Archive | Incompetency RSS feed for this section

Mrs. Bill Clinton Exposed

3 Apr

HILLARY’S EMAIL EXCUSE: SHE DIDN’T WANT TWO PHONES

11 Mar

By Emily Zanotti, The American Spectator
March 10, 2015

I’ve removed the UN press conference live feed now that Hillary is done talking because I highly doubt you want to continue to watch people standing around staring at a step and repeat. I mean, maybe that’s your thing. But do it on your own time.

Anyway, here’s what we learned from Hillary’s brief, somewhat contentious (as least as far as Andrea Mitchell was not involved) press conference at the United Nations. It began, as many press conferences have today, with a brief soliloquy on those dastardly Republicans who keep insisting on derailing the President’s landmark discussions with Iran. She also made some brief remarks on the anniversary of the Beijing conference on Womens Rights, which she appears to have attended, noting that she is thrilled to be a part of the event and the commission, despite having accepted thousands in donations for the Clinton Foundation from countries where women are still regularly stoned for adultery.

She made several remarks on her email:

One, that she chose to use one address as opposed to two, because she did not want to have to use two devices. Apparently, Ms. Clinton is incapable of loading two email addresses on to the same Blackberry, and considers forcing her personal assistant, who is with her literally all the time, to carry two phones beyond the pale. It seems when the 3am phone call finally did come in, Hillary Clinton did not want to be confused as to which phone it was going to. Let’s call this the “BlackBerry excuse.”

Two, she insists that any and all work email sent to another State Department or government official was recorded because they have a .gov email address, even though she does not. This, of course, only works if you believe that the Secretary was allowed to use her personal email address, but that literally no one else in the Federal govermentused an email that did not end it .gov. She says that the “vast majority” of her emails went to other .gov email users, they were recorded, so you shouldn’t worry. There are, of course, huge swaths of emails missing, failing to account for Ms. Clinton’s official business around very key events, but as far as you’re concerned, the only ones you need to see are on someone else’s account.

Third, when the State Department requested her emails, she turned over all those she determined to be “work related.” This was a subjective determination done by, apparently, her staff and her legal counsel. The emails she did not turn over involve mostly yoga and wedding planning. At least, that’s what she says. She hasn’t turned over the emails and she’s unwilling to reveal the contents of the email server to the public eye, so we’re just going to have to take her word for it.

So, literally, we have no clue what we haven’t seen, there are whole months of email missing, no one can get their hands on it, but Hillary Clinton would like to assure you that she has absolutely not done anything wrong and you’re all just a bunch of right-wing nut jobs.

As for the more important issue, the location and security of the server, Hillary Clinton says that it was never compromised, an assessment she mades, apparently, because it was guarded at all hours by Secret Service agents. She fails to realize, it seems, that you don’t break into a server by literally breaking into it. The server was, of course, Bill Clinton’s, not hers (even though the server appears to have come on line right before her confirmation hearings), and it never left her sight. Not even for a minute. She did not have improper relations with that server.

So, we learned nothing new, were told to take someone who has built her career on her remarkable ability to lie at her word, and we should all figure that the server the Clintons set up in their basement guest room was adequately fending off foreign attackers.

I’m most definitely convinced.

UPDATE: A couple of issues with her “it’s nothing”-ish statement. Two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton talked openly about using the multiple devices that were just so hard to keep track of today.

And Judicial Watch confirms.

Oh, and as for the “personal emails” that she and her staff and lawyer (“Better call Saul!) determined wouldn’t be very interesting to the State Department or were subjectively unrelated to her official duties as Secretary of State? Yeah, those are all gone. Deleted. Destroyed. So, apparently, we can all quibble over her faux veneer of “accountability” all we want — and I’m sure we will — but none of this matters because there’s nothing left to surface.

It’s oh, so Hillary Clinton.

How Many Straws on Hillary’s Back?

11 Mar

By Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online
March 10, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s pre-campaign for the 2016 presidential race is predicated on three givens: her landmark status as the likely first female presidential candidate of one of the two major parties; her name recognition as a Clinton; and the fact that no Democratic strategist is yet willing to risk turning over a presidential campaign to Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

Polls show that right now Hillary would both win the Democratic nomination and be elected president. But that likelihood assumes that four considerations will go her way.

