Here Is an interesting article to a complicated question. I hear both sides argue that it helps and hurts.
Do Immigrants Take Jobs From Americans? It’s More Complicated Than You Think: On Thursday, a major study by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine shed some light on why the argument over the impact of immigration on the economy is so difficult to resolve. In short, it’s because both sides are right.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Retired Green Beret Warns "We Haven't Been This Close To Nuclear War In A Long Time"
Here is a conspiracy theory for you......
Zero Hedge Retired Green Beret Warns "We Haven't Been This Close To Nuclear War In A Long Time"
Submitted by Jeremiah Johnson (Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFPlan.com,
As can readily be seen by the current events, the world has not been this close to a nuclear war and World War 3 in a long time. There are four major flashpoints right now that could easily escalate and ignite a powder keg, transforming from a regional conflict or conflicts into a world war: Syria, the South China Sea, Ukraine, and North and South Korea. The "reconstruction" of a Cold War-type faceoff, initiated by the U.S. and NATO building up forces in Eastern Europe and facing off against Russia.
A nuclear war will be initiated by an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) detonation over the continental U.S., followed by a nuclear exchange and a war with conventional forces.
As of this writing, the U.S. has "mistakenly" bombed Syrian governmental military forces, causing at least 60 deaths with more than 100 others wounded. The Russian government is sizzling, especially with the response by (of all people) Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the UN had this to say to the media, as reported by CNN:
Meanwhile last week, the U.S. flew two B-1B nuclear bombers along the DMZ to bluster North Korea with a show of force in response to the nuclear bomb test they conducted just a week prior. South Korea also threatened to reduce Pyongyang to ashes, while North Korea prepares for yet another nuclear test in the near future. More than 20 missile tests have been conducted by North Korea just this year alone. This is not counting the satellite launch at the beginning of the year in which they placed their second satellite into orbit…a path of trajectory, mind you, that takes it over the continental U.S. several times per day.
Ukraine cease fire agreements between the populist forces (rebels) in the eastern provinces and the U.S.'s puppet Poroshenko-government has been violated innumerable times as the fighting in Donetsk continues. In the meantime, the IMF just approved a 2-billion-dollar loan to Ukraine and the U.S. is supplying Poroshenko's government with "nonlethal" U.S. military equipment. Russia has been posturing a tremendous number of troops (some DOD estimates range as high as 150,000) on its western border facing Ukraine: they have conducted military exercises, including some within Crimea, which they annexed from Ukraine in 2014.
The United States has been beefing up its presence in the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, as well as in Poland and Moldova, the latter emplacing U.S. missile systems for "defense" that can be converted to offensive, nuclear missiles in hours. In addition to this, the U.S. is deploying B-61 nuclear bombs to Germany's Buchel airbase. Russia has countered with ordering the deployment of the Iskander-M missiles to Kaliningrad, Russia's westernmost military base in a direct standoff against the U.S. buildup in Germany and Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile things in the South China Sea are heating up as the U.S. has moved naval assets into the area in a show of force in support of Japan over the disputed Senkaku islands face-off between Japan and China. Last week the Russian navy linked its assets with China's in the two countries' joint naval exercises that could turn into a combat operation and a Chinese invasion at the drop of a hat.
There is a slow buildup and preparation of media coverage that is trying to paint Russia in the leading role of the aggressor in all of this. It isn't working, except with those who are ill-informed. The bottom line: with the U.S. election year in complete disarray and civil unrest lurking as a result of social and economic breakdowns, a war would be the perfect thing to justify suspension of the elections and the inculcation of martial law in the "interests of national security." The general civilian publics of all of the nations would be the ones to suffer, and it wouldn't be the first time that it happened. Politicians – the ones who "regret the loss of life" in a war – are not the ones to lose their own lives or the lives of their children when the balloon goes up.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/a3zU6KcdlgI/retired-green-beret-warns-we-havent-been-close-nuclear-war-long-time
Zero Hedge Retired Green Beret Warns "We Haven't Been This Close To Nuclear War In A Long Time"
Submitted by Jeremiah Johnson (Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFPlan.com,
As can readily be seen by the current events, the world has not been this close to a nuclear war and World War 3 in a long time. There are four major flashpoints right now that could easily escalate and ignite a powder keg, transforming from a regional conflict or conflicts into a world war: Syria, the South China Sea, Ukraine, and North and South Korea. The "reconstruction" of a Cold War-type faceoff, initiated by the U.S. and NATO building up forces in Eastern Europe and facing off against Russia.
