Watch: MSNBC Host Admits Something Stunning About Hillary That Must Have Been Painful

In a discussion of Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s ongoing email-related scandal, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell acknowledged that Republicans have good reason to be skeptical.

Clinton has faced mounting criticism for her use of a private email server in discussing official State Department business during her stint as secretary of state.

“Look,” Mitchell said during a recent appearance on Morning Joe, “you have two inspectors general, and they are referring this to the Justice Department. Now, you can try to confuse it – and there’s been a lot of misdirection, there’s been inaccurate reporting.”

She explained that, contrary to some recent reports, the IGs action did not constitute a “criminal referral,” though it could rise to that level.

“What they are suggesting,” she continued, is that four of the 40 randomly selected emails “had classified information.”

Mitchell clarified that this information was not classified after the fact but was instead marked as “secret, which is a level of classification, at the time.”

As for Clinton’s motivation in maintaining a private email system, Mitchell said she could only speculate and offer the analysis of some experts with whom she recently discussed the matter.

“I was at a security conference speaking to intelligence officials on each side,” she concluded, adding that “nobody can give an explanation for why a cabinet secretary would have a private email system other than to thwart inquiries” and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Should Hillary Clinton be forced to account for her actions as secretary of state? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

BREAKING: Hillary’s Hopes For The Presidency May Now Lie With Obama’s New Attorney General

The scandal surrounding emailgate — then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account managed on a personal server — has just been escalated to a higher level that could prove extremely damaging to Mrs. Clinton’s hopes for the White House.

The New York Times reports that the Justice Department has been asked to open “a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.”

And it’s not a Republican politician or a conservative watchdog group that’s requesting the criminal probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices. It’s two inspectors general working for the federal government who have reportedly asked for the inquiry into whether Hillary included classified information — sensitive government secrets — in the emails she sent. Mrs. Clinton has denied that she ever included any classified material in her many thousands of official emails when she was the country’s top diplomat.

However, as The Times article points out, when Mrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department the digital communications she had held and controlled on her private server, the review of those emails raised serious and troubling questions.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

So now, President Obama’s new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, will have a huge say in whether a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s controversial email practices will be undertaken. Such a criminal probe would almost certainly further damage Mrs. Clinton’s already shaky image for being an honest and trustworthy person.

Just a couple of days ago, Western Journalism reported on a new poll from Quinnipiac that showed Mrs. Clinton losing serious ground to potential Republican challengers in three key swing states. The survey confirmed what other polls have found in recent weeks — the frontrunner for the 2016 Democrat nomination for president is not seen as particularly honest and trustworthy.

Mrs. Clinton recently drew a fair share of snickers and snide comments when she boasted to a CNN interviewer, “People should and do trust me.” Should Obama’s attorney general decide that a criminal probe is warranted into Hillary’s emails and their possibly classified content, even the presidential candidate herself would be hard-pressed to make that statement again with a straight face.

Should a criminal investigation be launched over Hillary Clinton’s controversial email practices? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Boehner Just Welcomed Hillary to The Capitol With One Perfect Question Everyone Wants Answered

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was confronted with one of many scandals that have overshadowed her campaign as she visited the Capitol Tuesday. House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, took a swipe at the former secretary of state as she met with fellow Democrats in another room.

“I wonder if she brought her emails,” he told reporters.

Clinton has faced significant backlash for her use of a personal email server for official correspondences and her subsequent refusal to release those records to congressional investigators.

“I welcome her to the Capitol,” Boehner added, though he said if she “wants the Benghazi committee to finish their work, she can help them by turning over her emails sooner rather than later.”

While Boehner scored some points with Republicans for addressing a persistent concern, many conservatives were unsatisfied with what they felt amounted to empty rhetoric.

1

Capture

The U.S. Department of State also criticized Boehner, claiming he has misled the public by insisting the agency has not been forthcoming with documents requested by the committee.

“Claims that we have been slow to respond to the increasing demands of the Benghazi Select Committee,” spokesperson John Kirby stated, “are neither true nor reflective of the effort being expended by an entire team of professionals at the State Department.”

With or without Boehner’s opinion, though, it is clear many Americans continue to demand accountability from the Democrat frontrunner for her apparently edited email record. In addition to the heated discussions taking place on Twitter and other social media platforms, several parody accounts have taken a different tone.

Capture

Capture

Should Hillary Clinton release her emails? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Democrats Are Lining Their Pockets In Ukraine

While failing to provide any real solutions for Ukraine’s ailing economy, choosing instead to air vacuous platitudes and call Ukraine’s government “courageous” and “inspiring” at any given opportunity, the Obama administration proves once again its complete lack of leadership on any foreign policy matter. But what makes Ukraine’s case more unnerving is not Washington’s impotence in pushing back Russia, but the unyielding determination of State Department officials to reap profits and settle political, and sometimes personal, scores.

Indeed, leaked phone conversations that took place during the Maidan between US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and US ambassador to Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt revealed that the State Department was largely involved in canoodling with Ukraine’s opposition with the aim of manipulating the direction of the Ukrainian government in accordance with US interests. But why has the Obama administration gone out of its way to protect Ukraine? Was it to uphold the fundamental rights of freedom-loving Ukrainians, oppressed by the evil Russian bear? Not in the slightest. Washington, rather than developing a strategy for Kiev and its future, has instead been opting to secure its own geopolitical and strategic interests. Oil and gas, rather than freedom and democracy, can largely be considered the reasons why Washington has got its panties in a twist over Russia’s grip on Ukraine. For a Democratic party that has consistently and obsessively blasted the Iraq war as Bush’s crusade for oil, the Obama administration seems to do exactly that in Ukraine.

