HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » KoKo » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 24 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 84,711

Journal Archives

Stephanopoulis "Soft Balling Hillary" after he Gave $75,000 to Clinton Foundation!

Soft Balling Hillary over State Dept IG Report...and Today on ABC he Never Discloses that Contribution!

Check this out...about Stephanopoulis $75,000 Donation to Clinton Foundation...

MSNBC's Morning Joe Panel Discusses Stephanopoulos - Clinton Foundation Donation Scandal

The End Game--Mr. Smith Goes to NYC/Wall St./Washington

The End Game--"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington/NYC/Wall St."

Keiser Report:

American Doesn't Prosecute the Crooks..Middle America is Starved...Outsourcing...Decline of "Mom & Pop" Stores to bring in Walmart....MonoCulture...and Deception by Multinational Corporations..Donald Trump (Neo Fascist vs. NeoLiberals vs. Trump Economics) Robots Taking Over Economy and Lies and Lies! As the Middle Class in America Dies. Robots, Entrepreneurs and the Hype!

Follow up with Robert McChesney.

Published on May 31, 2016

Check Keiser Report website for more: http://www.maxkeiser.com/

"In 1997--three years after the Clinton health care plan was defeated..."

By Jacob Sullum
May 31, 2016 | 8:22pm

The last time she lived in the White House, Hillary Clinton was in charge of a health care task force that met in secret under a veil of lies. That episode highlighted the haughtiness, deceit and disdain for transparency that continue to cause trouble for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as illustrated by the recent inspector general’s report on her email practices as secretary of state.

When President Bill Clinton picked his wife to chair the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993, critics sued the first lady, arguing that her participation made the task force subject to the public-meeting and open-record requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The administration successfully argued that Mrs. Clinton, who was not a government employee, nevertheless should be counted as one in this context, making the transparency requirements inapplicable.

There remained the issue of the working groups advising the task force, which supposedly consisted entirely of government employees. That turned out to be a lie.

In 1997 — three years after the Clinton health care plan was defeated, in no small part because of the perception that it had been written behind closed doors without public input and debate — US District Judge Royce Lamberth rebuked the administration for its “outrageous” and “reprehensible” deception concerning participants in the working groups, many of whom were private parties with a stake in the outcome.

“The executive branch of the Government, working in tandem, was dishonest with this court,’’ he wrote. “It is clear that the decisions here were made at the highest levels of Government.”

Lamberth had previously criticized Clinton et al.’s “preposterous,” “incomplete” and “inadequate” responses to the plaintiffs’ requests for relevant information, which had made the discovery process “difficult, drawn-out, and contentious.” He ruled the defendants had “improperly thwarted plaintiffs’ legitimate discovery requests” by raising “meritless” objections.

Two decades later, Clinton’s old habits of entitlement and obfuscation are coming to the fore again. “Voters just don’t trust her,” the New York Times notes, citing a recent survey in which 64 percent of respondents said Clinton is not “honest and trustworthy.” Her response to the email controversy shows why.

When Clinton was appointed secretary of state, the report from the State Department’s inspector general says, departmental policy clearly stated that officials should avoid using private email services for work.

Clinton decided that rule, which was aimed at promoting security and the preservation of records, did not apply to her, and throughout her tenure, she relied exclusively on a personal email system, communicating via a server in the basement of her house in Chappaqua, NY.



Another NY Newspaper Editorial Board Raises Questions about Hillary/IG Report

(Yes, the NYPost is Conservative but many in the NY Metropolitan Area and New Jersey read it. Plus the NYDaily News Editorial Board and the NYT also have come out against Hillary over the IG Report's findings.)


Team Hillary’s Latest Email Lie --By Post Editorial Board

May 31, 2016 | 8:24pm

If one lie doesn’t serve, try another: That’s clearly the idea behind the Hillary Clinton campaign’s response to last week’s blistering review of her email scandal.

The report from the State Department inspector general notes multiple violations of law in her use of a home server and private email.

But her campaign chairman, John Podesta, calls the IG’s work wonderful news for Hillary — because it “gets us one step closer to resolving” the issue. That is, to having Emailgate fade into history, with Clinton paying no price for her simple, uh, “mistake.”

After all, anyone can accidentally set up a secret email server at home and use it to hide government correspondence, even after being warned it’s illegal, right?

Yet Podesta might wind up “correct” in thinking Hillary will get a pass. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time she and Bill got away with hiding digital correspondence.

As Paul Sperry noted in Sunday’s Post, the Clinton White House “lost” a huge trove of subpoenaed emails in 1999 — as it faced probes of Whitewater, Travelgate and other scandals involving Hillary.

Back then, the White House blamed a “glitch” in a computer server. And, at the center of that affair (dubbed “Project X” internally): a young aide named Cheryl Mills.

That’s right: the same Cheryl Mills who served as Hillary’s aide when she used her home server — and who oversaw Team Hillary’s deletion of 32,000 of the emails stored there.

