How Clinton’s negligence and State Department incompetence may have burned dozens of CIA assets

Obama just endorsed her today.

50% of Americans think should she should continue to run even if indicted, including 71% of dems.

The fix is probably in and a good percentage of Americans no longer care about the rule of law, especially the dems, so there won’t be any consequences. What matters are the freebies. Our slide continues.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281746-poll-half-of-all-voters-say-clinton-should-keephttp://

@Bill, #5:

You don’t care about national security… we get it.

My idea of national security doesn’t include putting a no-nothing, highly impulsive egotist who commonly reacts before he considers the consequences in charge of the most powerful military force on the planet.

Trump’s complete lack of experience and highly impulsive nature mean that he’s not at all suited to the job of leading the nation through a chapter of history that’s pretty much a geopolitical minefield. The guy has actually suggested that Korea and Japan might do well to become additional nuclear wild-cards. He’s clueless. Having him in the White House would be a serious danger. Nobody really knows what he might do.

The world isn’t a reality television show. Being President of the United States isn’t like being corporate head of a hotel chain, a property management company, or a string of gambling casinos. If a risk turns into a disaster, you don’t just declare bankruptcy, dust yourself off, and move on to something else. Running the country isn’t like running a business.

@Greg:

My idea of national security doesn’t include putting a no-nothing, highly impulsive egotist who commonly reacts before he considers the consequences in charge of the most powerful military force on the planet.

My idea of national security doesn’t include putting a no-nothing, highly impulsive egotist who commonly reacts before she considers the consequences in charge of the most powerful military force on the planet.

Hillary used the office of Secretary of State to bloat the coffers of her personal ATM, the Clinton Foundation. She let Blumenthal sell her on the idea of destroying the government of Libya so they could make a few buck. She also peddled US influence and handed over at least 20% of the uranium of the US to Russia. As First Lady, she used FBI files against people she had vendettas against, fired the White House Travel Office so she could reward some cronies with jobs. When her nasty panties are in a wad, she treats her Secret Service detail like garbage.

Oh… and she mishandled classified information and quite possibly made it available to our enemies… all just so she could delete whatever she wanted at will so FOIA could not access it. Now, THAT’S a real sweetheart for you.

Meanwhile, her husband sexually abuses whatever women crosses his path… and Hillary makes excuses for it so her sacred and beloved political career suffers no harm.

Trump’s complete lack of experience and highly impulsive nature mean that he’s not at all suited to the job of leading the nation through a chapter of history that’s pretty much a geopolitical minefield.

Hmmm… lack of experience didn’t seem to concern you when you supported what turned out to be the WORST President in US history. No doubt we need the MOST able person to be the next President, thanks to the horrible mess Obama will be leaving, but as her record clearly shows, Hillary is DAMN SURE not that person. In fact, she, with her record of lies, incompetence and corruption, should be the LAST person considered.

@Greg: You can SUSPECT Trump might prove dangerous… that is your right. However, Hillary has PROVEN herself to be dangerously corrupt and incompetent.

@Greg:

So what reality-based accomplishments does the corrupt Hillary have that makes her a less disgusting choice than being stuck with Trump?

Hillary has already stated she will raise taxes, (during a recession) likes the idea of Australian-style gun confiscation, and continue Obama’s dreadfully destructive policies, to include (based on her attempt to enact Hillarycare while First Lady) continued support of the disaster of Obamacare (13 failed exchanges and counting, and a predicted 56% obamacare premium average increase in Texas in the coming enrollment year). You still can’t seem to name any accomplishments from her senatorial nor her SecState terms.

So other than the childishly ridiculous idea that boils down to voting for someone based on what genitalia a candidate posseses, what justifies preferring a lying, dishonest, unaccomplished hag under a cloud of a federal criminal investigation over a boorish but successful business executive?

@Greg:

Not, in my opinion, on the reality-side of the border with fantasy land. I see only the claims of incompetence and corruption, which are too numerous and varied to be credible.

You don’t think ignoring terror threats against the consulate in Benghazi and requests for additional security was gross negligence and incompetence? You don’t think getting paid $350,000 for a “speech” (which she will not release the transcripts of) and then granting favorable concessions, by the State Department, to these same entities as corrupt? How is having a secret, private, unsecured email server on which tens of thousands of emails with classified information was kept, all for the purpose of avoiding FOIA requests that might prove inconvenient not both incompetent AND corrupt?

