Archive | HILLARY CLINTON RSS feed for this section

Hillary’s troubles are only beginning

24 May

Sliver of Clinton emails hint at lingering political trouble

May 23, 4:23 AM (ET)

By LISA LERER, MATTHEW LEE and JACK GILLUM


 (AP) Democrat presidential candidate speaks on healthcare

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received information on her private email account about the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that was later classified “secret” at the request of the FBI, underscoring lingering questions about how responsibly she handled sensitive information on a home server.

The nearly 900 pages of her correspondence released Friday are only a sliver of the more than 55,000 pages of emails Clinton has turned over to the State Department, which had its plan to release them next January rejected this week by a federal judge.

Instead, the judge ordered the agency to conduct a “rolling production” of the records. Along with a Republican-led House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, the slow drip of emails will likely keep the issue of how Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, used a personal email account while serving as the nation’s top diplomat alive indefinitely.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said that the released emails were incomplete, adding that it “strains credibility” to view them as a thorough record of Clinton’s tenure.

(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks to child care…

The prospect for political complication in Clinton’s choice to use a personal email account, rather than one issued by the government, was evident in the messages released Friday. They included several that were deemed sensitive but unclassified, contained details about her daily schedule and held information — censored in the documents as released — about the CIA that the government is barred from publicly disclosing.

Taken together, the correspondence provides examples of material considered to be sensitive that Clinton received on the account run out of her home. She has said the private server had “numerous safeguards.”

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton said Friday she was aware that the FBI now wanted some of the email to be classified, “but that doesn’t change the fact all of the information in the emails was handled appropriately.”

Asked if she was concerned it was on a private server, she replied, “No.”

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said, “It was not classified at the time. The occurrence of subsequent upgrade does not mean anyone did anything wrong.”

(AP) In this Jan. 18, 2013 file photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham…
Full Image

It’s not clear if Clinton’s home computer system used encryption software to communicate securely with government email services. That would have protected her communications from the prying eyes of foreign spies, hackers, or anyone interested on the Internet.

Last year, Clinton gave the State Department 55,000 pages of emails that she said pertained to her work as secretary sent from her personal address. Only messages related to the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were released by the department on Friday. The 296 emails had already been turned over to the House Benghazi committee.

A Nov. 18, 2012, message about arrests in Libya was not classified at the time, meaning no laws were violated, but was upgraded from “unclassified” to “secret” on Friday at the request of the FBI to redact information that could contain information damaging to national security or foreign relations.

Twenty-three words were redacted from the message, which detailed reports of arrests in Libya of people who might have connections to the attack, Harf said.

The redacted portion appears to relate to people who provided information about the alleged suspects to the Libyans. That part of the email had been categorized by the State Department as “NOFORN,” meaning that foreign nationals weren’t allowed to read it, including close U.S. allies.

(AP) Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton shakes hands after touring…
Full Image

The message, originally from Bill Roebuck, then director of the Office of Maghreb Affairs, was forwarded to Clinton by her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan, with the comment: “fyi.”

No other redactions were made to the collection of Benghazi-related emails for classification reasons, officials said. They added that the Justice Department had not raised classification concerns about the now-redacted 1 1/2 lines in the Nov. 18 email when the documents were turned over to the Benghazi committee. The committee retains an unredacted copy of the email, the officials said.

Clinton also appeared to send and receive protected information about the CIA, which was withheld on Friday because the State Department said federal law prevented its disclosure. The department did not offer a detailed description of what it was withholding, such as a name or other sensitive information.

A number of the messages were marked with codes indicating that the information had been censored for reasons related to the U.S. intelligence community, law enforcement or personal privacy — a process that happened after they’d already been circulated through Clinton’s home server.

Much of the correspondence concerned the mundane matters of high-level government service, press clippings, speech drafts, and coordination of calls with other top officials as well as chit-chat about shopping between Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin.

“What a wonderful, strong and moving statement by your boss,” Christian Brose, a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, writes in an email to Sullivan, forwarded to Clinton just after Stevens’ death. “Please tell her how much Sen. McCain appreciated it. Me too.”

