AP reporter Matt Lee was stumped by the State Department’s
inability to find the “separation” form Hillary Clinton should’ve signed
when she quit as Secretary of State, wondering why the department
cannot go back and pull the document from the department’s HR files.
The form, OF-109, is critical to understanding whether Clinton violated
the law by maintaining her own private e-mail account and server to
conduct official business as Secretary.
If she signed the form, as is required for all departing employees, she
may have committed a felony. The document asserts, under penalty of
perjury, that the employee turned over all relevant records at the time
of signing.
And if she didn’t sign the form, the question remains: Why not?
But reporters, who started asking for the form last week, have been
repeatedly stymied by the State Department. “I don’t have an update on
this, Matt,” spokeswoman Jenn Psaki told Lee on Monday.
“We’re still
working on it.”
“The human resources department presumably has a file on every
employee,” Lee pressed.
“It can’t be that difficult.”
“I don’t think former secretaries are standard employees,” Psaki said.
“Well, they might not be,” Lee said. “But how hard can it be to find . .
. Where do these forms, once they’re signed, go? They don’t go into the
ether, like so many other e-mails seem to have.”
“We do keep records, yes,” Psaki said. “It should be on file.”
"Former General David Petraeus has agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information, ABC reports.
ReplyDeleteBy agreeing to plead guilty, Petraeus will be able to avoid a likely embarrassing and extremely personal trial. The former general was under investigation for allegedly leaking classified information to his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, an Army Reserve officer.
"A plea deal would spare Mr. Petraeus a high-profile trial where embarrassing details about the affair would have been presented to the jury and made public," The New York Times reports.
Under the plea deal, the Justice Department will charge Petraeus "with one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material."
The FBI and the Department of Justice had recommended that Petraeus be charged with a FELONY for the leaks. The general has been under investigation since his affair became public knowledge in 2012.
The scandal surrounding Petraeus is a major fall for grace for the general, who had his fortunes soar as the former US commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. His counter-insurgency doctrine earned him accolades and President Obama's eventual nomination to the position of CIA director in 2011.
On November 10, 2012, Petraeus resigned as CIA director after his affair was made public. Such affairs carry high national security risks - a foreign intelligence agency could use such affairs as leverage for blackmail in order to access classified information. Any information leaked by Petraeus to Broadwell could also be further leaked by his mistress' own indiscretions.
This behavior could have had serious repercussions. As CIA director, Petraeus had near complete access to any classified information within the agency. By violating his security clearance and leaking information, Petraeus could have greatly endangered national security."
http://www.businessinsider.in/General-David-Petraeus-to-plead-guilty-to-providing-classified-information-to-his-mistress/articleshow/46447402.cms
Apples and oranges. There was no political gain going after Petraeus, who by his own admission, was having sex with someone he was giving information to while running the CIA. Maybe he never passed on anything he shouldn't, I'd like to hope so. His judgement, however, was clearly compromised and he doesn't want to endure any more humiliation.
DeleteTo many, simply being a Clinton is all the proof of bad judgement that is needed to erupt in outrage. The link below nails it pretty perfectly. Whether Clinton used a personal email account has zero, and I truly mean zero bearing on my life. Dick "go fuck yourself" Cheney was every bit the conniving, ruthless jagoff that Clinton like is. Had there been similar outrage from Republicans at the secrecy of the Bush administration, I might take this more seriously.
Now it's Dick Cheney's fault that Hillary might end up a felon.
DeleteIn who's possession currently is the Clinton's private server?
DeleteAre the Clinton's having someone guard the server, especially from hackers?
After all it is prima facie evidence in the committee investigation.
Why haven't they turned over the server to the FBI?
I never claimed any such link to Cheney, it's merely an acknowledgement that those in positions of power will always do shit in secret while those out of power seek to create a scandal out of anything they possibly can in order to get a political gain out of it. Benghazi and this latest scandal do not have an ounce of bearing on your life or mine. But, for some reason, Republicans seem to have real fear that Clinton could run and possibly win.
Delete"James Carville has been a loyal and defiant defender of the Clintons since he engineered Bill Clinton’s successful, 1992 Presidential campaign.
