"Listen the Bushes would never do this"

Clinton sleaze on MSNBC Morning Joe, Morning Joe! Do you understand how bad this has to be for Morning Joe to spend 17 minutes on this? Morning friggen Joe!

Either it is so bad that even MSNBC feels that they have to react and take notice to try and salvage any small part of their remaining honesty (LOL) or they believe that Hillary is not going to win and are trying to tack back to center (haha) to hold on to some (any?) of their audience.

I love the line "Listen the Bushes would never do this" and she not only gets no argument, she gets affirmation from someone else on the panel. No one can even imagine anyone but the Clintons doing this and all of the rest of the things they have been doing over the last 30 years and somehow they continue to get away with it all. Talk about your "teflon don", Here is a pair that can teach the mob a thing or two. In spite of this and much more, Hillary has a very, very good chance of being the next POTUS. Let that sink in. President Hillary Clinton. It is almost enough to cause one to wish for SMOD...

Clinton video showing her lecture State Dept. staff on cybersecurity in 2010

You read that right! Miss "you mean wipe like with a rag?" Clinton. Miss "did not attend one single cyber-security training class while at State" Clinton. Miss "send classified information to/from her private, illegal email server" Clinton.

So she clearly knew that cyber-security was important. She clearly knew the address/URL of the State Department was a ".gov" site. She clearly knew where to go to get "proper" security information.

SO she clearly knew she was doing something wrong, out of the ordinary, not proper, not approved, not secure, not something anyone else would or could do.

What did she promise to the Director of the FBI or what did President Obama say to the Director of the FBI to keep him from recommending charges against her? Any one of us would go to jail for a mere fraction of the security failures she has been documented doing.

Why is she not in prison (part 3)?

This post is a continuation of the previous (part 1 & part 2 posts)...

According to individuals "in the know" (Abedin, Cooper and REDACTED), Hillary had "personally-owned computer equipment in the SCIF at her residences in Whiteheaven and Chappaqua. Clinton stated to the FBI that she did not have a computer of any kind computer in the SCIFs in her residences. (pg 13)

According to Abedin and Clinton, Clinton did not use a computer, and she primarily used her BlackBerry or iPad for checking e-mails.

Investigation determined a limited number of individuals maintained direct e-mail contact with Clinton through her personal clintonemail.com e-mail account during her tenure at State. thirteen individuals, consisting of State senior level employees, work-related advisers, and State executive administrative staff, maintained direct e-mail contact with Clinton and individually e-mailed her between 100 and 1,000 times during her tenure. Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan, were most frequently in e-mail contact with Clinton and accounted for 68 percent of the e-mails sent directly to Clinton. In addition to sending Clinton messages they wrote, Abenin, Mills, and Sullivan reviewed e-mails they received from other State employees, USG contacts, and foreign government contacts, and if deemed appropriate they then forwarded the information to Clinton. Multiple State employees advised they considered e-mailing Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan the equivalent of e-mailing Clinton. (pg 13/14)

So all of these people knew she was using her own private e-mail account and server and said NOTHING. What is not stated here (and should have been) is that of the "limited number of individuals", recent news reports indicate that we can include in this "circle of friends" the one and only President Obama and that is why this became a "nothing burger". The FBI did not want to or was told to make this go away to shield the President from being implicated.

The FBI's investigation confirmed that Clinton's immediate staff used their personal e-mail accounts in combination with their State-provided OpenNet e-mail accounts for official State business. (pg 14)

So why were none of them charged as well?

FBI investigation and the State OIG report determined that State issued regular notices to staff during Clinton's tenure highlighting cybersecurity threats and advising that mobile devices must be configured to State security guidelines.

Clinton had direct e-mail contact with an e-mail address for President Barack Obama. If the REDACTED e-mails between Clinton and President Obama, REDACTED were sent and received REDACTED. None of these REDACTED e-mails were determined to contain classified information. Clinton told the FBI that she received no particular guidance as to how she should use President Obama's e-mail address, and the e-mails sent while Clinton was REDACTED.

