4 eyes, ten thumbs and a forked tongue - Hillary 2016

[thinbluemime]

But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
Benghazi:

“This was an expeditionary post,” she said, “not an embassy, not a
consult,” a place to “establish a presence” for the United States."




Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
East unrest
June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest






Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton’s speech, which ranged from
memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
can continue to support Israel.

-----------

Hillary 2016
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

[Bill Steele]

In article <op.wy9iq...@experience.zoomtown.com>,

thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> “This was an expeditionary post,” she said, “not an embassy, not a
> consult,” a place to “establish a presence” for the United States."

Interesting play on words here. I guess this was a "post" to establish a
presence for an off-topic political thread on r.a.tv.

[thinbluemime]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:40:52 +0100, Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:

> In article <op.wy9iq...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
> thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> “This was an expeditionary post,†she said, “not an embassy, not a
>> consult,†a place to “establish a presence†for the United

>> States."
>
> Interesting play on words here. I guess this was a "post" to establish a
> presence for an off-topic political thread on r.a.tv.

It's preliminary research for a script I am writing for Homeland about a
high ranking US official that secretly converts and then aids a foreign
government to subvert the Constitution.

--------

"Word Play"

"Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words “United States
of America” touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor
it is to represent the world’s indispensible nation." Hillary Clinton,
January 23, 2013 (Benghazi Hearing)

http://bit.ly/cfq5V

[Michael OConnor]

Don't forget to mention the cankles.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/


CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.

CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.

CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress.

"The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi," the statement said.

"CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want," the statement continued. "The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident."

Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.

A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.

While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.

The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

"I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," said the Republican.

"We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn't any national security issue involved with regards to that," he said.

Wolf has repeatedly gone to the House floor, asking for a select committee to be set-up, a Watergate-style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in Benghazi, and find out just what the State Department and CIA were doing there.

More than 150 fellow Republican members of Congress have signed his request, and just this week eight Republicans sent a letter to the new head of the FBI, James Comey, asking that he brief Congress within 30 days.

In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk.

Then suddenly, there was silence.

"Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before Congress. Now that's all changed," said Wolf.

Lawmakers also want to about know the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

It is clear that two U.S. agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA.

The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe retain," and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.

But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they "can't speak for any other agencies."

The CIA would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of any weapons.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:36:23 AM UTC+1, thinbluemime wrote:

Hillary Clinton’s First Tweet In Two Weeks Isn’t About Syria
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lisatozzi/hillary-clinton-tweets-about-swimming-with-sharks

The former secretary of state has remained silent about intervention in Syria, but she did tweet following Diana Nyad’s record-breaking 110-mile swim.

“Feels like I swim with sharks - but you actually did it!”
posted on September 2, 2013 at 7:15pm EDT


Hillary Clinton has been noticeably silent as much of the world has been debating President Obama’s plan for military intervention in Syria, but she did pop up on Twitter Monday to congratulate Diana Nyad after the 64-year-old’s grueling 110-mile swim from Cuba to Florida.

Hillary Clinton’s tweet noted that Nyad’s achievement puts Clinton’s own career — particularly her rough schedule during her tenure as secretary of state — into perspective.


Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

Flying to 112 countries is a lot until you consider swimming between 2. Feels like I swim with sharks - but you actually did it! Congrats!
10:31 PM - 2 Sep 13


As secretary of state, Clinton had pushed to aid and arm the Syrian rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:36:23 AM UTC+1, thinbluemime wrote:

> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest

> Hillary 2016



CNN Documentary Is Off; Filmmaker Blames Pressure From Clintons
By AMY CHOZICK and BILL CARTER September 30, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/business/media/cnn-documentary-is-off-filmmaker-blames-pressure-from-clintons.html


After criticism from both sides of the political aisle, a documentary filmmaker has decided to abandon a project about the life of Hillary Rodham Clinton that he had planned to make for CNN.

In a commentary posted on Monday on The Huffington Post, the filmmaker, Charles H. Ferguson, said that pressure from Clinton advisers who did not want the film made ultimately became too intense. “I decided that I couldn’t make a film of which I would be proud,” he wrote. And so I’m canceling.”

The documentary had planned to explore Mrs. Clinton’s life and career from her days working at the Rose law firm in Little Rock, Ark., to her time as first lady and years as a New York senator. The CNN film was the second major project on Mrs. Clinton announced this summer, following a mini-series that NBC said it was developing, with Diane Lane set to star as Ms. Clinton.

Both projects quickly became lightning rods. Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the planned film a “thinly veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election” and threatened to refuse to partner with CNN or NBC on any presidential primary debates if the networks moved forward with the projects.

But according to Mr. Ferguson, it was not pressure from the G.O.P. that ultimately ended the CNN documentary. He said Mrs. Clinton’s aides had over the last three months exerted pressure on prospective sources and had made it nearly impossible to gain access. Mr. Ferguson said nearly everyone he reached out to declined to participate in the film. “I don’t think I would’ve even been able to get talking heads,” he said.

In his essay, he declared his failure to win the access he needed “a victory for the Clintons, and for the money machines that both political parties have now become.”

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:36:23 AM UTC+1, thinbluemime wrote:

Hillary Clinton: we need to talk sensibly about spying
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/hillary-clinton-spying
The Guardian, Friday 11 October 2013


Hillary Clinton has called for a "sensible adult conversation", to be held in a transparent way, about the boundaries of state surveillance highlighted by the leaking of secret NSA files by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

In a boost to Nick Clegg, the British deputy prime minister, who is planning to start conversations within government about the oversight of Britain's intelligence agencies, the former US secretary of state said it would be wrong to shut down a debate.

Clinton, who is seen as a frontrunner for the 2016 US presidential election, said at Chatham House in London: "This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK.

"We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be."


///


Evidence the Secretary of State approved "spying" on U.N. leaders has led to calls for her resignation
By The Week Staff | December 1, 2010
http://theweek.com/article/index/209885/wikileaks-can-hillary-clinton-survive-cablegate


Hillary Clinton is under fire after the WikiLeaks "cablegate" data dump revealed that she sanctioned the collection of confidential information, including biometric data and credit card details, about U.N. leaders and foreign diplomats.

The State Department cables were signed in Clinton's name, and some say this intelligence-gathering amounts to "spying" on the U.N. leadership — an act that contradicts several international laws.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

Petition to Hillary assails ‘right wing Democrats’ who take ‘warmonger AIPAC’ cash
Philip Weiss on November 29, 2013
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/petition-democrats-warmonger.html


Another public assault on the Israel lobby. Just Foreign Policy, partnered with Moveon.org, is running a petition to ask Hillary Clinton to support the Iran deal. She’s been lamentably silent. But she was outfront on bombing Syria. Notice that the petition states that many Democrats are not getting behind Obama, because they want the cash of “warmonger interest groups like AIPAC.” If Hillary would come out for the deal, she would undermine the rightwing Dems, Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy says.

--------


It's 3AM: Where's Hillary on the Iran nuclear deal?
By Robert Naiman
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/3am-wheres-hillary-on




To be delivered to: Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State

Petition Statement

We urge Hillary Clinton to publicly endorse the diplomatic deal on Iran's nuclear program negotiated by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry.


Petition Background

Republicans like Lindsey Graham are attacking the diplomatic deal on Iran's nuclear program negotiated by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

It would make a big difference in getting political acceptance for the deal if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were to publicly come out and endorse the deal.
There is an all hands on deck effort to support the President on this. Silence by Hillary is going to be perceived as a lack of support, not simply staying out of it. There is no neutral on some things.
Sign our petition to Hillary urging her to publicly support the diplomatic deal with Iran.


There are currently 10,642 signatures
NEW goal - We need 15,000 signatures

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

“I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel” - Haim Saban


Media Tycoon Haim Saban Backs Hillary Clinton for 2016 Presidential Push
Israeli-American Pledges 'Full Might' To Former Secretary of State
By Reuters November 29, 2013
http://forward.com/articles/188540/media-tycoon-haim-saban-backs-hillary-clinton-for/


Jerusalem — Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban, a major donor to the U.S. Democratic party, said on Friday he would back former secretary of state Hillary Clinton with his “full might” should she run for president in 2016.

-----------

Everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask about Haim Saban
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.tv/KbMpR4ztD1E/o_JFwX4d2xgJ

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/d7BI9m_zLq0J



‘Hillary Clinton mulled green light for Israeli strike on Iran’
By MICHAEL WILNER 01/17/2014
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Hillary-Clinton-mulled-green-light-for-Israeli-strike-on-Iran-338511


Former US secretary of state suggested exploring benefits of unilateral Israeli strike, according to Obama administration official.


WASHINGTON – In her role as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested the United States weigh the benefits of giving Israel “a tacit green light” to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own.

While Clinton did not explicitly endorse the idea, she suggested that by exploring it, a unilateral Israeli strike could “take care of the problem for” the US, one senior administration official quoted her saying, as first reported by Time journalist Michael Crowley.

The idea was raised at senior-level meeting in 2010 “as one option to consider,” another US official said. The notion was quickly rejected by those in the White House.

The year 2010 marked an important turning point in US President Barack Obama’s policy toward Iran: Its leaders appeared to reject his outreach efforts and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was disinclined to believe that Obama would ever be prepared to order American military action.

In his revelatory memoir published this week, former secretary of defense Robert Gates said that the US, at that time, began preparing for a unilateral Israeli strike, “including whether the US would assist.”

