Thread: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

HILLARY’S FULL OF SHILLARY: Hillary Grilled on ‘Systemic Failure’ Over Benghazi

By Clash Daily / 10 June 2014 / 6 comments


Published on Jun 9, 2014
Hillary Clinton Monday night, Diane Sawyer turned focus to Benghazi and grilled Clinton over the "systemic failure" of security on that fateful night. She asked Clinton whether she should have been more involved instead of delegating on security issues at the Benghazi compound.

Clinton said there were serious security threats, but that's true of compounds all around the world, and when Sawyer grilled her on how high a priority Benghazi would be, Clinton said it would place in the top 10, but not the top 5, security concerns to the State Department.

Sawyer repeatedly pressed Clinton on whether there was anything she could have personally done that would have prevented the attack. Clinton said that the reality is while you can be thoughtful and place people where you need them, "we cannot eliminate every threat, every danger."

Clinton also took a shot at Republicans for "politicizing this at the expense of four dead Americans," and said she would have to wait and see whether she would testify in front of the House Benghazi select committee. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/diane-sawy...




Diane Sawyer grilled Hillary Clinton on Bneghazi during her ABC Interview on Monday night. According to Mediaite…

She asked Clinton whether she should have been more involved instead of delegating on security issues at the Benghazi compound.
Clinton said there were serious security threats, but that’s true of compounds all around the world, and when Sawyer grilled her on how high a priority Benghazi would be, Clinton said it would place in the top 10, but not the top 5, security concerns to the State Department.

Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/06/hillar...HFmqJyTrcQP.99




All of a sudden Chris Stevens was her friend!!!

My heart bleeds for her... sheesh!Mark Nussbaum originally shared to The Conservative Union (Open Discussion):

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton told Diane Sawyer in an interview with ABC News. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...#ixzz34DZAQFct

Hard Knocks Hillary

BY: Andrew Stiles // June 9, 2014 4:56 pm




Hillary Clinton waves to a crowd of commoners. (AP)

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton thinks everyone should shut up and stop second-guessing her (and her husband’s) voracious appetite for money.
Clinton, who charges up to $200,000 to give one-hour speeches to Goldman Sachs executives and others, claims that she and Bill were “dead broke” and in debt following their eight years in the White House, and “struggled” to pay the mortgages on their multiple mansions and finance their daughter Chelsea’s education at Stanford, Oxford, Columbia, and Oxford (again).
Most commoners would agree that Clinton has rather unconventional definitions of the words “broke” and “struggling.” First of all, it’s true that Clinton’s were facing several million dollars in legal debts toward the end of President Clinton’s second term. However, they only “struggled” in the sense that they were worried their financial situation would prevent them from securing a mortgage for a five-bedroom mansion in Chappaqua, N.Y., from which Hillary could launch a run for Senate. Perhaps most everyday Americans can identify with this struggle, perhaps not.
Fortunately, the Clintons knew a charismatic professional fundraiser (Terry McAuliffe) who was willing to put up $1.35 million to secure the mortgage on the house, which is currently valued at almost $7 million. (The Clinton’s other mansion is worth approximately $5.4 million.)
Hillary Clinton has seen her net worth skyrocket since stepping down as Secretary of State. TIME Magazine reports that she left the State Department with at least $5 million in the bank, and has since raked in $5 million (and counting) worth of speaking fees, and millions more from her book, Hard Choices, for which she reportedly received a $14 million advance. That’s not even counting the more than $100 million Bill Clinton has earned in speaking fees since leaving office, or the taxpayer-funded pension he continues receive, worth an estimated $7 million.
It’s quite a departure from the post-presidential career of Harry Truman, who as the New York Times reports, was “broke” in a more conventional sense of the word upon leaving office:

When Harry Truman left the White House in 1953, historian David McCullough records, “he had no income or support of any kind from the federal government other than his Army pension of $112.56 a month. He was provided with no government funds for secretarial help or office space, not a penny of expense money.”
One of the reasons Truman and his wife moved back into their far-from-elegant old house in Independence, Missouri, “was that financially they had little other choice.”
Nevertheless, Truman refused to cash in on his celebrity and influence as a former president. He turned down lucrative offers, such as the one from a Florida real-estate developer inviting him to become “chairman, officer, or stockholder, at a figure of not less than $100,000.” He would not make commercial endorsements, accept “consulting” fees, or engage in lobbying.

