uncovered by the FBI are 30 or so that concern the Benghazi attack — the most controversial single episode in Clinton’s four years running the State Department.
So much for Clinton’s claim that she’d handed over all her work-related e-mails. Heck: So much for any remaining illusion that she even tried to provide a complete record.
But, as someone once asked: What difference, at this point, does it make? Can Hillary’s “trust deficit” get any deeper?
In part, that depends on what’s actually in the e-mails, which may not be released until the end of September.
But it also seems to up the odds that the overall FBI “dump” will have some kind of bombshell. Benghazi’s been a matter of prime public and congressional interest for the last four years. If Clinton wouldn’t even make a good-faith effort to hand over everything on that topic, then she wasn’t trying for full disclosure on any front.
Bigger picture: This is a taste of what a Hillary presidency would bring, just as Bill’s did back in the ’90s — endless low-level scandal, occasionally flaring up into something far larger.
It’s no mystery why. The Clintons just refuse to play by the rules — whether it’s “renting out” the Lincoln Bedroom to big campaign donors in Bill’s White House, or giving preferential access to big Clinton Foundation donors at Hillary’s State Department.
And when they get caught, they never, ever just apologize and come clean. Instead, they circle the wagons and stonewall. Finally they answer the drip, drip, drip of fresh damning details with chants of “old news” and “let’s move on.”
It’s how they’ve rolled for four decades in the public eye. At 68 and 70, they’re not going to change. A vote for Hillary is a vote for another tarnished presidency.
You’ve been warned — again.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/30/a-fresh-reminder-that-the-clintons-never-play-by-the-rules/
Clinton emailed classified information after leaving State Dept.
Hillary Clinton continued sending classified information even after leaving the State Department, The Post has exclusively learned.
On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.
But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.
The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”
The email from Clinton was sent from the email account — hrod17@clintonemail.com — associated with her private email server.
The email’s recipients were Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The “123 Deal” was a 2009 agreement between the United Arab Emirates and the US on materials and technological sharing for nuclear energy production.
“Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was so pervasive, it continued after she left government,” Republican National Committee research director Raj Shah told The Post. “She clearly can’t be trusted with our nation’s security.”
Clinton is believed to have sent 2,101 emails that contained at least some classified information.
The Trump campaign said the latest revelation about Clinton’s email habits is more proof she can’t be trusted with national security.
“Hillary Clinton’s secret server jeopardized our national security and sensitive diplomatic efforts on more than 2,000 occasions, and shockingly, it now appears her reckless conduct continued even after leaving the State Department. Hillary Clinton’s terrible judgment shows she cannot be trusted with our national security,” said Jason Miller, Trump’s senior communications advisor, in a statement.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/31/clinton-emailed-classified-information-after-leaving-state-dept/
Hillary Clinton continued sending classified information even after leaving the State Department, The Post has exclusively learned.
On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.
But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.
The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”
The email from Clinton was sent from the email account — hrod17@clintonemail.com — associated with her private email server.
The email’s recipients were Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The “123 Deal” was a 2009 agreement between the United Arab Emirates and the US on materials and technological sharing for nuclear energy production.
“Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was so pervasive, it continued after she left government,” Republican National Committee research director Raj Shah told The Post. “She clearly can’t be trusted with our nation’s security.”
Clinton is believed to have sent 2,101 emails that contained at least some classified information.
The Trump campaign said the latest revelation about Clinton’s email habits is more proof she can’t be trusted with national security.
“Hillary Clinton’s secret server jeopardized our national security and sensitive diplomatic efforts on more than 2,000 occasions, and shockingly, it now appears her reckless conduct continued even after leaving the State Department. Hillary Clinton’s terrible judgment shows she cannot be trusted with our national security,” said Jason Miller, Trump’s senior communications advisor, in a statement.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/31/clinton-emailed-classified-information-after-leaving-state-dept/
The Fix
A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton
By Aaron Blake August 31 at 7:00 AM
Hillary Clinton hits record low with voters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ber-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/
A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton
By Aaron Blake August 31 at 7:00 AM
Hillary Clinton hits record low with voters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ber-of-americans-now-dislike-hillary-clinton/
Latest email disclosure is just more proof that Clinton lied
On Tuesday, The Post’s Daniel Halper broke the news that Hillary Clinton continued recklessly mishandling classified information even after stepping down as secretary of state. The revelation is bracing — but hardly surprising.
We already knew Clinton’s email practices remained a national security vulnerability after she left the State Department at the end of President Obama’s first term.