The first is that she will not have to run on her record as secretary of state. Instead, she is betting that her iconic status and her years in Washington as first lady and then as a senator will trump her four years as Barack Obama’s chief foreign-policy architect. Her record as secretary was dismal — perhaps the worst since the tenure of Cyrus Vance under Jimmy Carter.

The Obama/Clinton reset diplomacy with Russia ended with Vladimir Putin gobbling up Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and starting a bitter new Cold War. Her idea of bombing Libya without congressional approval and in excess of the limited U.N. resolutions proved a disaster, especially when the U.S. let the ensuing mess on the ground fester. Pulling every American peacekeeper out of a quiet Iraq at the end of 2011 green-lighted radical Islamist terrorism and helped to birth the Islamic State.

On her watch, Israeli-American relations became the worst since the founding of Israel.

Most Sunni states in the Middle East do not trust the United States any more; they are confused only whether we are naïve about Iran or are trying in clumsy fashion to forge some new strategic partnership with the terrorist theocracy.

Yet Clinton is probably right that the public is more interested in the idea of her as the first woman president than in her disastrous conduct of American foreign policy. And so she is probably correct that by 2016 most voters will have forgotten or won’t care what a mediocre secretary she proved to be.

Second, Clinton also supposes that the public has long forgotten the scandals that engulfed her during the last years of her husband’s presidency. Does anyone still remember Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, shady cattle futures, defiance of subpoenas for billing records at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, the fact that she is the only first lady in history to be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury, and the mysterious presidential pardon during her Senate campaign of convicted Puerto Rican terrorists in New York?

The common denominator in all these fiascos was her assumption that she was above the law — that, and petty avarice. Or rather, Hillary always believed that progressive warriors such as herself needed the resources to do noble work and therefore should be exempt from legal scrutiny.

No matter. Clinton is probably right that the public either has forgotten all those ethical lapses or wants to move beyond them. Or maybe she assumes that unless she is indicted, the desperate Democratic party has no choice in 2016 except to nominate her — and if nominated she can win.

Third, Clinton also calculates that voters will not care much that she has always been a gaffe-prone and wearying public figure. She has clumsily feigned an African-American patois in front of black audiences.

In her failed 2008 presidential bid, for a while she tried to construct a white-working-class persona. When angered, her voice becomes eerily shrill. In impromptu interviews she can and will say almost anything. When questioned about the circumstances surrounding the four Americans’ being killed in Benghazi, Clinton blurted out, “What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?”

She once whined that when the Clintons left office they were broke and could barely pay the mortgages on their million-dollar-plus properties. Note the plurals. But once again, Clinton is probably right to assume that because she has no Democratic rival like Barack Obama this time around, voters will conclude she is far more viable than any of the alternatives.

Given that the nomination is hers for the losing, Clinton’s strategy for now is possum-like: Ignore the scandals, the memory of which will eventually die out, and limit the occasions where she might be asked questions that would require an ad hoc response — while offering canned one-liners about her historic candidacy and other gender boilerplate.

Finally, will the public forgive recent Clinton scandals and lapses? Here the picture may not seem so bright. As secretary of state, Clinton used personal e-mail accounts on her own private, unsecured server in a way that was designed to avoid transparency. But for a government official, communicating without an electronic trail is both unethical and illegal. Promising when caught to turn over government correspondence is not quite the same as making such communications available from the get-go.

Note that Clinton’s private, non-government server domain was not for secondary accounts; it was her sole e-mail account during her tenure in the Obama administration. The only logical implication is that Clinton was trying to shield her communications from later public scrutiny — and from possible scandal or subpoenas.

And it largely has worked.

What is missing from discussion of this scandal is that the secretary of state for four years freelanced with private e-mail addresses — and that everyone in the administration who received her e-mails knew it, and no one cared. As secretary, she also received millions of dollars in gifts for her family’s quarter-billion-dollar-endowed Clinton Foundation from foreign heads of states and wealthy foreign nationals.

Obviously, it is improper, to say the least, for the chief foreign-policy officer of the United States to solicit for her family foundation when dealing with foreign governments. Clinton’s aides must have assumed that none of those tawdry shakedown communications were recorded electronically on her private e-mails — as if checks arrived in the U.S. spontaneously without prior discussion.

In fact, Hillary Clinton was the chief fundraiser for her family foundation and had the ideal platform from which to garner big checks. When Bill Clinton points to the Clinton Foundation’s noble work or asserts that it does not prejudge the nature of its nation-state donors, his moral obtuseness about what a secretary of state should and should not do only makes Hillary’s plight worse.

