quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
Yeah, I think this story is more wishful thinking than fact. It would certainly be lovely if it were true, but color me skeptical.

Yeah, because that's just what this thread needs, huh? More skepticism.

Does anyone know how Huffington Post is structured? Are there not editors who review articles before publishing?

Yes, there just isn't a verifiable, workable link to Huntington. There is this one, though, and the site looks rather sketchy:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/b...ring-charges/5527829

I can't tell where this story emanated.

When this "story" first showed up on another site, I followed the provided link to the HUFFPO contributor blog. HUFFPO controls that blog insofar as they delete posts they or others find offensive.

I too think the story an interesting work of fiction that may foretell events, but for now it is unfounded digital masturbation.

My question is- Do the articles submitted to Huffington Post by its contributors require editorial review before being published?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
My question is- Do the articles submitted to Huffington Post by its contributors require editorial review before being published?

Postings to the HUFFPO Contributor's Blog are not reviewed by HUFFPO prior to posting; however, as happened here, a blog post can be deleted by HUFFPO.

This statement was at the bottom of the item posted at HUFFPO:

quote:

This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

I found it on another website attributed to a "Frank Huguenard." Perusing the interwebs, I kind nothing positive said about a person with that name (most described him as "crazy").

ETA: You have email about this.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
I respectfully disagree. I have a hunch that once the cover was lifted on this, they found something much, much bigger. The more they dig, the more they find. Now it might very well have become a question on either which road to travel, or travel several at once and see how they link.

I really think this is waay bigger than first guessed...

I hope you're right and I hope that whatever paths they go down lead to incarceration.

If articles do not require editorial review, how in the world can they claim any journalistic integrity, and if that is the case, how can anyone take them seriously as a news source? This is assuming even their pronounced leftist slant. It's one thing to spin the facts, and quite another to simply fabricate a story entirely. Without an editorial safety net, this kind of thing is inevitable.

quote:

Patience is a really hard thing.

It has never been my strong suit. I will sit tight and wait it out. How I would love to see Hillary marched off in an orange jump suit, with Bill hopping along in ankle shackles behind her.

Breitbart did a short piece on this HuffPo article/blog...

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-...ington-post-removes/

quote:

If articles do not require editorial review, how in the world can they claim any journalistic integrity, and if that is the case, how can anyone take them seriously as a news source? This is assuming even their pronounced leftist slant. It's one thing to spin the facts, and quite another to simply fabricate a story. Without an editorial safety net, this kind of thing is inevitable.

Arianna Huffington is a loony. Her editorial “system” seems to be that she anoints certain people with a title and allows them to spin as they like until they begin to post stuff she and her inner circle dislike.
Controversy results in more site hits so it’s OK, but come out against Climate Change or any of the liberal rallying points and you become a pariah. At that point you disappear from the site.

When last I heard, her “editors” are not paid in any way. You payment is exposure and how many people you can attract to your own web-site.

Her current fixation is sleep deprivation, she claims the entire US is suffering from it mostly due to working too hard, and she wants the government to do something!

The "Huffington Post" Makes the Enquirer read like it's truth cast in stone. I'm surprised they don't run "Bat Boy eating rubber chicken found in cave!" You simply cannot believe a word of any article posted there.......Period.

Former State Dept. watchdog debunks central Clinton email claim



EXCLUSIVE: The State Department’s former top watchdog, in an interview with Fox News, rejected Hillary Clinton’s repeated claims that her personal email use was in line with her predecessors’ – while saying he would have immediately opened an investigation if he caught wind of a secretary of state using such an account.

Howard Krongard, a George W. Bush administration appointee who served as the State Department inspector general from April 2005 to January 2008, cited his own experience in challenging Clinton’s insistence that her practices were nothing out of the ordinary.

“Certainly to my knowledge at least, Secretary [Condoleezza] Rice did not have a personal server. I certainly never either sent an email to one or received an email from one,” said Krongard, who served during Rice’s tenure.

Further, he said, “I would have been stunned had I been asked to send an email to her at a personal server, private address. I would have declined to do so on security grounds and if she had sent one to me, I probably would have started an investigation.”

Krongard noted that during Clinton’s four-year term, from January 2009 to January 2013, there was no Senate-confirmed inspector general in place. Suggesting the Clintons show a pattern of avoiding oversight, Krongard indicated that Hillary Clinton benefited from the fact there was no IG during her term.

"I would’ve been the most unpopular person in that building [had I been there]," Krongard said, emphasizing that the inspector general has broad powers and the ability to rein in even the most senior political appointees. "They are the people who enforce the rules, and there was no one enforcing the rules during that time."

Krongard spoke with Fox News before the current State Department inspector general’s office, led by Steve A. Linick, issued an extensive report on email practices of previous secretaries of state.

The day that report was issued, Clinton said in an interview that her use of personal email was consistent with predecessors Colin Powell and Rice.

"Just like previous secretaries of state, I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented," she said.

But, as Krongard indicated, the May 25 IG report clearly stated that Rice did not use personal email for government business. It said Powell used personal email on a limited basis to connect with people outside the department, and he worked with the State Department to secure the system. The report found Clinton did neither.

The report concluded Clinton’s use of a private server and account was not approved, and broke agency rules. The report said by the time she became secretary, the rules had repeatedly been updated, and were “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated.”

Krongard resigned from the IG position in December 2007 after accusations he blocked Iraq-related investigations, charges he denied.

Regarding the 2,100 emails on Clinton’s server found to have contained classified information -- and another 22 “Top Secret” messages containing intelligence deemed too damaging to national security to make public – Krongard questioned how that material got there. He said it would take a deliberate act for the intelligence to "jump the gap" between the classified computer networks and Clinton's personal server.

"It could be done by taking a screen shot with … a camera of a classified email, take a screen shot and send it to an unclassified network. It could be copied, but there are restrictions in the State Department and elsewhere as to what copiers can work from a classified network and it can only be a secure copier. So that may not have been easy," Krongard said.

Asked if it could happen by accident, Krongard simply said, "No."

He also challenged Clinton and State Department claims that the emails in question were “retroactively classified.”

"I don't understand it, because it was either classified by the creator or it was classified by reason of where it came from or what network it was on,” Krongard said.

Clinton consistently has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time. While technically correct, this distinction also appears misleading. A January 2009 non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton confirms her understanding that "classified information is marked or unmarked.”

Rather, it is the content and source that determine classification. Former intelligence officials say the emails were improperly handled by Clinton and her team and, once reviewed by the authority that originated the information, the emails were given proper classification markings.

While there is no public confirmation the Clinton server was breached, former senior military and intelligence officials -- including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Mike Flynn – have said they believe foreign intelligence services targeted Clinton's email system.

In a recent interview with Fox News, the Romanian hacker who goes by the name Guccifer said he accessed the Clinton server with ease in March 2013. Anonymous government officials were quick to dismiss the hacker's claims, while admitting he was very skilled and breached the accounts of 100 Americans, including Powell.



http://www.foxnews.com/politic...im.html?intcmp=hpbt2

quote:

Anonymous government officials were quick to dismiss the hacker's claims, while admitting he was very skilled and breached the accounts of 100 Americans, including Powell.

Well, Hillary is so much smarter and technically gifted than those other people.

All this stuff dribbling out is not coincidence.

Id like to hear the opinions here of whether an indictment pre or post convention would be worse for the dems...

Opinions?

Screw the Dems, I want to see an indictment sooner rather than later so I can sit back and watch a weird five-minute game between Biden and Bernie play out, and hope a third party comes out of nowhere (Pocahontas?) just to spread confusion.

Does anyone remember the hilarious Sonny and Cher spoof, "They'll Get You, Babe" by Paul Shanklin?

That was a classic in its day, ~20 years ago, and it will be going Diamond in the next few months!

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Screw the Dems, I want to see an indictment sooner rather than later so I can sit back and watch a weird five-minute game between Biden and Bernie play out, and hope a third party comes out of nowhere (Pocahontas?) just to spread confusion.

Point of order: the proper deragatory term for Warren is Fauxcahontas.

^^^ Personally, I like "Slinging Bull."

H Clinton and Cheryl Mills are experienced in losing emails

http://nypost.com/2016/05/29/h...-she-was-first-lady/

In 1999, as investigators looked into Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate and other scandals involving the then-first lady, it was discovered that more than 1 million subpoenaed emails were mysteriously “lost” due to a “glitch” in a West Wing computer server.

The massive hole in White House archives covered a critical two-year period — 1996 to 1998 — when Republicans and special prosecutor Ken Starr were subpoenaing White House emails.

During the Project X email scandal, career White House staffers and contractors found that someone close to the first lady had basically turned off the White House’s automated email archiving system.

They fingered White House “special assistant” Laura Crabtree Callahan, who was overseeing the computer contractors despite obtaining computer science degrees from diploma mills.

career staffers and contractors at the White House were ordered to keep those earlier unarchived emails secret. In fact, they testified that Callahan personally threatened them with jail time if they disclosed the gap to prosecutors or lawmakers.


A 1998 contractor audit of the White House email accounts affected by the “snafu” shows that much of the omitted email was addressed to top Clinton officials — including then-deputy counsel Cheryl Mills and other aides close to Hillary. A federal judge “excoriated Mills” for failing to get to the bottom of the missing emails

If you're looking for a fast resolution remember who you're dealing with. I think this is 20 years ago from the rose law firm \ whitewater investigation:

link



Hillary’s Crooked Defense

In Clintonworld, anything that isn’t found criminal becomes permissible.

William McGurn

May 30, 2016 5:08 p.m. ET


“I’m not a crook.”


In 1973 the sitting president, Richard Nixon, used these words at a news conference to deny allegations he had profited off his public service.



In 2016 an aspiring president, Hillary Clinton, as part of her campaign for the White House, is advancing an aggressive variant of the Nixon defense. It runs like this: Anything that isn’t criminal is permissible—and therefore none of it should be disqualifying for the Oval Office.



This has become the go-to argument for Team Clinton these days. Thus Maryland Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings was quick out of the box last week when the State Department’s inspector general released a damning report finding that then-Secretary of State Clinton had defied the department’s rules by setting up her private email server. Mr. Cummings, ABC News said, pointed out that the inspector general’s report “does not accuse Clinton of any crime.” The implication is that it therefore doesn’t matter.



Chalk it up as one legacy of the first Clinton presidency, which has prepared the way for the second. Because by refusing to resign after being caught out in an affair with an intern, President Bill Clinton successfully lowered the bar for would-be President Hillary.



In his fight to remain in office, Mr. Clinton’s argument was that because sex between two consenting adults—even between the president of the United States and a subordinate 27 years his junior—wasn’t a crime, it was nobody’s business but his and his family’s. In this brave new world, even perjury turned out not to be a crime when Bill Clinton did it, because it was about sex.



Today the No Crime/No Foul defense defines the case for Mrs. Clinton. And she and her defenders have been invoking it for years:



“There were no criminal violations involved here.” The speaker was Clinton Budget Director Leon Panetta in July 1993, putting forward the White House party line on the firing of seven people in the travel office, in which some had detected Hillary’s hand. Three years later, an internal memo would surface confirming Mrs. Clinton as the force behind the sackings.



“As far as even a breath of criminal activity by either the president and the first lady, it will turn out to be nothing at all.” This time it was White House counsel Lloyd Cutler in March 1994, dismissing the inquiry into the smelly Whitewater land deal. The remark came at the same time Mrs. Clinton was explaining to the press that she hadn’t been forthcoming about the details because she had been trying to protect her family’s privacy.



“Those motives for helping Webb Hubbell, you can criticize or not, but they’re not criminal.” This was 1998, and it was now the turn of Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel. Mr. Davis was arguing that the hundreds of thousands in payments that Mrs. Clinton’s former law partner had received from Clinton associates after he’d resigned from the Justice Department was not hush money to keep him quiet.



“No evidence of a crime.” “Nothing criminal.” “Nothing illegal.” “No criminal activity.” How frequently these words pop up when the subject of discussion is some action by Mrs. Clinton.



Now we have the FBI investigation into her private email server. When the New York Times reported the news last year, the Clinton campaign haggled over the Times’s use of—you guessed it!—the word “criminal” the Times had used to describe the investigation. The Times issued a correction.



In a perverse way, it all works to Mrs. Clinton’s advantage. For so long as a criminal conviction is presented as the only possible disqualification for running for president, Mrs. Clinton will remain viable even if she does get indicted. In addition, the whole obsession with whether the FBI investigation will end up in an indictment helps deflect attention away from other key aspects of the server mess that themselves make pretty substantive claims for Mrs. Clinton’s unfitness.



Even putting aside the question of criminality, we know the following: While in a position of trust, Mrs. Clinton deliberately chose to put American security at risk by setting up her home server. In so doing, she also concealed what should have been public records from the American people. In the year since she’s been found out, almost every public statement she has made in defense of her actions has been exposed as false. And she refused to cooperate with investigators.


In short, this is a woman who never tells the truth when a lie will serve her purposes equally well.



What an extraordinary place this has left her party and her country. Here we are, six months out from the presidential election, and the Democratic nominee is under federal investigation.



It used to be, before the Clintons first moved into the White House, that having no criminal conviction was something that kept you out of prison. But the way Mrs. Clinton and her defenders talk, it’s almost as though it should make her president.


Write to McGurn@wsj.com.