DeleteCarville has gone on the offensive over the past two weeks to defend Mrs. Clinton over the scandal surrounding her use of a private email server. During a discussion on ABC News this Sunday, Carville explained Clinton’s motivation by claiming:
“I suspect she didn’t want Louie Gohmert rifling through her emails, which seems to me a kind of reasonable position for someone to take.”
Carville’s suggestion that Mrs. Clinton didn’t want Louie Gohmert “rifling through her emails” sounds like a very reasonable explanation of the great lengths she went through to keep her emails from government servers. The only problem is Louie Gohmert happens to be a duly elected member of Congress and served as Vice Chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
In other words, James Carville and Hillary Clinton may not like Louie Gohmert, but as a sitting member of Congress he has every right to “rifle through” her emails, if there’s a legitimate need.
In fact, under the Freedom of Information Act you don’t need to be a congressman, or a judge, or even a lawyer to “rifle through” Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Every U.S. citizen has a right to look at them."
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/271449-trying-defend-hillary-clinton-james-carville-may-just-confirmed-email-behavior-illegal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Politics
DeleteFournier: Democrats ‘Scared to Death’ over Hillary Clinton
by Ian Hanchett16 Mar 2015908
National Journal Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director Ron Fournier said that Democrats are “scared to death” over the scandals regarding donations to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s emails on Monday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel.
“Don’t buy the spin, they [Democrats] are scared to death. And there’s a lot of them who are already starting to think ‘is she really the best candidate for us?’…Their bench, compared to the Republican bench is awfully, awfully thin. And there’s a lot of Democrats, by the way, who are saying ‘follow the money.’ A lot of Democrats are really worried about the Foundation, that’s what they’re really worried about” he stated.
Earlier, Fournier said that the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of Chinese donations is “a big issue. There’s a lot of other ways the Chinese government, and the Saudis, and the [Qataris] — there are other ways that they can help the world if that’s what they want to do. They’re giving their money to the Clinton Foundation for a reason. They want something out of it. So I know, what I really want to see in these e-mails is any e-mail that mentions the Foundation and mentions one of the donors.”
Fournier also commented on James Carville’s defense of Clinton, arguing that “what Carville did is give up the goods. What he admitted there was that this was not a matter of convenience, which is what the Secretary said. He admitted that the reason she did this was so she didn’t have to comply with the oversight of the House, and –and with the natural laws of transparency. He gave up the goods. He sold her out.”
Fournier added that while Democrats are right that no one’s votes will be decided by the emails specifically, “what they don’t want you to understand is this is a matter of trust. And you can’t lead a country, you might not even be able to win an election if the people don’t trust you, and we already see her trust numbers coming down.” And “what the Clinton people think is going to happen here is they understand everything we’re saying is true. The way they want to turn to the page is to somehow show how transparent she can run as a campaigner, that she’ll overwhelm the media with her access, that she’ll overwhelm the public with social media. I’d like to see that actually happening, but that is their plan.” He also declared that such a plan “cuts against the kind of public servant she’s been, but any little bit she does would look transformational.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
"The only problem is Louie Gohmert happens to be a duly elected member of Congress and served as Vice Chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security."
DeleteThe only real problem is that we have a fucking idiot name Louie Gohmert serving as a vice chair on a committee that has some relevance. The more you post William, the more entertained I am getting because the genius of Clinton's plan looks even better if she gets away with it. Nothing produces more head explore anger in an old white man than being bested by a smarter woman. Although, I have to admit, Louie Gohmert does not really set a high bar for intelligence.
Getting away with it.
Deleteif she didn't sign the form, she broke the law.
If she did sign the form, she broke the law by with holding government property.
Nixon destroyed records and was ousted from office.
Clinton possibly destroys records and the Dem's give her a pass.
Seems we hold some to higher standards than others.
Take away the Clinton name, and Hillary Rodham would be no more likely to become president than would Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. She does not so much habitually lie, as habitually see no problem with lying, as if she either cannot distinguish untruth from veracity, or simply believes that normal expectations of conduct should not apply to herself.
Is this someone you would like to see as president?
"Take away the Clinton name, and Hillary Rodham would be no more likely to become president than would Democratic senators like Barbara Boxer and Barbara Mikulski. She does not so much habitually lie, as habitually see no problem with lying, as if she either cannot distinguish untruth from veracity, or simply believes that normal expectations of conduct should not apply to herself."
