As pressure builds on Hillary Clinton to explain her official use of personal email while serving as secretary of state, she faced new complications Tuesday. It was disclosed her top aides are being drawn into a burgeoning federal inquiry and that two emails on her private account have been classified as “Top Secret.”
The inspector general for the Intelligence Community notified senior members of Congress that two of four classified emails discovered on the server Clinton maintained at her New York home contained material deemed to be in one of the highest security classifications – more sensitive than previously known.
The notice came as the State Department inspector general’s office acknowledged that it is reviewing the use of “personal communications hardware and software” by Clinton’s former top aides after requests from Congress.
“We will follow the facts wherever they lead, to include former aides and associates, as appropriate,” said Douglas Welty, a spokesman for the State Department’s inspector general.
Despite the acknowledgment, the State Department inspector general’s office has left numerous unanswered questions, including exactly who and what is being investigated. The office initially declined to comment and referred questions to the Intelligence Community inspector general’s office, which said it is not currently involved in any inquiry into aides and is being denied full access to aides’ emails by the State Department. Clinton, herself, is not a target.
The expanding inquiry threatens to further erode Clinton’s standing as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Since her reliance on private email was revealed in March, polls in crucial swing states show that increasing numbers of voters say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, in part, because of her use of private emails.
Ridgewood NJ, There has been a lot of analysis and banter regarding Thursday’s Republican Primary Debates at 5 and 9 o’clock. If you’re didn’t get the opportunity yourself, and you want a quick run-down, here you go…
The Primetime Debate:
Trump was Trump. Aside from the Mexico question, all the questions were personal attacks. Good for him for staying aggressive. He’ll have to get more tangible and specific on more issues to maintain his front-runner status. He’s definitely not a moron. His ego is nothing new, by the way, folks. Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, LBJ, hello? And he has to be brilliant to maintain a multi-billion dollar business empire and reach the proverbial summit in multiple fields, including publishing and television. He’s to modern television what JFK was to early television.
Bush did very well, but, as has been pointed out, the dynastic thing isn’t popular, including with me. We’ve made exceptions in the past, but not a three-time one. He was prepared with good answers since they were the same questions he’s always asked about, such as the “If you knew then what you know now about Iraq” question. Nothing new from Jeb.
Scott Walker treaded water. His record is fantastic; but as he pointed out, he’s normal, and modern America wants sensationalism, not vanilla. He’s lost in the crowd.
Mike Huckabee performed very well. He stood out almost as well as Trump. Some great lines too: the Hillary comment toward the end when folks thought he was talking about Trump; also, the military social experiment line was superb. He’ll be a long-haul contender with his demeanor and wit. (Reality is, whether you like it or not, that’s what the voters eat up.)
Ben Carson was smooth, methodical, extremely intelligent, and held his own. His closing remarks may have been the night’s highlights. If he isn’t given the VP nod, if not the Presidential nominee, it would be a terrible mistake. The guy’s a neurosurgeon for crying out loud, so he can learn politics and international relations easily enough: nothing more than history and social skills, people.
Ted Cruz was another who performed very well that night. He had the best overall mixture of responses: his record, his family, his plans. Hell, he was one of only two to lay out tangible specifics, and that’s guts right there in an age when hair-splicing occurs over every word! This guy is a force to be reckoned with. A brilliant contender.
Marco Rubio, I thought, treaded water as well. Nothing stood out with him, and he was ho-hum throughout. If he performs that way, he’ll be forgotten soon enough. I found him to speak ambiguously on most things, save his faith.
Rand Paul was way, way too controversial and fisticuffs. You think Trump is aggressive, holy cow! Paul outdid Trump in that regard during the debate. While he isn’t necessarily wrong on most issues for the base, Paul often comes across as leaning wrong. Being the most libertarian candidate on the stage will naturally produce a perception of political radical. He’s principled and didn’t backstep on anything, though.
Chris Christie did surprisingly well, I thought. He stuck to his guns, he showed his Jersey Attitude, and had some almost-memorable lines. He was the other one to lay out some specifics, good for him. He’ll gain ground if he keeps it up.
