Obamaville May 25 - Hillary and her Emails - Where do we go from here?

.

Are government officials lying about the Clinton email controversy?

For the first time since the Hillary email affair broke last year a government official appointed by President Barack Obama, the Inspector General of the State Department, has confirmed Clinton violated the rules of the government by refusing to turn over emails when she left office, and by maintaining her own private server independent of the secured government system.

How convenient that the President is in Japan when the report was released today.

Immediately after the release, the Hillary defenders took to the airways to attempt to mitigate the impact on her already swollen unfavorable and non-trustworthy poll numbers.  Sadly, the mouthpieces continue to say anything to divert attention from the truth.  I wonder if proven wrong by an upcoming FBI report if they will resign from office for lying to the public.

The attempted cover up of what took place on that server could be the lead story of the 2016 election and has the potential of overshadowing whatever Donald Trump has and will accomplish during the long and painful campaign.

The sharp intensity of the Clinton surrogates attack on the Inspector General's report was breathtaking and is a good clue as to whether her server outcome is going to be bad or good.  The determined effort by the surrogates to say Hillary was doing nothing more than previous Secretaries of State like those of Bush and Bill Clinton, was a clever tactic but has little to do with what Hillary did.

Each presidential administration issues their own rules and regulations guiding appointees like Clinton on how to handle emails.  The Obama administration, to their credit, had far more detailed rules than previous administrations.  According to Obama's Inspector General for the State Department, Hillary broke the rules.

Also according to the IG report, she knowingly violated the rules by never seeking approval for a private email server from the State Department, or the White House, a serious charge since she has repeatedly denied violating any rules.  The fact Hillary and her staff refused to meet with the Inspector General during the investigation, while all previous Secretaries of State did meet with the IG, is highly suspicious.

Far more ominous was another related news story that broke today about the Romanian hacker recently extradited to the USA at the request of the FBI, who did a plea bargain with the FBI and pleaded guilty of hacking the private emails of several top ranking government officials.

Among the claims of this convicted hacker was his admitted hacking into Secretary Clinton's private email server.  Could that be why they extradited him?  Was it ironic or just a coincidence both stories broke today?

As stunning as today's revelations may be, they could pale in comparison to the FBI investigation still underway.  As far as we can tell, the FBI still must interview the Romanian hacker and Secretary Clinton before they issue findings.  Unlike the Inspector General report, the FBI investigation can lead to criminal charges.

Here are potential major actions that could result from the ongoing FBI investigation.

• Indictments of Clinton staff members for jeopardizing national security.

• Confirmation that foreign entities hacked Clinton's server.

• Confirmation that classified national security memos were hacked.

• Proof of a deliberate effort by Clinton staff to keep the server from government oversight.

• Proof that classified memos were deliberately transferred from the classified server to the private Clinton server.

• Proof that the same server was used for Clinton Foundation activity with foreign entities or State Department waivers.

 

Now before the liberals of the nation start popping pain relievers just thinking of the consequences of any one or all of these potential outcomes, let it be said NONE of them suggest, imply, or otherwise say Hillary Clinton is guilty of anything as President Obama so aptly put it as reported in the liberal friendly The New York Times.

--------------------------------------

Obama Says Hillary Clinton Wouldn’t Intentionally Endanger U.S. With Emails

By MICHAEL D. SHEARAPRIL 10, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.

---------------------------------------

Ever the clever lawyer, he specifically said "Intentionally" which suggests there might have been "unintentional" endangering of the country.  Of course, he failed to mention the national security of the nation is compromised no matter whether it was intentional or unintentional.

Now, the extreme outcome of this investigation may be:

• She lied to authorities by failing to disclose or get approval for her private system.

• She compromised national security

• There were blatant conflicts of interest when the Clinton Foundation sought waivers from the State Department to accept money (millions of dollars) from foreign nations on "restricted" lists and she granted the waivers.

If any of these come true suffice it to say her campaign may well be over.  There are those of us who long held the belief the only reason Bernie Sanders remained in the campaign when the outcome was never in doubt was because he thought one of these potential results from the FBI investigation would give him the nomination.