DeleteReally? As if this doesn't somehow apply to everyone in office? I don't like it any more than you do, but if you have convinced yourself that getting rid of Clinton somehow addresses this problem, you could not possibly be more mistaken.
Nixon, despite being a quite intelligent man, and a somewhat visionary POTUS, was also a brutally insecure and vindictive person. He used his power for personal vendettas and that was his downfall. Even that wasn't anything new of course. What I see in your's and Williams post is not a desire to protect and better the country, rather, it is a desire to simply see your side win, or at best, a desire to see a candidate lose who you like even less than whatever asshole the Republicans put up. This is like saying shit smells sweeter if you call it dung.
I've stated countless times that I don't like Clinton and that I don't want her to be the Democratic nominee. If my choice is her or another Bush, of course I'm going to vote for her or maybe I'll just vote the green ticket. I don't have any personal dislike of anyone here, but this Benghazi stuff and now this new scandal is complete bullshit. No matter what I say, it will always somehow be answered as if I am making some defense of the Democratic party, Obama or Clinton. If you really buy into this stuff, don't complain when the only candidates we get for POTUS are crooks who are better at cheating than all the other crooks out there.
It's our low expectation of our current crop of politicians today. R or D, doesn't matter.
DeleteAs for me, neither Bush or Clinton are acceptable. Either abstain or an obscure party. The current scandal? Isn't really a scandal yet but Clinton does have some interesting questions to answer. A a tech person, a person server is a prime target for hackers as individuals generally do not want to spend money to secure a server from hacking.
The question, should an individual be able to have a personal server/email account that has no government oversight, security? In a position that's extremely sensitive?
It really speaks to a lack of judgement.
Meh, I'll keep beating the same drum. If stuff like this is what we choose to get outraged over, we will keep getting candidates who, like Maher said, are able to stand there and take their beating while they keep smiling for the idiots. Should an individual be able to have a personal account without government oversight? This is the wrong question to me.
DeleteThe more important question to me is what is meaningful oversight. Sec of State, to me, should be one of those positions that we don't seek to destroy. things change all the time. At one time, Saddam and Osama were both allies, and then they weren't. As an adult, I accept that sometimes we need to deal with a scumbag to protect our interest. If oversight means that we are going to scour through every last email of the Sec of State and use that for political gain, then I'm not going to bitch when a Sec of State goes to great length to deny some political opportunist asshole of the ability to dig for such data. I hated the choice of Condoleeza for Sec of State, but once she was there, I wanted her to protect the interests of our country.
For as long as this remains a game of trying bring her down, I'm not going to complain when she keeps outplaying them. As of yet, there is no evidence her server was hacked and my personal feeling is that if we want oversight, then let's have oversight that protects the country rather than oversight that protects the party.
"If you really buy into this stuff, don't complain when the only candidates we get for POTUS are crooks who are better at cheating than all the other crooks out there"
DeleteI don't believe your standards can be that low. You reinforce how shallow your thoughts are with your continual reference to comedians Mayer, Stewart, etc. I don't think Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or Ben Carson are crooks.
Why should I accept your low standards?
You shouldn't accept anyone's standards wholesale William. If you didn't, then you wouldn't be tied to defending bullshit as fact solely on the basis of who uttered it. I'm not afraid to acknowledge truth, even when it comes from someone I find utterly repugnant. Bill Maher is hardly a God in my eyes and he is just as pompous and at times insufferable as any far right talking head.
DeleteI think Scott Walker IS kind of a crook, but for the rest I find Cruz and Carson to just be partisan hack idiots, and I consider Paul to be an intriguing figure. Compared to the others who just spout whatever their handlers want them to say, Rand Paul at least has had some sack to state some obvious truths, like how badly our war on drugs has failed.
Objectively, I"m not sure I'd for Paul, but I have to admit, there might come a time real soon where a guy like him within the Republican party finally causes a movement that isolates the old white guy crowd into an irrelevant voice within the party. No guarantee this makes it safe for moderate Republicans to run, but it would be an interesting development to watch. Alas, you don't deal in anything objective, so this is kind of a moot point and waste of bandwidth.
"Objectively, I"m not sure I'd for Paul, but I have to admit, there might come a time real soon,,,,"
DeleteFreudian slip Max,,,?