“Militarily, I thought we needed to prepare for a possible Israeli attack and Iranian retaliation,” Gates wrote.

[Bill Steele]

In article <60ad0adc-e56f-495f...@googlegroups.com>,
thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:

> �Militarily, I thought we needed to prepare for a possible Israeli attack and
> Iranian retaliation,� Gates wrote.

This could have been a whole season of 24. Wait: we have an Israeli
agent on Covert Affairs. Let's see if this turns up there.

[danny burstein]

In <ws21-EF5E5D.1...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net> Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> writes:

>In article <60ad0adc-e56f-495f...@googlegroups.com>,
> thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:

>> łMilitarily, I thought we needed to prepare for a possible Israeli attack and

>> Iranian retaliation,˛ Gates wrote.

>This could have been a whole season of 24. Wait: we have an Israeli
>agent on Covert Affairs. Let's see if this turns up there.

And one on NCIS. (Well, formerly...)

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

Hillary Clinton Finally Gets Off the Pot On Iran
Brett LoGiurato Feb. 3, 2014


After Obama, Kerry, and other Democrats have done the heavy lifting to squash
AIPAC and prevent additional Iran sanctions, Hillary gets a new set of eye glasses and sees the light.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/world/middleeast/potent-pro-israel-group-finds-its-momentum-blunted.html?hp&_r=0
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-obama-iran-sanctions-bill-2014-2

------------

4 eyes, 10 thumbs and a forked tongue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdrFBwwWJ44

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
>
> Benghazi:
>
>
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
>
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
>
> East unrest
>
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
>
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>

Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton's Comments About Edward Snowden and the NSA
April 28, 2014 Trevor Timm
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-comments-about-edward-snowden-and-nsa



Hillary Clinton made her first extended public remarks about Edward Snowden late last week, and unfortunately she misstated some basic facts about the NSA whistleblower and how events have played out in the last year. Here's a breakdown of what she said and where she went wrong:

Clinton: "If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been... I don't understand why he couldn't have been part of the debate at home."

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about Snowden that even NSA reform advocates have furthered. Edward Snowden could not be part of this debate at home, period.

First, as Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explained in the Washington Post, Snowden would likely be in a maximum security prison right now if he remained in the United States, unable to speak to the media. Second and more importantly, Snowden would likely be barred from making any of arguments claiming he was a whistleblower during his trial, since the government is charging him under the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. As we have pointed out repeatedly, lower court rulings in other cases against leakers have prevented defendants from telling a jury about their intent to inform the American public, the lack of harm their leaks caused, and the benefits to society. The government even tried to bar NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake from mentioning the words "whistleblower" or "First Amendment" during his trial.

Simply put, it would be impossible for Edward Snowden to participate in an informed debate in the public or the courtroom if he was in the United States.

Clinton: "When he emerged and when he absconded with all that material, I was puzzled, because we have all these protections for whistleblowers."

What's really puzzling is that Ms. Clinton--and President Obama (who has made similar remarks)--is not familiar with the current state of the law as it relates to whistleblowers. Contractors like Snowden lack the protections that federal employees are entitled to, and the government is free to retaliate against such people under the law. As Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, has explained: "[T]here is a gaping loophole for intelligence community contractors. The riskiest whistle-blowing that you can possibly do on the government is as an intelligence contractor."

Despite the risks, Snowden has said he repeatedly went his superiors with complaints and they were never acted upon. From his interview with Vanity Fair:

"The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.'s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.]."

Clinton: "I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin's authority."

Snowden did not "take refuge" in Russia at all, and in fact, it's the fault of the United States government he was stuck there. Snowden's legal adviser Ben Wizner put it best when asked about this on Meet the Press last year:

I actually think if there is one thing that we all should agree on, it's that Edward Snowden shouldn't be in Russia. The reason why he's in Russia is that the United States revoked his passport when he was transiting through there. And I hope that the U.S. will-- will see that it's not in anybody's best interests for him to be there, and that even if he isn't going to return here, that there should be some other place where he can live.

Clinton: "I think turning over a lot of that material--intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained--gave all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like."

Snowden has repeatedly stated he did not turn over information to anyone besides journalists, he did not even take any data with him to Russia, and the US government has not put forth any evidence that a foreign government has gained access to information that is not in the public record. Thankfully, Snowden is highly trained in protecting data in high-risk places, as he even once taught a DIA course in the subject to other diplomats.

Ms. Clinton is widely considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for President in 2016. It's very possible she was just testing the waters about how to react to the issue of NSA surveillance. We hope she will take these facts into consideration and adjust her opinion accordingly. Bill Clinton was much more conciliatory and nuanced about people's anger over the NSA when he made comments a few weeks ago, so it would be easy for her to switch gears. And if these tweets are any indication, privacy could be a more important election issue than ever.

Note: Edward Snowden is a member of Freedom of the Press Foundation's board of directors.






>
> Hillary 2016
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

Report: Clinton Defends Response to Benghazi
May 30, 2014 KEN THOMAS and PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/report-clinton-defends-response-benghazi-23925844


Hillary Rodham Clinton defended her response to the deadly 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, writing in her new book that she will "not be part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans."

Clinton's upcoming book, "Hard Choices," is both a rebuke to Republicans who have seized upon the terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and a roadmap for Democrats to defend the Obama administration's reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack. Should Clinton run for president in 2016, her four years as secretary of state -- including the deaths in Benghazi and the follow-up inquests -- could be a driving factor in that campaign.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of stonewalling congressional investigators and misleading the public about the nature of the attack in the weeks before the presidential election. Republicans have used the attack as a way to first undermine President Barack Obama's re-election bid and, later, to perhaps tarnish the still-uncertain Clinton bid to replace him in early 2017.

"Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country," Clinton writes in the 34-page chapter, which was obtained by Politico.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said that "until the book is released, there's nothing to say. And once it's released, it will speak for itself."

The former first lady and senator from New York is the leading potential Democratic presidential candidate if she decides to run again. Looking to weaken her well before she announces her plans, Republicans have been tireless in criticizing Clinton's response to the Benghazi attack.

Clinton writes that she takes responsibility for the deaths, but adds that there has been "a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation and flat-out deceit" by some in politics and the media.

------------

Benghazi was NOT a diplomatic outpost, it essentially was a covert CIA operation under the command of General David Petraeus.

Paula Broadwell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgsLSsSKMI

The Red Line and the Rat Line - Seymour M. Hersh
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:09:57 AM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:40:52 +0100, Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <op.wy9iq...@experience.zoomtown.com>,
>
> > thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>

> >> â EURO oeThis was an expeditionary post,â EURO she said, â EURO oenot an embassy, not a
>
> >> consult,â EURO a place to â EURO oeestablish a presenceâ EURO for the United

>
> >> States."
>
> >
>
> > Interesting play on words here. I guess this was a "post" to establish a
>
> > presence for an off-topic political thread on r.a.tv.
>
>
>
> It's preliminary research for a script I am writing for Homeland about a
>
> high ranking US official that secretly converts and then aids a foreign
>
> government to subvert the Constitution.
>
>
>
> --------
>
>
>
> "Word Play"

Jewish? Ready for Hillary?
Sarah Posner June 3, 2014
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/7918/jewish_ready_for_hillary/
http://forward.com/articles/199430/jewish-pro-hillary-clinton-group-is-launched/



"Throughout her career, Hillary Clinton has fought for the issues that matter most to Jewish Americans," reads the new section of the web site of the Super PAC Ready for Hillary, Jewish Americans Ready for Hillary! (Don't forget the exclamation point to indicate your ultimate readiness). "In every corner of this country, members of the Jewish American community are signing up to say that they are Ready for Hillary!" (Again.)

According to a press release from Clinton's effusive Jewish supporters, Rachel Schneider, Ready for Hillary's Jewish Americans Director who also serves as Ready for Hillary's Young Americans Director wants to appeal "to people who want Hillary to run and who identify as a Jewish American to join and to help recruit other Jews to join in this special effort."

Here's the best part:

"This effort isn't only about money," says [Fran] Katz Watson, the Democratic political fundraiser and former finance director for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). "But it certainly includes money. We want your names, we want your time, we want your enthusiasm, but we also want a little of your money," she says. "If it's $20.16, $100.00, or Ready for Hillary's $25,000 maximum contribution, we hope you will participate in every way you can."

(Pro tip: if you're going to put out a statement that your effort isn't about fundraising, don't quote a professional fundraiser, who then goes on to ask for money.)

But what about voters of other religions? Do they also want to be targeted with exclamation points? Are Muslims Ready for Hillary!? Christians? Buddhists? No. No. And no! But don't worry, Faith Groups are Ready for Hillary, with the requisite punctuation.

[thinbluemime2]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:02:51 -0400, <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:

ORIGINAL POST & HEADER

4 eyes, ten thumbs and a forked tongue - Hillary 2016
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
East unrest
June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest

Hillary Clinton's First 2016 Campaign Ad? (Nov. 30, 2012 - CSPAN)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgIK3LBc-GI

>> It's preliminary research for a script I am writing for Homeland about a
>>
>> high ranking US official that secretly converts and then aids a foreign
>>
>> government to subvert the Constitution.