Jon Kasich was great overall. He came across as the most genuine, and he wasn’t nervous like Carson was. He mixed up variety into his messaging well. His was a good, solid performance, and this first national spotlight for him has elevated his status too. Kasich will most definitely be picking up ground, but I don’t think he’ll pull off the nomination unless he gets more aggressive and more memorable.
The other major players were the three Fox News moderators: Chris Wallace, Megan Kelly, and Brett Baier. They asked some tough questions depending on the candidate, and there was particular animosity toward Trump. The three, particularly Kelly and Wallace, came across as Rupert Murdoch hacks, following Murdoch’s marching orders to take out the front-runner. Nothing fair or balanced in that. Treat all candidates equally, which the three did not.
By the way, don’t even bother paying attention to the 5 o’clock debate. The only one from that pack who has any chance is Carly Florin, but she’s a long-shot too.
And there you have it. Want more? There’s plenty on YouTube and social media to keep you busy for hours! Good luck with the sorting, voters!
If Donald Trump’s comments about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly are hurting his standing in the Republican primary, it’s not showing in the numbers.
According to the latest NBC News Online Poll conducted by SurveyMonkey, Trump is at the top of the list of GOP candidates that Republican primary voters would cast a ballot for if the primary were being held right now.
The overnight poll was conducted for 24 hours from Friday evening into Saturday. During that period, Donald Trump stayed in the headlines due to his negative comments about Kelly and was dis-invited from a major conservative gathering in Atlanta.
None of that stopped Trump from coming in at the top of the poll with 23 percent. Sen. Ted Cruz was next on the list with 13 percent.
It was billed as The Donald Trump Show, and the Republican front-runner delivered. He mugged. He pouted. He projected outrage without being troubled by specificity or fact. When he got punched — and the moderators threw haymakers all night — he stuck out his chin and punched back.
Trump made it through the first Republican debate by avoiding the one mistake that could have seriously damaged his insurgent campaign: sounding like a professional politician. For that reason alone, he seemed to me the clear winner.
I watched the debate at the House of Blues in downtown Cleveland with a crowd of true-believer conservatives at a viewing party sponsored by the American Conservative Union. It might not have been a representative sample of Republican primary voters, and I should note that there was an open bar. So my observations should not be confused with actual political science.
GOP leaders say erratic attacks hurt Trump, but he vows to fight and win
By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa August 8 at 9:42 PM
Republican leaders who have watched Donald Trump’s summer surge with alarm now believe that his presidential candidacy has been contained and may begin to collapse because of his repeated attacks on a Fox News Channel star and his refusal to pledge his loyalty to the eventual GOP nominee.
Fearful that the billionaire’s inflammatory rhetoric has inflicted serious damage to the GOP brand, party leaders hope to pivot away from the Trump sideshow and toward a more serious discussion among a deep field of governors, senators and other candidates.
They acknowledge that Trump’s unique megaphone and the passion of his supporters make any calculation about his candidacy risky. After all, he has been presumed dead before: Three weeks ago, he prompted establishment outrage by belittling the Vietnam war service of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), only to prove, by climbing higher in the polls, that the laws of political gravity did not apply to him.
Still, Trump’s erratic performance during and after the first Republican presidential debate last week sparked a backlash throughout the party Saturday and a reassessment of his front-running bid. The final straw for many was Trump’s comment on CNN late Friday that Fox moderator Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”
In the rarefied world of New York moguls, Rupert Murdoch never thought much of Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Trump’s divorces and marriages sold newspapers, but beyond that, Mr. Murdoch had no time for his bombastic business style and ostentatious demeanor. “Phony” was how Mr. Murdoch often described him to friends.
There was the time Mr. Trump screamed that he would sue for libel after Mr. Murdoch’s New York Post reported that the exclusiveMaidstone golf club in East Hampton planned to deny Mr. Trump a membership.
Then there was the awkward aftermath of Mr. Murdoch’s own high-profile divorce from Wendi Deng Murdoch, when Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka, unlike many New York society figures, remained loyal to Ms. Deng Murdoch, a close friend.
Now, as Mr. Trump holds on to a first-place position in the polls while being roundly denounced across the political spectrum for harsh statements about Mexican immigrants and for belittling Senator John McCain’s war record, he has already lost the man who controls many of the nation’s most important media organizations.