So, the FBI does get to it and has proof that Clinton used President Obama's email address from her UNSECURE devices. Clinton also says that she was not given any guidance as to how/when to use his e-mail address. The woman is too stupid to be a dog-catcher let alone hold high office. After 8 years as first lady, time as a congressman and time as SOS she still claims to have no clue as to how to manage/handle security related / sensitive material? WTF!

To date, the FBI has recovered from additional data sources and reviewed approximately 17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails from Clinton's tenure containing Clinton's hdr22@clintonemail.com e-mail address that were not provided by Williams & Connolly as part of Clinton's production to the FBI, including e-mails from January 23, 2009 through March 18, 2009. (pg 18/19)

The FBI identified three e-mail chains, encompassing eight individual e-mail exchanges to or from Clinton's personal e-mail accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked "(C)," a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level. (pg 20)

How did these get onto Clinton's private email server? Who "moved" them over the air-gap?

When asked about the e-mail chain containing "(C)" portion markings that State determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated she did not know what the "(C)" meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order. (pg 20)

WTF!

FBI and USIC classification reviews identified 81 e-mail chains containing approximately 193 individual e-mail exchanges that were classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time the e-mails were drafted on UNCLASSIFIED systems and sent to or from Clinton's personal server. (pg 20)

Done and done. There is more and it gets even worst but to this point, this is more than enough to send you or I to the Federal pen many times over. Why is she NOT in jail?

FYI: A Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF; pronounced "skiff") in United States military, security and intelligence parlance, is an enclosed area within a building that is used to process Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) types of classified information.

Access to SCIFs is normally limited to those with clearance.[1] Non-cleared personnel in SCIF must be under constant oversight to prevent unauthorized access to classified material;[2] as part of this process, non-cleared personnel are typically required to surrender recording and other electronic devices.[3] All of the activity and conversation inside is presumed restricted from public disclosure.

Computers operating within such a facility must conform to rules established by ICD 503. Computers and telecommunication equipment within must conform to TEMPESTemanations specification as directed by a Certified TEMPEST Technical Authority (CTTA).

Why is she not in prison (part 2)?

This post is a continuation of the previous (part 1 post)...

A May 25, 2016 report issued by the State Office of Inspector general (OIG) stated that, during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the State Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) required day-to-day operations at State be conducted using an authorized information system. The OIG stated it found "no evidence" that Clinton sought approval to conduct State business via her personal e-mail account or private servers, despite her obligation to do so. (page 10)

So, it was "in writing" that Hillary needed to obtain approval to use her make-shift system which she did not do but [we are told] it was "just like" what Powell did. BS!

Investigation determined Clinton did not have a computer in her state office, which was located in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) on the seventh floor of State headquarters, in an area often referred to as "Mahogany Row". State Diplomatic Security Service (DS) instructed Clinton that because her office was in a SCIF, the use of mobile devices in her office was prohibited. Interviews of three former DS agents revealed Clinton stored her personal BlackBerry in a desk drawer in DS "Post 1", which was located within the SCIF. According to Abedin, Clinton primarily used her personal blackberry or personal iPad for checking e-mails, and she left the SCIF to do so, often visiting State's eighth floor balcony. (page 12)

So Hillary took her personal devices (with an 'S' but she had to use her own BlackBerry cause she could not figure out how to use more than one device) into a secure area, didn't have a computer in her office, and would go out onto the balcony to check her email cause it was on a private server that she accessed using her private BlackBerry.

Clinton stated to the FBI that she requested a secure BlackBerry while at State after hearing President Obama had one, but she could not recall the reasons why State was unable to fulfill this request. (page 12-13)

I can answer that one! It was not fulfilled because State would not hook it up to Hillary's private e-mail server! And sorry but I really doubt she requested one because that would have also meant that she would have had to use the State email system instead of her private e-mail server.