--
This communication may be unlawfully collected and stored by the National
Security Agency (NSA) in secret. The parties to this email do not consent
to the retrieving or storing of this communication and any related
metadata, as well as printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or
otherwise using it. If you believe you have received this communication in
error, please delete it immediately.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:09:57 AM UTC-4, thinbluemime2 wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:40:52 +0100, Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> > thinbluemime <thinbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> â EURO oeThis was an expeditionary post,â EURO she said, â EURO oenot an embassy, not a
>

> >> consult,â EURO a place to â EURO oeestablish a presenceâ EURO for the United

>
> >> States."
>
> >
>
> > Interesting play on words here. I guess this was a "post" to establish a
>
> > presence for an off-topic political thread on r.a.tv.
>
>
>
> It's preliminary research for a script I am writing for Homeland about a
>
> high ranking US official that secretly converts and then aids a foreign
>
> government to subvert the Constitution.
>

> "Word Play"
>
> "Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "United States
>
> of America" touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor
>
> it is to represent the world's indispensible nation." Hillary Clinton,
>
> January 23, 2013 (Benghazi Hearing)
>
>
>
> http://bit.ly/cfq5V

NYT: Hillary "remains the vessel into which many [neocon] interventionists are pouring their hopes"


But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."


Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says
Robert Kagan Strikes a Nerve With Article on Obama Policy
JASON HOROWITZJUNE 15, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

Hard-Core Antiwar Left Not Ready to Forgive Hillary Clinton
Alex Seitz-Wald June 17, 2014
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/hard-core-antiwar-left-not-ready-to-forgive-hillary-clinton-20140617


Hillary Clinton may have finally recanted on her 2002 Senate vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, but in the eyes of the die-hard antiwar activists who gathered Monday evening in front of the White House to protest another potential military conflict with the country, the former secretary of State can never apologize enough.

"We're not going to forgive her, despite her best effort to whitewash her history," said Brian Becker, the executive director of the antiwar ANSWER Coalition, which formed in the run-up to the Iraq War. "We consider Hillary Clinton to be almost a part of the neoconservative establishment."

About 40 activists unfurled banners and beat drums in front of the White House as President Obama prepared to send 275 troops into Iraq to defend American interests against a potential assault on Baghdad from Islamist militants who have taken control of much of the country.


The protesters universally viewed Clinton's disownership of her Iraq vote as motivated by potential presidential ambitions, rather than a genuine change of heart. That vote helped stop her last presidential campaign, and is already causing heartburn for a likely 2016 bid, now that Iraq is back in the news.
Share This Story

"Bottom line: You can always count on Hillary to say the most politically resonant thing of the moment," said Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer turned antiwar protester who was arrested in 2011 (and he claims beaten) for protesting during a Clinton speech. "It's bad enough to have that kind of person as secretary of State; do we really want her to be the president of the United States? I don't think so. She's a menace."

As secretary of State, Clinton was often in the hawkish wing of President Obama's Cabinet, supporting air strikes in Libya and arms deliveries to rebels in Syria. Robert Kagan, the veteran sage of interventionist foreign policy, recently gave a thumbs up to Clinton's foreign policy, telling The New York Times that it's "something that might have been called neocon."

Eugene Puryear, a far-left activist who is running for an at-large seat on the District of Columbia Council, said there's "absolutely no chance" he could support Clinton. Her latter-day admission that the vote was a mistake is "highly opportunistic ... absurd and really offensive," added Puryear, whose interest in politics started when he attended an anti-Iraq War march during high school.

Gerry Condon, the vice president of Veterans for Peace, was somewhat more sympathetic, saying he thought Clinton had "learned her lesson," but said he could still never support her. "We would welcome her becoming a politician who actually supports diplomacy, but I'm not going to hold my breath," he said.

The problem, these activists readily acknowledged, is that there's no clear alternative for them. Some said they were interested in a potential bid from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., while others said they were resigned to vote for a third-party candidate.

Phyllis Bennis, of the progressive Institute for Policy Studies think tank, said that to capture the antiwar vote, any candidate would need to not only renounce the Iraq War, but oppose it's legal foundation, the Authorization for the Military Use of Force, which Congress passed shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

"Without that, I don't think any candidate could expect to get any support from the antiwar movement that helped get Obama into office," she said after a brief speech at the rally.

Carlo Chavarría, a 21-year-old rising senior at American University, said there's no way he'd vote for Clinton in 2016. "She seems so progressive on other issues," he said, but when it comes to foreign policy, "she's a warmonger."

Two other young attendees--Colleen Moore, a 20-year-old junior at Hobart William Smith College, and Ben Norton, a 22-year-old freelance writer who lives in Washington--agreed. "I will not support her," Norton said.

The coalition of groups represented here, comfortable being at the fringes of politics, clearly feel emboldened after the U.S. scrapped potential air strikes against the Assad regime in Syria last fall. "It's very sad that we have to be out again, and I think a lot of us are in shock that we are out here again, but let's remember that we did stop an invasion of Syria!" CodePink cofounder Medea Benjamin said over a loudspeaker to cheers from the crowd.

"Is she the same Hillary?" Benjamin said with a laugh, as if the answer was obvious, when asked about the potential presidential candidate after the rally. "This is politics."

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

Watch: Hillary Clinton inspires a country music video
Catalina Camia 2014-11-04
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/12/04/hillary-clinton-president-country-music-pac/




"As the song says, the nation needs a leader "who is tough and ready" and has "vision."




Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently inspires super PACs ... and country songs?

Stand With Hillary, a new pro-Clinton super PAC that launched last month, is out with a music video featuring a ballad with the same name touting the former secretary of State as the best presidential candidate for 2016. The song is by Miguel Orozco, who wrote Viva Obama and Obama Reggaeton in 2008 that were aimed at getting young Hispanics to support Barack Obama.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (Manuel Balce Ceneta, AP)

The Washington Post reports the new political action committee is the brainchild of Daniel Chavez, a Democratic political operative in Los Angeles, and Orozco. Chavez said in a news release about the PAC that they will try to encourage working families and Latinos to get behind Clinton and fight "gender-based attacks" in 2016.

"She motivates my daughter to look for greater avenues to have a voice -- that kind of inspiration is priceless," Chavez told The Post.

The music video opens by touching on themes of hard work, family and diversity, along with images of Clinton. It plays off Clinton's own words in 2008 about her efforts to become America's first female president, in which she noted that her supporters in the Democratic primaries made "18 million cracks" in the glass ceiling.

Then the main character of the video sings that it's time to "put your boots on" and "smash this ceiling," and proceeds to shatter glass with "2016" painted on it. As the song says, the nation needs a leader "who is tough and ready" and has "vision."

Chavez said Stand With Hillary will have more to say in January -- including a song and music video reaching out to Latinos.


///

Imagine if a major television network entered into a partnership with a presidential nominee, and promoted that candidate across their media platforms. Just think of the outrage and charges of bias that would ricochet through the press.

And with its increasing stature should come the same scrutiny given to the other major broadcast networks. Consider that one of the owners of Univision, Haim Saban, is a major Clinton donor and backer who told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, "Seeing her in the White House is a big dream of mine."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/23/raul-reyes-univision-hillary-clinton/5616437/

[thinbluemime2]

A Conversation with Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Brookings Institution Streamed live on Dec 5, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H5Dyl-oJEE#t=3558
#Saban14
https://twitter.com/BrookingsFP


there’s an awkward thing happening on stage right now where Saban is
making Clinton do a word-association game
4:27 PM - 5 Dec 2014
https://twitter.com/RosieGray/status/541026018187026432


--

"Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "United States
of America" touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor

it is to represent the world's indispensable nation." - Hillary Clinton

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

Saban hints: Clinton opposes the Iran deal
April 17, 2015 Naomi Friedman
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/239091-saban-hints-clinton-opposes-the-iran-deal


Just minutes before Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, Israeli Channel One News interviewed Haim Saban, an American-Israeli media magnate and long-time Clinton supporter. Noticeably excited, he explained that she had waited to make the announcement until she had carefully prepared the ground for her campaign.

Then came the big question: What is her position on the Iran deal?

Saban responded carefully, "She will have to, at some stage, express her opinion. But we know that in essence and in every important matter, she is committed to the security of Israel. She is a friend of the State of Israel. And we've seen this over the past 25 to 30 years. So, there won't be any problems with relations between the United States and Israel when Hillary Clinton is president. No problem. On the contrary."
But Ya'akov Ayalon, the host of the nightly Channel One news pressed on: And where does Hillary Clinton stand on this issue?

"I know where she stands but I can't talk about it," Saban admitted.

"Give me a hint," Ayalon had to ask.

"I hinted to you - that I know," Saban couldn't repress a laugh. "But I can't reveal to you things that were said behind closed doors. She has an opinion, a very well-defined opinion. And in any case, everything that she thinks and everything she has done and will do will always be for the good of Israel. We don't need to worry about this."

The implication: Clinton is against the Iran deal.

Why? Because Israelis - across the political spectrum - are against the deal, and Saban knows this. From the extreme left of Zionist parties and partisans to the extreme right, Israelis oppose the deal. For Haaretz reporter Ari Shavit, it's President Obama's big mistake. Former Prime Minister and head of the Labor Party Ehud Barak came right out and urged the United States to tell Iran to "dismantle or else." Barak said, "The Pentagon and the forces of America under the backing and probable directive of the [US] president [could] create an extremely effective means to destroy the Iranian nuclear military program over a fraction of one night." And as the former IDF Chief of General Staff and Israeli Minister of Defense, Barak might know a thing or two about this topic.

