Mediaboss Marketing

While the country has been fixated on Donald Trump's tormenting his Republican primary opponents and deeply concerned about the governments efforts to identify any confederates in the San Bernardino, California, killings, a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents continues to examine Hillary Clintons tenure as secretary of state in order to determine whether she committed any crimes and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

What began as an innocent Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a D.C.-based public advocacy group promoting transparency in the executive branch, has now become a full criminal investigation, with Clinton as the likely target.

The basic facts are well-known, but the revealed nuances are important, as well. When the State Department responded to the Judicial Watch FOIA request by telling Judicial Watch that it had no emails from Clinton, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit. When the State Department made the same representation to the court -- as incredible as it seemed at the time -- the judge accepted that representation, and the case was dismissed.

Then The New York Times revealed that Clinton used a private email server instead of the governments server for all of her work-related and personal emails during her four years as secretary of state. After that, the Judicial Watch FOIA case was reinstated, and then the judge in the case demanded of State that it produce Clintons emails.

When Judicial Watch expressed frustration to the judge about the pace at which it was getting emails, the judge ordered Clinton, under penalty of perjury, to certify that she had surrendered all her governmental emails to the State Department.

Eventually, Clinton did certify to the court that she did surrender all of her governmental emails to the State Department. She did so by sending paper copies of selected emails, because she had wiped clean her server. She acknowledged that she decided which emails were personal and which were selected as governmental and returned the governmental ones to the State Department. She has denied steadfastly and consistently that she ever sent or received any materials marked "classified while secretary of state using her private server.

All of her behavior has triggered the FBI investigation because she may have committed serious federal crimes. For example, it is a crime to steal federal property. What did she steal? By diverting to her own venue the digital metadata that accompany all emails -- metadata that, when attached to the work-related emails of a government employee, belong to the government -- she stole that data. The metadata do not appear on her paper copies -- hence the argument that she stole and destroyed the government-owned metadata.

This is particularly troublesome for her present political ambitions because of a federal statute that disqualifies from public office all who have stolen federal property. (She is probably already barred from public office -- though this was not prominently raised when she entered the U.S. Senate or the Department of State -- because of the china, silverware and furniture that she and her husband took from the White House in January 2001.)

Clinton may also have committed espionage by failing to secure the government secrets entrusted to her. She did that by diverting those secrets to an unprotected, nongovernmental venue -- her own server -- and again by emailing those secrets to other unprotected and nongovernmental venues. The reason she can deny sending or receiving anything marked "classified is that protected government secrets are not marked classified.

So her statement, though technically true, is highly misleading. The governmental designations of protected secrets are confidential, secret and top secret -- not classified. State Department investigators have found 999 emails sent or received by Clinton in at least one of those three categories of protected secrets.

Back when Clinton became secretary of state, on her first day in office, she had an hourlong FBI briefing on the proper and lawfully required care of government secrets. She signed a statement, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging that she knew the law and that it is the content of emails, not any stamped markings, that makes them secret.

Earlier this week, my Fox News colleagues confirmed the certain presence of top-secret materials among the 999 emails. Intelligence from foreign sources or about foreign governments is always top-secret, whether designated as such or not. And she knows that.

As well, she may have committed perjury in the FOIA case. When the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in its investigation of her role in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, gathered emails, it found emails she did not surrender to the State Department.

Last week, the State Department released emails that give the FBI more areas to investigate. These emails may show a pattern of official behavior by Clinton designed to benefit the financial interests of her family's foundation, her husband and her son-in-law. Moreover, the FBI knows of a treasure-trove of documents that may demonstrate that the Clinton Foundation skirted the law and illegally raised and spent contributions.

Two months ago, a group of FBI agents sat around a conference table and reviewed the evidence gathered thus far. Each agent was given the opportunity to make or detract from the case for moving forward. At the end of the meeting, it was the consensus of the group to pursue a criminal investigation.

And Clinton is the likely target.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

Excerpt from:
Hillary Clinton: The criminal investigation keeps moving ...

opinion By Sir Andy Chande

For the first time it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the outcome of the next US presidential election. With much uncertainty and with too many Republican candidates, one could meet with surprises. Having said this I can share with the readers my thoughts on this important and topical subject.

Firstly, the latest poll among likely Republican primary voters shows Donald Trump leading with 27 per cent support, Marco Rubio at around 18 percent, and Ben Carson and ted Cruz tied at 16 percent each. Even though some other recent polls have put Cruz ahead of Rubio, mainstream media opinion seems to be coalescing around Rubio - if only to stop Cruz, who (as an evangelical Christian) has strong appeal to the party's 'base' but none to the New York crowd.

It is, however, important not to ignore Jeb Bush (who still has pots of money) and Chris Christie (who seems to be making a modest comeback, particularly in New Hampshire). Whatever the case, Trump's lead still seems pretty solid - no matter what he says, what he does, or whom he offends.