There are repeated warnings of the unrest in Libya, though Clinton has said she was never personally involved in questions of security in Benghazi before the attack. One message describes a one-day trip by Stevens in March 2011 to “get a sense of the situation on the ground” and prepare for a 30-day stay in the future. A request for Defense Department support was made, the email adds, but no approval had yet been received. Stevens was killed in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

As early as April 2011, Clinton was forwarded a message sent to her staff that the situation in the country had worsened to the point “where Stevens is considering departure from Benghazi,” The email was marked “Importance: High.”

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Stephen Braun and Eileen Sullivan in Washington and Ken Thomas in Hampton, New Hampshire, contributed to this report.

How long has it been since Hillary answered questions from the press?

19 May

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/12/heres-a-clock-that-counts-the-minutes-since-hillary-clinton-answered-a-press-question/

Doug Smith: Character matters after all

25 Apr

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot.

4.25.15

The phrase “character matters” was batted about some years ago.  It was also widely discounted by the Clintonphiles when it came to the Clintons.  Odd that a DUI 20 years previous to an election was a major character flaw for Bush, but peccadilloes in office, ( Literally, in office: The Oval Office) were excused as a private matter when it came to The Clinton ( Like The McGregor, but with less kilts and more charm.)

One of the most iconic pronouncements of the 20th century, and one that typifies the Clinton approach to ethics, truth, and behavior came from the lips of Bill, The Clinton.

I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

bh5

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/bill-clinton-responds-monica-lewsinsky-affair-allegations-28406403

And later,

I did, indeed have an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, they were not correct.

Don’t these guys just make you love lawyers? As long as no one specifically asked if he engaged in the particular act, at a particular time, in a particular place, his lies and evasions were, to his way of thinking, ok – until they were not. Perhaps they should have had a divorce lawyer question him, or a psychiatrist.

But all the Clintonese parsing of words aside, when Bill Clinton answered under oath, the question “Did you have sexual relations with her?” with a flat “No.”, it was a lie.

When he famously uttered the Miss Lewinsky pronouncement to all of America, it was a lie – Period.

But Bill was charming (so was Charles Manson), handsome, and popular. The economy was good. No active wars were underway.

So, did the character of the Clintons (Hillary has the same relationship with the truth as Bill, her gravy train, but without the charm) matter? The Arkansas Supreme Court, to their credit, felt that a lawyer perjuring himself was a bad thing and disbarred him. The judgement of many supporters, and the Senate, at the time was, no, not so much.

So, does it matter, the character of those we entrust with power over our lives and our country?

Hillary  would have us believe at one time she  picked up the Wall Street Journal one day, said, Hmm, cattle is going up, and plopped down $ 1,000 bucks, and made a neat return of $100,000, good day’s work.

Except, the odds of that happening at millions to one.

Hillary’s investment was made by a trader tied to Tyson foods, not by her.

Her investment was 60,000 in the red at one point, and she was not required to put up more to cover the loss, as were other investors, who lost their shirts.

bh2

If Hillary, and he, had played by the rules, she would have lost the 1,000, and more.

Her investor was disciplined by the Chicago Mercantile Board for the practice of “straddling”, i.e. waiting till the winners and losers are known then allocating the trades, in short picking the winners and losers after the trades are done. That is like making a bet in poker after the other guy shows his cards. It is fraudulent. (He lost his license to trade for a year over the practice.)

Gradually, bit by bit, the Clinton White House revealed the truth of the trades, that it was not Hillary, that it was in fact guided by the trader tied to Tyson Foods. But as is their wont, they released the truth only when caught, and bit by bit, so that no one notices.

Tyson Foods was in turn the beneficiary of millions in favors from the state of Arkansas, under Clinton.  Governor Clinton refused to enforce his own clean up rulings against them at a chicken plant, which caused many residents to sicken, and the Governor to declare it a disaster area, forcing (surprise!  ) the State, and not Tyson, to clean it up.  When allegations surfaced of envelopes of cash from Tyson arriving at the Governor’s mansion for the Clintons, a special prosecutor sought to investigate the apparent quid pro quo. But by now, it was 1994.  Attorney General Janet Reno, now President Clinton’s appointee, refused his request to investigate, and the allegations reported by Time were never pursued.

