Shock News!!!! Hillary Donor In Charge Of Hillary’s Email Releases!!!!!!


Yeh, I’m totally shocked by this.  But, then, find one honest person in this administration.  WE NEED A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR!!!!!!

Good News: Official Overseeing Release of Hillary Emails is a Maxed-Out Hillary Donor


Not quite as bad as allowing Iran to inspect itself at a contentious nuclear site, but perhaps a smidge worse than tapping a generous Obama donor to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation of the IRS scandal. This gang pays quite a lot of lip service to accountability and transparency — sometimes to the point of satire — but they have zero interest in either.  Janice Jacobs and the State Department argue that critics are up in arms over nothing, of course:

Ms. Jacobs said she made that donation as a private citizen and months before she had entered into conversations with the State Department about her new role. She retired from the State Department in June 2014; moreover, federal employees aren’t barred from donating to campaigns. “I think that the announcement lays it out pretty clearly what Secretary Kerry has hired me for and it’s not just the Clinton emails, but in general to make sure that the department is as responsive and efficient as it can be in handling the various document requests that come in,” she said. “He just wants to make sure it’s all well-coordinated and that deadlines are met and that we just look proactive and responsive.” ….

You can read more at the link. 

We need so many special prosecutors (independent and authorized by congress rather than working for the DOJ) that there’s not enough time to get them all hired! 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Shock News!!!! Hillary Donor In Charge Of Hillary’s Email Releases!!!!!!

  1. daveburton says:

    Amazing that they are so blatantly, shamelessly corrupt.

  2. Jim Masterson says:

    Oh come on–she apologized for having a private email server. It’s that enough? She’s a Clinton after all–not accountable to the same laws as the rest of us.


  3. Latitude says:

    two things….

    How did Hillary receive classified emails? Did she never receive any classified emails the whole time?……because all of her email addresses went to her private server
    How can she say she never received anything classified??

    Hillary send her server, thumb drives, every thing to her attorney….was her attorney cleared to receive classified emails and documents? if so, when and by who??

    • suyts says:

      Team Hillary has stated that Hillary received classified material via personal delivery/hard copy. Which is fine. ……. except, the classified material then found its way to her email ….. which is an explicit crime to copy classified material to an unsecured anything. Either way, she committed, or her cronies committed a federal crime. One can have it one way or the other, but, it can’t be both ways. But, either way …..

      And, yes, the question of her lawyers security clearance has come up. I understand that he did have a security clearance. To what level? Well we can’t know unless charges are filed. It is, actually, against regs to reveal one’s security clearance. My dad used to be asked such a question. ie, “what is your security clearance?”. He would reply, “it’s so high I can’t tell you how high it is.” ….. You have to understand, back in the 70s, in Germany, everyone who spoke the language was a spy for one team or the other. Dad was fluent in German, and looked German (light complected, fair haired, blue/gray eyes) and got along well … most of the time, with the locals. I remember a fellow asking dad what part of Germany (it was West Germany at the time) he was from, because he couldn’t pick up the dialect dad was speaking.

      • Latitude says:

        Oddly enough…it’s also a crime to receive classified material through a unsecured method
        They are all in deep doodoo…unless we are to believe that Hillary did it all when she doesn’t know what wiped means

  4. Jim Masterson says:

    It is, actually, against regs to reveal one’s security clearance.

    That’s news to me.

    There are two requirements to view classified material: 1) the proper clearance to view the material, and 2) the need to know. Just because you have the appropriate clearance level doesn’t mean you can view anything at that level. You must also have the need to know. Even if the lawyer was cleared, he probably didn’t have a need to know. Defending Hillary does not automatically give you a need to know.


    • suyts says:

      Well, I certainly agree, and can affirm you are correct about the two requirements. But, if you have a security clearance, you should review regs about who you can and cannot reveal your clearance to.

      • Jim Masterson says:

        I shall do that if someone gives me a security clearance.


      • Jim Masterson says:

        Back in 1979, I started working for Boeing. Everyone wore an ID badge (still do). At that time there was an ugly, orange, plastic strip across the top with our organization number stamped on it. The letters/numbers were filled in with various colors: white meant unclass; light blue meant confidential; black meant secret or higher; and pink meant a non-US citizen. So with a quick glance, you could tell the security clearance of everyone at Boeing–at least up to secret. About ten years later, they got rid of that system entirely. Maybe that was when they made it illegal to know your security clearance.


  5. DirkH says:

    German system media revealed itself to be 100% on CFR/Bilderberger side, who support Hillary; accept her “apology” and write about her in gushing tone.
    None of the journos understands the crime in copying classified material on nonclassified systems.

  6. I love your highlight “and that we just look proactive”

  7. gator69 says:

    Peer review!

  8. cdquarles says:

    How long has this been going on, asks a song. In Hildebeest’s case, since 1973.

  9. Lars P. says:

    BTW James I see only posts about Hillary and Trump?
    Do you support somebody?
    Why not post about the person you would support at least as much as about these you do not? Or something about the others in the field?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s