The Evidence Against Hillary Clinton Is Growing.

Editor’s Note – Benghazi update. The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another Hillary Clinton private server.

Fresh evidence keeps sinking Hillary Clinton’s email defense

Hillary Clinton’s “there’s no evidence of that” line of defense over her email mess continues to crumble in the face of . . . new evidence.

For all her talk of how using a private email account for her work running the State Department was just fine, it’s now plain she left top-secret information vulnerable to hackers.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to questions during a campaign stop ,Tuesday, July 28, 2015, in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to questions during a campaign stop ,Tuesday, July 28, 2015, in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

More evidence is likely to come out. The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another private server she used, a backup service with Connecticut-based Datto Inc.

And now the Associated Press has confirmed that her main server was the target of repeated cyberattacks from China, South Korea and Germany. And those came after she left office, when her team belatedly agreed to use some threat-monitoring software.

In other news, a FOIA request from the watchdog group Citizens United has uncovered the fact that Hill’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was forwarding classified info to the Clinton Foundation — so staff there could support Bill Clinton’s work in Africa.

Add to this new details about Hillary’s emails with longtime aide Sidney Blumenthal — emails that somehow didn’t make it into the data she finally handed over once word broke that she’d failed to share her work product with the government.

Her extensive communications with him include the naming of a CIA source (obviously classified) as he pushed for action in Libya — action that would benefit his clients.

“It is curious Secretary Clinton took so much of her advice from someone who had never been to Libya, professed no independent knowledge of the country and who the White House blocked her from hiring,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the select committee trying to finally get to the full facts on the deadly Benghazi attack.

Curious? Hey, in Clintonworld, blending policy with pocket-lining is routine — national security be damned.

 

DNC Platform calls for limits to free speech

Editor’s Note – Somehow, this is not surprising since the Democrat Party is in the business of disinformation – for instance, Romney is a tax cheat, a murderer, a felon, and the list goes on – guess where those adds came from, the same entities and the legal decision they gripe about. Yet, they use the law to their advantage – truths be damned.

Then there is the “Medi-scare” debacle – the truth eludes them at every corner, yet they call the right ‘liars’ in their PAC adds. Guilt projection, coupled with limited free speech – it seems the word lie will be an even more common word in the future if their idea passes.

Democratic Platform Calls for Constitutional Amendment Limiting Free Speech

By Matt Cover – CNS News

(CNSNews.com)  The 2012 Democratic Party platform includes language calling for a constitutional amendment restricting free speech rights during elections, saying that the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case should be overturned.

“Our opponents have applauded the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and welcomed the new flow of special interest money with open arms. In stark contrast, we believe we must take immediate action to curb the influence of lobbyists and special interests on our political institutions,” the 2012 platform says.

“We support campaign finance reform, by constitutional amendment if necessary,” it adds.

In its 2010 decision, the Supreme Court said that the government could not restrict the political speech of activist groups or other independent organizations by limiting how much money they could spend during an election cycle. The court also struck down federal limits on when independent groups could engage in election-related activities such as running television ads or publishing political materials.

During oral arguments, the Obama administration argued that federal campaign finance laws allowed the government to ban the publication of books, pamphlets, or any other material it felt qualified as election-related communications.

By calling for a constitutional amendment – as President Obama has in the past – the Democratic Party is saying it supports an amendment restricting the First Amendment rights affirmed by the Supreme Court. Such restrictions, by the Obama administration’s own admission, would allow the government to ban the publication of books, pamphlets or any other type of material by independent political groups.

Such an amendment would also allow the government to restrict how much money independent groups could spend, effectively putting a cap on how much political speech such groups can engage in.