Clinton server hacked:
DeleteThere are numerous articles on the web.
Surprisingly not, most are reprints on right web sites.
Was Clinton Server Exposed to Hacks?
Private Email Server Said to Lack Digital Certificate
By Eric Chabrow, March 12, 2015.
During her first month on the job in 2009, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private email server that lacked a digital certificate - either one issued by a domain registrar or self-generated - that would have ensured encrypted and authenticated email communications. This is the conclusion reached by IT security firm Venafi, after analyzing publicly available data.
Kevin Bocek, Venafi vice president of security strategy and threat intelligence, says in an interview with Information Security Media Group that the clintonemail.com domain received a digital certificate from issuer Network Solutions on March 29, 2009, 39 days after Clinton took office as secretary of state. Until then, he says, the email server was exposed to unauthorized intrusions.
Bocek contends the lack of proper certification opened the system to a breach even after the Clinton server received a digital certificate. "Likely those credentials (on the server) used in the first three months probably were not changed frequently, [allowing] someone normal access to the server [without] even trying to hack it," he says.
At a March 10 news conference, Clinton said the server was secure. "It had numerous safeguards; it was on property, guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches," she said. "I think the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure." Clinton didn't provide any documentation to back up her claims about the security of the servers.
Bocek dismisses Clinton's comment about the Secret Service protecting the server. "I believe ... she refers to the physical protection, actually, and control of the server, not the digital or logical access across the Internet," he says.
Clinton did not use the government's state.gov domain for email during her four years as secretary of state, saying in the news conference that she found it more convenient to use a single email server for government and personal correspondence. The privately owned server she used, situated at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home, was initially set up for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
The use of a personal email server has become a political tempest for the former secretary of state as she gears up for a possible run for the presidency later this year. Clinton says she turned over to the State Department 50,000-plus pages of email correspondence that she contends were related to her job. She says other email messages she deemed personal were destroyed. Detractors and even some supporters criticized Clinton because she - and not some independent body - decided which messages to turn over to the State Department and which ones to destroy.
How Venafi security experts concluded that the Clinton server went more than a month without using a digital certificate;
Clinton being quizzed on whether she cleared use of the personal server with the State Department and whether security personnel at the agency had access to it.
What the former secretary of state should do to prove that the private email server wasn't breached.
http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/interviews/venafi-on-clinton-i-2602
By using private email, Hillary Clinton put her data at risk every time she clicked on a link or downloaded an attachment as secretary of state. But the American public, and even Clinton herself, will probably never know if hackers were able to monitor her communication from 2009 to 2013, the four years she served as the most powerful U.S. diplomat.
DeleteEven top-level technology companies like Twitter know enough to outsource their email for security reasons, sources said, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there's a national outcry over Clinton's decision to ditch the protected State Department email system in favor of her own server, clintonemail.com. Clinton, who many expect will seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, exclusively used the address HDR22@clintonemail.com to communicate both personal and top-level Cabinet business, the New York Times first reported Monday. Her judgment has shocked Internet security experts and transparency advocates, who have suggested the decision was motivated by a desire to avoid public disclosure requests.
“It's exceedingly unlikely that her server was even remotely secure,” said Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney and cryptography expert at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Without enterprise-grade security and intrusion detection, there's not even any way to know if she's been hacked or not. We'll never know who had access to her email while she was secretary of state.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/private-email-server-made-hillary-clinton-vulnerable-hackers-state-dept-isnt-much-1837654
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd again, this is the theatrical hand wringing of what MIGHT have happened. I can't believe that for the time she was in that office, some right wing didn't figure this out and get access to the emails. As Snowden showed, we spy on even our allies Lou, are you trying to make an argument here that conducting all business on a government server is foolproof?
DeleteAt this point, considering that no right wing group has "leaked" emails sent by Clinton makes me think the server was secure and they couldn't get into it. I hate to say it, but the more I read the articles you guys are throwing up here, the more I am becoming convinced that what people are most pissed about is that they can't conduct a trolling expedition to find things to use against her.
One might ask why someone in the administration didn't notice she was not on a government server as the email address is a giveaway. Like Obama or one of his people.
DeleteOne thing is for certain, either she broke the law or didn't. The form will tell the entire story however it's probably lost only to be found Jan. 2017.
Says they really don't know if it's been hacked, time will tell. It will certainly be something to laugh at as they wring their hands in what should we do or throw up the curtain of silence and pretend nothing happened as so often done.
Snowden is the MAN. He at least told the truth about what at our government has been doing.
"One might ask why someone in the administration didn't notice she was not on a government server as the email address is a giveaway"
DeleteAnd someone certainly will.........if there are political points to be gained from it. Because this is just another sham scandal, they won't bother asking Obama because there is nothing really to gain from it. I suppose some back bench kiss ass could get on Fox for five minutes or so while floating just another example of Obama's hatred of America, but it probably won't amount to much. As to the form, what if it turns out that there isn't a successive string of forms signed by exiting Secs of State?
I gave this some thought for 10 minutes or so, and I can't find a single way this story impacts my life. how bout you?
Getting warm in Vegas already, hope we get a couple more months before it's 100 and stupid every day.
"That's what America is all about. It's not about issues, it's whether you can stand there and take your beating over stupid, infantile bullshit from our stupid infantile press and she stood there smiling and said yes I can."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evfbFQLnQU&feature=youtu.be
She commissioned a review of the 62,320 messages in her account only after the department—spurred by the congressional investigation—asked her to do so.
DeleteAnd this review did not involve opening and reading each email; instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache—31,830 emails—did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be “private, personal records.”
time magazine
Why the coverup from the Clinton-Kerry State Department?
DeleteHow hard is it to find confirmation weather or not she signed the OF-109 Form?
Imagine what Nixon could have done given Keyword technology.
Are career State Department employee's scouring their email accounts for correspondence with HRC?
DeleteAre they sleeping well?
After all they are lifer's and administrations come and go.
Like I said in another post, your panty wetting glee over this stuff is entertaining because just like Benghazi, nothing will come of it.
DeleteJust think about all that money her donors have already wasted on her.
DeleteConsidering she hasn't even announced she's running, I don't know what money you are talking about. I think you might be confused in this case about the money spent on behalf of that corrupt fat ass from New Jersey who, unlike Clinton, is not remotely adept enough to deal with idiots screaming scandal in his face.
DeleteI'll concede something to you William, I'm mostly just busting your balls on this because I acknowledge that there is always that outside chance that one of these infantile bullshit stories might stick and prevent her from running. On the other hand, with every feigned scandal that your white male heroes dredge up, you become weaker when they don't stick. You can dismiss what Maher is saying, as I'm pretty sure you will, but I think he makes a solid point. The person who shows up and keeps smiling through the petulant bullshit is the one who typically gets to be the candidate and POTUS, whether we are talking about Bush who beat the sourpusses of Gore and Kerry, or Obama who beat the ultra sour puss of McCain and later Romney who did himself in with his Thurston Howell arrogance.
"The person who shows up and keeps smiling through the petulant bullshit is the one who typically gets to be the candidate and POTUS,,,?
DeleteOh, you mean like Lincoln, or Reagan, Jefferson, or Tyler, pretty smiling faces,,,
The State Department says not only can they not find the missing form for Clinton, they can't find it for either of her two predecessors. They also say that they are not sure the form is required of Secretaries of State! This appeared today on Bloomberg Politics. As you probably know, Congressmen are not required to use Government computers for their business e-mail. They have passed a law exempting themselves from a requirement imposed by them on members of the other branches of Government. So, in conclusion, Formgate is another straw man set up to discredit a strong candidate. The Republicans don't have a candidate who can beat Clinton, and they know it.
ReplyDeleteIn that case the Clinton's have nothing to hide and will turn over their server to a non-biased third party.
DeleteI'm not holding my breath.
"I'm not holding my breath."
DeleteWould you do it if we passed the hat for contributions?
Gladly, please forward,,,
DeleteA better solution, an executive order exempting Hilly from past and present forms.
DeletePerfect!
This is all pure, trolling bullshit.
ReplyDeletefrom the oricle herself
Deletehillary must be your primary keyword
go bake some cookies
You're adorable, William ...
DeleteKnow what's funny? You and I had a detailed discussion on this very blogsite probably about a year ago about how i didn't want Clinton to run. I think it was around March of last year. I'll go back and look if you want. You asked me if I'd vote for Clinton or for Christie. I answered Christie and explained why.
That doesn't matter though - that fact doesn't fit your bullshit trolling message.
TEA Party Guerrilla Internet Trolling Rule #1: Stay on message - NEVER concede a point.
You must've been Valedictorian of your TEA Trolling class ... Later, Billy.
Oh, and just because I don't want Clinton to run, doesn't change the truth that this latest "scandal" is nothing but pure, trolling bullshit.
DeleteSo speaketh The Oricle ...
Of course it is trolling as it was during the Nixon fiasco.
DeleteMissing tapes, missing form.
Mercy sakes what shall we do. Either she lied or didn't. Either she broke the law or didn't.
All in all, what difference does it make, who cares anyway to put it into perspective in anther persons words.
I am reminded of the definition of an expert, someone who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows everything there is to know about buggar all.
DeleteI have been a fan of Pfunky for some time, his/her contributions usually have a message worth reading. The latest efforts are pretty much as expected, relevant to the argument without blindly following in the footsteps of others. For what little it is worth, this debate is getting about as puerile as the never ending comedy produced by the birthers during the first term of the Pres.
What fun old Samuel Adams would have if he could come back and be introduced to blogs and emails. Lou makes a good point, treat it for what it is, a diversion from good government but an essential ingredient of politics.
Cheers from Aussie.
Pfunky
DeleteI must have missed your previous post re opposition to HRC as a candidate. Is it too much trouble to briefly restate your reasons and if possible can you provide an alternative nomination. I assume your political base is left of center or are you that rarest of birds who can see both sides of the argument?.
Cheers from Aussie.
K,
DeleteSamuel Adams, a decent beer produced in Boston.
@King
DeleteI've always considered myself a moderate, left-leaning on some issues, right-leaning on others, but yes, open to good ideas & debate from whoever. In Billy's eyes, I'm a commie, as he let's me know every chance he gets going back to the MW days, lol. You can (and will, I assume) decide for yourself :-)
The thread I was referring to with Billy was posted here 02-12-14 called Cruz/Paul/Christie/Bush. Here's the link.
http://mwamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/2014/02/cruzpaulchristiebush.html
Lou
DeleteDoes it have the froth and bubble and the bitterness of its namesake? Here is a quote from the mouth of the old scoundrel quote “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” . I often think of this when reading the posts of William.
Cheers friends from Aussie.
Pfunky
DeleteMany thanks for the link and many thanks for pfunky2222February 16, 2014 at 10:30 AM together with TS reply. Both thought provoking posts and I wish I had seen both when published. I would have had something complementary to say about both. By the way, provided you were not wearing rose tinted glasses when talking about your dad, I too believe he has his feet firmly on the ground. Us old timers see to have more substantial roots than the youngins of today. Or perhaps old age brings stubbornness!.
Cheers from Aussie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteK,
DeleteRebel Rider IPA
Samuel Adams
A nice floral aroma compliments the piney, clean favor nicely. A head that lasts to the end and a lightness equals a very drinkable beer.
No bitterness here.
I like this one:
Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity's liberty!
Appropriate.
Idk about that, Lou. Before my time.
ReplyDeleteBut I do know that at the time I thought "Bridgegate" was bullshit - I believe I called it "The Democrats' Benghazi" - which spurred my whole discussion with Billy and The Scott about Christie running for POTUS.
Bullshit doesn't stop being bullshit just because you like/dislike the someone that said bullshit is being flung at.
What difference does oit make who is elected prez?
DeleteReality, the house will still be run by Boehner.
The Senate by McConnell and filibustered by Reid.
4 years of fun with more to come as long as the dead leaders of the 2 houses remain in power. Poster children for term limits.
If you like the email saga, you should read about the downfall of Nixon. Today he would just laugh at them and continue on instead of resigning.
Petty as Nixon was, I fully believe he understood that the good of the country was something sacred and that it was in the best interest of the country for him to resign. He also allegedly said after his loss to Kennedy that if he had demanded a recount, the lengthy process would have questioned Kennedy's legitimacy as POTUS and this would have had a devastating effect on foreign relations (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20001111&id=l-gpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8c8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6864,4741206&hl=en)
DeleteArguably, a Nixon could not be an elected Republican in today's climate.
