DMX Had the Best Response to Bernie Sanders Using "Where the Hood At?" at a Rally

"Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wowed the crowd at a rally in Lancaster, California Thursday by walking out to the distinctive sounds of DMX. Sanders chose the 2003 Grand Champ cut "Where the Hood At?" much to the delight of attendees whose cheering almost drowned out the alleged Ja Rule diss of yesteryear:

In a statement to Complex, DMX reflected on the track's legacy while reinforcing its memorable refrain. Peep that statement in its entirety below:

"Where the hood at?"

Twitter promptly exploded upon news of the DMX x Bern crossover, with some even letting the moment serve as their final push to vote for Sanders should he become the Democratic nominee"

Hillary Clinton Won’t Say How Much Goldman Sachs CEO Invested With Her Son-in-Law

"WHEN HILLARY CLINTON’S son-in-law sought funding for his new hedge fund in 2011, he found financial backing from one of the biggest names on Wall Street: Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein.

The fund, called Eaglevale Partners, was founded by Chelsea Clinton’s husband, Marc Mezvinsky, and two of his partners. Blankfein not only personally invested in the fund, but allowed his association with it to be used in the fund’s marketing.

The investment did not turn out to be savvy business decision. Earlier this month, Mezvinsky was forced to shutter one of the investment vehicles he launched under Eaglevale, called Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, after losing 90 percent of its money betting on the Greek recovery. The flagship Eaglevale fund has also lost money, according to the New York Times.

There has been minimal reporting on the Blankfein investment in Eaglevale Partners, which is a private fund that faces few disclosure requirements. At a campaign rally in downtown San Francisco on Thursday, I attempted to ask Hillary Clinton if she knew the amount that Blankfein invested in her son-in-law’s fund.

Watch the video:


After repeated attempts on the rope line, I asked the Clinton campaign traveling press secretary Nick Merrill, who said, “I don’t know, has it been reported?” and said he would get in touch with me over email. I sent the question but have not heard a response back.

The decision for Blankfein to invest in Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law’s company is just one of many ways Goldman Sachs has used its wealth to forge a tight bond with the Clinton family. The company paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 in personal speaking fees, paid Bill Clinton $1,550,000 in personal speaking fees, and donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. At a time when Goldman Sachs directly lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the company routinely partnered with the Clinton Foundation for events, even convening a donor meeting for the foundation at the Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan.

Clinton has dodged questions about her relationship with Goldman Sachs throughout the campaign."


https://theintercept.com/2016/05/27/hillary-clinton-wont-say-how-much-goldman-sachs-ceo-invested-with-her-son-in-law/

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton misstates key facts in email episode

"ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Over the months, Hillary Clinton misstated key facts about her use of private email and her own server for her work as secretary of state, the department's inspector general reported this week.

According to the findings, she claimed approval she didn't have and declined to be interviewed for the report despite saying "I'm more than ready to talk to anybody anytime." Scrutiny of her unusual email practices appeared to be unwelcome, despite her contention those practices were well known and "fully above board."

A look at some of Clinton's past claims about her unusual email set-up and how they compare with the inspector general's findings:

CLINTON: "The system we used was set up for President Clinton's office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches." - March 2015 press conference.

THE REPORT: Evidence emerged of hacking attempts, though it's unclear whether they were successful.

On Jan. 9, 2011, an adviser to former President Bill Clinton notified the State Department's deputy chief of staff for operations that he had to shut down the server because he suspected "someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt (sic) want to let them have the chance to."

Later that day, he sent another note. "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min."

The following day the deputy chief emailed top Clinton aides and instructed them not to email the secretary "anything sensitive."

Also in May 2011, Clinton told aides that someone was "hacking into her email," after she received a message with a suspicious link, the new audit report said.

The Associated Press has previously reported that, according to detailed records compiled in 2012, Clinton's server was connected to the internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. It appeared to allow users to connect openly over the internet to control it remotely.

Moreover, it's unclear what protection her email system might have achieved from having the Secret Service guard the property. Digital security breaches tend to come from computer networks, not over a fence."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_EMAILS_FACT_CHECK

The Real Scandal of Hillary's emails, it's not what she wrote—it’s her tendency to wall herself off

'In a February 23 hearing on a Freedom of Information Act request for Hillary Clinton’s official State Department emails—emails that don’t exist because Hillary Clinton secretly conducted email on a private Blackberrry connected to a private server—District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan exclaimed, “How in the world could this happen?”

That’s the key question. What matters about the Clinton email scandal is not the nefarious conduct that she sought to hide by using her own server. There’s no evidence of any such nefarious conduct. What matters is that she made an extremely poor decision: poor because it violated State Department rules, poor because it could have endangered cyber-security, and poor because it now constitutes a serious self-inflicted political wound. Why did such a smart, seasoned public servant exercise such bad judgment? For the same reason she has in the past: Because she walls herself off from alternative points of view.

In the journalistic reconstructions of Clinton’s decision, two things become clear. First, State Department security experts strongly opposed it. As the Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow Jr. reported in a terrific piece in March, “State Department security officials were distressed about the possibility that Clinton’s BlackBerry could be compromised and used for eavesdropping.” Soon after Clinton became Secretary of State, they expressed that distress in a February 2009 meeting with Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton loyalist. In a March memo to Clinton herself, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell wrote that, “I cannot stress too strongly … that any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable.”


The second thing that becomes clear is that these security experts ran into a brick wall of longtime Clinton aides whose priority was not security, but rather her desire for privacy and convenience. “From the earliest days,” writes O’Harrow Jr., “Clinton aides and senior officials focused intently on accommodating the secretary’s desire to use her private email account” and in so doing “neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry.” In August 2011, when the State Department’s executive secretary Stephen Mull broached the idea of replacing Clinton’s personal Blackberry with a “Department issued” one, Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and close personal aide, Huma Abedin, replied that the “state blackberry…doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/484634/
The bubble is real.

California Looking Less Like a Sure Thing for Hillary Clinton

"On Wednesday, after days of looking, Karen Furia, 65, finally found what she was searching for: a “Hillary” bumper sticker, at a Clinton campaign rally in Salinas, Calif.

“I keep hearing Bernie, Bernie, Bernie, or seeing Bernie fliers,’’ said Ms. Furia, a retiree. “I am sort of tired of hearing him.’’

She was referring, of course, to Senator Bernie Sanders, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic opponent, who is pouring energy and resources into California’s June 7 primary.

His efforts appear to be paying off.

For months, the Clinton campaign exuded confidence about California, a diverse state in which 30 percent of the Democratic electorate is Latino, with a primary rather than a caucus, a format that tends to favor Mrs. Clinton. She defeated Barack Obama there by 8.3 percentage points in 2008 and had hoped the state could serve as the victorious bookend of a turbulent primary race.

But now, Mrs. Clinton’s lead in California has evaporated, going from seven percentage points over Mr. Sanders in March to two percentage points, within the margin of error, in a poll released Wednesday night by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California."


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-california-primary.html?referer=https://www.google.com/

Go Bernie!

Flashback: Clinton (under threat of perjury) certifies she has turned over work-related emails

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told a federal judge that she has turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department after a judge requested she do so, a state department spokesman confirmed to CNN on Sunday.

Clinton signed a declaration obtained by CNN, which said "While I do not know what information may be 'responsive' fr purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done."
This follows U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ordering the State Department to have Clinton as well as two former top department aides to state under penalty of perjury they have produced all government records in their possession

This follows U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ordering the State Department to have Clinton as well as two former top department aides to state under penalty of perjury they have produced all government records in their possession.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-email-certified-court/

Those three new emails in that OIG audit runs counter to that affidavit Hillary signed.

NYT: Hillary Clinton, Drowning in Email

"Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency just got harder with the release of the State Department inspector general’s finding that “significant security risks” were posed by her decision to use a private email server for personal and official business while she was secretary of state. Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s claims that the department had “allowed” the arrangement, the inspector general also found that she had not sought or received approval to use the server.

So far, no security breaches have been reported; a separate F.B.I. investigation is looking into that. But above and beyond security questions, the inspector general’s report is certain to fuel doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s trustworthiness, lately measured as a significant problem for her in public polls.

Across the years of the Clintons’ ascendancy, the public has seen that Mrs. Clinton can be fiercely protective of her role and prerogatives — at times grudging in admitting error and, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, blaming a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for allegations against her and her husband that began early in his tenure and continued on through the impeachment scandal. (The right wing was definitely on his case, but hardly alone in its doubts about Mr. Clinton’s personal conduct.)

This defensive posture seems at play in the email controversy, as well as her refusal, for that matter, to release the lucrative speeches she made to Wall Street audiences. The reflex she is revealing again now — to hunker down when challenged — is likely to make her seem less personable to many voters, and it will surely inflame critics’ charges of an underlying arrogance."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/opinion/hillary-clinton-drowning-in-email.html?referer=https://www.google.con

State Dept. official: Clinton could not access State network without email account

State Department officials took pains to accommodate Hillary Clinton’s email practices as secretary, according to newly released testimony by a career agency official.

Clinton was offered a “stand-alone” computer near her office that would let her access the Internet without entering a password or logging into the department’s network as other employees are required to do, the official said.

The official, Lewis A. Lukens, executive director of Clinton’s executive secretariat from 2008 to 2011, said he was told the proposal was declined because Clinton was “not adept or not used to checking her emails on a desktop.” However, Lukens said, Clinton was “very comfortable” using a BlackBerry — even though she would have to leave her office to use the device due to security protocols.


Lukens’s testimony on May 18 came in the first of six depositions scheduled until late June of current and former State Department and top Clinton aides in a civil lawsuit probing whether Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server while secretary from 2009 to 2013 thwarted federal open-records laws.

The Lukens transcript was released Thursday, one day after State Department Inspector General Steve A. Linick issued a highly critical, 83-page report on Clinton’s email practices. The report concluded that Clinton failed to seek legal approval for the server arrangement and that, if she had, it would not have been granted because of security risks.

Clinton allies had braced for the IG report and findings from a pending FBI investigation into whether the email setup mishandled classified information or violated other federal laws.

However, the ongoing depositions appear likely to keep a spotlight on the matter that Clinton has tried to put to rest in her presidential campaign.
]

On Friday, Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, is to give sworn testimony in the lawsuit brought by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit concerns the group’s 2013 public records request for information about the employment arrangement of Mills’s deputy, Huma Abedin.

In a statement Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that IG report “makes clear that Secretary Clinton and a number of other former Department officials have not been truthful with the American people” and failed to turn over certain emails from personal email accounts.

]

In his testimony, Lukens, a Foreign Service officer for 27 years who oversaw 110 employees providing administrative support to the secretary, said he never recalled speaking about Clinton’s email address or use of a personal BlackBerry with a direct subordinate, John Bentel, in charge of the secretariat’s electronic communications.

Lukens said Mills did not ask for Clinton to have a computer in her office, and that he did not believe a State email account was set up for Clinton because she did not ask for one.


“At that point, as far as I knew, there was no requirement for her to be connected to our system,” Lukens said.


Lukens did not think it unusual because, he said, “I’m not aware of former secretaries of state having email addresses on our system.”

In its report, the inspector general’s office noted that “long-standing systemic weaknesses” in department handling of electronic records that spanned several secretaries, and noted that Colin Powell when secretary used a personal email account for official business.

Lukens said he assumed Clinton used a commercial email service and did not know of her private server until it was reported last year. He proposed a “stand-alone” computer for Clinton to access the Internet to check her emails because mobile phones are not allowed in the secretary’s office suite.

Lukens initially said he wanted to make it easier for Clinton to bypass the department’s computer network so she could log on with fewer passwords, before acknowledging that Clinton could not access the system without a department email account.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-official-clinton-could-not-access-state-network-without-email-account/2016/05/26/0926c552-236c-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html

The transcripts are available for download if you search.

Hillary Clinton Defends Email Use, Discusses Potential Sanders/Trump Debate

4 things Hillary Clinton got wrong in her latest statement about those emails

"In the wake of a scathing inspector general's report regarding her exclusive use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton didn't say much. But what she did offer up — in an interview with Univision's Maria Elena Salinas in California — showed, yet again, that Clinton will stick to her story on her email server even if the increasingly indisputable facts get in the way.

Here's what Clinton told Salinas:

It’s the same story. Um, just like previous secretaries of state, I used a personal email. Many people did. It was not at all unprecedented. I have turned over all my emails. No one else can say that. I have been incredibly open about doing that. I will continue to be open. And it’s not an issue that is going to affect either the campaign or my presidency.
Now, a few bits of context."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/26/hillary-clinton-is-sticking-to-her-story-on-the-email-controversy-that-doesnt-make-it-true/