Chelsea Clinton (net worth 15 million) said, a few years ago, “I guess I got this from my parents. We have just never cared about money.”

bh1

But in fact, for the Clintons, it is all about money. Power, to be sure, but power as a means to get money. They like the Park Avenue lifestyle, the private jets, hobnobbing with the rich and famous.

And the record shows they will do anything, say anything, break any rule, to get it.

With a 20 year pattern of such behaviors, underscored in present revelations by the Clintons going back to amend their taxes to include millions in donations from foreigners that they just “ forgot” to report, and forgot to pay taxes on, it is increasingly the question must be asked “ Can we trust  Clinton?”

Even as allegations of impropriety surface with the Clintons receiving money from foreign interests with business before the State Department while Hillary was Secretary of State, supporters are rushing to say

“There is no evidence that those millions had any impact on her decisions as Secretary.”  Huh? So in other words, someone gave her millions, and she made a ruling in their favor, but there is no proof she would not have ruled the same way even without the money.

Seriously? That is the story they are going with?

Now, just by way of perspective, let us consider this.  A week after President Obama was inaugurated, President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Energy Secretary Bodman, got to look at their holdings for the first time since taking office. In the case of President Bush, he placed all his wealth into a blind trust with Northern Trust in 1999, when he began running for President. None of these men, all millionaires, received any information, nor were able to see where their money was invested, by the terms of the blind trust, until it was removed from the trust, after they left office. In this way, they avoid the appearance of impropriety in their decisions. They don’t know if their money is in oil, or real estate, or Uranium.  So their decisions cannot be influenced by what will do those good financially, but on what they think is right. That is a sound approach.

So we might start out with this question.  Why didn’t the Clintons recuse themselves from the Clinton Foundation, and take no money, or salary, or free travel from them, and meet with no donors, and not be made aware of the donors, during the time when Hillary was Secretary of State.  Henry Paulson did, and he was worth far more than the Clinton Foundation.

And again now, why don’t the Clintons take that action now that Hillary is a candidate for President, so she can avoid the appearance of impropriety as she runs for the highest office in the land? After all, Bush did. And he lost money in the 2008 collapse.

bh3

After all, we don’t want the appearance that our leaders are for sale.  Except, of course, if they are.

Now, many people like Bill Clinton. He is a likable guy. A scoundrel, but a likable guy. I might enjoy grilling hamburgers with him, but would I trust him with my wallet?

But Hillary?  That one has me puzzled.  Some people seem to worship her as a political icon of the Left. But why? She is NOT likable, as is her husband. She is not accomplished.  Everything she has been involved in has been tainted with failure, disaster, and scandal.  She is, to say the least, ethically challenged. Somehow she has wrapped herself in the mantel of “First Woman President.”

But let us follow that to its logical conclusion. Support Hillary, because only she can be the 1st Woman President. Really? So, even discounting her failures and her questionable ethics, are the feminists seriously telling us that of all the women out there, of all the smart, accomplished, personable women who have been on the national scene, there is only one that might win the Presidency? If that is true, what an indictment on feminism and on women. Really? One? That is all you’ve got for 100 years since Susan B Anthony?

bh4

Character? Yes, it does matter.  Condi Rice would make a fine President. As would Nicki Halley. As would Carly Fiorina. As would, were she still living, the former Ambassador to Britain, Shirley Temple Black.  These are 3 fine choices from the conservative side of the spectrum.  Again, my liberal friends, are you really saying that among all the liberal women on the national scene, all you have is one? It is not, nor has it ever been, Hillary or no woman President.

Character matters. As the latest revelations, and Clinton scrambling to revise the lies toward truth as they are caught, to pay taxes they evaded to set the record straight, (any ideas what would have happened if Mitt Romney, or you, or me, had REALLY evaded our taxes for 5 years?) continue to unfold, we need to get past the tunnel vision of Hillary because….Hillary.

Ironically, Hillary Rodham was involved for a time in efforts to remove Richard Nixon for his dishonesty and deception.  Now, after a lifetime of showing herself to be so very much like him, she wants his old job.

