When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

I think she's too afraid of the Israel lobby.

I simply do not comprehend your statement. I do not believe Hillary is afraid of anything or anyone. Why would she be afraid of the Israeli Lobby? Are they in a position to blackmail her? Has she been funneling secrets to them from the Obama administration? We know there is friction (No love lost) between Obama and Netanyahu.

We also know that Hillary is so politically ambitious that she might overstep the line in pursuing her goal.

Contributions to the foundation in return for favors maybe?

She believes she needs to deliver to get their support. Haven't you been reading???

Hillary Clinton’s scandal deepens

Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign stop at Florida International University in Miami. (Gaston De Cardenas/Associated Press)
By Marc A. Thiessen August 3 Follow @marcthiessen

The Clinton e-mail scandal reached a new level of seriousness when the intelligence community inspector general found classified information from five intelligence agencies in e-mails housed on Clinton’s private server. It is against the law to remove classified information from government facilities and retain it after you have left office and have no official reason to possess it.

Just ask Sandy Berger.
Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. View Archive

Facebook

In 2003, Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser was caught removing five classified documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives, as he prepared to testify before the 9/11 commission.

A Justice Department investigation ensued and in 2005 Berger reached a plea agreement in which he was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material instead of a felony. He was sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service and was stripped of his security clearance for three years. Prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed on a $10,000 fine, but the judge raised it to $50,000. In 2007, in order to shut down a disbarment investigation by the District of Columbia bar, he relinquished his license to practice law.

That was for unlawfully removing and retaining just five classified documents.

Clinton has apparently been caught removing at least five e-mails containing what we now know to be classified information and retaining them on her personal server in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., after she left office. And in the weeks ahead, that number will probably grow to the hundreds, if not thousands.

The inspector general reviewed only a small sample of 40 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department. Yet in that tiny sample, he found that five e-mails contained classified information. Five classified e-mails in a sample of just 40 is a rate of one out of eight e-mails that contained classified information. Clinton has handed over some 30,000 official e-mails to the State Department that she had been keeping on her private server. That means there could be some 3,750 classified e-mails that she removed and retained.
ADVERTISING


Already, the number of documents is growing. More classified information was found in a second batch of e-mails made public Friday, which included 37 messages with 64 separate redactions blacking out classified information.

Worse still, Clinton’s apparent violation of the law is ongoing. Her lawyer, David Kendall, reportedly has a thumb drive containing all her official e-mails, including hundreds if not thousands containing classified information. That means that to this day, she apparently continues to unlawfully possess unsecured classified documents and has taken no action to return that thumb drive to the federal government, much less the server on which they were originally unlawfully stored.

Clinton claims that she “did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.” But the inspector general found classified intelligence from five separate intelligence agencies — the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — in Clinton’s e-mails. Taking intelligence from classified documents and putting it in unclassified e-mails does not make the information unclassified. Indeed, that is arguably an additional offense. There is a separate classified e-mail system — called the SIPRNet — for classified communications. Clinton was required by law to use that system for any e-mails containing classified information.

If Sandy Berger had to pay a fine, serve two years of probation, do 100 hours of community service and give up his security clearance and law license, all for removing and retaining just five classified documents, what should Clinton’s punishment be for reportedly removing and retaining hundreds or even thousands of classified documents?

This is not a mere technicality. The recent revelation that Chinese hackers broke into the Office of Personnel Management and stole information on 22 million Americans has highlighted the need for increased vigilance in protect the nation’s secrets. Clinton’s decision to brazenly remove classified information and store it on a private server put sensitive intelligence within easy reach of America’s adversaries. If China can hack the Office of Personnel Management, it could easily hack into the private computer network she ran from her Chappaqua home.

The e-mail scandal is already having an impact on her presidential aspirations. A new Quinnipiac University poll finds Americans now say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy by a margin of 57 to 37 percent. And that was before Americans learned that her claims that there was no classified information in her e-mails was untrue. In the weeks and months ahead, more and more evidence will almost certainly emerge showing that her claims were untrue.

As it does, Clinton will be lucky if the only price she pays is in the polls. She could very well face criminal penalties. If that happens, her presidential ambitions will be over.

