Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, January 22, 2018

Hillary Clinton disputed a scathing assessment by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that she was “extremely careless” with classified government secrets, saying on Friday she relied on the judgment of her subordinates at the U.S. State Department.

After maintaining for more than a year that she did not send or receive classified information through her unauthorized private email system, she acknowledged in a string of interviews on Friday she may have at least unwittingly done so, three days after the FBI concluded this happened at least 110 times.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said she “certainly did not believe” that she was handling classified information on her email system at the time, but emphasized that she followed the lead of her subordinates on whether information was classified.

“I did not have a basis for second-guessing their conclusion,” Clinton said in an interview with CNN, saying she had the “highest regard” for her former colleagues.

“These are experienced diplomats, they have expertise in handling classified material,” she said in a separate interview with PBS Newshour. “They were not careless and the material that they sent, they did not believe that was classified.”

Clinton, who was the department’s most senior classifying authority during her four-year tenure at its helm, did not address the FBI’s conclusion that she herself sent information on topics classified as ‘top secret’, the highest level, through a private server she kept in her basement.

“I have said, and I repeated, that it was a mistake to use personal email and I regret that,” she said in another interview with ABC.

It is a crime to mishandle classified information, and while FBI Director James Comey said on Tuesday there was evidence Clinton or her aides may have broken these laws, there was not enough evidence of criminal intent for a prosecution.

In an unusual 15-minute announcement explaining the FBI’s findings, Comey ended up dismaying both Republicans and Democrats.

While Clinton‘s Republican opponents have fumed at the decision not to file criminal charges, Clinton and her staff have disputed some of Comey’s criticisms that undermine her argument that she has better judgment than Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate.

Comey called her and her staff “extremely careless” and said that any “reasonable” government employee should have recognized that such information should not be aired in emails. Her server was so poorly secured the FBI could not eliminate the possibility it had not been hacked by the country’s enemies, Comey said.

Asked if she agreed that she was “extremely careless”, Clinton told CNN she was not, adding that Comey had “clarified” his remarks. It was unclear what clarification Clinton meant.

In lengthier comments before lawmakers on Thursday, Comey again spoke of Clinton‘s and her staff’s carelessness and “real sloppiness”, adding that it seemed she was not “particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information.”

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Bernard Orr)

Photo: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton takes the stage for a campaign speech outside the shuttered Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, New Jersey July 6, 2016.  REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 The National Memo

259 Responses to Clinton Says She Relied On State Staff For Classification Decisions

  1. I earn around $6k-$8k /a month with an online job i found on internet. Anyone willing to do basic freelance jobs for 2h-5h /a day from your living room and get solid payment for doing it… This is a job for you… http://self92.com

  2. Of course she relied on subordinates. No cabinet secretary has time to deal with mundane tasks like classifying documents or determining which information in a document becomes classified, especially considering how much routine and publicly available information gets classified, wrongly.

    The republicans have a real nothing burger here, as usual, and now they want to charge Hillary with perjury for lying to Congress? Never gonna happen.

    • Right!!! Responsibility for her subordinates? Not on her watch! And, “at this point, what difference does it make?”.

    • According to your “reasoning” why choose the best for cabinet positions, just use subordinates. Then nobody has to account for any responsibility. The excuses just Never end with blind followers of Liberals.

  3. You mean after 8+ years in the business she still didn’t know how documents should be classified? Slow learner..

    • The issue is not whether or not she, and other people know how documents are classified, but whether or not she should have been able to identify the information in 3 e-mails

      sent to her by State Department personnel as containing confidential information. Considering how subjective the classification process is, doing that is easier said than done.

      • And even that is not the issue. The issue is how she handled the entire debacle. Unfortunately, not well, because she has done it by spinning and denying. The bottom line is – she should have know better and did not. Not a good characteristics for the President of United States. She would have had my vote (not that that means much) but how she has reacted to the email debacle, especially the IG and FBI reports and the things that have gone on during her campaign has left me cold. Someone who has access to every expert on every subject, including communications systems, should and probably did have advice telling her not to have a personal server – but she did what she wanted anyway. It is characteristics like that that brought us the Iraq war – she will not be getting my vote.

    • Let’s go back and see how the Department of State under previous SOS. under previous administrations were handling sensitive materials, and interagency correspondence. That is setting aside the intentional release of the identity of a covert CIA Agent by high ranking members in the inner circle of the Bush Administration. As payback for an article this agent’s husband wrote these high ranking officials didn’t like. And yes, they lied to Congress about it. Bush lied to the Country about it. A reporter served time in jail over it, and a loyal, and by all counts, an effective agent’s career was ruined. Her sources, and contacts lives put at risk. This is exactly what Director Comey was referring to when he said, a prosecutable offense requires “intent.”

  4. FBI Director Comey speaking of Hillary Clinton:

    “She was extremely careless”
    “She was grossly negligent”
    “She acted with extreme recklessness”
    “She most likely was hacked by hostile forces”

    Who can honestly say (without stifling a laugh) that this woman is qualified to hold this nation’s top office! Heck….she wouldn’t be hired as a shift manager at Taco Bell with those strikes on her resume!

    Wake up America!

    • Unfortunately I must agree with you on this one. Too bad Trump is even less competent which he demonstrates nearly every time he opens his mouth. Vote 3rd party.

      • I got a good laugh when he referred to this “scandal” as INSECURE e-mails in two different rallies. In addition to being narcissistic, immature, and irresponsible, he is also an ignorant who has benefited from being born with a silver spoon stuck in his throat.

        • Trading place; without that spoon, I’m confident he would be a homeless person living in the streets or in prison.

          • One thing for sure. If he had the same persona he would have been made toothless long ago.

      • You do not need to vote for Trump. There are other choices, third party candidates, writing in the name of another candidate, or not voting for President while still voting for the other offices and local issue on the ballot.

      • A vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Trump. Why not do the right thing and learn the truth about Clinton. It’s out there, you just have to find it. You have what her opponents have said, now look at her side and try to poke holes in it.

        And use common sense. The Clinton’s have been attacked for 3 decades and no proof was ever produced to substantiate the claims.

        • No a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein. A vote for Clinton is a vote for Clinton. There, we clear now.

          I don’t give any weight to unsubstantiated charges against the Clintons. I just look at their record and that is enough for me to reject her as president.

          Common sense definition: When someone reaches the same conclusions as you do.

        • I have to sympathize with you Clinton sycophants who have been left with the task of presenting Hillary as something all of America knows she isn’t. You face the monumental task of selling a plate of steaming, smelly manure as a prime steak. No one is buying no matter how you try to make the crap in a pants suit look good!

    • As usual for the lazy-do nothing Republicans. They continue to beat a dead horse, playing politics, rather than do the real work they were elected to do, attending to the people’s business. Especially since they’ve now all decided to throw in with Trump. They should start letting the American People know how they’re going to structure the huge policing apparatus that is going to be needed to round up, process, and deport those 11-12 million undocumented. And where the monies will be appropriated, and just who’s ox gets gored to pay for it.
      Also, just how will that wall that President Trump promises he’s going to build be carried off? Will Mexico need to pay the monies first? Or are the taxpayers going to front the money, and get it back from Mexico later? If so, how much later? Way too tough to even think about. Easier, I would imagine, for a numbskull Republican to rabble rouse about e-mails. And “possible hacking, that “possibly might have led to some unconfirmed information being compromised in as many as three, [3] documents marked, [c] for confidential, (the lowest security rating,)” Out of literally 100s of thousands of pieces of correspondence looked at by FBI investigators at the behest of Republican Committees. No doubt syphoning off thousands of man hours that could have been spent watching for terrorist threats. This, as they claim stopping terrorist attacks is their highest concern. Do they think we’re all stupid? Maybe they should investigate that!

      • Comparing a FBI investigation to the Right’s scandal investigations is just plain ludicrous. Your twisting and turning of facts and numbers is dishonest.

        • Who ask the FBI to investigate? The Right’s investigating committee in search of a political scandal, that’s who.

          • What makes you think that the FBI has to be “asked” to investigate? Or, that they cannot turn down an inappropriate request? The simple truth is the FBI saw something questionable and did their job – no matter what kind of twisted words you use to try and delegitimize their findings.

          • I twist nothing The FBI were either ask by the Congressional Committee, or by the Justice Department who was ask by the Congressional Committee. And it is not me, but the Chair of that Congressional Committee, and the Republican members who are questioning the legitimacy of those findings. Now that’s the way it worked. Sorry for your misconceptions otherwise.

      • When you use lies to promote your agenda, you have attained the highest level of liberalism.
        When you tell the truth to promote your agenda, you are just an average conservative and cheerfully tolerate being called a racist by liberals.

        • I don’t find the average Right Winger cheerful, tolerant, or very conservative about anything. And they and the truth have gone their separate ways a long time ago.