For nearly two years, she maintained the servers through which her unauthorized, non-secure homebrew communication system had operated. As we now know, about 62,000 emails were stored on those servers, over 2,000 of which contained classified information, including some of the most sensitive national defense secrets — and the highly classified sources and methods for acquiring those secrets — maintained by our government.
The latest classified email disclosure is a joke. The document is so chockablock with classified information — meaning it is so thoroughly redacted — that the State Department might just as well have issued a blank page. This reminds us of how cynically the Democrats’ presidential nominee looked the American people in the eye and assured us, for over a year, that she never sent or received classified information.
When this preposterous claim was exploded, she tried Clintonian parsing: None of the emails, we were told, was “marked classified.” But the latest email discovery illustrates how farcical this talking point has always been.
Officials with security clearances know the categories of information that are classified pursuant to an executive order — whether they’re “marked” as such or not. Clinton not only knew the rules, she was in charge of enforcing them throughout her department.
And in any event, as FBI Director James Comey conceded, Clinton did send and receive some emails with classified markings.
We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she’d surrendered every single government business-related email upon the State Department’s request.
This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy thousands of emails which, like the one The Post describes, involved government business — some of it highly sensitive and significant (such as the 30 emails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government records to one’s own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if no classified information is involved.
Of course the Obama Justice Department was never going to indict the Democrats’ nominee (who, if she wins, would be positioned to reappoint Loretta Lynch as attorney general). But, in recommending against the filing of criminal charges (which he could only do by contorting statutes under which Clinton was clearly culpable), Comey noted that officials in Clinton’s shoes normally face “security and administrative sanctions.”
Translation: They have their security clearances revoked and are fired.
How could someone who should not be allowed to work for the government, much less have access to classified information, be permitted to stand for the presidency? It’s a question Congress should very publicly be exploring, even if the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign seek to sweep it under the rug.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and a contributing editor at National Review.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/31/latest-email-disclosure-is-just-more-proof-that-clinton-lied/
On Tuesday, The Post’s Daniel Halper broke the news that Hillary Clinton continued recklessly mishandling classified information even after stepping down as secretary of state. The revelation is bracing — but hardly surprising.
We already knew Clinton’s email practices remained a national security vulnerability after she left the State Department at the end of President Obama’s first term.
For nearly two years, she maintained the servers through which her unauthorized, non-secure homebrew communication system had operated. As we now know, about 62,000 emails were stored on those servers, over 2,000 of which contained classified information, including some of the most sensitive national defense secrets — and the highly classified sources and methods for acquiring those secrets — maintained by our government.
The latest classified email disclosure is a joke. The document is so chockablock with classified information — meaning it is so thoroughly redacted — that the State Department might just as well have issued a blank page. This reminds us of how cynically the Democrats’ presidential nominee looked the American people in the eye and assured us, for over a year, that she never sent or received classified information.
When this preposterous claim was exploded, she tried Clintonian parsing: None of the emails, we were told, was “marked classified.” But the latest email discovery illustrates how farcical this talking point has always been.
Officials with security clearances know the categories of information that are classified pursuant to an executive order — whether they’re “marked” as such or not. Clinton not only knew the rules, she was in charge of enforcing them throughout her department.
And in any event, as FBI Director James Comey conceded, Clinton did send and receive some emails with classified markings.
We are also reminded that Clinton repeatedly vowed she’d surrendered every single government business-related email upon the State Department’s request.
This was an extraordinary lie: She hoarded and attempted to destroy thousands of emails which, like the one The Post describes, involved government business — some of it highly sensitive and significant (such as the 30 emails related to the Benghazi massacre that the FBI recovered but the State Department has yet to disclose). Converting government records to one’s own use and destroying them are serious crimes, even if no classified information is involved.
Of course the Obama Justice Department was never going to indict the Democrats’ nominee (who, if she wins, would be positioned to reappoint Loretta Lynch as attorney general). But, in recommending against the filing of criminal charges (which he could only do by contorting statutes under which Clinton was clearly culpable), Comey noted that officials in Clinton’s shoes normally face “security and administrative sanctions.”
Translation: They have their security clearances revoked and are fired.
How could someone who should not be allowed to work for the government, much less have access to classified information, be permitted to stand for the presidency? It’s a question Congress should very publicly be exploring, even if the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign seek to sweep it under the rug.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and a contributing editor at National Review.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/31/latest-email-disclosure-is-just-more-proof-that-clinton-lied/
She should brush her lower teeth, too.
