Mediaboss Marketing

As the latest example of this, Judicial Watch submittednew evidenceto U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan showing that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly used an unsecure BlackBerry device despite being warned by security hawks against doing so.

Judicial Watch obtained the email record in a response to acourt orderfrom a May 5, 2015,lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State(No. 1:15-cv-00684)) after it failed to respond to our March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009, through February 1, 2013, using a non-state.gov email address.

The new document brings theknown totalto date to at least 433 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, as far as she knew, all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

The email was sent to Susan Kennedy,presumablyformer Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggers chief of staff. Kennedy wrote Clinton on March 7 2009: Just in case you are still allowed to carry your Blackberry, your friends are watching with great pride. Clinton responded on March 8, 2009:

Against the advice of the security hawks, I still do carry my berry but am prohibited from using it in my office, where I spend most of my time when Im not on a plane or in a no coverage country.

The email, uncovered by Judicial Watch and written by Clinton, demonstrates that she reviewed or was at least informed about a March 6, 2009,Information Memofrom Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell to Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills in which he wrote that he cannot stress too strongly, however, that anyunclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerablein any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars. [Emphasis added]

In a recent court filing pertaining to the pendingmotion to compelClinton to answer interrogatory questions she refused to answer under oath, Judicial Watch argues that interrogatory 14 is particularly important:

Interrogatory 14 seeks to uncover why Secretary Clinton continued using a personal BlackBerry to conduct State Department business after being advised of the risks in doing so. This interrogatory is pertinent because Secretary Clintons personal BlackBerry was an integral part of the operation of the clintonemail.com system, a subject squarely within the scope of discovery. It was how she accessed her email.Without her personal BlackBerry, there likely would have been no clintonemail.com system because the Secretary did not use a desktop or laptop and a State Department BlackBerry would have linked to an official state.gov email account.

Judicial Watch submitted the questions to her under acourt orderon August 19, 2016, in a separate lawsuit.

Clinton seemingly ignored the advice of security hawks and violated numerous laws related to the handling of classified material and government documents. The State Department sat on this document for 18 months. It is a smoking gun that shows why she must beheld accountable under criminal and civil law.

Clinton refused outright to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warnings from State Department officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had 90-95% of her emails.

In herresponsessent to Judicial Watch and the court on October 13, 2016, Clinton refused to answer three questions and responded that she does not recall 20 times concerning her non-government clintonemail.com email system. She preceded her responses by eight general objections and two objections to definitions.The words object or objection appear 84 times throughout the 23-page document submitted to the court and Judicial Watch.

The Clinton responses to interrogatives were received in the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which was first filed in September 2013 seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State(No. 1:13-cv-01363)). Thelawsuit was reopenedbecause of revelations about the clintonemail.com system.

You can find the full history of this case here.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Continue reading here:
Fitton: Hillary Clinton Used Blackberry Against Security Advice - Breitbart News

New York Times

Stand Up for Your Identity, Hillary Clinton Tells Graduates in Brooklyn New York Times Never let anyone silence your voices, Hillary Clinton said on Thursday in a speech to the graduating class from Medgar Evers College at Barclays Center in Brooklyn. She called on graduates to uphold the legacy of civil rights leaders. Credit Chang W. Can Hillary Clinton Please Go Quietly into the Night?Vanity Fair The sad spectacle of Hillary Clinton's slow-motion breakdownNewsday Hillary Clinton takes swipes at President Trump in Medgar Evers commencement speechNew York Daily News Washington Times -News One all 78 news articles »

Read more here:
Stand Up for Your Identity, Hillary Clinton Tells Graduates in Brooklyn - New York Times

Hillary Clinton said that 'Wonder Woman' sounds "right up my alley."(Photo: ANGELA WEISS, AFP/Getty Images)

Add Hillary Clinton to the growing list ofWonder Womanfans, because she finds the hero... relatable.

"NoI haven't seenWonder Womanyet, but I'm going to, in part because it's directed by the fabulous Patty Jenkins," Clinton said in a video at Women In Film's Crystal + Lucy Awards Tuesday."But something tells me that a movie about a strong, powerful woman fighting to save the world from a massive international disaster is right up my alley."

Clinton's taped message aired in the Beverly Hilton, as a way to help presentthe Crystal Award or Excellence in Filmto actor/director andlongtime Clinton supporterElizabeth Banks, whom Clinton called "such a special person, onscreen and off." Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., also praised Banks in a video message, calling her "a great friend and incredible role model."

Banks was feted along with actress Zoey Deutch, director Mira Nair, Sony Pictures Classics co-founders Michael Barker and Tom Bernard, journalist Dan Rather and actress Tracee Ellis Ross.

The latter honoree had her own A-list video message, too, from Michelle Obama.

"You are brilliant, you're hilarious, you're one of the most talented actors I know and your character onBlack-ish, Bow, is an inspiration for folks all across this country. And the work you're doing offscreen is just as remarkable," Obama said to Ross, who took homethe Lucy Award for Excellence in Television. "Congratulations, again, on this well-deserved honor. See you on the dance floor."

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2smUQE6

Link:
Of course Hillary Clinton is a 'Wonder Woman' fan - USA TODAY

By Harold Clarke and Marianne Stewart By Harold Clarke and Marianne Stewart June 12

On May 2, during the Women for Women Internationals annual luncheon,CNNs Christiane Amanpourasked Hillary Clinton whether misogyny contributed to her defeat in the 2016 presidential election. The Democratic nominee replied: Yes. I do think that it played a role. On May 31, Clinton reiterated the claim in a widely publicized interview at Recodes Code Conference 2017 event.