    • None of those statements in quotation marks are actually quotes from Comey. Apparently you have plenty of experience with lies so you might be an expert after all when judging Presidential candidates. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

  5. It’s always someone else’s fault isn’t it? Doesn’t matter if it’s Clinton, Trump, Bush or any of the other royalty, quick to take credit for even a mild success but even quicker to shift the blame for failures or incompetence.

    • <<o. ✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:::::::!uf249w:….,…..

  6. FBI Director Comey established that Hillary lied about sending classified & top secret information. She KNEW having a private server was in strict violation of the Law. Hillary put National Security at risk. Comey stated that any employee of the FBI would suffer displinary actions and be fired for these same violations. All of this makes her untrustworthy to be President. She also lied to Congress which is a felony. She can’t claim ignorance either, ignorance of the Law is no excuse, and also shows incompetence. Besides all of these matters, she also lied to Americans about the youtube video causing the Benghazi Terror attack. Hardly a resume to be Commander in Chief.

    • Having the private server was not against the law. In fact, many of the record keeping policies didn’t change until she was out of office in 2013. She said she didn’t correspond with emails marked classified, and Comey and the state department both verified that. There were three emails not properly marked in the header. Your likely wet dream for a perjury conviction won’t happen. And 8 investigations and an 11 hour hearing proved she did her job in Benghazi. You only hear what you want to, huh?

      • The State Department employee manual has had a policy in place since 2005 which warns officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Of course it does not mention personal servers, and clearly Hillary was the first person with a big enough head to take it that far.

          • Nonsense. In any organization if you break their policies – you lose your job and are considered incompetent and sometimes land in jail. Hillary claims there were no policies, now how are you going to defend that.

          • She most definitely never said there were “no policies”. And you just corroborated my comment. I said, “The server was not illegal. A policy is not a law.” And then you agreed that people don’t always get arrested for violating policies. Because they don’t, unless they violate a law.

          • A.T., Whether Hillary has broken a law or not is not my issue. She has been dishonest about everything surrounding that server. She never had permission to install it as she claimed, she mishandle sensitive documents via the server, and contrary to her claims there is no way to tell if the server was hacked or not. Is that the kind of President you want, someone who ignores the rules for her own convenience than lies about it? Sorry those standard are not high enough for my Presidential vote. The only thing that you can honestly say about her is she slightly less of a risk than Trump.

          • It’s not your issue, but it’s literally the only part of my comment you replied to, in order to try and prove me wrong. Okay.

          • The evidence is against you, elw. She has not said a dishonest thing about her server or her emails. If you disagree, then tell us her lies…….If you watch Comey testifying in the House hearing after his speech, you will see that Clinton did not mishandle “sensitive documents via the server.” None of the information in email Clinton sent/receive was marked classified. Comey can pontificate on what she should have known until the cows come home, but he had NO clue what Clinton should have known. Can’t you see the folly in his criticisms? It would have been like him trying to read her mind.

            Hillary claimed there was no indication her system had been hacked. So did Comey!!! He said in the hearing they found no evidence the system had been hacked. BUT, the State Dpt system has been hacked several times.

            http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/08/government.hacking/index.html?iref=24hours

            http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-arrests-16-in-anonymous-hacking-investigation/

            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybersecurity-statedept-

          • If you use lies to promote your agenda, you have reached the heights of liberal behavior.
            If you use facts to promote your agenda, you’re just an average conservative.

          • (Sorry Diane for jumping in on this.)

            Your platitudes do exactly NOTHING to refute Diane’s points factually.

            That’s because you can’t.

          • No the evidence is clear – it you that choses to ignore it. What the Right says is one thing, but denying The IG Office and the FBI findings is just plain crazy. Here are just a few of her untrue statements:

            1 Clinton lied in March 2015 at a news conferences, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

            Response: The FBI investigation found at least 113 email chains –some of which had to be uncovered after they had been erased by Clinton’s private lawyers — that contained material which was classified at the time of sending, including some that were classified Top Secret and that referred to a “highly classified special-access program.”

            2. She lied again at the March 2015 press conference when she asserted, “I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related” to the State Department.

            Response: According to the FBI, and the Inspector General of the State Department Clinton simply refused to cooperate.

            3. On numberous accassion Clinton claimed that she had used her own Blackberry phone rather than a State Department secure phone, simply because she “thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two.”

            Response: The FBI report found that, in fact, Clinton had “used numerous mobil devices to view and send email,” all using her personal account. The FBI also found that she also had used several non-government servers, all of them vulnerable to hacking including her personal server.

            4. Clinton claimed numerous time, she opted for the convenience of using personal email account, and that it was allowed by the State Department.”

            Response: The State Department Inspector General report: refuted that in his report that found she had never “sought or received approval” to operate a private server for her State Department communications, and added that as Secretary of State, she “had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with State Department offices.” In addition, the policy on personal emails was changed in 2005 and clearly stated that all business much be conducted via the departments system so it was not allowed.

          • You are still wrong.

            You need to check your source on Clinton’s March 2015 statement. I believe the accurate language is “I did not send nor receive any email marked classified.” “Marked” being the key word. It wasn’t a lie if it wasn’t marked, and Comey has acknowledged none was marked. There is no evidence that Clinton knew any of the email LATER marked classified should have been handled as classified before it was marked.

            Regardless of the FBI’s claim, if the email was not marked when sent/received, she did not lie.

            In March 2015, the IG had not requested any cooperation. The State was still handling her email.

            Where is your proof Clinton refused to cooperate with the FBI? You do know she gave a 3 hour interview with them, right? As for the State IG, of course she would not consent to an interview when the FBI investigation was going on. Her lawyer would have advised
            her not to do that. But neither did a lot of other people not submit to IG interview including Colin Powell who uses his own email system, his own equipment, then destroyed all the govt email.

            I waste my time trying to respond to “on numerous occasions” – specify dates. Nor can I respond to vague claims of what she
            said. I need to know exactly what she said, when she said it, and the context in which she said it, in order to determine if she actually lied or just made an offhand statement of no consequence. If she thought she remembered it raining on that day, but you checked the weather report and found it had not, it would be absurd to accusing her of “lying”.

            Even if the FBI found she had used numerous mobile devices, whether she “lied” would depend on the circumstances of any such events, if the FBI claim is true. Example: if she was in an area, in or outside the US, where security prevented her from using her personal Blackberry, and assuming her personal Blackberry was not configured with security system, she may have used someone else’s, e.g., local embassy, secured system. You see how Comey’s statements fall apart under scrutiny?

            Regardless of what the BIASED IG stated in one part of the
            report, in another part it stated 2 employees had said that a high-level official had told them Clinton’s equipment had been approved. Pg 40. Further, see “Restrictions Apply to the Use of Non-Departmental Systems,” pg 28, “The FAM and FAH contain a number of restrictions regarding the use of non-Departmental computers, mobile devices, Internet connections, and personal email to transmit Department information…but employees must IMPLEMENT SAFEGUARDS OR REQUEST APPROVAL before using such equipment.” No one has proven Clinton’s system did not meet required security standards.

            Your last claim is wrong. Use of personal email was allowed during Clinton’s tenure. IG rpt, Pg. 4. “2009 CFR provision added:
            “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”

            This is the time I will waste effort/time responding to your inaccurate comments.

          • Clinton did not claim there were no policies. But in fact as I just explained to you above, there was no policy that prohibited her using her personal email account or personal server.

          • No. Not true.

            For example, I worked for a Fortune 100 company. We had a policy for spending limits for meals, cars, etc when on the road. Those limits were routinely exceeded dramatically by top management.

            Not saying it’s right, but refuting that private industry is different.

          • Now how did the fact that they could get away with breaking policies and you could not? I’ll give you it might be true because it is not something worth arguing over), but that does make it right and how did it make you feel?

          • It was a “roll our eyes” type of thing. Typical of the upper management to keep costs down (they also got their entire cost of healthcare covered, while we had co-pays and large deductibles) on the backs of the regular employees.

            However, how I felt about it is not relavent to this point. You said that if “In any organization if you break their policies – you lose your job and are considered incompetent and sometimes land in jail.”

            That’s the point I wanted to refute.

            And yes, it is true. We had a daily limit for food purchase of $40 (including tax and tips) and needed to rent no larger than an economy car. Can you imagine the CEO of a Fortune 100 company only spending $40 for food and driving himself in a Ford Fiesta?

          • I really do not see the comparison between policies on expenses connected with travel and policies on company security. But in any regard, we are not talking about CEOs of Fortune 100 companies – but the President of the United State who will hold the security and safely of you and your family and everyone else in the Country in her hands and has no problem bending policies or rules.

          • Well, your initial comment was ” In any organization if you break their policies – you lose your job
            and are considered incompetent and sometimes land in jail.” My company was an organization. Some people would be disciplined up to termination for breaking them, some would not.

            My initial comment to your statement was “No. Not True” and I provided anecdotal evidence in support of my point.