Because it’s hard to serve as commander in chief if you’ve been stripped of your security clearance.

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Did this guy point out that when she sent these e mails that the information wasent classified as secret. Most of these news items state this fact in the last paragraph of their articles. They were classified much later in the year.

I didn't take it seriously, either, but apparently DOJ thinks you and I are wrong.

FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe’
Source: NY Post

The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.
“The DOJ and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

Read more: http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/

Israel has Hillary Clinton's support and has had it since she became a US senator from New York seeking support from AIPAC. A few years ago when campaigning for the presidency of the US, Hillary made a statement in defense of Israel when the issue of Israel possibly being attacked by a middle east country; "we will annihilate them!" said Hillary. The former Secy of State gives the impression she cares more for Israel than the US and has left no doubt regarding her feelings for the Zionist nation.

This is why your saying Hillary "needs to deliver to get their [Israel] support" doesn't seem logical to me because the woman has never ceased to "deliver" on behalf of the Zionist nation. There is not too much daylight between Hillary and the right-wing Republicans when it comes to steadfastness towards Israel. She couldn't very well join John McCain and a few other right-wing Republicans in writing a letter to the Ayatollah to undermine the Iranian nuclear talks; after all, she was a member of Obama's first administration. Had she done so she would have risked alienating a whopping segment of African American support.

As an aside, I do not think Hillary would take America to war for Israel.

It's not a criminal probe according to sources on the record. It is a criminal probe according to sources that refuse to go on the record. I wonder which one is willing to put themselves on the line to report the truth?

Touché! Hillary is far preferable than having a Republican in the WH. My goodness, just the thought of having a GOP fringe president is enough to make one so miserably depressed.

I heard some of Clinton's campaign speeches today and I've got to say I was impressed. They played the full quote of that Keystone XL line about I'll tell you when I'm in office and wow, that was taken out of context. Several other times, she refused to pander to the answer that the audience clearly wanted. Not the triangulating candidate I expected. The debates will be great.

Like I keep saying. Many of our Bernie liberal democrats are taking a page from the republican play book and repeating things that arnt fact. When she sent her e mails the things she posted werent labeled secret.

Darling of the Drug War: Hillary Clinton Campaign Funded by Private Prison Lobby

Jake Anderson
July 27, 2015

(ANTIMEDIA) A new report released by The Intercept confirms that two of Hillary Clinton’s top campaign donors are the biggest private prison contractors in the world, Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group.

The report underscores the role of lobbying “bundlers,” which the Hillary campaign refers to as “HillRaisers.” Bundlers are extra powerful fundraisers—almost like super lobbyists—who act as financial intermediaries when candidates acquire campaign funds. Most major candidates use them. Five of the Clinton campaign’s bundlers work for lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which received lobbying fees totaling $240,000 from Corrections Corporation of America last year.

Another bundler for Corrections Corporation of America, Brian Popper, who lobbies for the Clinton campaign, most recently worked to shield CCA from Freedom of Information Act requests.

Clinton bundler Richard Sullivan, who works for Capitol Counsel, garnered $44,859 from another giant private prison company, Geo Group, which also runs for-profit immigrant detention centers.

Clinton isn’t the only presidential candidate using bundlers; in fact, she’s not even the only candidate hiring Akin Gump. The company also touts both Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush as clients.

Hillary Clinton’s stance on the prison industrial complex has been a complex one, and has seen her transition from a progressive young lawyer to a spokeswoman for corporate America and Wall Street. In her early days, she vowed to devote herself to criminal justice and even helped to repeal a mentally handicapped black man’s execution. Now, she lends her “unenthusiastic support” to the death penalty and takes campaign funds from private prisons that have overseen a doubling in prison populations between the years of 2000 and 2010.

RELATED: Hillary Clinton Calls For “Toppling” the 1%…While Being Bankrolled by the 1%

Of course, Hillary Clinton isn’t the only presidential candidate partially funded by private prison companies. In May, Anti-Media reported on Marco Rubio’s donations from both Geo and CCA. These companies have spent more than $25 million on lobbying efforts since 1989.

