Hillary Clinton


Hillary at Foggy Bottom?
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-11-17

What the Clinton Appointment Means
And why we won't see any change in American foreign policy
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-11-19

Stop Hillary!
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-11-21


At Confirmation Hearing, Clinton Talks of Engagement With Iran
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post, 2009-01-14

[An excerpt.]

[At her Senate confirmation hearing,]
Clinton appeared most passionate when she spoke on a subject
normally absent from the list of priorities for the nation’s top diplomat --
the plight of the 2 billion people who earn less than $2 a day,
especially women and girls,
who she said
“comprise the majority of the world’s unhealthy, unschooled, unfed and unpaid.”

[I fear that augurs what we can expect from a HRC State Department:
A foreign policy that places the interests of women (as defined by feminism)
well above the interests of America.

Further, one that is totally oblivious to
the disastrous fiscal situation that America is in,
one where foreign commitments and the bare-faced attempts to buy friendship
should be being reduced, not expanded.]

Clinton, Ross and the Muslims
by Patrick Lang
Sic Semper Tyrannis, 2009-03-03

[The relevant extract; emphasis is added.]

According to press reports (Kessler et al)
someone in the traveling party has disclosed
the substance of a private meeting
between Secretary Clinton and Sheikh Nahayan, the foreign minister of the UAE.
I presume that it was Clinton herslf who made the disclosure.
The “he” attribution in the story means nothing.
Reporters often mis-identify sources as a courtesy.
If anyone other than Clinton disclosed the “matter” of the meeting,
then that person should be fired.
Kessler. of the Washington Post writes that
Clinton told Nahayan that
the Obama Administration does not expect a serious and positive response
from its rhetorical gesture toward Iran (open hands, etc.).

Is this “leak” an attempt to spur an Iranian response
or is it a manifestation of Ross’s notion (mentioned by Glen Kessler)
that a rejection by Iran of US overtures is to be desired
so that this rejection can be used
as leverage in pushing for tighter sanctions against Iran?
In either case,
the disclosure and the remark both point to
a negative attitude towards a real opening to Iran.

Subjectively, it has seemed to me that
the media tends to refer to Hillary as “Hillary Clinton”
when she is running for office,
but as “Hillary Rodham Clinton”
when she is safely in power, without the need to face the voters.
To check this hypothesis,
on 2009-04-08 I used the Advanced Archive Search at washingtonpost.com
to compare the number of articles
which used one or the other of Hillary’s two identifiers
in March 2008,
when she was a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination,
to those in March 2009,
when she was serving as Secretary of State.

Here are the numbers:

First quarter of
of State)
“Hillary Rodham Clinton” 663 258
“Hillary Clinton” 491 110
HRC/HC ratio 1.3 2.3


Clinton Downplays Prospect of Warming Syria Ties
Demands Syria Sever Relationship With Iran
by Jason Ditz
Antiwar.com, 2010-02-24

Speaking today before a Senate subcommittee,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
sought to downplay the prospect of improvement in ties with Syria,
saying that there was only a “slight opening” that might be built upon,
and that
the US had a “lot of issues” with Syria.

Clinton followed this up by saying that they had made a number of demands,
including resuming peace talks with Israel.
Syria had expressed openness last year to US-brokered talks with Israel,
but the prospect has cooled considerably
since Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
threatened to destroy the Syrian government in a war earlier this month.

Clinton also demanded that Syria sever all ties with Iran,
one of its few close allies,
adding that Iran is “deeply troubling to the region as well as to the US.”
[I.e., to Israel.]
She did not mention what, if anything, Syria might stand to gain
if it accepted all these demands.

Some had expressed hope that US-Syrian ties might be on the mend,
as President Obama earlier this month
appointed Robert Ford as Ambassador to Syria,

the first ambassador to the nation
since President Bush withdrew the previous one in early 2005.

[Multiple choice:
Democrats will blame
Hillary’s failure to work towards rapprochement with Syria and Iran
(in contrast to the agreement-seeking approach of James A. Baker III)
  1. the military-industrial complex
  2. residual influence of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney
  3. the Washington Post editorial page
  4. Christian Zionists
  5. Jewish Zionists


Clinton Inflates Terror Threat, Contradicting Data
by John Glaser
Antiwar.com, 2012-06-07

by KHarbaugh

(Actually, I am writing this on 2015-03-08,
but it pertains to an event just before the above date,
so I am using that date as an identifier.)

