ANOTHER SCANDAL...this is another one at the Hillary Clinton run State Department

Markle wrote:It must have seemed like old times when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's staff was covering up for hookers.

It is obvious that this administration totally believes that laws are for other people and do not apply to themselves.

CBS News: U.S. State Department Cover-Ups Range From Prostitution Charges to Drug Rings

June 10, 2013 9:44 AM

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) – Uncovered documents show the U.S. State Department may have covered up allegations of illegal behavior ranging from sexual assaults to an underground drug ring.


CBS News reports that is has unearthed documents from the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), an internal watchdog agency, that implicate the State Department in a series of misconducts worldwide.


The memo, reported by CBS News’ John Miller, cited eight specific examples, including allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” with foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries” — a problem the report says was “endemic.”


Former State Department internal investigator Aurelia Fedenisn told CBS News, “We also uncovered several allegations of criminal wrongdoing in cases, some of which never became cases.”


Read more: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/cbs-news-u-s-state-department-cover-ups-range-from-prostitution-charges-to-drug-rings/

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I think you missed your calling. You should have been a reporter for the National Enquirer or the Midnight Globe.

Bob wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I think you missed your calling. You should have been a reporter for the National Enquirer or the Midnight Globe.

Well no actually this is being reported by all the major news outlets and not the National Enquirer.
And the state-run obamamania liberal progressive mainstream media, NBC News, is now reporting that the ambassador who has a taste for prostitutes is also a pedophile. And the "higher-ups" in the State Department have tried to cover that up too.

nochain wrote:Billary has a lot of baggage but the Repubs don't seem to have an opponent lined up for a run right now. Her many questionable issues will be swept under the rug by the MSM as usual. Of course she is more qualified than Oblamer could ever hope to be and it wouldn't hurt to have Wild Bill as her wing man. Maybe he could be an Ambassador to Congress and coordinate some bi-partisan solutions to the many Oblamer disasters that have occurred.

Bob wrote:

nochain wrote:.

What makes her so qualified?

The best republican candidate would be Chris Christie but now the republicans despise him because he used obama to get relief for the hurricane victims so he can never get the nomination. And he couldn't win anyway as long as he stays a fat slob.

.

nochain wrote:

Bob wrote:

nochain wrote:.

What makes her so qualified?

The best republican candidate would be Chris Christie but now the republicans despise him because he used obama to get relief for the hurricane victims so he can never get the nomination. And he couldn't win anyway as long as he stays a fat slob.

.

I said she is more qualified than Oblamer could ever hope to be. Of course that bar is very low so perhaps my dog is equally qualified. She had to have absorbed some smattering of how to be a President after 8 years of Billy Boy and gotten some necessary foreign policy exposure as S/S - Oblamers lack of a coherent foreign policy notwithstanding. The major problem I have with her, as with most politicians, is that she is a known liar.

I don't see how anyone could blame Christie for schmoozing Oblamer to get relief needed for his constituents - that's what he was elected to do. If more politicians would ignore party lines to work for the greater good this country wouldn't be in such a mess.

newswatcher wrote:

I don't see how anyone could blame Christie for schmoozing Oblamer to get relief needed for his constituents - that's what he was elected to do.

Sal wrote:Christie is a pre-teabag neocon.

He only seems reasonable when compared to the rest of his party which has gone stark, raving mad.

Christie's policies would be just as counterproductive as Dubya's were.

Sal wrote:Christie is a... neocon.

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:Christie is a... neocon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+vote+on+iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Sal wrote:

I'd like to see a real progressive get into the White House in my lifetime.

Sal wrote:

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:Christie is a... neocon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+vote+on+iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

LOL

Hillary is not my ideal candidate for POTUS.

If the contest were to be between Hillary and Christie, I would vote for Hillary as the better of the two choices, just as I did with Obama v McCain, and Obama v Willard.

Obama is not my ideal candidate for POTUS either.

He is exactly who he has always said his is - a pragmatic centrist, and to my dismay, he has turned out to be a centrist that leans far more to the right than I expected.

I'd like to see a real progressive get into the White House in my lifetime.

PkrBum wrote:

Sal wrote:

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:Christie is a... neocon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+vote+on+iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

LOL

Hillary is not my ideal candidate for POTUS.