          • That was not my initial comment – it was part of stream of responses to my initial comment. In any regard, your example is very strange because in spite of the fact that your employer did not apply the punishment evenly for breaking policy – people still lost their jobs, so I am not sure what you think you proved. I would say that only that some people get away with it – which we all know. Some people get away with murder as well.

          • Which means exactly nothing since it is ONE of many millions of organization in this Country alone.

          • No I never set any! You are the one who based your opinion on your personal experience. Your words:

            “For example, I worked for a Fortune 100 company. We had a policy for spending limits for meals, cars, etc when on the road. Those limits were routinely exceeded dramatically by top management.”

          • Perhaps you didn’t read what you wrote. I will repeat it for a third time with emphasis on the word that represents no need for millions.

            ” In any organization if you break their policies – you lose your job and are considered incompetent and sometimes land in jail.”

            I gave you an “any” now you’re saying “millions”.

            That, my friend, is a moved goalpost.

          • Are you just bored? Or do you really not understand the difference between a policy and a law? Maybe you can use your free time to google the difference.

          • Actually, “elw’s” first response still applies. Have you ever held a job? It doesn’t sound like since you seem to think you could get away with telling your boss that you “broke no laws, only policy”…..they call that the “George Costanza Defense”!

          • Are you serious? Can any of you read? I’ll repeat: a law is not a policy. If I violate a policy at my job, it does not automatically mean I will be arrested, indicted, or convicted. Do you seriously not know the difference?

          • Read my comment v e r y s l o w l y as it is clear YOU are the one with comprehension problems! Anyone deducting what you just did from my comment has some serious attention disorder issues…..

          • Are you actually dense enough to believe that large Corporation and governments write policies and do not care if you break them? No you might not be arrested for breaking a corporation policy – you can be fired and in some cases arrested (depending on the policy). In government you might be arrested – I have seen that happen.

          • Okay, I’ll quote you this time – “MIGHT BE.” Because you MIGHT HAVE broken a law. You also MIGHT NOT have. Because not all POLICIES are LAWS. And in this case, breaking the policy was not breaking the law, as the FBI director stated multiple times. You are saying the same thing I am in the form of an argument. Unbelievable.

        • You are WRONG. The State Dpt Inspector General report, May 25, 2016, specifically states employees can use their personal servers as long as they meet specified security standards, and neither the IG nor Comey have said Clinton’s did not meet those standards.

          Further, the directive does NOT prohibit exclusive use of personal email account or personal server, per the IG report.

          • “We were under sniper fire as we did a corkscrew landing and we had to rush to our vehicles”…Hillary Clinton

            CNN film clip of same event: Hillary getting off plane and children presenting her roses in a long, relaxed rope line of friendly greeters before she sached to her limo.

          • Diane – have you actually read either of those reports or are you just relying on mainstream media and the Hillary camp’s spin. Because nothing you are saying is true.

          • I only said two things in my post, so which is not true?

            I mentioned one report – May 25 – IG. And yes, I’ve read it. And I did so with the knowledge the top 3 IG inspectors have been accused of bias against Clinton. Bias was obvious. I’ve 30 years experience reading AF and DOD IG reports and I could tell the May 25 report was squirrley. So I googled and found the reports of IG bias against Clinton.

            Key factors: The IG report states private email acct and private servers are authorized if they meet the specified security standards. 2 employees told the IG they were told by high-level official that Clinton’s email system had been approved. Neither the IG nor Comey have stated her system did not meet those standards.

            The IG made a lot of innuendos, just like Comey, but only one time did the report actually state Clinton had violated a directive (like a normal IG report would do), and that was failing to print and file all of her emails at the time she left office. However, it also stated that the fact she eventually submitted the hard copies of the emails mitigated the effect of the violation, which was not criminal in nature.

            The IG implied she violated a policy that prohibited “extensive” use of private email, but the policy it quoted used terms indicating “should not” but not strictly prohibiting with the term “shall” not. With 30 years analyzing federal laws, I know the difference between shouldn’t – “we’d prefer you didn’t” – and “shall” which has legal connotations.

            “Grassley is at the center of several investigations about Clinton……He’s been aided in his probe by what he says is a ‘confidential source’ at the OIG — Democrats charge
            this is DiSanto.

            A State Dpt whistleblower “charges that State Inspector
            General Steve Linick is “excessively deferential” to Emilia DiSanto, the OIG deputy director and a former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).”

            http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/271238-clinton-chief-attacks-state-dept-watchdog

            http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/272591-congressional-dems-send-state-dept-letter-about

            http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/01/clinton-email-prober-had-deeper-role-in-inquiry-into-2000-clinton-campaign-218407

      • No, you are twisting the story, I correctly stated the facts and about Hillary outright lying many times about the youtube video being the cause of the violebce, not wanting to admit Radical Islamic Terrorism with the looming elections.

        • Right. All the information about Benghazi that was coming in was 100% straightforward, and everyone knew exactly what was happening, and they all ignored it. We’ve heard that story 100 times, and we’ve heard it refuted 100 times. But again, I guess your own investigation about all the lies and conspiracies is more accurate.

        • Where did you get that Hillary said the video caused the attack on the Benghazi consulate???? Patraeous’ office gave those talking points to the White House, not Clinton.

          • Watch the youtube videos for youself, as did the parents of those killed in Benghazi.

          • None of which have Hillary blaming Benghazi on a video.

            You do realize there were two actual Embassy attacks the same day (Cairo and Yemen) and the attackers have acknowledged the video was motivation for THOSE.

          • oh how cute. Is that all you have

            How about a URL to one of those videos in which she says Benghazi was caused by a video.

          • You have got to be kidding, MILLIONS of people have heard Hillary blaming Benghazi attacks on a youtube video, not sure where you get your “information”? And they show she was discussing the embassy where Stevens & others were unnecessarily slaughtered.

          • No, they have not actually heard it. I have asked many persons who claim it is so to produce one sourced quote, one video, one audio of her blaming the Benghazi attack on the video. So far those folks are “0 for”. I will make you the same challenge.

            btw, Benghazi was not an embassy. The US Embassy in Libya is in Tripoli. Stevens made a short trip from Tripoli to Benghazi of his own volition to, among other things, re-establish contacts there.

            That night two actual embassies WERE attacked (Cairo and Yeman) and the attackers have acknowledged they attacked US facilities because they believed the US was responsible for production of the video. So, make sure when you look for her saying it was Benghazi that she actually IS talking about Benghazi.

            The GOP led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released its Benghazi report and acknowledged a range of conflicting intelligence that night regarding the motivation of the attackers.

          • Well I have certainly heard her say it, and as I mentioned, so did Millions. Trying to Co fuse the issue with useless wording doesn’t erase the facts.

          • That report doesn’t even access all State & Defense Dept. activities, or show where Hillary CONTINUED to use the false assertion that a youtube video was the cause of the violence, AFTER it was established it WAS a terrorist attack.

          • Ok so it doesn’t access those activities. Tell me what it’s missing and most importantly, where you got your information.

            Hillary CONTINUED???? You haven’t even shown me where she said it ONCE. No press conference, no interview, nothing.

            Tell you what, I know your tablet doesn’t cut and paste. Give me the title of the youtube video that you claim exists and at what timestamp (example 2 min 45 sec) she says that the attack on Benghazi was due to the video. I will take it from there. If you find it, I will grovel at your feet with my admission of wrong. If not, you admit you’re wrong.

          • So because you won’t believe my facts, your ploy is some kind of “challenge” which I normally won’t waste my time with, but I got on a desk top to show you proof. Proof which you will, as most Liberals, or Hillary blind followers, refuse to see, and even after I show you “proof”, you will respond with the same useless statements. Why I don’t bother, but here you go:

            Judicial Watch | Benghazi | Emails | YouTube … – Legal Insurrection

            As long as I am on this slow hard drive, here is more about Hillary’s email lies.

            WATCH: 22 Times Hillary Said She Didn’t Have Classified Material On Her Server
            FBI Director James Comey shocked many when he eviscerated Hillary Clinton conduct during his press conference on Tuesday. Although, in the end, the FBI decided not to recommend indictment for the former Secretary of State, the 15 minute press conference during which he outlined the case against Clinton essentially shattered to her oft-repeated talking point that she never sent or received classified material on her private server.

            “One hundred and ten emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information,” Comey said in Tuesday’s press conference.

            WATCH: 22 Times Hillary Said She Didn’t Have Classified Material

          • I don’t want to be discussing two subjects simultaneously.

            So, let’s go with the video “Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video…” If you listen, starting at about 0:53 mark, she talks about a heavy assault and four people dying in Benghazi. The next sentence she talks about the Embassies (remember I told you that the US Embassies in Cairo and Yeman were attacked the same night?) and connected THOSE to the video…which the attackers admitted to. She didn’t add Benghazi or even a generic “another post” to that sentence.

            Obama said nothing about Benghazi and the video in the clip you posted.

          • Hard to ignore the evidence (facts) huh, on the email lies? Be interesting to hear the stuttering twists to that one. LMAO.