Here is an excerpt from Hillary's Wikipedia page
(I read about this in the newspapers at the time,
but did not bother to record their stories on it.):

In mid-December [2012],
Clinton fell victim to a stomach virus
contracted on a trip to Europe.
She subsequently became very dehydrated and then fainted,
suffering a mild concussion.

Hillary, as a former first lady and as the then-current secretary of state,
would have had access to the best health care in America.
Who would have better health care, aside from, possibly, billionaires?
How on earth could those health care professionals,
if they were aware that she had "[fallen] victim to a stomach virus"
not been aware that dehydration was a possible result,
and provided the simple guidance on how to avoid it?
And if they did,
why did Hillary not follow that guidance
and thus avoid "[becoming] very dehydrated"?
And let us recall that Hillary had made healthcare her main interest
while she was first lady.

My opinion:
Either this is just a cover story for what really caused her to fall
(which evidently really did happen)
or somebody really screwed up.

I wish some investigative reporter could address this issue.


The only person who says no to Hillary
Cheryl Mills' tart emails stand out amid the shameless flattery of other Clinton aides.
By Annie Karni
Politico, 2015-09-01


Mills, in contrast, sometimes communicates with Clinton the way Clinton communicates with other staffers. Instead of giving Clinton a briefing, she on multiple occasions commanded Clinton to “remind me to discuss” something “if i forget,” and often signs her emails to Clinton informally, “XO.”


It is the one relationship in Clinton’s email where it sometimes looks like there's a role reversal between principal and staffer.


It all stands in stark contrast to the tone that many longtime Clinton confidants use with her


Watch: Relatives of Three Benghazi Victims Contradict Hillary Campaign Claim
by Guy Benson
Townhall.com, 2015-11-04


Let's set aside for a moment the larger question of whether Hillary deliberately lied about the nature of the Benghazi attacks.
Let's focus instead on her campaign's assertion that she never blamed the video for causing the attack.
Family members of three different Americans murdered on that hellish night
have strikingly similar recollections
of what Mrs. Clinton told them at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14, 2012

Tyrone Woods' father (who took notes about their meeting): "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son...'She said -- the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son'..."

Sean Smith's mother: "She's absolutely lying. She told me something entirely different at the casket ceremony. She said it was because of the video."

Sean Smith's uncle: "Mrs. Clinton really has a problem embracing the truth."

Glen Doherty's sister: "When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue."

Would Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign have us believe that all of these people are lying?
And for what reason were these remarkably consistent memories deemed less compelling or convincing
than a rote denial issued by a notably scandal-plagued candidate for public office?
Clinton's potential motive for seeking to mold the historical record is plainly obvious.
What motive do the four people quoted above share that would compel them to concoct an untrue story?

Two Clintons. 41 Years. $3 Billion.
Inside the Clinton Donor Network
A Washington Post investigation reveals how Bill and Hillary Clinton
have methodically cultivated donors over 40 years,
from Little Rock to Washington and then across the globe.
Their fundraising methods have created a new blueprint for politicians and their donors.

By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy
Washington Post, 2015-11-19

LITTLE ROCK — Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.

The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

The Post identified donations from roughly 336,000 individuals, corporations, unions and foreign governments in support of their political or philanthropic endeavors ...


The majority of the money — $2 billion — has gone to the Clinton Foundation, one of the world’s fastest-growing charities, which supports health, education and economic development initiatives around the globe. A handful of elite givers have contributed more than $25 million to the foundation, including Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, who is among the wealthy foreign donors who have given tens of millions.

Separately, donors have given $1 billion to support the Clintons’ political races and legal defense fund, making capped contributions to their campaigns and writing six-figure checks to the Democratic National Committee and allied super PACs.


Yes She Can
Why Hillary Clinton will do more for black people than Obama
by Michael Eric Dyson
The New Republic, 2015-11-29

There is good reason to be skeptical about Hillary Clinton and race. It’s never been anything explicit, necessarily, but she has sinned in the realm of signification, the place where innuendo and plausible deniability live. Let us start with her first presidential campaign in 2008, and the infamous “3 a.m. phone call” television ad that so spooked folks in the nation’s white hinterland. “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep,” a concerned narrator intoned. “Who do you want answering the phone?”

On the surface, there was nothing especially racially troubling about an advertisement that said the nation’s first female commander in chief had the chops and bravura to answer the call. But to seasoned observers of racial coding, myself included, the image of innocent sleeping children and a nervously attentive mother evoked an uglier racial epoch. “I couldn’t help but think of D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation … with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society,” Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson wrote in The New York Times. “The person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.”