Who says politics is boring! Are you watching this debate right now? It’s better than the Mayweather-Paq fight lol. Jason Vigorito
Published August 06, 2015
FoxNews.com
From fiery criticism of ObamaCare and the Iran nuclear deal to support for Israel and the rights of the unborn, the top 10 Republican presidential candidates did all they could to define and separate themselves Thursday night during the Fox News debate in Cleveland, Ohio.
The governors on stage, notably John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, touted their economic records. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz vowed to scrap the Iran deal. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson reminded voters in his closing remarks of the professional background that separates him from the rest: “I’m the only one to separate Siamese twins.”
Throughout the debate, Donald Trump was the unrivaled lightning rod, but the prime-time showdown made clear he’s not the only fighter on the stage – or in the race.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie reclaimed his reputation as a tough-talking executive, blasting his rivals for their positions on domestic surveillance and entitlements. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul traded barbs with several candidates, including Christie.
Meanwhile, one-time front-runner former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush found himself on defense several times and largely avoided tangling with Trump on the Fox News/Facebook stage.
Perhaps the most fiery moment came in an exchange between Christie and Paul. Long-simmering tension between the two exploded when Christie stood by his criticism of the senator for opposing NSA bulk collection of Americans’ phone data.
Paul said he’s “proud of standing for the Bill of Rights,” but Christie called his stance “completely ridiculous” – suggesting he wants to cherry-pick only some data.
“When you’re sitting in the subcommittee just blowing hot air about this, you can say things like that,” Christie said.
Racetrack owners, bankers, and chicken kings: Meet the ultra-rich bankrolling the Bush and Clinton dynasties. A special report by Vocativ and The Daily Beast.
For some wealthy donors, it doesn’t matter who takes the White House in 2016—as long as the president’s name is Clinton or Bush.
More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush’s and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush’s and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.
After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women—racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.
By REBECCA KAPLAN FACE THE NATION August 2, 2015, 10:49 AM
Presidential candidate Donald Trump said Sunday that he pays as little in taxes as possible just like every other taxpayer in America.
“I fight like hell to pay as little as possible for two reasons. Number one, I’m a businessman. And that’s the way you’re supposed to do it,” Trump said in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “The other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money. Trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. And I hate it.”
Trump has not yet released his tax returns, but said he has “no major problem” with doing it. And he said he may tie a release of his tax returns to a release of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails from her time as secretary of state.
Trump: Patience for the presidency?
The State Department is in the process ofreviewing and releasing more than 55,000 pages of emails Clinton sent and received while in the Obama administration. Clinton has come under fire for using a private email server to conduct business rather than her official government account, and fresh questions emerged last month about whether Clinton used her personal email account to send classified information.
Trump predicted the questions over Clinton’s email practices will “be a devastating blow for Hillary,” and said she would be “in big trouble” if there is “an honorable prosecution” (something he said is unlikely because the prosecutors “are all Democrats”). He compared Clinton’s troubles as a far worse version of the scandal that engulfed former CIA Director David Petraeus, who pled guilty earlier this yearto giving classified information to his mistress and biographer.
Many Democrats have long hoped that Hillary Clinton might expand Barack Obama‘s electoral coalition by drawing in more white women voters.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests she may have a tough time pulling it off. Mrs. Clinton is losing ground with white women and many other important slices of the electorate, the poll shows, amid a spate of reports about her email practices, speaking fees and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Click to see more charts and articles from the July poll.
In June, 44% of white women had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, compared to 43% who didn’t. In July, those numbers moved in the wrong direction for Mrs. Clinton: Only 34% of white women saw her in a positive light, compared to 53% who had a negative impression of her, the poll found.
Mr. Obama fared poorly with white women voters in the 2012 election, losing them to Republican challenger Mitt Romney by 14 points.
For Team Clinton, the latest poll numbers are a worrisome development. Mrs. Clinton is unlikely to match the African-American turnout that propelled Mr. Obama to two presidential victories, so she has to make up the difference somewhere else. Women eager to see a woman in the White House is a logical group to target.
Mrs. Clinton, of course, is a white woman. She was raised in the suburbs and earned both college and law degrees. She’s fared well among voters with a similar background in past polls, but this month’s survey shows that’s no longer the case.