          • We can go onto e-mail when we finish with the Benghazi video

            Please respond to the clip you purport has Hillary and Obama blaming Benghazi on the youtube video. As I said, there are several out there that are titled so, but when you actually watch them, they don’t show her saying anything close to “The attack in Benghazi was over an anti-Islamic video.” The one you posted is typical.

            I promise not to stutter when we move on.

          • There are youtube videos that are TITLED something along the lines of “Clinton says Benghazi over a video”, but if you actually watch them, not so much. Scroll down and I posted one such video on this thread.

            I know you have read right wing websites that time after time have TOLD you such videos exist and given the repetition, you believe it. Yet, if it so, why has no one on these threads been able to actually produce a statement of hers actually saying it?

            She has not. Admit it.

          • There are many videos clearly showing the time frames of Hillary claiming youtube videos, then claiming terrorist attack. One is Congressman Jordan showing this at a hearing, another Hillary LYING to the families of the murdered Benghazi victims, & many more. Enough excuses & deceptions, time to admit it, that’s your challenge.

          • And here is Congressman Jordan’s statement. (Emphasis added)

            REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): You just gave a long answer, Madam Secretary, to
            Ms. Sanchez about what you heard that night, what you’re doing. But
            nowhere in there did you mention a video. You didn’t mention a video
            because there was never a video-inspired protest in Benghazi. There was in Cairo but not in Benghazi.

            Exactly what I said.

            Still waiting for you to show me where she said it was over a video.

          • Wow! Do you believe in the principal of telling a lie over and over until someone believes you?

          • Wow, do you believe in others telling you a lie over and over about someone until you believe it?

            I defy you to find ONE sourced quote of Hillary saying a video caused Benghazi…much less “many times”. However, I know that lie is oft repeated.

          • Hundreds of hits does not a a sourced quote make.

            I take it you don’t have one….not even one.

            If you do, post the URL.

          • Washington Times 21 Oct 2015; Reason.com; and, National Review are just three on the first page!

          • You do realize (or maybe you don’t) that search results, even using the same terms, don’t result in identical results. I don’t get what you do. I get, for example, National Review, but nothing that deals with her. I get an article that Trump dis-invites NR from a GOP debate.

            Tell you what, instead of beating around the bush, give me a direct link to one of Hillary saying what you claim.

            I dare you.

          • Try reason.com/blog/2015/10/22/hillary-
            Also Google “Hillary blame attack movie”. More results than you can read in one evening

          • Your blog page comes up 404 not found. I did a search on the site and think I found it…but the one quote attributed to her in it is, “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil in
            a phone call the day after the attack on the U.S. consulate, “We know
            that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a
            planned attack—not a protest.”

            I used your search term and got a video that I have seen and she doesn’t talk about Benghazi at all despite the title.

            Keep trying.

          • If you listened to the correct video, it clearly had Hillary saying a youtube video was the cause of the violence in Benghazi. The long version had Obama discussing this also. It was fully expected that you would twist the facts to justify your beliefs, as well as try to influence others with false infornation. You have your proof, fess up, & I won’t waste any more of my time discussing politics with a completely close-minded person.

          • I listened to the one you posted that included both Clinton and Obama speaking and pointed out to you that she didn’t even come close to saying “The youtube video caused the death of four Americans in Benghazi” or “The youtube video incited the violence in Benghazi.”

          • What???? Try Googling it to see that not only did she say it to the Press and make it a talking point for Rice, the lying bitch knew that it was terrorists yet told members of the families of those slain that it was because of a movie! You back this type of conduct?

          • I am with Diane on this one.

            You must have googled it.

            How about giving me just ONE of those links of Hillary saying Benghazi was caused by the video. You seem to think it’s all over, so one sourced quote, one video, one audio??? Anything?

            I thought not.

      • Having a private server DID in fact violate the Law. Hillary violated the Federal Records Act, putting our National Security at risk. Even Comey stated that it’s very likely her emails were hacked, & almost completely unprotected. NOT what any American should want in a President.

        • You are WRONG, PatrickHenry. Per the State Dpt Inspector General report, May 25, 2016, employees were allowed to use their private email accounts and private equipment, including servers, as long as they met specified security standards. No one, no the IG, nor Comey has said that Clinton’s server did not meet those standards. While the State Dpt email system has been hacked several times, Comey said they found no evidence Clinton’s server had been hacked, although her IT person said an attempt had been made.

          • Bill Clinton used cigars to satisfy Monica…..doesn’t that make you proud to be part of “Team Clinton”? Are you on the list to receive one of his cigar based gynecological exams?

      • Here is just one article by the FBI proving Hillary indeed sent 110 classified emails as well as 8 Top Secret emails marked classified (At The Time They Were Sent).

        FBI — Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation

        and another: …FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton’s email defense | PolitiFact, and another,

        How the FBI director systematically dismantled Hillary Clinton’s email …

        Even Liberal Andrea Mitchell stated how utterly disgusting it is how Hillary lied to everyone for over a year!

      • Right…it was that YouTube video that caused the attack in Benghazi. At least that’s what Hillary said — repeatedly.

          • Are you f..ing serious?
            Washington Post news 2015/10/30;
            National Review 1/21/2016;
            The Daily Caller 2016/04/14;
            Reason.com blog 2015/10/22;
            Politifact 2/9/16
            Also, check out YouTube to see the c..t lying about Benghazi.

          • I am serious as a heart attack. The only things on youtube that purport she said Benghazi was over a video are the titles. The actual verbiage inside…nope. If you disagree, give me a link to the video you claim has her saying it and the timestamp from the video when she says Benghazi was due to a video.

            Goody for you, you can post names and dates. What about a link and a quote.

            I was able to find your Politifact. One relative of the deceased said she mentioned it, three said she did not.

            “Jan Stevens, father of Ambassador Chris Stevens, told PolitiFact that
            the first time he heard anything about a video was when the Washington
            Post Fact Checker called him with a similar question. He confirmed that he heard “nothing
            whatsoever” about a video from Clinton
            but declined to comment further.

            Tyrone Woods’ mother, Cheryl Bennett, told PolitiFact that when she
            spoke with Clinton, she “never heard the word ‘video’ mentioned. That’s
            just a fact.” Bennett, who is estranged from Charles Woods, said the
            motivation behind the attack didn’t come up in her brief interaction
            with Clinton.

            Barbara Doherty, Glen Doherty’s mother, didn’t recall talking with
            Clinton about a video
            and said she remembered Clinton as being sincere
            and crying, according to the Washington Post.

          • I found your Daily Caller article.

            Although it says,” One set of notes comes from a Sept. 15 telephone call Clinton had with
            then-Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr. During the chat, Clinton
            referred to the “stupid, very offensive film” as the root cause of the
            Benghazi violence, which left four Americans dead.” If you read the actual set of notes (link provided in article), it is clear that they are talking about what happened in Cairo that same night. She starts out the conversation saying, “Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about the recent events in Cairo”

            So, yeah, I am still f—ing serious.

          • Dream on! I suppose she also didn’t say that it was a movie that caused the attack to the families of the slain, either? Though your c..t emailed Chelsea and told her it was terrorists THE DAY AFTER!

          • I suppose she also didn’t say that it was a movie that caused the attack to the families of the slain, either?

            Per your own source, only one of the four families claim she mentioned a video. The other three say “no”. So, I suppose that is correct. Your friends at Fox extensively promoted that one family….the other three? Not so much. Chris Stevens’ family are decrying the GOP’s attempts to blame his death on Hillary and Obama, but respect for his family doesn’t stop the right from doing so.

            Though (she) emailed Chelsea and told her it was terrorists THE DAY AFTER!

            And so far, you have yet to produce a quote, a speech, an interview (and per your own source) a phone call that has her saying otherwise. But that won’t stop you from believing she did.

            Your hatred for Hillary Clinton will not allow you to take in any information that runs contrary to what you desperately want to believe.

          • I don’t hate Hildebeast. I hate her long train of lies, cover ups, and use of government to line her pockets.

          • So, let me ask you. Have you any evidence at all that she said the Benghazi attack was over a youtube video? Or are you just going to believe it because it meets your confirmation bias against her?

            If you don’t hate her, why call her names? You certainly don’t call a woman a c**t if you have even neutral feelilngs towards her. Much less the “Hildebeast” moniker.

            You’re lying to yourself.

          • Apparently, a lot of people are “lying” also. Some of the sources are: National review; the daily caller 2016/04/14; reason.com blog 2015/10/22; Breitbart.com; Washington post 2015/10/13; Twitchy.com 2016/04/14; daily Mail June 28, 2016; and, American thinker October 26, 2015.

          • David, So, all it takes for you to believe is a list of websites with clickbait headlines?

            I actually researched several you have already posted and used them to debunk your claim. Why don’t YOU actually read them and then give me a link and citations from the articles?

            Unless you just want to believe and are too lazy to do your own research.

          • Given that you said that it’s only the first page of google results, I seriously doubt that you really read them. For example, which one of them had “I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia”?