[Geez, some blacks can find racism under every bed
(an old trite saying; for the background, search on "under every bed").]


Clinton and Obama’s Bizarre Ideas On Who Is A Threat To National Security
by George Rasley
ConservativeHQ, 2015-12-28


So having a relative in Israel is a security risk due to “divided loyalties”?
But having a mother, father and siblings involved in the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t?

We’ve told CHQ readers about the ties to the Muslim Brotherhood Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin has, but a quick review of those ties in light of Dr. Pincus’ case and the ongoing debate over the national security threat posed by Syrian “refugees” and various other Muslim immigrants is in order.

Some observers have called the Clinton email scandal an unprecedented breach of national security, and it is important to note up front that what triggered the FBI investigation of Mrs. Clinton was an email from Ms. Abedin that included classified information.

Although born in the U.S., Ms. Abedin spent 16 years of her youth in Saudi Arabia, where her late father Syed Abedin, worked for Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who served as vice president of Abdulaziz University (AU), and had recruited Abedin, to work for the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank.

Ms. Abedin’s mother, Saleha is equally involved in the Muslim Brotherhood.

So, Ms. Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood pedigree is well-documented, and well known to Clinton and to other Washington insiders, such as Republican Senator John McCain, who defended Abedin in a speech on the Senate floor when five conservative Members of the House of Representatives called for the State Department Inspector General to look into Abedin’s fitness to hold a high level security clearance while she served as Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department.

When questions were raised about Ms. Abedin fitness to hold a high level security clearance, given her long family history of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Senator McCain rose to call the questions regarding Ms. Abedin’s family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood “sinister accusations [that] rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family.”


But the case of Dr. Pincus begs the question “was any inquiry into whether Ms. Abedin’s family ties rendered her unsuitable for a position that involved access to classified information, especially about the Muslim Brotherhood, ever conducted?”



Heckler confronts Hillary Clinton over Bill Clinton's conduct
By Gabriel Debenedetti
Politico, 2016-01-03

[In the video embedded in the Politico story,
Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien says:]

"How in the world can she [HRC] say that
Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey are lying
when she has no idea who Juanita Broaddrick is,
because she told me this summer that she doesn't know who Juanita Broaddrick is
and she doesn't want to know who she is,
and how can she assess that they're lying,
which is what she told someone last month."

[See a lengthy explanation by Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien of her actions
in a Facebook post by her contained in this HuffPost article.]

Here’s Why Hillary Clinton’s Huge Goldman Sachs Speaker Fees Matter
Investor's Business Daily, 2016-02-04

2016: In a party that thinks “Wall Street” is a dirty word, Hillary Clinton is trying to square her anti-capitalist rhetoric with the millions that she made giving speeches to Wall Street firms. Hypocrisy, thy name is Hillary.

At a CNN-sponsored “town hall” after Clinton brayed about the evils of Wall Street, income inequality and a rigged economy, host Anderson Cooper asked her about her speaking fees, specifically the $675,000 that she made giving three speeches to Goldman Sachs.

For context, those three speeches alone earned Clinton nearly four times what the average chief executive in the private sector makes in a year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Was that a mistake?” Cooper asked. “I mean, was that a bad error in judgment?”

“Look,” she told Cooper, “I made speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions.”

“But did you have to be paid $675,000?” Cooper asked.

To which Clinton said: “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered, so . . .”

Spoken like a true free marketer. Which is probably why the audience laughed and liberal pundits shook their heads in disbelief.

To be clear, we don’t begrudge anyone getting paid handsomely for what they do, even if the person getting paid so clearly doesn’t deserve it.

That’s what the free market is all about. Goldman Sachs, along with numerous other financial firms, tech companies, trade groups, health companies and universities all felt they were getting something of value out of her talk. That’s what they offered.

The problem is that Clinton wants the free market all to herself.

All through this election she has been running around
attacking CEO pay and bemoaning income inequality,
when her speeches in 2014 alone made her more money — $8.75 million at least —
than almost half the CEOs leading firms on the S&P 500.

And she’s been complaining about corrupting “big money” in politics,
while firms representing very special interests made her a multimillionaire.
For her to claim that all those millions had no influence on her whatsoever is what’s laughable.

What everybody missed, however, was what Clinton said after she fumbled her answer about the speaking fees.

“I’m out here every day saying I’m going to shut them down, I’m going after them,” she said to the CNN audience. “I’m going to jail them if they should be jailed. I’m going to break them up.”

