This is a rough draft Ver. 1

(Feb. 23, 2016) — During tonight’s CNN Town Hall meeting between democratic nominee hopefuls Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, the moderator asked Clinton about why she hasn’t released her $200k paid speech transcripts made with Goldman Sachs, and whether the private email server classified information mishandling investigation has impacted her campaign.

Clinton’s response might as well have been from Donald Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal.” However, Clinton’s book would be named, “The Art of the Lie.”

If anyone who has been following the democratic candidates over the past year, one would be very familiar with the issues that arrise for each of the candidates along the way. The first time Clinton was asked about her paid speeches with Goldman Sachs, where she received over $600K for three speeches, was around when Lee Fang, a reporter with “The Intercept” began asking her about them, and was subsequently brushed off and laughed at.

Since, the request for the transcripts has been popping up without giving way. Clinton’s first response, which was during a broadcast debate with Sanders, she said she would, “look into it.” Now, and as artfully as she could, she is conditioning her release of those transcripts on actions of the other candidates. Namely, the republicans as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, has since, released what little transcripts he had. But this wasn’t enought for Clinton. She moved the goal post and is now requiring all the republican candidates to also release transcripts of any speeches they every made as well. This scored Clinton points in creative dodging (i.e., lying), and as such, is playing a page out of the book, “The Art of the Lie.”

Both her responses were misleading.

1) Transcripts – Basically, she has refused from the start to release claiming she will look into it. Now she has spouted how she wants everybody to release their transcripts 1st before she will follow.

2) Email – She tried to summarize this as another “attack” based issue.

1) Transcripts – My view – If she wants to be the leader of this country, and the leader of the Military (where soldiers have been sent to jail, subject to UCMJ actions for mishandling classified information.) why is she differing leadership to the other candidates to lead the releasing of transcripts for their paid speeches.

Its like, Clinton’s position is, “I won’t tell the truth (by releasing the transcripts) unless you tell the truth first.” Lastly, on this issue. First, the other candidates are not only asking, but the American people are asking her to release the transcripts. She doesn’t only have to come clean to the other candidates, but she has conditioned her coming clean on behalf of the interest of the American people on weather the other candidates will release their transcripts.

Does this sound familiar? Yes. It’s that tit for tat approach to dealing with a problem. This is what grid locks congress where Republicans and Democrats play this game back and forth in D.C. and nothing gets done. Thus, the same old tactics, gimmicks, and tricks. Meanwhile, while the game is afoot, the American people, as with the transcripts are marginalized because of how she wants to “play the game.” Because it is only a game for her. If she looses, she goes back to a cushy lifestyle.

2) Classified Email Breech:

Well, I sent an op-ed into the New York Times on this basically narrowing it down to how soldiers would face much more serious consequences for simply having a thumb drive used around official military equipment and computer in the course of communications. Here, she basically installed her own system, to intercept communications she needed to send, receive and store in the course of her work as a United States Secretary of State.

This is very serious. The idea that she setup this private system guarantees that she would be in control of distribution of its contents upon request. Therefore, she, once again, and with the intention of, developed a “buffer” between her and being accountable to the American people. As she is now doing above, with the speech transcripts as well.

She is enabling her ability to come clean with transcripts or email contents behind an action depending on a third party.

With respect to the Transcripts – she is hinging her actions on the Republican’s to first make a move (Bernie has already done it); and with respect to the emails, she hinged her ability to act on the limitations of the system she setup to begin with (third party device). The private server enabled her to “loose” thousands of emails, and then slowly seep out the information, in hard printout form (can’t be searched” on her terms. What is most disingenuous is how she designed this in advance, a premeditated act with the anticipation of being able to obstruct when needed.

Doesn’t the NSA Already have Clinton’s Email Communications?

You know, with all of the Edward Snowden revelations, and Glenn Greenwald’s reporting on the government surveillance systems, the hijacking of emails and voice transmissions, and the like, wouldn’t you think that the NSA, or the DHS, Google, Microsoft, as such would all have copies of Clinton’s private email server communications?

If then, then why haven’t they provided the investigation with same?

Or, why hasn’t the FBI gotten an order, like they did with Apple, to forensically pry any and all databases open to recover the information form all sources?

Who is the director of the FBI?

FBI Facts: (Wikipedia)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, which simultaneously serves as the nation’s prime federal law enforcement organization. Operating under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI is concurrently a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community and reports to both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.[2] A leading U.S. counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization, FBI has jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes.[3]

FBI Director Appointments:

Current FBI Director:

James Brien Comey, Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer. He is the seventh and current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Appointed by Barack Obama (Friends with Hillary Clinton):

In May 2013, it was reported, and in June 2013 it was made official, that President Barack Obama would nominate Comey to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, replacing outgoing director Robert Mueller.

Standards for Appointments:

FBI Directors are appointed by the President of the United States. They must be confirmed by the United States Senate and serve a term of office of five years, with a maximum of ten years, if reappointed, unless they resign or are fired by the President before their term ends.