It is time to take a hard look at the actions, words, deceits, and record of this person and ask seriously, Will having her as our President be a good thing?

Doug Smith: Hillary Clinton Conservative ‘Rules of engagement’ (Just don’t!)

15 Apr

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and Free State Patriot regular contributor

4.15.15

The Hillary Rules

So it seems the rules now (isn’t it funny that it is always the Progressive Left PC police who get to make these inane rules?) are that

  1. We cannot criticize any of Hillary’s characteristics, lest we be misogynistic
  2. We should say yes! We want to see a woman President. But must not say, just not her.
  3. We cannot criticize any of Hillary’s actions, or we are part of the vast right wing conspiracy ( mental note: I need to pay my dues, my VRWC card expires next month)
  4. We cannot focus on Hillary’s accomplishments, because that holds her to an unfair standard. Like having one.

clinton 3

(How much have you accomplished Madam Secretary?)

Now, these are rules designed to function only in Bedlam. They can serve only one purpose: to elect Hillary. So let us take a quick look at the logical fallacies behind these “rules”.

We cannot criticize Hillary?

The world of chivalry, in which a man might say “Step outside, you can’t say that about my wife.” precludes politics. Nor can Hilly and her supporters have it both ways:

I want to break the glass ceiling into the all men world of Presidents, and at the same time

I am woman, hear me whine, don’t be mean to me.

The Left still, to this day, delights in painting Ronald Reagan as a cheerful idiot.

Dan Rather used a made up story about GW Bush’s military service to smear his character as he ran for President.

Remember Willy Horton? He was a convicted murderer, let out for weekend furlough under Mike Dukakis, Governor of Mass, and committed a heinous crime while out. Dukakis was smeared as soft on crime and a weakling. (By Al Gore, it should be noted, not a prominent member of the VRWC.) But of course, these are all men.

Remember the Iron Lady? That would be Maggie Thatcher, British Conservative Prime Minister. Iron Lady was one of the milder epithets applied to her. Critics in England even cheered publicly her death at 87, decades after she left office, singing Ding Dong the witch is dead. (And SHE never said “I ll get you my pretty…..to Monica.)

clinton 2

A man cannot hide behind his wife, nor a woman behind her sex, and expect special treatment to permit her to win the right to lead. After all, her opponents and enemies should she be elected will not grant her that favor. Nor did Maggie’s. But then, Maggie didn’t need it.

We should WANT a woman President

It is foolish to WANT a “woman” President. Or a “black, Hispanic, Irish Catholic, gay, disabled, (am I missing any?) President. Identity politics is absurd. We want an American President, one who is committed to us as a people, to our system of laws, and who is capable of leading the most powerful nation in the world. If we want to tick off a box on a list saying we have picked one from each group, then let it be Miss America, or America’s Most Admired. They can be picked for their charming smile and winning personality, and go on speaking tours and be admired. Come to think of it, Hillary does that now, and completely without benefit of any discernible personality.

It should be noted that England had one powerful, dynamic woman Prime Minister. She served 11 years; the longest PM in 150 years. But, they had: One.

If we do want a woman President, surely, even the Dems can do better. Certainly the GOP can. How about Condi Rice, whose father was registered as a Republican in Jim Crow Alabama because the Democrats refused to do so.

clinton 4 clinton 1

(Oh my…What was I thinking?)

We cannot criticize her actions?

Really?

Sure we can. Many criticized Nixon’s illegal and unethical actions, despite some real accomplishments as President, and were ready to have him removed from office. In fact, Hillary was a young lawyer working for the House Managers preparing to do just that. Until she was fired. For unethical behavior. Makes sense: her boss was about to launch an impeachment of a President for ethical lapses, and had on his staff an aggressive (nana nana nana, yes I said It.) lawyer who trampled the rules of ethics. That would look bad if he got into a trial. Interesting that young lawyer went on to have a career marked by ethical lapses, and was prominently on the other side of the next impeachment. When you are applying for a job, a hiring manager will look at your strengths, but also your failings. If they find that you don’t have what it takes, they will not hire you and deal with the problems you bring to the table. Hillary is applying for a job with us. We are being asked to hire her, and put our future and our security in her hands. We absolutely can, and should, and must look to her failings and weaknesses. No one is without them, but we ought to know them and make an informed decision.