Obviously, if you pass judgement on a Republican, you have very high standards… standards so high that you have to fabricate shortcomings in order to determine that person does not meet those standards. Meanwhile, when considering a Democrat, there is but one criteria… be a far left liberal. All other considerations are rescindant and can be excused away. Lying, corruption, incompetence, failure and threat to security are easily overlooked if the person is liberal and presents hope to further bring the United States to its knees before its enemies.

What it comes down to is the fact that the right is going to do everything in it’s power to spread manure about Hillary Clinton, because it’s their only hope of putting Trump in the White House.

ONE thing, above all others, disqualifies Hillary; the email scandal. Benghazi shows incompetence, dishonesty, inhumanity but the emails reveals a fatal flaw that at this time in history is most critical; she always puts herself first, before all other considerations. She hung national security out on the clothes line solely so she could eliminate anything she did not want subject to FOIA requests. She did this, that we know of, 30,000 times. How will she treat even more critical national security information? How can you be assured, based on her actual, real, factual, documented history, that she will not do the same with military secrets?

You can’t. But, then again, you don’t care about that… you just want that liberal. Despite all the damage and failure wrought by liberals, you want the liberal.

Yeah, I will do whatever it takes to keep Hillary out of the White House. This nation does not need her selling the Supreme Court to the highest bidder. We don’t need her selling more strategic assets to Russia. We don’t need her using the powers of the federal government to attack political opponents (a precedent established by Obama) and to cover for the sexual assaults her husband will commit with HIS new-found privileges. We don’t need ANOTHER $12 trillion in debt piled up with NOTHING to show for it. And, you know the sweetest aspect of all this? All I have to do is tell the truth. You, on the other hand, have to LIE in order to support Hillary.

You don’t think ignoring terror threats against the consulate in Benghazi and requests for additional security was gross negligence and incompetence? You don’t think getting paid $350,000 for a “speech” (which she will not release the transcripts of) and then granting favorable concessions, by the State Department, to these same entities as corrupt? How is having a secret, private, unsecured email server on which tens of thousands of emails with classified information was kept, all for the purpose of avoiding FOIA requests that might prove inconvenient not both incompetent AND corrupt?

How is it that with all of this obvious incompetence, negligence, and corruption, your ol’ boys in Congress haven’t been able to produce any credible evidence or credible testimony that proves it? Why don’t they every believe the written findings of their own damn investigations, the total number of which I now have completely lost track of?

Why isn’t it considered “corrupt” that republicans have abused their investigative powers to conduct a prolonged series of politically-motivated investigations that keep coming up empty at the taxpayers’ expense? All while doing absolutely nothing useful to address the problems they’re constantly blathering about?

What I see is a party getting ready to self-destruct because of its own behavior. It’s turning to Donald Trump in a last-ditch effort to avoid irrelevance and disintegration, without giving much thought to what Donald Trump actually is. They imagine they’ll get him elected, and he’ll then turn into some sort of figurehead that will suddenly do their bidding.

I’ll choose Hillary Clinton over the possible outcome of that particular gamble any day of the week.

Due to their diligence, we know the truth about Hillary; she ignored her responsibilities, she put her personal wealth before the lives in Benghazi, she wanted the ability to get rid of embarrassing information before national security and she lies, lies, lies, lies.

Maybe the investigative panels should have included that in their official findings and conclusions, rather than ticking off the claims and rumors that they decided there was no evidence to support.

You did bother to read the findings, I presume. They didn’t get much coverage in the right-leaning media. I guess they were disinclined to say, “You know all of that really incriminating stuff we’ve been claiming about Benghazi for months? It turns out it wasn’t true. Sorry about that.” Instead, they just shifted to some other bullshit scandal for a while, and then resumed making the same claims later on, as if the prior investigation had never happened.

@Greg:

No evidence of corruption? Even ABC news recently reported Hillary placing an unqualified individual on a state department national security advisory panel of experts whose only apparent qualification was giving money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Sec State. The report includes the additional information that the ABC reporter was stonewalled at the direction of Hillary’s consigliere, Cheryl Mills, long enough for this unqualified hack to resign from the position.

It is nothing but partisan hackery for leftists to claim the investigation is a waste of time and resources that has found “nothing”, when we have learned:

– Hillary claimed there were no confidential markings on any emails sent to or from her unsecured server. She deleted 30,000 emails claiming they were “personal business”. She also claimed the Benghazi terrorist attack was a “spontaneous protest over a video”, despite emails SHE sent to her daughter and to the Egyptian ambassador the night of the attack stating it was a terrorist attack. Pardon me for doubting that anything Hillary says has even the slightest familiarity with the concept of Truth.

