Christmas is looking good !...Agent says Hillary could face 10 years in club Fed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275919/Investigation-Hillary-s-email-server-focuses-Espionage-Act-10-years-jail-FBI-agent-says-prosecuted-just-failing-tell-Obama.html



Investigation into Hillary's email server focuses on Espionage Act and could get her 10 years in jail as FBI agent says she could be prosecuted just for failing to tell Obama

We can only wish and pray

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Investigation into Hillary's email server focuses on Espionage Act and could get her 10 years in jail as FBI agent says she could be prosecuted just for failing to tell Obama

....according to british tabloid.


And in other news...

LOOKIN GOOD !

You surely don't expect the American media to report it... That's why the Brits have to and given that Brits don't have a dog in the hunt, it's probably accurate

Tsunami? Lmao... you must be drowning in the leftist propaganda kiddy pool. She won't bring out the vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/10/01/suffolk-poll-clinton-sanders-biden/73132954/

WASHINGTON —Hillary Clinton continues to lead the Democratic field in a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll, but she no longer commands the support of a majority of Democrats as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Vice President Biden gain ground.

By nearly 3-1, all those surveyed in the national poll predict that the controversy over her exclusive use of a private email server when she was secretary of State would hurt her prospects in a general election.

In July her favorable-unfavorable rating was narrowly negative, at 43%-47%. Now that gap has grown to 12 points,at 39%-51%. In contrast, Sanders has a 37%-33% favorable-unfavorable rating, and Biden's favorable rating is a healthy 51%-35%.

Asked for a single word that describes each contender, the most frequent response for Clinton was "liar/dishonest," followed by "untrustworthy/fake." For Sanders, the most frequent response was "socialist" and the second most frequent "favorable/good." For Biden, the top response was "favorable/like," followed by "honest/honorable," although the top five answers for him also included "idiot/joke" and "fun/character/goofy."

The controversy over her decision to use a private email server instead of the government system when she was secretary of State is hurting her, although more among Republicans than Democrats. Six in 10 of those surveyed say the issue bothers them and even more, 70%,predict it will hurt her in a general election.

Even about one-third of Democrats and two-thirds of independents are disturbed by the controversy, as well as nearly nine in 10 Republicans.

Overall, 52% say they're bothered by how she handled the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, and by the explanation she has given in the aftermath. Nearly six in 10 say that would be a liability in the general election.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/55f71c2ae4b042295e372a41

Hillary Clinton's once-overwhelming support among women has dropped significantly since the summer,a new survey finds.

In a Washington Post/ABC poll released Monday,42 percent of Democratic-leaning female voters said they support the candidate. It's still a double-digit lead over her rivals,but a 29-percent drop since July. Twenty-four percent of Democratic-leaning women now say they support Vice President Joe Biden,with another 22 percent backing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Biden has still not formally declared a run for the White House.

While there was little difference in opinion between younger and older women,there was a substantial racial divide. Clinton's declining female support comes mostly among white women.

A new report released Thursday from Fox News indicates the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server is focusing on whether she violated the Espionage Act – especially the statute’s ‘gross negligence’ provisions. The law applies to ‘any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense’ – even if it’s not considered ‘classified.’ It calls for a 10-year prison sentence.

Essentially, the question is did Clinton’s ‘gross negligence’ or serious carelessness — e.g., her use of an insecure private computer network — permit national defense information to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location?



And there’s more. Today, a former FBI agent suggested what President Obama said in his recent ‘60 Minutes‘ interview could be enough to land her in prison


http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/10/fbi-agent-says-this-obama-statement-could-mean-prison-for-hillary/

nothing.....absolutely nothing......swift boat away.......absolutely nothing, but hold on................................................................I think there is a committee meeting..........................................Gomer will slice and dice Hillary......................she will be so badly damaged that she will immediately resign.......oh yea................she is not in office............................she will immediately say..................it was a mistake..............................oh yea..........................she said that...........................I guess the longest committee in American history will have some great recommendations on how to protect our embassies.......or not.

If she admits that she was naive and incompetent to leave the ambassador in libya woefully unprotected... it'll be over.

She should however also answer why she lied about the video and entertained blumenthal's private interests.

Her record keeping, classified handling, and email server are a separate issue.

I don't think that would work out like you think. A teaching moment on socialism would open alot of eyes. You can qualify it with "new" democratic socialism... but the majority (especially young) people have no real knowledge of it's govt controls.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=14958

Flakes On A Plane: Is This The Stupidest Fox News ‘Exclusive’ Ever?

Posted by Mark NC on May 24, 2014 at 11:57 am. 10

"The never-ending fount of lies, distortion, and disinformation that is known as Fox News has long ago ceased to surprise media watchers who are accustomed to their shameful propagandizing and absence of journalistic ethics. Yet every now and then, Fox still manages to find a way to embarrass themselves with ever-lower descents into idiocy. For example, Fox News contributor and hero-hating war criminal, Allen West, has provided Fox with an “exclusive” that will surely blow the lid off of the Benghazi affair: “Confidential Source Reveals To Me What Really Happened In Benghazi.”