Hillary has led a life of unethical dealings in business, in government, and in politics. Her modus operandi has been to hide, deceive, and destroy. Nancy Reagan has some quirks and a temper, and has been castigated by the Left for decades. Hillary Rodham has skirted or crossed the ethical lines, clearly engaged in illegal business dealings, lied, tried to destroy the lives of women who were victims of her husband’s libido. (Could that be because the one thing she had going for her ambitions were his coattails?)

She was a viscous First Lady, who had long term employees fired and kicked to the curb to provide political patronage for her friends from Arkansas.

She shrouded her Hillarycare plans in secrecy, and brought it down in flames.

She was elected as Senator from a state in which she had never lived, turning in a lackluster performance, with poor attendance, and no notable legislation or accomplishments.

She was involved in getting pardons for terrorists tied to making contributions to her political war chest.

Her term as Secretary of State ended with conditions and relations worse in every part of the world she had touched, never mind Benghazi. Little wonder she once again flexed her secrecy muscle. (One would think she would learn. But, no.)

She was paid multimillion dollar advance on a book she “wrote”. Then her book tour and its sales were so poor that the publisher could not recoup the advance, and her book was quickly remaindered.

We can criticize her. We should criticize her. But we must remember that in the world of the Left, intention and supporting the right cause is everything. Results and accomplishments are nothing. That is a part of why Leftist sycophants still defend 6 years of Obama failures, and make a folk hero of a woman whose only notable accomplishment was to pick the right husband and hold on like a bulldog, regardless of his foibles.

hillary 1

How sad for the feminists who line up behind her. This? This is a hero of the feminist cause?

We cannot make it about her accomplishments.

No we cannot. But for the sake of completeness, let us list them.

  1. Married Bill Clinton
  2. Still waiting

IMPEACH CLINTON…AGAIN?

30 Mar

DOUG SMITH

DOUG SMITH: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot.

3/30/15

The most powerful political tool the Congress has to wield against the other branches is impeachment.  The threat of impeachment, whether spoken or implied, acts as a check against the Executive crossing certain lines.

Let us be honest: Congress sucks at it.  They have impeached but not convicted Presidents, and have removed Federal judges. Richard Nixon resigned rather than put the country through the process of impeachment.  It is considered probable, but is by no means certain, that he would have been convicted.

clinton 1

In the case of William Jefferson Clinton, he certainly had a number of potential impeachable offenses against him; perjury, improper monetary dealings, accepting bribes from Chinese Communist Army Officers in the White House, and letting them obtain missile technology, and of course, his out of control sexual escapades, which, to be kind, make Bill Cosby look like Fred Rogers.  He was certainly impeachable, and convictable.

Yet the Congress, knowing his popularity, despite their distaste for him, chose a stupid and spineless approach.  They impeached him in such a way that the defense could be “everyone lies about sex, the GOP is only interested in his sex life”, and in the age of Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer, there was not the will to convict him. Had they portrayed him as a money grubbing, sleazy, unethical politician , shown his pattern of lies, accepting bribes, pushing for bills that weakened the economy, enriching himself while portraying himself as the champion of the little guy, he could have emerged as a man as popular as Bernie Madoff. That President Clinton, it seems probably, but by no means certain, would have been convicted.

clinton 2

Now, Congress once more has a very impeachable President.  The GOP has control of both houses, and without a doubt there are multiple issues, many of them winding through the courts, that constitute the high crimes and misdemeanors required to impeach a President. But, of course, they will never do so. They will never do so because Barack Obama happens to be black. Oh, don’t roll your eyes at me. He makes no bones about it. He wears his blackness like a sword, ready to hack at anyone who criticizes his lies, his incompetence, his lawlessness, or his failure.  If Barack Obama were Jimmy Carter, and the GOP had both houses, he would be gone. But he knows how to play his race, and the GOP lacks the courage to take him on in spite of it for his crimes against the nation.  As long as he does not push to the limits where the people feel compelled to remove him, he can rampage for 2 more years.