            Yeah, thought so.

          • Gee…how about ThePoliticalinsider.com on Hillary’s top 7 lies?
            I seriously doubt you can accept the truth about your Queen.
            Yeah, thought so.

          • Your link goes only to the home page. Pleas post the URL of the article that says what you claim. Hopefully it’s on the list of articles you claim you read.

          • btw, The Political Insider was NOT on your list of articles you claim you read. I know that there are right wing articles that talk about her saying there was sniper fire in Bosnia and I acknowledge that was not true.

            However, you said you actually READ the articles you posted. That appears to be a lie.

            Why am I not surprised.

    • I’m pretty sure Director Comey said Hillary Clinton’s actions, although careless, did not rise to level of a prosecutable offense for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which were precedent, going back 100 years, and intent. And then, there’s the reality of the Right having very little credibility in the eyes of more than half this Country when it comes to calling out liars, after Bush. But also there’s the very obvious fact, if not for Barack Obama being a sitting President, and Hillary Clinton being the presumptive Democratic nominee for POUTS. The all politics, all the time, swift boat, win at all costs, RW. would not be pretending to care anything at all about Benghazi, or Hillary Clinton’s private server, or any of the rest. Even the Right Wingers themselves know full well, if it were a different candidate, it would be a different something else. Now act all outraged, and with a straight face, tell me, I’m full of it. That I don’t know what I’m talking about.

      • He used the word “extremely” in front of careless – more than once. Maybe Hillary actions are not prosecutable, but what she did was wrong and risky and she knew it. I find it hard to believe that people are actually defending a Presidential candidate who has not only been caught in lies, but leading and guiding her staff in behavior that put the security of the Country in danger and feels no remorse about it.

        • Again, I might be sufficiently outraged, if Hillary’s intent, or motive as to gain, were half as clear the Republican’s intent on political gain. Or if anyone could demonstrate with certainty there remains any secure communications at all, where we can say, do this, this, and that, so no one may come along in hindsight, and claim retroactively, that unless these things were also done, the Nation was put at risk. It’s corrosive politics at it’s very worst. As we all have seen, the pace of technology is always ahead of the rules. How many more good public servants are we to crucify in this retroactive way?

          • It does not change the fact you are twisting facts to allow yourself to live with your choice and that, my friend, does not make Hillary a more appropriate Candidate nor does it make her poor judgment any better.

          • Since Trump’s own words and propositions have in my mind disqualified him many times over to become POUTUS. I’ll have no problem living with my no brainer choice between the two.

          • My standards are higher than that, I would take either one of them. There are other choices if you honestly think about it. Saying it is a no brainer does not fly.

          • If you did your own research and didn’t listen to the lies about Clinton, you would know she is highly qualified for the job.

          • Name a company that would hire a 70 year old habitual liar, who just got blasted by the FBI director as an extremely careless person who should have known better, and who has a 45 year long list of scandals in her past as their CEO……simply because she’s a woman?

          • I have been watching Hillary since she first walked on the political scene – yes she is qualified on paper – but in reality she stumbles, bumbles and apologizes for “mistakes” frequently then moves on to make similar one again. If that is what you want in the Oval Office, your choice. I think we can do better.

          • What qualifications are you referring to? $250,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs which she will not release the transcript?

          • You may have all the high standards you like my friend. But one or the other of these candidates will be POTUS. And there’s no question in my mind which of the two would better serve the Country.

          • That is Party spin meant to scare people into voting for their Candidate of choice and total BS. Hell, they do not even count all the ballots, do everything they can to make it hard for people to vote and allow the very richest amongst us to literally buy candidates.

          • Your life, your choice. I do not understand why my choice bother you so much. Does it make you uncomfortable??

          • You are wrong about her judgement. Read the truth. Comey admitted he was wrong. Video in last link.

            Per the State Dpt Inspector General on May 25, 2016, employees were allowed to use their private email accounts and private equipment/servers as long as they met specified security requirements. Comey did not say Clinton’s system did not meet those requirements. While the State Dpt system has been hacked several times, Comey found no evidence that Clinton’s had been hacked, although her IT person said an attempt was made. In his speech, Comey said there were “potential” violations of statutes. He had no proof of actual violations, and he knew it.

            http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-emails-225124

            http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/heres-why-hillary-clinton-isnt-a-liar-and-james-comey-needs-to-shut-the-entire-fck-up/

            http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/fbi-director-admits-that-zero-hillary-clinton-emails-were-marked-classified/

          • Learn the difference between “private email” and “private server”…..but I think you already know the difference and are engaging in Clintonesque like deception…….do they have a course they actually teach you in how to parse words for the purpose of lying? (“It depends on what your definition of ‘is’, is!”)

          • Yes, if you run your “private e-mail” on your private server, you retain control of access to it. If you allow a public ISP to run your private e-mail, you allow EVERYONE AT THE ISP access to that data

          • ….including the American public through the Records Retention rules of the Federal government……Hillary did an end around to keep those records AWAY from the government as she operated her own shadow government which is unforgiveable, a crime, and disqualifies her from ever walking through the doors of the White House again.

          • Nope. You’re wrong. Just see who takes the oath of office next January.

            Now that being said. The GOP has a history of absurd overreach when it comes to the Clintons. (How many Benghazi investigations?)

            Given her admission that she should have used a .gov server for official work, only a RWNJ like you would say that her intent was to hide her records.

          • And all you can do is issue ad hominem attacks and/or bring up a new topic when asked to support your allegations. That YOU have down.

          • Do you think she’ll be asking for an endorsement from Comey anytime soon? I don’t think so!……

          • Of course it would…..Comey has too much integrity to sully his name by endorsing a jackal like Clinton.

          • Ahh….so you agree he has integrity. Does that mean you trust that integrity when he says her actions do not warrant prosecution….or is that different?

          • When did I ever say he gave her his blessing? You made that up, but I am not surprised.

            How about answering MY question. Do you trust his integrity regardless of his recommendation on Hillary?

          • Your response makes no sense. I did not confuse “private email” and “private server.” Clinton used both. Both were authorized as long as specific security standards were followed. Comey did not say either did not comply with required security standards.

            I think your lack of knowledge of the facts has confused you.

          • Diane, my little rose……Would you like to see the material you claim was safe?

            Sincerely,
            Vlad Putin

          • Another stupid comment. Especially considering Comey said they found no evidence Clinton’s system was hacked.

          • FBI Director Comey 7/5/16 testifying before the special committee:
            “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess that it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”
            When further pressed by asked by Trey Gowdy with a “yes” or “no” answer on whether it was likely she was hacked, Comey replied “yes”.
            Even for Clinton sycophants like yourself, it requires the “suspension of disbelief” to maintain that her unsecured accounts were not hacked. It takes the same kind of faith that there is a Santa Claus, an Easter Bunny and a Tooth Fairy watching over us.
            Give it up Diane, the Clinton lemming. We all know she is a liar and unqualified for any high office. Your continued braying in her defense just makes you look like a character starved clown in defending such a loser.

        • Clinton hasn’t been caught in any lies – Comey admitted he was wrong in the hearing after his speech. If you really want the truth, read these links. The hearing video is in the last one.

          Per the State Dpt Inspector General report May 25, 2016, State employees were allowed to use their personal email accounts and personal servers as long as they met the specified security standards. Comey said they could not find evidence Clinton’s server had been hacked. But during her tenure the State Dpt system that everyone thinks she should have been using was hacked at least once.

          http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/08/government.hacking/index.html?iref=24hours

          http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-arrests-16-in-anonymous-hacking-investigation/

          • Read “Crisis of Character” before you and your millennial friends get sucked any further into the Clinton web of abuse.

      • Director Comey did prove many false statements by Hillary, or (lies). You must realize this, how she Lied directly to you & everyone else. These lies proven by Comey, now show that those lies were to Congress as well. Comey called Hillary’s actions Extremely Careless, which is the same as Gross Negligence, then stated that anyone doing the same in the FBI would be disiplined, very likely fired.

        • No he did not. Below is the link to Comey’s statement. Would you please tell me where to find his statement that anyone doing the same in the FBI would be disciplined/fired.

          https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

          The worst thing Comey said was: “Although there is evidence of POTENTIAL violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…” [my emphasis]

          “Potential”. After this thorough an investigation and he cannot say for a fact that violations had been committed? He would have said it, had there been any evidence to support violation of statutes.

          • Are you old enough to have witnessed the shame Bill Clinton put our nation through that led to his impeachment? I recommend you read the book “Crisis of Character” which was written by a uniformed Secret Service agent stationed at the door of the Oval Office. You might ask for permission form your parents first if you aren’t of age because it’s the unvarnished “X” rated story of a sexual predator and his enabling wife.

          • Won’t work. I am 73 and remember very well.

