Email Dump ~ Crooked Hillary’s “Top Priority”

Posted by Tina

Hillary Clinton is two-faced, deceitful, and phony. Her willful destruction of her emails, after having received a subpoena, cannot and should not, be brushed aside:

18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Whatever Hillary Clinton wanted to destroy has to be bad…prison sentence bad…to risk using Bleachbit to clean her server and a hammer to destroy phones when she knew she was under subpoena. There’s no way to know whether what she wanted to hide is in any of the emails that are being leaked by Wikileaks. What we do know is they expose deep character flaws. Emails she hoped to hide from the public expose her true intentions, her contempt for people, and her unbridled devious behavior. Hillary Clinton is an ambitious woman whose only concern is for herself…including a cold calculating disinterest in human beings whose lives are in danger and on the line defending the nation.

Some of revelations in today’s dump include emails she sent to John Podesta, long time confident and current campaign manager:

The Daily Caller:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton sent an email to her campaign chairman John Podesta in 2014, who was then-counselor to President Barack Obama, that said Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both giving financial and logistical support to the Islamic State and other extremist Sunni groups, according to a recent Wikileaks release…

Qatar has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Saudi Arabia has donated upwards of $25 million dollars to the Foundation

… In 2010, Clinton’s top aide said that the up to $60 billion weapons transfer of fighter jets and helicopters to Saudi Arabia was a “top priority.”

Clinton denies that she used the power of her office to award those who donated to her foundation. Why would anyone believe this liar who asks “ordinary Americans” to ignore what they can see for themselves. Hillary and Bill Clinton are personally enriching themselves with money they accept from material sponsors of ISIS in return for government favors. Is this Clinton’s idea of diplomacy? Or is it, as we suspect, an example of a corrupt Washington insider?

Hillary Clinton’s top priority is Hillary Clinton.

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law, Veterans' Issues. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Email Dump ~ Crooked Hillary’s “Top Priority”

  1. Joey says:

    The “Hillary took money from Saudi Arabia!” line is the stupid argument that just won’t die. Donald Trump has also accepted money from Saudi Arabia. So has nearly every president for the past several decades.

    • Deplorable J Soden says:

      TheDonald was NOT SecState and able to grant favors ad infinitum. Big difference between business deals and the pay-for-play dirty business $hrilLIARy operated.

      You’re trying to obfuscate the issue. Besides – $hrilLIARy is campaigning on how much she does for women, while accepting $$ from regimes that treat their goats better than they do their women. Hypocrisy, thy name is $hrilLIARy!

      • Joey says:

        You have no evidence of pay for play.

        Again, every administration has done business with the Saudis. The Bush family was especially close to them. So the fact that Clinton was Sec of State has no bearing. You are simply holding her to a standard you’ve never held anyone else to. And if Donald won and continued doing business with the Saudis, you wouldn’t hold him to this standard either.

        Trump says he will be better for women than Hillary, so is it hypocritical of him to do business with Saudi Arabia? Of course not. Doing business with them is no more and endorsement of their treatment of women than is taking their money for a charity.

    • Tina says:

      Ignoramous! A business deal is different, duh!

      Hillary is free to take money from anyone as a private citizen.

      She was not free to use the power she had as Secretary of State, and presumably promised once she’s “crowned” president, to award contracts to states or companies that give her foundation money. There are several instances documented that suggest quid pro quo:

      One example of an alleged quid pro quo cited by the Times and other sources involved the State Department’s backing of a free-trade agreement with Colombia that benefited a company founded by a big donor to the Clinton Foundation.

      Hillary opposed the trade deal when running for president in 2008 because of the South American country’s poor record on workers’ rights.

      But then the company, Canadian-based Pacific Rubiales, and its founder, Clinton Foundation board member Frank Giustra, donated “millions” to the foundation, The International Business Times reported.

      In 2010, the State Department under Hillary lauded Colombia’s human rights record, allowing Giustra’s company to reap huge profits.

      The book also examines lucrative development contracts awarded to foundation donors following the devastating Haitian earthquake in 2010. And it reports that Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a small North Carolina mining company that in 2012 got one of only two coveted “gold exploitation permits” from the government of Haiti — the first issued in more than 50 years, according to the website Breitbart

      • Deplorable J Soden says:

        Well said, Tina!
        Was going to reply to Joey (Chris? Dewey?) but after reading some of his/her lamentable comments, have concluded it would be like talking to a wall. Ya can’t fix stoopid!

  2. Libby says:

    “Hillary Clinton is two-faced, deceitful, and phony. Her willful destruction of her emails, after having received a subpoena, cannot and should not, be brushed aside.”

    It can be if it’s not true. And it is a fact (deny ’til you turn blue; it still is) that the emails were deleted three months before the subpoena was issued.

    Now that we have dispensed with your deceit, maybe we can discuss this? You haven’t told us yet what diabolical stuff was in these emails? And you’re going to have a tough time persuading, because most of us, who are not paranoid, are reasonably certain that the emails were merely embarrassing.

    The fact of their destruction is an issue though. If you know anything about pretty much any entity’s record retention policy … certainly a federal department of state … nothing gets deleted. Every freaking byte gets archived, for some years at least. So any destruction of this sort is a bald-assed breach of policy, and while it is nothing criminal, it speaks to a decided arrogance … again … about which we already know.

    So why do you have to go on, and on, and on, about it?

    You’re not going to vote for her; you are going to vote for the groper, which is your privilege, but all this hammering away at stuff that’s already beaten to a pulp … why waste your time? … why aggravate yourself?

  3. Tina says:

    “And it is a fact (deny ’til you turn blue; it still is) that the emails were deleted three months before the subpoena was issued.”

    I can illustrate the disagreement about that and the fact that the scheming (lawyer) Hillary Clinton acted as a guilty, conniving, secretive, person who thinks she’s above the law and is unaccountable to the American people. Byron York covers the controversy well:

    Now that the public knows Hillary Clinton destroyed all the emails on her secret server — her lawyer told the House Benghazi Select Committee that there’s nothing left to search — a question remains: Did Clinton destroy documents that were under subpoena from Congress?

    The answer is more complex than it might seem. There’s no doubt Clinton withheld information that Congress demanded she turn over, and some Republicans believe the documents she destroyed were covered under a subpoena as well. But a look at the story behind the subpoena and other document requests from congressional Benghazi investigators is a tale of obstruction, delay and frustration that underscores the limits of Congress’ power to investigate Benghazi. Clinton and her aides had the means to make life very difficult for Republicans trying to learn the full story of the attacks in Libya, and they did just that.

    As a lawyer she cannot act like she’s the smartest women in the world and at the same time play dumb. (You mean, like, with a cloth?)

    This only points further to the low character of this conniving woman.

    “Every freaking byte gets archived, for some years at least. So any destruction of this sort is a bald-assed breach of policy, and while it is nothing criminal, it speaks to a decided arrogance…”

    How you can first describe egregious acts of low character and then dismiss it as nothing special is beyond me, especially since you are eager to pounce on anything the oppositions is merely accused of doing (usually without an ounce of evidence).

    National Review:

    lenty of lawyers, including some who have a lot of experience with federal-records laws, have opined that Hillary Clinton did not “technically” violate the law. Reasonable minds may disagree, but that conclusion is hard to accept. The Federal Records Act requires the preservation of any official “record,” which is defined functionally to require preservation whenever a record relates to the performance of a federal official’s duties. There is little question that Hillary Clinton was conducting official business on her private e-mail account, and her turning over 55,000 pages of documents only after she left office all but concedes that (but may not concede the full scope of her use of that account). There is also little doubt, given this functional definition, that e-mail has been covered by the Federal Records Act since its adoption by the federal government during the Clinton administration. As Ian Tuttle correctly notes, the State Department’s own manual has plainly provided, since 1995, that e-mail records must be preserved under the Federal Records Act. So was the use of private e-mail allowed when Clinton was secretary? Well, sure, at least to some extent. I suspect every federal employee has, at some time, used a private e-mail account to conduct business. But that doesn’t excuse failure to comply with the Federal Records Act. Best practices have always been that an employee using a private account for government business has to either print the e-mail (which rarely happens) or copy or forward the e-mail to the employee’s official government e-mail account for preservation. Those practices, which reflected the law as it existed before Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, were codified by National Archives Regulations in 2009, which required that any records created on private e-mail accounts must be saved to the federal-records system. And Congress confirmed that in 2013, by adopting a prohibition on the use of private e-mail, unless the employee forwards to or copies an official e-mail account within 60 days of the record’s creation. But Mrs. Clinton did something here that went well beyond occasional or incidental use of private e-mail accounts. She eschewed the use of an official account entirely, and deliberately established a private e-mail account, apparently maintained on a server in the Clintons’ New York home. As a result, her e-mails were at no time during her tenure in office subject to the Federal Records Act. (She provided some of the e-mails only after she left office, and only when the Department of State asked for them back.) As our friends at Judicial Watch will no doubt remind everyone, there were plenty of Freedom of Information Act requests that would have implicated her e-mails. But they were never searched, even though a reasonable search of all responsive federal records must be made in response to FOIA requests. And the records would have been relevant to congressional inquiries as well, including continuing investigations of the Benghazi attacks. Why does that matter? Well, a federal criminal law makes it a felony when any custodian of official government records “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same.” The crime is punishable by up to three years in prison. And interestingly, Congress felt strongly enough about the crime that it included the unusual provision that the perpetrator shall “forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The requirement for specific intent in this criminal law — “willfully and unlawfully” — and the fact that Loretta Lynch would ultimately decide whether to bring prosecution, makes it doubtful that charges would be filed. But the better question is how could Hillary Clinton, in light of this prohibition, decide that this was a good (or legal) idea? Setting up a shadow e-mail server to conduct all official business as secretary of state is an action plainly undertaken for the purpose of evading federal-records laws. And Clinton was successful at that, avoiding congressional and citizen demands for review of her record during her term in office. For all we know, she may still be withholding records that ought to be handed over to the State Department and subjected to pre-existing FOIA requests.