In making this claim, Clinton asserted what many political commentators, and no doubt millions of Americans also believe: Negative attitudes toward women affected voters in 2016, and the impact of these attitudes influenced the outcome of the election.

We bring fresh data, and a surprising finding, to this topic.

In the fall of 2016, we asked six questions about the role and status of women on a national survey called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Respondents could agree or disagree with these six statements:

These questions are intended to capture whether survey respondents have progressive or traditionalist attitudes toward womens roles and statuses, without any reference to Clinton, Donald Trump, political parties or the election.

As the graph below shows, for the most part, progressive attitudes are more prevalent than traditionalist ones, but sizable minorities of those answering the survey expressed traditionalist attitudes, especially among men.

But even after accounting for other factors, attitudes toward womens roles were still correlated with how people voted. For example, if we imagine that the index runs from zero(most progressive) to 100 (most traditional) the average voter scores roughly a 40. Holding other factors equal, a shift from a relatively progressive position (20) to a relatively traditional position (60) would reduce the chance of voting for Clinton from 57percent to 17 percent. The finding is robust the impact of attitudes toward womens roles was consistent in statistical models with many different combinations of factors that might influence how people voted.

One interesting question is whether attitudes about womens roles were more strongly related to the votes of men or women. We didnt find evidence of any difference. These attitudes mattered similarly for both men and women.

Another important question is whether attitudes about womens roles mattered more in 2016 than in 2012? If so, this suggests that there really was something distinctive about 2016, when a female candidate ran against a male candidate who had made many crude comments about women.

The 2016 CCES asked respondents whether they supported Obama or Romney in 2012. If we apply the same statistical model to peoples 2012 vote choice, we find that attitudes toward women did not have a meaningful association with whether people supported Obama and Romney, despite the Obama campaigns attacks on Romney and Republicans for waging a war on women. Attitudes toward womens roles and statuses did not have the same traction in 2012 that they did in 2016.

In short, our analysis suggests that Hillary Clinton is correct: Attitudes toward womens roles and statuses influenced presidential voting in 2016. If fewer voters had held traditionalist attitudes toward womens roles and statuses, Clintons national popular vote total (already a plurality) would have increased. Even small shifts in these attitudes could have affected the outcomes in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, where Clinton lost by an average of only 0.57percent.

That said, there is another important implication of our findings one more surprising and actually more favorable to the Clinton campaign. Our survey clearly shows that attitudes toward womens roles and statuses were tilted in a progressive direction, so the salience of womens roles in voter decision-making likely helped Clinton more than it hurt her. She had more votes to gain from people with progressive attitudes than she had votes to lose from those with traditionalist views.

Thus, playing what some observers might call the woman card may have been good politics for Clinton in 2016 even if it was not enough to bring her to the White House.

Harold Clarke and Marianne Stewart are professors in the school of economic, political and policy sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Link:
How attitudes about gender may have helped Hillary Clinton in 2016 ... - Washington Post

Three members of Special Counsel Robert Muellers team made the donations to Democrats, including to Hillary Clintons presidential campaign, according to a CNN analysis using Federal Election Commission records. CNN reported:

More than half of the more than $56,000 came from just one lawyer and more than half of it was donated before the 2016 election, but two of the lawyers gave the maximum $2,700 donation to Hillary Clinton last year. Over the weekend, news outlets including CNN identified five attorneys that Mueller has already brought on board to help investigate potential collusion between associates of President Donald Trumps campaign and Russia.

The attorneys on the team have worked on other high-profile cases,including Watergate and the Enron fraud scandal, as well asrepresenting U.S. companies in legal dealings, according to CNN.

Three of the five lawyers gave overwhelmingly to Democrats, totaling more than $53,000 since 1988, and more than half of those donations came from just one lawyer, James Quarles, who works at the same firm where Mueller worked, WilmerHale.

Quarles gave nearly $33,000 to political campaigns, including presidential candidates Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Quarles also gave more than $10,000 to help Democrats running for the House and another $10,000 to candidates running for Senate seats, including money to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, CNN reported.

Ironically, Quarles is also the only lawyer among Muellers team who donated to Republicans, giving $2,500 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) in 2015 and $250 to then-Sen. George Allen (R-VA) back in 2005.

Only about 30 percent of the donations were for 2016 elections, according to CNN, including Quarless and Jeannie Rhees, who both gave the maximum $2,700 contribution to Clintons campaign last year.

Rhee has donated more than $16,000 since 2008, all to Democrats, including the maximum allowed contribution to the Clinton campaign in 2016 and 2015, totaling $5,400. She also gave $7,300 to both of Obamas presidential campaigns.

Perhaps more importantly, Rhee hasalready been in the spotlight for representing the Clinton Foundation in a racketeering lawsuit brought by a conservative advocacy group, and also representing Clinton herself in a lawsuit seeking access to her private emails.

Mueller, who was FBI director under by President George W. Bush, also hired Andrew Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation, gave $2,300 to Obamas first presidential campaign in 2008, and $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006.

FEC records do not show any donations by Weissman in the 2016 election cycle, according to CNN. There also are no FEC records for Aaron Zebley, who left WilmerHale to work on the Russia investigation.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who endorsed Trump, said on Monday that Muellers team cant be impartial given their political activism.

Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair, Gingrich tweeted. Look who he is hiring. Check FEC reports. Time to rethink.

There arent any records of political donations from Mueller himself, CNN reported. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment Monday afternoon about the political donations from his legal team and the criticism some of the team were partisan.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

View post:
Report: 3 Members of Special Counsel Mueller's Team Donated to Dems, Including Hillary, Obama - Breitbart News