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."

.

Memo to Congress - Fix Foreign Policy - Putin & Ukraine

.

Being an American it is sometimes difficult to see the world through anything other than rose colored glasses.  Think about it.

Our principle source of information on foreign policy is a media that long ago stopped reporting the news and decided to make the news.  Their principle source for information are bureaucrats and politicians working for agencies like the State Department, the intelligence agencies, and groups like NATO and the United Nations.

Then there are the international banks, international corporations, international financing mechanisms like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank not to mention the vast array of foundations, think tanks, pharmaceutical companies supplying drugs to third world countries, defense contractors (including the most powerful of all the arms dealers) among the many special interests with a special interest in foreign affairs and all the money, power and perks found around such money pits.

The world has been controlled by these foreign affairs special interests since the beginning of the 20th century and the dawning of world wars.  The sad part of the truth is that they have all joined forces to find ways to use government and private resources to manipulate events around the world for the purpose of altering the foreign policy balance.

The sadder part of the truth is that in the course of their manipulation they are totally devoid of humanitarian principles and international law but serve a higher purpose, feeding greed and accumulating wealth.  Of course the media consistently paints a picture of serving the higher good by these groups but what they really meant was serving a higher god and their god is greed manifested in power and wealth.

We have pretty much been lied to about sinister purposes behind the foreign affairs of the past century and most certainly been lied to about the worst abusers of misdirected foreign policy.  Maybe we will wake up, or maybe we will keep having "isolated" conflicts that leave hundreds of thousands of people dead, millions and millions of people condemned to refugee camps, and more and more of the world's natural resources in the hands of people loyal to no government but their god Greed.

Look around you.  Listen to what the media is telling you.  The cover story of the day is "Putin is a bad guy - he wants to recreate Russia."  You hear it from the mouths of the Obama administration, it is parroted by the news media, echoed by our allies around the world (although with far less enthusiasm than in America), and applauded by Wall Street and the international banking community.

They also tell you Putin has no respect for international laws, international treaties nor international banking since he is destabilizing the world financial markets.

If I were the America public I would search a lot deeper into the motives behind those condemning Putin.  So far the Russian forces have done nothing more than to protect Russian assets in Crimea, namely a huge naval base on the Black Sea.

As a result he has earned the wrath of Obama and been bombarded by cream puffs called sanctions, economic sanctions at that, and oh yeah, Russia was tossed from the G8.  Now we seem to have a long history of using tough economic sanctions to punish errant nations and force compliance with our will.

Libya has been under US sanctions since 2011.  Sudan has been sanctioned since 2002.  Burma since 1997.  Syria since 1986..  Iran since 1979.  Cuba since 1962.  North Korea since 1950.  We also had economic sanctions against the former Soviet Union from 1948 until the collapse in 1991.

But only once in the past 66 years have US economic sanctions really worked and that was when we sanctioned our own closest allies, Great Britain, France and Israel during the Suez Canal crisis of 1956.  The three were going to invade Egypt in response to the Egyptian nationalization of the Suez Canal and the Americans stopped them dead in their tracks when President Eisenhower started dumping British pounds on the world monetary market and cut off all American oil and gas to the three allies.

It might have been the only time in world history that an invasion was stopped by economic sanctions and probably the last time in history that sanctions actually served people rather than the financial interests impacted by the area.  No lives were lost in a costly invasion that would probably have resulted in major damage to the canal and massive disruption of the world economy since it was the gateway for oil to the western world.

So the bottom line is, economic sanctions don't work.

Just ask the Cubans who have lived with them for over 50 years.  In truth, economic sanctions only hurt the people in those countries who are already victims before we got involved.

Then there is the issue of violating international law, etc., etc.  So far no one has proven Russia or Putin violated international law.  On the other hand, the history books are filled with American violations of about every international law and treaty that exists dating all the way back to our treaties with the Native Americans.

People need to understand we have made it a practice to ignore the law, local, state, federal or international whenever it was useful for the economic interests of, well, certainly not our nation but more appropriately the financial manipulators who use our treasury as their money and our military as their private army.

Wake up...The latest NSA mess has proven our government totally ignores laws protecting things like privacy or unreasonable search and seizure and has run ramshackle over our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  It also violated every international law and treaty we have with our allies and everyone else.

Is drug traffic illegal?  Not if our intelligence agencies are involved like in Asia and South America.

How about the ultimate abuse, political assassination?  We've been there and done that.

Illegal invasions like we say Putin is poised to undertake in the Ukraine?  Ask the Iraq or Afghanistan governments how they feel about that.

Indirectly we are behind many more abuses of international laws and treaties like triggering the Arab spring revolutions and so many more I could write a book.

Yet our president and media stand up and declare Putin and Russia to be acting illegally and like a bully?  We, our government, needs to look in a mirror before it starts condemning anyone for illegal activity.

And while we are at it, I have cited a litany of ways we have directly violated international laws and treaties but there are far more indirect methods that have been used so other people take the blame.