However, there is a move the GOP can make to strengthen the Republic, and hold the feet of the Democrats and the Executive to the fire: Impeach Hillary.

clinton 3

That’s right. Impeach Hillary Clinton.  She obstructed justice, she lied to Congress, and she broke the law in a number of ways. She has no record of success to balance against her failings, and despite the sycophants who are so anxious to dance at another Clinton ball, even her own party is starting to see her for what she is.  So, impeach her as Secretary of State. Even the Democrats won’t fight very hard for her, because they are nervous about her in her own right, and very nervous about another candidate who can be linked to Barack Obama.

Impeach her, before her run against the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, armed with the strains of Helen Reddy singing I am Woman, and I married Bill Clinton. Impeach her, convict her, and a few things happen.  She loses her security clearance.  Any files she may have can be subpoenaed. She loses her benefits as an ex Sec State.  And she becomes ineligible to hold ANY federal office, including, that’s right, President of the United States.

clinton 4

The GOP Congress can pull that fang from the snake. And in so doing, remove a threat to the future of the nation, while sending a message to the President, without requiring the courage to directly confront him: You’ve gone far enough. We are not ready to impeach you, yet. But we are warming up to it. And perhaps that will temper his actions till 2016 just a bit. Congress can impeach Hillary.  Congress should impeach Hillary.

Mark Caserta: Hillary nomination will be troublesome

20 Mar

…If not impossible

me

FSP EDITOR – MARK CASERTA

Mar. 19, 2015 @ 02:01 AM

If Hillary Rodham Clinton is all the Democratic Party has for the 2016 election, liberals must be getting pretty nervous. I don’t know of any other potential candidate, in either party, carrying an equivalent amount of baggage into a presidential bid.

While I’m not a huge fan of Jeb Bush, the thought of “another Bush” in the White House pales in comparison to the thought of another Clinton. Let’s ignore for a moment that Hillary’s accomplishments as four years as Secretary of State were, shall we say, minimal; she and Bill are never very far away from scandal.

In fact, it’s worth a trip down memory lane.

hillary 1

The White House travel controversy, sometimes referred to as “Travelgate,” was the first major ethics controversy of the Clinton administration. It began in May 1993, when seven employees of the White House Travel Office were fired and replaced with associates from Arkansas. The administration stated the firings were done because of financial improprieties, but never produced supporting evidence. Heavy media attention forced the White House to reinstate most of the employees in other jobs and remove the Clinton associates from the travel role.

“Whitewater” was the popular nickname for a series of investigations of Bill and Hillary Clinton that lasted nearly seven years involving a fraudulent land scheme while Hillary was a partner of the Rose Law Firm of Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell. Hubble was later indicted, tried and convicted for tax fraud. Foster, a material witness for then independent counsel Ken Starr’s criminal investigation, mysteriously turned up dead in Fort March Park. His death was ruled a suicide.

hillary 2

Emerging from the same Ken Starr criminal investigation was the infamous Monica Lewinsky scandal, which would cause Bill Clinton to become only the second president in U.S. history to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. Clinton was impeached on two counts: perjury and obstruction of justice.

In 1996, in what was labeled “Chinagate,” the Clinton-Gore campaign allegedly received illegal financial contributions from the Chinese government to help its dwindling poll numbers by siphoning funds into the Democratic National Committee. Investigations revealed the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., was used for coordinating the contributions in violation of the law forbidding non-U.S. citizens or permanent residents from giving monetary donations to politicians and political parties.

And most recently, “Emailgate,” in which Hillary may have violated the Federal Records Act and circumvented the Freedom of Information Act by choosing to delete 30,000 emails from a personal account on a private server.

hillary 3

Why take the time to delete 30,000 emails if she has nothing to hide?

But then, the Clintons are in the business of hiding things, hence the need for a private server.

At this point, I believe it’s very premature for anyone to believe Hillary is a shoo-in for the Democrat nomination.

But if she indeed gets the call from her Democrat peers, given the scandalous “Clintonesque” tradition, even the liberal media may not be able to spin Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office.

hillary 5

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

%d bloggers like this: