Tag: E-mail

Hitlery’s IT Specialist Providing Devastating Testimony On E-mail Server

Clinton IT Specialist Providing Devastating Testimony On Clinton Mail Server – Weasel Zippers

.
……………………..

.
Done for.

Via Fox News:
.

Former Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the email probe who struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department, has told the FBI a range of details about how her personal email system was set up, according to an intelligence source close to the case who called him a “devastating witness.”

The source said Pagliano told the FBI who had access to the former secretary of state’s system – as well as when – and what devices were used, amounting to a roadmap for investigators.

“Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton’s] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized,” the intelligence source said.

Keep reading

.

.

There’s A Whole Arsenal Of Smoking Guns In The Clinton E-mail Scandal (Jonah Goldberg)

There’s A Whole Arsenal Of Smoking Guns In The Clinton E-mail Scandal – Jonah Goldberg

.

.
Every time the State Department pulls out a new fistful of Hillary Clinton e-mails like Richard Dreyfuss yanking a license plate out of a shark’s belly in Jaws, someone declares that there’s “no smoking gun!”

I’ve written before about how shouting “There’s no smoking gun!” is a non-denial denial. Ask a cop. When a murder suspect immediately exclaims, “You have no indisputable evidence I murdered my boss!” instead of, “I didn’t do it!” it’s a good sign that the suspect thinks he covered his tracks, not that he’s innocent.

Fellas, if your wife asks if you’re having an affair, respond by saying, “You have no proof!” See if she takes that for a denial.

But here’s the thing. There is a smoking gun. In fact, there’s a whole smoking arsenal. The problem is that the standards for what counts as a smoking gun keep changing.

Nearly everything Clinton has said in her defense regarding her secret server has been a lie. Among the minor lies: her claim that she set up the server so she could use a single device. (She had two.) Her claim that the State Department was saving her e-mails to staff. (It wasn’t until 2010.) Her claim that she erased tens of thousands of e-mails because they included, among other things, her e-mail correspondence with her husband. (Bill Clinton doesn’t use e-mail.)

Hillary Clinton said she never solicited e-mail from her lugubrious political hatchet man, Sidney Blumenthal. The latest e-mails show that she was in near-constant contact with him, encouraging him to keep his various reports coming. Blumenthal was barred from getting a job at the White House, so Clinton set him up at her charity-cum-super PAC, the Clinton Foundation.

The more important lie: She said she never received or sent classified information. “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material.”

Note: This was not an off-the-cuff statement. She said this while reading from notes, after consulting with her campaign team and her lawyers, in a ballyhooed press conference in March at the United Nations.

And it was a lie. When the inspectors general of the State Department and the Intelligence Community confirmed in July that she had sent classified material, Clinton “clarified” her carefully prepared lie by saying that what she meant was none of the e-mails she sent or received were marked classified at the time.

This left out the fact that the whole point of the secret server was that it was hidden from the officials whose job is to designate documents as classified (and to keep it all hidden from Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional oversight). It’s like setting up an illegal still and then claiming none of the moonshine you sold was marked “illegal.”

But the deceit goes deeper. Most people can be forgiven for not understanding the difference between classified documents and classified information. A classified document is marked “Top Secret” or some such. But people who work in government understand that lots of information is classified simply by virtue of the kind of information it is.

My National Review colleague Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, has been setting his head on fire trying to get the mainstream media to take note of this fact. He points out that according to an executive order issued by President Obama, all “foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security” and is therefore presumed classified. Clinton routinely ignored this rule. That’s not just my opinion. A study by Reuters found that “Clinton and her senior staff routinely” ignored these rules.

“Here’s my personal e-mail,” Clinton told Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who then proceeded to convey numerous private conversations he had with foreign leaders.

The Washington Times reports that Clinton’s unsecured e-mails contained spy-satellite information about North Korea’s movement of its nuclear assets. This sort of information is universally recognized as top secret and is normally subjected to draconian safeguards. There is no way Clinton didn’t know this.

All of these – and many other – facts would have counted as “smoking guns” if they had been divulged immediately after Clinton’s U.N. press conference. But Clinton, with the help of her praetorian defenders in the media, keeps moving the goalposts.

