MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
See I was right!
By HSG on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 11:53am |"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her senior aides did not comply with the State Department’s record-keeping policies, an internal watchdog determined in a report sent to Capitol Hill on Wednesday."
URL:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281192-watchdog-agency-hits-clinton-top-aides-on-records-policy
- Add new comment
- 17499 reads
Comments
From your article
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 12:51pm
"He, or she, did it too", is an attempt at coming up with an excuse that I had completely worn out by the time I was six years old. It didn't work at my house and, though I may be giving myself too much credit, I think that even as a six year old I had actually begun to realize why it is not an excuse but rather is just a lame attempt to defend. Clinton is clearly guilty of being in the wrong on this issue regardless how many others have been.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 1:42pm
Also of course the Clinton true believers ignore the fact that the rules were tightened up immediately after Clinton took office and neither Powell nor Rice are running for President. But the thing is there are many fanatics on Team Hillary and their fanaticism is harming "St. Hillary". It turns off those of us who recognize she's better than Trump but don't feel comfortable with folks who are utterly unwilling to acknowledge the flaws in their candidate.
by HSG on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:30pm
Hal, everyone realizes it wasn't the best solution, but most sane people realize that Republicans would have made every day Benghazi day on her emails if possible too, including probably FOIA's on her non-government speech transcripts, any leftover records from her campaign and foundation, and a wide-encompassing evidence-gathering effort to prove whether she tormented her husband's bimbos in some way.
Many of us realize State had its email servers hacked during this period, so the presumption that government servers would be all super secure is rather counterfactual. Bradley/Chelsea Manning walked out of a "secure" DoD facility with a Lady Gaga-titled disk full of info, in other cases flash drives were all that was needed - a much bigger intelligence dump than anything Hillary had on her home server, affecting state, defense, et al.
There were greater repercussions to the trivial "Travelgate" case than there were to Bush/Gonzales' illegal politicized attorney firings.
But hey, let's not put things in perspective. We're looking for a perfectly honest man, and one day we'll find him.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:29pm
The phrase "true believer" is mildly insulting to this HRC supporter, in that describes your own brand of attachment to political candidates.not mine.Unlike you, I don't think of a primary election, or the candidate who on balance I am supporting, in terms of religiosity. There is no "true believing" in politics. There is only the weighing of information and rational decisions on choices. Elections pick winners, not saints of deities---but obviously, your framework is different.
by Oxy Mora on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 6:58pm
I did not mean to imply that all of Hillary's staunch supporters are true believers or consider Hillary to be a saint - only those who insisted, in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary, that her email setup while she was Secretary of State and after she left the Department complied with applicable government regulations. On the other hand, you directly call me out as a "true believer" but, as you know well, I have criticized Bernie Sanders on a number of occasions here.
by HSG on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 7:49pm
Of course, Lulu - it doesn't matter that the police didn't stop white open carry protesters or the last 20 cars that passed with white drivers - the black guy should just worry about what he did and stop obsessing over others. Precedent has nothing to do with law or regulations. Just because an anti-sodomy or interestate trafficking law hasn't been used in 75 years doesn't mean it shouldn't be used in your case. Even though a whole department might regularly take specific documents home for review and has done for years has nothing to do with firing the rookie for taking same documents home for review. It doesn't matter that the CIA regularly retroactively classifies published documents or still has "confidential" on 30-year-old rotary dial phone blueprints. Just a lame attempt to defend.
Hillary should just admit to being guilty of everything. It's the simplest way.
(btw, in our house if more than 1 kid was drinking out of the milk jug, we'd all get chewed out, not just the one who'd just got caught. And if the youngest was following the example of the oldest, the oldest would catch hell. Guess my parents were a bit too even-handed)
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:17pm
So if a fault has been common in the past we should forget and forgive it and not even point it out as a factor in our political judgments? We should be ready for more pink mist then [to slightly change the set of faults being discussed to add just another example of ongoing fault that has no interruption in American history] but also ready to forgive and forget anyone responsible, certainly including Bush and his gang, and certainly anyone involving stealing the election that put him in power, so as not to impede their efforts to stay in power even if more of the same is what we can expect? I expect we will get more of the same. I will not vote for more of the same. An October surprise will not surprise me.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 2:49pm
As I noted, all the kids in my family would get punished, not just one. But there's a tilted playing field between Republicans and Democrats. What did Petraeus get for smuggling classified docs to his girlfriend while head of CIA? A misdemeanor with probation, and barely that. Compare that with John Kirakou (sp?) as a reporter revealing already public info..
.(The level of "socialite" access to intelligence officers and military officials was certainly not healthy or secure.)
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:18pm
I find this whole email thing to be a true puzzlement. In every job I've had where I've used computers and email (yes, I am old enough to have worked pre-computers!) an IT person gave either a personal orientation to me or to a group of new hires. Does the State Department not train employees (yes, even the Secretary) in the use of its programs? Assign email addresses? Give deadlines for new passwords? Redundant security methods? Etc, Etc, Etc?
What is the procedure when a high-office person comes to a Federal job where security is paramount? I haven't heard one word about the nuts and bolts around this, and I think it should be out there. I agree with PP, and I have said it myself; the State Dept, and even the FBI computers were hacked during her time in office, and hers were not. I realize that this is not good enough for many to just STFU, but at least they can't accuse her with any justification of actually giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as much as they would want to.
From what I understand, yes, Hillary broke the rule -- not the law. None of the emails on her server was classified at the time, although it seems some were retroactively classified (which I conclude must mean they are very low in terms of secrets, if at all).
Based on all of the above, I really think this is yet another Nothingburger in terms of intention, harm done, and consequences. In terms of "So did all the others," I don't see it as an excuse, but I do see it as an example of how it had never created security problems for previous Secretaries of State. Everything Hillary does or doesn't do gets blown out of proportion because there is such a willing audience.
Republicans have everything to gain by tarring her with anything they possibly can, and Bernie simply has nothing to lose. Period.
by CVille Dem on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:12pm
I wonder how anyone could read this, [the article linked to] and be puzzled as to why anyone else sees the subject as one which is of due concern. That is unless you reject everything they stated. PP only came up with a couple ad hominem attacks on a couple of the signers, maybe you could show where something they assert is incorrect or maybe you just believe everything they assert is wrong and and at the same time that even if they are right that it is of no consequence, but I seriously doubt a sane and rational person would look at the evidence and take that position. I realize there is serious evidence against that last statement.
Several of the claims you make, such as that Hillary's emails were not hacked, are simply not supportable. I don't ask you to try to prove a negative, just look at the evidence and conclude what you will, but you shouldn't dismiss the charge by saying there is no evidence.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:20pm
I am with you Cville.
I will never understand this crap about emails.
Colin Powell and others used 'personal' emails?
And Cheney outed a CIA agent and said:
GO GET THAT BITCH.
Not in so many words of course.
Bernie is a nice guy.
If Hillary died tomorrow, I would back Bernie, for sure.
If T-Rump faced Bernie, the asshole would just call him a commie of course.
hahhahaahha
When Hillary wins, T-Rump will call her a commie.
WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE?
HAHAHAh
If we dems so not do everything we can to get Hillary elected, we are faced with the devil incarnate.
hhahahahaha
Except this aint no hahahahahha
This is:
Can we save the world?>
We are dying:
WE HAVE A CHANCE!
by Richard Day on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 10:07pm
According to FOIA, federal agencies must preserve all federal records and make non-classified documents available to the public upon request. FOIA was designed to make government transparent to the public, which is essential for a functioning democracy. In 1994, while Bill Clinton was president, the courts ruled that email is a federal record after citizens requested email related to the Iran-Contra cover-up. It was a big, well-publicized ruling in D.C., so Hillary had to be aware of it.