The rest of that section discussed issues she was having because she could not check her e-mail from within SCIF and alternates were discussed but none were ever implemented. This also shows she knew she was operating outside of the lines. If the SCIF won't let her access her e-mail but everyone else can access theirs, she (Hillary) must have realized she was not the norm. If she didn't realize she was not doing e-mail in the normal way after all of that, she is too stupid to be President. If she did know then she is too crooked. Which is it? Dumb or criminal?

Investigation determined Clinton had access to a number of State-authorized secure means of telephonic communications in her residence and in her office at State. At the start of Clinton's tenure, State installed a SCIF and secure communications equipment, {redacted} in her residences in Washington, D.C. (Whitehaven residence) and Chappaqua. (page 13)

Again, State went through all of the trouble to provide her with proper equipment but she preferred to use her own devices and e-mail system [I think] to avoid FOIA exposure.

In addition to sending Clinton messages they wrote, Abedin, Mills, and Sullivan reviewed e-mails they received from other State employees, USG contacts, and foreign government contacts, and if deemed appropriate they then forwarded the information to Clinton. (page 13/14)

Still reading but this might be part of the answer to a question that has been bothering me about this entire thing. The State system is supposed to be "air gapped" such that you can't get there from here. If so, how did Clinton send and receive sensitive e-mails? Who moved them from the secure State network to the internet to send to Clinton? Was it these three? If so, why are they not in jail?

Why is Hillary not in jail?

More coming...

Why is she not in prison (part 1)?

In response to FBI requests for classification determinations in support of this investigation, US Intelligence Community (USIC) agencies determined that 81 e-mail chains, which FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on Clinton's UNCLASSIFIED personal server systems, contained classified information ranging from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET/SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM levels at the time they were sent between 2009-2013.

USIC agencies determined that 68 of these e-mail chains remain classified.

In addition, the classification determination process administered by the US Department of State (State) in connection with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation identified approximately 2,000 additional e-mails currently classified CONFIDENTIAL and 1 e-mail classified SECRET, which FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on at least two of Clinton's personal server systems.

From page 2 of the just released FBI report.

So, not only did Hillary Clinton have confidential through top secret/special access program information on her PRIVATE, unsecured email system but that system was made up of at least three different servers over time.

Additionally, because the FBI was not given (granted?) access to all of the mobile devices and computer components associated with Clinton's personal e-mail system, the FBI can not say whether or not those systems were hacked.

There is this (also from page 2):

The FBI did find that hostile foreign actors successfully gained access to the personal e-mail accounts of individuals with whom Clinton was in regular contact and, in doing so, obtained e-mails sent to or received by Clinton on her personal account.

Also, it appears that Hillary used at least three different systems (over time) as her "e-mail server".

Apparently the last of the servers used was not encrypted to make it easier to trouble-shoot.

Out of the 8 (yes 8, not one as she said) different mobile devices that Clinton used during her tenure as Secretary of State, she and her lawyers were unable to locate ANY of them to turn over to the FBI per their request (pages 8 and 9 of the report). My guess is that (like the Whitewater billing records) they will turn up shortly after the statute of limitations.

I am just getting into this report so there are likely more "gems" to be found. Based on the above information, why is Hillary not in jail?

No good deed ever goes unpunished, #2

Not commenting on how bright the parents were for letting this "person" stay with them and the article does not make it clear if they knew of his status but the result of their kindness is unmistakable.

A family known to Conway was nice enough to let him stay with them beginning about a month ago. This family has at least one child - a fourteen-year-old girl.

The father came home about 3a.m. on Saturday morning and found both his child and Conway gone. He called police because not only were they gone it did not look as though his daughter went along willingly.

Conway’s slipper was found in his daughter’s bedroom, her blanket was found outside the house and her bracelet was on the ground and looked as if it had been ripped from her wrist.

So this dumbass drives by the house at about 6a.m. while the police were there investigating. He takes off and they chase his car for about a block until he crashes into a truck with a family inside. He then jumps out of the car and tries to run. He fought with the police and they had to taser him.

So the police pop the trunk of the car and find the girl inside. Just to be on the safe side paramedics airlifted her to UC Davis Medical Center. They were concerned she had a spinal injury.