What’s so shocking about Clinton’s tone deaf defense of her all-consuming desire to get rich is the fact that it was the best her crack campaign team could come up with.

http://freebeacon.com/blog/hard-knocks-hillary/

I know nutting!!!!!

Bombshell: Benghazi Video Maker: A CONFIRMED MUSLIM Agent Who Worked With US Government

Walid Shoebat 16 hours ago

In a Shoebat.com EXCLUSIVE, a woman who starred in the controversial video that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton blamed for the attacks in Benghazi, has come to us with a STUNNING revelation that the man who produced the video recently confessed to her that he is a Muslim – twice. Cindy Lee Garcia, who is also the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Google and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the maker of the infamous “Innocence of Muslims” video, responded “Yes” both times after being asked by Garcia if he is a Muslim.
In a recorded phone call with Ben Barrack, Garcia said she contacted Nakoula approximately three weeks ago and twice asked Nakoula if he was Muslim. Both times, Nakoula said that he was. Listen to the interview below:

sound track at link below


Lest one doubt the credibility of Garcia’s claims, once they are viewed in conjunction with a myriad of discoveries by Shoebat.com [here, here, here, here, here, and here], it constitutes the near completion of an intricate puzzle; everything fits.
Very soon after the Benghazi attacks, we had reason to believe that not only were administration officials lying to the American people about the video’s role in the attacks but that they were not telling the truth about the administration’s role in the production of the video itself.
Garcia’s revelation now confirms our suspicions about why Nakoula contacted Shoebat.com, requesting that we cease and desist from exposing the truth about this story [recorded]. At the time, Nakoula admitted to being in contact not just with Eiad but with an entire family of Muslim fundamentalists after the video, which should have caused him to be ostracized, not embraced.
As first revealed by Shoebat.com, when Nakoula was given a lesser jail sentence in 2009 in exchange for his help in securing the arrest of his partner-in-crime, Eiad Salameh, it couldn’t have been the true reason for Nakoula’s lighter sentence.
Why? Because in January of 2011, Eiad was arrested by the Canadian Peel Police and the FBI would not take him, despite multiple attempts by Canadian authorities to get them to do so. After several months, the Canadians put Eiad on a plane back to Palestine.
So, why was Nakoula given a lighter sentence if not to help arrest Eiad? As a Muslim who portrayed himself as a Christian filmmaker, Nakoula was acting deceptively while also pushing the agenda of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the group’s “Istanbul Process," a series of meetings designed to create the climate for non-Muslim governments to enact laws that make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
The Obama administration itself is on board with this agenda. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chaired the very first meeting in Istanbul on July 15, 2011, as Shoebat.com has reported.
Moreover, this was approximately the same point in time when Eiad was sent packing by the Canadians and Nakoula began casting for his video.
Eiad is a Muslim who is also Walid Shoebat’s first cousin. Shoebat knows Eiad well. The notion that Eiad would consort with a Coptic Christian doesn’t square with reality. This alone lends credibility to Garcia’s claim.
When taken together will all of our discoveries, Garcia’s claims do something far more damaging to the Obama administration. They even further bolster the possibility – now even strong likelihood – that Nakoula, in his capacity as an agent of the U.S. Federal government was commissioned by the Obama administration to produce the video.
Knowing what you know now, the biggest lies told by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama very well may be that the “United States Government had absolutely NOTHING to do with this video.








This also confirms that…
Evidence reveals that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she conspired with President Barack Obama to snuff out criticism of Islam with a contrived and diabolical assault on the first amendment. Curiously unprompted, Obama and Hillary so vehemently insisted they had “nothing to do with” the anti-Muhammad video, but as it turns out, the opposite is true, they did play a role, counter to their claims.
On September 10th, Ambassador Christopher Stevens boarded a plane from Tripoli to the city from which he would never return alive. The meeting between Stevens and Turkey’s Consul General Ali Sait Akin that concluded little more than one hour prior to Stevens’ death has come to signify a troubling level of collaboration between the leadership of the countries both men represented.

Two days prior to Stevens’ arrival in Benghazi, a conference in Istanbul, Turkey that was all but ignored, was wrapping up. The conference was billed as an interfaith event entitled, “The Arab Awakening and Peace in the New Middle East: Muslim and Christian Perspectives” and was held on September 7-8, 2012. The final communiqué of the meeting included assaults on the first amendment:

Participants argued that discourses and languages used in the media, popular culture, schools and religious centers are extremely important. Religious leaders and decision makers should lead a process of reforming these areas.

One of the speakers at the conference was Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, whose relevance will be made known shortly.
As Shoebat.com has reported, joining Davutoğlu in Istanbul were two Muslim Brotherhood spies. One is former chairman of perhaps the most notorious mosque in the U.S., Bassam Estwani and the other a man named Rateb Al-Nabulsi. In the photo below, Estwani can be seen in front of a banner that displays the date “September 7-8, 2012″ (see photo below) of the conference ignored by western media:
Bassam Estwani in Istanbul days before Benghazi attacks.

As the conference was taking place in Istanbul, a Muslim fundamentalist in Egypt named Wisam Abdul Waris who prior to the fiasco in Egypt stated the plan to attack the first amendment called for the criminalization of any defamation of Islam and then publicly denounced the anti-Muhammad video which the Obama administration would blame for the Benghazi attacks as Shoebat.com reported.
A little more than one year earlier, another conference was held in Istanbul. It was chaired by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Secretary-General of the OIC, and Turkey’s Foreign Minister. It would come to be known as the very first meeting of the “Istanbul Process”. Was the meeting in Istanbul two days before Stevens arrived in Benghazi part of the “Istanbul Process” remains to be discovered.
The location, the theme, and the syncronized efforts in Egypt and Turkey all help make that case; Turkey played behind the scenes and Egypt was the first to spark the riots against U.S. Embassy in Cairo. But there is more to tie our argument.
The Istanbul Meeting that Kicked off the “Istanbul Process”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) had been pushing for criminalizing criticism of Islam for years, as far back as 1999. However, the objective of the OIC – to make illegal “defamation of religions” – needed a moderation makeover, which led to the “Istanbul Process”, kicked off officially in the city of its namesake, little more than one year prior to the Benghazi attacks. The agenda was intended to give a facelift to UN Resolution 16/18, which was adopted earlier that year by the Human Rights Council.
Hillary Clinton attended and Co-chaired this event with then Secretary General of the OIC – Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu – and Foreign Minister Davutoğlu – on July 15, 2011.
(Note: For reasons that will be made relevant shortly, this meeting took place in the same month that the maker of the anti-Muhammad video began casting)
In her speech, Hillary said:

…together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs. Under this resolution, the international community is taking a strong stand for freedom of expression and worship, and against discrimination and violence based upon religion or belief… we now need to move to implementation. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, Clinton foreshadowed what would happen a little more than one year later in Benghazi and at home:

In the United States, I will admit, there are people who still feel vulnerable or marginalized as a result of their religious beliefs. And we have seen how the incendiary actions of just a very few people, a handful in a country of nearly 300 million, can create wide ripples of intolerance. We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.

Hillary’s Co-chair, İhsanoğlu – himself a Turk – echoed this sentiment, saying:

“We continue to be particularly disturbed by attitudes of certain individuals or groups exploiting the freedom of expression to incite hatred by demonizing purposefully the religions and their followers. Though we respect their freedom of opinion and expression, we find these attitudes politically and ethically incorrect and insensitive.”

The meeting in Istanbul would essentially be the precursor to a series of annual summits that would constitute “The Istanbul Process”. The first convened in Washington and was hosted by Clinton in December of 2011, at a time when a certain anti-Muhammad video was being produced.
The second took place in London, less than three months after the Benghazi attacks and one month after the anti-Muhammad filmmaker was sent to prison.
At the time of the London summit, the optics of the filmmaker being locked up were no doubt supposed to impress the OIC. However, in the U.S., Nakoula couldn’t be imprisoned for speech; Americans wouldn’t stand for it. Instead, he was jailed for violating parole. The perception that he was jailed for speech was allowed to fester.
The most likely option is that the Obama administration was attempting to play both sides of the fence.
Anti-Muhammad Video Produced by Federal Informant / OIC Agent

As Shoebat.com has gone to great lengths to demonstrate, the maker of the anti-Muhammad video, a man known as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was a U.S. federal informant at the time of Clinton’s speech. Based on the public statements of both Hillary and Obama’s envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, Nakoula would have made a perfect OIC agent as well because he represented a face of the public, not the government.
In 2009, Nakoula was given a lesser sentence after pleading guilty for his role in a bank fraud scheme. In return, he was to help authorities catch the ringleader of that operation – my cousin Eiad Salameh.
That’s right, as the new language found in the “Istanbul Process” facelift was being presented, Nakoula was an agent of Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department. In exchange for having one year taken off his sentence, Nakoula was supposed to help the feds nab Salameh.
We now know that was NOT the reason Nakoula became an informant.
How do we know this?
In January of 2011 – just six months prior to Clinton’s speech – I was contacted by Jeffrey Mason of the Canadian Peel Police. I was told that my cousin was in their custody. Canadian authorities attempted to hand Salameh over to the FBI for seven months but to no avail. Ultimately, Salameh was put on a plane back to Palestine.
Nakoula began casting for his video in July of 2011. Not only was this the same month that the conference in Istanbul took place but it’s about the same time Canadian authorities stopped trying to hand over the guy Nakoula was given a lighter sentence to help the feds apprehend!
Logically, Nakoula was still on the hook with the feds because the stated reason for his lighter sentence was not the real reason for it. After the Benghazi attacks, Nakoula would do that year in prison, just like Hillary promised Charles Woods – the father of murdered Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods – three days after the Benghazi attacks.
House Select Committee on Benghazi

As was recently detailed by Shoebat.com, one of the U.S. Congressmen who understands what the “Istanbul Process” is really all about sits on the House Select Committee on Benghazi. His name is Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) and he will have no excuse if this dynamic is not part of the Committee’s investigation.
In a letter sent to the Deputy Inspector General (IG) at the State Department exactly 90 days prior to the Benghazi attacks, Westmoreland wrote in part (as a co-signatory):

The State Department and, in several cases, the specific direction of the Secretary of State, have taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests. These include:
A succession of meetings with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – a multinational group that is, like the Muslim Brotherhood, determined to impose shariah worldwide. These are now known as “the Istanbul Process” and we are aimed at finding ways to accommodate the OIC’s demands for restrictions on freedom of expression guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, so as to preclude “blasphemy” against Islam and its adherents.

Deputy IG Howard Geisel was given 90 days to respond to these concerns. On the 90th day, Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi without a response from Geisel.
Obama’s Islamic Envoy to the OIC

When it comes to Rashad Hussain, as Shoebat.com has demonstrated, the mask is off. Hussain – a State Department employee – is an infiltrator whose allegiances lie with the OIC, not the U.S. Constitution he swore an oath to uphold. As such, Hussain’s agenda is one that ultimately seeks the criminalization of criticism of Islam.
Earlier this year, Hussain was at the fourth annual “Istanbul Process” summit, held in Doha, Qatar. During his speech, he actually boasted about working with a confirmed Muslim Brotherhood front group that seeks the destruction of the United States from within:

Over the past couple of years I have been involved with an initiative lead (sic) by the Islamic Society of North America and Islamic scholars in the Muslim world to issue a declaration articulating standards and protocols for the protection of full citizenship rights of minorities in the Muslim world.

Also in his speech, Hussain picked up on Hillary Clinton’s meme that governments are limited with regard to criminalizing forms of expression and that it must be done via other means. Hussain continued:

Relying on governments to ban certain speech often ignores the root causes of bigotry, and many religious communities have found that improving education, interfaith dialogue, and media awareness are effective tools for combatting (sic) intolerance. The Istanbul Process that we are here participating in today is meant to promote implementation of those important measures.

There you have it. The “Istanbul Process” is about using the people and movements to push the agenda. In reality, however, governments are by definition the entities responsible. This sets up perfectly, the conditions for an agent of a government to do something so outrageous that he creates the climate for popular opinion to do what the government could not.
Using a government agent to masquerade as a private citizen who produces an anti-Muhammad video that would cause riots in the Middle East is a perfectly fitting puzzle piece.
One year earlier, in 2013, the “Istanbul Process” summit was held in Geneva. A detailed account of the proceedings included this observation:

The US and several European states emphasised their preference for social and cultural measures over legal ones. These states argued that criminalisation is often inappropriate, ineffective, and even counterproductive. “Good speech” is what defeats intolerance and hate, rather than restrictions on speech itself. OIC states, on the other hand, presented criminalisation as “a matter of vital concern”, imperative to the full implementation of Resolution 16/18.

In order to play both sides of this fence, the Obama administration would have to:

1.) Find someone who was beholden to the administration.

2.) Create the perception that said individual was acting as a private citizen.

3.) Have this private citizen produce something viewed as incendiary by the Muslim world.

4.) Provide a platform for the production of this material to be delivered to the masses.

5.) Point to this material as inflammatory and something people should “abhor”.

Nakoula was the poster child of a figure who could thread this needle.
Source
*Ben Barrack contributed to this article.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/bo...8brj7kjqkLT.99

Air Force Commander: U.S. Spy Agencies Heard Benghazi Attackers Using Consulate Phones to Call Their Leaders




by Fox News Insider // Jun 11 2014 // 7:00pm

As seen on Special Report with Bret Baier


Tonight on “Special Report,” Bret Baier spoke exclusively with retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Eric Stahl, who served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the casualties of the Benghazi terror attack.


Stahl told Baier that if the Air Force had been called early enough, they “absolutely” could have evacuated people from the consulate. He also said that members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff “knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking” because they got reports that consulate cell phones were being used to call terrorist leaders.
Read more below from Bret Baier and James Rosen on FoxNews.com:

The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.
The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.
Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany.
In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers' higher ups.”
A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.
Major Stahl was never interviewed by the Accountability Review Board, the investigative panel convened, pursuant to statute, by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as the official body reviewing all the circumstances surrounding the attacks and their aftermath. Many lawmakers and independent experts have criticized the thoroughness of the ARB, which also never interviewed Clinton nor the under secretary of State for management, Patrick Kennedy, a key figure in the decisions about security at the consulate in the period preceding the attack there.
In his interview on “Special Report,” Stahl made still other disclosures that add to the vast body of literature on Benghazi – sure to grow in the months ahead, as a select House committee prepares for a comprehensive probe of the affair, complete with subpoena power. Stahl said that when he deposited the traumatized passengers at Ramstein, the first individual to question the CIA security officers was not an FBI officer but the senior State Department diplomat on the ground.
“They were taken away from the airplane,” Stahl said. “The U.S. ambassador to Germany [Philip D. Murphy] met us when we landed and he took them away because he wanted to debrief them that night.” Murphy stepped down as ambassador last year. A message left with Sky Blue FC, a private company in New Jersey with which Murphy is listed online as an executive officer, was not immediately returned.
Stahl also contended that given his crew’s alert status and location, they could have reached Benghazi in time to have played a role in rescuing the victims of the assault, and ferrying them to safety in Germany, had they been asked to do so. “We were on a 45-day deployment to Ramstein air base,” he told Fox News. “And we were there basically to pick up priority missions, last-minute missions that needed to be accomplished.”
“You would've thought that we would have had a little bit more of an alert posture on 9/11,” Stahl added. “A hurried-up timeline probably would take us [an] hour-and-a-half to get off the ground and three hours and fifteen minutes to get down there. So we could've gone down there and gotten them easily.”

Watch the full interview above.


Video at link below

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/06/11...te-phones-call


Dereliction of Duty, Crimes and Misdemeanors, so much for never leaving anyone behind huh!! Now only a TRAITOR to our country would allow this!!!!!!!

The Benghazi Butcher at her best, I'll let y'all fill in the blanks!!!!

It looks as if Hillary Clinton just made the first gaffe of her new book tour, which is widely perceived to be a proxy for her still-unannounced presidential campaign.

During an ABC news interview scheduled to air Monday night, Clinton recalled how she "struggled" to purchase "houses" after she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, left the White House. Both Clintons have embarked on a lucrative speaking career since then, reportedly earning over $100 million in speaking fees alone, and the conservative media quickly jumped on the seemingly tone-deaf remark.

"We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt," Clinton told ABC's Diane Sawyer for an interview that previewed the Tuesday launch of Clinton's memoir, "Hard Choices." "We had no money when we got there and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education. It was not easy."

Sawyer pressed Clinton on whether her speaking fees — about $200,000 for a single speech, according to The New York Times — are something voters will be able to find relatable.

"Do you think Americans are going to understand five times the median income in this country for one speech?" Sawyer asked.
"Well, let me put it this way: I thought making speeches for money was a much better thing than being connected with any one group or company — as so many people who leave public life do," Clinton replied.

Watch the segment below.



Hillary Clinton Just Made The First Gaffe Of 2016

Business Insider

It looks as if Hillary Clinton just made the...



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hilla...#ixzz34Rm4IG9c