Clinton insisted those emails were just personal — but several (recovered from other sources) have proven directly relevant to her State business, including emails about her refusal to adhere to State rules on email security.

Like Clinton, Mills refused to cooperate with the IG’s investigation.

Podesta might prove right, if the Obama Justice Department opts to whitewash the lawbreaking to protect Clinton’s White House bid. Or he may prove wrong — if the voters decide they’ve had enough of history repeating itself.


Lawyers Clashed at Clinton Aide's (Cheryl Mills) Depostion on FOIA Civil Suit

Lawyers clashed at Clinton aide's deposition

By Josh Gerstein--Politico

05/31/16 05:11 PM EDT

Lawyers for former Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, the State Department, and a conservative group tangled repeatedly on Friday as Mills testified at a contentious deposition in a lawsuit relating to Clinton's use of a private e-mail account and server during her four years as secretary of state, a transcript of the session shows.

The testimony illustrated the complexity of getting to the bottom of the email mess as Mills' attorney, Beth Wilkinson, objected to a variety of questions that she said intruded on Clinton's attorney-client privilege by asking about Mills work for Clinton as a private lawyer after serving for nearly four years as Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department.

Wilkinson and a State Department lawyer also objected that many of the questions asked by an attorney for Judicial Watch went beyond the areas permitted by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, who authorized fact-finding highly unusual in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

When Judicial Watch lawyer Ramona Cotca asked Mills whether she'd discussed Clinton's email issues with lawyer Heather Samuelson, Wilkinson jumped in.

"I'm going to object right now. Beyond the scope," Wilkinson said.

"I'm asking who represented Secretary Clinton," Cotca replied.

That's totally irrelevant to the areas that we're here to talk about," Wilkinson shot back. "I'm going to instruct her not to answer on these issues."

An effort by Cotca to explore the role of computer specialist Bryan Pagliano in arranging Clinton's server met with a similar result.

"What did Mr. Pagliano tell you in those conversations you had about the setup of the server?" Cotca asked.

"Objection. Beyond the scope. And I'm going to instruct her not to answer," Wilkinson said.

"Objection. Beyond the scope and potentially calls for privilege," Justice Department attorney Marcia Berman chimed in.

While much of the deposition was occupied by such legal jousting, Mills did testify that she had no recollection of any discussion at the outset of Clinton's service as secretary about Clinton possibly using a State Department account.

"Secretary Clinton continued a practice that she was using of [sic] her personal email," Mills said according to the transcript. "I don't know that I could articulate that there was a specific discussion as opposed to her continuation of the practice she had been using when she was a Senator. ... I don't have a specific memory of the conversations that may or may not have occurred. I know that I understood she was going to be using her personal email and that's what she did."

Mills also said she thought Clinton's email was subject to search for FOIA requests, but could not recall any discussion with others in Clinton's office about that specific issue.

"I don't have a recollection of having a discussion with somebody in the Secretary's office and her email being subject to FOIA. It was my impression it was," the former aide said.

Mills said she expected that Clinton's support staff knew about the private email address, but never specifically talked to them about how to handle FOIA requests covering the secretary's messages.

Continued at........


Hillary Wasn't Close to IT Expert (Brian Pagliano) Who Managed Her Server

By Julian Hattem - 05/31/16 05:30 PM EDT--The Hill

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to keep an arms-length relationship with the IT expert believed to have set up and maintained her private server, according to her former chief of staff.

During a marathon seven-hour deposition at law offices in Washington, D.C., Cheryl Mills said she couldn’t recall a single instance in which Bryan Pagliano interacted with Clinton or her top aides.
“In my presence, I don't recall occasions where he interacted with the secretary,” Mills said. “In my presence, I don't recall him engaging with folks in the secretary's office.”

The comments shed new light on the relationship between the Democratic presidential front-runner and Pagliano, who has been granted immunity in exchange for his cooperation with the ongoing FBI probe connected to Clinton’s private server.

Mills’s deposition Friday came as part of an open-records lawsuit related to Clinton’s server by the conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch. A lengthy transcript of the interview, which lasted from 9:25 a.m. to 4:12 p.m., was released Tuesday afternoon.

Mills’s testimony adds to the scrutiny of Clinton’s use of a private email server, which was thrust into the spotlight last week by a scathing State Department Office of Inspector General report. The watchdog analysis said Clinton violated State Department policies by using a personal email address housed on a private server while secretary of State, and that the arrangement would have been blocked had she sought permission.

The server was previously used by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, Mills noted. However, she could not recall how she learned about the arrangement or whether there was any effort to move Hillary Clinton off of the system.

Echoing a defense used by Clinton, Mills said she assumed that the former secretary of State was complying with federal record-keeping rules by emailing people on their official State Department email accounts, where the messages would have been preserved.

“I assumed — I now know inaccurately — that records that were on a State system were ones that were kept forever,” she claimed. “And I thought since the secretary's practice was to email people on their State records, that there was resident in the department a set of records with respect to her work at the department.

Continued at:


Bernie Sanders is Still Standing--How & Why He Managed to Defy the Odds

Bill Blum--Tuesday, May 31, 2016--Truth Dig

So, how and why has he managed to defy the odds?

One big reason, undoubtedly, is that Clinton is a weak candidate, damaged by her insider status, history of scandal (the email controversy is only the latest in a long line) and the public’s grave doubts about her honesty.

Her unfavorability ratings—along with those of Donald Trump, her front-running GOP counterpart—sit at historic highs. But Clinton’s deficits are only part of the overall picture.

Another reason Sanders remains in the fight is that the Red-baiting tactics directed against him largely have failed. Those tactics—which have been deployed in both overt, traditional forms and in coded, latter-day garb—have been continuous and unrelenting. They have come from Democrats and Republicans as well as from the mainstream media.

The vintage variety began in earnest with Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill’s breathless tirade against him during a June 25 interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show. “I think the media is giving Bernie a pass right now,” the longtime Clinton backer told co-host Mika Brzezinski. “I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he’s a socialist.” Declaring that Clinton was destined to win the nomination—at the time, she was ahead of Sanders in national polls by as much as 60 points--McCaskill struck a theme that would soon be echoed by others: that Sanders was “too liberal” to be elected. McCaskill urged the media to get on board, and they soon fell in line.

As if on cue, CNN’s Anderson Cooper grilled Sanders about his socialist beliefs during the Oct. 13 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas.


“How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?” Cooper asked, adding: “The Republican attack ad in the general election—it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you were not a capitalist.”

Sanders responded with a class analysis rarely heard on primetime television but that has, nonetheless, become the now-familiar cornerstone of his campaign.

“We’re going to win,” he said, “because we’re going to explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own … almost as much as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.”


Claim: Bernie Sanders Dodged the Draft: Fact Check....False!

Bernie Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War draft, but was too old to be drafted when his number came up.


Claim: Bernie Sanders dodged the draft.


Predictably, the bulk of reporting on Sanders' so-called "draft dodging" was published after the senator announced his plans to run for president. However, an archived Army Times article provided a detail missing from nearly all the coverage:

On paper, Sanders doesn't have a lot in common with veterans.

He never served in the military because he was too old to be drafted when his draft number came up. He protested the Vietnam War as a University of Chicago student in the 1960s and stressed his opposition to the war during his failed Senate bid in 1971.

So while it was true that Sanders sought conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War draft, that cannot in any way be conflated with the specific meaning of the term "draft-dodging." Further, Sanders was eligible for student deferments until at least 1964, when he graduated from the University of Chicago. By the time his number came up, Sanders was too old to be drafted.


How a Clinton Insider Used His Ties to Build a Consulting Giant--Politico Investigative Report

Hillary gave a special State Department post to an ex-fundraiser — even as he was laying the groundwork for a global firm with ties to her husband called Teneo.

By Rachael Bade

04/13/16 05:56 AM EDT

When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state she personally sought out a man named Declan Kelly to be her economic envoy to Northern Ireland, giving her 41-year-old former fundraiser a special status outside normal diplomatic channels.

“Yeah! Is he now official? Can I call him? Can I ask him to start?” she wrote in an Aug. 28, 2009 email to her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills.

By some measures, Kelly was a bargain for the government. The Ireland-born businessman refused a salary, hired five staffers on his own dime and pushed for U.S. companies to invest in the once-troubled region, a diplomatic priority for Clinton.

But while serving as Clinton’s special envoy, reaching out to global corporations for those investments, he was also working for two of them as a private consultant — earning about $2.4 million from Dow Chemical, a longtime client of his and one of the firms that participated in Clinton’s Ireland initiative.

It was also during this time period that Kelly and Doug Band, a close aide to former President Bill Clinton, were preparing to launch a global consulting business that would soon become a well-known and controversial success story. Their new venture, Teneo Holdings, would go on to employ numerous Hillary Clinton associates, including her closest confidante, Huma Abedin, and, for a time, Bill Clinton as “honorary chairman,” giving clients rare access to the couple and their network of world leaders.

The fact that Kelly and Band were laying the groundwork for their enterprise while Kelly was working for the State Department, reported here for the first time, represents a fresh illustration of the blurring of the lines between Hillary Clinton’s political network and her State Department that critics have long noted. And it shows how one enterprising fundraiser was able to insinuate himself into Clinton's inner circle and then built a 500-person, multinational consulting firm whose value, at least at first, was greatly enhanced by its founders’ closeness to the Clintons.

Continued at......


Jake Tapper Evan Perez "FACT CHECK" Hillary Clinton Past Email Statements as ' Clear Violation ’

Jake Tapper Evan Perez Fact Check Hillary Clinton Past Email Statements as ' Clear Violation ’
Published on May 25, 2016

5/25/16 -

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 24 Next »