            Since many of our presidents have had lovers, I think your characterization of Clinton causing shame to the nation is a bit exaggerated. The embarrassment was caused by the long drawn out investigation, and graphic statements by Ken Starr and his cronies who were trying to hang Clinton, and although Newt Gengrich, of all the adulterous pieces of trash, ran a phony impeachment for a nonimpeachable offense, they did not push him out of office. I don’t excuse Clinton’s conduct but the rest of the world did not get worked up over oral sex. Clinton is still one of the most popular political figures in the world. Google it.

            I recommend you read the book “Hunting of a President” that shoots down all the RELEVANT allegations against Clinton.

            Bottom line is Bill Clinton is not running for president. That would be Hillary Clinton. Unless you are trying to condemn the wife for the sins of the husband????

          • She is saying he is going to be a part of her administration. He, therefore, is fair game. But, I guess it all depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is.

          • FBI — Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation …

            FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton’s email defense | PolitiFact

            How the FBI director systematically dismantled Hillary Clinton’s email …

          • Politifact was just one of three articles I listed, one was from The FBI itself. Hope your “facts” do not come from Mother Jones, MSNBC, or the dailykos.

        • You hear what you want to hear. What the oppositional political Party is leading you to conclude. Ignoring answers to core questions such as, “Did Hillary Clinton lie to the FBI?” Comey’s answer: “No.” Or, questions such as, “Could have SOS Clinton’s sending or receiving of confidential materials been inadvertent?” Comey’s answer: “Yes.” So what did you want? I imagine what the Republican opposition wanted. What they didn’t get. Evidence of intentional malfeasance. Hints/clues anywhere in the e-mails that might lead to some reasonable speculation, provable or otherwise that Hillary Clinton was acting in bad faith, selling her office for personal gain, taking bribes, offering covert special favors, lying to the President, lying to Congress, found to be revealing diplomatic strategies, or other state information that could be advantageous to hostile, or unfriendly regimes. Instead, neither their committee, nor the FBIs exhaustive investigation found none of that. And they are plainly furious about it. In the way a 3 year old is furious about things that don’t work out. I’ll file that under a very unsympathetic, too bad.

          • “You hear what you want to hear”….that tells us everything we need to know about you. You should have stopped right there, lemming!

          • O.J. Clinton. Everyone knows she is guilty, including her supporters. She and O.J. Simpson deserve each other!

          • Really? Who’s, “everyone?” The consummate cry from every sore loser since time began. The deck was stacked, the fix was in, God knows I was robbed, deal again!!!

          • There is a difference…..O.J. has better looking legs than Hillary, although there is some debate whether Hillary has legs since she has hidden them under gaudy looking pant suits for years!

          • I noticed in arguments between my children and the neighborhood kids was when they had no excuse for their behavior, they starting calling the other side names. Childish, in deed.

          • How the FBI director systematically dismantled Hillary Clinton’s email …

            FBI — Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation …

            FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton’s email defense | PolitiFact

          • Then you tell me the reason they attacked the consulate, and then list the reasons why you think it makes any difference at all. And don’t forget to puff it as full of hot air as is possible, and add another 10 lbs. What I hear, is the American Republican Party disintegrating from within. I hear former leaders like Jeb Bush are vowing not to vote. Opining that, “Conservatism as we know it, is dead.” At least he hopes temporarily. What I see is a Party that no longer has a center. No longer can know what to stand for, and therefore has nominated a demagogue who stands for nothing, has nothing with which to defend himself or the Party’s Conservative values, but worthless smears, or bombastic bumper sticker pejoratives. “Lying,” Ted, “Low energy,” Jeb, “Fat,” Chris Christy, “Crooked,” Hillary. And yet it’s considered enough as qualifying this obvious fool, this ignorant idiot, to serve our Nation as POTUS. That’s what I hear. I hear you’re still on Benghazi.

          • Charlie, I pointed out to Patrick that this video, like so many others, are titled something to the effect of “Hillary/Obama blame the video for Benghazi”, yet when you actually watch it and listen to what is said…not so much.

            In this one, Hillary has two separate statments starting at about 0:53. She has one sentence about Benghazi, after that talks about the bona fide Embassy attacks that occurred that same night and COULD legitimately be blamed on the youtube video and the attackers belief that the US was responsible for its production.

          • After the first very thorough, and very credible investigation, I attribute all subsequent investigations on the incident at Benghazi, as well as the overblown e-mail kerfuffle, to the Right’s having no record of accomplishment, nor anything of substance they can hold up and make the case for voting them into power. It’s not, we have a vision, and carefully thought out solutions to the Country’s challenges. But rather that Hillary Clinton, or the other Party’s candidates are going to end the World! I don’t believe they believe it’s a winning strategy, as much as it turns out, is all they have to offer.

      • The right-wingers didn’t care when Colin Powell used his personal email account and person equipment to conduct all his State Dpt business, and then DESTROYED all the work related email.

        They didn’t care when Cheney and his gang used RNC email server to conduct White House business then destroyed like 2 million emails.

        Since you like the truth, you may appreciate these articles:

        http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-emails-225124

        http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/heres-why-hillary-clinton-isnt-a-liar-and-james-comey-needs-to-shut-the-entire-fck-up/

        http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/fbi-director-admits-that-zero-hillary-clinton-emails-were-marked-classified/

        • Would you favor personal guards for all the female interns at the White House if the Clintons ever got the keys again to the House they so thoroughly soiled in debauchery last time?

        • I read the articles, and they only confirm what is the plain truth here. That this is pure political theater that provides the thinnest of cover for those who were against Hillary Clinton before, to do what they would have done without the e-mail kerfuffle. Namely to see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and to continue to believe what they want to believe about Hillary Clinton, irrespective of the facts. Another of those facts being, they could not care less whether the e-mails were badly handled, if Hillary used a government server, a private server, or carrier pigeon. Only that the smear, be it true, or outrageously false, stick. And if it doesn’t, they’d like another one whipped up ASAP.
          After all, we’re dealing with people who were willing to believe Barack Obama is an illegal alien born in Kenya, a closet Muslim, providing a false Harvard degree, and bogus birth certificate thru the state of Hawaii. I would call them nuts, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

      • Charleo…the requisite of intent (mens re) is not necessary when you have ‘gross negligence’. Oh, I’m sorry. She wasn’t gross negligent, only “extremely careless”. I get it!

    • In the House hearing after Comey’s speech, Comey admitted that none of the emails were marked classified when they were sent/received. The last link below has the hearing video so you can see for yourself.
      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-emails-225124

      http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/heres-why-hillary-clinton-isnt-a-liar-and-james-comey-needs-to-shut-the-entire-fck-up/

      http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/fbi-director-admits-that-zero-hillary-clinton-emails-were-marked-classified/

      No, her server was NOT “in violation of the law.” Per the State Dpt Inspector General report of May 25, 2016, State Dpt employees were allowed by directive to use their personal email accounts and personal equipment, including servers, as long as the equipment/systems met specified security standards. NO ONE has said Clinton’s equipment did not meet those standards. Comey did say they could not find evidence her system had been hacked, although her IT guy believed hacking was attempted. However, the State Dpt system was hacked several times.

      I can’t believe you are still claiming she lied about Benghazi. Don’t you think Congress would still be investigating if they thought she had lied? Do you know Benghazi has been investigated about a dozen times, including a well know investigation by a bipartisan committee that found no wrongdoing, no lies, no ability to save the Americans, no intentional misleading about the cause of the attack.

      • Knowing that Hillary doesn’t protect women her husband abuses, would you allow your teenage daughter to work for Hillary Clinton

      • I, as Millions have, listened to the FBI hearings. Comey said some of those classified emails were indeed marked classified “at the time”. Comey further stated that any FBI Agent doing the same as Hillary, would suffer displinary actions, likely fired.

        Comey admitted that Hillary’s server had extremely little security against hacking, & could very likely had been hacked, making her Extremely Careless, which should cause you to question her Trustworthiness to be President.

        Come on with the Benghazi issue already, Millions heard the time-line on Hillary blaming the Terrorist attack on a youtube video. It really amazes me the number of partisan voters that ignore all of Hillary’s atrocities because of their ideology. I would never vote for anyone with the problems & recklessness as she has, man or woman.

        • Yeah and later that night when new information came in she stated that her understanding of the event had changed. So what?

          • Oh, so Hillary thought of a new excuse? So what, too late, she had given her testimony to the FBI.

          • Despite the name it is obvious that you are no patriot. Petty partisan concerns have limited your intellectual responses. So sad!
            Subject: Re: Comment on Clinton Says She Relied On State Staff For Classification Decisions

          • Nope, once again, read point 4 in the report I sent to you. Even a GOP led committee found that the Intelligence community released conflicting information as to the motivation of the attackers.

          • So have most politicians especially Republicans!
            Subject: Re: Comment on Clinton Says She Relied On State Staff For Classification Decisions

          • Most politicians lie, but in Hillary’s case, she is running for President, & her lies resulted in threats to our National Security as well as deaths in Benghazi.