There is certainly a compelling case to be made for a Democratic victory. They have won the White House in five of the past seven elections; and carried the popular vote in five of the past six. Control of California with its 55 electoral votes give the Democrats a head start in the Electoral College, where 270 votes are needed for victory. And then there are the upsides of the Hillary Clinton phenomenon: name recognition; a huge funding network; no serious primary challengers; popular former President as her husband; a fractious Republican field; and the chance for another historic first, the election of America's first female President.

She may be old news but she still has fire in her belly. Issues such as Benghazi and the use of private email account whilst she held public office are not likely to present any problem nor how she performed as Obama's Secretary of State.

It has not been easy in the post-Second World War Presidency for the two term incumbent to pass on to his Party control of the White House. Franklin Roosevelt, of course, succeeded himself three times; and dying in office, was succeeded by his Vice-President Harry Truman. But since the Constitution was amended to restrict a president to two terms, only once has a two-term President managed to transfer White House control to a fellow Party member. George HW Bush succeeded Reagan and was ousted after a single term.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 per cent of the white vote. He won every significant white sub-group - men and women; young and old; Protestant and Catholic - and yet still lost the election.

Obama won because he was able to capture the support of African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians and four out of every 10 white voters. The traditional pool from which Republicans draw their support - older whites, blue-collar whites, married couples and rural residents - is declining.

At the end of the day state of the economy and Obama's approval rating at the end of his term will both significantly matter.

Obama's approval rating last month was 48 per cent. His help with African-Americans, Hispanics and young voters will be needed by Hillary Clinton and will no doubt be forthcoming.

To sum up, uncertainty about the outcome in 2016 abounds. Unless the Republicans can find a candidate who has the ability to transform and who can broaden the GOP's appeal, Americans will have the first female President.

Continued here:
Africa: Will Hillary Become Another First in Stiff U.S ...

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters during a campaign rally in Omaha, Nebraska, December 16, 2015.

REUTERS/Lane Hickenbottom

OMAHA, Nebraska-- Standing alongside billionaire Warren Buffett at the Sokol Auditorium in his hometown, Clinton signaled Wednesday that she is prepared to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

"Right now, there has been too much that has led to the wealthy getting wealthier at the expense of hardworking families," Clinton said. "That's not the way we're going to keep America going and growing."

Specifically, Clinton said that her tax plan, which she is set to roll out in the new year, would build on the Buffett rule, the plan named for Buffett and proposed by President Barack Obama that would require those who earn $1 million a year pay an effective tax rate of at least 30 percent.

"I'm going to fight hard to implement the Buffett rule," she said. "I want to go even further."

Clinton has laid out a slate of policy proposals, like her plan for a national infrastructure bank, that would require significant new spending and, at the same time, Clinton has pledged not to raise taxes on any American who earns less than $250,000 a year. It's a promise that she says she is the only Democratic candidate to make.

Play Video

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton discussed her proposals to defend against extremist attacks. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Co...

Clinton's appearance with Buffett, who also attended a fundraiser for the candidate on Wednesday, comes less than two months before the first votes of the election will be cast next door in Iowa.

In his introduction, Warren cited Internal Revenue Service statistics that show that the incomes of the wealthiest Americans increased sevenfold between 1992 and 2012.

"The game has been stacked in their direction," he said, borrowing a metaphor that Clinton often uses on the campaign trail. "That's a primary reason...why I'm going to be so delighted when Secretary Clinton takes the Oval Office."

Buffett joked that Nebraska wouldn't be in "play" in 2016 -- it's a reliably Republican state that hasn't voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1964. But Buffett said it was "really important" that Nebraskans in the audience reach out to their neighbors and relatives about voting.

"Get them to the polls on Election Day," he said.

Nebraska won't hold its Democratic caucus until March 5, but there's still a good reason to campaign there now -- which former Sen. Bob Kerrey pointed out in a Bloomberg Politics article. "The Omaha media market is one third of Iowa," said Kerrey.

2015 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

View original post here:
In Omaha, Hillary Clinton promises to expand Buffett rule ...

Kayla Helmers, a Hillary Clinton campaign volunteer, and her mom, Lynel, attended a Clinton town hall Wednesday night in their hometown of Mason City, Iowa. But, Kayla's dad Shawn Starry did not attend the event with his family because, according to his daughter, "he's a huge Donald Trump fan." That's why Helmers devised a plan to try and convince her dad to vote for the former secretary of state.

"My dad is a Donald Trump supporter. Can you give him a message?" Helmers asked Hillary Clinton on the ropeline after Clinton's event had concluded. The Democratic frontrunner laughed and then asked for her father's name.

Hi Shawn, Im here with your daughter and I hope you can see I dont have horns," Clinton said to the cellphone camera. "I really do hope that, as this election goes on, youll listen to your daughter. Thanks, bye.