McDonald’s profits implode seemingly overnight plunging 30%. Next step? Service to be automated.
“Amid a historically slow economic recovery, 1970s labor-participation rates and stagnant middle-class incomes, we understand that people are frustrated. Harder to understand is how so many of our media brethren have been persuaded that suddenly it’s the job of America’s burger joints to provide everyone with good pay and benefits. The result of their agitation will be more jobs for machines and fewer for the least skilled workers.” Joe Killian
Minimum Wage Backfire
McDonald’s moves to automate orders to reduce worker costs.
Updated Oct. 22, 2014 2:26 p.m. ET
If there’s a silver lining for McDonald’s in Tuesday’s dreadful earnings report, it is that perhaps union activists will begin to understand that the fast-food chain cannot solve the problems of theObama economy. The world’s largest restaurant company reported a 30% decline in quarterly profits on a 5% drop in revenues. Problems under the golden arches were global—sales were weak in China, Europe and the United States.
So even one of the world’s most ubiquitous consumer brands cannot print money at its pleasure. This may be news to liberal pressure groups that have lately been demanding that government order the chain known for cheap food to somehow pay higher wages.
By Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Carol D. Leonnig July 31 at 8:59 PM
State Department investigators concluded this year that Huma Abedin, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s closest aides, was overpaid by nearly $10,000 because of violations of rules governing vacation and sick leave during her tenure as an official in the department.
The finding — which Abedin has formally contested — emerged publicly Friday after Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) sent letters to Secretary of State John F. Kerry and others seeking more information about an investigation into possible “criminal” conduct by Abedin concerning her pay.
The letters also sought the status of an inquiry into whether Abedin had violated conflict-of-interest laws related to her special employment situation, which allowed her to work simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a private firm with close ties to the Clintons.
The finding that Abedin, a longtime Clinton confidante who now serves as vice chairwoman of her presidential campaign, had improperly collected taxpayer money could prove damaging to Clinton’s candidacy, as Republicans charge that government rules were routinely bent to benefit Clinton and her aides.
“Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably,” the great Homer Simpson once observed. “The lesson is: never try.”
That’s probably how the so-called “smart set” within the Republican Party feels these days. Ever since Mitt Romney’s 2012 defeat—a loss that caught everyone off guard except for people who followed public opinion polls or read a newspaper—we Republicans were promised a tough, new approach to the presidential primary process.
No longer would the “non-serious candidates”—a term the bigwigs applied to people like Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain—be permitted to dominate the news cycles. This time the GOP would be a well-oiled machine, with a handful of candidates who quickly and quietly made way for the coronation of King Bush the Third.
And yet here we are.
The first GOP debate, televised on August 6 on Fox News, is already a total backfire for the establishment. Based on the latest polls, it will likely include every single one of the candidates the Republican elite despises: Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz—and banish to the losers’ consolation round exactly the types of candidates the establishment presumably wants to showcase: a female business leader, an Indian-American son of immigrants and the consensus-building governor of the crucial electoral state of Ohio.
The controlled, somber and oh-so-civilized process that the GOP promised its donors is now the biggest free-for-all in American political history. The blame for this, of course, is all being thrown in one direction.
Ridgewood NJ, Judicial Watch continues to press Clinton on Various actions taken at the State Department as well as her involvement with the Clinton Foundation .But Hillary Clinton has a demonstrated record of showing contempt for the rule of law.
She refused to tell the truth about the deadly Benghazi terrorist attack that took place on her watch as Secretary of State She violated the law and avoided accountability by using secret email accounts as Secretary of State She abused her public office to funnel money to personal accounts – much of which is now sloshing around her vanity “charity” that could be renamed “The Clinton Corruption Foundation.”This is all unacceptable.
In this country our leaders are bound by the rule of law. She must be held accountable for her actions.
Sign the petition now to demand that Hillary Clinton answer for her corruption!
The whole point of meeting a source at a bar is to get him (or her) in as relaxed a mood as possible in order to talk.
Midway into the conversation the source began slurring his words, eyes fixed on the empty beer bottle in front of him on the bar top. The dead, almost cross-eyed look in his eyes with a hint of curiosity for the unknown, suggested that the empty bottle might as well have been a lacquered Buddha statue on sale in Chinatown for $5.99.