          • WOW! You really are deep in the Kool aid. Seven investigations by the Congress could not prove your Benghazi accusation. Nor did an FBI investigation prove any actual harm to our security. It was potential harm with no provable intent. That makes strike two for you! Subject: Re: Comment on Clinton Says She Relied On State Staff For Classification Decisions

    • What I believe everyone seems to be missing is lying is not a punishable crime. It is a crime of trust. It can be rebuilt, but it’s much harder and many concessions have to be made … which Ms Hillary isn’t giving an inch of ground on.

      • Lying in itself may not be a punishable crime, but lying to cover up dishonest activity is, and lying to a Congressional committee is a felony.

    • Billy-bob did that back in 1992 with NAFTA. He told workers he was against it. Got elected on that, then changed his mind and approved it.

  7. This article is so full of innuendo and false statements. I get so tired of so-called journalist who can’t do their jobs. But I am really surprised that TNM would not question this article in light of Comey’s statements at the House hearing. Example: “Asked if she agreed that she was “extremely careless”, Clinton told CNN she was not, adding that Comey had “clarified” his remarks. It was unclear what clarification Clinton meant.”

    Well dumbass reporter, it’s right there in the video of Comey’s testimony in the hearing. Rep Cartwright boxed him in and Comey had to admit that, well the only 3 emails he claimed were marked classified when sent, were not actually marked so Clinton/her staff could tell them were classified.

    “After maintaining for more than a year that she did not send or receive
    classified information through her unauthorized private email system,
    she acknowledged in a string of interviews on Friday she may have at
    least unwittingly done so, three days after the FBI concluded this
    happened at least 110 times.”

    Seriously, knucklehead, are you the only reporter who didn’t watch the hearing? None of the 110 emails were marked when they were sent/received by Clinton. All marked after State Dpt received her emails. Testimony:

    MATT CARTWRIGHT: If Secretary Clinton were an expert about what’s classified and not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell
    her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in
    that? |

    COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

    “Her server was so poorly secured the FBI could not eliminate the
    possibility it had not been hacked by the country’s enemies, Comey said.”

    Comey did NOT say her server (any) was poorly secured. You just made that up!! That is why you didn’t use quotations marks although you wrote he said it.

    Fed/State Dpt directives allow employees to use private email accounts and private equipment, including servers, if the systems/equipment meet security standards specified in applicable directives. Comey’s curious description of Clinton’s server does not address whether the FBI checked her equipment to determine if it met the required security standards. He just made a judgement call without any basis or expertise. State Dpt personnel do not transmit classified information over their office system, which has been hacked several times. They follow different protocol for transmission of classified information by use of secured systems or carriers.

    Do your homework or go home! The last link below has the video of Comey admitting none of Hillary’s emails were marked classified.

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-emails-225124

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/heres-why-hillary-clinton-isnt-a-liar-and-james-comey-needs-to-shut-the-entire-fck-up/

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/07/fbi-director-admits-that-zero-hillary-clinton-emails-were-marked-classified/

    • Let’s see … wasn’t she the head honcho? So if I’m not mistaken to be a leader, you have to accept responsibility for every thing that happens, even if someone else was at fault … they work for you, not themselves. And that makes you responsible for their actions or inaction’s. or mistakes or errors and so forth.

      So someone wanting to be President, I think accepting total responsibility is a key factor … don’t you ???

      • Can you find for me where George W. Bush accepted responsibility for finding no WMDs in Iraq, after this was his stated reason justifying the immediate invasion of the country? Anywhere, where he admitted for the record, it was on him, and him alone, and his being asleep at the switch, and missing, or misreading the security warnings, that allowed 19 hijackers to kill over 3,000 people in NY, and attack the Pentagon on 9/11? For allowing Bin Laden to escape into Pakistan? The torture, and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib? The Soviet invasion of Georgia? The outing of a covert CIA Agent? For outsourcing his Presidency to Dick Cheney? The 20 separate attacks on our embassies abroad during his tenure as POTUS? Indeed where was the accountability of President George W. Bush, you now so hypocritically demand from an Obama cabinet member serving at the pleasure of the President? The difference is nothing but pure, unadulterated politics, nothing more, nothing less.

        • Correct me if I’m wrong but for the first 6 years of Bu$h’s 2 Administrations, Republicans held both House and Senate … do you really think they cared if he was playing fast and loose with facts? Do you think they would have raked a sitting republican President over the coals?

          As for the Democrats, once they regained control, they pulled a Jerry Ford … look forward and forget the past.

          • You make my point, in that there is a double standard set by the politics. Hilary’s relatively benign irregularities with her e-mails, pale
            in comparison to the Bush Adm. and his SOS. lying the Nation into a disastrous war, and in the process committing acts so egregious, many consider them rising to the level of crimes against humanity.

            So a new President is elected as the economy nears collapse, and Bush leaves upwards of 200,000 troops fighting wars on two fronts. And Obama decides rather than lead the country down a road of division, and political rancor, investigating the mess of the Bush years. He would instead use his opportunity as President to first work on getting the economy on it’s feet, and ending the wars. And then, hopefully build bipartisan support for other things he had on his agenda. Things he talked about during his campaign, like healthcare.

            I don’t see that decision as a Jerry Ford. As the circumstances were very different in the Country, as well as the Parties of the two Presidents involved were different. Nixon was very likely facing criminal charges that could have sent him to prison. Bush, probably not. Watergate was a political disaster for the GOP. Jerry, always Party man, mitigated a lot of that damage with his pardon to Nixon.

      • Obviously you have never worked in a government job. In departments like State when a political appointee like Clinton comes in, staffers are assigned to tell them the limitations and special circumstances of the job. My question for you is where was the Inspector General for State? His job is to check that things are being done correctly and legally.

        • Yes, I’ve worked both active military and defense contracts with security clearances … many years and in many countries. And no matter which side of the coin I worked, the “Commander/Project Manager” was always held responsible if a security issue arose with subordinates. However, in this case Ms Hillery is attempting to throw those staffers under the bus as if they were the ones making the final decisions and she was innocent.

          • That sounds nice, but irrelevant since the military is run by chain of command and in a business those who make decisions are not political appointees. They all have experience at what is required, yet also have failures. See the military procurement system. The Federal government non military runs differently. Political appointees do not have the experience to actually run the departments. That is done by the bureaucrats, who are civil servants.
            Like I said, where were state’s professionals who tell the appointees what is allowed? Where was the Inspector General for State? Who set up her server and ran it. Unlike you I actually did that job and i know neither Clinton could do that. And once that was done why didn’t someone at State tell Clinton that it was against policy and a bad idea? Subject: Re: Comment on Clinton Says She Relied On State Staff For Classification Decisions

      • Not relevant since we are discussing Hilary not Bill but since you brought that up. I would be hesitant to do so but would even be more so to leave her in a room with Trump. As far as I know Bill has never been accused of rape like your boy Donnie.

          • Like I said, as far as I know Bill’s sexual misadventures were consensual but I’m open to being informed. Are you going to deny the rape accusations against Trump including that of an underage girl and and his ex-wife? I know you’ll say Ivana withdrew that accusation. I’m sure many people would too for a multi-million dollar payoff like she received from your boy.

            Apparently you acknowledge only what supports your bias so I’ll repeat myself. IT IS HILARY, NOT BILL WHO IS RUNNING FOR PREZ.

          • The list of women is so long, I will not overload you and advise you to Google just one of the names, “Juanita Broaddrick”…..and if you want to look further simply ask Google again to help by typing Bill’s name and the word women and the board will light up like a 4th of July fireworks display!

          • Do you realize her name is Mrs. Bill Clinton? Do you know what happened the last time this couple occupied the White House and ran it like a raunchy frat house? If she moves in, he goes with her, so yes, it’s VERY relevant that pervert Bill’s name is brought into this! Read the book “Crisis of Character”, written by a Secret Service agent who was at ground zero in the White House and witnessed the integrity and character starved immorality of these two on a daily basis!

          • I won’t try to defend the ethics, morality or character of two people I believe are pretty sleazy. However if you think Trump is any different you are woefully deluded.

            Regarding immorality in the White House, what kind of integrity and character does it take to use lies and distortion of info to cause an unnecessary war costing hundreds of thousands of lives including around 5000 American soldiers? Were you as outraged about that example of depravity as you are Bill’s sexual escapades?

          • No! This is supposed to persuade you to vote into the office of the President of the United States, undoubtedly the least qualified person to ever be nominated by a major party in the history of the country. How’s that working so far?

          • And probably the most repugnant as well but I’m through voting the lesser of two evils. Voting for Clinton is like stepping in $hit. Voting for Trump would be like eating it.

