HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » KoKo » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


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........


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2