However, because the FBI has just entered a plea agreement with the Romanian hacker who claimed to have hacked her emails, much investigation work remains.  In addition, the FBI has not called Hillary in to testify yet but has indicated it will happen.

There is a good reason to delay the FBI results until after the Democratic National Convention in sixty days. As it now stands, Hillary will be declared the nominee at the convention, as there is no hope Bernie can overcome her Super Delegate stockpile.

If the FBI releases their report before that moment, it could derail her presidential bid and Bernie would most likely be the nominee by finishing second.

However, if she wins the nomination at the convention and then a devastating FBI report comes out forcing her to withdraw as the nominee, what happens?

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have rules in their bylaws governing how to fill the vacancy. The Party Chair calls a meeting of the National Committee, and the Committee members at the meeting vote to fill the vacancy on the ticket. A candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win the party's nod.

There are 447 members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) including 75 at-large members nominated by the Chairman (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz) and approved by the full DNC.  The DNC is composed of the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party Committee and over 200 members elected by Democrats in all 50 states and the territories.

The DNC is the epitome of the political party establishment and only two people rank higher than Debbie Wasserman Schultz, President Barack Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden.

Now think of the consequences if Hillary resigns from the ticket after winning the nomination, and remember there is nothing normal about this 2016 election process, so anything is possible.

Since it is after the convention, it matters not that Bernie Sanders finished second.  The matter of selecting a replacement candidate for president falls into the hands of the Democratic establishment.

Barack Obama will have the most to say about the replacement, and his loyal second in command Joe Biden is the most likely choice to replace Clinton.  Why Biden, because the whole world knows a socialist like Bernie can never win election in America, nor will he ever get the chance.

Once Hillary gets the nomination, his hope is gone because the establishment will not pick someone who spent the last year bashing them.  Besides, many Democrats regretted that Joe Biden passed up his chance to get in the race and believe if Hillary stumbled, then Biden would be the nominee.

Call it fate, call it coincidental, call it Divine Providence, Joe Biden would finally get his chance to be president and he did not even have to run in the primary.  Biden may be the only Democrat capable of battling Trump head-to-head.

Besides, who better to defend the Obama legacy than Obama's right hand man in building it?

Sorry Bernie, you are out.

As Lewis Carroll so aptly put it in Alice in Wonderland, "Nothing is as it seems."

.

Dark Clouds in the Horizon for polarizing Democrats as Obama and Clinton becoming toxic

.

Of course, the national liberal media will never tell you the truth, but the American public will.  No matter how hard the media try to convince you Obama is popular and Clinton is a sure bet history will demonstrate how wrong the pundits are at predicting elections.

Yesterday in Kentucky, where Democrats take for granted they will win the governor's races thanks to the old Clinton and Obama factor, polls the weekend before the election were a full fifteen percentage points wrong!  A couple of days before the election the polls showed the Democrat candidate winning by five points.  He lost by 10 points, a fifteen percent swing.

Worse than that, the GOP candidate was not even backed by the Republican party until the very last minute and he opposed gay marriage and backed the County Clerk in Kentucky who refused to grant licenses to gay couples and went to jail for her belief.

Analysts came to the late realization that things had changed.  When they asked Democrats why they did not bring Bill and Hillary Clinton in to campaign for their candidate they reminded the media that Bill and Hillary campaigned the previous election.

In 2014, they went to Kentucky and campaigned for Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic candidate thought to be able to beat Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.  In spite of polls showing a tight race Grimes was walloped by McConnell by fifteen percent.

As for Obama, there are more and more disenfranchised Democrats who realize they were taken  for granted by Obama and he never delivered on the vast majority of his 2008 campaign promises.  While Democrats think constituent groups like Blacks, Hispanics, and Catholics are foolish enough to vote for Democrats no matter how little the president helps their causes, the straight party voting seems to be fading into the history books.

Duh, people actually have principles and among their principles is do not lie to the people or take ethnic and religious blocks for granted.  There are Democrats who actually vote for the person based on qualifications, not what Obama or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, National Democratic Party Chairman, tell them to do.

As a result, the Republicans crushed the Democrats in 2014, and now the GOP won both governor races in 2015.  Why is it the old politicians in Washington, their political advisors, and the liberal media remain lost in a fog.