          • “All you back room schemers, small trip dreamers
            Better find something new to say
            Cause you’re the same old story
            It’s the same old crime
            And you got some heavy dues to pay” – Steve Miller

          • Probably right on that line. Not a real Stones fan. But here’s the deal, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But, you know change in a democracy of 300 million people, with a gov structured on separation of powers takes time. It takes work, consensus building, and ideas who’s time has finally come. Ask African Americans. It took 150 after Lincoln freed them by executive order, to get a real civil rights bill.
            That said, we can’t discount the importance of people who are passionate, determined, and very impatient. Who push the rest to get up off our duffs, and recognize the unacceptability of the status quo.
            But, if you want progress, and you’re pragmatic, and one must be to achieve progress. Sometimes you’ve got to realize the value in doing distasteful things, like voting for the candidate that has a chance to win that most closely represents the change you’d like to see. In order to prevent that candidate that most likely would take the country in a direction away from those goals most important to you. Accept that progress in a democracy must also be a process.

          • I mostly agree but I don’t see Clinton as someone who represents the changes I’d like to see. True Trump is an incompetent at anything but self-promotion but I really don’t know which is worse, truly a rock and a hard place. Maybe an inept president is our best bet. I always thought Bush’s incompetence was his best quality. Just think where he could have taken us if he wasn’t an idiot.

          • Incompetence in a President is never in the best interests of the Country, or anyone. I believe you know this intuitively. For who knows the decisions that may come to this one person in a moment where the remaining time of mankind itself may hang in the delicate balance? Do me a favor my friend, and think about all this a bit more?

          • I have given it a lot of thought, too much in fact. I’m being facetious regarding an inept president but just think how much farther on the road to hell Bush/Cheney could have taken us if he was a master strategist instead of a buffoon.

            I really don’t know who is worse since a really good case can be made against either with little good that can be said about them. Viscerally I detest trump as one of the more repugnant humans I’ve ever seen but objectively i see little hope for us with either as president.

          • Understandable. But elections are all about making choices. Beware of narratives lionizing the cynical pessimist. That leads some to ask, why bother? To conclude all politicians are bad, the system is broken, government is corrupt and incompetent. We should recognize that even there, certain factions, and certain interests are well served if we all decide to by and large, either out of frustration, or protest, stay home. Make no mistake, they will show up, and happily make our decisions for us. I know you know this. I’m just reminding….

          • I don’t intend to stay home but I really think the choice of president is mostly out of our hands. Trump and Clinton are the two most unpopular candidates to ever run in the same general election.

          • What I realize is the fact Bill Clinton retired from office as one of the most revered, popular, and respected Presidents of all time. To the obvious chagrin of philandering hypocrites like Newt Gingrich, and Bob Livingston. As most Americans outside the RW echo chamber saw it, it was an example of an older man being foolish with a younger woman. Not the impeachable crime of the century Republicans with evidently nothing better to do, were making it out to be. As proof, the Republican Party lost big in the mid-terms after their impeachment debacle. Thus ending the political careers of both Livingston, and Gingrich for their rock throwing, glass house moralizing lifestyles. And the choice to replace Gingrich? Dennis Hastert. Which as we now know, says about all there is to say about those great Republican moral values.

          • Are you going to recommend that white House interns be accompanied by chaperons at all times during the work day? That’s what it will take because Billy boy has not let up….he’s increased his perversion since he departed the White House (see Jeff Epstein and the 28 trips to pedophile island with Bell as guest). If not, you are willing to repeat the sordid, raunchy exploits of the one who couldn’t keep his zipper zipped and used his power position to groom gullible young females for his personal pleasure?

          • That would be up to them or their parents. Want to bet as to how they will see that suggestion? Claptrap, gossip, Rw lunacy, sour grapes. I’m leaning toward, not a factor, when given the opportunity to serve with the first woman President of the United States.

          • Sign on Bill’s office door if he gets back to the White House:

            “Doctor Bill Clinton, Gynecologist”
            “Exams Provided Using Cigar Probes”
            “No Appointment Necessary!”
            “Don’t Worry….Hillary Don’t Care”

          • It was only after he left office, his skulduggery was unearthed and the fruits of which rained down upon the country and world in September 2008 … he cut the path for Bu$h to follow.

          • If you’re referring to President Clinton’s going along with Republican’s radical deregulation of the financial sector, I absolutely agree. Or, is it trade? Again a fair statement. The proof of the overall harm of these corp. written trade deals, touted by President Clinton, and their proponents in Congress at the time as economic stimulators, and American job creators, is in the numbers.. we read them and weep.

    • Nice try but we all heard Director Comey say several times, Hillary released confidential & top secret emails “At The Time”, we’re marked so. Enough with the deception.

    • If this transparent political witch hunt could in any way be sinking anything, it is the Republican Committee’s sinking itself, by blaming the Director of the FBI for not going along with their playbook. No broadside, no torpedoing of Clinton’s campaign. No dreams of Trump being elected, in spite of his ignorant, hateful, and demagoguing disposition. Not to mention his total lack of qualification to be President. All because he’s running with an R behind his name? They should be ashamed of themselves-every one of them!

      • Hey Charleo… The article is about Hillary blaming her staff for certain emails on her private server. Care to comment on that? Please tell us how she is accepting responsibility for, not only her decisions, but the actions of her subordinates.

        • It’s evident to anyone who is listening, and understands how e-mail works. She cannot be expected to accept responsibility for findings that weren’t there. To go along, and admit to things to please a gaggle of moral less ideologues intent on destroying her reputation for their own Party’s political gain? And this missed your acute perception, how? A grain of salt is how I perceive anything coming out these faux investigations, clearly intent on finding a scandal where none exists.

          • Well, you tried. But, didn’t your Hildebeast place the blame now her staff? Address her honor and courage…can’t wait!

  8. Hillary Clinton has acknowledged she did wrong and has a lot of work to do to earn the public’s trust. With that said, why does she think that she should attempt to gain that trust while in the role of president of the United States? And why should we believe her since she has been an habitual liar for decades? It’s simple logic…..if your child has seriously broken your trust, you don’t reward him or her by raising their allowance and giving them an unlimited curfew!

    • I have a suggestion for you then, don’t vote for her if she hasn’t established your trust. It’s pretty simple. If she had done nothing but dote on her grandchild for the last 8 years, the inquiries would be focused on her term as Senator, her vote for the Iraq War, her husband’s charity, rehash Whitewater, or her cases years ago at the Rose law firm. That’s just the way it goes when the opposition party has little on record of what they can say they are for, outside of being in favor of themselves winning the Presidential election.

  9. I currently get paid close to $6k-$8k /every month for freelancing at home. For everybody looking to complete basic online work for few hrs a day from your couch at home and make valuable income in the same time… Try this gig http://self97.com

  10. I make in the range of 6-8 thousand bucks a month with an online job i found on internet. Anyone prepared to work basic computer-based jobs for several h daily from comfort of your home and earn decent paycheck for doing it… This is perfect for you… http://self99.com

  11. Note the date and time stamp. Contacting YouTube “to advise ramifications” of posting a video was one of the first things the Administration did after they found out what had happened to their Ambassador and his team.

    Fearless leadership, that is.

    These documents also reveal a little bit more about how flawed the Administration’s “spontaneous protest” narrative was. In a September 12 “Attack Timeline,” officials close to the investigation make no mention of a protest or internet video catalyst:

    At 1549 hrs, DSCC was notified that U.S. Mission Benghazi was under attack. At 1600 hrs, DSCC [Diplomatic Security Command Center] was notified by Regional Security Officer (RSO) Benghazi that armed individuals had entered the compound, and at 1614 hrs RSO Benghazi reported that an armed group had set fire to buildings inside the compound. The US Ambassador was visiting post from Tripoli, and as of 1614 hrs it was suspected that one of the buildings that had been set on fire was the building where the Ambassador was sheltering. [Redacted] Quick Reaction Force (QRF) responded from their off-compound Annex, but was turned back due to heavy hostile fire.

    As of 1700 hrs, [REDACTED] QRF and host nation militia (17 February Brigade) have redeployed to the compound. One Assistant RSO (ARSO) suffered injuries from smoke inhalation. This agent was in the Principal Officer’s Residence with U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Information Program Officer (IPO) Sean P. Smith. All three moved to the safe haven when the attack began, but had to relocate to the roof as the building caught on fire. The agent reached the rooftop but lost contact with the other two. The agent reentered the residence and found the IPO killed in action (KIA), and was unable to locate the Ambassador. The agent had given his cell phone to the Ambassador.

    The new timeline also confirms prior Judicial Watch disclosures that the State Department received intelligence that Ambassador Stevens may have been alive after the attack:

    The QRF and friendly militia forces were unable to locate the Ambassador, and pull back to the off-compound Annex. All classified material on the compound is secured by RSO [REDACTED] personnel. Embassy Tripoli receives a phone call from the injured ARSO’s cell phone (which had been left with the Ambassador) from a male caller saying he is at the hospital with an unresponsive male who matches a physical description of the Ambassador. [REDACTED MATERIAL]. Tripoli charters an airplane and sends it to Benghazi with six personnel onboard as a response team.

    The Administration is still doing its best to keep under wraps high-level discussions on the response to the attacks—but there could be light at the end of the tunnel:

Leave a reply