Shut them down? Go after them? Jail them? By the tone of her rhetoric you’d think she’s was talking about ISIS or something, not private enterprise.

Forget her ridiculous speaking fees, what should really scare people is that someone who wants to be president talks like this about the private sector.

In any case, the solution to influence peddling of any kind — whether it’s campaign contributions or speakers fees — isn’t to expand the size of government still more, as both Clinton and Sanders are bent on doing, it’s to radically shrink its size.

The only reason banks, health companies, and anyone else think it’s worth six figures to hear Clinton talk is because the federal government is so deeply involved in their businesses. When government decisions can make or break your company, influence over government becomes a precious commodity.

But if the government weren’t so massive and so omnipresent, if federal rules, regulations, mandates and tax policies didn’t factor so prominently in the success or failure of so many companies, then they would have little use for anything Clinton had to say. And then Clinton would have to make her fortune by doing something that was actually productive.

{IBD is quite dishonest itself here.
Private businesses are affected by government in many ways beyond "federal rules, regulations, mandates and tax policies".
For example, the huge federal spending on health care,
which has led to health care bloat, distorting the economy towards health care
and away from more productive, IMO, manufacturing and other business areas.
There are many other areas where government influences the economy and private profits.
Washington is full of lobbyists.
There's a reason for that.]

Why Hillary Clinton won’t release transcripts of her paid Goldman Sachs speeches
By Chris Cillizza
Washington Post, "The Fix", 2016-02-05


Why not release them then — since they would likely reaffirm Clinton's argument in the race that she has been there and done that at the highest level of national and international diplomacy? My guess is that in the speeches, Clinton likely acknowledges her various friends and acquaintances at Goldman Sachs (and other Wall Street firms) and praises them for the work they are doing.


Clinton weighs staff shake-up after New Hampshire
'The Clintons are not happy, and have been letting all of us know that,' one Democrat says.
By Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni
Politico, 2016-02-08
02/08/16 02:04 PM EST
Updated 02/08/16 11:54 PM EST


Ultimately, the disorganization is a result of the candidate’s own decision-making, which lurches from hands-off delegation in times of success to hands-around-the-throat micromanagement when things go south.

At the heart of problem this time, staffers, donors and Clinton-allied operatives say, was Clinton’s decision not to appoint a single empowered chief strategist — a role the forceful but controversial Mark Penn played in 2008 — and disperse decision-making responsibility to a sprawling team with fuzzy lines of authority.


The result is a muddled all-of-the-above messaging strategy that emphasizes different messages — and mountains of arcane policy proposals — in stark contrast to Bernie Sanders’ punchy and relentless messaging on income inequality.

“[Joel Benenson]’s a good pollster, and they promised him a lot more authority … but, you know, we are talking about the Clintons,” said a veteran operative who acts as a surrogate with the campaign.


Hillary Clinton Prepares For Post-New Hampshire Tantrum
by John Hayward
Breitbart, 2016-02-08


[I]t’s plainly obvious that Bernie Sanders isn’t really trying to win the Democratic nomination.

He backs off from serious attacks that would inflict real damage on Clinton, giving her a complete pass on her national-security scandal, and only recently making a little noise about all that money she’s been raking in from Wall Street interests. Even there, Sanders has pulled back, refusing to personally call for Clinton to release the transcripts of those speeches bankers paid outrageous sums to hear.

If anything, Clinton has hit Sanders harder than the reverse, as his poll numbers climbed.


What Clinton said in her paid speeches
Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'
By Ben White
Politico, 2016-02-10

Why Hillary Clinton should go on Fox News again
By Callum Borchers
Washington Post "The Fix", 2016-02-22

A few possible reasons Hillary Clinton disses ‘Fox News Sunday’
By Erik Wemple
Washington Post, 2016-02-22

Watchog Or Lapdog? Emails Show Hillary Had A Hand In Inspector General Selection
Chuck Ross
Daily Caller, 2016-02-23


Both State’s and USAID’s inspector general positions were unfilled when President Obama took office in January 2009. They remained vacant — with the top positions at the watchdogs being held by deputies — until after Clinton left office in February 2013. Obama nominated Steve Linick as State IG until June 2013. USAID’s inspector general, Ann Calvaresi Barr, was nominated last May.

While Obama was criticized for leaving the IG spots vacant for so long, Earnest maintained on Monday that “the appointment of independent inspectors general is something this administration has taken quite seriously.”


Update: A State Department official responded with a comment to this article.

