LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Hillary, Progressive or....?

AlwaysHungry said:
This morning I scratched my head in amazement, as I do every time I see a car with some sort of "world peace" bumper sticker next to one expressing support for the woman who directed the destruction of an entire nation, Libya, and then gloated obscenely about it on national TV.
Click to expand...

Warmongering is all good when Democrats do it!!

It's really only a problem when (R)'s do it.
 
I was interested in just how engaged the electorate is. I mean we just had a rousing primary that got huge press for the last year, yet less that 40% of the voters turned out!
Only New Hampshire and Wisconsin got close to 50% with 52 and 49. Most of the states were running in the 25-34% areas. Even less in caucus states, naturally.

Now you would think that with the country facing a decision to 'go down the shitter left or right' that people would turn out to say, "Oh Hell NO!"

Now California's numbers haven't been reported yet but nation wide this election has turned out to be a wet fart.

I had at least expected the Hillary vs Bernie to bring out the vote on the Demo side at least.

Pew Reserch had a more optimistic slant.

And from the Bear Flag Republic comes these late numbers.

http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/06/08/california-primary-election-results-and-turnout-by-county/

Editor’s note: The data in the map below, from the the California Secretary of State, does NOT include the estimated 2.5 million — or roughly 20 percent — of mail-in ballots that were received last minute and have yet to counted. As John Myers of the Los Angeles Times noted on Thursday evening: “Six million ballots have been counted from the statewide primary. The uncounted tally would push total voter turnout to about 8.5 million, or around 47% of all registered voters.” He notes, however, that some of these late returns are provisional ballots and may not be counted if not eligible.
Click to expand...

So Bravo Golden Bears! ALmost half of you are awake.
 
Last edited:
JackLuis said:
I was interested in just how engaged the electorate is. I mean we just had a rousing primary that got huge press for the last year, yet less that 40% of the voters turned out!
Only New Hampshire and Wisconsin got close to 50% with 52 and 49. Most of the states were running in the 25-34% areas. Even less in caucus states, naturally.

Now you would think that with the country facing a decision to 'go down the shitter left or right' that people would turn out to say, "Oh Hell NO!"

Now California's numbers haven't been reported yet but nation wide this election has turned out to be a wet fart.

I had at least expected the Hillary vs Bernie to bring out the vote on the Demo side at least.

Pew Reserch had a more optimistic slant.

And from the Bear Flag Republic comes these late numbers.

http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/06/08/california-primary-election-results-and-turnout-by-county/



So Bravo Golden Bears! ALmost half of you are awake.
Click to expand...
Part campaign fatigue and part a realization that the late primaries aren't as pivotal as the early ones.
 
HRC is not qualified because she has no experience representing an electorate. Her stint as Senator from New York can only be described as an utter farce. She is the Kardashian of politicians; famous for being famous. She has an agenda, not a vision for our country. I'm sure she believes (as do all current politicians) that elections have consequences. This is un-American, which is not surprising since it was articulated by Valerie Jarrett. The President is supposed to represent even those opposed to the President's ideology. That certainly has not happened in the past eight years, and that's why we have D. Trump. This is a very unhealthy cycle.
 
Ramone45 said:
HRC is not qualified because she has no experience representing an electorate. Her stint as Senator from New York can only be described as an utter farce. She is the Kardashian of politicians; famous for being famous. She has an agenda, not a vision for our country. I'm sure she believes (as do all current politicians) that elections have consequences. This is un-American, which is not surprising since it was articulated by Valerie Jarrett. The President is supposed to represent even those opposed to the President's ideology. That certainly has not happened in the past eight years, and that's why we have D. Trump. This is a very unhealthy cycle.
Click to expand...
Really? Which ideology has Obama not represented?
 
Saudi Arabia Has Funded 20% Of Hillary's Presidential Campaign

AhlulBayt News Agency - Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly said Saudi has enthusiastically funded Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States, according to a report published by Jordan’s official news agency.

The Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate’s campaign.

The report was later deleted and the news agency has not responded to requests for comment.

It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates.

The Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs has re-published the original Arabic Petra report, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.
Click to expand...

Why is this story not in the New York Times front page?

Who is Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman?

CIA spin-doctoring Saudi involvement in 9/11 attacks

Buried in the article:
Riyadh, a major arms buyer from the US, has already threatened that it might sell up to USD 750 billion in US securities and other assets if it is connected to the attacks.

As a manifestation of the Saudi use of coercion, UN chief Ban Ki-moon admitted on Thursday that he had decided to drop the kingdom from a list of children's rights violators under Riyadh's pressure.

Brennan's pouring of cold water on the Saudi connection coincided with Saudi Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman's visit to the US to discuss ways of strengthening relations which have cooled under Obama's presidency.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Did Google Manipulate Search Results to Help Hillary Clinton?

A video created by the Facebook page SourceFed is raising questions about possible collaboration between Google and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

In the video, narrator Matt Lieberman explains how the popular search engine seems to hide search results of articles that bring up negative perceptions of Hillary Clinton when typing “Hillary Clinton cri” into the search bar, like the possibility of criminal charges in relation to her use of a private email server to conduct official government business. However, the three top search results that Google suggests when typing “Hillary Clinton cri” are “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” “Hillary Clinton crisis,” and “Hillary Clinton crime bill 1994,” in that order.

When SourceFed tried inputting “Hillary Clinton crime reform,” Google’s top suggested search result for “Hillary Clinton cri,” into Google Trends, the actual search results for that term were so low they didn’t even register as a trending topic. But the search results for “Hillary Clinton crimes” were much higher. To compare, SourceFed typed “Hillary Clinton cri” into the Bing and Yahoo! search engine, and the top suggested results for each search engine were “Hillary Clinton crimes” and “Hillary Clinton criminal charges,” respectively.
Click to expand...

Well, that's odd?:) Maybe Goggle is a establishment Hill Shill?
 
Just a quick comment: If the Democratic party was in the least bit progressive, they would be falling all over themselves to nominate Sanders.

That they are not proves the fact that the two parties are really just one - they may have different styles of ruling, but they're one and the same thing.

The DNC and Clinton are about as progressive as fucking Dubyah...
 
JackLuis said:
Did Google Manipulate Search Results to Help Hillary Clinton?



Well, that's odd?:) Maybe Goggle is a establishment Hill Shill?
Click to expand...

Well, actually, first I'd like to thank you for pointing out The Young Turks to me here on this board. They have fresh perspectives.

According to them, it's less sinister once you dig into it. It gives more weight to Reuters and CNN reports than the Drudge report. It doesn't consider all "news sources on the internet equally valid. Rumors and leaks are right sometimes, but Google prefers a news feed that verifies it's source. I can live with that.

I just tested Trump F-R-A ...it didn't suggest fraud in the list until the A.
 
Loved the picture AH.:D

This is particularly ironic after yesterdays news.

Hillary Clinton: Saudi Arabia must stop citizens from funding extremists

White House hopeful Hillary Clinton on Monday issued a pointed warning to US allies in the Middle East, saying countries like Saudi Arabia must crack down on citizens supporting extremism.

Following the weekend massacre at a gay club in Orlando by a gunman who the FBI says may have been radicalized, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee vowed to step up efforts to stop so-called lone wolf attacks, and said Americans should unite to defeat domestic terrorism.

But she also called on other governments to reconsider policies that allow extremism to thrive, calling out three US allies which already have sensitive ties with Washington.

“It is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris, and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations,” Clinton said in a national security speech in Cleveland, Ohio.
Click to expand...

Considering that the Saudi Prince said that the Saudis proudly proclaimed that the they had funded 20% of Hillary's campaign.
 
'It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates.'

But they can fund Super-Pacs. Canadian industries have been doing it since day one. Your countries campaigns are being funded and influenced by foreign powers and industry.

I doubt any foreign power wants Trump in. Wouldn't be surprised if Billy's wife's PACs get all the foreign money. But with any other Republican candidate I would think many foreign powers would donate to their campaign.

Your elections are bought and paid for by the rich, special interest groups and foreign powers.

I'm so shocked a large donator to the Clintons gets a plummy post. Just shocked.

http://www.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?CountryCode=US
 
Last edited:
Hard_Rom said:
'It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates.'

But they can fund Super-Pacs. Canadian industries have been doing it since day one. Your countries campaigns are being funded and influenced by foreign powers and industry.

I doubt any foreign power wants Trump in. Wouldn't be surprised if Billy's wife's PACs get all the foreign money. But with any other Republican candidate I would think many foreign powers would donate to their campaign.

Your elections are bought and paid for by the rich, special interest groups and foreign powers.

I'm so shocked a large donator to the Clintons gets a plummy post. Just shocked.
Click to expand...

Maybe we need a law that says that Law Enforcement,that doesn't enforce the law, or regulators that don't regulate should go to jail as if they had broken the law?
 
You need to get rid of Super-PACs and heavily restrict donation amounts from American industry. Candidates should be funded by themselves and individual citizens. Corporations are granted the rights of an individual at times but that don't make them people.

Your PACs are a joke. A slap in the face to a good honest election.

Unless our resource sectors and industry can get special treatment for Canadian interests. Then they're okay.
 
Hard_Rom said:
You need to get rid of Super-PACs and heavily restrict donation amounts from American industry. Candidates should be funded by themselves and individual citizens. Corporations are granted the rights of an individual at times but that don't make them people.

Your PACs are a joke. A slap in the face to a good honest election.

Unless our resource sectors and industry can get special treatment for Canadian interests. Then they're okay.
Click to expand...

The advertising media will never stand for that! It would cut revenue too much. The LSM doesn't want to have fair elections when our current laws generate $billions, $$$$billions I say, in ad revenue.
 
Hard_Rom said:
I doubt any foreign power wants Trump in.
Click to expand...

I suspect a lot of the world is feeling sick hearted at the thought of Clinton being in power too. The Clintons have already done a lot of damage to the people of this planet and don't show any signs of remorse or winding it back.
 
Hillary Clinton’s path to victory

Hillary Clinton’s super PAC has begun spending $145 million on ads in eight states through November — and there’s a realistic path for her to win the White House even if she carries only one of them.

It’s a sign of how strongly tilted the Electoral College map is in Clinton’s favor, as she begins a general election campaign building upon the demographic and geographic coalition that President Barack Obama rode to two electoral landslides. Donald Trump, in contrast, must dramatically reimagine and redraw the political landscape to capture the presidency.
Click to expand...

“If the Republicans don’t win Florida,” a senior Clinton campaign official said, “they probably have no path to win.”
Click to expand...

Well we all know Florida will be a fair election, don't we?

A good thing Hillary isn't a lesbian, or is she?:D
 
Clinton believes that the thing she is most proud of is that she has never been covicted of any of the crimes she has committed. Al Capone had the same happy feeling. Of course the IRS got him in the end, but Clinton owns the IRS as her personnel black shirts.

Clinton has no respect for blacks. The Democratic Party that she use to belong to before she became a Progressive Fascists, was the Slave Party and those blacks like the so call Black Politicians (who by the way violate the Constitution by being a racists organization) give their support because at one time the black voters realized that they belonged to the old masters and not to themselves and now their "Uncle Tom's tell them how to vote and to keep their mouth shuts.

Women who back Clinton are the most funny and the most to feel sorry for as Hillary has no concern about women's rights. She takes money from countries and organizations that violate women and yes children. She didn't even pay her own female staff members the same salary as the men on her payroll. She and her husband and daughter use Haiti as their own personnel plantation. Nothing happens there that they or their friends don't get a piece.

She has sold out to foreign governments, even allowing them access to secret information. She has blood on her hands, both in this country and outside.

If you have a child who can't get to sleep at night put on one of her speeches. The woman is so boring and so full of b.s. that the child will fall asleep along with you in no time.

But she has her blind, deaf, and mindless followers who like the people who put Hitler and Lenin in power will follow her over the edge of the cliff with a smile on their face.

The following is long, but then blame the Whore of Wall Street for this as she is the one who has made such a long list of lies, corruption, stealing, treason, violations of human rights, etc.

Congressman who backed Hillary guilty of 22 counts of corruption
Hillary Clinton superdelegate and longtime Democratic Congressman Chaka Fattah was convicted of 22 counts of corruption charges. After serving 11 terms in Congress, Fattah is now out on bail after an indictment was filed in July 2015 against him and four associates. Despite the conviction, Fattah is set to serve the remainder of his term in Congress until January 2017. He faces sentencing in October, and could potentially serve the rest of his life in prison.
Fattah formally endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in February, shortly before losing his primary bid for re-election in April. He has been a Clinton loyalist for decades, standing by the Clintons amid the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the 1990s, and even helping Bill Clinton coordinate DNC fundraising trips to Philadelphia shortly after he admitted to perjury. “He can be a public servant without being perfect,” Fattah told Philly.com in 1998.
Fattah isn’t the first Clinton superdelegate to be convicted under corruption charges. Former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who was convicted of corruption in November 2015, had close ties to Hillary Clinton while she served as senator of New York. In 2008, Clinton called Silver, who played an important role in convincing Clinton to run for Senate in New York after Bill Clinton’s presidency ended, “a stalwart voice on behalf of the needs of New Yorkers

A number of Clinton’s close associates have been exposed for corruption. Several weeks ago, it was revealed that Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, is currently under federal investigation over questionable contributions to his 2013 campaign for governor—including $120,000 from a wealthy Chinese businessman McAuliffe introduced to Hillary Clinton at a fundraiser in her home. Clinton’s 2008 campaign co-chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has also been informally removed from her position as DNC chair, and faces losing her seat in Congress to primary challenger Tim Canova after the backlash that erupted over Wasserman Schultz’s overt favoritism for Clintonthroughout the 2016 Democratic primaries.
Hillary Clinton herself will be subject to some form of indictment or conviction in the near future, regardless of whether she manages to become president. The State Department inspector general reported in May 2016 that Clinton never had authorization to use a private email server during her service as secretary of state, debunking the defense she and her supporters have been using for over a year to dismiss the issue.
The Clinton Foundation has also been linked to several cases of fraudulent activity.Clinton appointed Rajiv Fernando, a prominent Clinton Foundation donor, to an intelligence advisory board with the State Department despite the fact that Fernando had no experience or background qualifying him for the role. An IBTimes investigation in 2015 uncovered millions of dollars in donations given to the Clinton Foundation by foreign government dictatorships in exchange for favors from Clinton’s State Department.
Whistleblower Charles Ortel, who exposed General Electric’s financial discrepancies in 2008, has alleged the charity did not follow legal compliances when it was created, and that donations were collected and used for purposes differing from what donors were told. Ortel is currently pushing the Federal Trade Commission to open a formal investigation into the charity. Clinton Cash, a book by Peter Schweitzer, corroborated many of Ortel’s claims, laying out how the Clinton Foundation provided donor access to Clinton’s State Department.
Hillary Clinton has managed to distort the severity of the litany of scandals that have emerged throughout her career, claiming to be the victim of unwarranted attacks since she was in the White House with Bill Clinton. Instead of owning up to the blemishes on her record—and accepting that they should disqualify her from the presidency—Clinton has spun the scandals into badges of political warfare.
Just as her associates steadily receive the justice their years of corruption call for, Hillary Clinton’s long record of playing loose and fast with the rules will come back to haunt her. The Clintons have been leading the charge in the increasing influence big money has in the political system, at great peril to the American public, but their hubris in thinking they can continuously break the rules and get away with it to propel their own political careers and the interests of their donors will eventually backfire.