Barak is not alone. Israelis, across the political spectrum, want the military option on the table - on the negotiating table, where it belongs. The debate in Israel is not whether the deal is good. It's whether Prime Minister Netanyahu is responsible for the bad deal - by spoiling Israel's relations with the United States, or whether Obama is responsible for the bad deal by virtue of his unrealistic idealism and tendency to over-compromise.



So when Yaakov Ayalon says, "Give me a hint" and Haim Saban says "I hinted to you - that I know," and just after he's said "there won't be any problems with relations between the United States and Israel when Hillary Clinton is president," that means he is convinced that Hillary Clinton is against the Iran deal.

And this is big news. Israelis have been anxiously waiting for Hillary Clinton to openly state her position on the Iran deal. Congress is the last bastion of hope for Israel. Well before the P5+1 negotiations in Lausanne, Israeli news analysts focused intently on the Corker-Menendez bill. If Hillary Clinton comes out against the deal, more Democrats will join Republicans in demanding that Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions. And this is what Israelis, across the political spectrum, are praying for.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

"Just three weeks ago, Hillary Clinton decried unaccountable money in politics and even called for amending the Constitution to ban it," said Jeff Bechdel, communications director for America Rising, a conservative research group. "Today, she announced she's going to personally court donors and raise money for her own super PAC. ... Clinton's hypocrisy knows no bounds."


Hillary Clinton pushes the limits of campaign finance law
EVAN HALPER 2015-05-07
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-hillary-clinton-fundraisers-california-20150507-story.html

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E



Clinton Emails: State Department Proposes 2016 Release Date
By JUSTIN FISHEL and MIKE LEVINE May 19, 2015
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-emails-state-department-proposes-2016-release-date/story?id=31143744





The State Department says it needs so much time to review the 50,000 pages of emails handed over by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that it can't release them until January 2016.

In response to Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit filed by Vice News, the State Department on Monday argued to a U.S. District Court that the process of reviewing the emails is simply too arduous and time-consuming, and asked the court to adopt a proposed completion date of January 15, 2016 -- just two weeks before the primary season for the 2016 presidential race gets into full swing.

When it was revealed Clinton had been using her own private email server to conduct government business during her tenure as Secretary of State, she took to social media to tell the public she wanted everyone to see her emails. Now the 2016 front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton said she'd asked the State Department to review them and make them public as soon as possible.

John F. Hackett, acting director of the Office of Information Programs and Services at the State Department, says in the court filing that he understands the considerable public interest in the emails and the desire to get them out quickly.

"The collection is, however, voluminous and, due to the breadth of topics, the nature of the communications, and the interests of several agencies, presents several challenges," Hackett wrote.

Separately, State Department officials told ABC News that 300 previously undisclosed emails from then Clinton relating to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack could be made public as soon as this week.

The emails were requested by Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who has been leading the latest investigation the 2012 terror attack for over a year and plans to call Clinton to testify in front on Congress about that attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Gowdy and the Select Committee already received those 300 emails from the State Department but has chosen not to release them. Gowdy said he wants access to all 50,000 pages of Clinton's emails before he can be sure he has all the information he needs.

But officials who have seen the emails tell ABC News that there is no incrimination evidence within them. For the most part, officials say, they are briefly worded emails with little substance. Many of them just read, for example, "please print."

[Bill Steele]

On 5/19/15 9:21 AM, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> But officials who have seen the emails tell ABC News that there is no incrimination evidence within them. For the most part, officials say, they are briefly worded emails with little substance. Many of them just read, for example, "please print."

A lot like troll posts. "Please read and reply telling me how stupid I am."

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:


> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."


> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest



> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.


> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Hillary's huge plummet in new poll
By Marisa Schultz June 3, 2015
http://nypost.com/2015/06/03/majority-of-voters-think-hillary-clinton-is-a-liar/



WASHINGTON -- Hillary Rodham Clinton took a serious beating in a poll released Tuesday -- with a majority of voters describing her as dishonest and untrustworthy.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>

> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

"Asked toward the end of the interview whether things would be better under a Hillary Clinton presidency, Oren said that Netanyahu had "a rapport" with her, and that "she understands certain things about Israel... She gets it." Clinton and Republican candidate Jeb Bush both made major campaign speeches this week in which they promised US-Israel ties would improve if they were elected president next year."



Blaming Obama, ex-envoy Oren says aspects of US-Israel ties 'in tatters'
DAVID HOROVITZ June 17, 2015
http://www.timesofisrael.com/blaming-obama-ex-envoy-oren-says-aspects-of-us-israel-ties-in-tatters/

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>
> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Hillary Clinton Says Iran Will Be 'Existential Threat' to Israel, Deal or No
Reuters July 5, 2015
http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/311442/hillary-clinton-says-iran-will-always-be-existential-threat-to-israel/


U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Saturday that even if a deal is reached with Iran over its nuclear program, Tehran's "aggressiveness will not end" and it will remain a principal state sponsor of terrorism.

"They will continue to destabilize governments in the region and beyond. They will continue to use their proxies like Hezbollah. And they will continue to be an existential threat to Israel," Clinton said at a campaign event.

-----------

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."


> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim

http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest



> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.

> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E


Hillary Clinton Chides Israel Boycott Effort in Letter to Supporters
By Amy Chozick and Nicholas Confessore
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/06/hillary-clinton-chides-israel-boycott-effort-in-letter-to-supporters/


In a letter to prominent Jewish leaders, Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed her "alarm" over calls to boycott Israeli products to push Israel to improve its dealings with the Palestinians.

Mrs. Clinton has largely avoided discussion of foreign policy in her early months on the campaign trail. But in the July 2 letter, whose recipients included some of the biggest donors to her campaigns and a "super PAC" supporting her, the former secretary of state said the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment, or B.D.S., campaign against Israel was "the latest effort to single out Israel on the world stage."

The letter was provided to news organizations by a public relations firm working for Haim Saban, a prominent Clinton donor who has been particularly outspoken in opposition to the divestment movement. A Clinton spokeswoman said the letter was also sent to other prominent pro-Israel leaders, many of them leaders of large Jewish nonprofit organizations.

Mrs. Clinton called for a bipartisan effort to "make countering B.D.S. a priority" and said she sought the recipients' advice on "how we can work together -- across party lines and with a diverse array of voices -- to reverse this trend."

Mr. Saban, the Hollywood mogul behind the Power Rangers fortune, who also owns a majority stake in Univision, has expressed concern about the current negotiations with Iran and other issues involving Israel. Mr. Saban, who has contributed at least $2 million to a "super PAC" backing Mrs. Clinton, also spoke at an anti-B.D.S. conference in Las Vegas in June hosted by Sheldon Adelson, a casino billionaire and leading Republican donor.

Nevertheless, at a campaign rally on Saturday in Hanover, N.H., Mrs. Clinton reiterated her support for President Obama's framework for a deal to curtail Iran's nuclear program -- but she called the country "the world's chief sponsor of terrorism."


http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-07-at-12.46.09-AM-e1436219247648.png

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJP2IN9UMAAGAbq.jpg

--------------

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."

> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E



Tips on Deleting Emails From Email Book Hillary Clinton Wanted to Read
Aug 12, 2015 JONATHAN KARL and SUMMER FIELDS
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tips-deleting-emails-email-book-hillary-clinton-wanted/story?id=33046042



The last batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called "Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better," by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe.

Clinton has not said why she requested the book, but it includes some advice that is particularly interesting in light of the controversy over her unconventional email arrangement at the State Department and her decision to delete tens of thousands of emails she deemed to be purely personal.

The copy that ABC downloaded for $9.99 had some interesting revelations.

Take, for example, Chapter Six: "The Email That Can Land You In Jail." The chapter includes a section entitled "How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted."

"Some people are hoarders, some are checkers," the authors write. "The main thing to consider is that once you do decide to delete, it's like taking the garbage from your kitchen and putting it in your hallway. It's still there."

The chapter advised that to truly delete emails may require a special rewriting program "to make sure that it's not just elsewhere on the drive but has in fact been written over sixteen or twenty times and rendered undefinable."

But Shipley and Schwalbe warn that deleting emails could lead to future legal troubles.

On page 215, the authors list "Stupid (and Real) Email Phrases That Wound Up in Court." Number one on the list? "DELETE THIS EMAIL!' Later, on page 226, the writers warn, "If you're issued a subpoena, your deletion binge will only make you look guilty."

The FBI is investigating the handling of classified information in Clinton's emails, while she maintains she has done nothing illegal or improper.

Instead of deleting, the authors suggest never putting sensitive information in an email, quoting disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer: "'Never talk when you can nod. And never write when you can talk. My only addendum is never put it in an email.' (We know...we know. Spitzer resigned. And before that, his short-lived administration was embroiled in a controversy where the smoking guns were on email. But it's still really good advice.)"