“It’s standard for an agency head to work with senior staff to make a recommendation on nominees, including for the position of Inspector General,” the official said.

Hillary Clinton’s Ordeal Continues at the Democratic Debate
By John Cassidy
New Yorker, 2016-03-09

How Clinton Donor Got on Sensitive Intelligence Board
By Matthew Mosk, Brian Ross, CHO PARK
ABC News, 2016-06-10 ; Jun 10, 2016, 6:59 AM ET

[The video at that web page (as of the date above)
is, if anything, even harder hitting than this print report.]

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.


A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

[The State Department's web page for that board
describes it as follows:]

The Secretary of State's International Security Advisory Board (ISAB)
provides the Department with independent insight and advice on all aspects of
arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy.
The ISAB is sponsored and overseen by the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. The Board provides its recommendations to the Secretary of State.
Board members are national security experts with scientific, military, diplomatic, and political backgrounds.
The Board meets in a plenary session on a quarterly basis.

[Back to the ABC news report:]


Fernando's expertise appeared to be in the arena of high-frequency trading -- a form of computer-generated stock trading. At the time of his appointment, he headed a firm, Chopper Trading, that was a leader in that field.

Fernando's history of campaign giving dated back at least to 2003 and was prolific -- and almost exclusively to Democrats. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 bid for president, giving maximum contributions to her campaign, and to HillPAC, in 2007 and 2008. He also served as a fundraising bundler for Clinton, gathering more than $100,000 from others for her White House bid. After Barack Obama bested Clinton for the 2008 nomination, Fernando became a major fundraiser for the Obama campaign. Prior to his State Department appointment, Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation, and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that indirectly helped Hillary Clinton retire her lingering 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.

The appointment qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access, the emails show. Among those with whom Fernando served on the International Security Advisory Board was David A. Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and former Sen. Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel.

“It is certainly a serious, knowledgeable and experienced group of experts,” said Bruce Blair, a Princeton professor whose principal research covers the technical and policy steps on the path toward the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. “Much of the focus has been on questions of nuclear stability and the risks of nuclear weapons use by Russia and Pakistan.”


Hillary Clinton’s Press Conference Phobia
By Jack Shafer
Politico Magazine, 2016-07-10

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Completed No Security Briefings Or Courses At State Dept
by Richard Pollock
The Daily Caller, 2016-08-01

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
completed no security briefings or courses
on the proper handling of classified materials and how to conduct secure communications
while at the Department of State,
according to new Obama administration legal filings
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


Obama administration provides Clinton’s first line of defense amid scandals
by S. A. Miller
Washington Times, 2016-08-14

Just as stunning as the unending stream of reports of scandal and subterfuge that has come to define Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state is the Obama administration’s tireless effort to keep a lid on it.

Whether it’s the Justice Department taking a pass when afforded the opportunity to investigate or the State Department steadfastly defending every controversy, President Obama's administration has emerged as a first line of defense for the woman who would carry on his legacy.

The kid-glove treatment of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, has helped shield her from bad headlines as Republican nominee Donald Trump has been battered by the news media over his remarks on the stump and rants on Twitter.

The administration’s protectiveness toward Mrs. Clinton has outraged Republicans and raised eyebrows among ethicists.

Aine Donovan, director of the Ethics Institute at Dartmouth College, said the Obama administration definitely has a problem with the appearance that it has failed to pursue questions of misconduct by Mrs. Clinton.

“We don’t want people let off the hook just because they have a public name. I think it is very important that we follow up,” Ms. Donovan said.


Is this what Hillary Clinton really thinks about the world?
Hacked excerpts from the Democratic nominee's paid speeches show a cautious, cold-eyed realist.
By Blake Hounshell
Politico, 2016-10-12

In the private company of globally savvy business executives and bankers three years ago, Hillary Clinton unwound and spoke with unusual candor about world leaders and events — including the covert U.S. role in Syria and her frustration with President Barack Obama’s failure to enforce his chemical weapons “red line” in that country.

The remarks, made just months after she finished her tenure as secretary of state, are highlighted in an 80-page document prepared by her campaign staff and among thousands of hacked emails released by WikiLeaks.

The document, the campaign’s internal damage assessment of excerpts from Clinton’s paid speeches in 2013 and 2014, is broken into sections on various hot-button domestic and foreign policy issues, from energy and cybersecurity to Cuba, North Korea, Syria and terrorism. It provides only a glimpse of what Clinton said behind closed doors, as it highlights only those comments that could cause political heartburn were they ever made public.


Labels: ,