Hat tip Frontpage Magazine
As Hillary Clinton blithely runs around New Hampshire, her aides running along with rope lines to keep away inquiring reporters, her e-mail controversy just continues to unwind. Matthew Vadum in Frontpage Magazine has a great update on the lies being exposed
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259331/clinton-email-coverup-unraveling-matthew-vadum
Imagine this scenario: You have a secretary of state who for her entire tenure, never used the government e-mail server instead setting up her own server out of her own home. In addition, she claims she never sent any messages (on her private server) of a classified nature. It seems that we had a secretary of state who never sent or received anything that would be classified Confidential, Secret or Top Secret. What did she do all those years except fly around the world?
And then there is David Axelrod, who told the Morning Joe show on MSNBC that he never knew about Hillary's private server. Except he did, which was quickly revealed. Then he said that what he really meant was he didn't know she was using it exclusively.
Drip, drip, drip.
The question is whether enough people in this country care. It is clear to anyone with half a brain that this woman is dishonest to the core and was involved in skulduggery in Libya that led to the deaths of four Americans. There are e-mails that she is trying to hide, which would prove her incompetence and malfeasance as secretary of state in the Libyan fiasco. Hillary Clinton was not fit to be secretary of state. How can she be fit for the presidency?
If you love Hillary, no explanation is necessary. If you despise Hillary, no explanation is possible. (I never had any use for her).
ReplyDeleteIt would also be interesting to know what was on/is retrievable from the server relative to the Clinton Foundation which, at least as far as I can gather, is an epitome of money laundering, a Federal crime.
ReplyDeleteMany donors, some BIG, some foreign AND big, donate to a Canadian charity, which then in turn bundles those donations and again in turn gives them to the Foundation. This not only disguises the original donors, the Canadian facet makes it far more difficult, if anyone was interested (which is most obviously not currently the case), in conducting any investigation/possible prosecution.
I am trying to figure out why I would donate to a foreign charity so that charity could donate to, say, the American Red Cross, rather than just simply donate directly to the American Red Cross here in America. I can't think of a single good reason to do that, but I can envision several not to. Then again, I am not a crook/crookette (thanx, RMN).
HILLARY LIED, FOUR MEN DIED!
ReplyDeleteSquid
Where is Loretta Lynch when you need her?!
ReplyDeleteSquid
Squid, don't give Hillary credit for being bigger and badder than her pipsqueak self really is. Whatever lies Hillary has told, it had nothing to do with causing four deaths in Libya. That's why right wing talking houses don't have more credibility, they keep indulging in juvenile nonsense that isn't close to the real problem.
ReplyDeleteelwood, as far as you can gather in southwestern Missouri is probably not even close to admissible in court.
I've despised the Clintons for at least twenty years, but you guys are so off base you almost make Hillary look good.
Siarlys--I note you waffled by saying "probably". My description is most certainly one of the many processes/machinations of money laundering. Do you deny its accuracy, or that it occurred with the foundation?? While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.
ReplyDeleteSiarlys,
ReplyDeleteHillary at least indirectly caused the deaths of four Americans in Libya when she refused the pleas for more security. Another aspect that is still unclear is her involvement with the arms in Libya being sent to Syrian rebels and all that. What she did or didn't do on the evening it was all happening God only knows.
Now you're on the level of "the mayor caused the death's of four firemen by not fully funding all the fire stations in the last budget." Or, maybe you could blame that on Grover Norquist. In fact, as you state the case, perhaps the Republican majority in congress is to blame for trying to cut the federal budget. Security is expensive, you know?
ReplyDelete