Hillary Clinton’s Damning Emails

Exclusive: Before the Democrats lock in their choice for President, they might want to know if Hillary Clinton broke the law with her unsecure emails and may be indicted, a question that ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern addresses.

By Ray McGovern

A few weeks after leaving office, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have breathed a sigh of relief and reassurance when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper denied reports of the National Security Agency eavesdropping on Americans. After all, Clinton had been handling official business at the State Department like many Americans do with their personal business, on an unsecured server.

In sworn testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 12, 2013, Clapper said the NSA was not collecting, wittingly, “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans,” which presumably would have covered Clinton’s unsecured emails.

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton honor the four victims of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony held at Andrews Air Force Base, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Sept. 14, 2012. [State Department photo)

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton honor the four victims of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony held at Andrews Air Force Base, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Sept. 14, 2012. [State Department photo)

But NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations — starting on June 5, 2013 — gave the lie to Clapper’s testimony, which Clapper then retracted on June 21 – coincidentally, Snowden’s 30th birthday – when Clapper sent a letter to the Senators to whom he had, well, lied. Clapper admitted his “response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize.”  (On the chance you are wondering what became of Clapper, he is still DNI.)

I would guess that Clapper’s confession may have come as a shock to then ex-Secretary Clinton, as she became aware that her own emails might be among the trillions of communications that NSA was vacuuming up. Nevertheless, she found Snowden’s truth-telling a safer target for her fury than Clapper’s dishonesty and NSA’s dragnet.

In April 2014, Clinton suggested that Snowden had helped terrorists by giving “all kinds of information, not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups and the like.” Clinton was particularly hard on Snowden for going to China (Hong Kong) and Russia to escape a vengeful prosecution by the U.S. government.

Clinton even explained what extraordinary lengths she and her people went to in safeguarding government secrets: “When I would go to China or would go to Russia, we would leave all my electronic equipment on the plane with the batteries out, because … they’re trying to find out not just about what we do in our government, they’re … going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department.” Yes, she said that. (emphasis added)

Hoisted on Her Own Petard

Alas, nearly a year later, in March 2015, it became known that during her tenure as Secretary of State she had not been as diligent as she led the American people to believe. She had used a private server for official communications, rather than the usual official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. Thousands of those emails would retroactively be marked classified – some at the TOP SECRET/Codeword level – by the department.

During an interview last September, Snowden was asked to respond to the revelations about highly classified material showing up on Clinton’s personal server: “When the unclassified systems of the United States government, which has a full-time information security staff, regularly gets hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado is more secure is completely ridiculous.”

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. (Photo credit: The Guardian)

Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. (Photo credit: The Guardian)

Asked if Clinton “intentionally endangered US international security by being so careless with her email,” Snowden said it was not his place to say. Nor, it would seem, is it President Barack Obama’s place to say, especially considering that the FBI is actively investigating Clinton’s security breach. But Obama has said it anyway.

“She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy,” the President said on April 10. In the same interview, Obama told Chris Wallace, “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI – not just in this case, but in any case. Full stop. Period.”

But, although a former professor of Constitutional law, the President sports a checkered history when it comes to prejudicing investigations and even trials, conducted by those ultimately reporting to him. For example, more than two years before Bradley (Chelsea) Manning was brought to trial, the President stated publicly: “We are a nation of laws. We don’t let individuals make decisions about how the law operates. He [Bradley Manning] broke the law!”

Not surprisingly, the ensuing court martial found Manning guilty, just as the Commander in Chief had predicted. Though Manning’s purpose in disclosing mostly low-level classified information was to alert the American public about war crimes and other abuses by the U.S. government, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

U.S. Army Pvt. Bradley Manning

U.S. Army Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning

On March 9, when presidential candidate Clinton was asked, impertinently during a debate, whether she would withdraw from the race if she were indicted for her cavalier handling of government secrets, she offered her own certain prediction: “Oh, for goodness sake! It’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.”

Prosecutorial Double Standards

Merited or not, there is, sadly, some precedent for Clinton’s supreme confidence. Retired General and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus, after all, lied to the FBI (a felony for “lesser” folks) about giving his mistress/biographer highly classified information and got off with a slap on the wrist, a misdemeanor fine and probation, no jail time – a deal that Obama’s first Attorney General Eric Holder did on his way out the door.

We are likely to learn shortly whether Attorney General Loretta Lynch is as malleable as Holder or whether she will allow FBI Director James Comey, who held his nose in letting Petraeus cop a plea, to conduct an unfettered investigation this time – or simply whether Comey will be compelled to enforce Clinton’s assurance that “it’s not going to happen.”

Last week, Fox News TV legal commentator Andrew Napolitano said the FBI is in the final stages of its investigation into Clinton and her private email server. His sources tell him that “the evidence of her guilt is overwhelming,” and that the FBI has enough evidence to indict and convict.

Whether Napolitano has it right or not, it seems likely that Clinton is reading President Obama correctly – no profile in courage is he. Nor is Obama likely to kill the political fortunes of the now presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Yet, if he orders Lynch and Comey not to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for what – in my opinion and that of most other veteran intelligence officials whom I’ve consulted – amounts to at least criminal negligence, another noxious precedent will be set.

Knowing Too Much

This time, however, the equities and interests of the powerful, secretive NSA, as well as the FBI and Justice, are deeply involved. And by now all of them know “where the bodies are buried,” as the smart folks inside the Beltway like to say. So the question becomes would a future President Hillary Clinton have total freedom of maneuver if she were beholden to those all well aware of her past infractions and the harm they have done to this country.

One very important, though as yet unmentioned, question is whether security lapses involving Clinton and her emails contributed to what Clinton has deemed her worst moment as Secretary of State, the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel at the lightly guarded U.S. “mission” (a very small, idiosyncratic, consulate-type complex not performing any consular affairs) in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013, about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013, about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)

Somehow the terrorists who mounted the assault were aware of the absence of meaningful security at the facility, though obviously there were other means for them to have made that determination, including the State Department’s reliance on unreliable local militias who might well have shared that inside information with the attackers.

However, if there is any indication that Clinton’s belatedly classified emails contained information about internal State Department discussions regarding the consulate’s security shortcomings, questions may be raised about whether that information was somehow compromised by a foreign intelligence agency and shared with the attackers.

We know that State Department bureaucrats under Secretary Clinton overruled repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi. We also know that Clinton disregarded NSA’s repeated warnings against the use of unencrypted communications. One of NSA’s core missions, after all, is to create and maintain secure communications for military, diplomatic, and other government users.

Clinton’s flouting of the rules, in NSA’s face, would have created additional incentive for NSA to keep an especially close watch on her emails and telephone calls. The NSA also might know whether some intelligence service successfully hacked into Clinton’s server, but there’s no reason to think that the NSA would share that sort of information with the FBI, given the NSA’s history of not sharing its data with other federal agencies even when doing so makes sense.

The NSA arrogates to itself the prerogative of deciding what information to keep within NSA walls and what to share with the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies like the FBI. (One bitter consequence of this jealously guarded parochialism was the NSA’s failure to share very precise information that could have thwarted the attacks of 9/11, as former NSA insiders have revealed.)

It is altogether likely that Gen. Keith Alexander, head of NSA from 2005 to 2014, neglected to tell the Secretary of State of NSA’s “collect it all” dragnet collection that included the emails and telephone calls of Americans – including Clinton’s. This need not have been simply the result of Alexander’s pique at her disdain for communications security requirements, but rather mostly a consequence of NSA’s modus operandi.

With the mindset at NSA, one could readily argue that the Secretary of State – and perhaps the President himself – had no “need-to-know.” And, needless to say, the fewer briefed on the NSA’s flagrant disregard for Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures the better.

So, if there is something incriminating – or at least politically damaging – in Clinton’s emails, it’s a safe bet that at least the NSA and maybe the FBI, as well, knows. And that could make life difficult for a Clinton-45 presidency. Inside the Beltway, we don’t say the word “blackmail,” but the potential will be there. The whole thing needs to be cleaned up now before the choices for the next President are locked in.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  He served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, during which he prepared and briefed the morning President’s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan.

90 comments for “Hillary Clinton’s Damning Emails

  1. May 10, 2016 at 07:22

    Everyone should be with Linda Tripp who knew the clintons has to say about the imoral character of this woman Hillary… and I dare say that she’s not even a woman.


  2. nazcalito
    May 3, 2016 at 13:06

    j in VT She had a secured personal computer at the State department but was unable or unwilling to use it, accessing her emails exclusively by her unsecured Blackberry.

  3. Bruce
    May 1, 2016 at 22:33

    Shirley Ray KNOWS Hellary IS Company.

  4. Sojourner Truth
    May 1, 2016 at 20:08

    A treatment of the Clinton e-mails non-scandal that is far more thoughtful and detailed than McGovern’s article can be found here:


    • BelleVeritas
      May 2, 2016 at 15:10

      Perhaps you didn’t realize that Clinton political operative David Brock founded Media Matters for America.

  5. May 1, 2016 at 11:22

    If Hilary gets indited, maybe Bernie could be VP,

    Gov. Rendell in 1970 got 12 VP votes. If Hillary isn’t indited a combined ticket will be strongest. Trump is becoming the richest man on earth and has more buildings with his name on them then French President then Emperor Napoleon. Peace Emperor Trump will remain for peace only if a war is’t necessary to gain more power.

    • Abbybwood
      May 1, 2016 at 13:31

      Obviously if Sanders accepted a VP position it would mean he “endorsed” Hillary Rodham Clinton for president and I, for one, will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton, even if Jesus Christ was her VP.

    • BelleVeritas
      May 2, 2016 at 15:15

      It’s dangerous for a President with very high UNFAVORABILITY ratings to have a VP with very high FAVORABILITY ratings. She will need to have her assistant Donald Igor Trump, who also has high UNFAVORABILITY ratings, as her VP.

  6. Jim Hannan
    May 1, 2016 at 11:00

    I don’t think the Clinton emails are very important. It’s only become an issue because a right wing group has demanded that they all be released. I would personally like to read the emails of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Antonin Scalia, etc. Why is it only Hillary Clinton’s emails that are scrutinized.
    In Arizona a state official in the Arizona Corporation Commission colluded with others to subvert justice, he simply deleted all of his texts. Lots of politicians use private emails for official business, because they don’t want their emails recorded.
    We are going to have a choice for President between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I see lots of Clinton bashing on this site, but not much on Trump. What about Trump’s tax returns? Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has released all of her tax returns. That is transparency. Trump has released nothing. Trump thinks he can coast to victory without ever releasing his tax returns because the left is more interested in attacking Clinton than going after him. Interesting strategy.

    • Zachary Smith
      May 1, 2016 at 15:08

      They’re both awful: arrogant, corrupt, and ignorant (Trump)/incompetent (Hillary). It’s just that Hillary is more likely to kill me in an nuclear war.

      The emails are interesting reading, but that’s not the point of the fuss about them. Queen Hillary deliberately set out to circumvent the Freedom Of Information Act, and in the process put state secrets on full display to everybody in the world who had an interest in reading the Secretary of State’s messages. That’s illegal, and better people than HRC are in prison for doing less.

    • BelleVeritas
      May 2, 2016 at 15:19

      AGREE. The emails are not important in proving that she flies above the law. Anyone following her career up to the election rigging and fraud in the current primary knows she’s an outlaw.

      They ARE important for CONTENT, because she was legally required to submit EVERYTHING for archival purposes before she exited..

      HOWEVER, the NSA probably knows everything in ALL her emails, according to career CIA strategist Ray McGovern.

      And could blackmail her. Or sell information to third parties.

    • belleVeritas
      May 2, 2016 at 15:28

      Actually, it was not a right wing group requiring their release. It was the judiciary, i.e. the COURT. LAW requires that government employees submit ALL business communications at the time of exit from employment (like most companies do).

      You may not realize that the FOIA requests were filed by press, eg VICE News, which is not right wing. It’s more left, if anything.

      And President Obama, not a right wing organization, ordered these investigations.

  7. Paul Wichmann
    May 1, 2016 at 08:09

    “The NSA arrogates to itself the prerogative of deciding what information to keep within NSA walls and what to share with the other intelligence and law enforcement agencies like the FBI.”

    So did the DEQ in Michigan, over the quality of Flint’s water – a hundred thousand poisoned.
    It is the MO of every agency of government, on every level.
    And then it is the MO of every individual in government, high to low. And every individual in society, as well. I’ve heard that information is power. It’s non-disclosure is protection, as well comfort. It’s who we are.

    A decision on Mrs. Clinton has been coming next week for months. The intelligence community is supposedly up in arms about her transgressions, ready to revolt.
    Nonsense. As Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon over 40 years ago – and how far have we fallen in that span – to save not Nixon but the system, Mrs. Clinton, the Quean of System and the Establishment, has nothing to fear. And she betrays none, and it isn’t bravado.

  8. Jay
    April 30, 2016 at 21:11

    George Semper Fi,

    Familiarize yourself with Hogan’s Heros if you want to use the reference.

  9. Jay
    April 30, 2016 at 20:58

    A problem source: Andrew Napolitano.

    I’d trust him about as far as I’d trust Hillary.

  10. Sojourner Truth
    April 30, 2016 at 18:08

    Another note: Brother Ray and the Trollenkampfverbande might want to take note of the Mitt Romney affiliation of James Comey, who initiated the investigation.

    Again, a sad, sorry performance here. Editor-in-chief Robert Parry is capable of better, as we have seen.

  11. George Semper fi
    April 30, 2016 at 18:01

    Me thinks I Would like to offer tidbits to the conversation…

    1- The Muslim Brotherhood was in control of Egypt during September 2011.

    2- POTUS, whereabouts are peculiarly unknown during the night of
    the BENGAZI misbehavior… As Sgt. Schultz would say “verrrrrrrrrrrry

    3- Anne W. Patterson just happened to be in the U.S. on this evening.
    She was Ambassador to Egypt nominated by POTUS on On June 30, 2011
    and was eventually EJECTED by Post Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian
    President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s goverment for funding and
    supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Oddly, she was subsequently
    elevated in stature to assistant secretary of state in the State
    Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs by POTUS B.O. Again…
    as Sgt. Schultz would again say “verrrrrrrrrrrry interesting”.
    As a side note one of her subbordinates at the U.S. Egyptian Embassy
    created the petard about … “it was unknown, unseen video” that
    caused the BENGAZI problem.

    4- POTUS was preferential toward the Muslim Brotherhood control of
    EGYPT as was Jarett, Clinton/Huma, Rice and the whole damn gang….

    5- The Regime was anxiously trying to arrange a swap of the one eyed
    Sheik for an American Ambassador.

    6- Hack a server and invite yourself to a preplanned Party, and
    as a result, sadly we lost four good Americans.

    7- Dooo anyone remember the quotes “Don’t shoot”, “Dr. Morsi sent us”…
    … As Sgt. Schultz would say extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeemeLy disgusting…

    Semper fi Bob Hope wherever you are….

    George Semper fi

  12. j in VT
    April 30, 2016 at 17:44

    I just realized this the other day. It had escaped me, probably because it is just too simple:
    Clinton also used an unsecured phone, and took that phone with her everywhere. Most likely, she used that phone to access her email and her server. The password for access to her email and server were probably stored on the phone. That phone went with her to China, Europe and the middle east. It was probably ‘skimmed,’ and in that likelihood, her password and thereby access to her server were gained. No hacking would have been necessary, other than ‘skimming’ the info from the phone. Someone/anyone could just logon to the server with that info. I know- no one would ever ‘skim’ a phone, right?
    And I bet more than several of her deleted ‘personal emails pertained to her corrupt brother and his participation in gaining mining interests in Haiti.
    j in VT

  13. Dennis Rice
    April 30, 2016 at 17:30

    Alas. This report is not the kind of open discussion and facts Americans can find in the mainstream media – who are too damned scared to do their jobs.

    And, given its past and present history, we can count on the fact that our Department of Justice (nor the FBI) is not about to prosecute and jail our top level war criminals. Easy to hit on someone like Chelsea Manning.

    The Sanders supporters are signaling to the ivory towered Democratic leadership (so wrapped up in its own little ego that it refuses to see) that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, it is also the FINAL blow of the death of the Democratic party.

    The dying and death of which the Democratic party leadership isn’t even aware of – they are so far out of touch with the American voter (Just like the Republican leadership).

  14. Dosamuno
    April 30, 2016 at 17:12

    What do the following people have in common?

    Henry Giroux
    Helen Caldicott
    Abby Martin
    Adolph Reed
    Michael Parenti
    Michael Hudson
    Webster Tarpley
    Vandana Shiva
    Glenn Ford
    Peter Dale Scott
    Margaret Kimberly
    John Bellamy Foster
    David Talbot
    David Valentine
    Chris Hedges


    Expertise in diverse fields.
    Excellent writing skills
    I’ve never seen articles by them in Consortium
    They’re not former CIA analysts.

  15. Mattias Forsgren
    April 30, 2016 at 17:07

    It would be completely insane to elect a president who’s balls could bee in the clutches of any enemy of the american people, foreign or internal.

  16. Tom
    April 30, 2016 at 16:36

    Why won’t I vote for Hillary? One reason is mind boggling arrogance on her part. Many have asked her, if you’re indicted, will you drop out of the race? A perfectly reasonable question. Her reply? She laughs it off. Don’t even insult my intelligence by asking that. Of course it won’t happen.

    Now, while I’m not an attorney, I did study lots of undergrad law in college. One thing I learned was no attorney (no matter how good they are) has 100% intuition regarding a case. Also, never say or do anything that would hurt you while you’re the subject of a criminal investigation. She says she won’t be indicted. Really? How does she know that? Based on what? The fact that previous Secretaries of State had personal email accounts for classified mail and never got prosecuted makes it okay for her to do the same? Try using that line of logic in court and see if you won’t get laughed at.

    If AG Lynch wants to prosecute, will Obama overrule her? Remember Obama said that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a “fine administrator”. Good thing then that he’s leaving.

  17. airwood
    April 30, 2016 at 15:32

    Listening to an interview done by Al Hunt of Loretta Lynch on Charlie Rose “The Week” — I believe I heard a mis-statement by AG Lynch to the effect
    “…it’s a question of who…(rephrases)…it’s a question of what…” wrt the e-mails.
    Have I mis-heard?

  18. Charles
    April 30, 2016 at 14:36

    Sorry, Ray, but this is over the edge. I am not particularly fond of Clinton, but let’s not develop double standards ourselves. The use of private e-mail servers was well-established during the Bush Administration. And, yes, it was outrageous and probably illegal. But no one was prosecuted. To go after Clinton would be unjust.

    As for the possibility that her e-mails compromised the security of the ambassador in Benghazi, that is pure speculation. Sure, it could have happened, but intensive review to date has not shown this to be the case. It sounds like wishful thinking.

    The Clinton server shows the reason to have secure government-operated communications, which means they will be subject to Freedom of Information Act inquiries. It might also inspire the principals to do something about our totally insecure Internet. But to imagine Clinton being indicted over this? Not even as a wild fantasy..

      April 30, 2016 at 16:23

      I recall Karl Rove defiantly admitting that White House personnel using off-the grid personal laptops. Of course, no one dared to challenge this (seemingly illegal) practice.

      • May 2, 2016 at 20:17

        yes, and the fellow who controlled the Bush, Rove and republican email system, long with the “man in the middle”
        servers implicated in the 2004 Olio vote anomalies, had a single person plane crash in December 2008.
        Get it?

    • Phil Dennany
      April 30, 2016 at 16:31

      Right on! Those darn vomit Bush goons got away with endangering U.S national defense so of course it’s okay for Hillary to do it as well, and even better. Let’s make it okay to bomb and drone any country we want, just as long as it brings more profit to Wall Street Zion Mafia! I’m right there with you Charlie. Oh, yeah, we are, and droning much more that the terrorist of the former regime did as well.

    • Mattias Forsgren
      April 30, 2016 at 17:09

      Please explain to me how I’m wrong in this: It would be completely insane to elect a president who’s balls could bee in the clutches of any enemy of the american people, foreign or internal.

      • Mattias Forsgren
        April 30, 2016 at 17:22

        balls could be…:-P

    • Bill Bodden
      April 30, 2016 at 19:43

      But no one was prosecuted. To go after Clinton would be unjust.

      By this reasoning President Hillary can follow the devastating political strategies of one of her mentors, Henry Kissinger, and do so with impunity. By this reasoning there would have been no justification for the war crimes trials after World War II.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      April 30, 2016 at 21:33

      Charles, the use of private email servers was not well-established during the Bush administration. People used private email addresses on secure servers. Most of the principals prior to the Obama administration were not email users (I think Rice was the exception here).

      Also, look at the great reply below by Bill Bidden: “By this reasoning President Hillary can follow the devastating political strategies of one of her mentors, Henry Kissinger, and do so with impunity. By this reasoning there would have been no justification for the war crimes trials after World War II.”

  19. Bart Gruzalski
    April 30, 2016 at 14:07

    Hillary’s regal exceptionalism.

    I was a Bernie supporter, though, after last Tuesday’s loss of 4 of 5 states, he proceeded to fail with his condoning Obama’s boots on the ground and extra legal drone assassinations. If he wants to have an impact he needs to renounce those two positions ASAP. If he doesn’t, he’s lost many of his followers.

    I would never vote for Hillary. Voting for Hillary is voting for more war, more imperialism, more death, more military spending.

    Trump is “America First” (not America-and-Israel first) and not an imperialist. He doesn’t think the USA has any business policing the world, which is consistent with a great number of early Americans beginning with George Washington.

    It will be interesting to see how Hillary spins “America First”–her position on Israel should be an embarrassment in any debate. The AIPAC, and maybe Hillary, will spin “America First” as anti-Semitic.

    With Paul Craig Roberts, I’ll vote for Trump if he’s the candidate (see Paul Craig Roberts’ webpage remarks on Trumps foreign policy speech). Gill Stein may be PC (politically correct) but she’s also PI (politically ineffective).

    • Bart Gruzalski
      April 30, 2016 at 14:15

      I was timed out in my editing.

      Pat Buchanan has a very useful piece on “America First” (just use Dr. Google).

      • Zachary Smith
        April 30, 2016 at 16:50

        I got to the third paragraph of Buchanan’s piece before clicking out of the page.

        Gutsy and brazen it was to use that phrase, considering the demonization of the great anti-war movement of 1940-41, which was backed by the young patriots John F. Kennedy and his brother Joe, Gerald Ford and Sargent Shriver, and President Hoover and Alice Roosevelt.

        And no, I’m not providing a link, either.

        The fellow remains hopeless.

        (wonder if this revision will pass the ‘moderation’ filter?)

        (edit: no link, no “iffy” words, and it’s still ‘moderated’. WTH is going on?)

        (speculation – probably the forum software again. My Chrome Browser shows an entirely different array of posts than Firefox)

  20. Mary
    April 30, 2016 at 13:54

    Ray McGovern, Republican, served as a CIA analyst for 27 years, during which he prepared and briefed the morning President’s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon (R), Ford (R), and Reagan (R). No bias here.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      April 30, 2016 at 14:24

      RE: “NO BIAS THERE.”

      Ray McGovern was opposed to George Bush’s military foreign policy and the use of drones. You were right, no bias here.

      Ray McGovern: “Allegations keep cropping up in the press that CIA alumni are undermining the Bush/Cheney administration. In at least one sense, I suppose, this is true. For when an administration embarks on a war justified by little or no intelligence, speaking the truth can be regarded as treachery. The country could use more of that kind of “treachery.””

      I guess you didn’t know how right you were!

    • Zachary Smith
      April 30, 2016 at 16:42

      For the sake of discussion let’s assume Mr. Ray McGovern is all that, and is also an agent for Chinese Intelligence with a special fondness for perfumed sheep.

      Could you kindly tell how any of that impacts his essay? Also, why you didn’t care to remark about any of his specific points?

      I’ll admit to sometimes using the Argumentum ad hominem technique myself, but always try to provide some evidence as to why it’s relevant. Like, if an individual was a loud supporter of the Iraq Invasion or constantly demands Iran be turned into a sheet of glass, why should I – or anybody else – suppose they have any other opinions worth listening to? A person could err with such a blanket assumption, but as a default position one could do worse.

      So except for accurately bashing the criminal ***** Hillary, exactly what did Mr. McGovern do wrong here?

      His final point about the potential for blackmail is not a bad one at all, IMO>

      • Bart Gruzalski
        April 30, 2016 at 21:26

        Zachary Smith, well said. That is of course the bottom line.

        I think that addressing the ad hominem is also a useful strategy. After all, if someone is currently on the DNC or on Hillary’s inner staff, I think that counts against them.

        George Carlin expresses an important truth when he said: “I have certain rules that I live by… My first rule – I don’t believe anything the government tells me.”

    • May 2, 2016 at 13:33

      I’ve been maligned before — but, Mary, you’re the first to use “Republican!” … as if a senior intelligence analyst preparing the “President’s Daily Brief” for Republican Presidents — or exposing the crimes of Hillary Clinton — makes one a “Republican.” I’ve been called a lot of things, but ……..


  21. Martha Baez
    April 30, 2016 at 13:46

    1 of 10 High People who signed Generic Statutory Authorization. It is her duty to know about declassification. To exchange gov’t information w/o .Gov and use pvt email svr is purely irresponsible thousands of emails. Difference bt other SOS there is no comparison
    She lacks good judgement and is not fit for POTUS.

  22. Zachary Smith
    April 30, 2016 at 13:25

    “She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy,” the President said on April 10. In the same interview, Obama told Chris Wallace, “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI – not just in this case, but in any case. Full stop. Period.”

    According to multiple accounts I’ve read, “intention” doesn’t matter the least little bit regarding this issue. My current link is (unfortunately) to a Faux News site, and my quick investigation of the author indicates that – in general – he’s a certifiable jackass. But in this instance the man’s claims seem quite reasonable to me.

    This is so for two reasons. First, failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. The failure can be done negligently. Thus, plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial.

    Second, Clinton signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. Her briefing and her oath specified that the obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute — it cannot be avoided or evaded by forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can bring prosecution.


    Mr. Napolitano mentions in passing the FBI investigation of “her probable use of her position as secretary of state to advance financially her husband’s charitable foundation.”

    Add those two to the possibility Hillary’s health is worse than is generally known, and it makes perfect sense for Sanders to stay the course. Personally, I believe that the “fix” is on with the legal issues, but you never can tell.

  23. Bill Bodden
    April 30, 2016 at 12:56

    When, when reading Ray McGovern’s article, did I have recurring thoughts of reading an updated version of “Alice in Wonderland”?

  24. Lin Cleveland
    April 30, 2016 at 10:40

    Do you want to know a secret? Personally, I find all this clock and dagger stuff rather ambiguous and unsettling. Do We_the_People want a government for, by and of the people, or a government which is highly secretive and unassailable? Ed Snowden revealed that the NSA spies on everyone and in turn has become a man without a country. Through Wikileaks Chelsea Manning exposed a murderous crime committed by the crew of one Black Hawk helicopter and today she, not the perpetrators, languish in a prison cell. Most of us who comment here consider Manning and Snowden as heroes willing to risk all for Truth.

    “We are a nation of laws. We don’t let individuals make decisions about how the law operates. He [Bradley Manning] broke the law!” says Obama. Hm, from where o’ where do these “laws” originate? I could have sworn that all elected “leaders” or appointed bureaucrats even top-ranking brass are but individuals, too. Most on this thread have little respect for or trust in Hillary Clinton, yet it sounds like we insist she keep the Empire’s secrets, not only from those Chinese computer whizzes but from all of us.

    One of NSA’s core missions,” writes Ray McGovern. “after all, is to create and maintain secure communications for military, diplomatic, and other government users.” Well yeah, the holiday season is but a fading memory and all that time-appropriate, wonderfully naïve talk about “peace on earth,” “Love one another” no longer applies in this crazy warrior world reality. Perhaps if We_the_People truly want to live in a peaceful world, a harmonious world where all nations come together in the spirit of mutual trust and respect, we could create a government reflective of that goal. And if all agree that “diplomacy” is but manipulative, military maneuver then we agree that international relations are based on lies and subterfuge.

    McGovern, a man I do respect, concludes, “So, if there is something incriminating – or at least politically damaging – in Clinton’s emails, it’s a safe bet that at least the NSA and maybe the FBI, as well, knows. And that could make life difficult for a Clinton-45 presidency. Inside the Beltway, we don’t say the word “blackmail,” but the potential will be there. The whole thing needs to be cleaned up now before the choices for the next President are locked in.” Ah, blackmail! Well, if governments were open and truthful could blackmail exist?

  25. Peter Loeb
    April 30, 2016 at 10:40


    It is not truth, rule or the law which decide but power which determines
    decisions regarding those with power.

    For the rest of humanity, other realities are relevant.

    This does not seem like anything new in world history.

    In the UN thirteen members of the Security Council agreed to
    a draft resolution condemning the State of Israel for the
    1967 War. The resolution of these international “anti-semites”
    (to use the phrase currently in use by supporters of Israel) failed.

    Secretary of State Henry Kissinger agreed with the Israeli
    position and instructed the US delegate (George H W Bush, I believe)
    to veto this resolution.

    (Any permanent power has the right to veto a Security Council
    resolution. This was a demand of the USSR’s Joseph Stalin.
    That is, the right to veto is not reserved to the US alone.)

    The result in the following decades was not a “peace
    process” (Oslo I, Oslo II) but what amounts to unconditional
    surrender by Palestinians to Israel. Only equity could
    alter this. As is well known, thanks to the US, Israel
    commands military supremacy in the Middle East and
    would pulverize any challenge.

    This was the original strategy of Zionism (see Vladimir
    Jabotinsky’s THE IRON WALL OF 1923).

    It applies not only to Zionist or to “Jews” as Israel
    would have many believe, but in fact to all
    situations where colonialism has defeated indigeonous
    people. The details differ. “Wounded Knee” in the USA
    (the state of South Dakota, December, 1890) ended
    any meaningful role of Native Americans.Native Americans
    were massacred.

    While Ray McGovern’s description of what has occurred
    is helpful, it will undoubtedly continue to occur in the futureno matter
    who becomes the next US president.

    —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    • Lin Cleveland
      April 30, 2016 at 11:16

      Excellent! Wish we had the “like this post” option, here.

      p.s. I meant “cloak and dagger” in my post below., but you all knew that.

    • Bill Bodden
      April 30, 2016 at 14:45

      To paraphrase that well-known saying, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely at the same time it gives immunity to those who can apply victors’ justice.

    • Dosamuno
      May 1, 2016 at 19:21

      Solid and incisive comment.

      Mr. Loeb alludes to Jabotinsky, Zionist eugenicist:

      It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different from his own. …We shall never allow such things as mixed marriage because the preservation of national integrity is impossible except by means of racial purity and for that purpose we will have this territory where our people will constitute the racially pure inhabitants.”

      (Vladimir Jabotinsky)

      And his comments on power echo Nietzsche:

         …the cause of the origin of a thing and its eventual utility, its actual employment and place in a system of purposes, lie worlds apart; …whatever exists, having somehow come into being, is  again and again reinterpreted to new ends, taken over, transformed, and redirected by some power superior to it; all events in the organic world are a subduing, a becoming master, and all subduing and becoming master involves a fresh interpretation, and adaptation through which any previous “meaning” and “purpose” are necessarily obscured or even obliterated.

      ( On The Genealogy of Morals)

    • David Smith
      April 30, 2016 at 10:26

      Everyone should click on to this link, not for the linked article but something more interesting. Scroll to the bottom for the article “When Will The Saudis Stop Killing Syrians’. The photo for this article shows a guy in Arab dress brandishing a sword who looks very much like Prince Charles. Click on the article for a higher def image. He is wearing a bandolera of cartridges and does not look pleased at being photographed.

    • Abbybwood
      April 30, 2016 at 18:32
      • dahoit
        May 2, 2016 at 12:24

        Charles of Arabia.

  26. Eduardo Cohen
    April 30, 2016 at 04:36

    An excellent brief from Ray McGovern. But some of the most important questions about Benghazi were never asked by the right-wing Republicans. And the Left pretty much gave Clinton a free pass on Libya — even sometimes defending her from the ill-motivated attacks from the Right. We should have been asking the questions that the Republicans didn’t and that need to be answered now:

    What was a US Ambassador doing in Benghazi where no Libyan government existed at the time? Why was the Ambassador traveling through hostile areas of Libya with a contingent of CIA operatives? What were Ambassador Stevens orders? What was his mission? Was his mission connected to the nascent civil war in Syria? And did Hillary or the State Department have any responsibility for a civil war in Syria that has cost more than 300,000 lives?

    Given her significant responsibility for the destruction of Libya, based on claims of government massacres that were just as fabricated as President Bush’s claims of WMDs in Iraq, those questions too should be cleaned up before the electorate decides whether to let this woman have the keys to the Pentagon’s war machine — and preferably before she becomes the Democratic candidate. — Eduardo Cohen

    • Brad Benson
      April 30, 2016 at 08:57

      Exactly! For a long time, I have been absolutely incredulous that the MSM refers to this as a Consulate and to Stevens as an “Ambassador, without so much as batting an eye. These are not journalists.

      I also seem to remember reading an obscure report somewhere that the CIA had a black site less than a block away in which they were holding some 50-odd Libyans in a prison of some sort. Sadly, I did not archive the link, but it went on to claim that the real problems in Benghazi started at this other site and that the prisoners were released before the crowd moved on to our alleged “Consulate”.

      • Abbybwood
        April 30, 2016 at 14:09

        According to Seymour Hersh, the CIA in Benghazi had more to do with supplying the “rat line” of Libyan weapons to the “rebels’ in Syria being used to overthrow Assad.


        • Brad Benson
          April 30, 2016 at 16:19

          Hi Abby, also from Truthdig. Yeah I have that link too. May have gotten it from you!

          • Abbybwood
            April 30, 2016 at 18:19

            Hey! Do you ever post at The Intercept and Kunstler’s Clusterfuck Chronicle on Mondays? He does a weekly missive and also has some bright commenters. You’d have some fun there on Mondays! :)

            Crooksandliars.com is fun in the evening with their Open Thread too!

    • Skip Edwards
      April 30, 2016 at 09:05

      Certainly, the fact (rumors?) that weapons stolen by the US from Libya’s huge store of arms after the “we came, we saw, he died” horrific murder of Ghadafi were ‘secretly’ being transferred through the Stevens run US Consulate to US supported Syrian rebels attempting to overthrow Assad should not be overlooked. Why was this not mentioned? Isn’t there a strong liklihood that information would have been in Clinton’s unsecured emails? Could not this be a strong motive for the attack on the Consulate and resulting death of Ambassador Stevens?

      • Abbybwood
        April 30, 2016 at 18:30

        Trey Gowdy specifically asked Clinton about this during her eleven hour grilling a few months ago and the way he asked the question he gave her ZERO wiggle room. “Are you aware or were you ever aware of a CIA operation out of Benghazi that was delivering Libyan weapons to the rebels in Syria attempting to overthrow Assad?”

        I think she perjured herself when she said she had never heard anything about it and would have to “look into it”.

        This is how I think Comey will get her when he “interviews” her (with her phalanx of lawyers) in the coming weeks regarding the home brew server etc. Perjury. It got her husband and with her record of pathological lying I think it will get her too.

        • BlackKnigh
          May 2, 2016 at 03:51

          My sense about this is that while Loretta Lynch will be inclined to let Hillary off the hook – I do not think Comey will do so. Comey is the guy who stopped Andrew Card and some other Bush 43 hooligan from getting then AG Ashcroft to sign a document against his wishes on the hospital bed. He has a spine – something lacking in our government officials.

          This could give the elect Hillary campaign a lot of pause.

          Thank you for writing this, Ray.

        • May 5, 2016 at 22:20

          Thanks for this. As you may have noticed, it tipped me off to material I chose to use in my latest piece today: “A Need to Clear Up Clinton Questions.”

          Not the first time I’ve been tipped off to new, relevant material by comments here. THANKS!


  27. Andreas Wirsén
    April 30, 2016 at 04:31

    Fun fact: NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, is, geographically speaking, NOT inside the Beltway (i.e. Interstate 495). Langley, Virginia is, though.

    Maybe this little KOMPROMAT (the russian term for “compromising materials”) is part of the reason she’s the new establishment favourite, as the GOP is falling apart into savagery and incompetence. Counterestablishment mogul David Koch, also located outside the Beltway, has endorsed Hillary Clinton – bizarrely, considering how he had a main organizing role in clipping the wings of the first Clinton presidency, together with, among others, Richard Mellon Scaife.

    Some spooks below the lower level of leadership might not take kindly to a commander in chief who has, at the very least, endangered their and their colleagues’ lives, and plan for a heart attack cocktail. Pure irresponsible speculation, that bit, culled from an obscure corner of the internet.

    • Rambinero
      April 30, 2016 at 23:46

      I am much more inclined to believe Hillary did not lose in 2008…SHE TOOK A DIVE..!
      …in order to maximize their own earning potential and progressive agenda achievements during Hillary’s upcoming promised reign…

    • Shea Brown
      May 3, 2016 at 04:05

      The older I get the less quickly do I dismiss radical potential events,, as a former special operations soldier told me a few months ago, he suggested that a military coup was possible right here in the good old USA. At first, I thought, no way,, and then I remembered that all soldiers pledge to protect and defend the American constitution,, and if the current standing government is not respecting and defending the constitution by properly administering the laws, then perhaps there is a chance that the US military just might step in to set things back on a proper course. Add to this fact that our military has been lied to and used and abused by these political liars for many years, and a coup,,all quite legal in nature might be exactly what we need to restore the rule of law to our federal government. I do not dismiss this possibility quickly anymore. We all know we need drastic change. We all know these political scoundrels laugh at the laws. If the Joint chiefs determined that our constitution was at risk, then it would be their sworn duty to step in and attempt to make corrections.Eric Holder should have ordered the investigation of the Bush/Cheney criminal cabal and should have brought criminal charges against them all. This would have been truly respecting our constitution. When our leaders prove they have no respect at all for our laws then it is time for radical measures.Now if only there were a handful of generals who were not already in the pockets of the military industrial complex that is running the Hillary show,,,,,,,,,,, but no,, I think most of them are already committed to the farce in progress. There just might be a few honest captains and majors left in the Pentagon, but they will never overcome those paid for generals. and so it goes,, government to the highest bidder. It is scary to imagine where Hillary will take this country of ours, but I can imagine a military that refuses her orders,, and I would not blame them one small bit. I can also imagine our military not taking any orders from Trump. We are headed for some very interesting times ladies and gentlemen . And, I have great hope and affection for my country, America . I have less hope for the leaders of our current nation state who appear to ignore our constitution. We are either a nation of laws, or we are not. If our military were handed orders that were illegal they would have every legal right to proceed with a coup. Stranger things have happened.

  28. John Puma
    April 30, 2016 at 04:11

    At least Mr McGovern seems to concede that a federal indictment of Ms Clinton will not be forthcoming, contrary to much GOP public howling, not to mention the preference of a high percentage of registered Democrats, but in complete accord with Ms Clinton’s own “informed” prediction. The person with ultimate authority over such indictment, of course, can hardly restrain himself from endorsing her as the Democratic Party nominee to succeed him.

    In reality, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the Democratic Party that “(t)he whole thing needs to be cleaned up now before the choices for the next President are locked in.”
    It would be interesting to read Mr McGovern suggestions for such a clean up – along with his estimation of the probabilities of their happening.

    While the Democratic establishment can be expected to do nothing but stonewall the issue, it will be taken up, loudly, clearly and incessantly by the GOP nominee.

    If that is not enough to prevent the election of Ms Clinton, then the Democrats will be heard whining loudly that impeachment charges should only be made against a president for alleged actions occurring during tenure in that office not during tenures(s) in prior positions.

    That “legal crisis” will take away the spotlight from the ongoing senate GOP blockade of a SCOTUS, Inc. nominee.

    NB: more, relatively unmentioned, public/private potential criminal activity is the “pay for weapons sales approvals” scam HRC ran as Sec. State. She gathered $’s for the Clinton foundation both from would be recipient states and arms dealers who would supply them.
    From the International Business Times: http://tinyurl.com/lj2bcvu

    Finally, HRC has promised that women will fill 50% of her cabinet. The first will probably be her protege, neo-con monster Victoria Nuland as Sec. State.

  29. Dr. Ip
    April 30, 2016 at 04:10

    Ray is right about the “blackmail” — uh, “leverage” that agencies and individuals like to have in politics. And to have control over a sword of Damocles hanging over Hillary’s head… boy is that power. So, who are the players and what do they want? That’s the question to ask. Are they neocons? Are they realists? Are they just money-grubbers? The next question to ask is: Why does Clinton scoff at the notion of an indictment? Is she just hubris incarnate? Or does she know something that we don’t? Lots of fertile ground here for investigative journalism, if only there were more investigative journalists around to engage in the farming of the information.

    I suggest to those who haven’t yet that they read the Greek tragedy stories that follow the Trojan War, and that they review the history of the Roman Empire after Caesar and Augustus. The only difference is that WMDs are now in play (not in Iraq of course! and not in Iran!) and that some fools believe can be used to win what in the Reagan era was referred to as a “limited nuclear war.”

    Einstein was very accurate when (if) he said: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

    • Jerry
      April 30, 2016 at 17:27

      I am always grateful for Ray McGovern’s articles. I admire all of his work.

      On the subject of blackmail, Ray and commenters have a good point, in general. In the case of Hillary, what reason is there to think that she is any better than or different from those who might blackmail her? Are they not all peas in the same pod?

  30. Cynthia Papermaster
    April 30, 2016 at 04:07

    Is Hillary Clinton above the law? Is political expediency taking precedent over enforcing the law, once again? Remember Nancy Pelosi , another Democrat, taking impeachment “off the table”? As if anyone could eliminate the constitutional imperative to impeach government officials guilty of criminal actions! Pelosi readily and publicly admitted that Dick Cheney was breaking the law but that she wasn’t going to do anything about it, because— wait for it– the Democrats didn’t want to look like “sour grapes” by impeaching Bush; it might look like they were trying to get back at the Republicans for impeaching Bill Clinton. Sheesh. Clinton allows confidential state information to leak but let’s not hold anyone responsible, much less the presumptive presidential candidate. And why is that? Is her run for president more important than her breaking the law, endangering U.S. citizens, acting cavalierly about it all?

    • WhatHappened
      April 30, 2016 at 15:21

      Here is the Issue The last few presidents maybe since Carter have all broken the law But we already look like a banana republic and we are. So if everytime a president is elected we impeach him then it will become a joke. This only proves the end of this country is near

    • Patricia P Tursi
      May 1, 2016 at 14:02

      Why isn’t she being prosecuted for racketeering under the RICO Act? Arms for gifts to the Clinton Foundation?

    • Hank
      May 8, 2016 at 13:40

      I’m tired of all the talk about the FBI being close to something or other concerning this supposed “investigation” about Clinton’s e-mail server. If they don’t know for sure by now whether this case merits an indictment they never will! Brave Americans like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are mercilessly attacked and/or unfairly imprisoned for trying to reveal terrible crimes that the USG commits and endorses while people like the Clinton’s and Bushes can do practically anything they want apparently and get away with it, even when these actions threaten or hurt Americans. If Clinton IS guilty(and officials in the FBI and DOJ seem to think it is quite obvious she is!) and is allowed to run and WIN the Presidency, you can kiss America goodbye!

  31. rosemerry
    April 30, 2016 at 03:27

    I find all the emphasis on the Benghazi attack, after the complete destruction by the USA and its “allies” of a functioning and important State in Libya, particularly offensive.

    As for “another noxious precedent will be set”, I suppose for another noxious President.

    • Shea Brown
      May 3, 2016 at 03:11

      Excellent point. The Libyan leader had called out the Family Saud as scoundrels and torturers, and had threatened to create a pan-African currency. As kooky as his fashions were he did care a great deal about the citizens of Libya and the peoples of Africa. He was a threat to the US dollar,, so they killed him . ( Saddam had threatened to accept Euros for his oil and was also killed.) She smiled and celebrated his very illegal murder. I remember him camping in Central Park not so long before he was murdered. Heads of state should worry when they are invited to speak at the UN ,, and worry even more if they are allowed to camp out in Central Park. Hillary is most probably a sociopath. In this next presidential election we will probably get the president we truly deserve, and then it will become obvious very quickly just how badly we need to rebuild our system.Just like the alcoholic must hit rock bottom, we too might have to fall to the floor in order to climb back up.

  32. Joe Tedesky
    April 30, 2016 at 02:26

    HIllary, and Petraeus, were both on duty when the Benghazi attack occurred. Both of these high level elites have set a very bad example. I feel for the many who serve under their command, because only these fine troops know the realities of working under an edict of ‘one set of laws for the elite, another set of laws for the enlisted’. With leaders like Clinton, and Petraeus, is it any wonder how America is in decline?

    • WhatHappened
      April 30, 2016 at 15:16

      I have been looking at hundreds of stories about H Emails and I think the DoJ and the FBI are not going to finish there so called investigation this year. Comey says Well and prompt which means you have to take years to do an investigation. and Lynch hinted she will do nothing as she has in the past. H must be a multi personality like Nixon because when she says something the opposite is true

      • May 1, 2016 at 12:26

        I didn’t t notice Nixon had more than one personality. one of Hilary’s personality is recognizing Cuba before most politicians did.and never condemning Socialism or even communism Bernie for VP Hilary by her lack of personality attacks has allowed him to shine,

        • Ron
          May 2, 2016 at 23:52

          Lack of personality attacks. . . were you afraid to say that right with the word personal? because that would be a lie and a half.

      • Shea Brown
        May 3, 2016 at 02:46

        Call it a personality issue if you like,, some would call her a bold and practiced liar. Recently I read a petition from an attorney where he called a direct theft a” misapplication of funds !!” Ha ha,, a misapplication of funds,,, guess that’s what bank robbers are doing ! We are slowly being ruined by the newest breed of lawyers and accountants. When language is consistently used to be less specific then we are declining as a society.

    • WhatHappened
      April 30, 2016 at 15:18

      You are right but it is over for America. The people are now waking up to this fact They are praying for Trump because he is the last chance and I believe we passed the point of no return when Obama was elected so it is too late.

      • Joe Tedesky
        May 1, 2016 at 02:11

        The good news maybe is America’s youth…let’s hope so!

    • Bradley Floyd
      April 30, 2016 at 21:59

      All we need to ask ourselves is:
      Do we want one of the “One tenth of one percent” at the top (and I’m focusing on Hillary Clinton as a leader of the greed pack) to get away with a seriously questionable past that none of the working people would ever survive without serious and severe penalties, penalties that should be levied on Hillary for policy violations, and unlawful actions, in multiples.
      If we (the working people) were to perpetrate a tiny similarity to what she and her husband have done, we’d be in a dirty dungeon, housed in a prison with the poor, and the mentally ill (in our broken justice system).

      • Joe Tedesky
        May 1, 2016 at 02:04

        Don’t get to upset. Remember this, where other politicians would have by now given up any hopes for higher office due to a scandal, well then there are the Clintons. Why, in 1992 the Clintons rode into the White House with a scandal (Gennifer Flowers), but did that stop them, why hell no…their the Clintons. Oh, about Hillary’s Wall St speeches, wouldn’t it be just something, if Donald Trump through a friend of a friend got audio tapes of Hillary’s Banker speeches….talk about priceless. Even if Trump doesn’t win up against her (if that is the match …go Bernie) he will trash her so bad, that Hillary will be handicapped to the point of exhaustion. Hillary getting Trumped will drive her popularity numbers down to dirt. But always keep in mine….they are the Clintons! Warning: Don’t try this at home.

      • Shea Brown
        May 3, 2016 at 02:52

        Well said.

    • May 1, 2016 at 11:12

      When the time came to vacate the safe house Ambassador Steven’s couldn’t be found. Reasonable Muslims were incensed that al Qaeda picked the least guilty American to punished. I think he voluntarily died to stop the War between Civilizations When Romney used Benghazi as a campaign issue relatives cried fowl.What if enough Americans had died to for one to praise Romney?

    • Patricia P Tursi
      May 1, 2016 at 13:57

      Benghazi reminded me of the USS Liberty because of stand down orders. The shipment of arms to Syrian rebels, many of whom were Radical Is!amists, in the zeal to get Assad out ( getting Housein and Gadaffi out vworked so well) would appear to be connected to the Benghazi attack. At the least, this warmongering aspirant to the presidentcy is sociopathalogical in her lack of empathy for people and elected governments. I lived in AR when the Clinton’s were there. Their trail of deception and lawlessness is matched by few.

Comments are closed.