Foreign policy today has little to do with assuring the quality of life for people, or their health, education or welfare.  Those who think we are spreading democracy throughout the world so we can thus protect the lives, freedom and opportunities for the suppressed masses have got it all wrong.

In the vast majority of the cases our foreign policy supports a financial concern of someone other than the American people and that is a bigger crime than the crimes we already commit violating international laws and treaties.

We need an independent re-evaluation of our entire foreign policy strategy.  We need to know if NATO and all other international groups serve the agenda to help people or just help special interests.

Putin was upset because the Ukraine wanted to join NATO and the European Union and we were behind the scenes making sure it happened.  What does a country like the Ukraine have to do with a North Atlantic defense group?  Maybe NATO has outlived it's usefulness and is now creating conflict to justify it's existence?

Maybe it's time to stop being hypocrites and start being leaders in finding peace, not causing war and unrest.

.

Is Hillary about to Pillory Obama?

-



As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes more and more rogue from the policies of the Obama Administration is there a danger that she might just resign and decide to make one more run for the presidency?

Certainly the signs of dissatisfaction are becoming obvious as Obama and his White House palace guard seem to drift from issue to issue while never resolving anything when it comes to foreign policy. At the same time Hillary has been running stronger and stronger in the polls while our rudderless president continues to crash reaching new lows day by day.



The Obama gang, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in particular, demand blind loyalty to the president and to the agenda they give the president regardless of the reality of their policies or concerns of the public. Such a detachment from the American political process and people is suicidal as one can see from the collapsing poll numbers.



While the palace guard have worked out some sort of relationship with Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer at the House and Harry Reid at the Senate, strong arming Congress is not a way to win support or loyalty in the log run and Democrats have started abandoning the policies of the president at an alarming rate. Even the liberal elitists have stopped singing the blind praises of Obama and started questioning the strange way policy is determined and implemented.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was never one of the adoring followers of Obama. Thanks to the antics of her husband, she has just about seen it all at the White House and knows the mess the staff can create for the president. Because of that she didn't complain when Emanuel, err Obama, appointed foreign policy watchdogs to the White House staff to keep an eye on her.



The spies didn't seem to realize that Hillary didn't need Obama to introduce her to foreign leaders, she already had a pretty deep portfolio without the new kid on the block. For six months she maintained a low profile as the White House staff quickly over-extended its reach, played too many games in the interest of the country, and got bogged down in it's own quagmire of inertia and inconsistency.



Even a prolific ballet dancer like Emanuel is having a hard time pirouetting out of the mess they have created with the sluggish decision-making process, conflicting direction and lack of leadership. Still the palace guard refuses to abandon it's social agenda and deal with jobs and deficits like the public demands.

The result, quite predictable, was the loss of the governorship in two key battleground states, New Jersey and Virginia this year. Of far more ominous concern is the fact many Democrats in the House and Senate can see their own political self-survival threatened in next years' elections if they continue to back the rather bizarre agenda of the Obama gang.



The failure to address the jobs and deficit while padding the pockets of Obama contributors to the tune of billions of dollars could already be fatal to the president as his chances for reelection in 2012 become dimmer by the day. Already his own favorable rating is below half and his unfavorable is above half while his policies across the board are backed by just 15-30% of the public. Independents are having no trouble making up their mind as they flee the Obama train wreck.



Does anyone believe Hillary is willing to allow her popularity and future go up in flames because of blind loyalty to the Obama bunglers? No Hillary always spoke her beliefs and her decisive leadership is a stark contrast to the waffling president. So she has started distancing herself from him.



Several times she has ignored the Obama gang policy book and said what she believed to the press and public, a far cry from the absolutely controlled press in the White House. Most certainly it infuriated Little Napoleon and the rest of the White House gang.



She actually had the audacity to wonder to the media about the succession of the presidency of North Korea, one of the main Obama thorns in the side. You see Kim Jong-il, the mysterious leader who loves American movies and nuclear missiles, may also be quite ill. Such a breach of protocol by the Secretary of State was frowned upon by the Obama boys.



Hillary also double-crossed the liberal elitists being kept on a short chain by the White House when she said forget about human rights in China and focus on the economy as China pretty much already owns the USA. She also said Israel had to make unprecedented concessions regarding the settlements or there could be no Mid East peace,

She backed the generals in Afghanistan while Biden has led the inside charge against her within the Administration. Finally, she has been rather silent about the bank bailout, economic stimulus and other odd efforts by the Administration to half-heartedly address the public concerns as if she knew they were a sham from the first place.

One might expect the Obama gang to start a media leak campaign to get her out since they know they cannot control her. Circulating rumors about her spats with the White House is normally a good first indicator that someone is being made a scapegoat for the president's failed foreign agenda.



However, this might truly backfire. If they force out Clinton she becomes the only Democrat who could take him on in the 2012 primary and beat him. One would think the conniving White House staff would already be making their moves. So is she.

Now, if she resigns without White House interference then it is a much darker signal to the White House that Hillary intends to lay claim to the title that should have been hers were it not for the nearly one billion dollars spent against her before in the race for the presidency of the White House.

Stay tuned as this is about to get real interesting.

-