[Bill Steele]

>
>
> Report: Clinton Defends Response to Benghazi
> May 30, 2014 KEN THOMAS and PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/report-clinton-defends-response-benghazi-23925844
>
>
> Hillary Rodham Clinton defended her response to the deadly 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, writing in her new book that she will "not be part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans."
>
> Clinton's upcoming book, "Hard Choices," is both a rebuke to Republicans who have seized upon the terrorist attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, and a roadmap for Democrats to defend the Obama administration's reaction to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack. Should Clinton run for president in 2016, her four years as secretary of state -- including the deaths in Benghazi and the follow-up inquests -- could be a driving factor in that campaign.
>
> Republicans have accused the Obama administration of stonewalling congressional investigators and misleading the public about the nature of the attack in the weeks before the presidential election. Republicans have used the attack as a way to first undermine President Barack Obama's re-election bid and, later, to perhaps tarnish the still-uncertain Clinton bid to replace him in early 2017.
>
> "Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country," Clinton writes in the 34-page chapter, which was obtained by Politico.
>
> Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said that "until the book is released, there's nothing to say. And once it's released, it will speak for itself."
>
> The former first lady and senator from New York is the leading potential Democratic presidential candidate if she decides to run again. Looking to weaken her well before she announces her plans, Republicans have been tireless in criticizing Clinton's response to the Benghazi attack.
>
> Clinton writes that she takes responsibility for the deaths, but adds that there has been "a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation and flat-out deceit" by some in politics and the media.
>

On what TV program did she say that? The rules require that you mention
that in order to justify the off-topic post.

Up next: CNN: World's oldest living cat:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/living/guinness-oldest-living-cat-feat/index.html

[FPP]

On 2015-08-14 19:21:27 +0000, Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> said:

> The rules require that you mention that in order to justify the off-topic post

Rules? What rules?

Note: Voices in your head don't count...
--
A pessimist says the glass is half empty. An optimist says the glass
is half full. An engineer says somebody made the glass twice as big as
it needed to be.

[trotsky]

On 8/14/15 5:44 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-08-14 19:21:27 +0000, Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> said:
>
>> The rules require that you mention that in order to justify the
>> off-topic post
>
> Rules? What rules?
>
> Note: Voices in your head don't count...

"Bill Steele" has been imagining rules for unmoderated forums for years now.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 10:29:29 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:09:57 AM UTC-4, thinbluemime2 wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:40:52 +0100, Bill Steele <ws...@cornel.edu> wrote:


> > It's preliminary research for a script I am writing for Homeland about a
> >
> > high ranking US official that secretly converts and then aids a foreign
> >
> > government to subvert the Constitution.

> > "Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "United States
> >
> > of America" touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor
> >
> > it is to represent the world's indispensible nation." Hillary Clinton,

> NYT: Hillary "remains the vessel into which many [neocon] interventionists are pouring their hopes"
>
>
> But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
>
> "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added, "it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."
>
>
> Events in Iraq Open Door for Interventionist Revival, Historian Says
> Robert Kagan Strikes a Nerve With Article on Obama Policy
> JASON HOROWITZJUNE 15, 2014
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html

Sid Blumenthal to Hillary: "@tnr is a preferred outlet for the highest level Likud/neocon propaganda."
https://twitter.com/Jamie_Weinstein/status/638544680729247744



Quiz: Who Said This? Hillary Clinton or Benjamin Netanyahu?
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/11/quiz-said-hillary-clinton-benjaim-netanyahu/

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>

> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>

> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

CARL BERNSTEIN: HILLARY EMAIL SERVER 'SOLIDIFIED THE IMPRESSION' AS SOMEONE 'WHO CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH'
10/7/15 JEFF POOR 7 Oct 2015
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/07/carl-bernstein-hillary-email-server-solidified-the-impression-as-someone-who-cant-tell-the-truth/



Wednesday on CNN's "New Day," veteran journalist Carl Bernstein weighed in on the controversy surrounding Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

Host Chris Cuomo asked Bernstein if Clinton was evading the truth more than other politicians, to which Bernstein said, "Politicians lie."

"We don't know except in terms of judging individual candidates," Bernstein replied. "Politicians lie. Hillary Clinton has been around public life for almost 40 years now and what we see is whenever she is in any kind of trouble, she is unwilling to open up and be transparent. It has dogged her for years and years, and right now it's the biggest problem with her campaign."

As for the server, Bernstein argued it "solidified the impression" she was dishonest, as some polling as indicated.

"The server is what -- the server question is what has solidified this impression," Bernstein said. "Because she's been less than truthful. She's been less than open. She has looked for all kinds of excuses, much like she did when she was in the White House as first lady and the travel office debate came up -- something that should not have been a huge problem for her. The same as the server question. Had she at the beginning when The New York Times revealed the existence of the server said if what seems to be the case, 'Look, my enemies are out to get me. The vast right-wing conspiracy as I've called it? Well it exists and they are going to go after every email I have so i did not want them to be subjected to that kind of scrutiny.' Had she said something along those lines, as difficult as I might be she wouldn't be in the mess she's in now. It solidified the impression of her as someone who can't tell the truth."

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.








> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Andrew Sullivan: Hillary A 'Unbelievably Useless, Terrible Candidate,' 'Talent-Free Hack'
IAN HANCHETT9 Oct 20151,073
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/10/09/andrew-sullivan-hillary-a-unbelievably-useless-terrible-candidate-talent-free-hack/



Blogger Andrew Sullivan slammed Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a "talent-free hack," and openly wondered if "she has any core beliefs" on Friday's broadcast of HBO's "Real Time."

Sullivan began by criticising "This unbelievably useless, terrible candidate of Hillary Clinton, who has shown no -."

After host Bill Maher asked Sullivan to explain, he asked, "Have you ever -- has she ever given a speech that you were inspired by? Does she have any good retail skills? Is she able to come across on TV?"

Sullivan added, "A large majority of the country don't believe a word she's saying, for good reason. This week, her cynicism reached like an almost perfect Clinton level."

After Maher suggested the press might be to blame, Sullivan responded, "Oh poor, poor Hillary. She can't handle the press?"

Sullivan later stated, "She's a talent-free hack." He further argued, "The only decision you could really put on her was the disastrous Libya invasion, which repeated every mistake that George W. Bush made, that violated everything that Obama stood, and has led to disaster."

He further called Clinton "a mediocrity, and I think if the Democrats are sane and sensible, this is a dangerous time for this country, they need to find someone with ability, and talent, and leadership. But not her."

Sullivan also blasted her email server as a "dumb error," continuing "60% of the country don't believe a word she says. ... no one gets elected president if no one trusts you, or believes a word you say, for good reason. Do you really believe she genuinely opposes this Pacific trade pact? Do you really -- the one she argued for, negotiated for, and this week came out against it? For what reason? She can't even give a good reason."

Maher conceded that Clinton is "a calculating politician," but that "I'd rather have a politician who calculates than one who can't."

Sullivan countered, "The question is, not whether she can calculate, is whether she can do anything but calculation, whether she has any vision, whether she has any core beliefs, or whether she's in the prison of another bubble called Washington, which tells people just because of...people that they've worked with, or the establishment that they're unimpeachable, they will always be the candidate."

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest

> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E






Hillary Clinton Is Wrong About Edward Snowden
BY JOHN CASSIDY OCTOBER 14, 2015
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-about-edward-snowden





I've already given my instant verdict on Tuesday night's Democratic debate: in terms of the horse race, Hillary Clinton was the clear winner, although Bernie Sanders also did pretty well. But it was a long discussion about serious issues, and some of the exchanges bear closer inspection--including the one about Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who is currently languishing in Russia.

The exchange began with host Anderson Cooper asking Lincoln Chafee, a former governor of Rhode Island, "Governor Chafee: Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?" Chafee replied that he would bring Snowden home without forcing him to serve any jail time. "The American government was acting illegally," he continued. "That's what the federal courts have said; what Snowden did showed that the American government was acting illegally for the Fourth Amendment. So I would bring him home."


Chafee was stating a truth. In May of this year, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, ruled that the N.S.A., in routinely collecting the phone records of millions of Americans--an intelligence program that Snowden exposed in 2013--broke the law of the land. The Patriot Act did not authorize the government to gather calling records in bulk, the judges said. "Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans," the decision read. The ruling overturned one that had been handed down in December, 2013, in which a federal judge, William Pauley, said that the N.S.A.'s collection of metadata was legal.

After Chafee spoke, Cooper turned to Hillary Clinton and asked, "Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?" Clinton, who earlier in the debate had described herself as "a progressive who likes to get things done," replied, "He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistle-blower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistle-blower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that."

"Should he do jail time?" Cooper asked, to which Clinton replied, "In addition--in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don't think he should be brought home without facing the music."

From a civil-liberties perspective--and a factual perspective--Clinton's answers were disturbing enough that they warrant parsing.

Did Snowden break the law? In passing classified information to reporters, he did. The Espionage Act explicitly prohibits such actions. But this violation surely needs to be balanced against the public service that Snowden carried out in informing the American public about the extent to which their government had been spying on them. "I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined," Bernie Sanders pointed out, immediately after Clinton spoke. "He did--he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that. But I think what he did in educating us should be taken into consideration."

Evidently, Clinton disagrees. In saying that Snowden should have invoked "all of the protections of being a whistle-blower," she was repeating an argument that President Obama has made. But it doesn't withstand inspection. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, which provided legal immunity to government employers who reveal lawbreaking, malfeasance, or abuse of authority, doesn't apply to employees of the intelligence agencies, including contractors like Snowden. These workers are covered by the 1998 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act; but, as, Michael German, a senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed out, in 2013, "it is no more than a trap."