Ms. Clinton of course emphasizes her gender and, by association, feminist issues. One might ask whether she ever worried about the gender apartheid practiced by the very Middle East monarchies from which she solicited gifts.

In addition, her husband’s past philandering is no longer just ancient history. It was recently reported that Bill Clinton flew more than a dozen times on the private jet (dubbed “the Lolita Express”) of convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, who had a sick habit of procuring underage girls for his Caribbean-island getaways.

The fact that Hillary Clinton herself, while a U.S. senator, paid female staffers substantially less than their male counterparts for the same work hardly gives her sufficient feminist credentials to negate the embarrassing fact that her husband cavorted with a convicted sexual predator and a group of underage girls. Does such hypocrisy matter? It has not mattered much in the past, given the liberal tenet of exemption:

A progressive man with a large libido can mouth liberal platitudes while treating women as he pleases, on the assurance from other women that a few unfortunate Monicas or Paulas are a small price to pay for advancing abortion rights or affirmative action.

If on public occasions Joe Biden in creepy fashion hovers over young girls and other men’s wives, or if Al Gore is accused of sexually harassing a masseuse, who really cares? Can’t we put up with Bill Clinton on a plane where there are frolicking teenagers if the alternative to his liberalism is a staid Ted Cruz stopping late-term abortions?

Finally, Hillary Clinton has regularly charged cash-strapped universities between $200,000 and $300,000 for a canned 20- to 30-minute speech. UCLA dared to negotiate with Hillary’s agents and was told that her $300,000 demand was the special cut rate for universities. When students owe over $1 trillion in collective debt — largely because of skyrocketing university tuition and expenses — Clinton’s fees take on the appearance of price gouging.

But here too, leftwing students don’t seem to mind paying for greed if the greed comes with liberal orthodoxy.

Note two facts about the Clinton scandals. One, hypocrisy is at the core of them all: lecturing about feminism, but silent about unequal pay when she was the paymaster.

Or decrying the old-boy system, while ignoring her own husband’s callous treatment of women, some of them subordinate employees. Hillary sent a memo reminding State Department employees not to break the law concerning non-government e-mail correspondence that she herself so readily broke.

She talks eloquently of inequality and fairness but then charges universities the sort of fees that ultimately only add to the exorbitant price of a college education.

Two, there is never an end to Clinton scandals, precisely because both Bill and Hillary assume that the media will not fully investigate what they do, and that their progressive agendas justify any means necessary to achieve them. And because their habitual expectation of government and media privilege is now four decades long, and because they have not entered ethical rehab, there will be lots more embarrassment to emerge.

The latest are reports that Hillary Clinton’s youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was part of a U.S. consortium that sought a rare sweetheart mining concession from the beleaguered Haitian government, which was still reeling from the disastrous earthquake — at precisely the time it was negotiating with the U.S. government for massive American relief aid.

Add it all up: Natural disaster, poor people of color, thousands of wrecked lives, an impoverished nation — and the secretary of state’s brother and a foreign mining corporation were conniving to obtain a concession to mine gold at a reduced rate from a corrupt government.

Hillary Clinton may prove to be the proverbial camel whose cumulative straws of scandals and unethical behavior will finally break her back.

She is the most ethically compromised candidate in recent memory, and genuinely sees no reason why federal laws or ethical prohibitions should ever apply to her exalted self. The idea that she still may be nominated has long excited, but increasingly also terrifies, Democrats. Hillary’s nomination will require the greatest amount of lying and suspension of disbelief in modern political history. If the Republicans have lots of candidates but none that are especially well known, the Democrats have invested in just one, the star and star-crossed Hillary Clinton, who they hope will win the presidency but fear will, in trying to reach the White House, destroy the Democratic party.

The First Two Lies from Hillary’s Press Conference

11 Mar

By JIM GERAGHTY, National Review Online
March 10, 2015

All over Twitter you can find negative reactions to Hillary Clinton’s just-concluded press conference.

To me, the most important part of her press conference was her statement that was an obvious, flat-out lie: She said the e-mail server was initially set up for use by former president Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton insisted that there were “numerous safeguards” in place, adding there were “no security breaches.” One hacker broke into Hillary’s account in 2013 and leaked several messages to Kremlin-funded RT.

