The Associated Press is filing a lawsuit to force the State Department to release emails and other documents from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The AP said the lawsuit to force the government to act came only after multiple requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) went unfulfilled.
“After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, the Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time,” AP General Counsel Karen Kaiser said in a statement shared with The Hill.
“The press is a proxy for the people, and AP will continue its pursuit of vital information that’s in the public interest through this action and future open records requests.”
What, precisely, is this woman’s major malfunction? For going on 30 years, she has been the target of every strange conspiracy theory that the half-bright mind of man can dream up. She knows they’re out there, pining to have a coldie with Vince Foster at the cocktail lounge of the Mena Airport. Just in the past six years, she’s watched the Benghazi, Benghazi! BENGHAZI! dreamscape blossom lushly with the wilder flora planted in the public mind by the seedpod that is the brain of Darrell Issa. So she knew that what began with a bust-out Ozarks land deal had not faded just because her husband had skated through his second term. And still, we have this.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act. It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
And let a thousand paranoids bloom.
She had to know what this would mean because she’s lived her whole life under The Clinton Rules, by which every glitch is a crime, and every blunder is a conspiracy. It’s not entirely fair, and we’ll get to that in a minute, but somebody on the nascent campaign should have been D’d up for this kind of thing. A campaign by Hillary Clinton is a different thing, and anyone who doesn’t know this by now is somebody who needs burping on the half-hour. This screw-up has all the earmarks of a campaign still laboring under the ghost of Mark Penn.
Nothing in the letters reveals an especially deep ideological imprint. The Free Beacon’s write-up hypes the connection, but fails to mention the closing line of Clinton’s letter — “Hopefully we can have a good argument sometime in the future.” This line captures the mutual respect mixed with acknowledged disagreement that seems to characterize the relationship.
These letters were written more than 40 years ago but that won’t matter one bit to right wing media. Mainstream media will go along for the ride because “balance” or some such nonsense.
Too bad her name is Clinton and she’s a woman. Otherwise, she could be a contender for the GOP pres nomination in 2016.
Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss about the U.S. economic recovery.
People are “really, really nervous” about their future, Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Colorado last week that included hints of her emerging strategy to convey that she would be more effective in the pursuit of Democratic policy goals than Mr. Obama has been during his time in office.
“They don’t think the economy has recovered in a way that has helped them or their families,” Mrs. Clinton said. In contrast, Mr. Obama sounded almost cheery after Thursday’s jobs report, saying the country could make even more progress if Congress were willing to “set politics aside, at least occasionally.”
Mrs. Clinton hasn’t repudiated Mr. Obama, who made her secretary of state in his first term, and comments aimed at highlighting her differences with Mr. Obama are often implied rather than stated bluntly.
Sarah Miller over at SPLC Hate Watch has brought to our attention a disturbing example of fanaticism, nativism, and Obama derangement syndrome. These guys don’t sound too fond of the Bush family either. Just another example of our” glorious far right defenders of freedom”
Shawn Moran is the Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), which represents more than 17,000 border patrol agents and support staff. Last week, he appeared on the Pete Santilli Show, whose host is organizing a protest to shut down the U.S.-Mexico border on July 5th and who previously called for President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Bush family to be shot and killed.
The NBPC has a conservative stance on immigration, so it’s no surprise that Moran’s name appears regularly in right-wing outlets. But he crossed the line by lending credibility to an extremist like Pete Santilli who wants to shut down the very thing - the border - that he and the people he represents are sworn to protect.
What’s more, Santilli recently promoted armed resistance against the federal Bureau of Land Management agents who were called in to uphold the rule of law during the standoff at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch. He said that the agents must leave or face a “fight to the death.”
Most disturbing of all, Santilli called last May for Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Bush family to be killed.
Note: I had to shorten the Title from the original Hate Watch post, otherwise it wouldn’t fit.
The documents in question are in the linked article.
Documents obtained by Business Insider on Friday raise several questions about inconsistencies in claims that The Washington Free Beacon has made about being barred from accessing special collections in the University of Arkansas library after publishing stories critical of Hillary Clinton.
The Free Beacon, a conservative news site, used tapes from the library’s archives to publish a pair of stories about Clinton. Both of those stories were written by Free Beacon reporter Alana Goodman. One of the stories, published June 15, featured tapes of Clinton, a former lawyer, describing her 1975 defense of a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. On June 17, University of Arkansas Dean of Libraries Carolyn Henderson Allen sent a letter to Free Beacon editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti informing him the site’s “research privileges” at the school’s library would be “suspended” because the Free Beacon published the tapes without requesting permission from the university as required of library patrons.
Allen accused the Free Beacon of engaging in an “ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas” by publishing the tapes without authorization. On June 19, the Free Beacon responded with a letter to Allen from Kurt Wimmer, an attorney representing the site. Allen countered that the library was “illegally prohibit(ing) the Free Beacon from accessing public records solely because you disagree with the material that the Free Beacon published.” In his letter, Wimmer said the Clinton tapes were provided to the site “without any condition.”
“Your staff provided the recordings to the Free Beacon without any condition, apprised the Free Beacon of no ‘policies’ limiting their dissemination, and required no agreement to be signed prior to receiving them. You now assert that the Free Beacon violated the ‘policies of Special Collections,’ yet you fail to quote or cite these ‘policies,’ or explain how they bind my client,” Wimmer wrote. “You mention a ‘permission to publish form,’ but the Free Beacon never signed this form, nor has it ever agreed to sign it. Your staff unconditionally provided the audio recordings to the Free Beacon and the Free Beacon did not agree to any restrictions on their use. Therefore, the Free Beacon was free to publish this information, and continues to be free to do so.”
However, documents provided to Business Insider by the University of Arkansas indicate there were several conditions surrounding the release of tapes from the library to the Free Beacon. The library said they were able to provide information about the Free Beacon’s research because the site waived privacy rights.
If you thought the reboot of the events leading up to the Great Penis Hunt of the 1990s was going to be incomplete, you can rest easily. With Captain Kangaroo in the House gearing up for his summerlong close-up, one might think that the buffet of nothingburgers would be somewhat limited. Surely, a prolonged examination of Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! would be enough to monkeywrench the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, as well helping to paralyze the adminstration sufficiently to slide past the midterms. Ah, but you have forgotten the ironclad rule of shiny phony scandals, established twenty years ago, and enabled by the important journalistic principle of Hey, It’s Out There. After Whitewater, there is always Castle Grande. After Castle Grande, there are always cattle futures. After the cattle futures, there are always the billing records. After the billing records, there is always TravelGate. After TravelGate, there is always Vince Foster. After Fast and Furious, there’s always the IRS. After the IRS, there is Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! After Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI!, there is…this.
(And what are you hiding, anyway?)
It’s beginning again, because the next big scandal is going to be about the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria, and what will be framed as the allegedly inadequate response of the administration to the rising threat of the Boko Haram terrorist group, especially the allegedly inadequate response of the Department of State, Hillary Clinton, Secretary. And here it comes, from the Daily Caller, the scarecrow on which Tucker Carlson has hung the bloody entrails of his career.
Call them the shoe truthers.
Some conservative media figures are openly wondering if Hillary Clinton staged an incident during a speech in Las Vegas on Thursday in which a woman in the audience threw a shoe at her. The shoe appeared to miss the rumored 2016 presidential hopeful, who ducked and made light of it, while the reported thrower, Alison Michelle Ernst, was booked by the authorities.
A blog post published Monday at the website of Fox News commentator Bernard Goldberg speculated that Clinton probably “calculated it beforehand,” as is “almost always true” with things that happen to her.
“So it would not be stretching logic to suppose that Hillary arranged to have the shoe thrown at her,” wrote Arthur Louis at Goldberg’s site. “Remembering the Bush incident [when an Iraqi journalist threw two shoes at President George W. Bush], she may have calculated that this would make her seem presidential. This would explain why Ms. Ernst was not pounded to a pulp by Hillary’s bodyguards, and why she seems on the verge of getting off scot free. Don’t be too surprised, the next time you visit Phoenix, if you see her sitting at a table in a downtown Hillary for President store front, stuffing and sealing envelopes.”
Fox News will host discredited smear merchant Kathleen Willey tonight to attack Hillary Clinton. Willey is not credible — she has repeatedly been caught contradicting her own sworn testimony and has pushed absurd conspiracies that the Clintons killed her husband and former White House aide Vince Foster.
The website for Fox’s The Kelly File currently features the following tease for tonight’s episode: “She claimed Bill Clinton sexually harassed her, but former aide Kathleen Willey now says Hillary is the bigger danger to women! Don’t miss this explosive interview.” Megyn Kelly’s interview will likely cover the same ground as an appearance Willey made on WND reporter Aaron Klein’s radio program, during which she claimed that “Hillary Clinton is the war on women.”
Willey’s claims about Bill Clinton’s supposed harassment have been thoroughly discredited. In 1998, Willey alleged on CBS’ 60 Minutes that President Clinton fondled her against her will in 1993 during a private White House meeting in which she asked for a paid position in the administration (she was working as a volunteer at the time). Clinton denied making any sexual advance toward Willey, both at the time and in his memoir. The allegations were explored during discovery of Jones v. Clinton, the lawsuit in which Paula Jones claimed that Clinton sexually harassed her, and reviewed by Independent Counsel Robert Ray.
Ray’s report found that “Willey’s Jones deposition testimony differed from her grand jury testimony on material aspects of the alleged incident,” noting that Willey “said at her deposition … that [Clinton] did not fondle her.” Ray also pointed out that — despite Willey’s subsequent claims that she had been intimidated near her home shortly before giving her Jones deposition in 1998 — in her Jones deposition, she “testified no one had tried to discourage her from testifying.”
Ray also found that Willey contradicted herself on whether she had told others about the alleged incident; that Willey had sent repeated letters to Clinton after she claims he harassed her in which she “sought help or expressed gratitude”; that a Willey friend said Willey had instructed her to falsely support her story; and that Willey gave false information to the FBI. The Independent Counsel declined to prosecute Clinton due to “insufficient evidence.”
In fact, Alan Colmes (of all people) nailed her on that:
The Motor City Madman holds court before his adoring fans. The bad craziness begins at about the 6:00 mark.
I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America. I am heartbroken but I am not giving up. I think America will be America again when Barack Obama, [Attorney General] Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, [Sen.] Dick Durbin, [former New York City Mayor] Michael Bloomberg and all of the liberal Democrats are in jail facing the just due punishment that their treasonous acts are clearly apparent.
So a lot of people would call that inflammatory speech. Well I would call it inflammatory speech when it’s your job to protect Americans and you look into the television camera and say what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans. What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or Hillary Clinton, I guess it doesn’t matter.
Hat Tip: Media Matters