From what I have read, I agree with you Lou. What Nixon did that seemed so egregious back in the day (the coverup) seems to be accepted as S.O.P. for today's Pols.
DeleteThe only thing that seems to make anything a true, impeachable, "scandal" anymore is sex. Whatever you do as Prez, make sure you do NOT get blown by the sorority girl that brings in the mail - You'll have to testify in front of a Grand Jury about that.
It's all become a sad, sad, joke.
So true pfunky.
DeleteLie, cheat, steal is of no consequence. Under no circumstance should you text pict's of yourself to a hooker. Cost you your job.
Hey max. that much is for certain as Kennedy could never be elected as a democrat.
DeleteGood thing We didn't have the internet and communications of today in Kennedy's era. Marilyn would certainly have done him in.
It's always so cute when the oricle of pi honors us with her homilies. Comparing GW bridge road cones with bodies being dragged through the streets with genitailia tucked in mouth. Cuddly Obama-Fat man photo shoots at the Jersey Shaw with Monica on her knees job interviews. War on women inferences with Kathleen, Paula, Jennifer, Juanita, yada, yada, yada, cookie cutter sexual abuse forgiveness.
DeleteWe can always count on the oracle to check in and set the record straight from the feminist perspective, which after all is the only proven sure fire remedy when us Jersey Tea Party hay seeds feel our oats. Sorta like Max in a skirt, armed with profane slang tempered with sweetie sexuality.
Yeah, we can always count on good ole consistent middle of the road common sense from our oracle. Thank God for that.
Billy
TEA Party Guerrilla Internet Trolling Rule #2: When cornered because you're out-debated or proven flat-out wrong, level a personal attack at your opponent or attack your opponent's source.
DeleteGot a copy of your textbook, Billy ...
Hey wait a minute. I thought that was a play out of the progressive how to book.
DeleteA thought, maybe all the politically motivated use it.
Of course Benghazi is bullshit oracle. Of course it is.
DeleteOfficial emails on your own private server is bullshit also.
Yenta interns being manipulated by POTUS is bullshit also.
Chinese donations to our citizens of the world is also bullshit.
Huma holding down another consulting job while "advising" HRC is bullshit to.
It's all bullshit oracle. It's all bullshit.
Breaking news:
ReplyDeleteThe State Department said Tuesday it has no record of Hillary Clinton signing a key form stating she turned over all official documents upon leaving the department -- a form that was the subject of intense speculation since the issue could determine whether she broke the law.
That document is known as a "separation" form, which officials are supposed to sign upon leaving the department. It certifies that the person who signs it has turned over all "classified or administratively controlled" materials, as well as all "unclassified documents and papers" relating to official government business.
Seems Hilly did not turn in all sensitive documents on leaving office, shame, shame.
Seems the administration is as inept as ever in not getting the form signed. Did they take her government ID card?
Think I'll forgo signing those bothersome 4/15 forms. See how I do.
DeleteNobility has it's privilege.
Why can't the State Department simply call in these former Sec. Of States and have them sign the form. Better late than never.
DeleteWhat's the point?
DeleteSeems the law only applies to the little people.
An internal 2011 State Department cable shows that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office told employees not to use personal email for security reasons -- while at the same time, Clinton conducted all government business on a private account.
Sent to diplomatic and consular staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, bearing Clinton's electronic signature, made clear to employees they were expected to "avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts." The message also said employees should not "auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”
The cable underscores that government policy strongly discouraged officials from using personal email and violators faced disciplinary action, even though Clinton for years relied exclusively on hers – and her own server -- to conduct official business. The White House, without condemning Clinton’s activities, has made clear that employees were urged to use government accounts.
The 2011 cable, bearing the subject line “Securing Personal E-mail Accounts,” told employees to secure personal/home email addresses, given increased targeting of government employees by “online adversaries.” It also emphasized that these personal accounts should never be used for government business and cited department procedures which prohibit the practices.
Can I ask you guys a serious question? Can you cite the law or provide a link to the statute that Clinton supposedly broke that makes her a felon?
DeleteUsing personal email accounts and not signing forms sound a lot like departmental policy violations to me, not felonies. Can you provide some info on what actual law you think Clinton broke?
Thanks.
I assume there is good legal reason for the form. Why doesn't Sec Kerry just call the formers up, email them a copy, and ask for their signatures?