Helmers immediately texted the video to her dad, who she said was slow to respond, but would be very surprised by the personalized recording.

At a campaign event in Omaha, Nebraska, earlier in the day, Clinton first made the "horns" joke in reference to her likability, urging the crowd to talk to their Republican friends to let them know, "first...I don't have horns." Then, Clinton told the crowd the the economy works better when a Democrat is in office.

Visit link:
Hillary Clinton Records Video Message for Trump Supporter ...

Watch CNN's interview with Bernie Sanders on "New Day" Thursday at 9 a.m. ET.

Overall, Clinton tops Sanders among registered voters who are Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents 50% to 34%. That's a slightly tighter margin than in late-November, when Clinton led 58% to 30% over Sanders.

But those overall results mask a shift back toward Clinton following the Democratic debate on Saturday night. In interviews conducted before the debate, Sanders ran closer to Clinton, with 37% support to Clinton's 45%. Among those interviewed after the debate, Clinton's lead grew to 60% vs. Sanders' 27%.

The Sanders campaign focuses heavily on economic issues, and the new poll suggests he has boosted his standing on that issue. Yet Sanders continues to trail Clinton as the candidate better able to handle economic issues, 47% say they think Clinton is best able to handle it, 39% Sanders.

The former secretary of state has even larger leads on foreign policy matters and ISIS, however, topping Sanders 72% to 15% on foreign policy, 63% to 18% on ISIS. Clinton also holds a 21-point advantage over Sanders on handling gun policy, 51% prefer Clinton vs. 30% Sanders.

Although much of the debate over guns on the Democratic side has centered on Sanders' more gun-friendly views after representing a state where many own guns, among registered Democrats who say they or someone in their household owns a gun, Clinton is more widely trusted to handle gun policy: 58% favor her take on the issue vs. 28% who prefer Sanders.

Clinton's favorability rating holds steady in the new poll compared to earlier in the fall, with 47% of adults viewing her favorably and 51% unfavorably.

Among registered Democrats, 77% have a favorable take, about the same as the 78% viewing her positively in October. Sanders, who was less well known in October, has seen an uptick on both the positive and negative sides of his favorability ledger, 46% now hold a favorable opinion, 36% unfavorable. Among registered Democrats, 74% have a positive take, up from 62% in October.

RELATED: Trump dominant on the GOP side in CNN poll

The gender gap that has persisted throughout the race for the Democratic nomination continues as the year comes to a close, with women favoring Clinton 56% to 23% and men about evenly divided, 46% Sanders to 44% Clinton. The gap is actually even larger when it comes to favorable views of the candidates: 82% of Democratic women hold a favorable view of Clinton, but that drops to 71% among men. And on Sanders, 84% of men hold a positive impression vs. just 64% of Democratic women.

Despite those gaps, Democratic men are actually more likely than Democratic women to say the party has a better chance to win in 2016 with Clinton than without her (64% of men say the best chance is with Clinton, 55% of women say the same). Overall, about 6 in 10 Democratic voters say the Democratic Party has a better chance of winning the presidency with Clinton as their nominee than with someone else (59% say the party has its best chance with Clinton, 38% someone else).

Democrats are more apt to see Clinton as holding several key attributes than they are Sanders. Nearly nine in 10 see Clinton as having the right experience to be president (89%), three-quarters call her someone they would be proud to have as president (76%), and 7 in 10 as someone who shares their values (72%). Smaller majorities say the same about Sanders, with the smallest gap coming on shared values (62% experience, 63% proud, 67% values).

RELATED: Sanders losing the senior vote

Among all registered voters, Clinton tops the five Democratic and Republican candidates tested in the poll on experience (62% of voters say she has the right experience to be president) and as someone you would be proud to have as president (44%, not significantly ahead of Rubio at 43%). On values, Sanders tops the field with 43% of voters saying the Democratic socialist shares their values, narrowly topping Clinton (42%) and Rubio (42%).

The poll, however, suggests Clinton faces a stiff challenge from each of three Republicans at the top of the field. She narrowly tops Donald Trump within the poll's margin of sampling error, 49% to 47%, in a hypothetical general election matchup. But she falls behind Ted Cruz by 2 points (Cruz 48% to Clinton 46%, a shift since last month when Cruz trailed Clinton 50% to 47%) and 3 points behind Marco Rubio (49% Rubio to 46% Clinton). Among independent voters, Clinton trails Rubio and Cruz by 12 points each, while running even with Trump.

The CNN/ORC poll was conducted by telephone Dec. 17-21 among a random national sample of 1,018 adults. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. For results among the 414 registered voters who are Democrats or independents who lean toward the Democratic Party, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Original post:
CNN poll: Hillary Clinton maintains lead over Bernie Sanders ...