A nuclear war will be initiated by an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) detonation over the continental U.S., followed by a nuclear exchange and a war with conventional forces.
As of this writing, the U.S. has "mistakenly" bombed Syrian governmental military forces, causing at least 60 deaths with more than 100 others wounded. The Russian government is sizzling, especially with the response by (of all people) Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the UN had this to say to the media, as reported by CNN:
True humanitarians, all, and especially she, the wife of Cass Sunstein and a true Marxist disciple of the Weather Underground (along with Cass) regrets the loss of life. The airstrikes occurred just two days before the U.S. and Russia were supposed to have joint airstrikes against ISIS. As ISIS is a creation of the U.S. State Department and the administration, it seems the U.S. decided to strike their true intended target…the Assad government forces…as it wants to topple Syria, and escalate things with the Russians."We are investigating the incident. If we determine that we did indeed strike Syrian military personnel, that was not our intention. And we of course regret the loss of life."
Meanwhile last week, the U.S. flew two B-1B nuclear bombers along the DMZ to bluster North Korea with a show of force in response to the nuclear bomb test they conducted just a week prior. South Korea also threatened to reduce Pyongyang to ashes, while North Korea prepares for yet another nuclear test in the near future. More than 20 missile tests have been conducted by North Korea just this year alone. This is not counting the satellite launch at the beginning of the year in which they placed their second satellite into orbit…a path of trajectory, mind you, that takes it over the continental U.S. several times per day.
Ukraine cease fire agreements between the populist forces (rebels) in the eastern provinces and the U.S.'s puppet Poroshenko-government has been violated innumerable times as the fighting in Donetsk continues. In the meantime, the IMF just approved a 2-billion-dollar loan to Ukraine and the U.S. is supplying Poroshenko's government with "nonlethal" U.S. military equipment. Russia has been posturing a tremendous number of troops (some DOD estimates range as high as 150,000) on its western border facing Ukraine: they have conducted military exercises, including some within Crimea, which they annexed from Ukraine in 2014.
The United States has been beefing up its presence in the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, as well as in Poland and Moldova, the latter emplacing U.S. missile systems for "defense" that can be converted to offensive, nuclear missiles in hours. In addition to this, the U.S. is deploying B-61 nuclear bombs to Germany's Buchel airbase. Russia has countered with ordering the deployment of the Iskander-M missiles to Kaliningrad, Russia's westernmost military base in a direct standoff against the U.S. buildup in Germany and Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile things in the South China Sea are heating up as the U.S. has moved naval assets into the area in a show of force in support of Japan over the disputed Senkaku islands face-off between Japan and China. Last week the Russian navy linked its assets with China's in the two countries' joint naval exercises that could turn into a combat operation and a Chinese invasion at the drop of a hat.
There is a slow buildup and preparation of media coverage that is trying to paint Russia in the leading role of the aggressor in all of this. It isn't working, except with those who are ill-informed. The bottom line: with the U.S. election year in complete disarray and civil unrest lurking as a result of social and economic breakdowns, a war would be the perfect thing to justify suspension of the elections and the inculcation of martial law in the "interests of national security." The general civilian publics of all of the nations would be the ones to suffer, and it wouldn't be the first time that it happened. Politicians – the ones who "regret the loss of life" in a war – are not the ones to lose their own lives or the lives of their children when the balloon goes up.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/a3zU6KcdlgI/retired-green-beret-warns-we-havent-been-close-nuclear-war-long-time
Sent with Reeder
Sent from my iPad
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicated
Money Laundering Scheme Exposed: 14 Pro-Clinton Super PACs & Non-Profits Implicated:
Submitted by Andrew Kerr via The Citizens Audit,
Professional Solicitors are required to disclose their active solicitation contracts. Brock wants his unregistered solicitor, the Bonner Group, to keep their client list hidden for a very specific reason.