If the contest were to be between Hillary and Christie, I would vote for Hillary as the better of the two choices, just as I did with Obama v McCain, and Obama v Willard.

Obama is not my ideal candidate for POTUS either.

He is exactly who he has always said his is - a pragmatic centrist, and to my dismay, he has turned out to be a centrist that leans far more to the right than I expected.

I'd like to see a real progressive get into the White House in my lifetime.

Good gawd... I wonder if you idiots even know the real nature of these ideologies. I think you just like the sound of it.

Sal wrote:

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:Christie is a... neocon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+vote+on+iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

LOL

Hillary is not my ideal candidate for POTUS.

If the contest were to be between Hillary and Christie, I would vote for Hillary as the better of the two choices, just as I did with Obama v McCain, and Obama v Willard.

Obama is not my ideal candidate for POTUS either.

He is exactly who he has always said his is - a pragmatic centrist, and to my dismay, he has turned out to be a centrist that leans far more to the right than I expected.

I'd like to see a real progressive get into the White House in my lifetime.

2seaoat wrote:Of course she is more qualified than Oblamer could ever hope to be


hell yes......Hillary is white.

but that female thing makes her barely more qualified..

2seaoat wrote:Of course she is more qualified than Oblamer could ever hope to be


hell yes......Hillary is white.

but that female thing makes her barely more qualified.

I have just summed up the strategy of the Republican Party for the last five years, and unless some intelligent Republicans take the party back from Stupid, this will be the discussion in 2016.   I have literally looked at Hillary with repulsion for 20 years, but she earned my respect on how hard she worked as SOS.   She is very qualified.   She is smarter than most of her opponents, and other than Christie who I would vote for in a NY second, I think she will ascend to the white house because another stupid will be nominated as the Republican candidate.   Christie gets it is about the people....the middle class......about America.......he is not a Neocon.......he is not somebody's boy.......he is working for the people of NJ and I hope the special interest folks who control the stupids do not tip his candidacy over.....because he will have a hard time getting back up.


    If you're judging an entire party as stupid after posting the ignorant statement opening to  your post proves your stupidity...when you post this kind trash it reflects the stupidty that is you...anytime anyone opens with the entire republican party..democrat party...conservatives...liberals...whites...blacks...asians...hispanics etc., an asinine unintelligent post is sure to follow and you've held up that tradition...You've bought into some supporters of the cowh and their belief that if anyone disagrees with the opinions...policies or actions of the cowh then they must be racially motivated to do so....His race has nothing to do with his philosophy and the way he conducts business...to be honest sure there are some that may allow that narrow minded thinking to enter into their disagreement but here's a shocker....there are racists in the democrat party also as in all walks of society and to use race as you did in your comments shows the lowest level of ignorance that's been posted here on this subject...Remember it was the Clintons that accused the cowh's campaign of using race against them....so does this mean all democrats are racist?...Or the Clinton's are?...Or the cowh and his campaign?...To paint with a broad brush as you did about the republican party may be an indication that the problem of which you accuse others may be your own....The democrats did racial hatchet jobs on Colin Powell...Condi Rice...Herman Cain...Allen West...Dr Carson etc., all based on them 'selling out' and/or being 'house slaves' and somehow this is acceptable?...May be that SOME democrats simply can't stand there are African-Americans that have conservative beliefs yet instead to disagreeing with them on those beliefs they use skin color and slurs against some people that should be applauded for rising through the ranks and becoming national leaders...Don't know of one republican that cares whether Hillary is 'white' or being a woman disqualifies her from any job....Its her politics and her incompetence that she displayed as Sec of State that shows her inability to be president....SHE and her department failed and mislead the American people and her arrogance made her think she could get away with it because WHO would question this administration...."At this point in time does it really matter"---HRC....pretty much sums up that she believes she is above question...She ran and played the right wing conspiracy card when Bill was innocent---well until the stained blue dress entered the picture after Bill under oath committed perjury...These are examples of 'working hard' that you speak about?....Before throwing rocks better make sure your own backyard is clean....Believing that only one party is entirely responsible for the mess we are in is about as clueless...classless...and as ignorant as your post....