The significance and credibility of this story was so profound that the Fox Nationalists featured it at the top of their website. West began his shocking expose by revealing that…

“Today as I returned from Detroit, I had a moment that I truly felt was God sent, as I don’t believe in coincidences. It happened on one of my flights, and it was two hours I will never forget.

“I was seated beside someone who personally knew one of the men who was there on the roof in Benghazi. This person was excited to share with me the ‘ground truth’ of what happened September 11, 2012.”
So West’s source for his exclusive was God, as represented by an anonymous stranger that happened to be sitting next to him on a plane. And who could possibly have more authority and respect than some dude (not to be confused with Jeff Lebowski) in the aisle seat on a flight from Detroit? The Dude then proceeded to tell West what some other dude, also anonymous, told him.

“My seat mate drew schematics to orient me to the ‘time and spacing’ and the direction of the attack. I learned about the repeated orders to the men at the CIA annex to stand down and do nothing — thank God two of them, Glenn Doherty and Ty Woods, lived up to their code of honor and ran to the sound of the guns, resulting in their loss of life.”
While West says he learned of orders to “stand down,” every credible, independent investigation found that no such orders were ever given. But West has the word of the dude on the plane, so that settles that argument. And why West thanks God that two men lost their lives while engaging the attackers can only be known to him.

West’s Dude also told him that “the attackers were indeed Ansar al-Sharia” and why Amb. Chris Stevens was in Benghazi in the first place (which West neglects to disclose in his article). He also alleged that there are others who are “being threatened with their pensions being cut off if they come forth to speak.” That’s a convenient excuse for the failure of any corroborating witnesses coming forward. However, it is also insulting and improbable because it presumes that people who put their very lives on the line for their country are scared off by losing some retirement income. In other words, what West expects us believe is that these patriots will throw their bodies in front of enemy bullets, but losing a paycheck will frighten them into silence.

West further alleges that his Dude told him about “covert weapons schemes” that involve the U.S. “supplying radical Islamists with weapons” in an international conspiracy that stretches from Libya to Syria and beyond. And for some reason the Dude was perfectly comfortable to spill his guts on a commercial airliner to the guy that sat down next to him. Of course, the Dude, as noted above, had no direct knowledge of anything he was saying. He was relaying what some other unidentified dude, who supposedly was in Benghazi at the time, told him.

This is what passes for an “exclusive” news report on Fox News? A third-hand tale of conspiracy theories and previously debunked allegations? There is absolutely no evidence that any of these assertions are accurate. To the contrary, some of them have already been proved false. And furthermore, there is no reason to give any credibility to a partisan wingnut who was forced to resign from the Army (West), recounting the ramblings of an airline passenger who says he knows someone who says that these myths are true. And yet, Fox News made this their top headline. Fair and balanced.

*************

This is the same Allen West that said 80 members of Congress were commies. Oh, please. This man is so flaky he puts Pillsbury to shame.

You see why he wasn't reelected.

He's not running for POTUS. Nuf said.

Wordslinger wrote:According to your own polls, Trump, Carson, Rubio and Cruz would all beat Hillary in a national election.

So if you succeed in stopping her now, you leave Bernie in the driver's seat. And he already has enough votes to bury any republican candidate, just with young voters and minorities.

Get Hillary, throw her in jail! Whowhooooooooo ....

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-voters-socialist-atheist-catholic-119273

Americans say they are more likely to support an atheist than a socialist for president next year, according to the latest Gallup survey, released Monday.

Just 47 percent of Americans would vote for a socialist if their party nominated one, while 50 percent said they would not, while 58 percent said they would have no problem voting for an atheist in their party.

Story Continued Below

Independent Bernie Sanders is the only self-described “democratic socialist” in the race, though he’s running as a Democrat. He’s has been gaining in the polls in recent weeks, and 91 percent also told Gallup they would vote for a Jewish candidate. (Sanders is, so far, the lone Jewish candidate.)

By comparison, 93 percent said they would vote for a Roman Catholic. Five declared candidates in the race are Catholic: Democrat Martin O’Malley and Republicans Jeb Bush, George Pataki, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum. (New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is also Catholic, but he has not announced a presidential bid.)

As far as black candidates, 92 percent said they would vote for one. Republican Ben Carson is the only African-American running for president in 2016 so far.

For women, 92 percent also said they would vote for one. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Carly Fiorina are the only women running in either major party.

Asked about Hispanic candidates, 91 percent of Americans said they would vote for one (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are the only two running so far).

Public approval along religious and ideological backgrounds drops off after that point, with 81 percent for a Mormon candidate, 74 percent for a gay or lesbian candidate, 73 percent for an evangelical Christian candidate and 60 percent for a Muslim candidate.

Republicans are much more likely to back an evangelical Christian candidate (84 percent to independents’ 73 percent and Democrats’ 66 percent), while Democrats are much more likely to back a socialist candidate (59 percent to independents’ 49 percent and Republicans’ 26 percent).

Statistically speaking, there are no differences in either party in their willingness to vote for a Hispanic, black or female candidate.

Whoopdedoo. A Politico survey. I'm sure it's impartial.

Floridatexan wrote:
Whoopdedoo. A Politico survey. I'm sure it's impartial.

It's a gallup poll dorkapotomus. Ignore at will... you obviously didn't make it through the first sentence. Lol@leftists

I wouldn't vote for her as dog catcher.