A false claim that Hillary Clinton made while campaigning for president in 2008 is coming back to haunt her in the 2016 election cycle.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said in a speech at George Washington University in March 2008 that she landed "under sniper fire" during a 1996 trip to Bosnia. The war ended in 1995, but tensions within the country were still high.
"There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base," she said in 2008.
The Washington Post debunked this claim days after Clinton made it.
Old news footage reveals that there was, in fact, a greeting ceremony at Tuzla Air Base when Clinton landed. She met an 8-year-old Muslim girl who read her a poem, and video of the landing shows Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, calmly walking away from the plane and then greeting people on the tarmac:
In the footage, Clinton held a bouquet of flowers while she spoke to people gathered on the tarmac. Another shot showed her strolling near the plane with a group of young people.
Donald Trump has brought up the Bosnia claim on the campaign trail. The likely Republican nominee for president called Clinton a "world-class liar" in a speech on Wednesday, citing her "phony landing in Bosnia, where she said she was under attack and the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers."
Clinton's Bosnia story is widely regarded as a lie.
A CBS News correspondent who was on the trip with Clinton wrote her own account of it in 2008, after Clinton's speech at George Washington University. She did admit that there were some potential security risks, but acknowledged that it didn't rise to the level of landing under sniper fire.
Sharyl Attkisson recalled:
"Due to the possibility of sniper fire, our pilots used what we were told are 'assault take-offs and landings.' In short, the climb and descent are very fast, and very steep to minimize exposure to hostile fire on the ground."
"It's exciting and frightening and, in the midst of it all, wearing our helmets and bulletproof vests, it's easy to imagine we may be narrowly escaping enemy bullets."
"In reality, we had no known incidents of enemy fire on our aircraft."
To be fair, however, Attkisson did note in her 1996 CBS report that the "frontline outpost" that Clinton and Chelsea visited was "one of the most dangerous places where US forces are operating."
"The president himself never made it this far inside Bosnia when he visited in January," Attkisson said in the report.
The Clinton campaign's response
Immediately after the 2008 speech, Clinton held her ground.
PolitiFact noted that when a reporter asked her about the Bosnia trip after the speech, Clinton said: "There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened."
But days later, she admitted that she "misspoke" about the Bosnia visit.
"I say a lot of things - millions of words a day - so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement," she told the Philadelphia Daily News' editorial board at the time.
She continued:
"I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can't, I can't rush by her, I've got to at least greet her - so I greeted her, I took her stuff and then I left. Now that's my memory of it."
At the time, the Clinton campaign sought to downplay the Bosnia story.
Then Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told reporters in 2008:
"The facts are clear from contemporaneous news accounts that she was entering a potentially dangerous situation. She has written about this before, she has talked about this before and there you have it. Now, is it possible that in the most recent instance in which she discussed this that she misspoke, with regards to the exit from the plane, but there's no question that I hope everyone is clear about this in the reporting, there is no question if you look at these contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that it was by the front lines and the first person since Eleanore Roosevelt to do that and she was going into a hostile military environment."
After The Post ran its original Bosnia fact-check story in 2008, former Clinton speechwriter Lissa Muscatine, who accompanied Clinton on the trip, contacted the newspaper with this statement:
"I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C-17 - a plane capable of steep ascents and descents - precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter."
But the speech at George Washington University wasn't the only time Clinton told of a dangerous trip to Bosnia.
PolitiFact pointed out that in 2007, she told The Des Moines Register: "We landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac there."



Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano invoked the Fifth more than 125 times during a 90-minute, closed-door deposition.
The official said Pagliano was working off an index card and read the same crafted statement each time.
“It was a sad day for government transparency,” the Judicial Watch official said, adding they asked all their questions and Pagliano invoked the Fifth Amendment right not to answer them.
Pagliano was a central figure in the set-up and management of Clinton’s personal server she used exclusively for government business while secretary of state. The State Department inspector general found Clinton violated government rules with that arrangement.
He was deposed as part of Judicial Watch's lawsuit seeking Clinton emails and other records. A federal judge granted discovery, in turn allowing the depositions, which is highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The judge cited "reasonable suspicion" Clinton and her aides were trying to avoid federal records law.
Pagliano’s deposition before Judicial Watch is one of several interviews with high-profile Clinton aides, taking place as the FBI separately is continuing its federal criminal investigation.
A federal court agreed to keep sealed Pagliano’s immunity deal struck with the Justice Department in December, citing the sensitivity of the FBI probe and calling it a “criminal” matter.
The next Clinton aide to testify is Huma Abedin. In an earlier deposition, lawyers for senior Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, during a nearly five-hour deposition in Washington, repeatedly objected to questions about Pagliano’s role in setting up the former secretary of state’s private server.
According to a transcript of that deposition which Judicial Watch released, Mills attorney Beth Wilkinson – as well as Obama administration lawyers – objected to the line of questioning about Pagliano.
“I'm going to instruct her not to answer. It's a legal question,” Wilkinson responded, when asked by Judicial Watch whether Pagliano was an “agent of the Clintons” when the server was set up.
A transcript of the Pagliano deposition will be reviewed and is expected to be released next week.
Clinton could also be deposed in the Judicial Watch lawsuit.
There was no immediate comment from Pagliano's attorney.
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent


(WASHINGTON) — Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton’s BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department’s spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account.
“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton responded to Abedin.
Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office.
The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton’s server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. That copy of the email was publicly cited last month in a blistering audit by the State Department’s inspector general that concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers.
“While this exchange was not part of the approximately 55,000 pages provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton, the exchange was included within the set of documents Ms. Abedin provided the department in response to our March 2015 request,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told The Associated Press on Thursday.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said she provided “all potentially work-related emails” that were still in her possession when she received the 2014 request from the State Department.
“Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have,” Fallon said.
Fallon declined to say whether Clinton deleted any work-related emails before they were reviewed by her legal team. Clinton’s lead lawyer, David Kendall, did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
The November 2010 email was among documents released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s service as the nation’s top diplomat between 2009 and 2013. The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton, including one filed by the AP.
Before turning over her emails to the department for review and potential public release, Clinton and her lawyers withheld thousands of additional emails she said were clearly personal, such as those involving what she described as “planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations.”
Clinton has never outlined in detail what criteria she and her lawyers used to determine which emails to release and which to delete, but her 2010 email with Abedin appears clearly work-related under the State Department’s own criteria for agency records under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
Dozens of the emails sent or received by Clinton through her private server were later determined to contain classified material. The FBI has been investigating for months whether Clinton’s use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. Agents recently interviewed several of Clinton’s top aides, including Abedin.
As part of the probe, Clinton turned over the hard drive from her email server to the FBI. It had been wiped clean, and Clinton has said she did not keep copies of the emails she choose to withhold.
On Wednesday, lawyers from Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, questioned under oath Bryan Pagliano, the computer technician who set up Clinton’s private server. A transcript released Thursday shows Pagliano repeatedly responded to detailed questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.
Dozens of questions Pagiliano declined to answer included who paid for the system, whether there was technical help to support its users and who else at the State Department used email accounts on it. Pagliano also would not answer whether he discussed setting up a home server with Clinton prior to her tenure as secretary of state, according to the transcript.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the November 2010 email cited in the inspector general audit was one of several work-related emails that his group identified that Clinton sent or received but later failed to turn over the State Department.
“Contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Mrs. Clinton did not return all her government emails to the State Department,” Fitton said. “Our goal is to find out what other emails Mrs. Clinton and the State Department are hiding.”
___
Associated Press reporters Stephen Braun and Jack Gillum contributed from Washington
 
Henry Paulson, a Republican who was U.S. Treasury secretary during the 2008 financial meltdown, on Friday called a Donald Trump presidency “unthinkable” and said he will vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Paulson joins a growing list of establishment Republicans who say they will not cast a ballot in the Nov. 8 election for Trump, the party’s presumptive nominee and a political neophyte whose populist rhetoric runs counter to many long-held Republican principles.

“When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump,” Paulson, who was chief executive of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasury chief under Republican President George W. Bush, wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

“I’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world,” he said.

Paulson accused Trump, who has touted his business acumen as a real estate developer during his campaign, of taking “imprudent risk” and then disavowing his debts when ventures fail.

He also took aim at Trump’s opposition to trade agreements, which Paulson said have created U.S. jobs and fostered innovation and competitiveness.

“Simply put, a Trump presidency is unthinkable,” Paulson said.
Click to expand...

Wall Streeters back their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Bernie Sanders Issues Warning About Trump's Drug Pricing Executive Order
Replies
1
Views
212
RoryN
RoryN
M
Opposition Rallies
2
Replies
30
Views
921
MajorRewrite
M
Rightguide
Wow, Sen. Durbin caught Withholding Epstein Flight Logs
2
Replies
48
Views
792
ll74
ll74
Rightguide
The Party Of Darkness
Replies
13
Views
432
stxjimmy
S
RobDownSouth
Did Presidential Pep Secretary K-K-Karoline Leavitt Ka$h In?
Replies
8
Views
56
briancamdudetenger2018
B
Back
Top