    If you don’t get why we all go “on and on” about it, you don’t give a damn about the rule of law and equal justice. You’ve just relegated all of us to third world status.

    “…all this hammering away at stuff that’s already beaten to a pulp … why waste your time?”

    Geez Libby, you don’t have any idea that this “hammering” is the very tactic your own party has used for all of our lifetimes, do you? Incredible!

    The frustrating thing to me is your party uses it over made-up $*#t, like that shameful Clarence Thomas show trial, in addition to any legitimate breaches in conduct. They’ve made a cottage industry of painting their opponents in a bad light and hammering and hammering and hammering. it’s called the politics of personal destruction. We spent decades taking the higher road, never fighting back, never defending, always stepping down. We aren’t in the mood to take it anymore and, although we’d rather compete in a gentlemanly fashion, that’s no longer an option.

    A better question to me is, “Why are you not aggravated?”

    Why, as an American citizen, are you willing to let a bunch of lawyer politicians work the loop holes, obfuscate, destroy records, lie to congress, lie to the people, and undermine the rule of law for political power?

    And please be clear; I am not fooled. Your innocent sounding question, filled with phony concern, isn’t anything but a contempt filled covert punch. You enjoy the thought of winning with a conniving shrew.

  4. Libby says:

    “Why, as an American citizen, are you willing to let a bunch of lawyer politicians work the loop holes, obfuscate, destroy records, lie to congress, lie to the people, and undermine the rule of law for political power?”

    Even better question: How could you possibly, conceivably, ever, for a second even, think that The Donald is going to do anything about any of this?

    Work loopholes? The Donald’s business practices, oh, yes.

    Obfuscate? The Donald’s purported foreign policy, oh, yes.

    Destroy records? I sure The Donald wishes he could, but all he can do is withhold them.

    Lie to Congress? Lie to the people? The Donald lies to everybody. Was he not a practicing Democrat when suckered by the Republican operative into indiscretions on tape?

    Undermine the rule of law for political power? Did The Donald not have the supreme arrogance to baldly pronounce during the last debate that he would use his office to pursue a vendetta against the opposition?

    Consider. Say you had legitimate grievances against the Powers. How are they to avoid holding you in utter contempt when, on the rare occasions you rouse yourselves, it is to do something as STUPID as putting forward The Donald as President? He is a member of their club … not yours. Try to get this into your head, please: in this club, there are no Democrats and no Republicans, there are only Powers.

  5. Dewster says:

    yes true

    But Time for you to admit both these parties are fronts for Big Business and the Elite.

    Also you follow media on the emails? We told all of you people this months ago and no one listened.

    it is not the emails folks …they are only the proof we were correct.

    it was not Benghazi as you bellowed it was what the CIA was doing there………….

    it is the foundations, superpacs and numerous orgs that all corrupt profit driven entities.

    The Bush Family and Clinton Family are very close for a reason. This scandal is HUGE! will take out world leaders, Democrats and Republicans in very high places. other foundations and businesses too!

    That is why the FBI has been silenced. But the house of cards is starting to crumble and world war is eminent. Many countries are pissed at our spying, lies, Drones and corruption all for these planned wars.

    Mark my words.

    Months ago I told you all that has come to light ……… and you called me a nutjob.

    The info is out there, hold back on speculation, but unfortunately the proof supports the speculation as it comes out.

    Emails are interesting and good. But research the names, businesses ect in the. it all supports the corporate rule businesses and they are embedded in gov. Period.

    The system is rigged against all of us. Stop playing their game to divide.

    There is no red and Blue it is the elite establishment against the people who watch and learn from their media propaganda…… History Repeats

Leave a Reply

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