Uncovered records expose a constant flow of money between these organizations.
The Bonner Group, his professional solicitor, works off a commission. Every time money gets passed around, Bonner receives a 12.5% cut.
But they aren’t required to disclose who gave them cash grants.
This weak system of one way verification is being abused by Brock. He’s been cycling money between his organizations for years, and the Bonner Group’s 12.5% commission gets triggered after every pass.
In 2014, Media Matters for America raised $10,021,188.
The Bonner Group was credited for raising these funds. Media Matters paid them a $1,147,882 commission.
That same year, Media Matters gave a $930,000 cash grant to David Brock’s Franklin Education Forum, an organization that shares office space with Media Matters.
In 2014, the Franklin Education Forum reported $994,000 in total contributions. 93.6% of that total came from Media Matters!
Surprisingly, though, the Franklin Education Forum gave full credit to Bonner for raising that money. They paid the fundraiser a $124,250 commission in 2014!
As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.
He’s a hands-on Chairman. According to their tax returns, Brock allocates time, weekly, to his organizations:
David Brock will have a hard time claiming ignorance on this. These transfers are intentional. He vacations with his solicitor. Case closed.
In English: Contractually, David Brock has the option to exclude certain contributions from triggering the commission. In spite of this option, he intentionally chooses to trigger the 12.5% commission for money grants between his organizations.
This is all from just one year! No further commentary required.
We understand this may be hard to believe. We first came across this in July, and are still having a hard time wrapping our heads around it.
All of the data referenced in this article originated from publicly accessible sources. Check for yourself – we provided links to the source material in our article exposing the organizations operating in Brock’s office, This data has been sitting out in the open, gathering dust for years!
We’ve spent months trying to find some sort of loophole to justify this activity. But there aren’t any loopholes. David Brock has something to hide. Just last week, The Daily Caller reported the following:
Look at the argument we’ve been making on The Citizens Audit:
Submitted by Andrew Kerr via The Citizens Audit,
This is serious.
- David Brock operates over a dozen pro-Clinton organizations from his office in Washington DC.
- Uncovered records expose a constant flow of money between his organizations.
- Brock’s unregistered Professional Solicitor, the Bonner Group, receives a 12.5% cut every time money is moved.
Professional Solicitors are required to disclose their active solicitation contracts. Brock wants his unregistered solicitor, the Bonner Group, to keep their client list hidden for a very specific reason.
David Brock is laundering money
David Brock has 7 non-profits, 3 Super PACs, one 527-committee, one LLC, one joint fundraising committee, and one unregistered solicitor crammed into his office in Washington DC.Uncovered records expose a constant flow of money between these organizations.
The Bonner Group, his professional solicitor, works off a commission. Every time money gets passed around, Bonner receives a 12.5% cut.
Follow the money
Nonprofits are required to disclose who they give cash grants to.But they aren’t required to disclose who gave them cash grants.
This weak system of one way verification is being abused by Brock. He’s been cycling money between his organizations for years, and the Bonner Group’s 12.5% commission gets triggered after every pass.
In 2014, Media Matters for America raised $10,021,188.
The Bonner Group was credited for raising these funds. Media Matters paid them a $1,147,882 commission.
That same year, Media Matters gave a $930,000 cash grant to David Brock’s Franklin Education Forum, an organization that shares office space with Media Matters.
In 2014, the Franklin Education Forum reported $994,000 in total contributions. 93.6% of that total came from Media Matters!
Surprisingly, though, the Franklin Education Forum gave full credit to Bonner for raising that money. They paid the fundraiser a $124,250 commission in 2014!