Perhaps these candidates truly don’t see their role in the cycle, but that’s hard to believe. What’s far more likely is that the prison industrial complex has become such an entrenched element of economic disparity and social injustice in this country that politicians can’t even differentiate it from normal corporatism. What needs to be understood is that private prisons perpetuate a generational cycle of incarceration fueled by the Drug War, systemic racism, and unjust legislation. Any political candidate accepting money from lobbyists who represent private prisons is on the wrong side of history and can’t possibly purport to represent the people.

This article (Darling of the Drug War: Hillary Clinton Campaign Funded by Private Prison Lobby) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Jake Anderson and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email [email protected].

Jake Anderson joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in April of 2015. His topics of interest include social justice, science, corporatocracy, and dystopian science fiction. He currently resides in Escondido, California. Learn more about Anderson here!

TRUMP: Clinton 'HAD NO CHOICE' But To Come To My Wedding Because I Gave Her Donations





Donald Trump with one of the more bizarre comments of the evening during the Fox "news" debate. After first trying to defend and twisting himself in knots over his previous support of single-payer, the topic turned to campaign donations and the fact that Trump has given money to both Republicans and Democrats. Here's how he responded when asked what he got from Hillary Clinton in return: Trump ‘Paid’ Hillary to Be Wedding Guest:



If we are to believe him, Donald Trump paid Hillary Clinton to attend his wedding.

Fox News host Chris Wallace pressed the former reality television star on what kind of goodies he got from the politicians he donated money to.

“What did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi?” Wallace asked.

“I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my wedding,” Trump replied. “You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.”

He added that he gave money to the Clinton Global Foundation without understanding how his funds would be used.

“I didn’t know the money would be used on private jets going all over the world,” he said. “It was.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/08/06/trump-i-paid-hillary-to-come-to-my-wedding.html



http://crooksandliars.com/2015/08/trump-clinton-had-no-choice-come-my

I can understand Hillary's reason for attending Trump's 3rd wedding. This is business and it was a mild request. One hand help wash the other. Trump contributed a nice sum to the Foundation and in return he requested she attend his wedding. Anyway, in business, many times we have to hold our nose when doing business. My husband's office often have parties where wives are expected to attend. I hate having to make small talk to these executive types but a wife should do her part to help her husband.

Trump is a distinctive Character, the principle bomb thrower and his bombastic rhetoric remains an annoyance for his Republican rivals, but because of his wealth it's better to be somewhat friendly by observing the niceties.

I think that Trump perhaps unintentionally revealed his own motives for his campaign. He knows he has little real chance of either getting the Republican nomination or of winning the election.However, as he clearly indicated he is acutely aware of the long term benefits of goodwill towards him on the part opf powerful political figures.

He made it very clear that he won't exchew a third party run if that looks advantageous for him. It is interesting to contemplate just who would be the primary beneficiary of such an action? The answer is very clear, and the precedent for it is the Ross Perot third party candadicy that gave the Presidenct to Bill clinton in 1992.

Trump gets all he wants, celebrity and attention in the short term and a grateful President Hillary Clinton in the long term.

Absolutely not. I want corporations to properly have their rights to free speech removed, and "money" removed as a legitimate form of free speech from all entities except individual voters. I want sunshine on all that money that passes itself off as "free speech" when what it is, is the quid of quid pro you know what.

Like tRump said yesterday when asked about his contributions to Hillary Clinton's past campaigns: He expected something and he always gets what he pays for. He claimed his money to the Clintons obligated them to attend one of his weddings.

Its really not too complicated.

right on message eh



____

from the Orange County woodlot party report



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/trump-and-the-koch-heads_b_7956324.html
___

I think ''short term'' is the key to the Trump question. I can't imagine him maintaining enough interest in the process to continue as a third-party candidate. It could happen, but I wouldn't put $$ on it.

If he doesn't run as a third-party candidate, the Republican party is going to have a harder time explaining what's happening to its voter base.
___

The Millenial and Hispanic/Latino votes are where it's at now. It's interesting watching several of the candidates trying to figure out how to make that work for them.

I'm not saying no one can contribute, I'm saying that if you can afford that much corporate free speech ($900Mill by the Koch brother alone), we need to know how much from whom to whom. Particularly if it gets tax relief in any way.

Not complicated at all. Everyone expects something from the candidate they support, whether financially or otherwise.