Conway is facing at the minimum charges of kidnapping, fleeing the scene of an accident, resisting arrest, and assault on a police officer.

So much for giving someone a helping hand. We can only hope that their daughter is OK.

Unbelievable!

Read this Times story, I hope you find it as hard to believe and understand as I did.

In summary, a 47 year old woman pretended to be a 16 year old boy to first befriend and then verbally attack a 13 year old girl who had once been a friend of her daughter's. The verbal attack resulted in the young girl hanging her self.

What kind of sick, twisted woman pulls such a cruel and tragic hoax on a 13 year old girl? A girl she knew was on anti-depressants and claim to not have any idea that suicide could not be a probable outcome?

To add insult to injury, the only reason this became public is because when the girl's parents found out about what transpired, they took out their anger and frustration on a foosball table they were actually storing in their house for the other family as it was a surprise Christmas present. The broken pieces were thrown in the other family's drive way and they called the police. This caused the store to come to light. What a screwed up woman! The local prosecuting attorney was still reviewing the case to see of the woman could be prosecuted. I am not a lawyer but I would think of a few possibilities like: child abuse, manslaughter or how about negligent homicide?

I would hope that we don't need a new set of laws to cover this sort of occurrence but could use existing laws. In most (not all) cases, reactionary laws are written too quickly and too poorly and result in too many unintended consequences.

Fake but accurate?

...student journalist/College Democrat at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., admitted that she had drawn swastikas on her own dorm room door.

...she told the staff that she "only drew the final three of six swastikas on her door in an attempt to highlight what she characterized as GW's inaction.

Oh, it was political speech, well then that makes it all, all right.

This article highlights two things, one directly and the other indirectly. The first is this ongoing drive to manufacture news to fit the mime when you can not find it naturally. The other is this spate of manufactured hate crimes. Hate crime in and of its self is problematic because you are criminalizing thought. In this "new world" hate crime laws make it preferable to kill someone for money than it is to kill them for their race or sexual orientation. The victim is just as dead but modern society has determined that committing a crime for the second reason is worst than for the first.

If a hate crime is worst than a "normal" crime, should not a fake hate crime be just as bad as a "real" hate crime? Should not someone faking a hate crime still have to face the same penalties as someone that commits them for real? The intent is the same, to inflict pain and suffering against persons based on issues of race, sexual orientation, religion and/or other issues of prejudice. In this case, the student's hate crime was against herself and the rest of the local community because they were falsely inflamed and lead to believe that a crime was committed. They felt the same emotional pain and suffering at hearing and seeing the results of this student's fake crime as they would have felt had it been real. One could argue that a fake hate crime is actually worst than a real hate crime because of the emotional backlash that those who witnessed or heard about the original crime would suffer from, after learning that it was faked and their emotional involvement was wasted.

As is the norm these days though, cause "she meant well" and was just "trying to make a point" she will most likely get off with little to no punishment and may even be praised for her "courage" in bringing issues of race, religion and/or politics to light.

Criminal responsibility

There is a story that is currently on the news in Florida. It relates to a policeman that was shot while trying to apprehend a drug dealer. The nut of the story is that the police tried to stop the individual. At first he ran. When he could run no more, he pulled a gun and the shooting started.

There was more than one policeman at the scene. When the shooting stopped, one of the policemen was shot in the spine and left paralyzed. The perpetrator in now on his second trial. The first trial ended in a hung jury.

The point of contention is that the bullet that paralyzed the policeman is still in his body. They can not remove it. Since they can not present clear and conclusive evidence that the bullet that paralyzed the policeman was fired from the perpetrator’s gun, his lawyer is saying that he should not be held responsible, that one of the other policemen could have accidentally shot the first one, causing the injury.

I have to ask, so what? Who, besides this lawyer, cares if the bullet was fired by one of the policemen or by the perpetrator? The policeman would not have been shot if the perpetrator had not ran in the first place and started shooting in the second place. As soon as he ran, any and all ill affects of his running should be on him. This is the same sort of backward thinking that has led to no-pursuit rules for police.