Notice what happened?
- David Brock’s Media Matters gave a $930,000 cash grant to David Brock’s Franklin Education Forum
- David Brock’s Franklin Education Forum credited the Bonner Group for raising those funds, triggering the 12.5% commission
- David Brock paid the Bonner Group a $124,250 commission to solicit a cash grant … from himself!
It doesn’t stop there
After the Franklin Education Forum retained $869,750, they sent a $816,224 cash grant to David Brock’s The Franklin Forum:
Note: The ‘Franklin Education Forum’ is a 501(c)3, and ‘The Franklin Forum’ is a 501(c)4. They are not the same company.
Since The Franklin Forum 501(c)4 paid Bonner a commission in 2013, it’s safe to assume fundraiser received a $102,028 commission in 2014. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tell for sure. They still haven’t filed their taxes for 2014!Let’s recap
Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:- Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation
- The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission
- Media Matters would retain $930,000
- Next, Media Matters would give what’s left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum
- The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission
- The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750
- The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum
- The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718 commission
- The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031
As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.
How can we be sure this is intentional?
David Brock is the Chairman for each of these organizations! How could he not know what’s going on?He’s a hands-on Chairman. According to their tax returns, Brock allocates time, weekly, to his organizations:
- Media Matters: 31.50 hours per week
- Franklin Education Forum: 3 hours per week
- The Franklin Forum: 1 hour per week
David Brock will have a hard time claiming ignorance on this. These transfers are intentional. He vacations with his solicitor. Case closed.
Still not convinced?
David Brock didn’t even bother to give his organizations different phone numbers. They all share the same phone number!What if…?
We even located the Bonner Group’s solicitation agreement with Media Matters on Florida’s Gift Givers’ Guide. Clarification on their commission can be found on page 2:In English: Contractually, David Brock has the option to exclude certain contributions from triggering the commission. In spite of this option, he intentionally chooses to trigger the 12.5% commission for money grants between his organizations.
Note: Yes, we are making the assumption that all of Brock’s organizations have the same solicitation agreement with the Bonner Group. Given that his organizations share the same address, board members, and telephone number, we feel it’s safe to assume they also share the same solicitation agreement.
This barely scratches the surface
Utilizing public facing tax returns, along with records submitted to the FEC, we mapped out all the significant money transfers from 2014 that took place in Brock’s office:This is all from just one year! No further commentary required.
We understand this may be hard to believe. We first came across this in July, and are still having a hard time wrapping our heads around it.
All of the data referenced in this article originated from publicly accessible sources. Check for yourself – we provided links to the source material in our article exposing the organizations operating in Brock’s office, This data has been sitting out in the open, gathering dust for years!
Summary
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.We’ve spent months trying to find some sort of loophole to justify this activity. But there aren’t any loopholes. David Brock has something to hide. Just last week, The Daily Caller reported the following:
“Brock’s former long-time live-in boyfriend William Grey (whom Brock has thanked in several of his books) threatened to go to the IRS with damaging information about how Brock was running his Media Matters empire. What did Brock do? He paid Grey $850,000 to keep quiet. Brock reportedly had to sell his home in Rehoboth, Delaware to come up with the money. This certainly seems to indicate that Brock was terrified about what the authorities would uncover.”
Adding to this, Fox News reported the following:
“Grey accused Brock of “financial malfeasance” and threatened to undermine Brock’s fundraising efforts.
“Next step is I contact all your donors and the IRS,” Grey wrote in an email dated May 19, 2010. “This is going to stink for you if you do not resolve this now.””
We believe that the information presented in this article is what has Brock so terrified. We feel confident in saying, with close to absolute certainty, that David Brock is laundering money through his Media Matters conglomerate.Look at the argument we’ve been making on The Citizens Audit:
- The 14 organizations stuffed into Brock’s office in Washington DC
- The fraudulent tax returns filed by Media Matters for America
- The dirty money flowing into the conglomerate via his unregistered solicitor, the Bonner Group
- The records exposed and analyzed in this article
Thursday, September 15, 2016
Clinton Foundation CEO Admits To Pay-For-Play: "No Question" That "Courtesy Appointments" Were Made
Zero Hedge Clinton Foundation CEO Admits To Pay-For-Play: "No Question" That "Courtesy Appointments" Were Made
Yesterday, the CEO of the Clinton Foundation, Donna Shalala, went on MSNBC and openly admitted to engaging in "pay-for-play" activities saying there is "no question" that Foundation donors received "courtesy appointments" during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. Somehow, Shalala would like for us to believe that so long as appointees weren't put in a position to impact policy decisions then there is no real issue. I guess we should just ignore that taxpayers are funding the salaries of those appointees and paying for their government-related travel all over the world while Hillary gets to accrue "political capital" and her Foundation gets to continue raking in the donations?
Shalala also seems to invoke the Donna Brazile (new DNC Chair) defense who previously told ABC that "someone who is a donor..saying I want access" isn't an issue and anyone who suggests otherwise is just attempting to "criminalize behavior that is normal" (see out previous post "New DNC Chair Says Outrage Over Clinton's Pay-To-Play Is Attempt To 'Criminalize Normal Behavior'").
Of course, according to LifeZette, the Trump camp took issue with the statements with Jason Miller, Trump's communications adviser, releasing the following statement:
And, just for good measure, here is the clip of Donna Brazile from back in August where she assures us that "someone who is a donor..saying I want access" isn't an issue and anyone who suggests otherwise is just attempting to "criminalize behavior that is normal."
Fast forward to the 3:45 mark for the relevant exchange:
Well, we guess there is nothing to see here then. Just some more smoke people...move along.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/wiVMxhtQeLo/clinton-foundation-ceo-admits-pay-play-no-question-courtesy-appointments-were-made
Yesterday, the CEO of the Clinton Foundation, Donna Shalala, went on MSNBC and openly admitted to engaging in "pay-for-play" activities saying there is "no question" that Foundation donors received "courtesy appointments" during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. Somehow, Shalala would like for us to believe that so long as appointees weren't put in a position to impact policy decisions then there is no real issue. I guess we should just ignore that taxpayers are funding the salaries of those appointees and paying for their government-related travel all over the world while Hillary gets to accrue "political capital" and her Foundation gets to continue raking in the donations?
Shalala also seems to invoke the Donna Brazile (new DNC Chair) defense who previously told ABC that "someone who is a donor..saying I want access" isn't an issue and anyone who suggests otherwise is just attempting to "criminalize behavior that is normal" (see out previous post "New DNC Chair Says Outrage Over Clinton's Pay-To-Play Is Attempt To 'Criminalize Normal Behavior'").
"First of all there is no question there were phone calls made to get appointments for people."
"There were also business people. There is no question about that."
"I don't see evidence that there was policy decisions made as a result of that other than courtesy appointments. And people in public life are used to doing that kind of — that is, making courtesy appointments for people. I certainly did it as secretary [of Health and Human Services] with requests from Republicans in Congress so I don't find it unusual. We have to be careful that it's not linked to policy decisions as opposed to simply seeing prominent people that ask for appointments."
Of course, according to LifeZette, the Trump camp took issue with the statements with Jason Miller, Trump's communications adviser, releasing the following statement:
But the following morning, Shalala went on CNN and seemingly walked back her previous statements made on MSNBC saying that a "courtesy meeting" request made by Doug Band of Huma Abedin "never happened.""It speaks volumes that the Clinton Foundation's CEO would casually admit on national television that its donors received access and 'courtesy appointments' at Hillary Clinton's State Department. This is emblematic of the corrupt pay-to-play culture Hillary Clinton and those in her orbit bring to the table, where it so pervasive it is actually uncontroversial to those involved."
"This is why a special prosecutor needs to be appointed to independently investigate the growing evidence of corruption between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state,"
When asked whether she was comfortable with Clinton Foundation staff requesting favors, even if they were never fulfilled, Shalala stopped short of a blatant confirmation, which she offered on earlier on MSNBC, saying instead that "no one should cross any line.""Guess what. That never happened. Never happened. I don't care who asked for what. It never happened. It just did not happen."
"Well, you know, no one should cross any line."
And, just for good measure, here is the clip of Donna Brazile from back in August where she assures us that "someone who is a donor..saying I want access" isn't an issue and anyone who suggests otherwise is just attempting to "criminalize behavior that is normal."
Fast forward to the 3:45 mark for the relevant exchange:
Well, we guess there is nothing to see here then. Just some more smoke people...move along.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/wiVMxhtQeLo/clinton-foundation-ceo-admits-pay-play-no-question-courtesy-appointments-were-made
Sent with Reeder
Sent from my iPad
Saturday, September 10, 2016
War or Jobs
Apparently, Wolf Blitzer much prefers jobs no matter how many lives it costs. Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Rand Paul about the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia and Rand Paul objects to these sales.
Blitzer’s concern: That stopping the sale could result in fewer jobs for arms manufacturers.
“So for you this is a moral issue,” he told Paul during the Kentucky Republican’s appearance on CNN. “Because you know, there’s a lot of jobs at stake. Certainly if a lot of these defense contractors stop selling war planes, other sophisticated equipment to Saudi Arabia, there’s going to be a significant loss of jobs, of revenue here in the United States. That’s secondary from your standpoint?”
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
FBI Publishes Clinton Email Investigation Documents; More Bad News On Documents Mishandling, FOIA Compliance
From Techdirt:
FBI Publishes Clinton Email Investigation Documents; More Bad News On Documents Mishandling, FOIA Compliance:
The FBI generally likes to keep as much information as possible out of the public's hands, so its decision to release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation are probably best viewed as a one-off, rather than the leading edge of a new era of transparency.
The agency certainly couldn't pretend there isn't significant public interest in the content of the investigative files. The outcome of a presidential election could very well hinge on the voting public's interpretation of the documents' content.
And the FBI certainly has an interest in clearing the air of any hints of politically-motivated favoritism. That the investigation occurred at all does some damage to Clinton's credibility, while the decision not to pursue prosecution doesn't do much for the FBI's.
A closer look at the investigative documents simply gives more credence to the FBI's assertion that it found evidence of stupidity, but not criminal intent. At worst, the private email server allowed Hillary Clinton to better avoid FOIA requests (an effect now nullified by the State Department's ongoing release of nearly every email it's been able to recover) -- something that's a civil violation, rather than a criminal one. From the Washington Post's Matt Zapotosky and Rosalind Helderman's dive into the FBI's docs: [PDF vol. 1, PDF vol. 2]
The only criminal issue would have been the mishandling of sensitive information, something Clinton did regularly. But the FBI found no evidence of maliciousness. Just a surprising amount of stupidity from someone who should have known better.
The denials contained in the FBI report are expected. No one in a similar position is going to admit they set up a personal server to route around FOIA requests and/or more restrictive official government policies. Even if that's not criminal activity, it's still a bad look for a presidential candidate. More concerning is Clinton's blase attitude towards handling sensitive information, something she'll be seeing even more of if elected.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
FBI Publishes Clinton Email Investigation Documents; More Bad News On Documents Mishandling, FOIA Compliance:
The FBI generally likes to keep as much information as possible out of the public's hands, so its decision to release its files on the Hillary Clinton email investigation are probably best viewed as a one-off, rather than the leading edge of a new era of transparency.
The agency certainly couldn't pretend there isn't significant public interest in the content of the investigative files. The outcome of a presidential election could very well hinge on the voting public's interpretation of the documents' content.
And the FBI certainly has an interest in clearing the air of any hints of politically-motivated favoritism. That the investigation occurred at all does some damage to Clinton's credibility, while the decision not to pursue prosecution doesn't do much for the FBI's.
A closer look at the investigative documents simply gives more credence to the FBI's assertion that it found evidence of stupidity, but not criminal intent. At worst, the private email server allowed Hillary Clinton to better avoid FOIA requests (an effect now nullified by the State Department's ongoing release of nearly every email it's been able to recover) -- something that's a civil violation, rather than a criminal one. From the Washington Post's Matt Zapotosky and Rosalind Helderman's dive into the FBI's docs: [PDF vol. 1, PDF vol. 2]
Clinton told the FBI that she used the private server for convenience, not to evade public record laws. But the documents show that former secretary of state Colin Powell appeared to advise her early in her term that private email could give her more control over her communications in the face of public inquiries.Clinton's defense of her private email server was that she was using it for convenience and figured any public records requirements were being met by third-party recipients using official government email accounts. Supposedly, this indicates she wasn't trying to duck FOIA requests. However, this explanation doesn't really mesh with her decision to give staffers email addresses on her private server. Once that happened, there were no third parties preserving records. It was all left up to Clinton. Plenty of efforts were made -- deletion, destruction of devices, etc. -- to purge emails that possibly should have been preserved as public records.
In January 2009, according to the FBI, Clinton contacted Powell, who also used a personal email account during his time in office, to ask about his use of a BlackBerry. According to the FBI, Powell “warned Clinton that if it became ‘public’ that Clinton had a BlackBerry, and she used it to ‘do business,’ her e-mails could become ‘official record[s] and subject to the law.’”
“Be very careful,” Powell advised Clinton, according to the FBI. “I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.”
The only criminal issue would have been the mishandling of sensitive information, something Clinton did regularly. But the FBI found no evidence of maliciousness. Just a surprising amount of stupidity from someone who should have known better.
Clinton told FBI agents that she did not know much about how the government classified information. For instance, she said she did not pay attention to the difference between levels of classification, like “top secret” and “secret,” indicating she took “all classified information seriously.” When shown an email she received in which a paragraph had been marked with a “C,” a standard way of indicating it included “confidential” information, Clinton at first speculated to agents that the marking was indicating that email contained bullet points in alphabetical order.Clinton may have pled ignorance when questioned by the FBI, but these statements directly contradict assertions she made to reporters on Monday:
“I went into the State Department understanding classification. I’ve been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for years before I was Secretary of State. I take classification seriously. The fact I couldn’t remember certain meetings, whether or not they had occurred, doesn’t in any way affect the treatment I had and still have of classified material.”Clinton says she "understands" classification -- certainly a much different self-assessment than she presented to FBI interviewers. She then says nothing "affects the treatment" of sensitive material. She always handled it "seriously." I certainly hope that word isn't meant to define actions like these:
The FBI’s report traced the history of Clinton’s private server use, detailing ad hoc efforts to backup data and respond to requests for records. In one instance, after Clinton left office, someone created a personal Gmail account to move an archive of Clinton’s email on a laptop to a server run by Platte River Networks, a company Clinton had hired. The person then attempted to ship the laptop back to another person connected to Clinton.While Hillary Clinton may not be directly responsible for a laptop full of email (some of them sensitive) being lost in transit, it was her decision to cobble together a personal email server that led to this mishap. Additionally, while the FBI may not have found any evidence of breach by malicious entities, the private server undoubtedly made an attractive target. With Clinton in sole control of her end of official communications, any breach may have either gone unnoticed or undisclosed for far longer than a similar attack on government-owned servers. This is just another way Clinton sacrificed accountability for "simplicity" by setting up her own server.
According the FBI report, the laptop, which had not been wiped, got lost in transit. And the FBI would come to find on the Gmail account dozens of classified emails.
The denials contained in the FBI report are expected. No one in a similar position is going to admit they set up a personal server to route around FOIA requests and/or more restrictive official government policies. Even if that's not criminal activity, it's still a bad look for a presidential candidate. More concerning is Clinton's blase attitude towards handling sensitive information, something she'll be seeing even more of if elected.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)