DeleteBy using her personal email address — @clintonemail.com — she kept her work documents from the government. Concealing government documents from the government when you work for it is a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and permanent disqualification from holding public office.
DeleteFailing to secure classified secrets in a government-approved facility or moving them to a non-secure facility outside the government’s control is a misdemeanor, punishable by a hefty fine and a year in jail. Using a false email address that gives the clear impression that the user is not using a government server when she is, or one that creates the false impression that the emailer is using a government server when she is not, is also a felony.
“Mr. President, do you remember that crackpot Sandy Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national security adviser from 1997 to 2001 and Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy adviser when she ran against you in 2008, and who stole documents from the National Archives in 2003 by hiding them under an on-site construction trailer? Do you know that Bill got Sandy a no-jail-time deal including the return of his security clearance, and he got Sandy’s prosecutor a federal judgeship?"
Deletehttps://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/judge-andrew-napolitano-hillary-clinton-guilty-of-felony-and-misdemeanor-concealing-government-documents-failing-to-secure-classified-secrets-in-a-government-approved-facility-obama-administration/
Can you cite the specific law(s)?
Delete"Mr. President, will your Department of Justice prosecute Clinton for retaining 48 months of classified records on her personal server after she left office, as it did Gen. David Petraeus, who kept 15 months of classified records in a desk drawer in his home after he left office?"
DeleteAndrew Napolitano
"Mr. President, did you cut a deal with Clinton's husband that permits her to get away with this type of behavior? Mr. President, is it true that there are standards of behavior for Bill and Hillary Clinton and their friends and other standards for the rest of us?"
DeleteAndrew Napolitano
pfunky,
DeleteClearly she broke her own department regulations sent out under her signature as written above.
Interesting that as a worker bee, When I left a job, I turned in everything before leaving and signed a document stating I retained no company information, equipment. Guess that's not done with a very high level government position.
As to laws, to be determined by lawyers for certain. One to look at:
Federal Records act
The Federal Records Act of 1950, as amended, establishes the framework for records management programs in Federal Agencies. As the primary agency for records management oversight, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is responsible for assisting Federal agencies in maintaining adequate and proper documentation of policies and transactions of the Federal Government. This is done by appraising records (determining record value and final disposition of temporary or permanent records), regulating and approving the disposition of Federal records, operating Federal Records Centers and preserving permanent records.
Federal records may not be destroyed-except in accordance with the procedures described in Chapter 33 of Title 44, United States Code.
Did she follow the procedures established by the records act?
Seems she didn't archive the messages with the government.
Destroying records: Seems she and her staff, lawyers deleted records deemed personal. Without oversight, how is that possible?
As the Department transitions from paper to e-government, we must capture and protect all forms of documentation in accordance with Federal laws and regulations relating to records management. We must provide and implement safeguards against the unlawful removal or loss of the Department's information. This is accomplished by using the GRS and the agency's NARA-approved records disposition schedules for records unique to this agency. Such a schedule ensure the systematic disposal of inactive records and the transfer of permanent records to the National Archives for permanent retention.
Records Management by Federal Agencies
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 31)
§ 3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties
§ 3102. Establishment of program of management
§ 3103. Transfer of records to records centers
§ 3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred records
§ 3105. Safeguards
§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
§ 3107. Authority of Comptroller General
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/fed-agencies.html
Further issues:
Security. Was the server equipped with government approved security?
Access. Who also had access to the server. Did they hold the proper security clearance?
Maintenance: Who maintained the server? Did they hold the proper security clearance?
If you were a government employee, think you could use your own private email account?
In any case the minions are held to one standard while the leaders another.
But as they say, who cares anyway? What difference does it make?
Today, none as this is but a moment in time and Americans have a 30 sound byte attention span with the capacity for 1 memory at a time. This will be long forgotten in a month replaced by the latest scandal dejour, hopefully it's more interesting like the Monica affair.
How about that Israeli election? Certainly put O's panties into a twist.
Wonder what excitement this government will generate next week.
What the law says about the concealment and destruction of documents …
Delete18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Then there is the question of the mishandling of classified information that was cited in the case against General Petraeus …
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
Ok. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteRain, snow today, tomorrow sunny and 65.
DeleteA perfect start to spring.