Still, all of this ignores the biggest smoking gun of them all: her illicit server. It’s sitting in plain view, its smoke visible to anyone with eyes to see.

.

.

Daily Benefactor News – E-mail Shows Kagan Lied To Congress About ObamaCare

……………

—————————————— CLICK HERE TO VISIT THE DAILY BENEFACTOR ——————————————–

—————————————————————————– TOP STORY ——————————————————————————

E-mail Shows Kagan Lied To Congress About ObamaCare – New American

The objectivity of judges is an essential component of the American constitutional system. When Elena Kagan was Solicitor General of the United States, she and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe had e-mail exchanges, which were obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act, that suggest that she could not be impartial in ruling on Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because she has taken a position for the bill.

……………………….

Tribe is a liberal professor who has written in the New York Times in defense of ObamaCare, has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court, and was working for the Obama administration’s Department of Justice at the time of the e-mail exchange. The Media Research Council and Judicial Watch filed the Freedom of Information Act request on May 25, 2010, which was before Kagan’s Senate confirmation hearings for a position on the Supreme Court. That e-mail correspondence makes it clear that then-Solicitor General Kagan and Tribe had contacted each other about ObamaCare as early as March 21, 2010 and that Kagan likely has been a cheerleader for ObamaCare. The e-mails’ title refers to the upcoming vote on ObamaCare and says, “Fingers and toes crossed today.” In the e-mails Kagan says about the probable passage of ObamaCare: “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”

The e-mail correspondence trail, which was finally released on November 10, 2011, after the Department of Justice had been sued in federal district court for the District of Columbia on November 23, 2010, a year before the documents were released, shows more than just an e-mail trail between Kagan and Tribe. The e-mails also show that there was at least a third individual involved, whose name has been redacted, and it shows actual meetings between those parties prior to Kagan testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

During those hearings, Senate Republicans sent Kagan a letter that asked: “Have you ever been asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?” She answered, “No.”

Senate Republicans also sent another question which asked her: “Have you ever offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148, or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?”

Elena Kagan again answered, “No.”

The newly released documents strongly suggest that at the very least, Kagan was not completely honest in her answers to questions from Senators that were part of her confirmation process and, perhaps, that she willfully lied. Beyond simple lying, these e-mails show a distinct lack of objectivity about litigation challenging Obama’s healthcare legislation.

Any federal judge who has been involved with a case before it reaches his bench and whose involvement would indicate an inability to be wholly impartial is required to recuse himself (or herself) from the case. The specific language of the applicable federal statute, 28 USC 455, requires recusement by a justice from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and any time he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

In June, Representative John Fleming, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Eric Holder, which was signed by 48 other members of the House:

We respectfully call upon the House Judiciary Committee to promptly investigate the extent to which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was involved in preparing a legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) during her tenure as Solicitor General. Contradictory to her 2010 confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently released Department of Justice documents indicate that Justice Kagan actively participated with her Obama Administration colleagues in formulating a defense of PPACA.

In recent weeks, questions have been raised about whether Justice Kagan’s prior work on what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) while serving as Solicitor General should disqualify her from hearing challenges to its constitutionality. During her Senate confirmation, then-Solicitor General Kagan answered “no” when questioned about whether she had ever been “asked about [her] opinion” or “offered any views or comments regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation… or… potential litigation resulting from such legislation.” Yet, documents released by the Department in response to recent Freedom of Information Act requests raise questions about that unequivocal denial.

Misleading Congress or, worse, lying to Congress in its pursuit of constitutional duties, such as determining the suitability of judicially appointments, is serious business.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Related article:

Kagan To Tribe On Day Obamacare Passed: ‘I Hear They Have The Votes, Larry!! Simply Amazing’ – CNS

——————————————————————– NOTE TO READERS ———————————————————————

THE DAILY BENEFACTOR now provides you with a large selection of NEWS WIDGETS containing RSS feeds from the most comprehensive news sources on the internet, such as THE DRUDGE REPORT, GATEWAY PUNDIT, THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, WORLDNETDAILY, POLITICO, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, CNS, MICHELLE MALKIN, BREITBART, and THE JERUSALEM POST. Check them out!

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————