German explained that the 1998 act set up a procedure for employees of the intelligence agencies to report wrongdoing to Congress via the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General. But the legislation didn't fully protect whistle-blowers from internal reprisals or subsequent prosecutions. "Reporting internally through the ICWPA only identifies the whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation," he noted. "The examples of former NSA official Thomas Drake, former House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark and former CIA officer Sabrina De Sousa show [this] too well." (In 2011, my colleague Jane Mayer wrote a long piece about Drake, who was charged under the Espionage Act.)

Finally, what about Clinton's claim that some of the information Snowden took from the N.S.A. has "fallen into a lot of wrong hands"? The assertion echoed a report, published in June by the Sunday Times, which quoted anonymous officials in the British government who said that Russia and China had decrypted some of the files taken by Snowden, prompting MI6, the U.K.'s foreign-intelligence service, to pull agents out of several countries. At this stage, though, there has been absolutely no confirmation of this allegation, nor even that Russia or China obtained any of the classified material that Snowden accumulated. Snowden has said that he destroyed all of the documents he had in his possession before departing Hong Kong for Moscow. In an article querying the Sunday Times story, the Guardian's Ewen MacAskill, one of the reporters who worked on the original Snowden revelations, wrote that it may reflect "a cack-handed attempt by some within the British security apparatus to try to take control of the narrative."


That sounds about right, and it's not clear why Clinton would want to associate herself with such an effort. Moreover, as Glenn Greenwald, another journalist who worked with Snowden, pointed out on Twitter: "It is ironic how Hillary used the same slimy innuendo against Snowden that's been used for months about her emails."

So what was Clinton up to? Perhaps she is such a pillar of establishment thinking, and of the national-security state, that she really believes what she said. Perhaps she was just using Snowden to burnish her credentials as a hawk and appeal to the American public at large, which is rather less sympathetic to Snowden than most progressives are. (In a recent poll carried out by the digital-media company Morning Consult, fifty-three per cent of respondents said that they would support a government prosecution of Snowden, and just twenty-six per cent said they would oppose such an action.)

Ultimately, speculating about motives doesn't get us very far. The fact is that Clinton said what she said, and she said it unapologetically, just as she did in telling Cooper that she didn't regret voting for the Patriot Act. At least some Democratic voters--those who take seriously the right to privacy established under the Fourth Amendment--will have been listening.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>
> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/hillarystorybenghazi.jpg





https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/6S0GkrEuZ50/iKix7ts8BgAJ

"The attack was planned ten or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings."



"Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles."

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.

> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E


http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/hillarywitchhunt.jpg

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>

> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E




The blindingly obvious political attack that every 2016 candidate should use against Hillary
Michael Brendan Dougherty 2015-12-01
http://theweek.com/articles/591387/blindingly-obvious-political-attack-that-every-2016-candidate-should-use-against-hillary



Just 350 miles from the tiny European member state Malta, ISIS has set up a colony in Surt, Libya. This Libyan outpost is now receiving veteran fighters and administrators from the burgeoning theocratic blob that has spread across Syria and Iraq. It is from this redoubt in Surt that the Islamic State can project power across North Africa, according to an in-depth report from The New York Times.

Now that we've seen the Islamic State lash out on European soil, the prospect of them establishing a statelet 400 miles from Italy should give us pause. How did they get there? How was Surt made ready to be the Islamic State's caliphate away from the caliphate?

Look no further than the woman most likely to become our next president, Hillary Clinton. Using American power to help overthrow Moammar Gadhafi's government was her signature idea as secretary of state. Surely, the Arab Spring rebels would handle the mop up. Alas, it didn't turn out that way.

However, beyond a tut-tutting tweet from Jeb Bush, don't expect any of Clinton's 2016 rivals for high office to criticize her for it. The Republican Party is now congenitally unable to criticize the result of a war without promising to double -- nay, Supersize -- its awful consequences. And socialist hero Bernie Sanders is too busy beating on the billionaires to take much notice of violent extremism. His plan to stop the spread of terrorism is to cool the planet.

So, sometimes your humble columnist has to do a job aspiring American presidents won't do, or at least show them how to do it. This one is a gimme.

In her memoir, recounting the decision to use what she called America's "Smart Power" to help topple the government of Gadhafi, Clinton outlined the choice facing her this way: "Was it time for the international community to go beyond humanitarian aid and sanctions and take decisive action to stop the violence in Libya?" Clinton became the leading advocate in the Obama administration for bombing Libya. After Gadhafi's government fell, you can see Clinton crudely exulting over the new chit on her record; she deposed a dictator and sponsor of anti-American terror at very little cost. "We came! We saw! He died!" she boasted, recalling the videos of Gadhafi being gutted like a caught fish on a Libyan street.

She concluded her chapter on this momentous initiative of hers by shrewdly disowning anything bad that might happen in the future.

If the new government could consolidate its authority, provide security, use oil revenues to rebuild, disarm the militias, and keep extremists out, then Libya would have a fighting chance at building a stable democracy. If not, then the country would face very difficult challenges translating the hopes of a revolution into a free, secure, and prosperous future. [Hard Choices]

Unfortunately, the decisive action she urged did not "stop the violence in Libya." Our ambassador to Libya got killed in proximity to an unexplained CIA operation. Mali was destabilized. Libya has had two governments simultaneously drawing salary from its resource revenues. Terror gangs still rule many of the roads. All we managed to prove about Smart Power is that ISIS is what we get in Iraq and Syria when American policy extends and exacerbates a civil war. And a colony for ISIS is what we get in Libya when American policy foolishly tries to end one.

It's simple, really. Clinton's rivals can even read their stage directions while performing this attack. Just say: "Barack Obama defeated you by saying that you exercised poor judgment in supporting the war on Iraq. He then foolishly trusted you as his secretary of state, and your signature achievement was the worst foreign policy decision of his administration, the one that exacerbated a refugee crisis that is roiling Europe, and put ISIS within a day's sail of Sicily. You were wrong about Iraq. You were wrong about Libya. Why should anyone -- our European partners, the diplomatic service, the American people, or even the cutthroat terrorists themselves -- ever take you seriously as our commander in chief? Of course, they should not."

Only Rand Paul occasionally brings up Libya as a demerit on the former secretary's record. The other Republican candidates cannot bring themselves to question the results of force. And Bernie, well, who has time for beheaders when the Koch brothers are subsidizing libertarian academics?

Libya is the forgotten war. Clinton should pray that nothing happens along the southern coasts and rivieras of Europe that reminds us.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.






> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Clinton super PAC offers 'off the record' news tips
Emilie Teresa Stigliani, Free Press Staff Writer January 21, 2016
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/21/clinton-super-pac-offers-off-record-news-tips/79131372/





Hillary Clinton's super PAC has tried to "flag" stories about Bernie Sanders, but the group does not want its name attached.

Daniel Wessel, Correct the Record press secretary, contacted the Burlington Free Press by email and phone to offer "off the record" story pitches.

The Free Press first attempted to contact Correct the Record officials while writing about the super PAC paying for a poll that named Clinton winner of the Nov. 14 Democratic debate in Des Moines, Iowa.

While the organization did not respond to the initial request for comment, Wessel emailed the Free Press in early January to point out that Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy "hit Bernie on guns today."

Wessel offered to send more information on Sanders' record if the paper was interested in the story.

When the Free Press asked Wessel by email why he was providing off-the-record tips, Wessel asked to have a phone conversation.

During a Thursday afternoon phone conversation with Wessel, the Free Press declined to take off-the-record tips.

Wessel said that his organization prefers to be named only when speaking about Republican candidates. He offered to have his organization named in certain cases if the Free Press requested permission. The Free Press declined to agree to Wessel's terms.

This story was first posted Jan. 21, 2016. Contact Emilie Stigliani at (802) 660-1897 or estig...@freepressmedia.com. Follow her on Twitter at www.twitter.com/EmilieStigliani.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>

> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Sanders, Clinton in dead heat nationwide
By Bradford Richardson February 17, 2016
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269666-sanders-and-clinton-neck-and-neck-nationwide-poll



A new poll finds Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a dead heat nationwide.

Clinton narrowly edges Sanders with 44 percent support, compared to the Vermont senator's 42 percent support, a result that is within the Quinnipiac University poll's margin of error.

The results are unchanged from the poll's last iteration earlier this month. Eleven percent of Democrats remain undecided in the race.

Respondents saw Sanders as the more trustworthy, honest and empathetic candidate, while Clinton holds advantages in experience and leadership qualities.

Eighty-seven percent of respondents said Sanders is honest and trustworthy, compared to 61 percent who said the same of the former secretary of State.

And 86 percent said Sanders cares about their problems, compared to 78 percent for Clinton.

But 93 percent also said Clinton has the requisite experience to be commander in chief, compared to 74 percent for the Vermont Independent.

And 87 percent said the former first lady has the leadership qualities that they look for in a candidate, compared to 79 percent for Sanders.

"Sen. Bernie Sanders and Secretary Clinton are neck and neck," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll. "But while Bernie has trust, Hillary has the experience."

"Two different measurements of two dissimilar candidates," he added.

The Quinnipiac University poll surveyed 563 Democrats from Feb. 10-15 and has a margin of error of 4.1 percent.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> "This was an expeditionary post," she said, "not an embassy, not a
> consult," a place to "establish a presence" for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest



> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton's speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.

> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E






"She sounds like Netanyahu": Hillary Clinton goes extra hawkish in her biased, die-hard pro-Israel AIPAC speech
BEN NORTON TUESDAY, MAR 22, 2016
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/22/she_sounds_like_netanyahu_hillary_clinton_goes_extra_hawkish_in_her_biased_die_hard_pro_israel_aipac_speech/



Clinton's speech was full of distortion, belligerence and uncritical support of Israel, totally ignoring its crimes

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> “This was an expeditionary post,” she said, “not an embassy, not a
> consult,” a place to “establish a presence” for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton’s speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>

> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Hillary Clinton, Drowning in Email
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD MAY 26, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/opinion/hillary-clinton-drowning-in-email.html



Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server.

So far, no security breaches have been reported; a separate F.B.I. investigation is looking into that. But above and beyond security questions, the inspector general’s report is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls.

Across the years of the Clintons’ ascendancy, the public has seen that Mrs. Clinton can be fiercely protective of her role and prerogatives — at times grudging in admitting error and, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, blaming a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for allegations against her and her husband that began early in his tenure and continued on through the impeachment scandal. (The right wing was definitely on his case, but hardly alone in its doubts about Mr. Clinton’s personal conduct.)

This defensive posture seems at play in the email controversy, as well as her refusal, for that matter, to release the lucrative speeches she made to Wall Street audiences. The reflex she is revealing again now — to hunker down when challenged — is likely to make her seem less personable to many voters, and it will surely inflame critics’ charges of an underlying arrogance.

Donald Trump, her Republican rival, will be merciless in swinging the inspector general’s report like a cudgel. Accordingly, Mrs. Clinton now faces a measurably greater challenge in proving that she is the well-qualified politician her supporters know her to be, based on her varied career as a senator, secretary of state and first lady deeply involved in public life. This is a challenge to be faced not with a contrived campaign makeover, but with a far greater investment of candor before the public.

When Republicans first questioned the propriety of using her own home-based server over a year ago, Mrs. Clinton sought to finesse the matter as partisan flak. Under pressure, she eventually apologized for a “mistake,” while insisting she had done nothing wrong and would cooperate fully with investigators. But she did not honor that promise, according to the report, which noted that she declined to be interviewed by the inspector general, Steve Linick, or his staff.

When State Department staff members questioned her use of a nongovernmental email address in 2010, the report said, they were instructed by superiors “never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.” The sharply critical report found that, contrary to her earlier insistence that the practice was “allowed,” Mrs. Clinton had not sought permission to use the server, and that permission would have been denied under the department’s evolving policy to better protect Internet communications.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> “This was an expeditionary post,” she said, “not an embassy, not a
> consult,” a place to “establish a presence” for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton’s speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>
> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Clinton BlackBerry photo prompted questions about email setup
By Julian Hattem - 06/09/16
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/282970-clinton-blackberry-photo-prompted-new-look-at-email-setup


An official speaking on behalf of the State Department said under oath this week that officials within the department responsible for processing open records requests were unaware that former Secretary Hillary Clinton was using email of any kind while she was in office.

Officials did begin to suspect she might be using some type of email account after they saw a picture of her on her mobile device, Karin Lang said during a deposition at the State Department on Wednesday. The picture seems to be the widely spread image of Clinton looking at her phone through sunglasses that became popular through its use on a Tumblr blog in 2012.

But even then, State's IT office said only that she did not use an official state.gov email account. No one had ever asked whether she might be using a personal account.

Clarence Finney, who at the time was the head of the office responsible for processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests dealing with the secretary of State, “was not aware of e-mail usage by the former secretary,” Lang said in sworn testimony.

“When Mrs. Clinton's photo appeared in the media with her using — appearing to use some sort of a mobile device, Clarence Finney checked with [the IT office] to confirm whether the answer was still that she did not have a state.gov e-mail account,” she said.

Because Clinton exclusively used a personal email account housed on a private server kept in the basement of her New York home, the answer was still no.

Lang was deposed about Clinton’s email behavior and the State Department’s record-keeping as part of a lawsuit from Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog that has been given permission to interview multiple former Clinton aides. Lang, the director of the executive secretariat staff at the State Department, was gave an official response on behalf of the department.

Lewis Lukens, another State Department official, has previously testified that he believed Clinton had explored accessing email at the office to communicate with “family and friends,” but not for work.

During the interview this week, Lang confirmed that the department is depending on the word of Clinton and her longtime aide Huma Abedin that all of their work-related emails have been turned over. It does not know for sure.

“The department is relying on the representations of these former employees,” Lang said.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/JW-v.-State-Karin-Lang-Deposition-01363.pdf

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> “This was an expeditionary post,” she said, “not an embassy, not a
> consult,” a place to “establish a presence” for the United States."
>
>
>
>
> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton’s speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>
> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Two Bigots Running for US President
June 11, 2016 By Lawrence Davidson
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/11/two-bigots-running-for-us-president/


It’s easy to spot Donald Trump’s crude bigotry but harder to detect Hillary Clinton’s more subtle variety since it pertains mostly to Palestinians and people pressuring Israel to respect Palestinian rights, explains Lawrence Davidson.




To find bigots in political office in the United States is not historically unusual. In fact, up until the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement, publicly recognizable bigots in office were the norm in many parts of the country. Even in the post-1960s era, we find presidents such as Nixon and Reagan who could be openly bigoted. However, most recent office holders have known enough to keep their prejudices off of the public airwaves.

It is a sign of the fragility of the changes in national character wrought by the Civil Rights Movement that the inhibitions holding back public expressions of bigotry are wearing thin. And that has set the scene for the current contest for the presidency in which both major parties have thrown up (no pun intended) bigoted candidates. Yes, that is right, two of them, not just one.

On the Republican side the bigot is easy to spot. That is because Donald Trump wears his bigotry on his sleeve, so to speak. He can’t help but display it because, apparently even at this late date, he doesn’t understand what the big deal is.

On the campaign trail he has insulted Mexicans, Muslims and “our African-Americans,” and gotten away with it because millions of his supporters are also bigots. A common bigotry is one of the reasons they cheer him on. However, now that he is the “presumptive” Republican candidate for president, much of that party’s leadership and their media allies have begun to call him on these problematic public expressions.

They want to see Trump act “presidential,” hiding away his prejudices for the sake of achieving maximum appeal. Alas, this is not easy for a man who, all of his life, said what he thought, no matter how improper. He sees it as “just being honest,” and up until the run for president, his wealth had helped forestall most public criticism.

Hillary Clinton’s Bigotry

On the Democratic side the bigot is not so easy to spot, but the problem exists in any case. Hillary Clinton may not be a bigot in the same way as Trump. She certainly isn’t going to go about insulting ethnic groups with large numbers of potential voters. Indeed, she has cultivated many minority groups and is supported by them.

But such outreach has its limits, and in one important case she is willing to act as a de facto bigot in order to cater to a politically powerful interest group. Having actively done so, the difference in ethical behavior between her and Mr. Trump starts to blur.

In what way is Hillary Clinton, now the “presumptive” presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, behaving like a de facto bigot? She does so in her open, prosecutorial hostility toward the fight to liberate Palestinians from the racist oppression of Israel and its Zionist ideology.

Clinton, having in this case traded whatever principled anti-racist feelings she has for a fistful of campaign dollars, has openly sided with the Zionists. And, as she must well know, they are among the world’s most demonstrative bigots.

Having made this alliance, she praises Israel as a democratic state upholding the highest ideals and ignores or justifies the illegal and blatantly racist treatment of its Palestinian population. In fact, she wants to reward Israel for its racist behavior and policies by pretending that to do so is to assist in the necessary self-defense of the Zionist state.

At the same time, former Secretary of State Clinton is willing to attack those who fight against Israeli bigotry, particularly in the form of the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) movement. Disregarding U.S. law, she has pledged herself to destroy the BDS movement even if she has to rip to shreds the First Amendment of the Constitution to do it.

And – here is the irony of it all – she claims she has taken this position in order to fight anti-Semitism, one of history’s most pronounced bigotries.

This rationale, that she backs a state full of infamous bigots in the name of defending against bigotry, is just so much sophistry. If there is an increase in the number of anti-Semites in today’s world, we can thank Zionist racism for that development.

However, anti-Semitism does not motivate the BDS movement, which in the U.S. is backed by a large and growing number of Jews. No, the reason Clinton has targeted BDS is because it has proved an effective weapon against Israeli racism, and therefore her Zionist allies have oriented her in that direction.

The problem for Hillary Clinton is that if you ally with bigots and actively do their bidding, you too become a de facto bigot. Unlike Trump, who may or may not understand the offensive nature of his behavior, Clinton knows exactly what she is doing. Trump is a bigot by upbringing and social conditioning. Clinton is a bigot by choice. I will leave it to the reader to decide who is worse.

Part of a Corrupt System

There are many considerations that go into choosing the candidate for whom to vote come November. If she plays her cards right, Hillary Clinton may win over enough of the Sanders supporters to defeat Trump. However, if you are inclined to vote for her, don’t kid yourself that what you’re going to get is an upright, ethical president unwilling to adopt openly bigoted policies against vulnerable and long suffering peoples. Hillary Clinton has clearly abandoned such standards of behavior.

Many will respond that, political expediency aside, she is a viable woman candidate and that as such she opens the way for greater female access to the highest offices in the land. This is true. However, taken too far, it is also a naive argument. The U.S. political system is deeply mired in corrupt ways of doing business. At this time in its history, just about any citizen willing to follow these flawed pathways can operate successfully – be they women or ethnic minorities.