Frankly, all this leftist sneering about the alleged lack of evidence produced by the ongoing investigation of Clinton corruption is the same garbage denial act we heard in defense of Bill when Starr was investigating his corruption. Who can forget his strident, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” statement during a prime time national television address? Which we all know from the fact his seminal DNA was obtained from Lewinsky’s blue dress was yet another Clinton lie. How anyone can EVER believe ANYTHING coming out of the mouth of a Clinton (or any of their cronies) is unfathomable. Hillary is completely untrustworthy, utterly unaccomplished, and totally unworthy for ANY governmental position based on her abysmal personal character and lack of public integrity.

And you still are unable to come up with a single accomplishment that demonstrates Hillary’s fitness for the office of President.

@Pete: The two mainstays of the liberal argument: Trump’s racism and Hillary’s accomplishments… and no examples of either one can be found.

@Greg:

Trump is, in my opinion, boorish. But saying he “knows nothing” is based on exactly what? Hillary claims there were no documents on her server that had any confidential markings on them, yet we know not only that there were such documents, but that she wrote emails telling her subordinates to send her documents with all national srcurity markings removed. That means she KNOWINGLY violated national security for her convenience. Egotistical? What politician ISN’T egotistical?

Is Trump the candidate that grass roots conservatives wanted to see win the GOP nomination? Hardly. But one of the things that happens in states that have open primaries is people who aren’t really republicans can vote in the republican primary. Nobody knows how many democrats decided to vote for Trump to hinder the campaigns of other candidates. It is hard to accept that Trump managed to get 1.5 million or so more primary votes than any other GOP candidate in history without acknowledging the effect of anti-GOP crossover votes for Trump.

Trump wants to simplify the marxist-based progressive tax system doen to 4 brackets from the current 7, and lower the top tax rate to 25% from the current top rate of 39.6%. Hillary wants to raise tax rates. Trump wants to secure the border and get a handle on the illegal alien flood. Hillary wants to continue the idiotic policy of porous borders. Trump wants to limit the damage inherent in the insanity of the failure of Obamacare, while Hillary wants to continue rhe march towards national socialist government controlled medical care. Trump is a concealed carry licensee and a member of the NRA, while Hillary wants an Australian-style gun confiscation and more erosion of rhe 2nd Amendment. While Trump is boorish, Hillary is a deceitful liar. Trump has a history of making payroll for thousands of employees, while Hillary has only used her government positions – as well as her husband’s – to unethically enrich herself. She reverse carpet-bagged a senate seat in an eternally blue state where she had no actual ties for no purpose other than to gain false credibility as a presidential candidate. She has no accomplishments from her senatorial tenure, and the world is far worse off due to her pathetically disasterous term as Sec State. You STILL have no ability to state a single worthy accomplishment by Hillary to warrant support of her becoming President, other than “she would be better than Trump”, without a single scrap of evidence, other than antipathy towards Trump’s demeanor.

How I wish the GOP had produced a candidate more worthy than Trump to support. My guy was the last chance holdout (Kasich was a joke not worthy of consideration). So I am left with a choice between an undiplomatic, but successful,loudmouth versus a thoroighly despicable, dishonest, corrupt harridan under the cloud of criminal indictment for violating national security, with a history of selling political favors to the highest bidder.

I’ll hold my nose and vote for the loudmouthed boor over the greedy, treasonous hag who belongs in front of a firing squad.

What is shocking is that ABC, George Stephanopolous’ employer, actually published this story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

So when leftists whine and moan pretending to be concerned about taxpayer money being “wasted” on investigations of Clinton – or any other democrat corruption – they need to be forced to acknowledge that the investigations wouldn’t cost so much if the Clintons weren’t so damned dishonest that they have to cover up, stall and lie, rather than admit the truth.

So, as an example of Hillary’s alleged competence while SecState:

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

So, what expertise on tactical nuclear weapons and arms control does a electronic financial securities trader – with no military experience – have that warrants participation on a top secret advisory panel? Well, since this IS the corrupt Hillary Clinton we are discussing, here is the explanation:

Fernando’s history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific — and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.

So the next time some leftist hack tries to portray Hillary as anything other than a lying political prostitute willing to sell not only herself but access to US national security secrets to anyone with enough cash to satisfy her greed, bring up Mr. Fernando, and ask about Hillary’s $350,000 “speaking fees” at Wall Street dinners.

Hillary is not fit to hold any political office. She belongs in prison for the rest of her life.

@Randy: It’s pretty hard to believe that there were over 2,100 classified documents out there without any type of classification markings on there because the originating source decided not to mark them, isn’t it?

@Bill: You must be referring to the ideological sheep of the left.