Beyond that example, if her server is being privately managed, there’s no way for, say, State Department security professionals or the NSA or CIA or any other intelligence agencies to know if there was a security breach. Can we agree that the woman who said she couldn’t carry two phones because it would be too inconvenient is in no position to assess cybersecurity?

Also, Hillary kept insisting that federal-government workers get to decide what e-mails are considered “private” and which ones are work-related, and that doesn’t sound right at all.

On CNN a few moments ago, Margaret Hoover, a former employee of the Bush White House and Department of Homeland Security, said that wasn’t true.

Finally, while her wording was not terribly clear, it appears she kept half her e-mails from her time as secretary of state as “private” and either deleted them or believes she has a right to delete them.

In short, disastrous.

Hillary’s State Department Balked at Labeling Boko Haram Terrorist Group

9 May

Fox News reports:

The kidnapping of nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls by radical Islamic terror group Boko Haram has drawn international condemnation, including that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Abominable,” is how she described the kidnapping, calling it an “act of terrorism” that merits “the fullest response possible.”

But the State Department, under Clinton’s leadership, repeatedly resisted and blocked efforts to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group. Those who pushed for the designation as early as 2011 are now saying the department missed a major opportunity to track and target the deadly organization as it grew.

“The delayed designation of Boko Haram as a Foreign Terrorist Organization cost us two years of increased scrutiny of the group’s activities and leadership,” Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa., said Thursday in a statement to FoxNews.com. “Boko Haram met the statutory requirements for the designation as early as 2011, but the State Department’s delay has left us with fewer resources and less intelligence on an Islamic terrorist group with ties to al-Qaeda that is clearly destabilizing the region.”

The State Department did label Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization in November 2013, under the leadership of Secretary John Kerry.

But Boko Haram had been killing people for years at that point, building ties with Al Qaeda sympathizers and orchestrating major terror attacks, including one on a U.N. compound in 2011.

Shortly after that attack, lawmakers began lobbying the State Department to consider labeling Boko Haram a terrorist organization, to no success.

A March 30, 2012, letter from Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Meehan urged Clinton to “immediately designate” the group, citing estimates that it had killed more than 900 people in the last two years.

The lawmakers noted that designating Boko Haram would authorize a range of punitive measures — giving the Justice Department clearance to prosecute those tied to the organization and the Treasury Department the ability to go after members. The letter said those in the intelligence and law enforcement community were “deeply” concerned about the group’s “rapid progression from a machete wielding mob to a full blown al Qaeda affiliate.”

Indeed, just a few months later Reuters first reported that a high-level Justice Department official had sent a letter to the State Department urging them to place Boko Haram on the terror organization list.

The department still resisted. Further, the department reportedly lobbied Congress to stall legislation seeking the designation.

At the time, a department official told Reuters they were “very concerned” about violence in Nigeria but stressed that adding a group to the list is a “rigorous process which has to stand up in a court of law.”

According to The Daily Beast, State Department officials now argue there was concern at the time that putting Boko Haram on the list would raise its profile and give it “greater credibility,” in turn helping recruitment.

But one unnamed former U.S. official told The Daily Beast that everyone from the FBI to the CIA was urging the department to make the call, calling Clinton’s recent comments “gross hypocrisy.”

Asked Wednesday why it took so long to place Boko Haram on the list, department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said she could not comment on “internal decision making” but noted that the eventual decision in November to designate them “sends a strong message about how concerned we are about them.”

A State Department official noted Thursday that the department did designate three Boko Haram-tied individuals in June 2012, including the group’s leader. This was followed, the official said, by an “extensive process of review and research” on possible designation of the group itself.

“After that review and consultations with the Nigerian Government and other partners, we determined that designating these groups was

both appropriate and effective in helping advance our larger counterterrorism strategy,” the official said, referring to the November 2013 decision.

Timothy Furnish, an author and Islam scholar, told Fox News that the department probably was reluctant “to add another group that is clearly Islamic to the list.”

“Better late than never, but unfortunately where were these tweets and where was this outrage when churches were being bombed and thousands of Christians — and other non-fundamentalist Muslims — were being killed in Nigeria?” he said, referring to a recent Clinton tweet drawing attention to the kidnappings. “It would have been nice if this outrage had happened earlier.”

FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger and Fox News’ Jonathan Hunt and Lucas Tomlinson contributed to this report.