In short, it is the law--an important law--which Hillary knowingly broke. The Republicans are obviously trying to make a huge deal out of it for political reasons, but that doesn't make it OK. If it were Dick Cheney's private server, I'm sure that Democrats would be up in arms over it, so I find the willingness to give Hillary a pass on this to be a double standard.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 7:54am
Oh, I'm sorry - did DickCheney ever answer an FOIA? Talk about a motherucking double standard. He made millions on hisold company going into Iraq. Color me extremely unimpressed. Cheney fired attorneys for political reasons at will. No repercussions. Screw allof 'em, attempt at transparency and righteousness, great big fail. We put more effort into dredging into Benghazi with 4 dead than we did 9/11. Still don't have a release on Saudi involvement. Bandar Bush indeed.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 8:28am
That is why Cheney should never have been a vice-president. Is Hillary as bad as Cheney? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that we should excuse her.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 9:24am
Michael, honestly, sounds too high minded for my tastes.
I'm really sick of the focus on Hillary's faults. Compared to who and what?
And now it is being reported that Bernie will debate Trump before the California primary---how high minded of Bernie Sanders. Another chance to bring Clinton down. But we should excuse him for giving Trump the biggest gift he could imagine.
The net effect of a stunt like this debate would be to normalize Trump---which will save Republicans a ton of ad money. Nice going, Sanders.
I'm about at the point of saying I hope Trump wins this thing. Teach ya'll high minded folks something you won't forget. This election is not about excusing Clinton, it's about defeating a potential takeover of the country by fascists.
Sorry, don't have time to write a proper blog of my own. If Bernie does this, I'm going to be seriously pissed at the guy.
by Oxy Mora on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 10:05am
Does it honestly sound too high-minded? Or are you allowing your biases to affect your opinion of the ethics. If Hillary were a Republican secretary of state running for president, would you really say ho-hum, FOIA-shmoia, I'm tired of the people attacking her?
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 10:24am
Leaving myself wide open, what the hell does FOIA-shmoia mean.
IMC, I'm not going shoot myself in the foot TPAEP.
by Oxy Mora on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 10:38am
FOIA = "Freedom of Information Act"
5 U.S.C. § 552, As Amended By
Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:19am
FOIA-shmoia: Yiddish for "Oy! That meshugena shiksa stepped in the shande again"
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:21am
I miss a lot of jokes and boats.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:23pm
What law did she break? Did she release her emails to anyone except the FBI? Some of her emails were retroactively classified. How does FOIA have anything to do with that? How many emails got dumped by Karl Rove? The RNC server was in the WH with no consequences. Dick Cheney outed a CIA operative without consequences to HIM. Not so much for agents abroad who dealt with her. What double standard are you talking about?
by CVille Dem on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 8:24am
FOIA and the national security issue are separate. The whole classification issue is silly IMO, but FOIA is important. Hal provided the reference below.
As for Cheney, he did get away with it, but I don't think he should have gotten away with it. And if he were using a private server for his work emails, I would be out there saying that it violated FOIA. And so should you.
So if we're willing to say Cheney would be wrong but Hillary is not wrong, that's a double standard.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 9:22am
You have changed the meaning of the double standard you mentioned above. You said:
I don't recall Democrats being up in arms about any of Cheney's misdeeds. Grumbling, yes, but no "hearings". No talk about arrests. Now you are saying that since we are not up in arms (like we weren't about Cheney) we are guilty of a double standard. It isn't a double standard to recognize that there was no harm, no foul, and it's time to give it a rest. All the emails are in government hands now, which is what everyone seems to be in a lather about.
by CVille Dem on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:13am
You recollect wrong. Democrats were all over this: http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/56095:democrats-call-for-...
And there were hearings: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR200703...
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:08pm
PS Attempting to prevent public access to federal records IS the foul
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:10pm
The I.G. was equivocal as to whether Clinton violated the law but, as you write Michael, it seems clear she did. The Federal Records Act states:
36 CFR 1236.24 (Oct 2, 2009) (emphasis supplied). As I have argued for over a year, my biggest concern is Clinton's ongoing failure to acknowledge that she violated the regulation.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 9:05am
"my biggest concern is Clinton's ongoing failure to acknowledge that she violated the regulation" - please tell me who in Washington acknowledged any wrongdoing - Petraeus? Ted Kennedy? Scooter Libby? Judy Miller? Alberto Gonzales? Colin Powell? Hell, Bernie's team got caught red-handed going through Hillary's data and they blamed it on Hillary and the DNC. I think Hillary's acknowledged more than most.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:52pm
Your assertion: "Bernie's team got caught red-handed going through Hillary's data and they blamed it on Hillary and the DNC."
My response: Bernie Sanders apologized at a nationally televised debate for what his campaign, not he, did.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:04pm
Kinda yes and no - he attacked the DNC at the same time (and followers still hold a grudge for witholding 2 days of database action) and he spun his apology. But yes, he did make a vocal apology.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:33pm
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it's not entirely clear to me she violated FOIA (which, in any event, is not a criminal statute). She did not delete her work emails from the server. And as she has said, emails she sent to others at State were captured in the Department's system. Ultimately, she has provided all the emails.
The IG concludes that her email arrangement was not an "appropriate method" for preserving her emails. While clearly a criticism, that's a far cry from saying she broke any law, much less that she did so intentionally. The IG suggests Clinton should have printed out copies of her emails contemporaneously, which seems patently ridiculous, or "at a minimum" should have printed and delivered copies when she left State. Fair enough. They don't like the arrangement and assert that it arguably did not comply with the requirements for the records act, but that's as far it goes.
Of course, if Clinton wanted to conduct private correspondence free from prying eyes, there are countless other ways to do so that would be more effective than openly communicating on your personal email account.
A few other curiosities. The report apparently states that no other Secretary of State even had a .gov address? Am I right about that? And that other State employees used private email addresses for official communications.
Another curious aspect to the report is the claim that she did not seek approval from the State Department for the email arrangement. As the Secretary of State, isn't she at the top of that pyramid? Should she have sought permission from herself?
All in all, seems to me (while acknowledging my own bias) like a typical audit, albeit one that cost a lot more and received a lot more publicity than the usual. Nothing earth shattering to report.
by armchair guerrilla on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 1:17pm
What she should have done is made sure all of her gov't emails were on the State Department's system from the beginning and kept the personal server at State while she worked there and after leaving. Most importantly, she should not have insisted after her hand was caught in the cookie jar that she did nothing wrong. This is one of her great flaws - an inability to acknowledge mistakes.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 2:00pm
This... a hahaha, I mean... you? You said this? Oh, wow.
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 3:20pm
The ultimate irony is that you mock me for allegedly failing to acknowledge mistakes. In fact, if you pore through my far-too-many posts here you'll find several examples where I have admitted error. I can't recall you having done so even once. For example, you couldn't even come clean on the fact that Sanders deserved the credit you heaped on Clinton for calling to keep bankers off regional feds.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:11pm
I can always count on you to make my point.
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:35pm
Mike I'll give you this at zingers you're great. At accepting criticism of your analyses in good humor? Well, one out of two ain't bad I guess.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 7:15pm
"A hand in the cookie jar" usually refers to being caught stealing. Surely you didn't mean that. Does it qualify as a mistake?
by CVille Dem on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 3:40pm
It means being caught red-handed. In any event, "our" emails were in her basement. So yes her hand was in the cookie jar and she took the cookie jar out of our kitchen and put in hers.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:06pm
Now I'm completely confused. Her kitchen is in her basement? Where's our kitchen? Why does she keep her emails in the kitchen?
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:07pm
You are confused. I'll give you that.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:09pm
How did her emails get in a cookie jar? Is that how her private server got them? Maybe she was serving cookies?
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 4:36pm
Well's dry Mike. Time to move on.
by HSG on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 7:19pm
Hal, you might try to take your own advice.
by CVille Dem on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 9:03pm
Fortune cookies, dude - don't be dense. "auspicious time to travel, but beware Benghazi" and "better to serve than be served" - of course with so many fortune cookies, one message per, had to move them to the basement, but each one sealed in plastic, perfectly safe.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 11:25pm