But adherence to rules of the political game is the price of playing the game. Former Secretary Clinton has paid her dues, she has proven herself a reliable supporter of this corrupt system. As a consequence, having her as president will not result in any significant changes to the system or its priorities. Her gender is immaterial to that result.

The truth of the matter is that Hillary Clinton, like her Republican opponent, has devolved into an unprincipled opportunist with a growing self-centered myopia thrown into the mix. If she becomes president, she will almost certainly be aggressive in her foreign policy, perhaps renewing the Cold War, undermining the Iran nuclear agreement, and embroiling the country in new wars.

If the Republicans maintain their hold on Congress, she will be just as stymied in her domestic policy as was President Obama. In her role as a system politician, she may not be dangerous to the nation in the same way as Donald Trump, but she will prove dangerous nonetheless.

And, as many have pointed out, choosing the alleged lesser of two evils still means choosing evil.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:

4 eyes, ten thumbs and a forked tongue - Hillary 2016
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/GZSRgEgrbWg/7oZR6ibqwNoJ

> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> “This was an expeditionary post,” she said, “not an embassy, not a
> consult,” a place to “establish a presence” for the United States."

5 Clinton lawyers, 8 DOJ/FBI questioners. Session recorded for transcription purposes. Clinton under oath.

More on @HillaryClinton @FBI.
6:43 PM - 2 Jul 2016
https://twitter.com/DavidShuster/status/749418338342866949


> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

[thinbl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 9:36:23 PM UTC-4, thinbluemime wrote:
> But...she does slip up and reveal one tid-bit of truth in regard to
> Benghazi:
>
> “This was an expeditionary post,” she said, “not an embassy, not a
> consult,” a place to “establish a presence” for the United States."
>
>
>
>

> Hillary Clinton, private citizen, reflects on Israel, Benghazi and Middle
> East unrest
> June 25, 2013 By Susan Freudenheim
> http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/hillary_clinton_private_citizen_reflects_on_israel_middle_east_unrest
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Israel and the Middle East dominated Clinton’s speech, which ranged from
> memoir to foreign-policy analyst, and Israel, Israeli, Israel, Israel,
> Israel, Jewish Israel, Israeli Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel, Jews, no
> light between us, Jews, Israel, Israel, wailing wall, Jews, Israel,
> Netanyahu, Jews, Israel, arming rebels north of Israel, sacrosanct Israel,
> Bill, Peres, Israel, Barbra, Jew, Israeli, support Israel, Jewish women,
> Hebrew University, Israel, Israel Israel. Israeli settlements good,
> Palestinians bad, Jewish money for Hillary 2016. God Bless America so it
> can continue to support Israel.
>
> -----------
>
> Hillary 2016
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3oVsxSgo6E

Everybody still hates Hillary Clinton: But why?
CONOR LYNCH 09.20.2017
http://www.salon.com/2017/09/20/everybody-still-hates-hillary-clinton-but-why



"“nobody will even talk to you” without political contributions. “That’s the only way to buy them, get into the system.”" (** see 600 lb gorilla in room everyone is afraid to approach)




Hillary Clinton is back in the public eye to promote her new memoir on the 2016 election, but most Americans would apparently prefer her to just go away. That’s according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which found that just 30 percent of respondents had a very positive or somewhat positive view of the former Democratic nominee, who seems to be getting even less popular as the 2016 election recedes further into the past.

This poll couldn’t have come at a more inconvenient time for Clinton, who attempts to explain last year’s election in her aptly titled new book, “What Happened,” which caused a stir well before its official publication date after a few passages were leaked online. As the former secretary of state proceeds with her nationwide book tour and several high-profile media appearances, she remains an extremely divisive figure, and 10 months after losing the election she has yet to figure out why.

Clinton repeatedly asks the readers in her book: “What makes me such a lightning rod for fury? I'm really asking. I'm at a loss.”

It’s not a bad question -- and, of course, she has her theories. One important reason posited by Clinton is the fact that she is a woman, and it is hard to disagree with this point. Like racism, sexism is still pervasive in American society and culture, and one has to be somewhat delusional to think that it did not play a role in Clinton’s defeat (and in some of the more extreme animosity directed at her over the years). Sexist actions and attitudes were apparent at many points during the 2016 campaign, and Clinton’s opponent was beyond any serious doubt the most overtly misogynistic candidate to run for president in modern history (which, sadly, was part of his appeal for some voters).

Another factor that Clinton will no doubt touch on during her book tour, which continues through December, is the right-wing propaganda machine that has vilified her and her husband for the past 25 years. The visceral hatred that many feel for Clinton is not terribly surprising when one considers all of the nonsense that was peddled by Trump-endorsed websites like InfoWars and Breitbart News throughout the campaign. If one read only these “news” sites, one could easily become convinced that Hillary Clinton is a satanic witch who orchestrated the 2012 Benghazi attack while overseeing a child sex ring on the side. These conspiracy theories and pseudo-scandals were the culmination of a decades-long smear campaign against the Clintons by the far right, and this propaganda has engendered an irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton in a significant proportion of the population.

Clinton has good reason, then, to place some blame on these factors (and others) for her loss to Trump, as well as her chronically low approval rating. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t legitimate reasons to dislike or distrust Clinton as a candidate, however, or that Clinton doesn’t deserve the lion’s share of the blame for what happened.

The truth is that Clinton was often her own worst enemy in 2016 and frequently provided her opponents with ammunition to torpedo her campaign. To her credit, Clinton does take responsibility for her own “shortcomings” and “mistakes” in her book and acknowledges that she “didn't realize how quickly the ground was shifting under all our feet.” But it is doubtful that the former candidate has truly come to terms with the more legitimate criticisms of her and her campaign.

In “What Happened,” for example, Clinton singles out her primary opponent Bernie Sanders and the progressive left for causing “lasting damage” to her reputation and “making it harder to unify progressives in the general election,” while “paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign.”
“Because we agreed on so much,” Clinton writes, “Bernie couldn’t make an argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character. When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything.”

This passage indicates that Clinton still doesn’t quite understand Sanders’ criticisms of her, which were nothing like the personal attacks that came from Donald Trump. Sanders’ critique of Clinton was ultimately part of a larger critique of the political system under which she had thrived for decades. This political system was once described by Indian-American businessman Sant Chatwal, a longtime friend and financial supporter of the Clintons, in a candid 2011 interview with the Indian newspaper The Siasat Daily:

“In politics nothing comes free. You have to write cheques in the American political system. I know the system. I had to work very hard,” said Chatwal, who served as co-chair of Clinton’s presidential exploratory committee in 2008. “I was interested in building a relationship between India and America,” he continued, “[So I] bet on [Bill Clinton]. He became president. Already we were good friends like a family.”

In 2014, Chatwal pled guilty to skirting federal campaign contribution laws while raising money for Clinton and two other candidates, and in a recorded conversation with a government informant he allegedly said that “nobody will even talk to you” without political contributions. “That’s the only way to buy them, get into the system.”

This is the political system that Sanders was railing against during his presidential campaign, and Chatwal’s experience shows that the Clintons are very much a part of this system. While Hillary seemed to grasp this systemic critique on an intellectual level — writing on her campaign website that the political system “has been hijacked by billionaires and special interests” — when it came to her own personal situation she adamantly denied being influenced at all by special interests. This led to some pretty awkward contradictions in her campaign rhetoric. While she admitted that the campaign finance system was breeding corruption and never hesitated to call out Republican politicians as tools of their big donors, she was apparently an exception to the rule; the one fresh apple in a rotten barrel.

The progressive animus towards Clinton, then, was really an animus toward the political system that she appeared to represent. This was a far cry from the irrational and sometimes demented (and, yes, sexist) hostility toward Hillary that came from the likes of Alex Jones and Breitbart. The far right tried to paint Clinton as a uniquely evil person and politician, and manufactured imaginary scandals and wild conspiracies out of thin air to support their narrative. But progressives had a different problem with Hillary Clinton: They essentially saw her as a standard Beltway politician — no better and no worse than other politicians who court big donors at cocktail parties in Washington and Manhattan and Beverly Hills.

After spending a quarter-century inside the Washington ecosystem, Clinton was such a part of it that she no longer saw anything wrong with some of its more unscrupulous practices: After all, everyone does it! That blindness was what truly bothered many leftists, and it is an attitude evidenced in Clinton’s book. She acknowledges that it was bad “optics” to give paid speeches for big banks like Goldman Sachs, for example, but it’s not clear whether she thinks it was actually inappropriate for her to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from a bank known for its fraudulent practices, at a time when she was obviously preparing to run for president. In other words, she isn’t sorry that she gave those speeches; she’s sorry that they became such a PR disaster for her campaign.

Bad optics was a constant theme for the Clinton campaign, and while the far-right propaganda machine played an essential role in making Clinton a “lightning rod for fury,” the candidate’s well-earned reputation as a creature of the establishment is what ultimately cost her the election. Clinton recently said that she is “done with being a candidate,” but it is safe to say that she will always be a member of the establishment. We can debate “what happened” in 2016 ad nauseam, but the fact remains that Clinton lost to the “most unpopular candidate in the history of this country,” as Bernie Sanders recently put it. If Clinton’s embarrassing defeat doesn’t get the Democrats to abandon establishment politics in the years ahead, then they will very likely be wondering what happened again in 2020.


-----------------

** Can you find the 600 lb gorilla?
https://vimeo.com/124768844