No matter how many lies Democratic public interest groups, (PIG groups), put on the Internet and are shared by mindless people blindly passing on the lies, Americans, even Democrats, can see through the lies and are voting against the professional politicians.

Ironically, the Republican pundits who would normally join in the lying game with their Democrat counterparts with attack ads have been silent.  This is yet another indication that the people have matured far faster than the politicians, pundits, and press.

Republican voters have made it clear they want to throw the career politicians out as well and that process is now in full swing with the succession of forty-five year old Paul Ryan as the new Speaker of the House.  Add to that the fact over fifty percent of GOP voters favor outsiders for president and a lot of professional politicians better start thinking of new careers.

However, as Kentucky just proved, this is not just a GOP attitude, Democrats and Independents helped throw out the Democrat control of the governorship.

The Democrats will never nominate Bernie Sanders, while Hillary Clinton, the face of the Democrats, is not trusted by the majority of people.  Every time Obama's screaming demon mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz goes on television to praise all Obama has done for us, more Democrat voters seem to slip out of her control.

Mark my word, with the disintegrating legacy of Obama the chances of a Democrat keeping the presidency are no greater than in 2008 when no Republican could win after the Bush presidency.  Since Obama was the beneficiary back then, I guess political party success is like a revolving door, you can lose the office as fast as you won it.

. 

Obamaville July 7, 2014 - Who can run faster - away from the president?

.

The Obama Foreign Policy Process

So here in the political capital (yes the spelling is right) of America there is a new game in town and it is who can run the fastest away from the policies of President Barack Obama. You might have noticed that the Obama favorability ratings have been in free fall since his re-election in 2012.

Now that his negatives have passed his positives and the people of America seem to be wondering just what it is he actually stands for there seems to be a stampede of liberals, people and institutions, running away from any responsibility for the Obama presidency.

Once upon a time such turncoats were known as hypocrites and scorned but since the list of hypocrites includes people and institutions who were once darlings of the left I guess we have to consider them enlightened.

With no apparent concept of the mechanics of the policy development and implementation process and having been abandoned by all those Obama mouthpieces who used to be around and told him what to think and say, you might say who ran interference with the media, the Obama administration is clearly adrift when it comes to coherent messaging and purpose.

There are times when presidential decisions seem to be made with an Ouija Board rather than any decision-making process.  And at times it seems as if the Dark Side is controlling the Board.  Such is the mystery of the presidential policy process.

As for the runners away:

Hillary Clinton - Her calculated ambitions to lock everyone out of the Democratic nomination for president keep running into speed bumps when it comes to her relationship with Obama.  She did lose to him then agree to be a loyal partner as his Secretary of State.  It has come back to haunt her stumbling presidential coronation as the Obama foreign policy, which she directed, has collapsed in the eyes of the public.  It will take a diversion as good as husband Bill Clinton pulled off to avoid impeachment when he was president to get out of responsibility for the Obama foreign affairs fiasco.

Bill Clinton - Lo and behold the other Clinton has also gone silent on what used to be his lukewarm support for the guy who beat his wife in the 2008 election.  Let's face it, after the rough and tumble primary it was probably the endorsement by Bill Clinton and his work to get Obama elected that propelled Barack into the presidency.  The same effort was critical to getting Obama re-elected.  Now Bill has to make all that go away to help his wife.

Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi - The Democrat leaders of the Senate and House never seem to mention Barack Obama as if that would make him fade away in the minds of the public.  But there is a massive record of all the times they served as water boy and girl to the president, defended his actions, and supported his failures during the past six years so in their cases silence is golden.

The chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, DNC, U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida - She was handpicked by Obama to defend him against the dastardly Republicans, and also seems to have adopted the "out of mind out of sight" approach to public relations.  Once upon a time her face was all over the media defending her president but those days seem long gone and after the exasperation it must have caused her it came not a moment too soon.

The New York Times and The Washington Post - These Citadels of liberal Main Street media have changed their tune from Obama apologists to nitpickers about the failure of the president to live up to his liberal agenda promises.  In particular they seem surprised and upset about the massive failure in the Obama foreign relations.

Stay tuned because we still have 2 1/2 more years to report on.

.