Ladies and gentlemen, we now have the smoking gun. Although Twitter and Facebook and all of the mainstrean news media tried to run interference on behalf of the Biden campaign, the truth is out. What you heard from the mainstream news media, and big technology companies, is that the laptop and the e-mails were part of a “Russian disinformation” campaign. Now we know they lied.
An email Hunter Biden received in April 2015 from a Burisma executive discussing an introduction to then-Vice President Joe Biden, which lies at the heart of a New York Post investigation, is unquestionably authentic, a cybersecurity expert told the Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday.
The DCNF obtained a full copy of Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday. The DCNF provided Robert Graham, the founder of the cybersecurity firm Errata Security, with a copy of the email and its metadata for forensic analysis.
Graham, who has been cited as a cybersecurity expert in The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Wired, Engadget and other news and technology outlets, told the DCNF that he used a cryptographic signature found in the email’s metadata to validate that Vadym Pozharsky, an advisor to Burisma’s board of directors, emailed Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015.
What does the e-mail say? That Hunter introduced his father to the Ukraine businessmen who paid him ridiculous amounts of money. So Joe knew.
In the email, Pozharsky thanked Hunter Biden for “inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together.”
The New York Post first reported the email in October, describing it as a “smoking-gun” showing that Hunter Biden had introduced his father to the Burisma executive in 2015.
And a little bit later, Joe Biden used his political power to pressure the Ukraine government to stop investigating the people who were paying his son $50,000 a month.
The email was sent less than a year before Joe Biden pressured former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire a prosecutor who was reportedly investigating the gas company in return for a $1 billion loan guarantee.
So, it turns out that this has been a legitimate scandal all along, raising questions about whether Joe Biden sold access and/or influence to foreign countries for cash. At the very least, we know that Joe Biden lied again and again about his knowledge of his son’s business deals.
When you are watching the mainstream news media, please keep in mind that they have no interest in telling you the truth. And when you are using social media, keep in mind that they are actively suppressing content that could hurt their preferrred presidential candidate. It’s called election interference.
I’m not really as interested in politics any more since we don’t have a conservative running as the Republican candidate, but I do still listen to podcasts and read some news stories.
Here is a news story from the Boston Globe that I felt that I had to blog about.
The Democratic presidential nominee told the FBI she never sought or asked permission to use a private server or email address during her tenure as the nation’s top diplomat from 2009 to 2013. A prior review by the State Department’s internal watchdog concluded the practice violated several polices for the safekeeping and preservation of federal records.
Clinton has repeatedly said her use of private email was allowed. But over a 3 ½ hour interview in July, she told investigators she ‘‘did not explicitly request permission to use a private server or email address,’’ the FBI wrote. They said no one at the State Department raised concerns during her tenure, and that Clinton said everyone with whom she exchanged emails knew she was using a private email address.
[…]Large portions of the FBI documents were censored. The FBI cited exemptions protecting national security and investigative techniques. Previous government reviews of the 55,000 pages of emails Clinton returned to the State Department found that about 110 contained classified information.
Clinton and her legal team deleted thousands more emails she claimed were personal and private. The FBI report details steps taken by Clinton’s staff that appear intended to hamper the recovery of deleted data, including smashing her old Blackberry smartphones with a hammer and using special software to wipe the hard drive of a server she had used.
Funny video of CNN leftists reacting to reality:
The Weekly Standard has been comparing Clinton’s public statements with what she told the FBI, and there headline is “Hillary Signed She Received Briefing on Classified Info, But Told FBI She Hadn’t“.
Either Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI or she lied on a State Department form as she began her tenure as Secretary of State. This conclusion appears inescapable after Friday’s FBI document release related to the Clinton email investigation.
As revealed by those FBI documents, Clinton told agents that she could not recall “any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records of handling of classified information”.
But the second paragraph of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009—states that “I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.”
[…]The form also notes that classified information is not always so marked, but is still regulated by the agreement.
Wow, that sounds to me like the transparency that Obama promised us in his campaign speeches. He was going to lead the most transparent administration ever, remember? And what is his method of holding his staff accountable for these lies? Well, it’s to not prosecute them.
A State Department watchdog denounced Hillary Clinton’s lax use of a private email server Wednesday, writing that Clinton did not properly preserve correspondence and subjected herself to security risks without seeking counsel.
The report revealed that the former secretary of state did not comply with the Federal Records Act.
[…]”Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report said, according to Politico. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”
[…]The IG also condemned Clinton for not seeking counsel on whether to handle work-related emails on her cell phone. Information officers “would have refused the request because of security risks,” according to the Associated Press.
NBC’s Ken Dilanian said that the IG report shows that “key information technology officials” were “not aware” of Clinton’s use of the server, though the former secretary of state’s office has claimed otherwise.
“They had never approved it, she never asked them. And they’re saying that she should have gotten approval from them, they probably wouldn’t have granted it actually,” Dilanian said.
Another Weekly Standard article lists EIGHT TIMES where Clinton said everyone knew about her private e-mail server.
And her “fact sheet” on her campaign web site says this:
“Her usage was widely known to the over 100 State Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, consistent with the practice of prior Secretaries of State and permitted at the time. […] The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted her to use a non-government email for work.”
Whenever a politician says that “everyone” knows something, or “everyone” believes something, it’s a good idea to ask them for one name. Because once they give you a name, they are opening themselves up to fact-checking. This also works when you’re discussion the Christian worldview with a skeptic. Skeptic: “I have read so many smart people with so many arguments against Christianity that I can’t believe in it”. You: “OK, go ahead and name your best argument and tell me who wrote it”.
Now, the obvious question is this – why did Hillary want to have a private e-mail server? All of my e-mails are on my company’s corporate server, and if I leave, they keep them. Why? Because it is important to company business that a record be kept, in case I was taking bribes, or exchanging favors for money. Clinton decided not to let her employers see her e-mails, or have records of them. Why do you think she did that? Remember that all the time that she was Secretary of State, she was taking donations to her “Clinton Foundation” from foreign donors. Do you think that maybe she was exchanging political favors for donations, and didn’t want anyone else to have a record of her communication about that?
The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
[…]In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.
[…]Some of the donations came from countries with complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S. government, including Kuwait, Qatar and Oman.
[…]The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.
[…]Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.
[…]Foreign governments had been major donors to the foundation before President Obama nominated Clinton to become secretary of state in 2009. When the foundation released a list of its donors for the first time in 2008, as a result of the agreement with the Obama administration, it disclosed, for instance, that Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million.
[…]Qatar, for instance, spent more than $5.3 million on registered lobbyists while Clinton was secretary of state, according to the Sunlight Foundation.The country’s lobbyists were reported monitoring anti-terrorism activities and efforts to combat violence in Sudan’s Darfur region. Qatar has also come under criticism from some U.S. allies in the region that have accused it of supporting Hamas and other militant groups. Qatar has denied the allegations.
Now I know that Hillary Clinton says that she is very concerned about women’s rights, but then one has to wonder how well she translates those happy sounding words in her speeches into actions with these nations like Saudi Arabia. I don’t think that the women in these countries saw much help from Hillary when she was Secretary of State.