2 to1 odds she'll take the FIFTH...

[D2D]

As previously reported elsewhere, a June 2012 email chain discusses a “firm invitation for President Clinton” to speak at a Congo conference, hosted in part by the controversial Joseph Kabila, president of that nation. Bill Clinton is offered $650,000 in fees and expenses, concerning which, as Desai emails Mills and others, “WJC wants to know that state [sic] thinks of it if he took it 100% for the foundation.”
This questionable activity is part of a pattern.
Our lawsuit had previously forced the disclosure of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to at least $48 million in speaking fees for the Clintons during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others.
We are continuing our litigation to obtain these conflict of interest records. The State Department has yet to explain why it failed to conduct a proper, timely search in the 20 months between when it received our request on May 2, 2011, and the February 1, 2013, date that Clinton left office.
Here’s why this is important.
Hillary Clinton and her State Department aides were involved in fundraising for the Clinton Foundation.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hand in glove with the Clinton Foundation on fundraising and foreign policy. Despite the law and her promises to the contrary, she turned the State Department into the DC office of the Clinton Foundation.

Our lawsuit has become particularly noteworthy because it has been reported that the Clinton Foundation, now known as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, accepted millions of dollars from at least seven foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state.
The Foundation has acknowledged that a $500,000 donation it received from the government of Algeria while Mrs. Clinton was in office violated a 2008 ethics agreement between the foundation and the Obama administration. Some of the foreign governments that have made donations to the Clinton Foundation – Algeria, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman – have questionable human rights records.
The public reaction to these latest JW findings was one of outrage.  As one opinion writer at The Washington Post observed:

And, Clinton’s State Department was apparently coordinating meetings for Bill Clinton with foreign heads of state.  If any other employee at the State Department had arranged such meetings for their spouse and actively thanked contributors to their spouse’s foundation, they would likely go to jail. No lawyer would even let it go to trial, because the sentencing guidelines would guarantee years behind bars.  Another way to think about what was going on is to imagine that another country’s foreign minister’s spouse or family ran a foundation that American companies were caught giving to. Those American companies would certainly be vulnerable to prosecution by the Justice Department under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
It’s only because Hillary’s last name is Clinton and because she is the Democratic front-runner for president that she isn’t already being prosecuted for something or another. For anyone else at the State Department, their conviction and sentencing would produce only a matter-of-fact, back-page reference in The Washington Post.
You can find the full set of documents here.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/clinton-foundation-corruption-news/

[D2D]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/TeIyCVEjv_Q" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/TeIyCVEjv_Q</a>

[D2D]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/svRJ_3pEx78" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/svRJ_3pEx78</a>

[D2D]

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 276 pages of internal State Department documents revealing that within two days of the deadly terrorist attack on Benghazi, Mohamed Yusuf al-Magariaf, the president of Libya’s National Congress, asked to participate in a Clinton Global Initiative function and “meet President Clinton.”  The meeting between the Libyan president and Bill Clinton had not previously been disclosed.  The documents also show Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff coordinated with the Clinton Foundation’s staff to have her thank Clinton Global Initiative project sponsors for their “commitments” during a Foundation speech on September 25, 2009.
The Judicial Watch documents were obtained as a result of a federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department on May 28, 2013, (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00772)).
In September 13, 2012, al-Magariaf advisor Dr. Fathi Nuah wrote to the Clinton Foundation’s Director of Foreign Policy Amitabh Desai:  “Dr. Almagariaf will be addressing the United Nations this September in New York as the Libyan Head of State, and he expressed a wish to meet President Clinton and to participate at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting for New York as well.”
Four hours later, Desai emailed Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills asking, “Would USG [U.S. Government] have concerns about Libyan President being invited to CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]? Odd timing, I know.” Mills emailed back: “We would not have issues.”
Four days later, on September 17, Desai emailed Mills again, saying, The Libyan president is “asking for a meeting with WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] next week.” Desai asked, “Would you recommend accepting or declining the WJC meeting request?”
The State Department apparently had no objection to the meeting, because on September 26, Desai emailed Mills, “He had a v good meeting with Libya …” Hillary Clinton and al-Magariaf did not have a meeting until September 24.
                                                                              
               

[D2D]

An August 2009 email chain including Hillary Clinton’s then- Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, Mills, then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Jake Sullivan shows that the State Department coordinated with Clinton Foundation staff on how Mrs. Clinton to thank Foundation supporters/partners for their “commitments.”  Mills asks Desai for a “list of commitments during whole session so she can reference more than those just around her speech.”
Caitlin Klevorick, Senior Advisor to the Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State who previously worked at the Foundation, notes:  “one question is if we want to see if there is a decent mass of fs [funds] related commitments to announce together at closing as a ‘mega’ commitment.”
The State Department material includes background information made by Clinton Foundation partners, which include Foundation donors Nduna Foundation, Grupo ABCA, and Britannia Industries.  Other CGI partners noted in the State Department documents include a federal agency (the Centers for Disease Control) and various United Nations entities, which also receive U.S. taxpayer funds.
The transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech on the State Department Internet site confirms that then-Secretary of State did thank those making “exceptional commitments” to her husband’s foundation:

And so I congratulate all who helped to put on this (inaudible) CGI [Clinton Global Initiative].  I especially thank you for having a separate track on girls and women, which I think was well received for all the obvious reasons.  (Applause.)  And this is an exceptional gathering of people who have made exceptional commitments to bettering our world.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-documents-raise-questions-on-benghazi-clinton-foundation/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Judicial%20Watch%20Tipsheet%20-%20Template%202%20%2814%29&utm_content=

Proving Hillary used government funds and government personnel for her private benefit!

That is fraud and theft!

A new scandal is born!

[D2D]

Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today filed a plan for “narrowly tailored discovery” into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email matter with a federal court.  Judicial Watch’s discovery plan seeks the testimony of eight current and former State Department officials, including top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano, and Clinton’s two top aides at the State Department:  Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.  Judicial Watch’s plan says that “based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary” but would only occur with permission by the Court.
During a court hearing on February 23, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery into whether the State Department and Clinton deliberately thwarted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for six years.  The discovery arises in a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).
Judicial Watch seeks testimony from:

Stephen D. Mull (Executive Secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012 and suggested that Mrs. Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests);
Lewis A. Lukens (Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011 and emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Smith about setting up a computer for Mrs. Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account);
Patrick F. Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management since 2007 and the Secretary’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services);
Donald R. Reid (Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Bureau of Diplomatic Security since 2003 and was involved in early discussions about Mrs. Clinton using her BlackBerry and other devices to conduct official State Department business);
30(b)(6) deposition(s) of Defendant [designated witness(es) for the State Department] regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Plaintiff’s FOIA request, for emails of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin both during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and after;
Cheryl D. Mills (Mrs. Clinton’s Chief of Staff throughout her four years as Secretary of State);
Huma Abedin (Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and a senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton throughout her four years as Secretary of State and also had an email account on clintonemail.com); and
Bryan Pagliano (State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State four years as secretary).

[D2D]

With respect to testimony of Clinton, the Judicial Watch court filing states:

Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary.  If [Judicial Watch] believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time.

Judicial Watch also seeks court approval of written questions requiring answers under oath by the State Department:

Who was responsible for processing and/or responding to record requests, including FOIA requests, concerning emails of Mrs. Clinton and other employees of the Office of the Secretary;
Who was responsible for the inventorying or other accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails, records, and information;
Who was responsible for responding to Plaintiff’s FOIA request from the date of submission to the present; and
Which State Department officials and employees had and/or used an account on the clintonemail.com system to conduct official government business.

Judicial Watch also seeks testimony from a 30 (b)(6) witness or witnesses who can provide testimony on behalf of the State Department on the following issues:

the creation or establishment of the clintonemail.com system as well as any maintenance, service, or support provided by the State Department of that system;
the knowledge or awareness of State Department officials and employees about the existence and use of the clintonemail.com system;
any instructions or directions given to State Department officials and employees about communicating with Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin via email;
any inquiries into Mrs. Clinton’s use of the clintonemail.com system as well as any discussions about responding to such inquiries or publicly revealing the existence and use of the clintonemail.com system to the public; and
the inventorying or other accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s email upon their departure from the State Department.

The Judicial Watch plan requests only eight weeks to conduct the requested depositions.  Judge Sullivan will rule on Judicial Watch’s proposed discovery plan after April 15.
“This discovery will help Judicial Watch get all of the facts behind Hillary Clinton’s and the Obama State Department’s thwarting of FOIA so that the public can be sure that all of the emails from her illicit email system are reviewed and released to the public as the law requires,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-presents-federal-court-with-proposed-witness-list-discovery-plan-in-clinton-email-matter/
                                                                              
               

[D2D]

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (LCPGV), a handful of San Francisco-based lawyers who draft gun control legislation for anti-gun politicians, has added its voice to Hillary Clinton’s perverse campaign against law enforcement officers and the criminal justice system. Like Clinton, the anti-gun group is trying to gain the support of far-left-of-center voters who increasingly constitute their respective political bases.
In a new document that essentially contends that inner city criminals are victims of society’s neglect—it takes a village, Clinton might say—LCPGV says “gang members, thugs, or predators” should henceforth be referred to as “clients, individuals, and fellow community members—terms that convey a sense of dignity, respect and belonging.” Similarly, it says that gangs—such as the Crips, the Bloods, MS-13, and the Aryan Brotherhood—should be referred to as “groups.” Lost upon LCPGV, apparently, is that such an ambiguation would add new meaning to “anti-gun group,” the generic term long used for activist organizations that promote gun control.
While LCPGV is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the pro-criminal campaign, Clinton has been at it for nearly a year. Last April, in a speech at Columbia University, Clinton decried what she called the “unmistakable and undeniable” pattern of deaths of criminal suspects at the hands of police officers. In January, at the Democratic Foundation Forum, Clinton said (at 1:37:15) “when you have police violence that terrorizes communities, that doesn’t show the respect that you’re supposed to have from (sic) protecting people in your authority, that can feel also (sic) terrorizing.”
A week later, during a Democratic Party presidential debate, Clinton said (at 13:34), “There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. And that requires a very clear agenda for retraining police officers.” On her website, Clinton says that if she’s elected president, she will “end the era of mass incarceration, reform mandatory minimum sentences, and end private prisons.” A clear insult to law enforcement officers, Clinton calls for “transformational reform” of police departments. And to reward people who commit crimes repeatedly, she calls for “reducing the mandatory penalty for second- and third-strike offenses.”

[D2D]

In addition to coddling criminals, LCPGV’s new manifesto recommends 10 gun control restrictions, many of which are also supported by Clinton, including:

• “Universal background checks,” a step toward gun registration
• “Permit to purchase and gun licensing,” which gun control supporters have previously said shouldn’t be available to people who want guns for self-defense
• “Minimum age restrictions,” usually meaning limiting handguns to people at least age 21
• “Prohibiting ‘junk guns,’” previously defined to mean all concealable handguns
• “Better regulating firearms dealers to reduce gun trafficking,” including the videotaping of customers buying guns
• “Limiting bulk purchases of handguns,” meaning a 30-day waiting period between handgun purchases and/or a limit to two handguns per year
• “Requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms,” placing gun owners in jeopardy of prosecution for failing to know that a firearm has been stolen
• “Prohibiting large capacity magazines,” limiting the use of firearms for self-defense
• “Encouraging ‘smart gun’ technology that prevents unauthorized use,” and that would also allow for guns to be remotely disabled and their locations GPS-tracked, and
• “Microstamping bullets to assist in solving gun crimes,” which hasn’t shown that benefit and which would require ammunition purchases to be registered.

Though these anti-gun and pro-criminal viewpoints are being featured prominently together now because America is in the middle of a presidential campaign, the two have gone hand-in-hand for a long time. A quarter century ago, another anti-gun group, Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI, since renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), introduced a school curriculum designed to brainwash young children against guns and the criminal justice system all at once, with language similar to that being used by Clinton and LCPGV today.
The curriculum, called Straight Talk About Risks (STAR), encouraged students to believe that the “gun lobby” creates “a climate in which people feel there is no way to be a real person, somebody who is respected and feared, without a gun.” Gun owners were described as “insecure, frightened, angry people, at the mercy of their impulsive feelings.” STAR urged teachers to “emphasize the urgency of these messages: Guns kill. Guns cause devastating injuries.”
                                                                              
               

[D2D]

STAR simultaneously encouraged students to adopt the Left’s hatred of capitalism, with the idea that “the prison system has become big business. A great many people profit from ‘the punishment business’—architects, construction companies, unions and people who sell equipment and goods to prisons, as well as all the people who actually work in the prison—and they are all afraid of change. . . . They want, they need, a high crime rate! Nobody resists good rehabilitation programs like prison guards! It might be the end of their jobs! . . . Whoever’s getting all that money doesn’t want to give it up!”
The following two decades proved that HCI was as wrong about the criminal justice system as it always has been about guns. From 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high, to 2013, the most recent year for which data are available for incarceration and violent crime, as the incarceration rate for violent crimes increased 366 percent, the nation’s violent crime rate decreased 51 percent.

Sources: Violent crime, FBI. Incarceration, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
However, Clinton and LCPGV are resurrecting the failed ideologies of the past, in part because they know that today there are millions of voters who were not old enough to have followed the gun control and incarceration debates of the previous generation. Let’s hope that a majority of voters will uniformly reject the Left’s attempt to blame the nation’s police, courts, and law-abiding gun owners for the deliberate misdeeds of “gang members, thugs, and predators.”

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160318/anti-gun-group-joins-clintons-pro-criminal-campaign

[Baretta19]

This is a fine example of Granny's incompetence, Not the server in the bathroom but the simple FACT that the Secretary of State lacked enough intelligence to determine if an email was secret, sensitive, or confidential

[duke_john]

She is such a dummy that she claimed to depend on people much lower in the chain of command to tell her about information's sensitivity.