Clinton Campaign emails: How do we answer when asked about the (illegal) deletions?

The Federal Records Act says that government business on email must be archived on government servers. The Espionage Act says that classified information may not go out on unsecured or unauthorized networks. The law is that once something is under subpoena if you delete it, that is obstruction of justice.

Hillary and her staff did all of this countless times. When asked about it the reflexive answer was not just to simply tell the truth, it was to invent the best possible answer to benefit them. This of course, is also obstruction because they know that the FBI and Congress will be asking these very questions. No indication of just telling the truth is suggested.

You can real the email HERE:

hillary-email-sept-4-2015-deleted-email-talking-points

VIDEO: Clinton Campaign appears to feed NBC’s Andrea Mitchell questions via cell-phone

We have seen this before. Hillary Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill gives hand picked questions to friendly reporters.

Thanks to Hillary’s campaign emails being released by Wikileaks we know that a great many reporters, like NBC’s Andrea Mitchell shown here, are advising and coordinating with the campaign to give the most favorable coverage possible.

Former FBI Deputry Director: Investigation of Hillary Absolutely Contrary to How FBI Operates

Former FBI Director James Kallstrom explains how he is heart broken by how the Obama Administration and FBI Director Comey have conducted themselves in the investigation of multiple violations of the Espionage Act  and the Federal Records Act by Hillary Clinton and her top staff.

Listen for yourself:

RELATED: FBI Tried to Conceal State Dept Offer of Quid-Pro-Quo to FBI to Cover for Hillary https://politicalarena.org/2016/10/17/11872/

Tax Returns Show Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10% on Charitable Grants, Not 90%

Remember when Hillary said in the debate that 90% of what the Clinton Foundation brings in goes to charity and those in need? Well those in need must include themselves and their pals according to their 2013 tax filing:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/311/580/2013-311580204-0b0083da-9.pdf

Their tweet with graphic below is simply a lie straight up.


The Federalist
:

There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

clinton-foundation-2013-breakdown-federalist

In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false.

Democrats laughed at Romney when he said Russia was a geopolitical threat…

obama-on-russia-romney-2012

Remember when Democrats Laughed at Romney when he said Russia was a geopolitical threat? Now Hillary and the Democrats can’t stop saying it.

By the RSC:

On Russia, Obama Has Completely Flipped From His 2012 Viewpoint: 7 Key Points.

The media thought President Obama’s best zinger in the October 22, 2012 debate was telling Mitt Romney “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

He also said Romney “acts like he thinks the Cold War’s on. I don’t know where he’s been.”

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev backed up Obama and said Romney was stuck in a Cold War mentality.

The Democratic Party described it as an example of “Romney vs. reality”, and claiming Russia is a foe demonstrates “Romney’s not ready.”

Gen. Joe Dunford was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by Obama, and agreed with Romney’s warning. Russia’s UN envoy has said that relations with America are at their tensest in 40 years.

Romney’s position has become the conventional view, and Vladimir Putin is constantly scaring the world.

The important point is what Obama is saying today. The President has completely reversed himself and now says Russia:

1) Is hitting us with constant cyber attacks and has hacked into election sites. He claims they are trying to undermine our democracy.

2) Sanctions on Russia expire next month, and Obama is urging European leaders to keep and increase them.

3) He says Russia has broken many of their promises and is guilty of mass slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria, where over 500,000 have died.

4) He says they illegally annexed Crimea and are threatening eastern Ukraine where 10,000 have died.

5) The State Department says Russia has moved nuclear weapons into Kaliningrad and is threatening the Baltic states and Europe.

6) Russia’s state owned television news is full of nuclear threats, and reports on ballistic missiles and bomb shelters.

7) Putin has learned that he can defy America and come out on top. Mild Western sanctions make ordinary Russians worse off, but they also give the people an enemy to unite against.

NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Related – THERE IS NO DEFENSE – HILLARY’S MISUSE OF HER POSITION AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR PAY FOR PLAY SCHEMES

Wikileaks: Podesta’s Daughter Received His Shares in Putin-Linked Company

Flashback April, 23, 2015 New York Times:

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.