A war for oil?

In November 2013, before the Maidan Revolution, which saw former President Yanukovich ousted from power and a new group of “European” and “reform minded” leaders enter the scene, US oil and gas majors were already busy marking their territory. Chevron was quick to sign a $10 billion deal with Kiev for the exploration and production of shale gas in western Ukraine’s Oleska Field. Meanwhile, Royal Dutch Shell also inked an agreement to explore shale gas reserves in eastern Ukraine. A more recent US State Department report confirmed these companies’ interests in the country, underlining that “Ukraine’s strategic location between the main energy producers (Russia and the Caspian Sea area) […] its large transit network, and its available underground gas storage capacities make the country a potentially crucial player in European energy transit.” However, since the conflict in eastern Ukraine led both Chevron and Shell to pull out of the projects, it comes as no surprise why the US is really trying to cozy up to Ukraine’s leadership given the “game changing” opportunities for energy cooperation the country has to offer.

The war-torn east and relentless fighting between both sides hasn’t stopped Obama administration grandees from exerting their influence and lining their pockets. In May 2014, Joe Biden’s younger son, Hunter Biden, was appointed to the Board of Ukraine’s largest independent oil and gas company, Burisma Holdings. Biden, along with Devon Archer (who was John Kerry’s advisor during his 2004 presidential campaign and the college roommate of Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz), claimed that their appointment to Burisma’s Board was solely to provide strategic guidance. However, Biden’s arrival on the scene coincided with that of David Leiter, former Senate Chief of Staff to Kerry, whose company (ML Strategies) signed up to lobby for Burisma in Washington. Owned by a former Yanukovich government minister, Nikolai Zlochevskyi, Burisma’s ties to the White House have led some to believe that while trying to promote cleaning up corruption in Ukraine’s state, Washington is trying to secure its own special deals in the state. According to Ed Chow, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “it maybe sends the wrong message that Westerners are just hypocritical.”

But gaining allies isn’t enough for the Obama administration – eliminating potential rivals and competitors has been a key strategy in ensuring US dominance over Ukraine’s energy market. In March 2014, just several days after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the Justice and State Departments via the FBI filed an extradition request in a Vienna court against Dmitry Firtash, Ukraine’s prominent gas and chemicals bigwig. Faced with allegations of bribing Indian officials, Firtash contended his arrest was nothing more than a political game played out by Washington, which felt threated by his influence in Ukrainian politics. With no evidence presented by the FBI, the Austrian judge deemed the US charges “politically motivated– and Firtash walked. But as a key player in Ukraine’s gas industry through his companies, Firtash’s woes are far from over. The Ukrainian government has recently confiscated 500 million cubic meters of gas belonging to Firtash and announced that it would be willing to cooperate with US investigators, who plan to appeal the Austrian decision.

Despite calls to make Ukraine an attractive place both for domestic and foreign businesses, it appears that, with the never-ending support of the Democratic Party, Ukraine is more occupied with settling political scores at the State Department’s behest than bringing about economic and institutional change.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Uh-Oh: What Was Just Discovered Utterly Annihilates One Of Hillary’s Key Claims

The State Department confirmed on Thursday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails, as she has claimed.

This revelation came following the release of 179 pages of emails on Monday by the Select Committee on Benghazi. Among those emails were 120 pages of emails produced by Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal in response to the committee’s request.

“The officials said Julia Frifield, the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, confirmed that nine emails and parts of six others that the committee made public Monday couldn’t be located in the department’s records,” according to the Associated Press.

When asked about the discrepancy, Nick Merrill, a Clinton campaign spokesman, did not answer the question, saying the former Secretary “has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State Department, including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal.”

“The revelation these messages were not originally produced to the State Department by Clinton is significant and troubling,” committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement. “This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work. This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record.”

Gowdy added that the news “raises serious questions about her decision to erase her personal server — especially before it could be analyzed by an independent, neutral third party arbiter.”

When Clinton addressed the issue of the use of her personal email at a press conference at the U.N. in March, she said emphatically: “I provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related, which totaled roughly 55,000 printed pages.”

She further explained that her team of lawyers “went through a thorough process to identify all my work-related emails, and deliver them to the State Department. At the end, I chose to keep my private, personal emails….”

The Daily Caller reports:

The revelation is not the first time Clinton has been found to have made false statements about her emails. When it was revealed that she received the intelligence reports from Blumenthal, Clinton downplayed the news saying that the correspondence was “unsolicited.”

Yet a close look at the emails Blumenthal turned over last week showed that Clinton actively encouraged Blumenthal to send more intelligence reports. In one exchange with Blumenthal, Clinton asked for “additional info” on a Libya-related issue. In another she asked Blumenthal to send along “any other info.”

In yet another, she wrote: “Thanks for keeping this stuff coming!”

Still, other emails turned over to the Select Committee on Benghazi call into question Clinton’s statement during her U.N. press conference that “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” The presidential candidate reiterated: “I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

Fox News reports that an email chain between Clinton and high level State Department officials concerning negotiations enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya between Turkey, France, Great Britain, and the United States took place.

“I think the information in the email is clearly classified. If I were engaged in the negotiation on that subject reporting back to Washington, my reporting cable would be classified,”  former UN Ambassador and Fox News contributor John Bolton said after reading the un-redacted emails.

“They’re dealing with the possible U.S. military operation, sensitive negotiations among NATO partners, talking about U.S. objectives and political arrangements and possible objections to the deal from key partners so all of these at secretary of state level is extraordinarily sensitive,” he added.

The New York Times reports: “’I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified,’ said [a] former [senior State Department] official, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to seem ungracious to Mrs. Clinton. ‘Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.’”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth